Anarcho-Capitalism is a Meme

Short version: Rand was a semi-illiterate cunt that tried to pose as a salonnière, but was quickly discovered to be a fraud by anyone with an IQ over 95 and an reading list of more than 50 books.

i'm just using an ancap flag until something better comes along. I wish there was a united banner for whatever the fuck neo-feudalist covenant community governance is.

I'm absolutely brilliant and you're a rando with a sub-140 IQ; nice bootlicking you got goin' for ya tho senpai!

You don’t have enough respect for yourself or other people, or know what it means to respect yourself. In music or any form of creativity. And I’m an NYU film school graduate. Sucka. And the School of Visual Art in the Academy of Art University in San Fransisco. You suck.

>film school

Attached: 1511077025830.jpg (867x795, 58K)

Who the fuck are you? You're nothing. And you will never be anything. Never. How dare you? You miserable, mediocre nothing. Shame on you.

Attached: 1409880981618.jpg (937x646, 66K)

Is there a difference between state goons and mafia?

Ya Rand discusses this. Everything you do is dodicates by your action and is not affected by someone else and the idea of "control" is simply you willing surrendering your action (which objectivism discourages).

A government is nothing more than another service individuals voluntarily consent to because the individual and the government (which is made of individuals) performs an objective trade. That trade is you pay them to field a police firefighters courts and an army all which protect the individual, this is what taxes are called. Anything outside of these services (like regualating businesses) is an overstep and individuals need not under their own volition deal with said government, said outcome is discussed in Atlas Shrugged.

>nothing more than another service
I don't know any "service" that violently compels people to pay for it, whether they want to buy or not. Oh wait. Yes I do. The mafia does something like that, except we use the word "service" ironically.

It's a utopia, just like basic socialism. The whole premise of her philosophy is
>Freedom is good
>When people are free, they often do good things
vs socialism
>Security is good
>When people have stable lives, they often do extra good things with their free time.

Both overlook vast portions of human behavior.

>"You don't respect yourself enough."
>"You're garbage. Shame on you."
>brags about being a film school graduate

You any kind of artist? Anybody know who you are? You disgrace! You are everything that's gone wrong in this world. I've trained classically, I've trained contemporaneously, and you suck.

Ya I never said you deal with a group who uses force. If force is used on you you have right to retaliate. Again Objectivism agrees with this, and you should not deal with individuals willing to use force on you because then that isnt a trade of service, thats simple exploitation.

Ancaps and objectivists agree on many terms the problem here is you like so many other idealogies have turned the government into something more than it is, a group of individuals, who you as an individual can deal with these individuals or not. But dealing with a reasonable government is in your self interest. Note: REASONABLE government.

Training doesn't mean shit. Until you've produced anything worthwhile of your own you're no better than the unwashed masses.

I walked Bob Dylan up on stage. Who the fuck are you?

>Ya I never said you deal with a group who uses force
The state is defined by force. If people could exist unmolested by a group that claims legitimacy in taking from others while simultaneously claiming it's an injustice if the same were done to them, then there'd be an absence of a state.

So your years of time and money led you to the position of walking next to someone famous. I'm sure your parents are very proud.

Ayn Rand is the closest thing to the Anti-Christ I've seen. The devil is sometimes defined as whatever drives you further from God, and from what I've read everything she believed in and wrote about is the exact polar opposite of Christian teachings. Just looking at her soulless kike eyes makes me shiver.

Youre part of Peterson's camp. Objectivism is built from basic human reason. Do you agree with this statement: All humans are reasonable?

You miserable, presumptuous no-talent.

>t. jealous water boy with a massive ego

I studied music theory for 10 years. I don't regret it, but I don't expect people to give a shit. What the hell is wrong with you? You admit that people who are nobodies are worthless in your industry, but have nothing to show that you are any better. I've met famous people, but I don't tie that to my self worth.

Anarcho-Capitalism is a meme because it's an ideology focused on private property, but without a central authority to ensure property rights, you don't own anything; you merely occupy it.

Rayndians like any materialists including communists, classic libs, and capitalists of all sorts always confuse reason with materialist reason.

She's the best proof of Alexander Dugin's claim that jews see life as a labyrinth without the possibility of living transcendence . There is no spiritual up or down in her philosophy. She can't debase herself by immoral and self-centered, but she can't transcend either. Objectivists are stuck in their own self created prison.

Rise up white man don't move side to side

>assure property rights
What assurance do you have right now? In concretes - how is your property protected RIGHT NOW?

That would be a dictatorship then and every human has a choice either struggle as it is in your action or submit, you choose submission if you allow a dictatorship (a state defined by force) to come into power.

If you really have talent, go practice. And then get yourself a gig, instead of ruining the day for everyone here. Go learn to play. You're flat. I bet you can't even carry a fucking note.

>That would be a dictatorship then
?
That happens RIGHT NOW. If you do not pay your taxes, the goons will come for you. If you sell something to someone and don't report it to your overlords, they have promised that should they catch you they will take "what you owe them", and if you resist they will attack, cage, or murder you. Right now that's the case in the U.S., not in some far-off dictatorship.

I play piano better than you can walk seniors onto a stage, and that's not even my best talent. Why are you even here?

Attached: 1524010243398.jpg (766x3231, 853K)

What the fuck are you talking about. Stop using the "le jewish boogey man" to argue.

Your moral choices are built on your reason. This is not a philosophy its a simple relationship of ideas. Again I ask you, do you agree or disagree with the statement: All humans are reasonable?

Attached: b6a.jpg (600x699, 44K)

Serious question senpai. Can you name a substantive difference between government and mafia?

No, not at all. Humans are frequently insane. However, modeling humans as rational machines, and discouraging irrational behavior, is an effective method of building a society.

im sure explaining to a large army of armed men that philosophically speaking they have no right to force you to do anything will make them understand

Attached: EeeKdju.jpg (400x320, 40K)

Shut up fag no one takes you seriously, you retards ignore human psychology and are cut from the same cloth of commies. Instead of "what about us" you scream "what about me"

mafia makes you pay insurance or theyll burn your store down

Attached: 14449074_1850147668551714_7206765010255609856_n.jpg (500x500, 48K)

Where is your answer to an easy question?
The question is literally
>Can you name a substantive difference between government and mafia?
Shouldn't that be simple to do?

>mafia makes you pay insurance or theyll burn your store down
But the government does that with taxes. If you don't pay up - despite never having bought anything from them - they threaten to steal/attack your property and kidnap or kill you if you resist.

The problem with anarcho-capitalism rest — at least in Hoppe formulation — in his fundaments.

How can a rule of argumentation be, at the same time, an deontological principle?

Rules of argumentation constitutes an activity; they are morally neutral, we can reject them. But a deontological principle imposes at our will to act in accordance with the principle.

That's the big problem with the discourse ethics of Apel (basis of Hoppe's ethics).

If self-ownership constitutes argumentation, it can't be an deontological principle; if self-ownership can be an deontological principle and not a rule of argumentation, then self-ownership can not be a pressuposition of argumentation knew by reflection on argumentation as a form of action.

That's why I think Nozick is so much better. He scapes from all those problems with his intuitionism.

The state guarantees that if my property is stolen from me (e.g.a nig steals my car), it will be tracked down and returned to me because I own it.

Yes, that's the general premise of the argument. The mafia is a worse government than the current government, and ancap doesn't provide a mechanism to stop them from becoming the government.

>attack your property
Theyll just garnish your wages but if youre extra stupid you can go to a prison where they are required to take care of you and provide you with all kinds of bs
mafia starts killing family members til you pay up

Attached: omcuk06.png (627x686, 278K)

But it doesn't guarantee that. Most thefts go unrecovered.
If what you mean is "the state says it will try to look into theft of property and seek to return property if possible", then why can't someone else perform that task? Someone who - preferably - ACTUALLY has a price incentive to do so and isn't just paid regardless of the quality or delivery of any services?

We both agree on the state of the world but from two different directions.

If you disagree with taxes then you disagree with trade its that simple. You, from what you seem to be getting at, do not agree with involuntary taxes. This is fine, and if some how your little conspiracy theory that if you don't pay taxes some men in black suits will come and kill you, is true then fine you need not deal with this government and you can choose to retaliate (rebel).

If indeed the US is a dictatorship (which it isn't YET but is on its way) then fine you are morally justified in rebeling, good luck. I recommend either A. getting off Jow Forums and rallying your fellow statesmen and conducting a reaistence. B. Get off Jow Forums and go rebel by yourself. Both of course require your individual action (the base of Objectivist principle).

What about the 40% of your income the government extorts from you every year?

like this

The mafia doesn't have the perceived legitimacy of the government. The mafia wouldn't be able to get away with as much crime as the government.

YOU CAN'T EVEN CARRY A TUNE

Rand was a cult leader. Rothbard was leagues ahead of her

>ancap doesn't provide a mechanism to stop them from becoming the government
Sure there is. Once you recognize bad guys as bad guys, you fight them.
The issue with government is that they're horribly awful sociopaths, but people are propagandized to believe they're not and so don't fight back. Not only do they not fight back - they even DEFEND those goons, like what you're doing right now.

no
no
yes

>they'll garnish your wages
You have to go through a bank for them to do that. If they think you're hiding assets from them, they'll send the goons to your door.

see
What's to stop a mafia from doing this same propoganda? That's essentially how all dictatorships sustain legitimacy across generations.

That's practical, but you end up installing a new system that is by necessity an imperfect implementation of ancap ideals. Monopoly becomes dictatorship almost instantly.

oh yeah so you could join different warlords to fight against "bad guys" nice i think africa has something similar

Attached: FtlDbfF.jpg (400x329, 41K)

as I said if you are extra stupid you can even be sent to a regulated prison that will be forced to take care of you. fuckin mafia goons

Attached: RcHejiO.jpg (640x934, 104K)

>If you disagree with taxes then you disagree with trade its that simple
No - taxes are thievery. Other people demand your property despite no agreement or contract between you. A one-sided theft.
Trade is mutually agreed to and reciprocal.
They couldn't be more different.

Who happens to be correct

Attached: 888-kikkoman-soy-sauce-in-dispenser.jpg (600x600, 74K)

If you agree to pay the taxes, they aren't thievery. There is a contract that is enforced upon you, but they uphold the contract if you do comply.
People voluntarily vote for increases in their own tax burden in exchange for various services. Would that also be thievery to you?

>What's to stop a mafia from doing this same propoganda?
Your worry is that if we get rid of the state, that it's possible goons try to make another state? Well I'd be worried about that too, but you realize "but the state could come back" isn't a defense of state evils right?

You see humans are by definition reasonable. Ask any human to prove to you they are not reasonable without reason, because upon using reason to prove the latter would disprove the latter (they are using reason to say they arn't reasonable). Therefore any human (that which contains some substance which thinks) is reasonable. From this all these examples are all humans choosing to do these on their own action, and they will from this have consequences which will leas to thier demise.

Objectivism simply is a philosiphy which says do not do what is not in your self interest, because this not reasonable. Its human nature to reason and the only outcome of ignoring your nature is your own suffering.

You're comparing a rich and prosperous Western region to 3rd world shit holes. Where do you think warlords are gonna be in the states? Where will they come from? How would they ever gain traction and not be violently removed from the gene pool by sane people immediately?
You're literally dealing in fantasy delusions.

So, what is your solution for that problem? I agree, many states have many problems, some worse than others. No state is clearly a higher risk than a stable, safe state. What is the incentive to move from a good or moderate state to no state, at risk of transitioning to a bad state?

Ask a rock to prove it is incapable of logic.
Will it fail?

>If you agree to pay the taxes, they aren't thievery
NOBODY agrees to pay taxes. They're threatened to under DURESS. If paying taxes was optional - like ALL *ACTUAL* trade relations - how many people do you think would pay them? Why do you think that is?

Ancapism is for subhumans. It's jewish way of thinking through and through.

Attached: 1421804800105.jpg (565x600, 57K)

I agree to pay taxes. When I start a new job, I sign a contract that states how much tax will be deducted from my paycheck. I can set it to 0, even, and have no taxes deducted. If I leave the country within the next year, no harm will come of paying no tax.

This user says it best. Again if you think that the taxes imposed on you RIGHT now is not voluntary, no one is stopping you from not paying them as it is the same with the dictatorship no one is stopping you from rebeling. You cannot ignore consequences though.

>So, what is your solution for that problem?
If we've managed to get rid of a state, then we've educated the population against state idiocy. Maintaining that education and helping people not get tricked by substanceless hand-waving is what would ward off the goons, since the goons require people to submit to their goonery willingly.

>submit all your guns because being civilised is to have an entente that offensive force must be unilaterally abandoned

she's not perfect

First of all, what is reason and do you think it should be confined to things that can be objectively confirmed by the senses? Secondly, yes I do agree. All humans are reasonable in their own way.

>Where do you think warlords are gonna be in the states?
All over
>Where will they come from?
when a beta virgin finally gets to put his peepee in a roasite...
>How would they ever gain traction
hey ill give you .5 bitcoin to use this McShotgun to enforce my rules
>not be violently removed from the gene pool
I have an army what are you going to do
>You're literally dealing in fantasy delusions.
...said the ancap....

Attached: 2P8obwI.jpg (552x773, 113K)

>. I can set it to 0, even, and have no taxes deducted.

Then you're required to pay on lump sum when you file your tax return.

> If I leave the country within the next year, no harm will come of paying no tax.

This is not true. The US government will still claim taxes on your income. On top of that, the US demands taxes on any income you earn outside of the US.

>no one is stopping you from not paying them
You are being threatened with violence and death if you don't pay your protection money to the goons.
You don't see any moral problem with the goons behaving like that? None whatsoever?

Attached: 1481064008312.jpg (480x527, 38K)

You think that will last multiple generations? That was essentially the state we were in before the great depression in the west and midwest, but people didn't like the high risk environment it left them in, so they strengthened the state.

I never asked you to ask a rock that which by definition does not think. I asked you to ask a human or better yet ask a thinking thing which humans are the only ones we can be sure of are.

>if x doesn't last forever don't bother with x
These are really bad arguments because they apply to everything.
You could make the exact same argument about any given country on earth. "You think your country will last forever, despite no country ever having lasted forever?"
Do you see why that's not a strong objection to seeking good in the world?

Ask a human to prove it is reasonable using reason. Does its failure prove it is not reasonable? After all, many people will fail this basic task.
This is a fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

People don't like high-risk situations, which is why they create states. States sacrifice freedom for stability.

You will need to elaborate on natural fact. Because it sounds like your saying "I think therefore I am" is natural fact. Is "natural fact" to you a realtionship of ideas or a matter of fact, the term is quite vague.

Sure if indeed thats true yet many (and this anecdotal) people in my life and around me dont pay taxes or havnt for a few years yet I havn't seen any "goons" come for them. So please somehow prove to me emperically that what you say is true if you do I will cede that our government is tyrannical because I agree with your moral position not your situation you seem to think the world is in.

There's no higher risk scenario than a one in which thieves and thugs can thieve and beat people up with impunity, which is what happens with the state.
ericpetersautos.com/2018/02/05/heroes-acted-within-policy/

It also happens in a non-state when the thugs have more power than you. Stateliness makes it more difficult for non-state thugs to beat you up, but easier for state thugs to beat you up.

There are also plenty of higher risk situations, such as living in an area where, if vital infrastructure fails, nobody will come to help you.

>Sure if indeed thats true yet many (and this anecdotal) people in my life and around me dont pay taxes or havnt for a few years yet I havn't seen any "goons" come for them
That's because they don't make enough for the goons to catch them on their radars. They're paying property taxes unless none of your family owns a home too, since there aren't localities that won't sick the goons on you for that.

elderlawanswers.com/not-paying-property-taxes-can-lead-to-loss-of-home-6555

>It also happens in a non-state when the thugs have more power than you
Yeah, which is great why we have Western values and not barbaric values, and why we're rich and risk averse and not poor and desperate (which leads to thugs risking life and limb to lie cheat and steal).
The issue with the state is that state thugs have no risk involved in their pillage of others. It's completely safe for them, because the populace just submits to the goons and - indeed - even THANKS them.
Absent that kind of ridiculous warped psyche, nobody is going to tolerate the few deviant thugs that always pop up. Those people get weeded out when they go outside their lowly circles.

Western values don't stop the bullets. How do you guarantee that everyone is rich? Won't some people end up poor and desperate through poor decisions, with some becoming thugs?

You shouldn't read books written by a woman, jew or numale

Your very act of talking to them and them understanding you and the task you want from them requires reason to do from both of you.

Additionally what would satisfy the task? When would you sufficently know without a doubt they completed or didn't complete your task? What Im saying is this a subjective task not objective because there is no meaningful ansewer to your queation "prove that you reason" but there is one in "prove you dont reason" as this one has an objectivally valid answer "I can't because I think."

What if it's just reason-like behavior?
Nothing proves anything without specific baseline assumptions. For example, I have no way to prove I am not vividly hallucinating.

It legally guarantees and protects that property though. I will absolutely defend my property with force if I must, but that alone does not constitute ownership.

And I agree, the government steals tremendous amounts from its citizens. I'm not pro-state, but some form of small state is neccesary to garuntee property rights.
t. I'm a propertaian

This erson chose not to pay taxes on thier home a consequence follows if you don't agree with said consequence you have every reason to attempt to change it.

And you dodged my question, and essentially added more to your conspiracy without providing any sufficent proof to this dictatorship we live in.