What is some kino about cult leader con artists getting progressively more recognition to the point that they have more...

you statist cucks make me laugh with the pathetic excuses you come up with for not donating on his patreon

...

It is false, there are many ways to break from the social contract without violence. Just move out. Dumb nigger.

that's a lot of pubic hair for a hired whore

now why would i want to leave a fair system? :^)

Thanks for proving it is a fair system, since you haven't left.

This past election, Drumpf is trusted by more cuckolds than the whole mainstream media.

THIS AUTOMATED MESSAGE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE DRUMPFSPERG TRANSLATION SERVICE, HAVE A KINO DAY!

so i can assume that you perceive the united states to be perfect? if not, you would have moved? is that a correct assumption?

Fair and perfect are different words.

Ching Ching Chong Ching Chang.
we wuz kangz

okay so is there injustice in the united states. is it not quite unjust enough to force you to move? what is your breaking point?

I don't live in the US, and I have moved out of my country to another because the former had higher taxes and bad public services and economical planning.

so the country you're in now has the palatable level of injustice?

The first one had too, I simply had the opportunity to make a better deal. Such is capitalism, states are nothing but companies with very bureocratic contracts, and really big boards of investors.

The world is anarcho-capitalist already, and it really can't be anything else, only suckers don't know it.

so simultaneously we're in a ancap society but giant, bureaucratic goverments are hovering overhead. am i being memed?

MIKE

Anarcho-capitalism is not a society. States exist within the anarcho-capitalist world, and they are just corporations that make a lot of marketing saying they aren't to fool people into continue to support them. Even kingdoms and other such entities were nothing but corporations in a way or another. Watch "rules for rulers".

Anarcho-capitalism, or libertarianism, is simply getting rid of regulatory clutter. At best, it would reset things. In time, a society built on that philosophy would end up looking like what we already have.

a society is a voluntary association of individuals for common ends. what is ancap if not that?

i've seen that before. what does that have to do with this? am i a power hungry authoritarian for disliking tax policy? i want to be installed as dictator because i don't want the government stealing my compensation for labor? if anyone voices any criticism to power, it's really because they want the power for themselves?

i personally don't believe in the ancap utopia but whatever system we settle on will have injustice and unfairness, these are facts of life. that doesn't mean that it's all pointless and you have to stomach pernicious government policies.

all things fail in time. civilizations are complex systems and complex systems are prone to sudden and catastrophic collapse. we can still make our circumstances better in the meantime.

Monopolies would inevitably form and would stay in place for structural reasons (such as high barriers to entry for markets) and without the threat of trust-busting, prosecuting against collusion or other regulatory checks, everyone would get jewed to death by everything. Ancaps need to gas themselves.

nice memes

u forgod a wurd druqkuq

You're a fucking retard. A good rebuttal to anarcho-capitalism is moral nihilism, as there is ultimately no objective imperative to abide by any proposed NAP etc. or to abide by any notion of "ownership"; even if mutual respect for property rights has benefits most people enjoy, that does not thereby impose an objective moral principle in a godless universe.
Your response is to invent your own retarded moralistic explanation. "You're morally obligated to give [arbitarily selected group] [arbitary amount of wealth], you're consenting to this arrangement by not immediately engaging in open rebellion!"
If there's an island owned in separate parts by 30 assholes with similarly assholeish policies, and a marooned sailor is forced to inhabit one property there, he is not willingly consenting to be subjected to all whims of the asshole of his "choice" because he doesn't try to uproot his best chance at survival and swim into the ocean.
tl;dr the NAP has no objective, unassailable justification, nor does the state.

But you are not forced to pay shit, the world is full of tax heavens, you just lack the force or influence to make use of them.

I see anarcho-capitalism as merely opening the gates so that everyone can partake in anarcho-capitalism, but all the powerful people in the world and all governments exist in an anarcho-capitalist structure.

Such tax havens are literally unusuable if you have a wage paid by any given corporation, you can't escape income tax. And you can't outsource the "headquarters" of your employment into an area with a lower tax rate without living in that area.

But this gives you to much credit, as you are saying that a group of individuals subjected to coercive policies is not actually being coerced if there are exceedingly few of them who are lucky enough to avoid those impositions.

Taxes are not collected on the basis of any claim or ownership viewed as legitimate by ancaps, so no. That being said, there is no such thing as an objectively legitimate claim to any property. An-caps say the state is inherently evil and is operating as if it has legitimate claims to property it does not. I've already explained how this is mistaken, while the state is morally unjustified, this is true in so far as saying that something is morally justified is meaningless. Morality is a matter of opinion and not fact, even with religion, you have the Euthyphro dilemma, either God can arbitearily change what "good" is st any time, or it is not based on his preferences, and appealing to his authority is pointless.

Reply to

Not memeing but that's literally not an argument. You're just repeating back what I'd argue is the case expecting people to find it ridiculous. Your 'satire' is just outlining the extremities of one's philosophy in start terms expecting others to fall for the false thinking that this makes it incorrect. If you disagree with the sentiment expressed that taxation is violence why not put forward a counter-argument?

This is also not an argument. I support implementing change through the ballot box. It's very well and good moving to another country to avoid violent coercion from the state but in the end that's avoiding debate. That's no longer philosophy, it's giving up.

This is the most retarded thing I've ever read. Corporations, for example, cannot initiate the use of force on another party, governments can. Governments are (in the West) elected by the unwashed masses, corporations led by a board of investors who select the most qualified individuals for the job. A company's objective is the maximize revenue. The state's purpose is supposedly to protect individual rights and our borders. Do I need to go on?

>one's philosophy
that's wrong of me to say. There is no "my philosophy" or "your philosophy", only philosophy. Maybe there's good or bad philosophy but to claim ownership of a discipline is narcissistic and incorrect. Philosophy is not an opinion.

...

...

nice argument

The only times they can are when the state authorizes them to do so. Meaning the power to initiate force still rests with the government.

Donald Trumps America

Corporations can only file a civil suit without the use of force to mandate paying out settlements. At most a court order can be issued for you to attend a hearing, there's no threat demanding a payout. So cheat a corporation and they take you to a civil court, cheat the government and BYE BYE, no second chances. Especially if you're famous so they can make an example of you.