Bannon is Ancap; Ancap = supernazi

Seriously though what's Bannon's deal?

Please expound. My impression is that you have the NAP confused with pacifism, which it isn't.

Anarchy upon our enemies, Capitalism upon ourselves.

Old school civic nationalist.

Oh so that's what I meant when I called all those beta numale yids cucks. Who knew I was AnCap all along…

Thank you (((Selim Sazak))) for explaining my own intentions and political ideology to me. Must be nice being a mindreader.

Rothbard was a kike faggot who never could define aggression. He tried to build upon the Golden Rule adding unnecessary complication as to allow whatever priest class(most likely kikes) that arose would be the arbiters of what is or is not aggression. The Golden Rule is natural law, it's an observable force of nature as defined by Newton's third law. Any perversion of it, as the NAP is, is unnatural and should be ignored.

lots of dubious mere assertions there
The only true part is that Rothbard was a kike — hardly a secret as he looked like the happy merchant.

Nevertheless, he tirelessly assailed every Jew plot out there, especially the Federal Reserve and the neocohens.

Can we meme this?

(cont.) He also opposed Zionism, the state of Israel, Holocaustianity, feminism and cultural Marxism.

I hope so.

Dubious assertions? Please. Many kikes take issue with all of those things, they're still subversive kikes. Rothbard's NAP is fucking worthless. It's fundamentally flawed and incompatiable with nationalism. The Golden Rule is all that is needed, any and all bastardizations should be thrown in the trash along with their proponents.

You are, like I say, fond of mere assertions. You call NAP "fundamentally flawed" but don't point out any flaw in it. You call it "incompatible with nationalism" but don't say how so. Perhaps it is incompatible with civic nationalism, but it's fully compatible with ethno-nationalism, which is the true and proper nationalism anyway.

are we being raided

...

Yes, but not more than usual.

You think an ethno-state is possible without aggression? Gee, maybe you're right, considering how well that works for Israel.

First of all, most minorities can go for helicopter rides with all their fellow leftists. After that, you can create a white ethno-state entirely on a private property basis. If the roads and airports are privately owned, you don't have to let niggers, spics, kikes etc. into the territory.

Because it doesn't properly define aggression. How many times do I need to repeat that? It is incompatible with nationalism because it denies the obligation of duty to kin. Have you even fucking studied it at all or do you just gobble up whatever Kikes tell you?

I don't see how that goes along with what you were saying. Does throwing people out of helicopters not violate the NAP?

Not after they've aggressed against you.

My problem with the NAP is why would you want to be the guy who hits second? I think that on some level the NAP has always been assumed in civilized societies even if not explicitely by that name. But at this point I'm jus tunable to asume everyone's acting in good faith.

for fuck's sake these ancap memes make me start laughing in public more please

If it's privately owned, what stops them from privately deciding to import niggers? It doesn't stand. An ethnostate needs actual laws.

It doesn't violate NAP if they are aggressors. Leftists who are at least minimally politically active or organized are in fact aggressors — they are members of a standing conspiracy to violate people's inherent rights, cause white genocide, etc.

Worse, he's apparently a roach.

Because there are always many, many more who won't hit first than there are those that will. Ancap isn't one on one. If you commit aggression, EVERYONE will respond. There are courts, militias, private security firms, etc. Hell, if you don't want to recognize the authority of the courts, that is your choice, but they won't defend you against aggression by others after that, at which point you are liable to be hunted down and killed for your fucking organs.

Seems really shaky, user. What is "aggressive" is very subjective. I feel like the NAP is just a way to justify actions against those you dislike.

As the other user said, the golden rule is much more concise and makes more sense on a practical level.

No they aren't you stupid fuck. By definition of the NAP they have legit claims of fighting back against whites who they define as the aggressors. Why? Because the NAP does not properly define aggression. It is far too subjective.

The Golden Rule is natural law. You can observe it as Newton has explained.

Aggression is not subjective. People have defined rights, ie the right to their body and their property. Courts can determine easily when these rights have been violated. That is all that you need.

And yes, you can have courts without the state, just like you can have churches without the state.

Care to show how to observe it? Not saying I don't buy it, but I would like to see this for myself.

The word is subjective. If you believe that people have natural born rights, then why not use a different term other than NAP to stop confusion? Something like "Non Infringement Principle", infringement referring to the natural born rights.

Lolwut?

What you say is true for the most part, but there are continuum issues with the definition of aggression that have to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis through (private) judges with trustworthy reputations.

It's hard to know how to respond to the people saying "aggression is poorly defined" when they won't explain the kind of cases over which they consider it poorly defined.

I agree. I like Ron Paul, but libertarians went full anarchist with that "NAP" garbage. People that love making up obscure acronyms are always full of shit and "NAP" is no exception. "NAP" is whatever the craziest anarchist with the biggest gun says it is.

Newtons Third Law of Motion.

You band together with like-minded property owners and attach restrictive covenants to your property titles that ban anyone from allowing niggers ever in perpetuity. Problem solved.

And no, you are retarded. You just gave me an idea for a new NAP meme. "When a private court rules against you, so you hire another court with a bigger army to kill and slaughter the first court."

Again, what is to stop anyone else from owning nigger slaves? There isn't. Rothbard is a wannabe Marx. With a different mode for similar ends.

Yes, I assumed you were referring to that. But does that really apply to ethics in every situation? For example, if someone rear ends your car, are you going to chase them down until you can rear end them back?

Physical forces =/= social "forces", fucktard. Counterexample: Putin taking Crimea and bombing Islamic State of Israel caused pathetic posturing by Obama. Hitler fighting gommies and other kikes caused a global oy vey that purged and cucked the German race for 50+ years.

No, it's whatever the courts say it is. No individual has more and bigger guns than every other person in the world.

NAP justifies some immediate responses, like killing a man who broke into your home or who tried to assault you. But most cases are adjudicated in the court system.

Courts don't have armies, and if you disagree with a courts ruling, you can't just go hire another one, as that would require the consent of the other party. If you decide not to accept the court's ruling, then you become an outlaw, and lose the protection of the law. Anyone can do anything they want to you, up to and including harvesting your organs for sale.

… your reaction would be to sue them, I guess you could rear end them but there are more effective ways of utilizing the energy input.

You're a fucking tard.

Nigger everything is action/reaction. Obama took the action and instead funded ISIS to harm Russia's allies. Your ability to reason is horrendous. Hit the books kid.

But that's not equal and opposite. You are taking a scientific principle and trying to apply it in places where it doesn't fit.

I still agree with you that the golden rule is the best and most concise way of creating cohesion in a society, but you are drawing lines where there are none.

Not everything is EQUAL action/reaction.
I can see you're an (((enlightened individual))).

The NAP is just a more precise statement of the golden rule anyway.

The letter of the golden rule would allow a faggot to rape you in the ass as long as he himself would like to be raped in the ass.

What do you mean it doesn't fit? there is an input of energy into the system and a reaction to the energy.

No, under the golden rule, the faggot could only rape you in the ass if you were to rape him in the ass as well.

No it isn't Satan. It's a bastardization of the Golden Rule.

Now you're rewriting Newton's Third Law.

Big shoes to fill.

sage for double post

...

That isn't an argument. You should read

All action requires energy.

I think I see the problem with some of you not seeing the connection. Qanutifying human action/reaction isn't easy.

That still has nothing to do with Newton's 3rd law. To think you're the one telling me to hit the books…

Are you a Sith lord using mind control on the entire world? No. You are just a completely delusional idiot, even for an anarchist. You make dumb marxists seem reasonable in comparison.

Then they aren't courts. They are just a bunch of SJWs sitting in their mother's basement, pretending to be important.

Of course I can. Who the fuck is going to stop me? You? You and your no army.

What "law", anarchist? There are none.

Thank you for proving my point. "NAP" is whatever the craziest anarchist with the biggest gun says it is.

Here we have the "But what if the majority of people are crazed, violent criminals who don't care about NAP or the law?" objection. What social system can survive if the majority of the people under that system reject it completely?

I'm not sure what makes courts more likely to not be corrupt than courts today. If the aggressor got 2 Bitcoins from you and gives one to the judge it probably is in the judge's best interest to just cross you, as long as he doesn't get caught of course. Those that are most powerful have a better shot at playing the system (that's not exclusive to ancaps). Fuck, they may rule correctly and this abstract EVERYONE may still get mad and you end in the situation where (((JusticeCorp))) is more trusted because it has cooler ads.

You have no answer whatsoever. You are a typical loser daydreaming of utopia. Go hang out with Karl Marx, Bernie Sanders and the Venus Project old man.

Any government with a strong army. Does that answer your stupid question, anarchist?

New anarchist meme. "When a court with no army calls you racist. So you kill them all and declare yourself the Big Guy of a new government."

All this ancap bullshit is just going back to pre-feudal times, just after the fall of Rome. The same thing will happen: people will naturally follow their betters, who in turn will make a system among themselves. Making that system will involve lots of bloodshed, of course.

You don't get it, probably because you are actively trying not to understand. It doesn't matter how big your guns are when the court rules against you. You pay up or you go into hiding/get killed on the courthouse steps.

Stupidity. The courts in an ancap society are like mediators are in today's world. The only difference is that if you go against the ruling of a mediator, it escalates to the court system. If you go against the ruling of an ancap court, you become an outlaw that everyone shuns and some people will actively hunt down for fun and profit.

You would have to compel the other person to go to it as well, and that wouldn't happen. You are actively expending mental energy trying not to comprehend how this system works. Why you are doing this I can't imagine.

The people that you wronged and then refused to pay off will disagree, and you will die without the court's protection.

What exactly do you think will happen to a crazy person who thinks their personal might makes right in the current system? They will wind up exactly as dead as they would in an ancap society. Only it would happen quicker and a lot more cheaply in the ancap system.

Judges are agreed to by both sides, based on their reputation for fairness. If there is even so much as a rumor that a judge might have been bribed, then they will be out of work forever. This is as opposed to the current system where you have to PROVE that a judge was partial on appeal to another judge. This allows kikes and dykes on the bench to fuck over white men at will. This system fixes that.

except that applying the rhetorically-convenient hypothetical world you've created, soldiers in the governments army would mutiny and shoot their commanding officers

the government would break down into chaos even faster than the anarchic social order if everyone was violently antisocial and completely unreasonable

You comic is funny, but it doesn't understand that in ancap, there would be many people competing to protect you for a fee. The criticism is one of monopolies, which is what governments are. Ancap is the opposite.

Newton's 3rd law: to every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.
Omitting the "equal and opposite" makes it meaningless, since you can just declare a reaction to be whatever is caused by an action, which gives a tautology. And you can't compare for equality without having some objective measure (such as vector algebra for forces).
Sage for having to explain the obvious.

What if I'm literally Hitler and convinced millions of people that those courts are run by jews and we must gas them?

What if I slaughtered them all, and they don't have any relatives left? Who will stand against me in the court? Is it okay to kill a hobo if nobody will miss him?

Anyhow, is he retarded or just a socialist?
Doesn't matter, off to the helicopters with him.

leftypol pls go. you aren't fooling anyone.

What if most of those competitors get together and form a monopoly? Only entities with at least similar strength could compete against them, and those could only come to exist by forming their own monopolies over certain areas. So they'd turn into competing countries with governments rather soon.

Shoo shoo, anarchist.

The funny thing is that despite this entire argument that polycentric law is impossible, it has existed in many times and places historically. The law merchant that gave birth to the british common law was entirely private. Medieval Iceland had private courts. Most feudal societies of the High Middle Ages had multiple competing courts with overlapping jurisdictions.

Then they would look at you funny and ask "Why don't you just pick a different judge?"

Someone would come out of the woodwork to get the fat cash that is up for grabs. They always do.

If they did that, they would become bloated and unresponsive, like a real government, and new competitors would emerge to compete with them.

No. The nation state is a holdover from the pre-rifle era. Now it is easier than ever to defend yourself from larger forces. One guy with a rifle dug in can defend against ten. One guy with an army of drones can defend against an army of arbitrary size. Once an operation is large enough to have nukes (might cost $10million or so to acquire one), there is no possible size of army that would be willing to take them on. A smallish town could have a nuclear deterrent under this system.

I get your stupidity perfectly. You are a child engaging in wishful thinking. You expect seven billion human beings to have world peace and follow the rules of your perfect anarchist utopia for no reason except that you really, really want them to. Every time someone tells you that people aren't easily controlled you just stamp your little feet and shout "NAP!". You are a pathetic child. You will never, ever gain power. But if somehow you do, then I would gladly take up arms and put you up against a wall.

Nobody mentioned utopia but you, buddy. Have you ever heard the saying "The perfect is the enemy of the good"?

wew
thats one butthurt commie turkroach

What the fuck?! What planet do you live on? Anarchist planet? What's the color of the sky on your world? Here on Earth we have countries with governments and armies. What do you have, Mister alien?

As an aside, the verbiage, sentence structure, types of ad hominem arguments, internet tough guy routines and every other idiom is much different for anti-AnCap shills than for anti-fascist or anti-White Nationalist shills.

I suspect they come from different agencies.

What makes you think that? You assume all people will be brainwashed to think exactly how you want them to think?

Then the whole process would be about determining if they are indeed related somehow. If they aren't related by blood, then it only takes a DNA test to prove them wrong. If they still want to argue, then they will have to invest lots of money into convincing the judge that he can even stand for the deceased. And they still have to prove that I killed that hobo after that.

If it's that simple, then why don't we see new competitors emerging under the current system? You don't see it outside of Mexico, Somalia and the Middle East, so what makes you think that they'd appear in that situation?

Firepower works both ways, you know.
Expect if that ten bought a simple 60mm mortar with a few shells, and they fucking blow up our lonely hero.
How the hell is he supposed to coordinate all those drones? With the help of AI? Is he liable before judges if the AI kills somebody? What you've written here is so fucking retarded, you should really start a thread on /k/ just so that people can explain it to you.
Nukes require constant care even in storage. And who the hell would sell nukes anyway? What if you sell one to a suicide bomber and he blows himself up along a whole city? Will somebody drag you before the courts, or is it fine by the NAP?
So your solution is drone armies and nukes for every household? What's next, parasites that are activated by human speech?

Calling everyone shills is meaningless. Deconstruct their arguments and be done with them.

...

You did, faggot. Your entire anarchist system relies on world peace. Without world peace, your NAP, no army society gets invaded by everyone.

You are extremely confused. NAP is not pacifism. There's nothing in it against armies, as long as they're not raised by conscription. They can be mercenary armies or citizen militia or some combination of both.

Yes, it's called Holla Forums.

I wish there were more nigg… I mean black gentlemen like Chapelle. Reckon he knew a lot more than what he said. Honorary black man indeed.

I like it. Short, sweet, and sticks right into the leftist id. All in favor of our new slogan?

No, they have been traced on many forums to blocks of IP addresses reserved largely to the British government.

If your neighbor goes to court and he loses he's going to talk mad shit about whoever ruled, indepently of if he was right or not. That and ads is going to decide most of the perception of who's a good judge or who isn't. It also sounds like the free market would demand professional partisan rumormongers that will help people with their career so maybe we can keep CNN around after all.

What you say is internally consistent, but it needs to happen first. It also creeps me out when consumption is passed off as an indicator of what has worth. The current education system has a lot of issues but if you leave it to the free market, the idea of Coca-Cola university doesn't sound like a great improvement.

Rampant consumerism is mostly caused by artificially low interest rates.

Central bank policy distorts more than just the economy. It distorts attitudes and time preferences. It promotes r-selected behavior.

(cont.) Needless to say, this is an intentional strategy by the Jews. It makes people superficial, hollows out the culture and promotes dysgenic breeding.

No government means no army, dummy.

Paid for by whom? You need taxes.

Lead by whom? You need a general to lead armies to war. Congratulations, anarchist. You just formed a government.

another mere assertion

paid for by people who want to be defended against invaders. You don't need taxes. Existing private security doesn't rely on taxes. Why would private security against external threats need to rely on taxes?

Having leaders is not contrary to anarcho-capitalism. Isn't your caricature that everything will be run by mega-corporations? Corporations have managers and executives, so why can't defense corporations have military managers and executives?

Ideally, but there is such a thing as locality and inertia.

That is exactly why I call you a child. You do not live in the real world. You live in fantasy land. To you, hiring a few guards is the same as building an entire fucking military. You have no common sense whatsoever.

So you form a government. You seriously just hate the word government. That's the entirety of your ideology.

New anarchist meme. "When Burger King fighter jets refuse to land on USS McDonald's aircraft carrier. So they run out of fuel and ditch in the ocean just as the Chinese Navy attacks California."

I love these images

It fails even in this regard because the first 2 are kikes FFS.

Everyone go home is right, the private sector will NEVER be able to build a boat! Wow I love the state now.

You realize aircraft carriers are gigantic wastes of money even for existing government militaries, right? They're sitting ducks for any sophisticated adversary.

The purpose of government military isn't to defend the people. That's why, for instance, there was no competent air defense on 9/11. Their disposition of forces is entirely for global aggression. They all want to wage wars of aggression back and forth as an excuse to repress their own populations and bolster their power.

Bluepill faggot go home. Why would the government stop its own operation?

You do know that the federal government of the USA is not the only example of a government, right?

Everyone, including China disagrees with you. Who will I listen to? Every world power on the Earth or a nameless douchebag on the internet. The answer is not you.

TIL I learned that ancaps are officially "worse than Nazis"

3/4 of them are kikes. Not sure about Dawkins

One of these actually exists.

Governments waste money on retarded programs all the time. See: foreign aid, subsidizing negroid welfare mothers, trying to make negroids score as highly on standardized tests as smarter races, colonialism (always a money-losing venture if you consult the numbers)

There are of course ulterior motives for all these things, most prominently to reward political allies through corruption. Aircraft carriers are a gift to the politicians' backers in the military industrial complex.

btw China has one (1) aircraft carrier

Ancap-kun why don't you just go to the corner and masturbate to Rothbard and the NAP like a good little autist while everyone who isn't retarded talks about things that exist.

like the white ethno-state that Holla Forums almost unanimously desires?

Nigger what?

wtf I love ancaps now

That or they're just trying different strategies. REMEMBER: they don't attack you accusing you of being what they hate, they attack you accusing you of being what YOU hate.

Why so much asspain ancap-kun?

...

Why so much asspain statist-kun?

Look out, we got an ancap pro on our hands! He read the whole Wikipedia article.

The problem with NAP is a semantic. what "aggression" actually means is different for everyone. Guess what clarifies semantic differences? A codified law system. Laws are literally what define "agressive" behavior. We already follow a system that is technically "NAP" because the government says what is illegal (aggressive).

Ancaps believe that there will be a mutual consensus based upon market forces within private court systems which will redefine aggression to some minimal state. Unfortunately values defined by a free market are composed of whoever provides the most value in that market, and due to historical reasons Jews and their allies currently hold that position. Anarcho-capitalism would work if government never existed in the first place, but since states did exist and Jewery took advantage of their weaknesses they became the dominant economic power.

Eliminate Jewish power (and their subsequent control over culture) and anarcho-capitalism would work because "agression" would be defined using white western values instead of semetic jewish values.

Are you seriously trying to equate the two things?

Rape is usually the first thing someone starts with when describing how the NAP works. Because rape is defined as not wanting it, you can't extend rape as a universal principle.
It is not possible to create an argument that includes "I want _, _ is defined as me not wanting it"

Pretty jeb-tier ancap-kun

Wolves make packs, bees make hives, people make states. I also had pipe-dreams when I was your age.

Or common law. You know, the whole principle of English justice that has been in practice in the Anglosphere since the middle ages.

How exactly does a Jew supersede every ruling by a private arbitrator? If one starts taking bribes, he loses trust. If he loses trust, he has no customers. If he has no customers, he's worthless.

What is the difference between these? I think aggression is a pretty clear concept and the only squabbles come from issues of who started it, how exactly it happened, and the appropriate restitution.

Well good, because that's all part of the plan anyway. Consign them all to the helicopter drop (except Walter Block and a few others, who may be Jews but not part of "Jewish power")

The NAP itself doesn't define aggression (It's a simple moral rule) but the associated framework of property rights and homesteading does describe what constitutes aggression. It's a bit of an over-simplification to boil anarcho-capitalism down to just the NAP. It's the NAP plus a property rights theory similar to that of John Locke.

Also the main-line Hoppean-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists are moral absolutists. Just because they support free markets doesn't mean they want the free market to decide legal principles.

Tell me, which sphere was the first to be totally subverted by kikes?

Once again, your entire problem and innovation seems to be the removal of the word "government," not the actual hierarchical structure itself.

do these fags do any research before they say shit?

^^^Faggot thinks carriers go out by themselves. Never heard the term carrier battle group. Seriously get the fuck off my board you non-operating fuck.

Gee sounds like socialism to me.

There is nothing more Jewish and retarded than ancap, those rich merchants wouldn't want more than being able to sell you and monetize everything.

Faggot

Aren't at least 2 of those kikes and at least one a sodomite?

Nah ancaps, libertarians, and the Holla Forums grab-bag of crazy pop up and spout off their shit thinking they can convert anons just by existing. I don't really where they're from because they never take the time to learn who and what they're arguing against anyways which is why I only come to these threads to smug at them. It's always the same arguments regardless of ideology.
IF IT'S NOT FAR-RIGHT
IT'S NOT WHITE

An anarcho-capitalist society would be more hierarchical that what exists today. The goal of anarcho-capitalism is to break up the monopoly over the use of force (government) and to stop the coercive exercise of power, not to eliminate "hierarchy". That sounds like some sort of progressive, intersectional feminist goal. That you would ascribe it to AnCaps shows you don't really know anything about the legal philosophy.

*don't really care where
fug

IF you boil politics down to a left-right axis, AnCaps are further to the right than fascists. Fascism is economically centrist.

Riddle me this then - I round up a thousand decent h'wite people and make a covenant community for h'wite values. Tell me how that gets subverted by the kikes who are not allowed within the community.

Humans can't function without hierarchy. Psychology and history have shown that. What ancaps propose is voluntary hierarchy. A lot of people in this thread have conflated the idea with a bunch of small governments. The whole reason the word "voluntary" comes in is that nothing is forced, and why I prefer the term "voluntaryism" to anarcho-capitalism.
"Private police" do not have the authority to kick down anyone's doors or chuck them in jail unless people concede this liberty to them. "Private courts" do not have the authority to rule on one's behalf unless they wish it so. These are merely more peaceful methods than mob justice or vigilantism. If you commit a "crime," you can face justice or you can choose exile, hoping some community will take in a fugitive from justice. (Spoiler alert: No good community would.)

no, letting the leftists define it as pacifism or immediate self-defense only was the problem. The NAP isn't the be-all and end-all, but it still works.

This, much like ancapball, is a strawman. At least the memes are kind of funny.

Common law worked because it was a high trust homogeneous society. Everyone knew the tacit laws via cultural intuition, everything worked because of that. Judges of that system then codified what needed to be codified. The letter of the law can always be gamed of course, but the only way to prevent that is by embedding law within culture. Whites have always been a people who practiced property rights, but we still recognize and understand the tacit gray areas in them which WILL be gamed by jews.

Ancap "aggression" definitions fall apart in the minutia. The devil is definitely within the details when in this case. There are many different small distinctions that judges can make within an ancap society which would be subverted by jewish culture. Is blocking someone's view by building a factory near their house a violation of property rights? What if the whole community files suit claiming it lowered property values? Who is creating the HOA contracts? The developers? What if the property developers are jewish and write the HOA contracts in such a way that benefits their class? Markets which have a naturally high barrier to entry will be dominated by Jewish interests because they are the ones in our society that can currently enter them first.
They will develop natural monopolies which will provide a "good enough" service, but will ultimately guide the culture into one of jewish degeneracy.

The problem with anarcho-capitalism is that the philosophy is value-neutral. If the culture leans more degenerate, then so will the subsequent society. There are no boundaries defining what is virtuous, instead virtue emerges based upon its cultural seeds. Our cultural seeds are going to be Jewish if anarcho-capitalism was implemented today, and the subsequent society will end up being a race-mixed lower class and a Jewish elite.

I value white society, and am willing to aggressively enforce white values. Anarcho-capitalism forces you to sacrifice all aggression and submit to whatever the current culture values. But since all values are subjective and there is a large stratification in those values which fall upon race lines, the classes of an ancap society will be defined via the initial dominant racial group.

1. I round up 10k non-whites and invade.
2. ???
3. Profit

Tell me, which sphere was the first to be totally subverted by kikes?>>9135375
So, feudalism?

1. Round up an armada of 6 trillion space jews from the Small Magellanic Cloud

2. Crush your preferred system of social organization

Who the fuck argues that anarcho-capitalism will magically save you from overwhelming force? This is such a ridiculous non-argument.

Kinda late to the party but I wanted to reply to something this guy said:

Ancaps forget that competitions are solved in two ways:
Either you provide a better service than your oponents,
or,
They provide a worse one.

I realize that at first glance these seem the same thing. But if you're planning on how to expand, realize that you can affect both things with diferent solutions. And if you wanna be efficient, you take the one where you expend less resources.

IF you're selling a product, improving the quality of what you're selling might mean a sizeable investment in infrastructure and manpower. Let's supose total costs would come up to 1000$ (kind cheap if we're thinking of an industrial plant). That's the cost of the first alternative, "providing a better service".
The other alternative is rather simple. Hire a couple of guys, have them shoot the other guy in the face and steal something vital for product manufacturing. Hiring fees would be about 200$ each (remember, just as there are a lot of guys offering to protect, there would be also a lot of guys offering you to kill someone for you and competition ends up lowering prices).
Let's throw in another 300$ for guns and bullets because why not. Total cost: 700$ bucks.

Now apply this to protection.
Some guy has an army numbering 50 soldiers.
Another guy has an army numbering 100 soldiers. They both want to protect you.
The second army kills the first one, and now they protect you. From who? At first from the other

They really fucked up a few things recently. That post should look like this:

So, feudalism?

Feudalism and anarcho-capitalism do bear some similarities. The book I recommended in OP (Democracy: the God that Failed) argues in favor of feudalism.

...

The second step is where a swarm of mosquito drones paralyze your little army in advance of the organ harvesters.

The profit belongs to the mutual defense society that services the area you were attempting to invade. The drones cost $5 each, and your non-whites organs, skin, flesh, and blood brought 100 times that. This is good business.

But why? If the one holding 'monopoly' over it is a nationalistic goverment with a competent leader what does it matter at that point?
That doesnt mean you cant protect yourselves and your property, but its a much more secure mode of governing when you consider geopolitics, see

Do you really think every nigger or retard is your equal?

I hate to say it, but he's a bit more spot on than makes me comfy.

Feudalism is not a voluntary system. Property is awarded to nobility. Peasants are forced to work for their benefit. The system existed entirely on the order of the state.

That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of the book.

But no ancap-kun maybe you're right and all of history concerning human desire for security in order to enjoy certain freedoms and the need to expand for resources which requires the use of a great deal of force to gain and secure, more force than one man or a group of people small enough to not be a state can manage is wrong

Are you really so ignorant as to think, or think US so stupid that you can get away with the claim that feudal societies didn't have monopolistic governments?

Peasants in a feudal system had written contacts with their lords quite often. It defined the obligations of both parties. So you are wrong here. That you couldn't escape this system was a fact of life, just like how you couldn't escape the voluntary system of feudalism in Ancapistan.

It's not a misrepresentation to say it argues for feudalism as against democracy. Feudalism has a bad name because people think it necessarily involves serfdom, but that's not true.

Of course, feudal governments did use coersion, but Hoppe argues that the "natural aristocracy" of an AnCap society would have some resemblance to the old feudal aristocracy.

Why? Just form an alliance with the rest of the mercs and pillage the bloody shit out of those who want to hire you. It's not like somebody will stop you.

What's to stop the other

You forget that those security companies don't exist in a vacuum. The courts still exist, and they restrain the insane from taking such actions. They act as a focus for social pressure, and those who ignore the rulings will face justice long before any real destabilization can occur.

...

I don't think so, Tim.

Nope, that's just garbage disposal

Ok, I'll try it from the empirical side. Why are there no extant societies that follow your model? In the 10,000+ years that humans have been building societies, why has no-one put together a society based upon voluntarism and the NAP? Why do you ignore the fact that aggression is determined by biology? Do you have a single working example of your utopia?

feudalism had many built in monopolies, an interesting example is the baker. In medieval europe they were beginning to have a deforestation problem, so in the interest of preserving their forests they monopolized the ovens. Only one man in the village could have an oven and he would bake your bread for you in exchange for a percentage of the grain. building your own oven had a hefty penalty to it. This is why the last name Baker is so prevalent, similarly so is miller and smith who would also be granted monopolies. The miller because it was hard to find good ground and multiple windmills/watermills were a costly waste and the smith because of the worry of starting fires.

*percentage of grain should say percentage of flour, the miller would take your grain obviously.

source: an old /tg/ reference book I've got kicking around somewhere

Hey Ancaps. forget the retarded and rehashed "muh warlords" non-arguements. I used to be an ancap, but then I realized I subjectively valued aggressively defending white culture. So ask me anything about why i'm no longer an ancap. (I have read and fully understand Human Action, and I have taken many college level courses in Austrian economics.)

In an ancap society my values and existence would be considered a threat, and would not exist. Most of Holla Forums and I suspect most of western whites hold similar views to me in this, so how would a totally free market be anything but a determent to supporting these subjective values?

They didn't, this is why they had civil wars between various lords so often.

And then form an other temporal alliance, or maybe a permanent one, and we are there again. Governments literally evolved from tribal alliances this way.
What? How and when did you debunk thousands of years of written history.

This is your problem right there, you can't believe that violent actions can be sane and sound business decisions.

It doesn't matter what you think, written contracts were extremely important in feudalism. That you don't know about this is your problem. Yes, most people were illiterate, but that's why every village had a priest.

Anarcho-capitalism scare these people to their core as its an ideology that basically states if you don't have a job you're absolutely fucked, while ironically believing in socialism. They're actually just welfare sponges, and they think socialism = welfare, even though when socialism is actually practiced it usually leads to a hardcore work-or-die society where mass numbers of people are killed just so there not too many mouths to feed

Pick one and only one.

Anarcho-capitalism is a fairly new idea. The term didn't even exist until the 19th century. There are some examples in history that explain similar such systems. The Icelandic Commonwealth was one of the closest that exceeded the tribal level. I recommend a read even if you disagree with me as it is a fascinating government system.

...

So, you say that Ancapistan wouldn’t be a land with voluntary contracts, because you can't escape the system?

Thank you, I will check it out. I still however hold to the opinion that you Ancaps live in a world that can be shattered by the presence of a single Alpha male.

Posts user with a free market engineered computer, via free market internet, while eating free market food in a free market building with a free market car, but muh roads am I rite.
So is cancer, should we stop trying to cure it?

Besides a lack of background to get to that point, who says there weren't any? Before modernity, it could have looked just like any clan or community structure that allowed people to leave and had NAP violations (murder, rape, whatever) be fined with weregild, if it didn't, the victim's family would try to kill you.

No it's not, it's a factor but it doesn't make you a chimp. And if it does, no loss when you get killed.

Why? There are plenty of right-wing whites to make a society with.

?

Why?

I think that on a local level, many different social systems could exist within an overall anarcho-capitalist framework. The best-performing such systems would be aped by other communities.

If you believe in white nationalism, as do I, would you not think that it would show its superiority in a free and fair contest where different contractual communities compete for commerce and capital?

Even if it were initially unpopular, it would soon spread and grow outward, delivering us a white ethno-state.

What values? Defense of white culture does not require you burn Niggerville to the ground. It only requires that you have at least one homogeneous community for it to thrive in, which is more than possible in a voluntaryist society. That's why I don't get this "growing out of libertarianism" meme. I see this as a much more stable way to defend white identity/purity in the long run, at least opposed to a method like natsoc.

Freedom is not a system, it is the absence of one. You can go off innawoods if you're some edgelord anarchist who can't respect property rights (or any rights). If you try to create a microstate, I'd recommend treading lightly and making it voluntary.

But you're ignoring the inconvenient fact that a state of anarchy has never led to society build upon a non-aggression principle. An-cap is not a stable equilibrium because aggression exists; because the prisoner's dilemma exists; because humans favor hierarchy, not the voluntary but the compulsory kind. You pretend that all actors are "rational" utility maximizers. Your system, like Austrian economics, is based upon unrealistic assumptions about human behavior in groups.

mfw

I'm sorry, but you do not understand anything about Austrian economics. Austrians are the most vehement critics of Homo economicus. You've painted them as 180 degrees opposite of their real stance, showing your ignorance.

wooow, who could have predicted it?
Wait, thousands of african history could. Because that's pretty much how africa worked for nearly 3000 years.

>What's to stop the other

… for lack of a better term
Or should I coin a neologism like "ethno-community"?
This is pretty inconsequential.

I'm seeing nothing but assertions.
I have some assertions of my own. Rightwing ancaps are among the most well-armed people I've ever met. Holla Forums is often nofunz. Who is being more realistic?

There are optimal solutions to iterated prisoner's dilemma games. I see no reason why that is a counterpoint, especially when it exists all around us regardless of our societal structure.

Neither the Millgram experiment or the Stanford prison experiment had any sort of compulsory hierarchy, yet the subjects complied anyway.

Other than Euro anons, due to the high chance of getting v&, that statement is just an outright lie.
At any rate, try creating an ancap society in todays world, surrounded by larger states that are armed as they are and it'll be a very short lived political experiment.

What happens when that army decides it wants your shit? This ideology is cancer. Worst circle jerk. It has to be intentional subversion, and knowing all the jews in proto-ancapism and libertarianism, I feel it strongly.

see

Though long, your post is just another restatement of the 6 trillion space Jews "argument" that can be used against any social system.

Except that initial companies an privatized governmental structures in a theoretical ancap society will be controlled by majority jewish interests and their culture is fundamentally at odds with with white western culture. The markets which have high barrier to entry will be funded and controlled by jews and therefore the culture of the society will be jewish. The decisions of the private court systems will be be based around jewish interpretations of property rights. Any white enclave will have to cope with private courts being biased entirely in favor of those interpretations due to lack of initial economic capital to influence the system early on.
The earlier you have influence on something, the more control you have over its direction. This as known and demonstrable phenomena.

>?
A free market is a compromise. Everyone's values will be maximized weighted upon their economic power, at the expense of no aggressive values being permitted.
What if my aggressive values are the ones I hold highest on my scale of marginal utility?

Sure, but not all subjective values have objective performance metrics. Just look at art if you want an example. Valuing property rights will objectively increase capital, but valuing the minutia within those property rights (such as a respect for nature, white aesthetics, traditional family values, respect for one's community, etc) do not directly affect the objective performance of the system, and therefore are not required to mimic by competition. The only thing which can guarantee defense of those values is by forcefully removing any competing value systems from the economic network.

Not all white values are competitive, but I still value them due to completely subjective appeal.

See some of my above responses.

And what if the economic incentives promote metropolitan race-mixed societies as they would if jewish interests dominated the initial markets?

I understand that viewpoint because I had it until recently. Then I realized that anarcho-capitalism is value neutral. If the dominant economic forces value islamic culture then it will end up being islamic culture. If its jews it will end up being talmud-like. If is whites, then it will be white western values. Anarcho-capitalism only serves as an accelerating force and catalyst for whatever the dominant culture is.
I would be happy with an ancap society, if I could gaurantee that all the seed companies in high-entry-barrier markets were run by culturally white-western groups.

I'm not a natsoc. I'm a pragmatist for my values, and I see nationalism as the first step before a minarchist national-capitalist state.

You're just giving up the debate and calling names now, aka losing the argument.
My personal stance on anarchism/voluntarism is that it would be ideal in a high-IQ world, which we obviously don't have. It could be possible to practice voluntarism for members within a society, and militarism towards those outside, but that would be tough for obvious reasons.

In the here and now, if there's going to be a power structure, if it's something that less intelligent people need in their lives, then I might as well have some control over that system. I think that's something we're all figuring out how to do.

Nothing wrong with that, christcuck.

Pretty much, yeah.
The only certified method we (humanity) came up with was to unite everyone under the same flag. Voluntarily or not.

I still don't understand how you get past the empirical. If ancap is the best way to organize a society, where is it? Why has it evolved strictly on paper?

No longer an ancap myself, but I can address your question.
Economic and governmental systems are like technology. There was no empirical evidence of CPUs before they were designed, only theoretical models.

Ancap has a diference to "real comunism", user.
You see, "real comunism" has never been tried. Of course, that's why it never worked.

But ancap has been tried. It's called "South Africa" and it's a glorious shinning beacon of civilization, peace and prosperity.
Then whites came and fucked it all up with our "democracy, nacionalism and capitalism".

Of course, all we need to do, is turn the whole planet into frica. To that end, we're importing all the refugees we can. Next we import their rich culture of drinking gasoline while pregnant to get wellfare for the deformed child, or refusing condoms because it's the work of Satan.
Next, we worship jungle gods to make our warlord strong and big and then we achieve true enlightment.

Ok, I'll rephrase. What real life scenario could possibly lead to an ancap society?

kek, I love the irony

There are two scenarios I have hear.

An opportunistic revolution overthrowing the government (however I doubt it will work out in the ancaps favor in that scenario as a meteor striking a church doesn't suddenly create a community of athiests)

Or a gradual takeover and reduction of government and the subsequent creation of private competing services by the ancaps. This also has its own set of issues as it requires the society to be subverted towards ancap values before actual anarcho-capitalism is implemented. That would be a very tricky situation to create, but it is becoming more likely as people are trending more towards the right these days.

I could give a variety of defenses, but since you asked how I get past it: I simply do not care. I do not care one bit how feasible anarcho-capitalism is. I'm an absolutist. Even if I knew for certain that bringing about an anarcho-capitalist world would obliterate every living thing from planet Earth, I would still favor it. Justice though the heavens fall. Aggression is simply immoral. It is an evil. I will advocate for its abolition regardless of anything.

I have heard*

I don't accept this sandnigger's arguments. As an enemy, he is expected to paint Steve as an extremist. In other news, the snek meme is really taking off!

You fucked up. You fucked up now (because you didn't count on someone on Holla Forums knowing about math and transistors) and fucked up in school when you didn't study math.

First, the principle behind the CPU is the ALU (arithemetic logic unit). The rest is peripheric, the first computer was pretty much a giant ALU.
Secondly, there were simple (but cumbersome) wooden ALU's as far back as 1700's.
Before that, the idea behind ordering numbers in another format was already invented by Pascal in the 1600's. Converting numbers into 0's and 1's isn't that strange a concept, even to ancient greeks too. They tried all sorts of numerological symbols. Some attached to mysticism, some with empyrical uses. Go research how "base systems" work and where they sprang from.
Converting 0's and 1's to electricity just means we work faster with it. Not better.
When someone had the idea of using transistors to build "NOT gates" and subsquentially realized that "NOT gates" could be used to build all other gates and with enough gates you could make a simple calculator, he wasn't figuring out something new that came to his head from the ether.
He used something already known (electricity) with something ALSO alreayd known (working with diferent bases).

That would make the concept of CPU nearly 2000 years old. It's exact implementation simply evolved over time. It started as an impossible machinus, evolved into something was within our grasp but not very usefull and finnaly make fancier, faster and actually usable.
It is now a building block for, you guess it, a bunch of other shit we already had ideas on building before and now have the tools and resources too.

Seriously, they don't teach Math in school because it's cool.
They teach it because it applies to EVERYTHING in life.
Even your shitty ancap phylosophi get's blown the fuck out by math.
Q.E.D.

Then why is every gun thread populated with large numbers of people who only own a pistol or shotgun and who think 100m is X-treme! range for rifles?

saving my people is my first priority

the first bit and that's a bit like saying 'where's the natsoc?'
Besides, ancap is the theory, reality (empirical) just looks like people who try to live without government.

If you completely ignore all historical details like commie niggers and governments around the world fucking with them

That's not empirical evidence of CPUs, though.
prove it

Your wikipedia post is nothing more than a trite cavil at the definition of "CPU." Restricting it to its narrower and more common-sense definition, there was still no empirical evidence before it was built. The same is true for any invention. There ipso facto can't be EMPIRICAL evidence for an invention before an example of that invention is constructed.

You do realize it was a metaphor, right?
But you're still wrong anyway, and you admitted it yourself.

compare that to what I said

Binary arithmetic started out as a theoretical mental model which found use in reality that was gradually optimized into more efficient systems of computation.
Nothing you said proved me wrong, it just pushes the date back to 2000 years ago. Arithmetical calculation is still a human technology that was created first as theory and later implemented in more and more efficient forms.
this is coming from me as someone who has taken theory of computation classes

I'm not an ancap anymore.

And before one of you retards tries to draw the parallel of "well, maybe the concept of ancap is old too and we just haven't been able to make it work like the CPU idea!"

Consider the fact that humanity went from wielding spears and worshipping fire to building a powerfull machine that can not only fit in the palm of your hand, but also calculate the mass of your fat ass mother based on the graviational force she causes on all planets of the solar system. In base 64.

Either your shitty ancap meme is THAT far off from predictions, or it simply isn't on humanities "to-do list" because getting computers that let a bunch of autists discuss a failed political abherration online was much more important.

Also, I refer you to this: .
Yes, "ancap" is old. And we can see the results first hand. No thanks, I'll stick to civilization. For the rest of you, here's a nice tune.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:D
Doesn't mean that capitalism can't be a fetish, though.

That's on par with saying "Logic sucks because people don't have to be logical!" Not surprising for someone who is empirically ignorant.

I could see in some vacuum of power situation like after a coup that leaves every side really wanting the fighting to stop. I have serious doubts it would last but it's very uncharted territory. But I don't know, maybe in that scenario 2% of the territory actually decides to stick with it, it's pretty uncharted territory

First things first, Trump has the right idea about this. Take a hatchet to everything that you can. Every agency, every regulation, every program and anything that is non-essential can go first. And right there you've drastically reduced the size of government, and cut a shit ton of expenditures. Less tax burden will help new local businesses to grow, which only increases overall financial gain by the government anyway.

It's best to be realistic, I think, and use the social structures of our time, because we're already in a war for survival. The percentage of whites worldwide has been cut in half in a few hundred years, from 25% to 13% or so. Now is not the time for high-minded idealism, now is the time to fuck the world for trying to exterminate our race.

I applaud and respect your honesty. I also respect your high morality, but like most of the human family, I don't share it.

This is really the meat of it. I argue that ancap is intrinsically easier to subvert and less stable than government; because of this, it cannot emerge from anarchy. This troublesome fact compels you to craft a scenario where ancap emerges from order. I don't see the unwashed masses embracing abstract ancap values anytime soon, if ever at all. Maybe you see something different.

Like the fact they had 1200 years before being "discovered" by europeans and their "ancap" bullshit only produced a bunch of shitty mud dwellings.

Just did. Re-read it. Or you didn't study English either?

There's one thing called theories.
These are things we can make work given enough resources.
Then there's things called "dreams", things we can't make at all, but would be nice if we could. Like "comunism" or "sucessfull sex-change".
Or "ancap civilizastion progressing past mud huts".

Theoretical models CAN be wrong. The way we saw the atom constantly changed to explain new phenomena. Phenomena we discovered based on the previous version of the atom we had. Go back some 200 years and people thought atoms were like pudding with the nucleous in the middle and a bunch of fruits inside it (the electrons).
This model adressed a lot of things, like why electrons have some innate "resistance" to going from one atom to the next one.
Then it was proven "wrong", or rather "incomplete".

Theories are not dead things that are immutable. They change overtime, they grow.
Dreams are nice precisely because they're "dead". They don't change and they don't become something we didn't think of before.
Those are "nightmares" instead.

You're pretty autistic huh? Here's a few more metaphors that may trigger you.
Nuclear bombs started out as theory, and had no known emperical evidence to support them
transistors started out as a theory and then were later turned into actual PNP and NPN junctions.
Genetic engineering started out as a theory and now we are seeing retroviral treatments beginning

I look forward to laughing at your autistic screeching on these matters.

Fiat currencies collapsing one after another.
Economic meltdown is the scenario most likely to lead to anarcho-capitalism.

It's still not hugely likely, but I don't see how that's relevant to the desirability or abstract feasibility of an AnCap society.

How?

Well, bonus points for originality. Never heard that one before. Pretty good.
I'll tell that tomorrow in the office as a joke. Pretty sure noone heard it before either.

But you didn't adress anything I posted, and since neither you, nor your two ancap buddies want to adress how Africa was ancap for over a thousand years and didn't progress beyond "bananas fall from trees, me guard tree", I don't think I'll continue the discussion much further.

checked

Honestly I get were you're coming from, but how can you deny the governance and economics are not technologies?

If human beings are all cut-throat animals then profit incentives should be the decider in issues of force. The problem is that, and I must emphasize this, VIOLENCE IS NOT PROFITABLE. One may excuse it as a means to acquire greater wealth but the act in itself is extremely costly and rises exponentially as the battle grows. And of course, there's the counterpoint that the state could do the very same at any moment, but I'll get to that later.

We'll take the issue of defense contractors. One decides to go rogue and start imposing a junta upon the free citizens of Ancapistan. To do so, each employee has to be properly incentivized. Some will find it morally abhorrent and attempt to stop them, no matter what the reward for obedience.

Once you're down to a group of psychopaths and brigands, you must engage in warfare against well-armed, freedom-loving individuals and their private defense companies. Unless you have some decisive advantage like size or superior weaponry, this is a very bad decision. Due to situations like this, most people living under your protection-cum-exploitation would be very unlikely to fund one company to the point where they had either superior numbers or weapons. But things like tanks or cruise missiles are very expensive to own and maintain. Since you were a defense company, you only have defensive tools. This would be much like a police arsenal: Small arms, riot gear/tools, a fleet of automobiles, and maybe some APCs. Your customers would be very suspicious if you started buying tools of warfare and nobody would sell you them if they know your intentions. Sort of a catch 22.

But let's say you do have more people and managed to sneak in some serious firepower before announcing hostilities. Your company was staffed by nothing but thieves with an arsenal on par with the US military. Now you have to subjugate the people. There is no state to force them to disarm so naturally you'll be up against great opposition. Militias form to overthrow you. Insurgencies do pretty well against offensively-minded military occupations. Other communities are more than happy to help you out with a black market at the very least. The same tools that dismantled the state in the first place are now again working against you.

But let's say the people are underfoot regardless of the odds stacked against you. You've taken over this community, now time to reap the spoils of war. Oh wait, all the businesses left! They took what they could and fled. Okay, so you steal from the homes of the people you've killed and those that are still alive have to pay tribute taxes. But how will they earn money? Nobody wants to do business with you, lest they feed the beast. The only thing they will give you is lead at very high speeds. So now at best you're sitting on a pile of resources and can't do anything with them. The best you can do is start civilization from scratch. Enjoy your fiefdom.

—

Now to my counter point. Why don't warlords take over everything in our current world? One sub-division of the military could attempt a coup and take over the entire country anywhere on earth, and this does happen in some nations, typically poor nations with large natural resources ruled by selfish authoritarians. If the leader doesn't manage his underling's loyalties well, they may cast envious eyes on the nation's resources and depose him so they can take them for themselves.

Does that mean all nations are inherently unstable and statism is forever blown the fuck out? No. There are optimal conditions for this. Circumstances are everything. Would they have done the same if the state was more like Singapore or Hong Kong (i.e. wealthy from being a diverse trade hub)? No. Violence would scare away investment and transactions. People would do business somewhere safer. The coup risks everything and gains almost nothing.

The world is not some giant dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest meat grinder. We have over 200 sovereign nations, most of which live in peace with each other. People like stability and being left alone. They loathe instability and violence and they tolerate them only when necessary.

Are you claiming stone-age niggers were ancaps?

So you also don't know what the word "prove" means.

So besides not knowing what ancap is or the definition of empirical, you sound like a snarky Holla Forums kiddo. This is not a discussion.

This guy is retarded, he thinks hating women is part of national socialism.

He thinks that being anti-feminist, calling women out on their slutty behavior, and promoting traditional family values is "hating" them.

Lol no

When the first one was launched, nearly 12 diferent predictions already existed. The greatest fear physicists had at the time was "we can't garantee which one will happen, and some of those 12 end up with our planet being unlivable".

Pressure valves son. Their "theory" goes back to early 1300.

The core idea behind it goes back to medieval doctors. I'm talking 900 AC.
Their ideas were fundamently "wrong" but had the genesis of modern genetic engineering.

You're pretty bad at this mate.

I don't. I'm not even nationalist myself. I'm a technocrat. I don't think robots will replace humans for instance. Robots are inefficient unlike what everyone says. And so are humans. The tried, tested and predicted way to do things is human+robot. This pair accomplishes more than two humans or two robots. Unless it's two humans working with two robots.

Government and economics are tech, indeed.
But there's tech that has an impact, and thech that's fundamentaly useless. It's an experiment by some creative guy, doesn't work and disappears.

I work in a factory and handle some tasks about the robots and misc. automation there.
Mainly, that means I work with PLC's.
Someone had this idea once to make PLC's that can comunicate via twitter. Sound nice on paper, right? PLC does a task (build a part, assemble a product) and it tweets about it.
It's kinda impressive from the networking-tech viewpoint.

But on the practical and pragmatic part of it, what's the use? Who's gonna see that message on twitter? And what's he gonna do with it?
Are you going to see it and decide "well, time to call the costumer and tell him it's ready"?
Then why not hook the PLC with the MRS and ERP to tell the home company the entire damn thing is built and have it automatically send and email, print out a receipt for someone to sign later and have the logs be stored by a simple python script?

See where I'm going with this?
It's tech, and it's neat. Doesn't mean it's actually usefull. There's a billion diferent ways to screw a lightbulb without breaking it, but we only ever do one or two because there's no reason to do the others.

Let me guess, they attempted Comunism and that's why it failed, because they couldn't cave-paint "real comunism"?
They were ancaps.
When they evolved, they were ancaps.
When warlords in Africa raided each other, they were ancaps.
And when we found them and offered shinny things for their sons, they accepted because, you guessed it, they were ancaps.

Some people deserve to be aggressed against. To impose and protect positive values, negative rights must be infringed.

I'm gonna read the rest of your post after posting this, but you already start with the wrong promise.

Maybe I don't want to be violent. Maybe it's not profitable to me. But damn, I'd really like that guy competing with me to be gone.
Oh wait, someone is offering to be violent for me.
Guess what: it's profitable for him.

Violence is profitable when all you do is violence.
It's called the "Military–industrial_complex".
One of the burger presidents even warned them all about it.

Ah crap, I forgot something:
And then it stops growing when one side dies.
That's the main thing that stops "ancap" from being a thing.
People die when they're killed user.
And that means you don't need to wage an eternal war against someone where you expend more and more resources while he does the same.
You only need to have more resources.
Heck, you don't even need to fight. Simply have more shit than the other guy does. You already won.

Ancaps are absolutely fucking retarded. This isn't cuckchan

False.

Except that there is no way of ensuring that they will (and attempts to do so would be in violation of their property rights). Bourgeois are typically the biggest traitors in existence. Making them your ruling class is retarded and is the exact the reason that the usa is currently a shit hole.

It's been fun, but I'm out.

I can't take any more diabolus ex machina "refutations" of ancap-ism for right now.

This discussion reminds me of trying to convince people that it sucks to get old and therefore medicines against aging ought to be a priority. The suggestion profoundly dislocates the world-view of the person exposed to it, and he will come up with the most outrageous and unlikely "downsides" without considering the problem we have today, whether it be aging or the government.

You could also mention that the moment a pack of niggers show up with a bag of shinny shit, they airport owner will let them in in exchange for it, even if noone else wants them around.
He has a fucking airport. Aka: if everytime a niggers gets in, he gets a bag of gold (mined by little nigglets) he has every interest in keeping the nigs alive. Heck, he might even buy a private army to guard the nigs from the rest of the people.

Wait, that's oddly similar to what happens nowadays.
Shit are we in "ancap" land already?
That explains why everything is so shitty.

kill yourself, nigger

90iq teenagers don't belong here

So, something that will never actually happen. And these cannot carry on in perpetuity because there is no way of establishing that contractually in a way that does not violate certain rights of the inheritors or whomever takes afterward. At that point you might as well just have a state.

It was fun for me too user.
It's always a pleasure to discuss things like this with other people, even if we disagree.

Just don't do like Holla Forums and give up. Those guys around kept the wit of Holla Forumsacks sharp with the constant arguing. Founding their own board dulled Holla Forums a little and when they left, this place kinda lost it's edge even more.

Maybe one day "ancaps" will prove me wrong.
Maybe someday, I'll prove you wrong.
Until then, keep up the critical spirit.

He knows when to stop and go do something else other than shitposting. Do you?

sorry I don't poop in a sock user

In some devilish way, absolutely. We're being ruled by the tribe of warlords that outcompeted the others.

All your arguments against the my technology metaphors follow the same pattern. You reduce a specific technology to its more general concept and then use ideas which kind of related to that general concept as psuedo-strawman. But all it really does is just push back the dates to pre-20th century, but doesn't disprove the metaphor. Unless you are saying that we have already come up with ever potential idea already which would be a pretty dumb argument since that's an unknowable fact (black swan).

Anyway can reduce specific technology to a general idea too. anarcho-captialism could be thought of as a specific refinement on the technology of capitalism which dates back as long as people have traded goods and services.

Sure, but the original comment I was responding to was about empirical evidence. The point I was making is that many human inventions do not have a spontaneous naturalistic equivalent which can be looked towards for empirical proof, and therefore we must resort to theoretical models instead.

As someone who works in AI, you're right for the present, but severely mistaken if you think it will always be that way. New re-enforcement learning algorithms are being perfected which will allow for general competence in arbitrary fields by machine intelligence. The only thing holding us back is computing power. However genetic computing is making a resurgence since it can compute NP in P time since it uses different physics from traditional electronics. Protein folding is NP when simulated, but happens in polynomial time in the real world. There are several neural and baeysian algorithms which can take advantage of this and use NP computation to approach human intelligence within several decades.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned that the bourgeois tend to be traitors.

Ancap is a childish ideology like communism, both of which rely upon the assumption that everyone will behave in some certain way. For ancaps who claim nationalism could work with it, they have to assume that everyone will agree with the goal of nationalism, which is a huge assumption that does not fit with any empirical evidence (given the tendency of business owners to be traitors). Communists make similar assumptions that all people will behave in some certain way.

That is a really funny meme that ancaps like to parrot. They ignore all the thousands of years that refute it (violence can be extremely profitable) and use some spurious evidence of how modern businesses don't go to war with each other (forgetting that this is within the context of a state).

Was that a compliment?

Me again. One more point before I go grocery shopping:
It is no accident that you came to the conclusion that subversion was necessary to reach the ancap goal. It's a Jewish ideology, and it was designed to subvert the American Right, in particular, banking regulations. L8r

>They were ancaps wildlife.
why are you even here?

commie detected

why am I not surprised?

I'm not sure why every argument against ancap starts with assuming we're going to have guys with swords hitting each other and massive armies employed in pitched battle. No country is going to make dosh off a nuclear exchange. Its not ignoring history, its you ignoring the present.

The right has been opposed to the bourgeoisie and plutocracy since before communism existed, lad.

That was one of my initial concerns when I started understanding the JQ when I was an ancap. My conclusion was that ancapism as an independent theory is fine, but since in practice it would not likely be implemented in a homogeneous white society and therefore its dominant culture would be jewish. And since the intitial dominant culture in ancapism has the most impact on the subsequent society anarcho-capitalism without a preceding white-nationalist society is essentially another form of jewish control.

Its a philosophy which essentially catapults whichever group has the initial capital into the position of defining the minutia of societal values.
I would be ok with it if it could be guaranteed as an all white nation beforehand, but in today's society its just not currently possible.

Don't even try this shit.

Literal commie tier utopianism

Yes, they definitely could. Simply removing a competitor would be very profitable.

What would you have me do instead?
Decorate the concept like a fucking christmas tree and argue about the diferences in ornaments?
Mate, technology has 3 building blocks:
Anytime one of these is "no" then it's not tech people use.
If it's not buildable (or unprofitable to build) noone will have acess to it, no matter how great the benefits are.
If it's not sustainable, there's no reason to keep it around, so no reason to build it.
If it's not efficient, it will not be sustainable against competitors and thus not be built at all.

You wanna argue metaphors, argue with these 3 blocks since governments and technologies are techs too.
Is your government buildable? (do you have the resources to do it?)
Is your government sustainable? (can it keep it's integrity and power structure?)
Is your government efficient? (is it good at doing what it's suposed to do?

Ancap is a "yes, yes, no" situation.
You can build it, since the requisites are zero. You can sustain it, since everyone sustains himself (or dies). But it's not efficient, since it doesn't do what it's meant to do.
Ancaps main goal is ensure your private property and your private rights.
Simply abolishing the state, police and laws is the least efficient way to do so.
Having an NAP is not efficient way to do it.

At the end of the day, someone will fail. He's unfit, or he's lazy, or just bad luck. When he fails to survive on his own, he'll get hungry.
And I dunno how popular this saying is in your country, but in mine everyone knows it: "Hungry people have no laws."

Sure, some criminals do it for the heck of it, some do it because they want more luxury or for greed. But there's a bunch of people that do it because they need to. It's survival at it's fittest.

Socialism decided that you should help these people back up on their feet with the help of everyone.
Capitalism decided that person can always get back on her feet by making a profit of anything.
Fascism decided that person will get back up on it's feet wether it wants to or not.

Ancap decide that person either dies of starvation or from getting shot in the head.
OR, if he has the foresight to notice he's going to starve and hire additional arms, he's going to make sure YOU either die from starvation or getting shot.

Yeah, my bad. I was wrong here. Many inventions had their basis on something we observed in nature (like the whole field of ergonomics). But a few of them DO in fact have an origin on someone truly discovering something new one day. Pretty much stumbling on something noone ever thought of before.
You're right here.

You're talking about that "Singularity Event" thing right?
I only work with hardware. Software is out of my scope, all the knowledge I have about it is from hobbism and curiosity. I know about the "NP and P problems" theory for instance and some it's implcations but I rarely manage to remember the specifics of it.
I guess when that point happens, all bets are off. Current technological trends tell us "no system may produce another system with a higher complexity order".
Genetic algorithms eschew the "making a complex system" to "make a simple system that produces complex systems".
From what I know about hardware, the problem always comes back to parmethers. A system is never as complex as the one who built it because it is unable to adquire new parameters or respond to new things.
Genetic algorythms might change that, or they might make machines simply learn up to our level. I really don't know here user.
It's fascinating stuff, but I'll take your word for it since we're already going off from my expertise.

The point of life from an absolute viewpoint is for life to replicate and continue living. Because of this life is always fighting. Always fighting itself or fighting the very nature of realitys own law of entropy. Aggression is an inevitability to life and the struggles that life brings. You can posture your morality all you want, but it will never change the reality of life. You're still a cocksucking fag though

Fucking hell I really do need more than 5h of sleep per night.

Maybe the point in his life was to replicate and continue sucking cocks?

what part of exchange don't you understand? If nuclear exchange was profitable why has nobody done it?

British regime, mate, they belong to the anti-white British regime, that have already genocided the Cockney's, and where they put bongs in prison if they protest their own genocide.

Yes, I will lament it. I don't agree with them on pretty much everything, but I do lament the loss of a large group of individuals that kept this board about actual discussion.
The sudden surge of ancaps arguing with nationalists and technocrats like myself are a boon on the board. They keep posters thinking, evaluating what they know, learning and understand WHY they opose something instead of following the hivemind like Holla Forums nowadays does.

If all oposition leaves, this place turns into fucking reddit: a massive circlejerk where people agree with each other, discussion falls into disuse and people don't prepare themselves anymore.

Picture a castle that is not invaded for hundreds of years. The King will decide that instead of repairing the walls, he'd rather have feasts. The soldiers sell their swords to get whores and the scouts outside give up their posts to become mere tourists innawoods.

Then one day, an army arrives at the gates. They push the main gate and it crumbles to dust. The only casualties are a brick from the wall falling on top of a soldier and when they reach the defending army they're too drunk to understand why is a sharp metal objects lodged between their ribs.
You could be their king. You'd be in your room fucking little boys as the invaders enter and caught you, quite literally, with your pants down.

Get fucked, Holla Forums is for rhetoric and arguments, not circlejerking.

Why do you presume there would be an exchange? Are all states always at parity (and at this point could you even still call it ancap)?

Ancaps are just super fucking dumb and don't understand shit about politics. You are actually worse than commies when it comes to understanding this. The mistake comes from basing the entire ideology on a moral basis, when politics (in the true sense) is inherently amoral. Very sad. Put down the Rothbard an read some right wing political theory instead.

The americans did.
As for future exchanges (or actual exchanges, since I believe you mean "mutual-exchanges") the keyword is "yet".
As in: "It's not profitable yet".
Since humanity developed atomic bombs, at any moment in history we're walking in one of two directions: either nuclear exchange is becoming MORE profitable, or it's becoming less.
If it ever crosses a threshold, it will happen.

Cold War was a point in history where Russia and America kept making more and more nukes. Everytime they built one, it became more profitable for them and less profitable for the other.
Why did they stop? Because both sides recognized that an arms-race with nuclear weapons offers diminishing returns. You spend the same ammount per warhead, yet each one tips the scales less and less. If you have 1300 nukes and your rivals has 1301, making another one would put you on par with them, but wouldn't really be worth it.

Diversity is our strength statists! Don't you know that the castle that isn't invaded is so much more decadent and evil than the one taken by the enemy army every other week?

Damn right, white people look much better when their skin is used to make rugs and tapestries.
#notallinvaders

It is yes, yes, yes. However there is the fine print that most ancaps won't admit saying that whoever has the initial power defines the final parameters of the minutia existent with any property rights system. Critical questions such as what defines property and the gray areas of individual interactions with other's property are up to whoever is the initial dominant class within society.

Capitalism works, but its value neutral, and therefore not always within the interests of white culture.

It requires competing private courts and competing paramilitary and police forces before it could ever be considered as anarcho-capitalism. So its requisites are far from zero.

The problem here lies within how the market defines property and aggression upon property.

Absolutely, most ancaps don't support doing that. If you want to be effective at debating them you should at least learn their viewpoints.

NAP already exists, its just that the current "state" defines what is aggression. Those are called laws. Ancaps want to use a decentralized market to define laws instead thereby eliminating the vulnerabilities within states which can be gamed by "nefarious" parties. However their problem appears within the initial seed companies within anarcho-capitalism which have a high barrier to entry cost, as in our current society these major industries will be jewish controlled.

In an ancap society which has white western values none of these would be an issue as people would value the welfare of others over their own monetary desires to a certain degree. In an ancap society that is jewish controlled you would be absolutely correct.

Sort of, although I doubt it will happen in the manner the technocrats believe it will.
Not precisely what I am talking about. Although they will play a role in the development of AGI. What I mean is actually encoding software on a strand of physical DNA and then analyzing the structure of the resulting protein and extracting the encoded information that has been computed. So instead of 1's and zeros, we use the 3D topology of a folded protein as a computational result and define different geometries between atomic structures as information.
This form of computation does however lend itself very well to evolutionary algorithms, and I think they will play a big role in it.

We all make typos. Don't beat yourself up over it.

kek

commies got so assblasted from being btfo all
the time they ran to a containment board

wew did I fuck that up
brb gassing myself

I can build a nuke in my garage, its literally only the refinement process that's difficult and its impossible to get the raw materials without the governments permission. Its not a reasonable argument that a modern state would be incapable of building nukes. I'm assuming state sized actors because thats your argument, that these groups would get so big they could throw armies at each other.

You also clearly don't understand English. Nuclear exchange means we shoot nukes at each other and you have to be intentionally stupid to overlook that.
isn't an argument, its an admission you have absolutely no idea how it could happen but you don't want to admit you're wrong. You can't profit from being exploded off the face of the earth, I assume you come from the Trudeau school of economics.

As for the cold war, the USSR collapsed economically and the United states ended up in so much debt it threatens a global depression the likes of which has never been before, and its not an exchange

proof?

Why? Who on the right complains about bourgeois? It's a marxist bogeyman

How would you guys define Trump?

we never left
then what's your excuse
Your best argument has been niggers wuz ancaps

Yes we did user.
Monopolies are bad. Even monopolies in discourse. The principle of free speech is to ensure a lot of different things, one of which is to ensure that Dialects work.
If you constantly prevent the anti-thesis from forming, the thesis will remain constant and never change. Stagnation is a comfortable, but slow death of civilization and evolution.

Is that relevant at all? How it happens, when it happens or how it can happen matters jackshit. The end result is large area turned to glass and unlivable for centuries.

I'm assuming we're talking from a point of "how can we prevent it from happening at all" in which case it's not important to look at how it might happen, but instead to look at WHY it hasn't happened yet, and how we can keep it going that way.

Well, I didn't say they stopped when they should. Stubbornness is a human trait after all.

Why should I pick another argument when you haven't disproven that one yet? Occam's Razor, I don't need 7 diferent reasons to tell you ancap is a bad idea unless I'm making a content agreggator to post shit on facebook.

One reason is as good as a thousand so long as it's right.

I don't need to disprove nonsense, you have to prove it first. If you want to prove 70iq pre-contact niggers wuz ancaps, then make an argument.

You act like Holla Forumsacks don't regularly argue and shitpost in Holla Forums when that's probably where they get half their traffic. But honestly most of the arguments that they use are practically verbatim what can be found in the books from their stickied reading list.

why would you assume this? Its clearly not the point in contention. The point is that large armies are rendered obsolete by nuclear weapons, so if both sides have nukes they will not invade each other because nukes have rendered the situation non profitable. His argument is that if the use of force is profitable it will happen. I state that prevention is innate to the characteristic of nuclear weapons due to the elimination of profit.

...

Come on now.
Everybody knows they get triggered as fuck by simple shit. Or ban/filter you. They even wordfiltered a get.
That board's existence marked the end of actual discussion between two groups of people opposing views of the world.
It's memes and shitposting now. It's good fun, I'll give ya that, but I do miss arguing.

The argument proves itself.
Africa was, for a long ass time, ancap.
I'm going to assume that the reason my argument doesn't seem valid to you is because we have different definitions for what "ancap" is. Give me your definition then, but honestly user, when the definition of something changes every time I argue with someone about it, it reminds me of "feminism" and "communism" were the usual counter-argument is always "You're arguing against the old definition, not the new-and-improved formula!"
I will however listen to yours with no malicious intent.

Large armies are rendered obsolete by crushing the economy that sustains it. "Armies march on their stomachs" is an old saying. Sure, nukes accomplish this quite well. But so do a lot of other methods. As long as those are more profitable than nuclear exchange, we're safe.
If for instance, countries isolated themselves and became self-sufficient. No harm there, right?
Then a new patch of land is discovered. A new planet for instance. Naturally, you send your army there. So does your "opponent". What do you then? You can't sabotage his economy from the outside. They're isolated and self-sufficient. They don't rely on your economy.
What you do is nuke'em. Not to kill them, but to make sure their army will starve/run out of bullets/lose reinforcements.

Oh, and before ">no argument" for the "so do a lot of other methods":
If you don't nuke and simply out-jew their economy, your opponent turns into a client and his people turn into a market you can exploit.
That's profitable. Turning them into glass isn't very profitable (unless you happen to have a lack of glassware).
Isolated economies? Well, you're not gaining a profit either way, removing competition just lets you expand later, so you make a profit in the long term. Nuke'em.

If you want I can list some other scenarios and hypothesis for us to debate. I think this one is enough for now, though.

And they nuke you back, this is basic MAD theory.

Anarcho cuckitalism is just as if not more Jewish than Marxism. Fascism is an ideology founded by a working class man and a soldier. An-cucks/lolbergs, anarcho-goodgoyism and Marxism are all different flavours of judaism

That board's existence is proof that leftists don't argue in the first place they scream, whine, and ban. Like I said, you're better off reading from their list of books than discussing anything with them, if you want broaden your understanding. And there are other leftist site you could go looking for discussions with, you don't have to stick to imageboards just to debate.

Not many people who are alive but uncle Adolf did. Fuck, I remember Spengler saying the nazis were too bourgeois. The idea of Right wing -> Free markets and small government is a recent development. My favorite takedown on this is from Evola.

This should be firmly upheld by those who today are taking a stand against the forces of the Left. Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the center of which is constituted of technology, science, production, ”productivity,” and ”consumption.” And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence—then we are not even close to what is essential, even though new theories, beyond Marxism and capitalism, might be formulated.

The starting point should be, instead, a firm rejection of the principle formulated by Marxism, which summarizes the entire subversion at work today: The economy is our destiny. We must declare in an uncompromising way that in a normal civilization the economy and economic interests—understood as the satisfaction of material needs and their more or less artificial appendices—have always played, and always will play, a subordinated function. We must also uphold that beyond the economic sphere an order of higher political, spiritual, and heroic values has to emerge, an order that neither knows nor tolerates merely economic classes and does not know the division between ”capitalists” and ”proletarians”; an order solely in terms of which are to be defined the things worth living and dying for. We must also uphold the need for a true hierarchy and for different dignities, with a higher function of power installed at the top, namely the imperium.

[…]In reality, true values bear no necessary relation to better or worse socioeconomic conditions; only when these values are put at the forefront is it possible to approximate an order of effective justice, even on the material plane. Among these values are: being oneself; the style of an active impersonality; love of discipline; and a generally heroic attitude toward life. Against all forms of resentment and social competition, every person should acknowledge and love his station in life, which best corresponds to his own nature, thus acknowledging the limits within which he can develop his potential; and should give an organic sense to his life and achieve its perfection, since an artisan who perfectly fulfills his function is certainly superior to a king who does not live up to his dignity

Trump is a step in the right direction but it can't be overstated that we were being ruled by the scum of the Earth. There are things I absolutely admire about him, like his bravery, he has pretty big balls but Trump the meme is 500 times more attractive to me than Trump the actual guy.

Ah, but MAD is a different point.
MAD (if we're talking total or near 100% destruction) is never profitable to the the parties doing the exchange. It is profitable however to a third party. That third party would very much like to ensure that an MAD scenario happens.
It does get more complicated if we don't go to a complete, 100% MAD scenario though. If you have a way to guarantee that some part of your country survives. Now imagine your oponent does too. With current anti-ballistic tech we can already *sorta* do this.
This would be very, very diferent from MAD since it's profitable once you can destroy more of him than he can of you. All you gotta ensure is that you can survive with enough infrastructure to supply your army while ensuring he doesn't. Alternatively, you don't need to supply your entire army. only enough to make it more efficient than your enemy's surviving army that he can supply. In a scenario like this, not only is your infracture a factor, but also how reliable is your military structure and capabilities when using limited supplies.
So yeah, MAD? Never profitable for the one's directly involved, profitable for everyone else.
Not total MAD? A lot more factors to consider.

Jesus christ user, they might be idiots but they can still talk and discuss with you.

Hey, I didn't say they were good at discussion.
Just that one the rare occasions they don't scream whine and ban, they have great arguments with shitty premises.
And yes, I could go to other sites, but those nearly always have the "name and identity" thing attached to your post. I've had someone respond to me with "great, here comes the fascist" purely because I agreed with someone posting something about Trump two days before that for instance.
On places like that, discussion turns into a diferent sort, since your ideas, while still having some value, carry less than the image other people have of you. Like I said earlier, I'm more of a technocrat, yet when someone brands you a gnatzee, it's kind of a wasted effort to keep talking to them.

Just become a cyber-nazi at this point tbh

Someone has to design the firmware for the Mecha Hitler user.

Apparently, since your definitions is niggers in the wild. So my definition of 'technocracy' is faggots who can't into definitions or arguments. Ha. My argument proves itself.

See what I mean? No one else was talking about non-aggression pacts, and you're new if you think niggers had any such thing.

Fair enough. But I don't know why there is any need to use an antiquated word thoroughly co-opted by marxists. As for the quote, there is no reason that a free market has anything to do with the way the sense "The economy is our destiny"

Excluding your's and mine, that's 49 diferent instances of someone talking about nap's.

So I'll extend the definition of "ancap" with "can't ctr+f a thread". Which niggers can't do, so my argument still proves itself. Ha.

I get what you mean, I have mixed feelings on that. Once you abandon words because marxists have coopted them they'll just move on to the next one. It's why I hate that people are doing the "antifa are the real fascists" shit. At the same time neoreactionaries had the problem that normies had no idea who the reactionaries were so they assumed the modern meaning.

If there was a technocracy you would get sent back to live in mudhuts or chipped for mulch

My point was the 'bourgeois' has already had multiple meanings over the years, some of which I think few of us would have a problem with, but in general is just used to mean ''rich people I don't like." It was that use that I called someone a commie for. I will fight marxists redefining words, but not for something that was already subverted 150+ years ago.

is that still a thing? i assumed they wouldn't care what normies thought they meant

Bravo Holla Forums you need to smash the ancap filth every time it shows its filthy head.

People explain to ancaps why their are wrong and its as simple as pointing out like
And ancaps all do is say

Also mr. ancap we are talking about governments not TEH STATE whatever the living fuck that is. So you support a completely brutal and insane government as long as you ancap propaganda center tells you its not TEH STATE.

There are only 3 possibilities for ancaps:
1) Actually retarded and/or physically and/or chemically brain damaged, so they can not understand the problems in their ideology.
2) 101% blinded by their ideology and will fanboy for them to the max, so they can not understand the problems in their ideology.
3) Actual shills who know its stupid however they are payed by mises.org or some shit and shill for this crap.

===

Someone once did say that anarcho capitalism is actually warlord-ism where they simply say that the government is not a government and not TEH STATE.

Its really this level of simple to realize unless if you are a child of neocons who suckbig business cock every day.

Ancaps all need to be exterminated in real death camps.

>TEH STATE
sounds like more Holla Forums

payed by mises.org
this has some validity, it's cato and LP, not mises, getting the kochbux to spread leftism and pro-big business policies

come at me bro

You are beyond retarded.
Let me put you a puppet show, like for a retarded child:

southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad

cartooncrazy.me/watch/south-park-season-15-episode-1-humancentipad/

Lets say you have your 500 page contract for your phone, you don't reed it and like a idiot you sign it and inside these 500 pages there is one little phrase:

Now you voluntary decided to be a slave. Something that is A OK and advocated by ancap stars.
Yet our oppressive governments make these types of trojan contracts illegal.

And tell me do you even brows before clicking "I AGREE" on things you install?
I do and practically reed every peace of legal document I sign.

And before you go with your childish insults
The point still stands! Things like voluntary going into slavery are advocated hard by your ancap professors what is to prevent from people writing it into long contracts?
So on every level you are wrong you can even on a whim decide to become a slave.
Something you can not get out of even if you change your mind.

Actually they are not.
With the exception of the Half-Life 2 one if you want to be pedantic.

Yes ancaps are this level of comical in real life.

I can find you ancaps in debates where they flip from

Like no joke ancaps/liberterians/neocons will actually flip flop like this.
At this moment you need to conclude there is something seriously wrong with them.

These are real quote from real life people who invested shit tons of time in their ancap careers who say things like this.

3 is literally what monarchy was except they never told anyone they had a choice in the matter, it has nothing to do with ancap except it involves their ownership rather than democratic fiction of 'the people' owning the country.

The leftwing of ancaps is a cancer, either culturally marxist from the influx of left-libertarians within the decade, or bought and paid for fags like jeffrey tucker. Paid for by cato, like I said. Think of them as our natbols or strasserites, plus being pro-jew. They will be purged. I guarantee you no 'ancaps' (they usually call themselves other names) of that sort would last a day on Holla Forums.

You're barking up the wrong tree, bub. Go argue against that shit on reddit where there are still people who still read c4ss commies.

wut

Yet these people exist.
You acknowledged this!
Do you have a special name to differentiate yourself from the infiltrators?

See 3 is the best one, a little flair at the end however it demonstrates how ancap will literally be impossible to distinguished from feudalism after it degenerates.

Its a incredible argument, I remember writing long posts explaining this scenario to a ancaps way back however once I saw this image I was impressed:

Fuck I defend this image to the end simply because it literally has no flaws and represent the problem.
Your land owner will dictate the laws on his property and can tax you (see rent payement) to the extreme. And there is nothing you can do about it(so stop bitching about the USA tax rates since in ancapism you get 100% taxation).
Also in this thread you have ancaps shilling for feudalism

Ding ding ding shills for dictatorship confirmed.
Ancapism will end in complete slavery for you all.

Take the south park episode in ancapistan show how this will not happen.

Do I need to quote your ancap super stars/philosophers who want to have the FREEDOM to sell themselves into slavery? Or do you also admit that these people exist? And drop the point?

yeah, none that would probably mean anything to you to be fair. Look to see if they support degeneracy and you'll know what side they're on. Some, like walter block are right wing but like to argue voluntary slavery type shit, but he's a kike. I will look into it more, if a person is there by choice, is it slavery? If people aren't smart enough or don't care to leave it, why should we care?

I don't know how you see the future, but I'm willing to take that chance.

There is no problem if they choose to and they have the option to leave, depending on your definition of laws. Hell, it's not as strict as marriage before feminism.

If he can't sell it, he doesn't own it. Doesn't matter, what kind of fool stays? This is "what about the roads!" levels of beginners questions about ancaps or libertarians.

YES, and you might want to look up the definition of that word

do you not know what a strawman is?

This guy was wrong, he compares other historical systems favorably compared to democracy, not that he is advocating them. It's a good book.

I don't shill for feudalism, but I don't know why everyone spergs out over it. As I said before, do you really think every nigger or retard is your equal?

I don't watch southpark. Make your point. If you are talking about apple slipping shit into a contract, it's nonsensical. Corporations aren't people. Intellectual property doesn't exist, so Apple would almost certainly not exist. I doubt many ancaps would defend trojan contracts either. Not sure why there would be 500 page contracts at all without IP. One person might be punished or fined for breaking it,but no one it spread to afterwards would be affected.

name them so I have some idea what you are talking about

Before I start I like you to answer what your position is on stopping abuses like trojan contracts?
See the example in:
southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad
(same episode 2 different sources)
cartooncrazy.me/watch/south-park-season-15-episode-1-humancentipad/

All you have given are smoke screens.
These are real concerns, I also like to know if you even reed the EULA you sign, or how about bank contracts, rental contracts? Job contracts? Any contracts?
Or do you go around blindly writing your name on peaces of paper people give you?

I read practically all and I will never surrender the protection I get from having a government who will simply say
And on a side note how can you even function on the internet?

I'm extremely sharp and I can practically spot these fake download buttons (who don't download) however there were some times when even I was tricked(south park did have a episode touching on this go figure).
Now instead of getting crap imagine you getting into practically slavery do to this inside of a contract.
Also there are other tricks(that I never fall for) like SMS who say to send a SMS to XXXXX number because someone leaked your photos online to stop it and people get tricked and lose money (the number charges money its a scam). Now imagine the same scam only your employer makes a claws to pay you in company script or to not pay at all and you need to work for him for 10 years.
This is extremely dangerous, and what is your problem with the current order?
You paying $3 for a McDonalds poison instead of $1?
I don't think people will start revolutions over this crap.

============================

Give me a name(I bet you don't even have one). Or I simply caught you where you have nothing, I bet you are a shill who tries to hide his ass; did not even invent a name for their ancap splinter organization.

1) All of the ancap bitching about government is null and void at this point, you can go away from the USA or wherever and live somewhere else(don't like it leave it is the same policy you advocate). There are ancap regions mises.org loved to write how Somalia is a ancap paradise on earth(I can link if they did not purge the articles).

2) Your bitching about
It's pointless rhetoric (see HL2 image told you I can defend all images, they are the facts of your ancap existence), you are not interested in freedom in itself only that it has the meaningless golden sticker of "ancap approved" or "free market".

3) You are shilling for feudalism at this point.

4) Who says you can leave? If the contract you agreed to has a clause saying
You literally can not do it do to the contract.
And all your ancap professors agree its the only FREEDOOM!
If you violate the contract you violated the NAP!

Now, now ancap child it seams that you are getting agitated are you?
I reformulate the question I write a contract where the subject agrees to give over any property that he ever gets and he voluntary signs it.

Now stop with your childish behavior and answer the question how is this not a 100% correct and legal contract under ancap law?
Its a contract and I can quote your ancap professors saying how this is 100% OK.

===============
Watch the episode I linked to it.
It shows a extremely compelling case of contracts and how you can create trojan contracts.
At this point you are utterly refusing to even see the episode where it demonstrates incredibly accurate how contracts can be abused.
I will not waste my time with someone who will ignore multi page essays demonstrating his flaws if I have a short 20 minutes film showing practically the same thing.

I think you are a shill who realized I'm not your typical LOL-MEME poster and I can back up every single word I wrote. And non of it is exaggeration.

=====================

[I lick my lips in perverted excitement] Bueno.

praxeology.net/libertariannation/a/f22l1.html
Robert Nozick here is one.
bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/can-you-sell-your-future-self-into-slavery/
ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Philmore-1982.scan_.pdf

Oh you thought I can not back myself up did you ancap?
WRONG!
Want more?
Google:

===========================
What is your ancap obsession with corporations(the left has the same obsession)?
its like you think they are some magical aliens and not only a smoke screen for the actual humans who do the actual harmful decision?

They are nothing, the real culprits are real flesh and blood humans who control the businesses.
Robber barons don't need a corporation to do bad things, history proves it.

Your incoherent babbling about IP and contracts is stupid at best.
First of you don't need IP to have contracts.
Ever did have a bank account?
Or a job?
You remember the peace of paper you wrote your signature on?
Its named a contract.
And you can have contracts between humans.
So instead of having a contract with McDonalds the corporation you sign a contract with Rockefeller the human and nothing changes.

===========================

Oh want me to explain this to you?
Here I go!
My control is the most important thing to me.
I will never surrender it and I will never bow down to some overlord.
I rather die fighting then live in subjugation.
Feudalism is a dictatorship where I have nothing, no control no power and I'm subjected to my dictators will.
I will never surrender my control and be some pawn in a dictators hand. Say what you want about the modern republics at least they give me some control some influence and its better then nothing.
Its all about power and I want it all.

This is non negotiable for me, this is part of my ideology.
I don't get my ideology from the NAP or other silliness and unlike the marxist I know there are multiple ways someone can get power over me.
The ones who stand with me and are my comrades are addressed to be my equals, I guide them and I offer the same thing power, control.
Unlike the anarchists I don't extend this to everyone and you need to deserve to be my comrade!
Apprentices are not my equals for example, however they might rise to the status of my comrade if they prove themselves.
The other filth the neutrals, the enemies is to be stomped out.
I have the back of my comrades and they have my, if you can entrust your life to someone and know they will be there for you, you know they are your comrades.
This is the truth of this world and what everyone wants.

I will not be the plaything of some dictator I rather die standing in battle then bow to a dictator regardless if he is named:
King
The peoples humble coordinator Stalin
McDonalds Land owner with 7/7 free-market/ancap approved stars

I'm not watching your goddamn kike tv show, It's not something I care about because I don't rent, don't have expensive subscriptions, don't do business with people I can't talk to, etc. But if I wanted to know, I would probably read stephan kinsella's arguments about it because he goes over legalistic bullshit like that.

no, I already said there is no IP so I don't consider them valid.

yes

Is that really the kind of shit you lose sleep over?

kek
Fraud is another form of theft.

non-whites and the r-selected slowly destroying a future for my people is a start.

After that, everything you bring up has been brought up to ancaps for ages like love it or leave it, are arguments I never did or would make, or is nonsensical like I'm a shill because I didn't give enough names for rightwing ancaps

For fucks sake, for someone who worries about contracts you don't seem to understand how they work.

===
=left-libertarian jew,=
not an ancap, basically the opposite of rothbard (except the jew thing)
>bleedingheart libertarians
marxists
never heard of him, talking about nozick

that's exactly why, so people have to be responsible for their own actions, not a fictional entity

What kind of job requires a contract? All mine have been handshake agreements.

Did you die fighting bush or obama? IRS? Feds?

I don't care if you aren't an ancap, it's just ridiculous you are fighting about something you don't have the first clue about. Did you just read the SJW rationalwiki article or some shit?

This is EXACTLY what you are.

...

too complicated, too wordy, try something more like

...

...

Bravo ancap you demonstrated your maturity.
I think this speaks for itself:
Translates to

At this point you are metaphorically putting fingers in your ears and singing
Or more correctly seeing material that disproves your idiotic ideology.

I think this is the final straw for ancaps and everyone can have a good laugh at how idiotic you are.
Is there anything else that you can do outside of pointing and ridiculing ancaps for this?
Outside of sending them to extermination camps to be exterminated?

================
The literal fuck?
I know this is a NEET WEEB shitposting sight however the fuck? Did you even work legally once in your life?
Every job requires you to sign a contract, if you want to work for a Bank, McDonalds, UPS whatever all require you to give your signature on a contract. Unless you worked illegally for them.

I have given you 2 links one is to the legal source of the episode another is to a pirated copy. If you don't want to give money to SP pirate it.

You don't even know what a EULA is do you? End User License Agreement its not only for software.

Also bonus retard points for

translates to:

And I did say scams child! Not Fraud SCAM!
You have no legal capability whatsoever, you would be laugh out of court.
Hypothesis 1) You are a dumb child who gets confused with words and mixes them up.
Hypothesis 2) You are someone who is trying to deceive others by changing words and hoping no one notices

Also there are things like using obscure legal language that you mr ancap don't get and before a judge the opposition will simply tell you
Its not fraud if you are to dumb to understand obscure legal language.

Missing the point this level of hard.

You are debating yourself.
VS you saying

People of Holla Forums point and laugh at ancaps.

No you don't.
For ancaps its 100% ok if its a private ownership of land and the private owner decides whites who cross his land must be exterminated and there is a clause in the contract they sight before entering his property
You are completely happy and will defend this under ancap law.

I'm not interested if the tyranny is private or government or alien or what ever, you on the other hand will defend it if it has the aproval of your ancap propaganda ministry.

This is the point summed up in this HL2 image, a little exaggerated yet its still valid.
Demonstrate how creating a private owned land that would be exactly like the world in HL2 violates ancap law?
You need some contracts yet with the right formulation of contracts everything in a nightmarish dictatorship is 100% legal and kosher for ancaps and they will defend it to their death.
No child you will defend them to the death if your ancap propagandists will tell you they are private and therefore kosher.
The same literal thing only under private management is 100% ancap approved for me it makes no difference ancaps are obsessed with it.
And I told you:

The HL2 image speaks volumes, this is exactly your problem.

==================
Yet its valid and you still failed to even address it.
You are basically like this
Yet you failed to even satisfy the minimum requirement of addressing the point.

???

Did 8ch.net have a error?
It duplicated my image instead of posting the one I wanted to give in addition(in
).

Also the quote
is from:

not

is english your first language?

After National Socialism purges the Earth of skraelings, mutants, and traitors, An-Cap would be a perfect way for White people to frame a spacefaring society. Impossible to have a centralized authority when you are going to have huge ships flying off to parts unknown never to return (by design). Even with Dr. Harold White's new warp drive there will be communities in far frontiers that will rarely, if ever see resources and law enforcement from the inner systems. At a point in the very near future, it would weaken the survival of the Aryan race to have it dependent on and worship a central authority to sort out its problems and would stunt our people's reach for the stars. If we are to have a future, it must be in the stars.

No.

Enough bullshit, governments never required a centralized authority to function. Or you can simply split them up into smaller governments.
WE are talking 1 government = 1 planet since you see problems with communication between star systems.

Ancaps are not selling their shit to anyone.
Now back to the problems I pointed out in

Ok, in that case I won't brutalise you. You completely miss the purpose of most of what I say, I thought it was deliberate, but I don't know. For instance, you insult me over using a different word

>You have no legal capability whatsoever, you would be laugh out of court. also funny since the name I gave earlier is a lawyer not a propagandist

and then you accuse me of being stupid or deceptive in doing so. I was being forthright, and
scam (skăm) Informal
n.
A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.
tr.v. scammed, scam·ming, scams
To defraud; swindle.

So will you agree you were wrong to insult and accuse me for that?

You don't get it: force IS authority. How do you get people to submit to you when they can just fly away forever? Or nuke you to oblivion? They would have to volunteer and you would have to make it worth their while, AKA- An-Cap.

And the ships themselves make good counter-examples where absolute authority of a captain can be argued, but we're verging into lifeboat scenarios at that point.

1) You did change the word my was scam you changed it to fraud. You can not go around it. You would be laughed out of court if you replied to a accusation of
with

2) Here is the thing

Fraud = always illegal scam!
Scams can be legal!

charitybags.org.uk/scams_cons_etc.shtml

A good example of the difference. Only children use dictionaries.
However lets say that some definitions of the word scam make it illegal and I admit this.
Simply because English is the septic tank of humanity(completely flawed and imperfect and crap) and has no standards for words.
So what? The other points still stand ancapism create dictatorship and its painfully obvious you want to play word games to not answer the massive problems with ancapism.

Also there is a common decency of not changing the words I'm using, or is even this to difficult for a Anglo?

I could tell you only cared about perception and not substance, thanks for the proof. Stay jealous that I'm the anglo masterrace and you're a brown herd animal

This is funny.

Now you played word games and I challenge you to prove that you did not switch around my words

Is the alphabet to difficult for the anglo masterrace?
Lets do it together some of these letters are not the same can you spot the difference?
SCAM
FRAUD

You know what forget it. Lets say I admit I made a mistake. Now lets go back to all the problems and nightmare dictatorships ancapism will create

I hope you realize that you humiliated yourself publicly:
I write why ancapism creates dictatorships
I show painfully how all of the pictures are practically ancap positions
I answer your points
This is incredible did you ever work or work legally?
I provide a counter point.

Literally you can not make this shit up, ancap are walking self parodies, especially that they follow the forum argument degeneration step by step.
1)Point exchange
2)Ignoring of counter points
3) Arguing over semantic word definition
4) Childish insults

I never degenerated in my rhetoric, and always stayed on the high ground with civilized discussion and answering of points. And the ancap degenerated into:

We will have family and personal starships and the nuclear genie cannot be kept out of the hands of the common man forever. In fact, after the skraelings are eliminated the only threat will be xenos so we will need and have personal nuclear weapons. How do you collect taxes and suppress dissent from a far-flung, nuclear-capable, spacefaring population? You don't. Not without their express and continued consent anyway. All governments will die on Earth and good riddance. The only workable framework for a spacefaring people is An-Cap so you might as well get used to the idea.

I don't know if this is statist making ancap parodies or actual ancaps.
Whatever its SF bullshit and wrong. Come back when you have your FTL drives then we talk.

We DO have warp drives you stupid FUCKER. Dr. Harold White invented them last year. We had several threads on it here. Where have you been? Governments do not work in space. You will never be able to have your nanny government make me pay for retarded, uninformed faggots like you anymore.

Why are you even in the electromagnetic range of this planet?
Get your FTL star ship and leave us to decay in our own filth on earth.
youtu.be/HgHBAmUBxp4?t=8m8s
Like the damned scum we are.

I suggest getting a good start from a extremely tall building, don't want to waste fuel on escaping the gravitational prison of this planet.
liveleak.com/view?i=f8d_1368180587&comments=1

Whole lot of non-arguments from statist cucks who think people living in space will still put up with their racketeering and extortion when they don't have to for some magical reason they just won't explain. (or can't explain because they are brainwashed idiots parroting empty statist propaganda) Your precious nanny governments will never ever extend beyond the surface of this one, tiny, blue marble. Your whole way of thinking is as backward and as obsolete as a monarchist. Your shitty governments were nearly the end of White people and cannot be tolerated anymore. We will bombard you endlessly from space if we have to.

The actualy problems with ancap are here:

Are you for real or only parodying?
If you ancaps can only work in space and you have your FTL go. GO to the stars! NOW!

For everyone else its silly your entire ideology rests on you needing to have FTL technology and arguing you already have it.

These problems with ancap will not magically vanish simply because you have FTL. You will eat yourselves alive. However in your FTL scenario it will be you will eat yourselves alive IN SPACE!

Big difference, NOT!

This SF BS reminds me of the venus project
So can you show them?
And they can not show these magical robots that they TOTALY have.

Everyone hates ancraps they are all shills and 3~4 super artists who live of disability checks.

Just like Holla Forums, you are incapable of humour or recognising it.

sounds like samefagging though is correct.