>The Capitalist man in power is decided by capitalism aka socioeconomic Darwinism
But without the state who holds a monopoly on violence there is no real "decision". Unless the "Capitalist man in power" establishes a state of his own and suppresses his potential competitors - which in turn would result in something that isn't Ancapism.
I'm a right-wing libertarian. Change my views
Charles Ramirez
Adrian Rodriguez
Basically, the fallacy of ancap is that they assume primordial existence of market. Needless to say such notion is ridiculous. First there must be monopoly on violence, and only this monopoly forms walled garden where kids can play with their money (which funds the warlord holding the monopoly on violence).
The largest issue is to stop warlords from feuding, which is what current world status quo essentially is.
The reason I mention those two is specifically because UN got tired of this shit and withdrawn. The places are endless lines of warlords. US is interested only in ME, not rest of the african niggers. It's mostly frenchie mess now in there.
However if you actually managed to consolidate a monopoly on violence and become actual geopol threat, THEN interventions under funny pretenses would be quite likely. Again, ton of historical examples.
Point is, NAP is simply ridiculous notion until there is a single NWO warlord with access to all the nuke buttons providing safe market for all the underdogs to extract rent from.
Such a minarchy could be done on very cheap - basically just maintain the nuke silos and army of killerbots, and run it as a company like any other. Just pray that no hidden startup with competing nukes shows up...
Leo Bennett
>The ancoms would have the same access to nukes you do.
No one without training and a massive budget is able handle radioactive material and the cost of doing so is just as expensive as a year's salary. Oh and you forgot the fact that no one would sell that shit to you AND since cesium nukes are fucking expensive since they're rare. the black market isn't the same as it was during the era of the soviet arms dump.
Chase Ross
>no real "decision"
What decision? And if you're referring to a decision of who's in power, why does monopoly on force have to explicitly be given to a single entity?
> Unless the "Capitalist man in power" establishes a state of his own and suppresses his potential competitors - which in turn would result in something that isn't Ancapism
Suppression of competitors would result in violence, destabilizing his attempt to monopolize power.
Elijah Morgan
>Yes, yes that is socialism
Protip: If you want to be good at debates, learn fucking definitions of words before you try to use them in debates. No, it's not fucking socialism. It could KIND OF be argued as communism, but not socialism. Socialism means one thing, and only one thing: Social ownership of the means of production. Public education has fuckall to do with socialism/capitalism/means of production.
>inb4 "but muh socially owned schools"
Means of production refers to economy, not education.
>inb4 "but muh tax funding"
Taxation is collectivism/communism/statism. It has nothing to do with socialism.
Oliver Clark
actually no the first police force was after karl marx was born, and the fire departments at the time were private, first public schools were also established after marx was born.
Kayden Phillips
>why does monopoly on force have to explicitly be given to a single entity?
Because how else is he going to establish his rule?
>Suppression of competitors would result in violence, destabilizing his attempt to monopolize power.
If he's more powerful than his competitors they will either submit or perish.
Kevin Turner
Based & Statepilled
Hunter Johnson
The free-market has been the single most destructive force to the modern West. The corporate powers that have displaced the working class with 3rd world labor and even jobs in professionalism, like in the tech industry, have been the main forces pushing for immigration and hurting Whites internationally
Charles Garcia
>The largest issue is to stop warlords from feuding, which is what current world status quo essentially is.
Perhaps. It doesn't necessitate State force, regardless.
>NAP is simply ridiculous notion until there is a single NWO warlord with access to all the nuke buttons
Mutually assured destruction. The people with access to nukes in an AnCap society will have a high enough IQ to understand this basic principle. State leaders chosen by the masses, on the other hand, might certainly not. See: Pakistan.