Ancap civil discussion thread

Not necessarily homosexuality, but i imagine private justice systems could enforce moral laws if a majority of society in a certain location is alright with it. Any others could easily be forced out to other communities.

Yes, i don't see the point in rushing and risking unnecesary chaos.

In my POW, for an ancap society to work properly people must be prepared against scammers since the justice system would be much more liberal in that respect, and so i believe in a transition period, however once the system is set up, naive people would be discouraged from continuing that way, and so it would persist that way.

I myself always feel conflicted about ancap society as an idea. For me the best kind of civilisation is one that somehow manages to harness individual strength and intelligence while at the same time preserving the cultural integrity of that society. Too much individuality might lead to degeneracy which destroys a society at its root, but too much collectivism greats social and economic decay.

*creates sorry

I don't necessarily believe in an absolute moral standard, but i strive for an ideal society to hold whatever moral standard is currently enforced, unless a majority of the population gains support, in which case the current moral standard might not be as good as it seems and must be changed. This sort of system would definetely not have a moral system engraved into it, but rather choose in a (pseudo)democratic way which is best for itself.

Think of it like a beefier homeowners association that would usually be associated with a church.

alright my friend thank you for clearing that up for me

Not necessarily with a church, but definetely with some shared moral standard the community agrees on.

I do really like the idea of thinking about it like a homeowner's association, that really captures the spirit of it.

one final question, how might an ancap society prevent a return to tyranny that it seeks to prevent. prevent things such as warlords etc

Np

That's why i think economic education, and really general education would be very important in the transition period. The system would work only if people see the value of cooperating instead of fighting, and in any case if a warlord rose up by himself, the society living under it would be very much poorer than the rest of society, meaning an incentive to move back to society. Finally, the fact that the private organizations that stemmed from the government transition are so big already would provide a barrier, although not a perfect one, to warlords. Finally, the fact that government can change as fast and efficiently as companies can would mean much of the disagreements between sectors of society, which sometimes create a leverage point for warlords to rise, could be quelled before any major conflict rose out, as "borders" (which would really be places of influence of various companies) would be fluid and constantly changing to fit their inhabitants.

Its a shame because i feel general education might not be effective, because of the argument of "muh gibs me dat for free" tends to be more convincing to many, especially the poorer, probably because it appeals on a more emotional level to the desperate

That is indeed a very valid point, but i'd imagine much of the society that actually controls the economic power in such a society would be incredibly disadvantaged by a rising warlord, or in the case they become a warlord, wars with others. I believe they have plenty to steal from each other just from business alone desu.

Where tf did that desu come from?
*desu

* to be honest

Reminds of that film "dogs of war" where they go to like this African failed state and one guy ask another why one of the neighbour states doesn't invade. and the other dude is like "the nigga is happy to stay within own borders and slaughter his own"

Attached: 51KWFSFFQPL._SY445_.jpg (309x445, 38K)

>praising HOA
jesus fuck i understand how you people see us now

Attached: E035FB74-641E-4674-9B85-A6CD7FCD4CAC.jpg (550x733, 93K)

Fun fact, i'm relatively new to politics at all, that's why i'm posting these "critique me" threads.

What's the stereotype about you guys then?

Attached: 1497584493759.png (1200x571, 83K)

kek
Makes sense actually.
I don't believe any system can be fully free of abuse, but at least using business they get something in return i guess. That and the chance of becoming a businessowner if you have enough support.

Jow Forums thinks were all just trannies and basedbois. Jow Forums is dumber than rocks though take everything with more than a grain of salt.

Jesus christ.
Didn't know this was a YLYL thread.
Saved.

You know what? You got me interested. Willing to do the same as I, outline your main points of view, and open up to questions?

your welcome my boy, im newish here too

My criticism of anarcho-capitalism is pretty much the same as Ayn Rand's -- by removing the state (which Ancaps advocate based on the idea that the state violates the NAP) there's nothing to enforce the NAP.

Ancaps seem to engage in some magical thinking when it comes to market solutions to this problem. They're all "hand-wavy" -- plausible in the way that communism is plausible -- but I think will ultimately fail because they are contrary to human nature.

The simple matter of it is that might makes right. I have more money than you so I will always be "more equal" than you without a state to enforce the NAP. All these arguments for private security are bullshit. No, the fairest security firms won't rise to the top -- the most brutal ones will. I don't want a fair security company. I want one that will ruthlessly do my bidding. If that's what I want and I can pay for it, the market will serve it up.

Freedom isn't natural. Natural selection is natural. The lion does not give a shit about the rights of the gazelle. Freedom is the product of philosophy and enlightenment. It will triumph over natural selection only when liberty-minded people gather together for a common defense of it. Markets will not do that for you. Markets are good at only one thing: finding the correct price of something.

I just hate the rich and the jewish elite but also authoritarian cunts too. I think society would be better if we went back to letting people police their own communities and focus on working as a whole rather than as individuals.

So to you some kind of minarchist system would be im place? Nightwatchmen model i think its called.

This is actually an interesting argument i've come across before. The fact that businesses, even if through others, eventually sell to consumers, would mean that a well-informed consumer base could choke on businesses' profits if need arises. Money is worth nothing without people willing to sell their labour. This mechanism could be used as leverage in bargaining to make sure the fairest security firms rise.

It's based on territory, like nature. Degenerates and subversives get banished. There will be places they can go and live with other freaks and monsters.

Attached: 4c236644d298021197e962ee55ee18f707914fbead0fa5b39ccd0a6b765ac5ca.jpg (898x904, 130K)

based bolivia bro

It is indeed a nice idea, but wouldn't it be unstable What would happen if someone decided not to collaborate? Is there some sort of incentive for them?

Ik, tell me about it. It sucks

Yes. I would argue that the only role of the state is to protect property rights. Put another way, I might say that the only role of the state is to keep coercion out of marketplaces. I think those two are almost identical if you're inclined to look at it that way. I view all human interaction as a marketplace -- an exchange. If you view it that way then making sure markets are voluntary is the same as protecting property rights.

if someone doesnt want to be a part of your community they can leave. If someone wants to oppress you and force you into their serivce you fight. Its possible to die and be wiped out completley but I think its better to live free with that possibility than as a slave.

The state tends to keep expanding though

Fair point. Who would organize these communities? Would there be room for expansion to city-like status?

How do you stop the power hungry people or even low iq people from causing problems

The current system robs people of their agency in dealing with bad people. Human garbage can commit the most horrendous crimes, and they are allowed to live. The system is really for criminals and corrupt people, to take advantage of the weak. This is why I want guns back in the UK. The cops are worthless. Violate the NAP, and you lose all rights.

Attached: NAP violated!.gif (410x277, 274K)

The power for power hungry people would come from money almost exclusively, and as most businesses, at the end of a long chain, depend on customers buying their stuff, or selling them their labor, a badly organized "strike" of sorts, or labor unions even, could make sure their power is kept in check. Low IQ people would be discouraged from most things bad for society, to the point where if their damage is too large they might be incarcerated (of course using a private justice system)

here here wheres that gif from?

Attached: legal uk guns.jpg (600x900, 86K)

the communities would be responsible for themselves, I imagine there would be some who would take charge and try and get things done and those people will naturally be looked up to and followed because that’s human nature.
they would have to deal with their own expantion. im sure there could be some kind of city or town but I think a collective community focused on the whole would be producers first and if they had excess then they could start naturally expanding into things like refining and manufacturing and trading with other communities.

How would such a system manage an army? There would be many dangers if those leaders had access to an army and decided to use it to become dictators.

I think that's a fantasy. Billionaires can hire an entire law firm or security firm. The firm would have no need for other customers. Heck, people rich enough can hire their own henchmen. The only way the market fits into this is that rich people will compete for the best henchmen. Getting fairness out of this is magical thinking.

we already live in an ancap society. the government is simply one big powerful ancap state that keeps down all the weak ancaps like you

Attached: 200.gif (272x200, 550K)

Its legal to own a semi auto AK in UK? Fuck me need to get my hands on one

I would think they wouldnt need one but that would be up to them I guess. I imagine that the people would form a militia to protect their community but there is no need for attacking others.

Yes it does. That's because people can't agree that the state needs to be limited. The state doesn't grow on its own. It grows because of progressives who think they can solve problems with coercion. The state's role should be to stop coercion not to provide it.

That's why i believe education would be needed before a system like this arises. If people had ingrained in their brains that they cannot be forced to comply, even at gunpoint, a very simple and gutural rule, hiring henchmen would be very self-defeating. It would not fix the sudden labour shortage, and rather reduce the available labor pool once the crisis is over.

Understandable.
Then i guess more market competition is needed.

>.22
thats cancer. just get the .223 in manual and if shit ever hits the fan modify it to be useful.

>an-cap will never exist

All rights come ultimately from the barrel of a gun. The Wild West was not like the Hollywood freaks made it out to be. Men with guns mutually kept the peace. Try rob the bank, and 50 guns would be pointed at your head. Statist cowards would rather grovel to corrupt people that take responsibility for the safety of their own. I don't want to live with such useless, pathetic losers.

Attached: nfbwwm.jpg (640x276, 51K)

This would actually seem like a good idea.

What if some external force attacked, maybe someone expelled from the community before, whose own community has grown. Wouldn't that force the community to create an army?

>he power for power hungry people would come from money almost exclusively
Wrong, they have the most oppertunity. Corruption just like most other crime is mostly about oppertunity and lack of consequence to those actions. Low iq people can't be discouraged, due to their low iq they will need to take more risk to reach the top. Low iq people commit more crime because it's harder for them to reach the top playing by the rules. you won't stop this with any propaganda or punishment. ,

Is a classic problem with the free market, can often lead to monopolistic tyranny

Attached: hwxz3C5ZKsRRI59Ns36YTZS_H5I3b2wxe1VLrrwSkGk.jpg (1080x565, 138K)

people aren’t bank slates and different people are naturally inclinded to different attitudes. there will always be authoritarian people who want to obey or be obeyed.

I'd imagine incarceration or execution would fix the low IQ problem pretty fast.
Also, I believe rich people would be discouraged from gaining power through other means, because it's just much easier to pay someone than to kill them, even if you hire someone else to do it. Corruption itself would surprisingly be a part of the system. If someone who controls a business wants more, he raises profit margins. If profit margins are too high, their company dies. Either they get what they want or die, not many in-betweens like bribes.

That sounds like a variation of the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" line. I think it's wrongly applied here. A government will happily sacrifice a few hostage citizens to prevent future sacrifices to terrorists. An individual will not sacrifice his family. And that's where I think the idea has the same level of plausibility that communism has. I relies on a selflessness that is not present in humans. It cannot be taught.

I believe monopolies aren't really bad, as long as the population, with enough support, can bring about a new business, a mirror would be a country splitting. Inb4 someone screams "The confederacy will rise again"

I like to think they would just defend and repel the attackers if they could, no reason to form a full army. The militia fighting to defend their home would have to be enough, or they would just die.
but an army being formed would definatley be a real possibility, I just think it would be bad for the society and signify at least a shift in attitudes more towards authoritarianism.

I'm not going to grovel to some Mason cop to exercise my natural law right to defend myself. I'll wait until everything goes to shit, and buy an Uzi.

thats an understatement, education is the major giver of real liberty

This is a good point. It relies on an ideal being present among most citizens at least.

I just bet that the ideal will be not selflessness, but unrelenting selfishness.

*Unrelenting selfishness and pride

Going A F K for a bit.

people have been advocating a boycott of Nestle since i was a kid. fifty years ago.

it does not work.

How to punish a crime in Ancapistan without violating the NAP ?

Low iq is relative, lower iq people get more children. I know is IQ is centered on the average 100, but imagine 120 iq people getting children and the 110 IQ people get more, the 110 are not stupid, but they will need to play outside the rules to gain the system. Corruption is Always part of a system, no society or person is 100% virtuous, whatever that may be. How would you discourage a rich person from gaining even more power? There Always has to be a monkey at the top of the rock. This exact reason is why the government should be kept small and insightfull, you can't prevent this but you can limit it's effect on society.

- Apply their own rules onto them
- Throw them out.

Simple as that. 100% moral.

Self interest is an excellent driver only when coercion isn't an option. With voluntary markets people succeed only by improving the situations of other people through trade. But as soon as coercion seeps in this all goes out the window. I think Anacaps are confused. They somehow think that markets bring peace. They don't. Market bring only efficient pricing.

Voluntary markets don't eliminate coercion. Rather, voluntary markets are possible only if coercion is eliminated.

NAP is about not being the first to attack, not about not defending yourself. Defending you and your property with force if need be is a core principle of NAP.

NAP means no initiation of aggression. The only "crime" would be initiation of aggression. "Crime" isn't really the right word though because it would be handled more like a tort with an identifiable victim or group of victims instead of an act against "the public" (whatever that means).

It's consistent with libertarianism to respond to aggression proportionally.

non agreesion policy

bump

NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE

FFS you posers, stop posing

>Ancap

That is not a real word. Stop being so pretentious. You are an anarchist. Period.

Back again

This is why I emphasize education. A system like it is now wouldn't work. It'd need easy telecommunications, which wasn't available as it is now, and economic education.

Not too far away from me and not too long ago i've witnessed gigantic social media movements that have managed to worry the government here in Bolivia. They're not quite there, but a big portion of the population independently rose up against an injustice. Not quite there, not quite economic, but i think it's going to become plausible in future.

Thanks for the inclusivity, but sadly it'd be unwise just to label myself as anarchist. The correct term to not offend anyone (which sadly is a thing i must do to keep this thread clean) would be to say im Anarcho Capitalist. Now that is a bit of a long word, so i thought i might just use the agreed-upon shortening of ancap and use it as a noun. Language adapts according to it's usefulness.

Kek

Took the bait hard there.
Don't feed the troll

These two reasons and a bit of insightful thinking have got me to reconsider the idea of a full-on ancap society. I think i'm beginning to lean more towards minarchism.

That and the nukes situation outlined in the top post

>however I don't believe current society would be ready for it.
We may need a lot more people to comprehend the idea before we can do it. I think the way to achieve this is by producing popular fiction that exposes people to ancap ideas. Withur We is an example. It's hard to get people to read long novels though. We need it manga/comic/anime/movie form.

>i don't believe at all in nationalistic movements or racist movements
One of the advantages of a private property-based society is that people can split off into areas dedicated to whatever combinations of demographics they feel comfortable with, which in theory should minimize conflict.
Everyone benefits when racists segregate themselves.
In fact, there is no reason why nationalists of different stripes cannot collaborate for their mutual success, although it might erode their nationalism.

>nukes
I haven't thought much about the nukes issue so far.

Attached: peace and love.png (1020x1020, 773K)

>terminology
I like the term Polycentric Law.

Attached: ancarp.jpg (183x275, 6K)

An ancap anime would be hilarious

Yes, I just had to say that because my previous thread attracted fascists

The nukes issue is pretty interesting, because possession of nukes forces power to be centralized in ways that are almost incomprehensible.

Understandable. Have a nice day.

ancap threads fill my heart with hope

>re previous thread
I see.

I used to lean more Ancap myself. I thought that if less government was better, then none was best. It's an attractive proposal. But discussions with others on it led me back to minarchism. I still enjoy discussions about how things could work without government, but I can't hold onto the notion religiously. There's just too much hand waving on the details.

Minarchism is still ethically indefensable, user. Not only it will distort and slow the progress on military strategies and technology because of the nationalization of it, it gives too much bellic power to the officials. Overtime, that state will use its illegitimate power to enhance itself. America started out as a minarchy, look at what it is now. Read Hans Hermann-Hoppe.

Disclaimer: the non-aggression principle is about the initiation of unjustified force against one another. Retaliative use of force, such as defense, and initiation of justified force, such as punishment, is entirely ethically defensible.