What's your best argument against anarcho-capitalism?

Slavery violates the NAP, but if you convince some people to work for you and pay them with housing and food instead of money and give them freedom to leave its perfectly okay.

Some local warlord will just fuck everyone up and make a state sooner or later.

Do you really need the state to tell you what's moral and what's not?

anarcho-capitalists

anarcho = punks
punks = degenerates

I'm legitimately curious: In an ancap society, what is the primary deterrent from violating the NAP?

Attached: 1446587216622.jpg (282x341, 44K)

The people wouldn't support a landlord that takes their freedom from them. Ancap has to happen from the bottom up, the people must believe they don't need government and that freedom is essential. If a landlord starts to take too much power they will go to one that doesn't infringe upon them, so any landlord (and any other business) is forced to offer a better service by competition.

Theres no point to the argument.
It's a larp.

came here to post this

Nukes

Like communism, it assumes a population where all people have the same values and morality and will continue having the same values and morality forever.

Everyone is allowed to defend their life, liberty, and property. Right now with a government you have to go through the police force to get defense, and the police force has slow response times and may not always be there. By having self ownership (which is the natural law that all other natural laws stem from) you are required to defend yourself or pay someone else to do it. So I would choose to have a gun on me. And if I wanted extra protection I could pay a private service that would be forced to provide the best services possible at the lowest prices possible due to competition on the free market. That's why we have police brutality now, because they can get away with it without losing support (taxpayer dollars).
If every citizen is responsible for their own defense, it makes crime very risky, and often not worth the risk. Muggers and thieves often look for gun free zones for this reason, because it's an easy target with a very minimal chance of having anyone armed.

Not so much an argument against but a complaint. AnCaps won't shut the fuck up about being AnCaps. They're as bad as vegans, Jehovah's Witnesses, and niggers.

False, it actually assumes that people have their own values, and will group with others who share those values. This would create a plethora of city-states or close knit communities that share common values without forcing others with different values to live within a system that doesn't work for them.

Anarcho capitalism

Attached: F4C5E87A-623C-4406-BB22-1794E5ACD49C.jpg (720x781, 92K)

10% of the population has an IQ so low the military won't even take them. As a society, we need to come together and support these mouth breathers.

All of the rest of the able bodied on welfare, food stamps, disability, obamaphones, ect... These freeriders need to die.

Exactly the same as ancom; you are delusional faggots whose entire economic system is ”anarchy, but everyone does exactly what I want them to”.

You are all spoiled children.

...

fpbp

You're assuming that power doesn't corrupt.

But everyone doesn't do what I want them to, and I think that's fine. They do what they want to, but I'm also afforded that same freedom and can do anything in my power to get away from them or not support them if I so choose.

>everyone does exactly what I want them to
nice strawman

No, I'm assuming that corrupt people would have revolutions against them like when America was founded.

Then there’s nothing to stop the formation of a PMC that just takes what they want whenever they want.

>m-muh NAP
See my original post.

The majority of people that rely on the government to keep them alive. Ancap will only work if we wipe out 90% of the population in America.

>m-muh NAP!

How the country will be administrated then? Unless you only want the government to fuck off from businesses and regulations then I have nothing to say. Free market cannot administrate a country

>user actually thinks the NAP does not apply to those who refuse to accept it
they are free to leave or get shot, where's the problem?

They'd have to pry whatever they want from the cold dead hands of the people they're robbing.

fuck off Kike

established nation states make it impossible. minimal goverment is the best we can hope for.

Dominoes pizza highway would btfo out of public roads.

Lack of effective social engineering.

Attached: 57b72591caddf9fc91045eb2cb2fd84318a1df248bb3dfbbd800d42b85c5306b.png (416x545, 91K)

>you have to go through police force to get defense
Citation needed. I do not need cops help or approval to defend myself. Just make sure 1 side of the story is told

NAP applies to humans AKA Whites only, checkmate

The ideology was created by Jewish writers because they understood that "private ownership" would really mean Jewish ownership of everything important (like courts).

Or...

Attached: EB2595F3-021E-4432-90F0-93DC4B1231AB.jpg (1080x1018, 63K)

What does that have to do with ancap? People can revolt against corruption in any system.

Anarcho-capitalism is not an empirical political philosophy, it's an ideological philosophy created using reason but without any grounding in reality. A good way to think of this is that it's like a person that reasons that when they move forward they do not fall down so if they walk off a cliff they will continue moving forward and not downward. It's essentially a fantasy of reasoning that does not map to reality. This world is fundamentally organized in brute force power hierarchies without regard for anyones opinion about it, it simply is what it is, like gravity. The more powerful entity/entities will always dominate and amass more power, thus further setting them apart from everyone else due to already having a superior hierarchical position. This will lead to the corruption and ultimate irrelevance of any "can't use force" NAP bullshit unless they themselves will it to be the law of the land. The nature of power itself literally dominates and precedes the NAP the same way gravity dominates and precedes the person attempting to move forward. You need the PLATFORM in order to do this, which can be imagined as some state or state-like entity, a powerful entity that wills this to be the case upheld by brute force.

The first part.

>swat-style no-knock raid in the middle of the night
>shot dead in your own bedroom

Thanks for the supplies, boss.

t. PMC who doesn’t share your values.

That’s the plan you stupid shitwit. This isn’t armed robbery, it’s execution and acquisition.

It is the irrational belief that if we were to get rid of government all of a sudden everybody would get along, holding hands and skipping on rainbows.

Anarchy and capitalism - neither are in the constitution.

But in a system that holds liberty as its central position it's a hell of a lot easier and more certain. Look at great Britain right now, sure they could revolt but they don't because they've all been cucked by the state.

CROWDFUNDED ROADS

*unsheathes katana*
*teleports behind you*
did you honestly believe I wouldn't sense your bloodlust?
heh................................................................. you're a thousand years early to challenge me

Another ancap forced to retreat ever further into fantasy to maintain his beliefs.

And that could happen in ant system, so it's not an argument against this one.

This. It's basically a collection of ideas that are very well linked together in theirselves - but at no point it's linked to objective reality. And when confronted with this, the libertarian will resort to tell you that he would "rather debate ideas than utilitarianism", but this fails to acknowledge we live in a real world, not in an ideal world. I don't mean to say we should ditch its tenets entirely: the free market economy, the free enterprise, personal freedom all of those are ideas that should be prevalent in any civilized modern society. But that's far from saying we should abolish the State.

t. ex Ancap

Economic inneficiencies, where side effects of actions provide benefits or harms that are not paid for.

E.g. the military must defend the entire island to be effective, so all residents of the island get protection even if they dont pay for it. People realize this and stop paying, and the island no longer has a military, eventually the burden of defending the entire island is placed on the shoulders of only those least willing to exploit the system.

And for costs that are not paid for, consider pollution or herd-vaccination.

Anarchy would create a power vacuum that would be filled by control freak assholes.

>Not worth the risk
Until criminals start organizing themselves to terrorize the population into giving them stuff for free, there's nothing stopping a wealthy individual from arming and training bands of robbers to do his bidding for a share of the loot
Then some smart entrepreneur will show up with a few lads and offer organized defense in exchange of protection money since he won't be able to produce anything himself
People might organize their community into a militia to protect themselves as well but that will also require leadership and common funds and then you have the beginnings of state-formation again
Accept that people are naturally servile to anyone willing to lead them.

>Abloo bloo I can't afford security bots to protect my house
Survival of the fittest cuck

and what stops indivduals from defending themselves

Attached: ancap waifu.png (1000x1000, 532K)

No shit you illiterate cunt, I said this is the same problem as ancom.

It is a legitimate argument because it isn’t fucking ancap without the an.

That it will never happen and even ancaps know it won't.

Are all ancom illiterate? I’m going to be in the PMC aka your new de facto state.

Small organization =/= state
I could create my own "state" you filthy authoritarian.

Anyone in Britain can choose to die for freedom at any time.
>liberty as its central position
How do you achieve a "central position" in a system of decentralization?

I don't need to debunk something so trivial
if you have an assault team, I have mines surrounding my property and that's the end of it

Anarchism is retarded.
capitalism is also retarded.
Without the government's "monopoly on force" there'd be nothing to protect private property and the capitalist class.
Maybe you'll say but "self defense," well that's retarded it's the many workers vs the few capitalists. Maybe you'll say they can hire private police forces, but those workers have more to gain from overthrowing capitalism and seizing the capitalist resources than protecting it for the capitalists.
So on that, it's retarded,
Also having markets control everything is also retarded. Markets give the most degenerate stuff. They prey on primal instincts. Democracy is stupid. Markets are democratic.

Then we’ve effectively destroyed anarchy-capitalism, haven’t we?

I accept your concession.

>2 posts by this ID

Sage

Great, I have laser-guided anti-mine nanodrones

Attached: 166D604E-E9A3-4588-9B82-54EAE918140D.jpg (250x250, 17K)

It, like communism, is a lot messier in practice. Society would probably end up like mad max in 10 years

I would expect organizations to pop up to fill the role of the state, except now they have to play by the NAP, which means they cant force membership.

>False, it actually assumes that people have their own values, and will group with others who share those values
>NAP
>Capitalism
>Not an assumption of same values
But even so, that creates social chaos. People do have incompatible and contradictory values and beliefs and motives which is why you should have a unifying force

and that's why I said it's pointless to argue when you will try to one up me in return to anything I say
people who don't understand opportunity cost shouldn't participate in ancap threads, you are dumbing it down
for every heavily defended settlement you could have raided several separate houses without any losses but you insist that you will get military grade weaponry from thin air and attack me to prove what exactly? that you're retarded? that's a given so you can stop wasting everyone's time

Noone is going to respond to my argument, are they...

I would consider myself an ex ancap, the same way armored skeptic is an ex christian. I want to beleive it, but I just dont think it can work.

How would you stop a foreign army from invading?

>What's your best argument against anarcho-capitalism?
children are easily corrupted and will get ruined by outside influence and beg other ruined children to start a government that would stop all the bad things ever from happening

The only good government is one large enough to defend itself from invaders but not too large that the rules required by the government will be contrary to the nature of the men that make up the populace(which will cause it to fail *fall of rome fall of USA).
earlier Rome was like this, Nazi Germany tried desperately to be like this, these USA started like this.

>tragedy of the commons

How would a small and sparsely populated country like Finland maintain it's independence against a massive imperialistic neighbor like Russia without resorting to conscription, draft and centralized military command?

What will happen to the properties of people who have benefited from government loopholes so much that they've become massively wealthy? (central bankers and such)

Since humans cannot be owned under anarcho capitalism due to the fact that we cannot transfer the control over someone else's consciousness to you (which means you do not own your children and anybody trying to sell themselves to slavery is committing a fraud), does this also extend to animals? And if not, why not?

There doesnt even need to be a commons, the simple fact is that some services benefit even those who dont pay for them.

Anarchy will never be achieved in any form because humans are hierarchical species and eventually someone will manage to claim power

>10 armed robbers vs 1 armed home defender
They don't even need to start shooting, the threat alone is enough to steal property from the individual. If the one person resists they might retreat and attack when the person is unaware, every criminal organization once it gets going doesn't allow resisters to be alive, they need to be made an example

Sure they might keep doing this a couple of times and eventually some might, as I said before, organize themselves and agree to stand together. This might deter the bandits or they will risk a fight to protect their ill-gotten income.
So people will start defending their rights and property as others try to steal it, then eventually the one with the larger organizational power will win due to coordination of resources and tactics. Boom, a state has started again, based on robbing people or demanding protection-money.

Actually all I said is that I would barge into your home and shoot you. You were the one coming up with fantasies.

Unless you mean to tell me guns are somehow “not allowed” in anarchy.

Who is going to manufacture the weapons?

The mafia. Gangs and crooks will rule

Gangs and crooks go after power, regardless of the existence of a government they will exist and some of them will have power.

How the fuck are judicial courts supposed to exist if there’s no government? What if one person says that so-and-so should be executed, but another says otherwise?

>removing an organized and well-funded opposition will surely have no affect on their behavior.

A criminal tried to break into my home the other night. I'm certain I would have gotten into a lot of trouble with the law if he had gotten inside and I had even threatened him with a knife

But those services are a commons, and individuals trying to maximize their own cost-benefit ruin it. I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the mechanism.

Anarcho-capitalists want that power to not already be consolidated so that any gang or crook could bamboozle their way into a presidency and drone strike a bunch of kids because they're terrorists.

It's more about limiting the power of an individual by not giving them access to the collective.

memes

again, you are implying that my property would be out in the sticks with no way of retaliation
you're an imbecile and you don't even think your non-arguments through

How would an Ancap country go to war? What if half the population doesn’t wan’t to? It’s not like you could make them do it because of “muh rights”

An ancap country would only fight in a defensive war, since most people would be armed, an invasion would be difficult.