Ancap

>Somalia

>now in 2019 people must free from government tyranny.

I'm not sure if you're joking or not...

The average person today is more cucked and controlled than the typical peasant was 700 years ago.

Anarchy can only exist during a transition between one type of system another or the same system.
total anarchy only exists for short periods.

Most ancaps become ancaps because they believe that the existence of a government is immoral.

They get tricked into arguing that the system would be pragmatic, even though it wouldn't be at all. Ancapistan would get the shit kicked out of it by foreign invaders.

Ultimate redpill: any system can be made to work when you have (enough) white people. The J-right points to countries like venezuela as failures of leftism, whereas the J-left will point to African states like somalia or the middle east as failures of rightism, and they're both right but for the wrong reason. The only question for us would really be which system is the most moral, and who can implement it best.

thats the point or you wish to stay in a system where people can put JUSTIN TRUDEAU to control over you?

but those are subcultures

Jow Forums seems to simultaneously hold the beliefs that the masses of humanity are congenitally incapable of rational thought but also that they would be capable of instating and living under an NAP-compliant ancap utopia by dint of some voluntarist voodoo. I can't personally square the two and, to me, the second conclusion seems more easily sloughed-off

This. It would require an ethnically homogeneous high IQ society like the japs and even then it wouldn’t be the most optimal system. The funniest thing is most libertarians aren’t even nationalist

cows though

Assuming you're even correct (you're not), how is it relevant?

>How do anarchic-capitalists explain the lack of any examples for their system throughout history and today?
It's not intuitive. As an example, look at quantum physics. It's complete bonkers to the average person and goes against common sense, yet it's still true. The same is so for the effectiveness of anarcho-capitalism. It is true, but in order to implement it you have to convince the general populace, which isn't practical. It's a difference between theory and implementation. Communism is retarded because the labor theory of value is one of the dumbest and most incorrect things devised by man. Yet they still implemented socialism, because the average person is jealous and loves to take stuff from somebody more well-off. It's all about marketability.

So basically you are saying the free market can't market itself?

They're domesticated, humans are their leaders. Wild cattle would have dominant bulls leading the herd.

>Ancapistan would get the shit kicked out of it by foreign invaders.
Not a valid argument. You'd have to explain why that's an issue unique to ancap. For example, by your logic, every single weak/small state would be annexed by a bigger one. That doesn't match reality.

cows are rule by the farmer, but cows can not become the farmer
soldiers are ruled by the general, but soldiers can not become the general
in a monarchy, you can not become there ruler, only the monarch can be the ruler
it's not really complicated

>anarchic-capitalists

(((bussinessman))) doesnt want to pay taxes - that is it

I'm in ancapistan, you're in ancapistan, I want concrete roads, you want macadam roads

Ancap is just a transition phase. People who stick with it are just scared

>nonsense
So ancap functioning like ancap isn't really ancap because it doesn't do things antithetical to ancap?

well no, what are the rules ?
hamurabi got that right, he wrote down the rules rather than randomly deciding according to what he had for breakfast

Yes, and each landowner will decide which kind of road to build in order to maximize profit. Is your issue with standardization, fearing that the roads will not match and be unusable? Companies aren't stupid. There's a reason they adopt universal standards like Blu-ray and USB when it matters.

Small nations can form alliances with bigger ones. Individual people can't.

obviously, in a democracy, the rules are made by whoever manages to get a majority, so all kind of weird people try to get to that position so they can make their idiotic rules

Private entities form alliances all the time. You are assuming that ancap means Mad Max lawless lands where every man is out for himself, because you focus too much on the anarchism part.

I pity the people who never heard of Bitcoin.

not on a military level though.
a defensive pact between 5000 minor landowners is simply unrealistic.

Are you saying you want a monarchy?

no I want a concrete road because it is more socialist and you want a macadam road because it is more capitalist, and there is no middle ground

no but plato explained how democracy, oligarchy, tyranny etc worked

I pity the people who bought at 20k, because its going to 100k by the end of next year bro!

Every time a civilization completely breaks down, there's a few seconds, maybe minutes of AnCap. Until a superior system (ANY system) wipes it away.

an enlightened monarch is the best
but how do you know who is an enlightened monarch ? he didn't say

And?
I don’t see what you’re trying to say

Are you basing this on anything, or just conjecture? If you want my conjecture then I imagine military force will be made into a market just like anything else. Landowners will pay for protection from a selection of different defense companies. Obviously this will extend to protection from outside threats, as otherwise the NAP would be meaningless. Just because you personally can't imagine it doesn't mean it can't work. That's why the only solution is to give it a try and see, and gather evidence for/against it. Far dumber ideas were implemented before despise the consequences.

>Every time a civilization completely breaks down, there's a few seconds, maybe minutes of AnCap
No there isn't, since anarchism doesn't have protection of property rights. What exactly do you think the cap part stands for? That's why Somalia is not anarcho-capitalist. It's just plain anarchist.

I don't know

my city has 40k inhabitants. if all my neighbours buy the McDefense Gold subscription, why should i? i get the benefits of a safe city without paying for it.

The only protection of property rights AnCap has is the one the individual can secure
AKA, same shit.

The absence of something in history doesn't mean you can't wish to have it. We all want societies without murder or rape. Has it happened before? No. Do we therefore have to abandon that desire for no murder and no rape?
Saga period Iceland, ancient Ireland all have strong aspects of ancap. Even now, the stock market, the remnants of the free market, all have aspects we want, we simply have a desire for more freedom that expands on what is there and removes institutionalised force.

Attached: FB_IMG_1559340621650.jpg (687x849, 33K)

Did u think I was gonna defend or define ancap? I was trying to say it’s dumb, and that people should grow out of it

There's a country where secession is allowed, that's pretty much the only thing ancap requires.

yes, but who is going to decide if it's McDefense or McInsurance ?

>The only protection of property rights AnCap has is the one the individual can secure
No, the protection comes from private sources but it must exist. If in practice there's no property right protection, then it's not capitalism. Using your logic even communist states are capitalist, since you can always hypothetically force others to acknowledge your property via force. You may say it coming about is unrealistic, but describing clearly anti-capitalist environments as being capitalist is nonsense.

I'm not some guru with answers, I'm just repeating what someone knowledgeable said.

No it doesn't. If it relies upon taxation and the use of force for anything but the NAP, it's no different than normal states. Are city-states all ancap? Clearly not.

btw stefan molyneux thinks plato is an idiot, so ...

not having 2000 years of study behind him, but still

he has more youtube followers than plato ever had

>it can't exist
In theory it could, in a tiny, homogeneous society, but hierarchies of competence will always develop.

fucking kurds

Thats like saying communism works in the family household, thus it can be scaled up indefinitely.
Is it really anarcho-capitalism working, if its like 100 people? Is it REALLY politics at all, if any one person in the group personally knows any other person in the group?

>Are city-states all ancap? Clearly not.

If they allowed micro-secession they would be, but since they don't allow micro-secession they are not.

Get taxed? Secede. If you don't want to secede then it's not taxes, it's fees.

I can not afford your private sources, what, I'm loose running game ?

That ancap ball looks pissed off, whys he so mad

just brexit alreay

it's perfectly doable, but you need to describe the rules, like if you want to solve a solution with x, y and z you need to have three rules

rule 1 = nap
so that leaves a lot of models open

communist, capitalist, monarchist, anarchist (kind of), socialist, conservative, progressive, islamist, theocratist, scientist, ....

No they were the equivalent to bandits. Even with the attempt at a country to establish they were just as savage as Somali pirates if not worse.

rule 2 = private proparty
that is more challenging, just 2 rules, and it becomes a lot more complex
what is private property and what not

don't give me the 'personal property', are my posts private or personal ? what if I'm rallying you to kill the jews in a terrorist plot ?

At least it can occur apparently communism is so terrible it cant even be forcefully be implemented properly

Is your body your private property? Since when?
Does the infant own itself? Does the fetus own itself? Is the fetus trespassing on the mother's property? Is it a violation of the NAP to remove the fetus from the mother's property, using violence if necessary?

Interesting questions.

Pretty much, Stephan Kinsella claims in fact we should stop using "anarcho capitalism" and just use "anarcho libertarianism", Hoppe calls it "societies of private property".

Anarcho Capitalism implies something that in reality is not necessary, just a possibility.

how will my concitoyens know if i'm plotting against them or not, how do i know it you are plotting against me or not, how do i know you follow the nap ?

tax is theft

we are everywhere

Attached: metallic-barrel-liner-strengthens-newly-developed-3d-printed-gun-songbird-02.jpg (600x417, 42K)

the problem seems to be who owns some material thing, (let's brush aside ip, and thoughts and posts), but do you actually 'own' the piece of land your house is on ?

it is, somehow

>worse
Shlomberg detected.

beside the fact the stronger person is always capable of taking it away, but let's assume there is some rule he can not, how do you own a spring of a river ?

Anarcho capitalism is just what happens in an enviroment with no laws and no one to enforce those laws. The reason it stops existing is because people naturally form a hierarchy.
Anarcho capitalism can never last for more than a few days because someone is going to start leading and start pushing people around, whether it's by using a gun or paying someone to point a gun at people.

Anarcho capitalism is never going to be anything but a hypothetical state. This is why most anarcho capitalists settle with libertarianism. Small government with more relaxed laws is close enough to anarcho capitalism that AnCaps will take it.

Somalia outside Mogadishu is essentially an islamist state goverened by different factions vying for power.

>but do you actually 'own' the piece of land your house is on ?

It's all a question of, is there someone that has a better claim on the land your house is on than you?

Some properties would be distributed in "shares" while others would have a clear, sole proprietor, in case of a transition to private property societies.

And in Mogadishu it is effectively a statist government running a city state.

>
do you own all the water that comes out ? let's pretend eu is a joke

Just look at Mexico and South America in general.

If you aren't paying in to the mcdefense, your neighbours might exercise some serious social pressure. Would you really give up friends, good contact with your neighbours, having your local shops play nice with you etc. just to skimp on mcdefense. And before you say "how will they ever know" in NY they were holding measles kid parties to root social delinquents out, im sure they'll find you aswell.

Attached: selection at work.jpg (280x180, 10K)

what? every settlement was done by charter granted by the Crown. Not even close to ancap.

Anarcho anything can only ever be temporary.

I'll give a caps credit though, at least its above ancom

They are retarded and dumb.

The funny thing is we used to have a much more libertarian system and it sucked. All the regulations that exist came into being because we used to not have them and things were very bad. We already tried letting businesses do whatever the fuck they wanted. It did not work. And life sucked for everybody except the rich.

Life has massively improved for the average person in every single since government started regulating businesses. Libertarians are objectively wrong and their opinions have been disproven and simply are not valid. Period.

Monarchism is the true ultimate redpill

Attached: dont_touch_it.png (336x188, 91K)

I have a bigger gun than you, so obviously I would have a claim on your land, except for that annoying NAP we agreed upon

>be ancap
>spend whole life instituting ancap
>succeed
>police force is sold to a wealthy business
>CEO declares himself king
>creates laws that he can now enforce with his police force
>govt cannot stop him because that would be government intervention
looks like feudalism to me

imagine you do not have a power position, and I don't have a power position

DELET THIS

Attached: sapepe.jpg (335x363, 43K)

How do regulations work? The amount of money owned by the rich is higher than ever before in history. It wasn't even possible to have as much money as they do now a hundred years ago. The reality on the ground is directly opposite of all your points.

There are 2 takes here, the natural rights and the force = right perspective. The latter says simply, you cant defend it? too bad. It becomes trespassing and the mother can use all force at her disposal to secure her rights, even at anothers expense. The flipside is that rights flow from a human being where killing someone is still violation of a, i guess noumenal, NAP. Killing a hobo with no ties violates NAP and NAP violations should be punished, even if noone is around to do force in their stead. then the mother cant abort but must bear the consequences of having in her a natural rights holder which she must sustain because NAP (counterintuitive at a glance, i know). But think about it like this, if you make a trapdoor to your basement, and someone falls in, and it is impossible to escape. You cant let the natural rights holder die violating the NAP because you possesed circumstance of entrapping a rightsholder. This line isnt my cup of tea, but this is how i've seen it parsed out.

I'm immune to measles, you plebs play around with social pressure