Guys I am seriously thinking of going full ancap

Tolstoy was a fucking cuck.

Rand.

One thing I don't fucking understand, and I can't seem to really even wrap my head around the very idea…

Why do you even care for these proles? they are literally made out of plebs and normalfags; people who -by definition- owe existance and happiness to social subordination to the domminant current. They have cattle-like behaviour and are largely *unwilling* to grow intellectually beyond mainstream narrative.

Don't missunderstand me here, please, i'm not advocating psychopathy or misantrhopy. It's not even an argument against altruism, It's just that I can't really relate to these people, I don't care for their exploitation anymore than they themselves care about it. Why should I feel obligated to help them enmancipate themselves when they don't even want to? i absolutely can't, it's insane

. If you have "ascended" -so to speak- beyond the level of the proples in the intellectual sense, and you did it permeated by the same material reality than they did, then there is no reason to think that they are all incapable of it on their own, it just means they don't really give a fuck. what is civilization if not the achievement of the masses subordinated to a few revolutionaries?

So the point here, is not only that I care mostly for my own achievement and success, but also that I question the reasoning behind bothering to try and change the people, to devote any sort of energy towards this? I'd much rather to become sectarian and care for my immediate surrounding and those who are considerably more like myself than trying to fix the world, let them sink or swim, I got my own problems.

Why bother? Because humanity might perish if we do not? Humanity has lived through the ice ages in pre-historical times. we lived through Ghenghis Khan and the black death, we lived through a daily threat of nuclear obliteration for years… What makes you think that capitalism might just be the end? I don't see a single piece of convincing evidence to support the idea that Capitalism will consume the earth and that our species will be lost, even if climate change does indeed ravage the earth, it doesn't neccessarily mean that it'll mean the end of the biosphere.

What is it that drives you guys? a need for justice? that you do not want to see the proles as stepping stones? that you feel enraged at how the poor and exploited are just meatfodder for the rest?… but then again, where does your need for justice come from? and who is holding it up?

Who do *YOU* hold it up for? them? the ungrateful peasants? Or you do it for yourselves?

Of course, this is the main reason.

Well that explains why you are becoming an ancap.

Ancapism is just feudalism with a liberal coat of paint.

But again, why bother with communism? why not then become extreme capitalists?

Everything you say is proven wrong by when capitalism was mostly severed from the gov. Pre safety regulations and pre great depression - it was looked on as sinful to even try to interfere with the free market.

Also I'm willing to bet Adam Smith knows a bit more about capitalism than pseudo -philosopher Raynd.

How would these competitors be able to challange the monopoly if the monopoly holder held all the private property? Your ability to compete in a capitalist market is directly tied to the amount of private property you own and as your biggest holder of private property grows he will be able to buy out other owners of private property and secure a monopoly. History has shown that Private property will always be collected by holders of private property. And of course in a capitalist economy if you don't own private property(which is most people) you don't own capital and you can't compete.

Because I could get fucked under extreme capitalism, which probably wouldn't be a nice thing

I heard the rope business is booming. I'm buying if you're selling

t. Lenin

It's about abolishing class relations. The proles are just one side of the present conflict. The point isn't to improve the lives of the proletariat, but to end a class-based system economic and political dominance. The former only follows from the latter.

Because there's never been a free market, because the very concept is an absurdity. Capitalism needs a state to survive.

Because we are proles.

Do you sell your labor to an employer in exchange for a wage? Then you're a prole.

What people forget when they complain about the evils of the unwashed masses is that they are the unwashed masses.

Get over yourself nerd

1. Why AnCap over mutualism?

2. What Rand proposes is not actually true. A lot of monopolies are created by purposeful that causes all businesses to bleed money, in the end leaving only the ones that started with the most capital. Microsoft did something like this and got a billion dollar fine. All without any state.

Intellectual property and corporate takeover's of failed business with huge capital injection to expand market share create natural monopolies. Especially when the tech of the company is so good that they can be the lowest seller in the whole market and overproduce and shoot down the prices and force all other companies to go bankrupt and so to buy up their business untill you got complete market domination. A Bankrupt company still has fixed capital and can be improved to come to the standart of the main company that has bought up their company.

...

Look at the Internet for example Are there any monopolies on the internet? The internet, being almost completely unregulated, should provide a good representation of anarchism. Are there any companies that even come close?

quora.com/Anarcho-Capitalism-What-stops-monopolies-and-cartels-from-forming-if-anarchocapitalism-is-the-dominant-ideology-in-the-world

states fucking sucks

Because mutualism is self sufficient. The same why than anarchism, socialism or communism. It only is possible when there is enough development in a society to not crumble.

This is some basic econ shit that you learn from Baptiste Say.

Yeah, yeah but "get fucked" could happen under any system, depending on what you mean by it.

Nononono, it's not that I consider myself above the unwashed masses, is that I refuse to chain my destiny to theirs I don't fucking want to drag the world kicking and screaming into a revolution that they don't even care for, for my own freedom? Where there is a much more convenient "freedom" available for sale?

The socialist?

Also you can ignore all the examples that prove you wrong( such as said before - when we had capitalism almost completely severed from the gov) or you can go "muh internet".

The internet is a very shitty example because it is near limitless and do not require much capital. Real goods however (stuff human actually need to surive) is very much limited. You cannot grow food or medicine on the internet unfortunately and as such cannot be compared to real life. The internet would be a better comparision to socialism as private property on the internet is almost free instead of requiring you being born to rich motherfucker to succeed.

How do you have captalism without a police to prevent people from simply collectivizing the work place?

What's wrong with being self-sufficient?

Google has 90something+ percent of all search traffic. If you're in webdev you're literally taught to follow Google's guidelines for SEO because anything else would be suicide. That obviously favors Google's (proprietary) algorithms, which perpetuates it's dominance.

Also, look at how closely integrated Google is with the state.

There's none.

When would that be? When Carnigie hired his own private armies and basically became the ruler of a state within a state himself?

because not everyone wants to live in an immoral system of soul-crushing exploitation?
why the fuck would I wanna live my life working for bosses who don't give a shit about me and feel alienated my entire career through? If even by a miracle I were to become a boss myself, my conscience would eat away at me and I'd be miserable too thinking of the pain I'm inflicting to my employees
I'm doomed to stay unhappy in capitalism so that's why I want another alternative

Sure. Capitalism necessitates the existance of a state. Or will inevitably lead to it. That's a clear example. My point was that the "no gubmerent = no monopolies" line isn't rooted in actual reality.

Socialist have at least a few clear example of anarchy-communism working - capitalism has never worked for anyone besides the capitalist except when there was heavy state interference.

I guess I got kinda confused. Looked a little as if you were saying the opposite. My bad.

Let's just say that it means having a bad economic position in society, which means you are more likely to do things you wouldn't want, like having to work in bad conditions or overwork yourself etc.
Of course, but being in a bad position under socialism is preferable to being in bad position under capitalism, just like being in a bad position under capitalism is preferable to being in a bad position under feudalism or slavery

libertariannews.org/2011/11/27/anarcho-capitalism-the-solution-to-monopoly-and-cartels/

It can only work in a post scarcity society. If you don't, then you have Venezuela. And Russia and all the scarcity plagued countries.

Pardon me, but the correct term is amoral. In any case I don't see why you get so worked up about this, I just don't share your indignation anymore over yet another fact of life.

But I gotta tell you that I hope your answer is completely and utterly honest inside-out. Because it's the only true answer I respect, I love that about your answer "because I feel that way and have decided this" that's the most genuine answer anyone's ever given me on this board.

Yeah the thing is that I don't pretend to do it for the greater good or whatever
I ultimately want socialism for myself and the people around me

no, it doesn't.

where do you get this from?

Internet businesses require almost no capital investment

-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

this is so fucking stupid

You don't think that, Facebook, Google, amazon, Twiiter uses any investments?

lel

so basically his argument is that capitalism needs government for protection?

that's it?

No I'm saying that websites cost almost nothing to set up.

It's nothing like, say, manufacturing.

That's a pretty important argument.

What are the core axioms (irreducible statements which form the foundation) of your personal system of ethics?

For example, the main one for me is that it's bad for any thinking creature to suffer and worse for a sapient creature to suffer.

Most an-caps consider property to be their most important axiom. The right for people to own things is more important than the right for people not to suffer pain and death. If you agree with that, you already are an an-cap in all but name.

Personally I just see property as an inefficient fiction imposed upon us by governments using force. Copyright is the most flagrant example of this fiction breaking down in the face of reality, but there are plenty of others. Any shared finite resource doesn't really fit into standard views of property, hence why ancaps will defend Nestle bottling ground-water during a drought and selling it back to people.

If you're stupid enough to seriously think of anarcho-capitalism as a viable political ideology to switch over to, then you might as well be one yourself. We don't need any more morons on our side, so go ahead and join the opposition. We'll make sure to put you in the same guillotine as your fellow delusional cult-members.

Free markets and anti-capitalism are not antithetical. Look into left wing market ideologies like mutualism, agorism and left-wing market anarchism.

c4ss.org/market-anarchism-faq-2

This tbhfam

That argument breaks down in the face of finite resources such as land. It is perfectly possible for a single company to own all of the properties in a given area, or even buy up a strip of land around the perimeter of that area and charge people for passing through it. If someone buys the land around your town, they have a monopoly over anything entering or leaving it, including utilities such as internet cables. They can instantly devalue your property to almost zero without ever setting foot in it.

It should also be noted that things like location don't really matter for internet businesses (everyone has equal access to websites regardless of their location), and they typically don't have for compete for resources, information being infinite.

Someone still has to provide the cables. It turns out Roads Inc. have signed a deal with EvilBastards Ltd. to only let companies lay fibre to your house if they agree to block access to all of EvilBastards Ltd.'s competitors. Good fucking luck.

This too.

It's governments that ensure internet neutrality. There are already several ISPs biting at the nip to restrict access to websites they don't like.

What you seem to missing is that the moment a private enterprise secedes the state it effectiviley is the states and sets it's own rules. Your examples of state/enterprise interactions only counts for a system where the state dictates what the enterprise can do. the current system is the ultimate conclusion of private property from kingdom to nation, no matter how much you wish that the people ruling over you called themsleves the state they still rule over you-

Yes.
How do you counter that?

you can use private protection

something like body guards or private police

So.
How are you not just a monarchist again?

How is this not just political correctness filtered through an ideological lens?

Welcome to the world of Rothbard, where it's only considered coercion if you use the word state

Don't worry, they won't call it the government. Also they'll tell their tenants their right to rule comes from hard work rather than god.

...

Because when muh nap does not fuck small businesses over it works wich they never do it works.

since when police means monarchism?
every state have public police and they are not considered monarchies. The why using private police would that be considered a monarchy?

ancapism is an oxymoron

you would need the state to make sure people respect your private property

I think it's the absolute ruler (CEO?) that gets you labelled a monarchist. You wouldn't exactly have an elected government, would you?

...

Because in the absence of any overarching state, the owner of private security would effectively be a king with an army. This is how an empire starts at the bottom up.

Fair enough.
It could also be an oligarchy. Depends on the amount of shareholders.

However they're down top-down hierarchies that are holders of capital and have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within their own territory.

That is indistinguishable from something like a monarchy or oligarchy.

Just remember that markets may be good for most situations, but they're not magic.

why not?

if the company wants to have an elected comitee or something then why not?

having private police for use of a single ruler is feudalist as fuck especially in the case of collecting rents (taxes)

Vote for your next boss! But it has to be me, or you'll lose your job and possessions. And we might kill a family member.

Who gets to vote?

Who votes, how long one term of office lasts, can the boss be removed by electoral vote?

Because liberal democracies are at least somewhat democratic, or at least try to maintain the appearance of democracy.

A man who has his own private army and uses it to enforce his laws and protect his status is a king in all but name.

OP can't be this new.

Private Property is an undemocratic deprivation of resources, it's theft.

If you don't have a problem with people not having control over their own daily lives I have nothing to say to you.

SPOOKS XDDD. Kill yourself

...

...

Certain conditions are le spooks, no?

What ideology are you right now?

What appeals to you about anarcho-capitalism?

How are you that fucking dumb?

No.

Spooks are things that only exist in your head.

Wait. By "self-sufficient" you mean "doesn't have markets"?

Mutualism has markets.

at worst is the same thing as having an state lmao

who said that only a single person could use a private police?

dunno maybe the members of the company

dunno maybe the members of the company

we woudl have to wait how they decide that

you could so use the services of the private police

venezuela have markets

they are just shitty markets

Who are these members of the company and how would that not just be the same as an oligarchal state?

So? There's nothing in mutualism about protectionism necessarily.

You mean at best, right? The very best situation is a democracy. Most others are just some variant of a dictatorship or feudal society.

Right, so we've got a "landed gentry" - sorry, employees - who can vote, and a load of "peasants" - sorry, voluntary tenants - who can't.

Something makes me think a millionaire can afford a better and bigger private police than some company worker living from payday to payday

Noooo.

How would the condottieri - I mean, private voluntary police be able to supress the masses? :)

Literally what is socialized capital

is an hypothetical company

can you be this dense?

yes if people don't want to work with you then yes

no because this will only be in your work place and not outside of it

like current law firms

you could go to another private police and say to defend your case and because they could profit for it they will then protect you

You're imagining a world made of a billion or more mini-states? Ha.
We've already explained how monopolies would develop. Property is the most obvious commodity to be monopolised by a relatively small number of companies. Those would become the states.
If you were lucky enough to own your own house and didn't want to sell it, they could practically force you to via the methods outlined in . Surround and conquer. The only sustainable property would have to be self-sufficient, and hence the size of a small country.

If you want a look at a mature libertarian society just look out the window. You're living in one. All of these problems have been faced in the past and you can see the natural result of them.

If it makes you feel any better I can write a quick browser plugin which changes "government" to "Government Inc." and "taxes" to "rent".

well okay

And get slaughtered by the much bigger force?
You really think most people will have the reasources to hire mecenaries to compete with what Coca-Cola could?

But they can theoretically refuse, can't they? Because if they're going to fight against mercenaries of international company, then good luck at convincing them.

Natural monopolies are a thing, sorry.

And what of a monopoly on land? How will competitors innovate their way around that?

No, no. You were fine here. I'm talking about elsewhere.

10/10 reasoning there comrade

Do you wanna be an edgelord?

How the fuck is that supposed to work, exactly? If it's anarchy, there are no rules. Communism requires rules. Keep living that pipe dream.

This is like the political equivalent of

Please, just read a book or something
Don't conflate anarchism with anomie. Anarchism was never about a lack of rules.

If you think the masses are not unwashed you are fooling yourself.

And capitalism…doesn't?

Like others have said, read a fucking book. Anarchism doesn't mean a chaotic free for all, it just means society is organized in a horizontal fashion.

let's say a large corporation buys a large amount of land because they have the capital to do so - the people who live on the land are offered the opportunity to rent out land and continue to do business in exchange for paying the corporation a subscription fee on top of rent for said corporation to take care of certain services (infrastructure, policing, etc)
this is not forced, as of course the people renting land can simply stop renting and move to somewhere else where they do not have to rent land
i wonder if this would be a common situation to have happen given that it simplifies society greatly and makes it easier for people to take care of their general lives, hmm

How is this any different from Feudalism?

Virtually all the issues around feudalism can be applied to this? What if a corporation(s) buys up all the lands near Urban areas where most people live.

So now every major city is owned by a conglomerate of corporations(or one more likely), with people who "voluntarily" rent out their land and pay the same amount they would to a state. They can move away, but virtually the only way is to move to a rural area and farm, as any relatively urban area was immediately bought by people who had high amounts of capital.

Also now, the corporations have hired private armies to protect their land. If not, all the "workers" might ransack him and take the land for themselves.

In no time, most of the land that is usable(rural and urban) has been bought up by corporations( and some have merged together seeing as a group they can procure more land and make more overall profit).

The land people had in rural areas was constantly in a battle between different groups of thugs: the poor farming family couldn't afford a mercenary and bloody battles were constant between townsfolk and people leaving urban areas with no capital and a gun. The corporations buying rural areas up was looked on as a blessing. Now the peas- I mean "workers" could have actual security.

So again: how is this any different from neo-feuadlism, but with the new "state"(private armies hired by corporations) even LESS interested in the wellbeing of the "workers"(peasants)

i am implying that anarcho capitalism would inevitably lead to state-like conduct, yes, that is the point

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Misread the post. I thought you were trying to say that in an ancap world the stateish living would be OPTIONAL way to live live and they could leave if they didn't like it.

Regardless, I had fun typing that out.
Sorry comrade.

*an optional way to live

I was making the same comment that people make to ancap 'boo i hate taxes' faggots all the time, which is if they don't like paying for a state go live somewhere where you don't get that support
no worries, fam

They hate taxes because it's theft. This is true but it's also true for rent, interest and wages, but the just love that shit.

I really don't understand ancaps. What prevents land monopolies from forming? Ancaps try to claim that monopolies can't exist without a government but a land monopoly easily can. How would a land monopoly be any different from a state?

Do you support me getting shot?
Look me in the eyes and say: "I support you getting shot. I want socialize medicine and if you disagree you are getting shot."
Just say it.
plz
say it
just say

I want socialized medicine and if you disagree, you are getting shot.

Not only but I want capitalism to be destroyed and if you disagree, you are getting shot.

I also want private property abolished and if you disagree, you are getting shot.

Eventually, I want an anarchist society, and if you fight against it (by, say, attempting to control communal resources as "private property"), then you are getting shot.

...

It was imitating the anti-state capitalists.

fuck both