You have 10(Ten) minutes from reading this OP to give me Reasonable arguement on why Ancarcho-capitalism and/or the Non Agression Principle(NAP) doesn't work.
Hardmode:
>No warlords
>No jews
>No strawman
>No nukes
>No Third position or National Socialist faggotry
Other urls found in this thread:
uticansfor911truth.blogspot.com
twitter.com
BUT WHO WILL PAVE THE ROADS?
(you)
>it was not true capitalism
>never been tried before
Guess who you sound like...
Private companies.
If you wanted you could also pave your own roads.
And are the roads we drive on right now really so amazing that a private corporation, without theft money couldn't do any better?
Do you mean work in the sense that it benefits everyone as current things stand, or that "it works, as long as you're not already poor and don't fuck it up"?
First
Nukes dont exist, so u can cross that out.
So then, being that I'm not super familiar with ancap beyond rudimentary memes, how are the already impoverished supposed to thrive? Join a bigger collective?
> become libertarian
> remove government
> do NAP
> splinter into many different factions
> Mexico invades
> China invades
> Russia invades
..
As an aside, just wanna note that i feel this thread has credence considering the open "fuck yous" that corps like bank of america and others have been giving the govt lately...
>invades
Not possible. America is uninvadable. Even if the could successfully gain a foothold, they couldnt possibly subjugate all of us -we would 'red dawn' them back out of the country.
>already impoverished
>no property taxes
>no income taxes
>no sales taxes
If the 'already impoverished' cant get by worming their own land -fuck em!
No tax, little to no inflation(the Specifics of this are beyond my understanding) to begin with, so in general everyone will be richer to begin with.Hierarchy isn't banned or anything, There's possibility of Charity and fraternal societies to assist with paying fees. Lastly it is mostly up to the individual to make their own earnings, Ancap works under Equality of opportunity
>they couldnt possibly subjugate all of us
no? They would just take all the parts with the oil natural resources and control all the main ports, you are split into many retarded factions all vying for control Burger King is fighting over Newark with Mcdonalds Russia pays Mcdonalds and gives them S-300's China supplies Burger King there are Commie factions and insurgents everywhere there would probably be parts that are stable but they have no logistics are cut off from all the military bases and are basically white boomers who will die off the second the powerlines are cut
And if they don't own land? Would there be free, available land in the states without having to move? Sounds like incoming lot fees. Are there serfs or slave castes in ancap world? Again I'm not very familiar with the concept.
>why Ancarcho-capitalism and/or the Non Agression Principle(NAP) doesn't work.
>Requires intelligent populace, just to be able to grasp the concept, let alone fight for its installation.
>ancap land
>megacorp forms a monopoly
>decides to form a government to enforce manditory faggotry, tax everyone, and imports brown labor to use as a slave class
>back to square one
Okay, so hierarchy at least. It's the anarchy part that confuses me see? It makes more sense than it did before, but the phrase "same as the old boss" comes to mind. I'm just skeptical I guess.
>warlords
The only thing we have to do with Lefty anarchy is there's no state, everything else is completely different
>Would there be free, available land
There already are tens of millions of unclaimed land.
>not willing to move
Fuck em.
>Are there serfs or slave castes in ancap world?
What is anarchy? Define it.
this plus decentralized militia > centralized militia
A decentralized militia would allow each person's unique ability to flourish, allocating their abilities best suiting their capacities.
We would also have the technologic advantage provided by our economic mastery.
It works.
If you want to live in Mad Max.
>Aussie flag
Shit writes itself folks
>Thinks that the most valuable commodities wouldnt be heavily guarded by private defense contractors.
>Thinks Burger King or McDonalds could ever attain enough wealth to fund a war over territory...
>Thinks that people would continue to pay for their products in the event of said war...
>Thinks that the kind of men who would support the dissolution of the state, wouldnt be completely self reliant and adept at all things necessary regarding self defense...
>thinks these men couldnt organize
>Ignores the fact that camel fuckers an pull off all of the above...
>no?
No.
Land is finite.
Inevitably one group will become the strongest and most powerful and then exert their will over everyone else and usher in their own system.
> megacorp form monopoly
How do I know you know nothing about corporations and monopolies?
Because projecting good behaviour to a principle or document or constitution or bill of rights doesn't mean humans will act accordingly. Look at America.
Also, capitalism is anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is simply a statement from adherents that they want no responsibility to the safety or happiness of other humans. It's hedonistic and narcissistic.
Also, you can't get a bunch of brain-dead weed stoners to do anything profound for society.
In principle, I agree with the NAP.
Nah. Initiating force will cause others to band against you.
If people are poisoned and dumbed down enough, just like today, people will just sit idly by.
This. Most people (today, anyway) can't handle freedom. I wonder if they go through the day with a single logical thought. They must be governed by someone.
you talk like a fag, and you're shit's all fucked up.
Yeah, coalition wars only work but for so long and are but only so effective. The nature of monopolies is that they only get bigger, a snowballing effect. You'll get a Brawndo
>NAP
>Convincing everyone else to NAP
>Convincing merchants to not buy up land and fuck up the environment while NAP
I rest my case.
Whatever faction becomes more organized will become the dominant force in society essentially circling around to a government, real or pseudo. Whether that be the mafia, or warring tribe, or ultimate security/mercenary Corp. There will be a power vacuum. And someones gonna take that slot by force.
>What is a corporation?
>What is a government granted monopoly?
>What is market competition?
>How does 'megacorp' attain its money -by force? Voluntary exchange?
>How much money -even with all of the current shielding from competition, that the overnment provides to corporations (Limited liablility Corporate status, licensure, taxes, startup fees etc ) are the largest corporations able to attain, currently?
>would they still be able to attain and keep the same market share, in the event that the above mentioned privileges were to go away along with the state that enforces them?
>How -if the worlds largest military -with all of that budget and tech- cannot adequately subjugate sheep herders that are limited to cold war era surplus, can a private business ever put together enough money and weapons to take on hundreds of millions of equally armed (remember -no state= no restrictions on weapons ownership...) anarchists?
TLDR -it is impossible to subjugate a large group of people who believe in the NAP. Period.
Turd Flinging Monkey made a good video on this on Bitchute. Check it out
TL;DW:
You’re a faggot. Go watch it.
>Let's replicate every law Liechtenstein has
>Let's revert taxes to what they were 100 years ago
>This is not real capitalism because this, this and this other reason
It's not even fucking close. We actually have examples we'd like to imitate and situations we'd like to revert to, and when we talk about something not being Capitalism we explain why.
Ask a socialist to explain why Venezuela is not socialist.
>Because muh private property, when the state expropriates left and right, and profits and capital amassing are pretty much nonexistent because of inflation and taxes.
They hang onto terminology and small details that make absolutely no difference.
>Private justice is a joke
>Major companies will own you (more than they do right now)
>You're poor? Fuck you
>Woke™ company or CEO will enforce identity politics from the top down
>Mass debt means the population is eternally subjugate by oligopolies
>Rich neighborhoods will have perfect conditions while white blue collar workers will live like pajeets
>Eventually a revolution ensues
>Rinse and repeat
but what about McNukes?
All it would do is shake the box for a generation. Society will inexorably crystallize back into a new power order and tomorrow’s children will be spawned into the same random hierarchy that they are now. It’s a dead end loop.
Because not everyone is an intellectual, most people remain surprised by their own assholes day after day
Meme ideology that won't make our out of Jow Forums memes
Indeed.
You can fit the whole worlds population into the state of texas and every one would have something like .25 acres...
Reconcile.
The most pwerful military in the world cant even do that. How is walmart gonna fare?
Anarchy wouldnt just appear out of nowhere. The people have to want it. The people, having what it takes to do it -would certainly have the ability to defend it.
Pinochet violent enforcement of free market capitalism is the closest I think we could get, sadly.
How would a monopoly be attained, without a state?
>Convincing merchants to not buy up land and fuck up the environment while NAP
You are right upp till this. WHat is private arbitration?
Hardmode: "you can't bring up what's obviously wrong with it"
Doesn’t work because everything in your hard mode exists.
in an anarcho-capitalist society, people would have the "freedom" to be immoral and degenerate. having the "freedom" to do these sorts of things is not freedom but slavery.
>No warlords
>No jews
so ignore the obvious problems
ok op you fucking brainlet
>what's wrong with anthrax
>explain it without using the words 'symptoms' or 'mortality rate'
rogue billionaires could bring the whole thing down and we've already got the worst of anarchocapitalism already in the form of multinational corperations
>people would have the "freedom" to be immoral and degenerate
why don't you mind your own fucking business cunt
tell me what in your life qualified you to call everyone else immoral and degenerate
Yeah I had one of those for lunch -would not recommend -now I need to by a new toilet...
>Private justice is a joke
Only because of government. Guaranteed business/shielding from competition =guaranteed shitty services
>Major companies will own you
No.
>You're poor? Fuck you
No state =no sales, income, road, gas, property taxes = 50 percent more money in your pocket. Dont want to work for a wage; would rather homestead -no property taxes...
>Woke™ company or CEO will enforce identity politics from the top down
Not my business what another does with their private property. I will however quietly take my money to his competitors, as will so many others...
>Mass debt means the population is eternally subjugate by oligopolies
Most debt is government created. And again -more money in every ones pocket + market competition = youre wrong...
As long as it isnt on your property -mind your business.
You are cucks for transnational elites and will never succeed in anything. Ancaps irl are complete edgelords who are always one domestic collapse away from becoming fascists.
Because two voluntary transactions could deny nessasary resourses of a 3rd party, thus violating the non agression principle. The GOPs principle of non domination ensures equal access to finite resources by limiting exclusion of non participant parties. If they ( the gop) would stick too it.
because people will naturally form their own hiearchies can you name one successful An-Cap society?
Hardmode:
pre-Industrial society
Why it won't work? Who oversees it, who are the trust busters? Ultimately a group would rise in a fashion to protect and administer justice, promising the same to anybody who joined, and after so many times they would become the top dogs. This is what brought us to the current state of politics, every country is just that, a monopoly on punishment.
>thus violating the non agression principle.
yeah -No. Thats not how it works. Nobody owes anything to anyone. It is not 'agression' to -not- do business with another.
Thinking always goes -before- writing...
A neutral third-party is necessary to enforce willful agreements between two parties. Relying on someone taking revenge for a NAP violation boils down to a purely subjective form of justice.
Any kind of anarchism is complete brainlet tier for the sole reason that people are naturally drawn into groups they feel comfortable in. For example, Muslims will be naturally drawn towards other Muslims and will develop rules and regulations based around their community. If they collectively decide to throw gays of buildings than their religion will take priority over my anarchist right to take dick up my ass.
And of course every one else will do the same. Nogs will be drawn to nogs, Conservatives towards other Conservatives, etc. Eventually there will just be a bunch of small governments all over the country.
>NAP
You might as well bend over and spread your cheeks
>hiearchies
Has nothing to do with anarchy. Try again.
Nothing you said is correct.
There wold be no monopolies without the state to protect them. How many attempts have been made recently, to compete with the big tech and media platforms? WHat happened to them? What role di the government play?
No government, means more competition in the market = no monopolies
>people would have the "freedom" to be immoral and degenerate
See, freedom is nice and all but people love to trade some sort of freedom for security. Not everyone, some more than others, but everyone in today's society trades some of their freedom away.
Do you have freedom to be degenerate in Anarcho Capitalism, well if you have land and you live by yourself, sure. But most people would renounce to owning land and living innawoods for security reasons. Most people would renounce to being degenerate in exchange of living among people who are not degenerate. Most people would renounce their freedom to be immoral in exchange for all the advantages of belonging to a society that values morals.
Anarcho Capitalism is about giving people every freedom they can have, and then it's up to you to decide how much you're willing to give away.
We understand that the Western values put us at the top of the world, that attracted immigration. Now imagine a scenario where people pay to live there where laws are optimal for society development. Where will most money go towards, given the clear illustration we have thanks to current migration patterns? To child-sex infested shitholes? Or to advanced and highly moral societies? Why is Texas growing so much if people love degeneracy?
> search
> 0 results
women
> fin
People are inherently aggressive.
Because people aren't rational actors.
/Thread
In some cases sure. But retribution for a failure to hold to your agreement doesnt need to be violent -ostracism is a powerful tool.
Would you do business with someone who was a known deal breaker?
>women
Without democracy?
Irrelevant
It's not just to determine punishment, but to establish it's an objective fact the deal was broken and what the culpability and intent was.
What are cameras?
Not omnipresent.
People are inherently willing to renounce to their aggressivity in exchange for safety.
There are not many people who would enjoy a law of the strongest scenario.
They dont have to be. Only in the making of a deal.
NAP does not work, humans are not capable of conforming to the NAP (especially knee grows and moose looms).
Person A and Person B enter into an agreement denying C the means to aquire resources is an agression against person C and the logical failure of non-agression principle as it decends into a democracy.
>Has nothing to do with anarchy. Try again.
And we have reached the crux of the issue, where ancaps expose themselves as non-anarchists.
>People are inherently willing to renounce to their aggressivity in exchange for safety.
Sauce? And more importantly why would an AnCap society be safe?
>There are not many people who would enjoy a law of the strongest scenario.
All it takes is one.
That doesn't cover subterfuge during the execution of a contract, nor can modern camera footage be taken at face value. Minarchies can facilitate a neutral judicial process, but an anarchy cannot.
Unless persons A and B own the resources -how could they possibly have any control over how and to whom, they are distributed?
Unless persons A and B own -all- of said resources (which is impossible) what is to stop persons D, E F, G, H, I etc. from doing business with person C?
Says the guy who thinks that anarchy means no hierarchy...
The definition of anarchy predates fagkunin and Crapotsky...as such it can only mean what it mean at the time was coined
Fuck I hate communists.
Nobody understands anarchy as a lack of hierarchy. Nobody who understands anarchy, that is.
Anarchy means no archon, from wikipedia:
>In the early literary period of ancient Greece the chief magistrates of various Greek city states were called Archon
Do you see the difference between a hierarchical relationship Potter-apprentice, teacher-student, team captain-team player
And then the one between Archon - normal citizen?
It's all about whether the relationship is voluntary or not. Anarchy is not about eliminating schools or orchestras.
>Sauce?
Migration patterns. Most people want to live in countries that are safe.
>And more importantly why would an AnCap society be safe?
Because whoever achieves safety in their private property would be able to get a lot of money by leasing part of their property to others.
Included your answers there, forgot to quote
>That doesn't cover subterfuge during the execution of a contract
Example?
>nor can modern camera footage be taken at face value
Nonsense -"stare into the camera and verbally agree to the terms and then sign here"
See easy peezy
>Minarchies can facilitate a neutral judicial process, but an anarchy cannot.
What is private arbitration?
Inb4 'what if one party refuses to hold to their end of the bargain?'
Reputation is a thing. How likely are you to do business with someone who has a reputation for reneging?
>Mexico invades
alright enough jokes
If it was a workable system it would have been tried and would have succeeded. It's the same argument i use against Matriarchal Monarchies. They don't exist because every society that tries them dies or is converted to a better system.
because the average person is a cunt, and their morality only extends to "what's good is good for me". They will follow the non-aggression principle by lip service only until the point that they can achieve greater benefit by not doing so in the short term.
Secondly, people are not logical creatures following their own rational self-interest. People are emotional creatures who use logic to justify their current emotional state even if that current emotional state leads to long-term destruction.
Finally, even if they were logical creatures, the average person usually does not have enough accurate information at hand in order to make a logical decision in their self-interest. A lot of time people just fucking wing it.
side note: all libertarians are pedophiles.
>Why is anarcho-capitalism dumb?
Because it is literally just man attempting to re-invent nature.
Tried by who?
>The government? How likely is the government to dissolve itself?
>The people? How likely is the government to allow the people to dissolve it?
Anarchy largely already exists -in that, the number one requirement is that everyone respect the rights of everyone else. That said -with billions of people each engaging in voluntary interactions every day, then there are tens of trillions of peaceful interactions each day.
Remove the state from the equation and with it the drug war and taxation and instantly you get a drop in crime and an increase in wealth.
Were pretty much there, now. If we could just take that last step or two...
Infact, one step further, socialism is just man attempting to abolish nature. Once nature is accepted as is, and ensuring people's survival within it becomes the goal, everyone arrives at something that is effectively nationalism, even if they pretend otherwise.
First, stop with the fucking reddit spacing.
An example is difficult to offer since the bulk of "white collar" crimes are context-dependent acts. You can't formulate a way to exploit something without that something to assess for ways to exploit. It's like asking someone "how do I hack a computer?"
Camera footage can be corrupted or doctored when it's convenient for some, and as for private arbitration, it's a half-baked alternative to a public court system rife with potential for corruption.
There was a time without the state, everywhere, all over the world. Without fail, people create states. We know because there are no stateless areas. So we know it's been tried and we know it doesn't work.
the few guys who own the biggest aquifers will own the world. by the time you put alternatives like desalination plants, other sources of water, etc. these guys will already buy out all the infrastructure and have enough resources to actively hamper anyone they deem a threat. behind them, you'll have other guys who own less critical but also vital resources. eventually they'll form a cartel where they'll put out general rules of doing business in their area of influence, people will be charged a modest fee just for living/working/doing business under their auspices. to ensure their own safety as well as enforcement of their general rules, part of the funds acquired via these fees, would be used to operate a corporate division defending the overall organization from internal and external competitors. further branches and services might also be added if need be.
Someone's been watching Owen Benjamin and wants to get attentions and special boy points.
>First, stop with the fucking reddit spacing.
Watch
your
lip, sally.
Dont
get
your
panties
in
a
bunch
over
little
things...
>An example is difficult to offer
So then your argument is 'sometimes bad things will happen and the only people smart enough to figure out a solution are da politicians'.
You have a shit argument there, nancy.
No. No, there wasnt. The biggest guy in the tribe -willing to do the most violence, is essentially 'the state'.
>people create states
Thats not how you spell 'people have states foisted upon them'...
>So we know it's been tried and we know it doesn't work.
So then reference it? Oh wait -you cant -because this is an assumption, which is to say, that you dont actually 'know' that its been tried...
Would you rather be right? Or -feel- like youre right? Cause your only doing one of those, right now.
>A decentralized militia would allow each person's unique ability to flourish, allocating their abilities best suiting their capacities.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAA
Well, you're dumb.
Look it's either
a) the state has existed as long as people have
in which case the state is fundamental to the human condition.
or
b) the state was created out of a stateless condition universally, because people can not exist without a state.
Either way, your libertarian pedo dream is crushed.
Based pic
Both A and B assume that the masses wanted the state in the first place.
If that were the case, then there would be no need for the state to enforce its monopoly on violence...Everyone would just agree to terms and go along with the plan -but thats not what happened , is it?
Ultimately, this is like saying that because rape and slavery have 'always been around' they shouldnt be done away with. Which is a shit argument and makes (you) dumb...