Anarcho Capitalism

>name one flae
The ancap community still has faggy open borders socially liberal libertarian types. Thanks to Hoppe, late-era Rothbard, and a few others from the Mises gang, there's a strong conservative following, but it's still far from dominant.

Anarcho Capitalism = Complete Corpoarte slavery

You are a moron.

Minarchist is the way to go.

Corporate*

>invading Army marches in
Hi user, I'd like to buy some anarcho military default swaps.

Attached: Position.jpg (888x499, 84K)

Yeah, he will though under a An-Cap society. You idiot.

But that's the great thing about this way of organizing society. We don't have to agree and can go live our lives seperately.

>Freedom must be fought for.

In a libertarian society everybody has skin in the game. I don't know any other model for society that makes everybody invested from the start.

Attached: early_europe.jpg (850x537, 64K)

>the state is the problem as opposed to simple human stupidity
>Also the state is artificial as opposed to an organic body
these two false assumptions make ancapism the walking corpse of all the right wing ideologies.

> Create AnCap society
> Businesses selling security pop up
> For a portion of your income, you can buy protection
> Such companies realise you can just use force to take people's shit
> Woops you've got a state again

Ancap society is not sustainable.

Free-Market presupposes the prohibition of violence, Anarchist-Capitalism is just Anarchy.
Another fool who hasn't even read an ounce of what these individuals stood for, so much as to group their achievements into meaningless races like this fool's philosophy taught for. Die for your mystical gods, kings and race you literal non-playing character

How will he?

youtu.be/7jYHe_s2K5k

worship of money

Attached: 50.jpg (1024x768, 183K)

youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

greed

The individual doesn't precede society. The individual is determined by society.

Liberalism and by extension ancapism is based on the social contract fable. Society is NOT a network of contracts made by self-actuating individuals. Complete 17th century fabrication.

Capitalism is not a stable system and requires oversight. This is because human mortality and time preference. An individual can gain during his life time by predatory or destructive behavior. Capitalism is also a tragedy of the commons scenario

Rational calculation is relatively insignificant subset of human behavior (for most humans). It's a model that cannot explain society, other models are better becaus ethey don't begin at the atomic, individual level (like praxeology) which cannot break into larger social dynamics due to its ceteris paribus assumptions. Thus praxeology is always stuck in a theoretical realm of extremely simplifeid and tautological scenarios with robo-homo rational calculator people. In other words, the whole is not merely the sum of its parts. Praxeology cannot adequately describe the parts, it can rise above the parts, and it can't describe the effects of the whole on the parts therefore, which mean sits worthless because society molds the individual and determines much of his actions.

Ancapism is the most radical form of an ideology that based on bad athropology, bad theology, bad philosophy, bad politics, and bad biology.

Attached: 1485899588355.jpg (179x300, 11K)

>to have another class of people above the law is totally fine
>using force against people is organic... when the state does it

I wonder about your view of human history and especially the last century.

Attached: 1542028984058.jpg (923x713, 68K)

McNukes.

Whoa whoa user geez he only said ONE flaw. No need to go dismantling his entire weak and retarded worldview

>it can rise above the parts,
cannot*. Sorry for the typos.

You think nobody ever thought to adress this?

>But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?
mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

Attached: 1533553528536.jpg (369x496, 21K)

We're fucked here. NYC people are living out cuz of high cost of living to rural areas and voting for high taxes in New spot. So you either sell and move to a high racist zone or get surrounded by niggers and kikes. Your high racist zones also bring with it things that you don't like, but never take chances around niggers or kikes

Another premise-less disconnected unproven statements that undergird the metaphysics of emergentism - that race/state/nations are not reducible.

Rational calculation IS a significant factor for ALL human behavior, to say otherwise is to deny the realty of perceiving each and every choice made, and the very same values and concepts named as social dynamics and society.

We start with the axioms of logic, and you cannot through the system of such logic deny the very axioms you depend on: that you have volition over the majority of your behaviour.

>The individual doesn't precede society. The individual is determined by society.
Husband and wife don't procede marriage. They are determined by marriage.

>Liberalism and by extension ancapism is based on the social contract fable.
Wrong!

I'm not going to read the rest of the post, when you are posting such a blatant lie. The social contract is the fantasy used to justify the state.

This. The Ancap dream is absolutely the same as communism. It will fail just as fast and in exactly the same way unless an outside power intervenes.

Well Ancap just leads to pure tribal warfare,
Communism ENSURES a dictatorship (sometimes in the mind too through moral/ethical truths too)

>let's assume all this bullshit
>let's re-label warlord to something else
>ha, if we don't call a warlord a warlord and everyone follows my assumptions, it's impossible
All libs get the rope. Liberals and libertarians. Pic related applies to you too.

Attached: 1546886722931.jpg (498x432, 55K)

>It will fail just as fast and in exactly the same way unless an outside power intervenes.

How can an outside power intervene when all power is distrubed horizontally over society? What is this outside power going to do, to intervene in the life of eauch and every person?

How is an unregulated corporation different than a tyrannical government?

>Another premise-less disconnected unproven statements that undergird the metaphysics of emergentism - that race/state/nations are not reducible.
They are reducible in the same way an organism can be "reduced" to its organs and cells. Or the biosphere can be "reduced" to its organisms. But you lose the context and the explanatory power when you do this.

>Rational calculation IS a significant factor for ALL human behavior, to say otherwise is to deny the realty of perceiving each and every choice made,
You perceive the "choices" made sure, but the choices are not rationally calculated to any fine degree. They are largely based on habit and custom. Claiming that this is also "rational" leads to tautology and the disintegration of meaning of the term "rational".

>We start with the axioms of logic,
Which are a tautology

>and you cannot through the system of such logic deny the very axioms you depend on: that you have volition over the majority of your behaviour.
You have "volition" but so what? Why was one choice made over the other? Here, the praxeologist leaves the scene and all the actual fucking work begins.

Attached: 81sWxRbC8wL.jpg (1650x2550, 407K)

They help all in-groups they don't belong to destroy the country that gave them the wealth they use to destroy said country.

>Anarcho Capitalism fails due 3rd grade reading comprehension

I don't blame you for this. It's the fault of government schools.

i personally think there should still be a government. admittedly a smaller one.

and yeah, that means they would still collect taxes, but hopefully they would spend it on noble deeds. like maintaining national parks, that dont really generate income themselves, but are environmentally signaficant.

and thats where the anachist element falls through for me.

i mean sure, lots of freedom and prosperity, but we would somehow have to make cleaning polution profitable in order to save our planet from looking like hong-kong.

so like just a little government, to invest in ideas that the public brings forwards to solve large problems like war/polution.

like a bounty!
and they hand off small sums of money to thouse with rad ideas, and huge sums of cash when they acheive an ethical goal.

weird idea i know, but i think it is a good one.

>so like just a little government, to invest in ideas that the public brings forwards to solve large problems like war/polution.

Historically the greatest polluters and warmongers have been governments.

>Husband and wife don't procede marriage. They are determined by marriage.
You BTFO yourself trying to make your point! Yes, the man and woman were in fact determined by the institution of marriage in two senses. Not only were they born because of it, and the society and civilized world that nurtured them only existed in the way it did because of marriage, but further, they chose the particular arrangement they did (marriage) because of long-held notions they did not conceive themselves, but rather were given to them by society.

Attached: 1493349093814.jpg (800x999, 92K)

Jealous poor people

>You have "volition" but so what? Why was one choice made over the other? Here, the praxeologist leaves the scene and all the actual fucking work begins.

The choice is required to survive, our base means of survival is reason - concept formation which requires volition to make choices and improve.

These same choices to survive create a philosophy/ political system to best survive and that is capitalism(and rational egoism fyi)

>Which are a tautology
so?

>choices are not rationally calculated to any fine degree
axioms, we make choices - its your choice to deny such realty or not

>They are reducible
then dont deny that social dynamics/society/culture is determined by individual volitional behaviors

fucking brainlets ITT

Attached: National-Transhumanism.png (1000x1744, 957K)

No, your turning the process upside down. Before a marriage can exist, there have to be two seperate people. That's why it's called a union.

You can't unite what is already one.

>section of the population gets social engineered by in-group that serves only itself and only uses capitalism to reach that end
>capitalism immediately commences a spiral into destruction while in-groups that operate on a tribal basis subvert and remove the capitalists and put themselves in charge
>every man for himself-free for all-individualist hell starts burning down and all the "anarcho-capitalists" start begging for an Authoritarian Nationalist entity like China to save them

Learn to stop.

Attached: 1520773162235.jpg (620x620, 71K)

Absent a social contract backed up by force, what's to stop me from taking all your stuff and shitting all over it?

With a social contract backed by force, where's the 'anarcho'?

With competition in force backing providing for social contracts, what's to stop me from outbidding you, taking all your stuff, and shitting all over it?

The big flaw is that at some point you need force to back up property rights. Most reasonable people (that is to say, social democrats, or 'democratic socialists' in the American sense) are, believe it or not, in agreement that the government's use of force is often a pretty horrible thing). The thing AnCaps (REAL AnCaps, not pinochet fanboys) don't get is that when you have COMPETITION to provide a service - in this case, ultraviolence to protect your stuff - you get more of the service, and better implementations of the service. That sounds really good right up until you realize that that's basically trading ONE oppressive goverment for A WHOLE MARKET IN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS TRYING TO OPPRESS MORE EFFICIENTLY.

voluntary taxation - it works,
pollution can indeed become a source of industry.
the governments only role should be police, army and judicial system - hopefully seperate

probably true, but they only do so, because it is cost effective and they realise they can inflate their budgets with no reprocussions.

i say we limit the govs power, and basically reduce them to a bounty board. and maybe give them a few militia training camps, to defend the nation if SHTF

state your premises, instead of regurgitating uncontextual statements,
fellow gook-nigger

>I dare you to name one flaw of this absolute Chad ideology.
Republic of Minerva

meritocracy can only be a dangerous myth... it encourages anyone who finds themselves in control of anything to think that they're hot shit so they act stupidly... a degree of randomness is good and letting people know they just got lucky and aren't necessarily really the best

Firstly, Ayn Rand was NOT a libertrian. She sai some things that some libertarians agreed with.
Secondly, those other jews developed an ideology that benefits anyone not just jews. And due to its nature its not led by anyone. Its not "a jewish ideology". Its just common sense to look after yourself

So stop dealing with the corporation

>invading Army marches in
That sounds like statism

But the particular choice, marriage, versus the myriad of other possible choices was chosen because of pre-individual social habits, customs, and institutions. As I said in the other post, praxeology stops at exactly the point where things are of any interest at all. It stays in the realm of mere form and imaginary meetings between abstracted rational maximizers.

Marriage existed before the individuals. They were made by it and they chose it because it was the option given.

Zebras divorced from the savannah are inexplicable. The heart divorced from the body is inexplicable.

Humans divorced form society literally go insane and mentally breakdown.

Praxeology has no explanatory power because it does not move from its theoretical plane. It is a relatively useless activity that can explain individuals in highly quarantined scenarios.

>absolute freedom
>muh property rights are most important thing about whole """""ideology""""
its shit

>Absent a social contract backed up by force, what's to stop me from taking all your stuff and shitting all over it?
>With a social contract backed by force, where's the 'anarcho'?
The anarcho means there are no rulers over you. There are still rules though, such as the NAP.

>That sounds really good right up until you realize that that's basically trading ONE oppressive goverment for A WHOLE MARKET IN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS TRYING TO OPPRESS MORE EFFICIENTLY.
I don't know what your thought barrier is. Why do you think anybody would continue to pay a company that he is unsatisfied with or even oppressing him?

That's because it is. And I, your anarcho capitalist non-citizen neighbor, would like to bet against your poorly organized, low morale, mercenary military. Some anarcho military default swaps please. I'll take $100 million worth.

>The individual doesn't precede society. The individual is determined by society.
Correct. The individual does precede the state however.

>Liberalism and by extension ancapism is based on the social contract fable
Thought experiment, not fable. Of the great contract thinkers, at the very least Rousseau acknowledged it was a state to which man could never return, or perhaps one that never existed at all.

>Capitalism is not a stable system
This is demonstrably incorrect.

>and requires oversight
Yet we see that the countries that prosper the most are the countries with the least regulation of the economy, in which market actors can interact with as few barriers as possible.

>An individual can gain during his life time by predatory or destructive behavio
Correct. I have however yet to see a single capitalist who believes laws should be abolished. Even ancaps believe in the NAP.

>Capitalism is also a tragedy of the commons scenario
You can't just claim something without asserting it.

>Rational calculation is relatively insignificant subset of human behavior (for most humans).
Even within capitalism there are multiple schools of thought debating whether or not humans should be seen as rational actors in the market (Austrian v. Chicago school). This is by no means a knock-down argument against capitalism, it's rather arguing for a certain school of thought within capitalism.

tl;dr:
>AnCap is stupid
But
>Society and state are not the same thing
>A state requires legitimacy for its power as well as restrictions on its power
>Monarchism provides neither

>The anarcho means there are no rulers over you
woah woah woah nigger, words mean things.

Corporatism is better.

The shills of pol NEED you back on the plantation. Thats why fascism is promoted here. It gets you worshipping government by "le epic trolling of libtards". Any posts advocating "the system" is a shill post.

People adopting Libertarianism and Ancap ideology are THE BIGGEST THREAT to (((the system)))

wtf I love government now

This has nothing to do with praxeology. You are simply using words the wrong way.

The reason you give for your conception of marriage is cultural. But then again so is our language and that language has defined such words as marriage as the union of two persons. You can't have a union of one.

I don't know how I could help you think about this the right way.
Does the forest make the tree? Does a town make a house? I say no, you say yes.

Because humans are vicious, greedy, violent creatures, and thus your NAP could never work. It would devolve into Chaos quicker than I can snap my fingers...

>Society and state are not the same thing
Did not claim that

>A state requires legitimacy for its power as well as restrictions on its power
Restricted by whom? lol.

Welcome back to the tragedy of the commons...

>>Monarchism provides neither
Monarchy is to republicanism as a proprietor is to a worker owned co-op. Unification of interest in the property (no tragedy) versus diversity of interest (tragedy).

Attached: 1535492768629.jpg (640x621, 71K)

Degeneracy.

You dont have to love it. Just know that they will win against any military that lacks identity, community, morale, and believes they are fighting for the greater good.

>Yet we see that the countries that prosper the most are the countries with the least regulation of the economy, in which market actors can interact with as few barriers as possible.
Like China..? With central planned economy the most anti free market thing that can exist?

In his post he seems to equate the backing up of one's claims via force automatically not to be anarchist.

That's wrong. It's the statist thinking to automatically assume that only governments can enforce your contracts.

No - Militarys run on debt. And decent people of some intelligence dont want to get paid in fiat monetized debt paper

>Does the forest make the tree? Does a town make a house? I say no, you say yes.

Once a collection of objects becomes large enough, new dynamics begin to occur that did not previously when the collection was smaller. The new dynamics begin to change the behavior of the objects. Now the collection has itself an object and the behavior of the objects within it can no longer be understood without reference to the larger system.

This is universal to everything we know about physics and biology. It also applies to human society.

Yes, the forest makes the tree. It really does.

So you're saying your ancap army wont even exist? Well, that makes it really easy for this commie army to come take your land.

I wouldn't use the Jews as the universal scapegoat here. Rather, Jow Forums's support for fascism is the rather childish desire of a father figure to fix everything. Keep in mind that when Jow Forums argues for fascism, they project their own wants and desires onto the Great Leader. They however never come up with any measures on what to do once the Great Leader starts disagreeing with them.

>>Society and state are not the same thing
>Did not claim that
Alright then.

>>A state requires legitimacy for its power as well as restrictions on its power
>Restricted by whom? lol.
Rule by consent is generally a good way, as is the implementation of certain civic and human rights the state cannot violate except for a certain particular set of circumstances.

>Welcome back to the tragedy of the commons...
Again, offer an explanation of what you mean by this. How is restricting the power of the government the tragedy of the commons?

>Monarchy is to republicanism as a proprietor is to a worker owned co-op.
So what you're saying is that the state, its territory and all the people living within it are the property of the king? How exactly? A proprietor owns a certain corporation as his personal property, he uses money to pay for labor to create a certain good or provide a certain service and pays wages out of his profits. How does this translate to the monarchial model? It does not, as the king's income is derived from taxation ie. the forcible extraction of the labor and profits of both employers and employees. There is nothing being produced.

>That picture
No taxation without representation, not no taxation full stop. Also, if you hate your own country so much you're free to leave it.

Do you not realize that between Mao and the present China's market has opened up drastically? It's public sector shrunk from 100% to about 30%. The fact that one of the last communist countries on the planet is stepping away from a fully planned economy is telling.

I guess I'm just missing the forest for the trees.

Protip: Compare the China of today to the China of the past.

No the problem is the (((people))) in control of society the rest of it is a matter of opinion any white society regardless of political ideology will do well provided it's not Controlled by (((them)))

Check Out My Channel The Zio-Con Report:

>We've got videos exposing 9/11
youtu.be/rkFNTy1JzFg

>The Last Middle Eastern War
youtu.be/ryUXkpYVnRM

>Why Does America Spend So Much Money On Israel (Rebuttal)
youtu.be/o7cRqV6l7Iw

>CIRCUMCISION EXPOSED 2019
youtu.be/QrB7hL61B-0

>The Post Truth Era
youtu.be/HNhLKkDPXVc

>Is Trump a Zionist?
youtu.be/QwRojV5Csb0

>James Traficant: The Powerful Israel Lobby
youtu.be/AVzEgA85jLQ

>(((Who))) finances Donald Trump?
youtu.be/UXC8UbZK2Ng

>Yuri Bezmenov: The Zionist Blueprint For America?
youtu.be/GU4Tc6U0iz8

Individuals will have the means to protect their shit. And they can agree to work together. In a big group.

The biggest problem with Ancap is people WANT to be retarded which is why the cannot grasp the concept

>Individuals will have the means to protect their shit.
Explain the Republic of Minerva.

>They however never come up with any measures on what to do once the Great Leader starts disagreeing with them.
Kek. True.
Most of pol assume they would be the SS

>Most of pol assume they would be the SS
They do, but given what history teaches us it's more likely that they'd be in the SA. And end up the same way as the SA.

Capitalists said that cigarettes were good for you. Granted, the government was present, but it was the government that ended this propaganda after all. My problem with ancapism is no incentive for environmentalism and no incentive for selling healthy things

a state claimed the land

>Rule by consent is generally a good way, as is the implementation of certain civic and human rights the state cannot violate except for a certain particular set of circumstances.
>cannot violate
Oh, does God intervene?

>Again, offer an explanation of what you mean by this. How is restricting the power of the government the tragedy of the commons?
Because there is a diversity of interests and someone has to win. Whoever wins is then playing pretend. Playing pretend that they are under any real obligation to be checked or balanced. It's all a farce. In reality, a winner always exists and is the power behind the... hmmm... piece of fucking parchment.

>It does not, as the king's income is derived from taxation
Rent.

>the forcible extraction of the labor and profits of both employers and employees.
Same as any other form of rent or exchange

Your error is thinking that Lockean labor theory of ownership or value is anything other than whig aristocrat fantasy.

>There is nothing being produced.
Society is produced.

>Also, if you hate your own country so much you're free to leave it.
Yawn.

If you can't tell I was once very into praxeology and eventually realized why it is technically true but pretty much useless. It stops at precisely the point where anything of interest or value can be said about society because it cannot go beyond the tree.

all the nerds I see online with AnCap flags would be enslaved by someone stronger, richer, smarter, more determined with more guns and more goons within 5 minutes of an AnCap society forming.

I have an historic example to make it easier to grasp for you the problem with invading an anarchist territory.

>The Vikings were able to exploit internal divisions in order to invade England and France. As Ireland was one of the most politically fractured countries at the time, it was a prime target for Viking conquest. Furthermore, Irish Kings often made alliances with foreign invaders in an attempt to weaken their domestic rivals. The Vikings were able to defeat the centralized Kingdoms of Europe, since the small ruling class was easily removed. However, Ireland was composed of more than 150 different Kingdoms ruling over small territories. This decentralized system of governance made it almost impossible to gain control of a territory, since defeated Kings were easily replaced.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland_(800–1169)#Failed_Conquest

>Why do you think anybody would continue to pay a company that he is unsatisfied with or even oppressing him?

Why do you think the only person who can pay an oppressive company is the person BEING oppressed? The person who WANTS TO OPPRESS also has money!

False. It's never been tried.

It's libertarianism that has gone the final step...no government at all. Libertarians are still menarchists in that they still believe in a state.

Just because some people who preach liberty just so happen to be jews means that libertarianism is evil and they're trying to screw over the white race? What a fucking retard you are. If a jew told you that you shouldn't jump off a bridge you'd probably take your entire race with you even if it means enslaving them under the disguise of National(((Socialism)))

I have an example of the problem with anarchism against centralized forces
>America v Injuns

Which would mean that the government is only entitled to the fruit of that land and not to any form of taxation. Which is very inconvenient once industry and services start making up the grand majority of the GDP and the state barely scrounges enough money together for an army.

>Oh, does God intervene?
Funny, considering you're arguing for divine right monarchism. No, the state does not intervene.Which is why the citizens must be ever vigilant. Which is why you have a second amendment, remember?

>Because there is a diversity of interests and someone has to win.
Obviously, that's unavoidable. Just because you choose to only give one person a vote doesn't mean all the other interests disappear however.

>Whoever wins is then playing pretend. Playing pretend that they are under any real obligation to be checked or balanced
Ha, go tell Trump that. Go tell Trump that neither the House nor the Courts check him. He'll call you a retard, ask you if you watch the news and then tell you to get off his property.

>Rent.
Most taxes are from income tax, corporate tax and sales tax. Which cannot be justified under such a system.

>Your error is thinking that Lockean labor theory of ownership or value is anything other than whig aristocrat fantasy.
So the entire modern economy runs on a fantasy? good to know.

>Society is produced.
Did you not earlier claim that you never stated the state precedes the society? The idea that something can be preceded by what it creates is as laughable as the idea that one can give birth to her own mother.

This. Libertarians are just liberal in the European sense, following the belief that the state is a necessary evil. AnCaps see the state as an unnecessary evil and believe the principles of the free market can create a perfectly just and functional society based on free association. Like socialism, it falls into the trap of "true X has never been tried!" whereas libertarianism has demonstrable results.

>agree to work together
>in a big group
>definitely not the beginnings of a formation of a state

>Complete Corpoarte slavery
It's almost as if you completely forgot that they have a consumer base or something. It's almost as if you forgot that their consumer base is their lifeline. It's almost as if there aren't any other competitors.

>It stops at precisely the point where anything of interest or value can be said about society because it cannot go beyond the tree.

Again, I don't think our disagreement has anything to do with praxeology, but simply the definiton of words. I don't think any physist is going to redefine hydrogen atoms as soon as two of them bond togehter with an oxygen atom. He's going to call the product water, but the water didn't create those atoms.

As for what praxeology is good, well human action of course.

It has. They all died or got conquered.

How did he get the money? In an anarcho capitalist society you can only acquire money through voluntary exchange.