Anarcho-capitalism has no flaws

>Anarcho-capitalism
Anarchy cannot exist while men exist as men will always take advantage of others.
Anarcho-capitalism is literally a world of fair natured women.

Doing more than just breaking even in a transaction is taxing the other and being their ruler.

Attached: 1538717849327.jpg (1000x1000, 251K)

>stone toss
Right can't meme

>implying stonetoss put a lynched nigger in the comic

OP BTFO

Attached: BTFO.gif (220x223, 593K)

>stonetoss
cringe

Name a better ideology than Ancapism. You can't, sorry.

>putting words in my mouth
The absolute state

Back to all of you

I'm not Jow Forums I'm just talking about politics a bit

Same

back to yt, zoomer

bro your ideology its just someone pissed on anarchy
yellow shit is spook mate

Oh? Then name a better political ideology, you can't.

deathmatch

this

minarcho republicanism with a moarchic/aristocratic leader and direct democracy/ second amendment as a counter.
only taxpayers get to vote to prevent welfare/state inflation.

generaly free market, only natural and naturaly coercive monopolies are socialy owned at the lowest level possible. if competitors exist in the areas of natural/ naturaly coersive monopoly the socialised sttus is removed, because the market can now work.
basic food quality and basic environmental savety are localy state administered too because the acumulative effects are hard to individualy sue for.

strong anti trust laws and NAP.

localy funded minute and fixed basic income to allow people to change jobs/ build competitors and not be stuck in a shit job.

so, MinarchoCapitalism + solidarity and anti trust sytem

border security advised

elective monarchic jingoist laissez faire with jewish characteristics, you mean

jingoism is unncessary. nationalism maybe not. unnecessary hate insted of a lack of care demonstrates personal insecurity.

"jewish characteristics" are baned under the NAP/anti trust laws, if you mean the extortion of and violence towards/infiltration of non ethnic jews prescribed by the talmund.

following the torah is a private descission and you are free to do so. the freedom of association applies to everyone. you could even create your own community.

But the implied methods of your implied tribal thinking imply a breaking of the principles of a free market, national stability, freedom of assosiation and freedom of culture.

free market != civil rights
get it right

without freedom a market can not be free. civil rights are a functional method to secure freedom for the people. a market does not need civil rights, but a free market does. and a free market is the only market that produces lasting prosperity, for the wealthy and by extention the poor.

an unfree market that relies not on self asssertive total wealth but on envious comparissons of relative wealth rewards stealing and not creating value. this leads to a downward spiral. one might be the richest person, but only a farmer between peasants. the free market may not make you the richest, but it makes even the lower income citizens richer than the kings of old.

being a king of ruins is being no king at all.

Attached: DSCF7944.jpg (1200x675, 137K)

ancapism would never fail

>33 replies
>not one mention of the anarchocapitalist's natural predator

Attached: road.jpg (1000x667, 168K)

>implying private companies won't construct roads to circulate their goods
Ha the state of libtards!

Sure.
Anarchy always collapses. Here's the train of logic:
No state -> No monopoly on force -> No powerful recourse when you're robbed -> An easy way to get cash is to form a large band of thieves and steal shit -> Even if you're a large business it is now in your best interest to create your own army and form a monopoly on your products in the local area using force (like gangs in the black market -> No one except perhaps the very rich can be secure in their property, unless everyone collectively pays protection fees to some army or the other -> You now have to pay money under threat of organized force
I.e. you're paying taxes again

>libtard doesn't know about the NAP
Ohnononono

>NAP
cringe

>AWKTUALLY in MY version of anarchism everyone is really nice and never steals or uses violence for their own personal gain
Okay moralfag lmao

nice argument
If someone violates the NAP people will enforce it

People in large groups are apathetic
People in small groups are vulnerable against attacks from large groups
You have no reason to think people would actually band together to protect each other's property
You're idealistic, just like commies
Accept that if you want property rights to mean something you need a big boot that crushes throats

>a big boot that crushes throats
you like boots don't you statist? I bet you'd love to lick some.

Nice argument lmao
If you hate licking boots you'd better get used to licking all the boots of the roaming militias striving for centralized power after you left a power vacuum wide open

you didnt explain why the free market and civil rights are tied you just explained why a free market is important a point with which ive already agreed

nice

> i knew this comment will be comming

a free market is a market were the exchange of goods and services is voluntary, the value of the goods is determined in debate based on the perceived need for them by the trading parties. The lack of coercion in this practice allows for the merrits of the goods to decide the value of them and allows for the receiver to choose between the providers to get the best deal.

This method of trade rewards merrits of goods, which increases the overall ability of the trading society by producing ever better goods, and therefor allowing for the wealth of the society to grow in general, regardless of the distribution.
Civil rights are a mutualy agreed upon and enforced base to keep the non coerciveness of the market allowing for this efficient free trade.

Attached: TuHphKT.png (553x401, 139K)

>part 2:

a lack of civil rights is likely to result in more cases of coercion, or coercion becomming the norm. This is a problem because insted of the merrits of the good determining the success of the goods, the merrits of the coercion determin the success of the goods. bad products may be hold up without merrit. this reduces or anihilates the development of goods, even those that can be used for coercion and the whole society stagnates. one may be a warlord of this area, but the circumstances are very bad. The lack of coercion preventing rights also alows for provider warfare beyond fair competition. The most fraudulent provider with the most destructive behavior towards competitors rises up.
This may create a "society" of great desceivers, but the infighting prefents creation, leading to a downward spiral without other areas to leech of. It is a fundamentaly unsustainable circle, as every free trade society, and therefor wealthy society, would have a sensible reason to not allow such behaviors for their own wealth sake. The people that achieved wealth by fair merrit would also seek to defend themselfs against such forces out of pure egoism to further there own wealth in absolute terms, insted of destructive and envious relative terms, as the absolute term objectively is more profitable.

The problem with AnCap is their ignore systematic problems, like simple law... that shit can't be solved with money fuckers

Minarchism sounds pretty good in comparision

based

>anarchism
>no flaws

Attached: 1512635670207.png (567x413, 18K)

civil rights are basicly a mutual agreement of the members of a trading group to secure non-coerciveness and have a written down accout for this. the matters classicaly mentioned in the civil rights are a usefull basis for the anti- coercive principles.

for example slavery:
someone born into slavery has no abillity to freely act in the market. this lowers the possible effectivity of the market. selling yourself into slavery removes your abillity to take further free market actions and therefore also reduces the efficiency of the market, as someone has no a monopoly on someone elses abilities and therefore an unjust market advantage.

slaves are also less efficient workers than workers with the same living condition but in freedom.

owning slaves may seem no different than owning cattle or tools, but slaves as human beings have the capability for trade. slaves may give the slave owner an imediate edge in production, but it greatly reduces the ability to inovate because of the lacking engagement of the slaves and greatly hampers the ability to further their production, because the removal of free actor in the market reduces the flow of wealth and therefore the production of better means of production.

the slave owner may have a greater security in its production abilities and a lower risk for competitors to arise at the moment, but the amount of potential customers and inovators is reduced, slowing the economy unnecessarily.

this makes it a societal interest to ban slavery, as noone wants to suffer the negative effects on buisness by having others own slaves, and most people prefer the higher efficiency of free workers over the security of an owned slave.

this make civil rights a very usefull, if not necessary, part of a free market.

We live in an anarchocapitalist world and it has many flaws. The first one I can name is a shitty educational system that creates retards like you

Anarchism is a world where no one exerts control over anyone else (to get use out of them)
which makes it impossible as long as there are men around.

Anarchism would be a world full of herbivores that only use the land instead of anyone else.

exactly. anarchy always turns to tribalism. the rest is indeed history.

they can't do anything or else they'd be violating the NAP

You're a retard, you know that?
I already explained that you have no reason to think people would voluntarily band together to uphold NAP and there will be people who don't give a fuck about it.

>RENT FREE

It's not like we brought him up out of nowhere, an user posted an edited stonetoss comic and I reacted accordingly

Anarcho-syndicalism is the only valid form of Anarchism

exactly

some would uphold the NAP, others wouldn't. it is a very unstable system. anarchy implies the NAP to be optional. and as NAP following groups have an aversion to agression and monopolized power, the non NAP following groups gets the advantage of striking first and organizational speed in the realm of combat. even if the NAP community is more efficient in the long run, the violent group has a starting advantage. this will likely lead to either tribal defense or erradication of the NAP group.

Human society started as ANCAP, as it is the state of pure nature.

Minarchism could possibly preventatively create an organizational structure for defense and can enforce the NAP by common law.

Except that it’s anarcho-capitalism

Ancap more like ancrap lolololol