What do you think about anarcho-capitalism? Is it possible and should we for it? Or is it a terrible idea?

Attached: ancap-actuallynazi.jpg (320x826, 32K)

>and the only system that isn't morally corrupt in some way

It's a fairyland dream then. The world doesn't function on ethics or morality, it functions on power. Your "morality" (which includes casual starvation by the way) would alienate at least 50% of the population (who are useless bottom feeders technically) and give rise to Marxism or some other form of ridiculous egalitarianism. Most people lack the capacity to compete properly in a market system and if they become alienated, then all your Anarcho-Capitalist system will accomplish is it will create a Communist state by those disaffected idiots who are willing to shit all over you for the chance to feed themselves and their family.

Attached: Ancap When Government and Corperate Power is Discussed.png (1000x1209, 479K)

Attached: Ancap Dominos African Nigger Employee Has Died Doing Battle.png (495x960, 672K)

Attached: Ancapistan Islam Jihadistan.jpg (900x666, 153K)

Attached: Ancap Anarchy Balls On The Best System.jpg (442x534, 25K)

Attached: Ancap Train Problem 2.jpg (480x468, 56K)

Attached: Ancap McNuke Nuclear Weapon.png (793x794, 602K)

NOT AN ARGUMENT is what I think, nigger.

Attached: 1502529713486.jpg (634x533, 44K)

You know nothing about anarcho-capitalism. Look for Voluntaryism, they are pretty much synonymous. Voluntary ancoms and voluntary ancaps won't fight, because they both abide by the NAP. What the society will fight against are "statists" - which we use mostly to denote authoritarians, force initiators and coercive people. Anarchy is hard to achieve, but easy to keep.

go to
You are fear mongering, either because you are afraid of us, or because you are confused by what you have been told so far.

Checked.

Attached: pepecheers.jpg (332x332, 46K)

This is how we prevent that from happening.

Attached: 1536256559997.jpg (900x807, 147K)

Attached: Ancap Train Problem 1.jpg (800x487, 85K)

Attached: Comic Communism Socialism Pinochet Free Helicopter Rides.jpg (469x960, 111K)

>Look for Voluntaryism, they are pretty much synonymous. Voluntary ancoms and voluntary ancaps won't fight

Anarcho-Communists or any kind of Anarcho-collectivists are just hypocritical idiots with oxymoronic worldviews. If there is a collective, then it has control over a geographical location and is capable of telling people within that location what to and what not to do (murder, etc.). But it can only control judgement over any location it controls through force/what it can protects. Who stops an individual from making profits? The collective.It is a state plain and simple, albeit a small one.

>What the society will fight against are "statists" - which we use mostly to denote authoritarians, force initiators and coercive people.

Capitalists are coercive, groups of people are coercive. Authoritarianism can occur in a household, and at what age can that child make decisions for themselves. "Force initiators", I have no idea what that rubbish is, but that is also entirely subjective. The NAP is a Utopian farce similar to Marxist Communism. It's completely untennable with human beings that have different beliefs and desires. One psychopath fucks everything up.

To be put simply: it is you that has no idea. Not only of the basics of human existence but of your own ideology.

>forcefully killing people that disagree with you
>any different to now

That why we must eliminate psychopaths from society.

Attached: 1536505896893.png (600x712, 60K)

>Capitalists are coercive
This implication is not true. Please keep this discussion intellectually sauber and pure. Or do you mean to signal that your argument is an emotional one based on empty diatribe?

>not arguing the point

"Pay $1000 for these bananas or what your kids starve" is a coercive statement. If you aren't trying to maximize profits you aren't a capitalist.

That's all well and good, but how do you manage that? Forcefully give everyone a brain scan and then kill everyone with lower than average activity in their prefrontal cortex? I'd support such a thing, but then again I am a statist that believes in eugenics, but it doesn't seem to fit with a freedom-oriented society of any kind.

>how do you manage that?

Easy. Violate the NAP - get shot. Don't violate the NAP - live.

Those who don't understand that others don't want to be victims of their aggression will be filtered out in a matter of months.

>Easy. Violate the NAP - get shot. Don't violate the NAP - live.

Dumping chemicals or waste into water basins would break the NAP, and yet the Corporation that does it could just hire a mercenary army and crush anyone who tries to stop them. So who is going to stop them?

Why wouldn't the ancaps just shoot them?

Anarcho-capitalism is probably unworkable in its pure form on a large scale. I say we adopt a minimal state with some polycentric elements.

Though if it worked, i'd be open to it.

Real ancoms are voluntaryist. Antifa and other faggots like these are not anarchists, they are using force, they are trying to make a defacto state. No ancap will try to dismantle or destroy a voluntary commune in which people can join and leave freely. But unlike communists, they respect private property, they just have it collectivized (ie anyone can use it at any time) - it's their problem how they manage use (both usage and use as in consuming the tools in time) and replacement.

>Capitalists are coercive
How? Is someone forcing you to work for money?

>Authoritarianism can occur in a household
You can just leave at any time, if it's not your house - if it is your house, you kick the authoritarian out. Age of consent? All people are people, no matter their age and nobody is nobody's slave. Parents aren't entitled to their children's bodies or labor and children aren't entitled to their parents bodies or labor. If children don't agree with their parents, they can leave and start working, or they can live under their parents and respect the rules they impose, voluntarily, nobody forces them to do so (in a voluntaryist society).

>The NAP is a Utopian farce
The NAP is all around the world. Even today, most people respect the NAP: they don't coerce or use force against others and others in turn don't do those to them. If someone does use force against somebody, that person and anybody around has the right to retaliate on the spot to defend themselves. If a psycho tries to kill a person, that person can kill the psycho in self-defense (of course, killing is a last resort, incapacitation would be ideal). Nobody believes there won't be people around trying to kill others, but everybody in an ancap society will have the right to retaliate.

I can't believe I'm trying to explain this to someone with a meme flag. Wtf am I even doing?
>not arguing the point
You said that "capitalists are coercive", the burden of proof is on you

Yes, we must be diligent in finding the psychopath DNA code and either remove it with genetic engineering or place them into a facility where they can be studied like animals.

Attached: 1536445777013s.jpg (114x126, 3K)

And who's products will people buy when it is found that the said corporation throws waste into waters? And then, how will the corporation pay the mercenaries?

The local militia and the mercs hired to help the local militia. Besides, the local militia can just assassinate the corpos one by one. They have to sleep somewhere.

No, anarchocapitalism is a shitty and utopian ideology. Only Jeffersonian/Jacksonian Republicanism can save us all.

>Pic related

Attached: National Democratic Republican Party.png (3000x2000, 3.27M)

they can't think outside that box user, they have no inner monologue

retarded comic, shouldn't even be able to make it past the gates. besides, why arent the ancaps armed?

Countries, absolute monarchs and dictators actually live under anarcho-capitalism. There is no international government yet, so every nation supposed to function under simple rules of nap, contracts and freedom of association. The thing is average people have the role of slaves and tax cattle in this system.

>replying to cheap bait

whatever nigger

Attached: 1490274520643.png (1000x1000, 532K)

you need a state for property to exist

No, that's Egoism (with capital E, look into Max Stirner).

Because the creator of the comic is a fucking imbecile. It's actually the rabid statists who hold the same beliefs as the pictured "ancaps".

I'n also and ancap, faggot.

>Thinks the comic isn't accurate

Attached: Profile.png (788x1025, 461K)

Disorganised citizens with guns can't match the proper military of their neighbours and nobody will freely choose to give money to a professional, private one if they think others may cover it. I think that's the big weakness of it, you need to take wealth by force to protect people's wealth.

>believes the comic is accurate

Attached: hahaha.gif (250x255, 2.84M)

Well as far as this argument/discussion goes you're not an AnCap, so I don't have to argue against you.

>How? Is someone forcing you to work for money?
I explained, yes they are forcing you to to exchange labor or currency/medium at unreasonable rates. "Do what I want or starve" is a coercive statement.

>but everybody in an ancap society will have the right to retaliate.
You understand the tribal killings that go on, right? Gang wars? One guy does something midly aggressive (shoves a guy when walking past), that guy is having a bad day, so he kills that guy, whose family/tribe kills him and you have a blood feud on your hands. The NAP is incoherent because there isn't a power body deciding what is reasonable and what isn't and forcing everyone to comply. Minor scuffles between idiots would turn into daily massacres. One look at a major city should tell you that not everyone is afraid of death and many of them are willing to break the law and rish their lives for some cash. This will maximize in an AnCap system.

>You can just leave at any time, if it's not your house
So that's the child slavery thing? Right, didn't think the meme was real but apparently it is.

>The local militia and the mercs hired to help the local militia.

Do you think a local militia could do anything against an industrial-grade equipped mercenary army hired by multi-billion dollar companies who would inevitably form? Without a government to hold them to account there would be massacres every week, a modern version of the land grabs made by the US against natives, just with tanks. Doesn't seem possible to keep balanced at all.

Attached: soundsgood.jpg (800x450, 59K)

But it is

Attached: see you nibba.gif (499x499, 45K)

>>The local militia and the mercs hired to help the local militia.

Read the last paragraph here: , it's late and I didn't quote you.

This

Attached: Ancap Pass The Salt.jpg (640x640, 32K)

its fake and gay, kys

Attached: 1535935851910.png (656x563, 634K)

We saw Vietnam and Afghanistan, and only some people in those countries had guns.
If US went Ancap, Mexico and Canada wouldn't invade. We couldn't

Attached: Mike Pence.jpg (1250x581, 77K)

>Disorganised citizens with guns can't match the proper military of their neighbours
>Do you think a local militia could do anything against an industrial-grade equipped mercenary army hired by multi-billion dollar companies who would inevitably form?

And yet the US with the allegedly most powerful army in the world has never won against guerilla warfare.

>Minor scuffles between idiots would turn into daily massacres

Of course, that is natural and needed. It filters out those who would start the scuffles. The ones left alive would be those who don't fuck with anyone.

>One look at a major city

Megacities we have now are unnatural constructs. A natural community consists of 100-150 people tops. The sooner all huge cities collapse, the better.

>Corporate power
How many private corporations have the power to send men with guns to your house and lock you in a cage?

>If US went Ancap, Mexico and Canada wouldn't invade. We couldn't
Don't know too much about the Vietnam war, but that point is certainly true. Mexican cartels might make inroads, but there'd be little beyond that.

Ancaps won't admit this is what they actually want.

Attached: 1511358101975.jpg (1280x808, 193K)

>And yet the US with the allegedly most powerful army in the world has never won against guerilla warfare.

That's because the US has rules. If the US didn't care about civilian casualties the guerilla movements would fail. But they do. A corporation can secretly hire a mercenary army to wipe out an entire town and that town couldn't do anything.

>coorporations force us to buy shit
we voluntarily place TVs/computers in our house and download their psychological programming.

States do recognize each other property and absolute monarch in state is anarchy-capitalist on his land. If anarcho-capitalists can accept any form of slavery they can't argue against the fact what we are living under anarchy-capitalism. There is just one legal persona per one nation/state, not one legal persona per bag of meat as some ancaps want. There is limited number of sovereign people, ancaps if you want, and loads of their slaves.

>Economic prosperity
>Mixed markets

Choose one.

In an ancap society, everyone would be armed to the teeth and itching for someone to violate the NAP so they could kill them. They would notice and deal with the uppity corporation polluting the water long before it could put up any kind of resistance.

>That's because the US has rules

Kek, no. Look up the ridiculous war crimes the (((Allies))) have committed in WW2. Guerillas are just unbeatable if you're not prepared to nuke the entire country.

No, you choose to starve, faggot. I'm not telling that "if you don't work for how much I want, I will kill you" - that's a threat, choosing to starve is your own choice and it's not like you can't sell your own services or get hired by somebody else who pays higher. The whole 3rd paragraph is a strawman, but anyway I will answer it: if the someone bumps someone, the bumped doesn't have the right to use more force than necessary, meaning he doesn't have the right to shoot the guy, he is breaking the NAP, doesn't matter what mood he is in.

You don't get to use more force than necessary, meaning that if someone punches you once and stops, you don't get to kill him, but if he keeps punching you, then maybe (again, incapacitation would be ideal).

The child isn't a slave, he's his own independent person. You're doing a "So your saying" fallacy. I said that the parents aren't entitled to his body or labor and the child can just leave and the parents can't force him to stay.

I did not brought up the local militia. Militia can be anything from the armed body of a population in an area, a private defense / police company, or a combination of those. And yes, people will defend themselves against thugs, their actions are illegitimate and everybody can see that, they would be shot dead - it took more than 300 years for the British to conquer Ireland (1100s to 1600s). And even today, look at decentralized nations like Somalia (it's not an ancap society, but it is decentralized) - it took a shitton of time for the UN to conquer it back and yet the people still don't acknowledge the gubbermint.

That was a meme for people who like anarcho capitalism, yet they want a government.

Attached: Anarchy.png (500x542, 291K)

>if someone punches you once and stops, you don't get to kill him

What a shit system. You punch someone - you die. Easy as that. Only the victim of aggression gets to decide when the violence stops.

>using force and coercion to subjugate people
>killing people if they don't become their slaves
How is this capitalism, faggot?

>No, you choose to starve
>choosing to starve is your own choice

I think that about sums up the "most moral system".

>You don't get to use more force than necessary
>the bumped doesn't have the right to use more force than necessary
Who decides what is "necessary"? Not the group, surely. That' would be eminently state-like. Who enforces it. What if someone disagrees? The only order that is maintained currently isn't the good out of peoples hearts, it's the fear that the state will physically destroy anyone who rejects it's judgements.

>The child isn't a slave, he's his own independent person.
The "choice" between being a sex slave and going home to get beaten and used by your parents isn't a choice, same as starving. Such is coercive is immoral.

>You're doing a "So your saying" fallacy.
No, that's what you think I'm doing because you don't understand me.

>The whole 3rd paragraph is a strawman
You don't understand what a strawman is. That sort of thing literally happens daily.

>I did not brought up the local militia.
Indeed that was meant for someone else, didn't put the quotation in the post accidentally.

Attached: 1473250095756.jpg (480x360, 17K)

You don't get to use more force than the other used upon you. If someone punches you, you don't shoot him outright. If he keeps trying to punch you, then you shoot him. If he misses or you block his first punch and he tries again, then you shoot him.

Attached: 1532986368172.jpg (540x438, 46K)

>The child isn't a slave, he's his own independent person.
Why so? It;s a production of his parents, just like their shit or piss. So it's supposed to be parents property, no?

then they just remember what you did and shoot you in the back when your not looking.

There's no reason you can't have both. Mixed markets, not free markets. Difference being a free market would allow anyone to have any business even if it was damaging to the nation, it's citizens or the culture. We'd certainly live in a better world if government actually stepped in to stop all the degenerate behavior that's being promoted right now.

And why shouldn't he die? He initiated direct physical aggression, which is a blatant violation of the NAP, enabling you to deal with the threat however you want.

If the child consents to doing what his parents want in exchange for food and shelter, then it's a voluntary exchange. If the child breaks the contract by acting uppity, the parents can just throw him out the door if they wish. Simple.

You are not entitled to somebody else's labor, you wannabe slave driver. "necessary" means until the use of force or coercion is stopped. If someone bumps into you, you don't punch them, then shoot them in the foot, then tie them to your car and drive them through the street.

Again strawmaning my arguments. Who says the kids have to be sex slaves? They can either be adopted if somebody else agrees to raise them, or get jobs they can do, for however much they agree on.

Of course you don't admit to your own fallacies, that's how you know your opposition is losing the argument.

There are some compelling arguments for it, but the society envisioned by ancaps sounds miserable. Poor and in need of work? Enjoy selling yourself into slavery since you have absolutely no protection against abuse and no leverage.

The best form of Anarchism but just like any other form of Anarchism you can easily hire a hundred mercs and kill the population of entired cities. People who advocate for it would in most cases die under the system because society would go back to a more violent state. Why? Because humans will always try to form groups and there will always be people who dislike/hate you no matter who you are.
If you are not all of these
>natural leader
>experienced in the use of weapons
>physically and mentally strong
>capable to survive innawoods for weeks
then you will either die or end up as the bitch of some collective which will inevitabely form.

You can't trust corporations. Look at twitter, goggle and facebook banning Alex Jones and other conservatives. Social media should be nationalized to protect us from the corporate monopoly.

And they get shot by others. Especially if people see him trying to shoot someone in the back, who is trying to leave. If you're in a dark alley, that's tough luck though, but those kind of people won't get to do this for long before they get shoot by others in self-defense (and self-defense also means defending others).

Read more about the NAP, or even better, think deeper about it. If you use more force than required, then you are initiating (more) force upon others. It's just like "hey neighbor, your tree has grown over on my lawn and leaves are falling here, now I get to kill you" - the point of the NAP is to stop aggression, not amplify it. Once the force or coercion is stopped, you don't get to retaliate at another time, then you would be initiating force (for punches or physical damage that is - but of course, depends on the situation, if the punch broke one of your teeth, that person is liable and has to pay for your teeth implant).

But its not government, so corporations dominating our lives and controlling what we can say is total freedom of course

like the way china's social media runs?

Attached: Sina-Weibo-logo-copy.jpg (2054x1224, 119K)

So as long as good goys consent to be EU nonstate tax cattle in exchange for roads and public schools it;s a voluntary exchange. How is this not an anarcho-capitalism? What more do ancaps want? They voluntarily live on corporation land.

This. Anarchy would be a war of all against all.

>people can't be trusted
>we need to put people in power in order to control other people
Gotta love circular reasoning.

The people run the government. The government is us.

>you have absolutely no protection against abuse and no leverage

Hmm, sounds familiar. Surely this can't describe any capitalist society prior to the 20th century!

Unions exist for a reason. At least they did before they got corrupted by the government.

>Social media should be nationalized

Jesus fuck you statists are retarded. Are those social medias the only ones available? Do you think it's not possible to create new ones?

>You are not entitled to somebody else's labor,
Nowhere do I say that they are, nor do I think that. That's a strawman, for reference.

> If someone bumps into you, you don't punch them, then shoot them in the foot, then tie them to your car and drive them through the street.
Yeah, but says who? Who enforces it? And if the person that does it has connections, serious Gang connections for instance, all you end up with is a series of retributon killings, which also draws in the families and friends of innocent bystanders until you turn locations into literal warzones. It's utterly unfeasible because nobody is there to determine what is "reasonable" or "necessary" except the people there. And if the Community decides what is right or wrong that is just a state. You're not making much sense.

>Again strawmaning my arguments. Who says the kids have to be sex slaves?
Stop using that word, you clearly don't know what it means. You said that the Kid has the opportunity to leave the house of their parents? But since the usefulness of children is low, what if the only two situations they have is go back to their parents house where they have violence committed against them, or they go and be a sex slave. "Choice X or Death" is coercion.

>They can either be adopted if somebody else agrees to raise them, or get jobs they can do, for however much they agree on.
Yeah, that's all well and good if things all happen to go right. But the Law in government-run societies isn't in place because everything works all the time, but because of the negative unusual cases. That's the whole point.

>Of course you don't admit to your own fallacies, that's how you know your opposition is losing the argument.
Everything you've posted so far is full of holes, self-contradictory or downright incoherent, I wouldn't be the one talking about logical fallacies when you don't even know what a strawman is.

Isn't Government Power and Corporate Power both bad?
Isn't America set up so that they both work together hand in hand to fuck everyone? So they're pretty much the same thing?
Don't Corporate Powers buy their way into Political Government positions or pay someone off that has a Political position of power to get what they want?
Is there really any way to prevent something like this?
Isn't any and every system corruptible and flawed?

Why are you entitled to those people's platforms? Are you paying money for it? They have the right to kick you out. You don't like it, go to another platform or build your own.

People can't be trusted. Democratically elected governments can be trusted because they need to win majorities.

Democratic government has made society better. Don't compare them like they're the same thing.

Nobody consents to be a cash cow, coercion is used and in case of refusal to pay taxes, outright force with a high chance of being killed if you resist. It's not a voluntary exchange.

By remaining within a government's jurisdiction, you are consenting to every one of its laws, including taxation.

>If you use more force than required, then you are initiating (more) force upon others
It doesn't matter since offender break simple contract of NAP. Now he is a wild life, not a legal person, and at the mercy of victim.

I was mocking ancaps retard, but the idea that “we” own the government is even more niave than what ancaps believe. Are you taking your first high school civics class or something?

>the point of the NAP is to stop aggression

Yeah, by removing the source of aggression.

>hey neighbor, your tree has grown over on my lawn

It is not forcible if the neighbor didn't do it deliberately. The neighbor can't control the direction his tree grows. If he had been warned that having the tree grow over the lawn would cause trouble and do nothing about it, then killing him would be justified. If he doesn't respect your private property, he doesn't belong in the community.