I've always been libertarian-minded since I was a young

It doesn't even work in theory. The prisoners' dilemma is an extremely simple example that shows that cooperation (even the sort of "gentlemen's agreement" competative cooperation so often idealized to exist in an anarcho-capitalist world) just isn't stable: someone is eventually going to be a cunt and profit massively from it.

>>17935166
Are you violating the NAP right now you fucking Commie? That's it, I'm sending in my arsenal of thermonuclear icbms carried by all the orphaned infants I bought for bread. THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME YOU EVER VIOLATE THE NAP!

>>17935166
The ideal society is one of core libertarian nature, with just enough socialism as lube that will allow its continued function and prevent catastrophic malfunction.

>>17935268
Then we can refuse to serve him and act like a cunt to him back.

>>17936117
You're basically saying "if human nature was fundamentally different then anarcho-capitalism would work"

But it isn't, so it doesn't.

You even recognize the need for governmental regulation and authority in your ridiculously naive philosophy

>>17935166
I'm a libertarian and I have some reasons why anarcho capitalism is just an ideal scenario.

How do we get energy to be competitive? Just to have 3 companies competing would triple the power lines, a very impractical thing to do in the city.

How would ERs work? If you come to the hospital bleeding, they can charge you as much as they wanted because you are dying. A lot of places would probably let you die if you were too poor.

How would privatized law enforcement navigate streets quickly enough to help you? Or any emergency vehicle for that matter? Roads would all be toll roads, and there's no laws to give them right of way on the street.

If another country attacked us, how would we defend ourselves? Honestly this is the biggest thing right here, the society would be inevitably captured by another country because of lack of military. You mentioned private military, but who wants to (or even can) foot the bill for the military of the entire nation?

>>17936327
I forgot to add:

Even if someone did decide to foot the bill for the military, he now has control over the entire country. At that point he can enforce his own laws and it's no longer an ancap society.

Ancap is too unstable, it will eventually turn into some sort of government system with rules and regulations. By definition there are literally no laws to keep this from happening.

>>17936263
There are assholes in today's government-enforced world too and they don't get punished since they aren't breaking any laws. Ancapistan will have the same problem. If government started punishing assholes, I wouldn't be surprised if assholes started joining the government and then you're fucked.

>>17936342
They won't be able to enforce laws because of the other competing private militaries, but your other points are absolutely valid and I guess I'm no longer an ancap. Thanks for that post.

>>17936327
I'd say privatizing police is better though since they would have to compete for best service with other security firms. Instead of fucking around with kids for weed or whatever, the cops have to do a damn good job our risk being fired.

We pay for military now, why can't we pay for it without the middleman. It can just be a part of your bills. I think I said before that because of competition, one military can't enforce laws. Same with a police force, since multiple police forces can work for a private court.

Roads, energy and health care seem like the only sectors necessary to nationalize. Is there anything else that you think ought to be nationalized.

>>17935166
As a libertarian-minded person myself, I strongly believe government is necessary for two things and two things only: Structure and security.
That's why I have no problems paying taxes. I pay money so that I have a safety net if I majorly fuck up in life and that there are systems in place to protect me and my property from harm. I'd rather trust the government than a company that's only after money when it comes to this.
Personally, I also think education should be provided by the state up to and not including college/university, but I can see how that's debatable.
Just my brief thoughts.

I'm the same as you OP. The only way you can refute NAP is using a subjective muh feels argument. But I know it would never happen, and I know we will never live in a society where everyone will respect NAP, so I'll just always vote for the candidate who would do the most to work toward smaller government and reducing welfare.

>>17936816
Minarchism confuses me since I haven't looked only it. Is it a dictatorship?

>>17936839
I'm saying this since won't democracy just turn shittier and more authoritarian as time passes? People clearly didn't give a fuck about the Constitution when they agreed to the War on Drugs.

>>17936839
Minarchism is America 1776. We provide the military, you take care of everything else.

>>17936816
Personally I think there should be no welfare and public education made education vastly more expensive and worse. Accordingly to Stefan Memenyeux, education was $80/month and his source was World Bank, Fed Reserve or something. 97% literacy rate I believe too. I didn't like public schools much myself and I feel like homeschooling is better. Private schools can take the role of public schools anyway if you like that kind of thing. I'm looking into how classical education was better than modern education and I believe it, but I'm still looking only it. Teacher unions are a bitch in Canada and it's a problem only with government jobs, but considering inflation and how they don't get paid much I can understand it. Arguably, the inflation can be blamed on fiat currency and central banks, but that is a whole other story.

>>17936890
Yeah Stephan Molyneaux is totally a reliable source and not blinded by ideology and/or idiocy

>>17936860
Now look at how minarchism ended up. A near police state welfare state with some of the most laws that spies on its citizens and has fucked them over with failed government services.

A new minarchist state would be able to look at America's mistakes, but democracy scares me since the next generation may not give a single fuck about liberty and more so about... social justice.

>>17936895
You're right about that. His video on Che Guevara and Castro are filled with shitty sources who are sketchy Cuban exiles that contradict CIA agents.

>>17935166
>The free market works so well
For the free market, without some basic regulations it turns into crazy dog eats dog scenario.

>but theoretically the private sector can do the same thing too efficiently and affordably
Theoretically. Such a pretty word, isn't it.

>>17936067
This.

>>17936809
Without government involvement, entities such as Khan Academy could fill in the gap. Internet education doesn't sound like a bad idea and it's already happening, but you have to go to school until you're 16 and without a diploma you're fucked right now (though I can understand why knowing some of the people I know, but other people really didn't need high school).

>>17936933
For example? Why aren't there monopolies on the internet? Of course things like killing people and sabotaging the other companies property or workers will be illegal.

>>17936933
What do you mean by dog eat dog scenario? I genuinely want to know.

>>17936949
>Why aren't there monopolies on the internet?
Like Google or Baidu or Facebook? MS in OS sector? Amazon for retail in the west?

Also all the Interwebz companies still operate under normal laws, there were a lot law suits like when Microsoft were forced to include other browsers due pushing Internet Explorer in Yuroop.

>Of course things like killing people and sabotaging the other companies property or workers will be illegal.
And who will ensure it, private courts? Who will ensure that they are impartial? The idea that you can't easy bribe a private company is naive at best.

>>17936967
Since we're already at Internet companies and modern times...

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation
Basically the big tech companies working together to underpay their employees, and getting away with it for pennies.

Also the good ol' monopols. The "but monopols need MUH STATE" argument is faulty, since monopols would easy become a new state for example. In a softer form there is also good ol' Russia example where companies run the show and the majority of the population gets buttfucked. Russia is also a great example how powerful companies basically turn into governments without regulations from the previous government.

>>17936804
Security/military I think should be nationalized. You say why can't we pay for it with bills, it's because no one will want to pay for it. I'm not paying for a military if my neighbor doesn't pay and then gets the protection for free.

And I don't think healthcare should be nationalized, just regulated.

>>17936984
Good points.

>>17936901
Yea, I agree. I'd rather live under a constitutional monarchy than a democracy. Especially in a country so diverse. Too easy to vote in a bunch of bullshit

>>17937002
Why would you think that putting economics into life and death thing like health care might be a good idea? The most economical choice would be to let problematic patients kick the bucket. Why would you do a hearth transplant to some poor granny who will probably die in five years either way if your main priority is profit?

>>17937145
The British NHS is low on resources and allows people to starve. Private companies have to compete with each other so they have to provide good service, but if every company is letting people die than you're fucked. I'm libertarian, but a highly funded universal health care is starting to sound very good. You can't half-ass it. I would gladly pay for that.

>>17937181
>NHS is low on resources
Well, that's a funding problem (also privatization did hurt them too) The German state funded healthcare is rolling in money for example.

>Private companies have to compete with each other so they have to provide good service
Not necessary. It depends a lot on the alternatives, if there is no one else providing a good service for the poorfags (which is likely because it's a shitty business model) they only have to be "better than the rest" to gain customers.

I am all for letting the market do its own thing but in markets where it's not a life vs profit thing and after the best basics for the population are covered, + basic regulations for employee safety and environment.

Besides many "state support solutions" do help the competition. Say there is some basic income solution, it'd take away the need for minimum wage and a safety net would give people the initiative to plan ahead instead of living from paycheck to paycheck, so there would be more enterprise AND the people who work even for shitty wage would be more motivated due working out of desire to work and not because they are starving. Pretty sure demotivated and half assed employees cost a lot productivity. UK - France is a good example.

>>17937230
Basic income and minimum wage should not exist. Minimum wage kills too many jobs and giving welfare to everyone is a bad idea. The welfare state itself devastated much of the poor by leaving them dependent on the government and giving welfare to the upper and middle class is a huge waste of money. I say we should go for charities so charities can choose not to fund cocaine addicts and the lazy, but instead help those raising families that are trying to find work.

>>17937230
Also people in minimum wage jobs tend to get a raise after 8-12 months.

>>17937230
Wage problems stem from fiat currency's inflation.

>>17937315
>giving welfare to everyone is a bad idea
Has too many benefits already and will be pretty much necessary once automation kills most jobs. Even now most people who work are just wasting time and money without creating value.

>charities
Proved to be suboptimal over centuries already. Deciding survival of people on something so inconsistent as goodwill from others is risky at best.

> cocaine addicts and the lazy
It's still cheaper just to give them money instead of dealing with the consequences like increased crime and social unrest.

>Also people in minimum wage jobs tend to get a raise after 8-12 months.
Or simply replaced. Besides there is a huge step up from minimum wage to living wage and the taxpayer is filling the hole one way or another. With the current system companies who underpay their employees basically get subsidies from the public. Might as well give the money to the people instead and get all the benefits from it, like higher motivation, psychological well being, more people starting own business and lower wages of course.

>>17937329
Partly but it's too much interweaved in the system to do something about and only massive, global changes could do something about it. Which is beyond unlikely.

File: 1472891274735.jpg (66KB, 575x523px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 575x523px

Anarcho-capitalism is no more feasible than communism. Eventually predatory assholes are going to take advantage of the system to their benefit and the detriment of all but their own loved ones. Even in a very capitalist society such as the US you have the top one percent earners controlling 90 percent of the wealth while millions struggle to make ends meet if they're making them at all. It will always be unequal and lopsided in favor of the most aggressive, cunning, and avaricious.

You want an example of anarch-capitalism, look no further than Somalia.

>>17937352
Automation creates jobs.

>>17937357
Somalia is composed of tribes of different statists seeking power who don't give a fuck about the NAP. Somalis mostly didn't want "anarchy" or they would be seeking to preserve it. They have a government too, it's just a hellhole filled up with savages.

>>17937381
The maintenance ones will be 1/10 of the current ones at best, and require relatively skilled people, for a while. It shouldn't take too long for robots being able to take care of it too. Obviously not everyone can work on the AI, so outside of couple very specific jobs and nostalgia driven "old" jobs, what else would be there?

Or did you have something else in mind?

>>17937393
Why would anyone but the ones with lesser power give a fuck about NAP in a scenario like Somalia?

>>17937399
Exactly, it isn't anarcho-capitalism.

>>17937394
Bullshit, the invention of computers created more jobs than it replaced and higher paying too other than the factory jobs that workers can do instead.

>>17937413
Because computers opened new ways for people to work and allowed a much bigger scale operations, etc, etc. A computer might replace couple people but will also offer opportunities for other skilled people. Just look how US manufacturing (which is still HUGE) looks now that robots do most of the jobs. The only reason some of this shitty job still exist in China is because a human slave is still cheaper. For now.

Robots obviously open up new ways too but they can easy replace low-mid skill level people. When it comes to high skill jobs like doctors, computer also lower the number needed.

Take driving or service sector like a burger flipper/cashier, tons of people do these jobs and can't do much more. A robot can do it much better and much cheaper. What is Joe the truck driver and Sandy the burger flipper going to do?

>>17937410
Almost like anarcho-capitalism is not viable outside of theory.

>>17937449
No because Somalis never tried to get it not did they get it. I'm not saying it will work well, I'm not an ancap, but your comparison to Somalia is flawed and illogical.

>>17935166
> the ethics are mostly solid
Moral realism is a spook and you're distorting reality to fit into a moral "system". Ideologies are obstacles to objectively seeing the world as it is. The reason you delude yourself into believing that everything would work out great if there were no government is because your ideology forces you to. Stop buying into grand theories/meta-narratives.

>>17937801
You're absolutely right. Fuck morals, society should be based off pragmatism, not being nice. I don't give a fuck if my and other people's money is being stolen for a good health care plan. What bothers me is when the government wastes my money on useless and bad things which is why I'm a libertarian. Ancaps should stop deluding themselves with arguments of morality and start talking about how their system will play out better than others, which some do.

>>17937893
>What bothers me is when the government wastes my money on useless and bad things which is why I'm a libertarian.
That's not down to any ideology but shitty government though. A small government can be still very wasteful with the little they got while a big one can use most of the money good. Almost every European country got a much, much larger government than US of A but they spend it better. Most of your money gets funneled directly into MIC and military, it's ridiculous.

Obviously there will always will be a waste but that's given for every company too, successful ones are just good at balancing it out.

File: 3e9.png (698KB, 600x640px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 600x640px

>>17935166

>where government coercion and violence is no longer used to maintain society and the free market will provide to everyone through voluntarism and peace

You need to read more history.

A lot more history.

>>17937893
>Fuck morals, society should be based off pragmatism, not being nice

Who hurt you?

>>17937948
>Who hurt you?
He's right tho. Besides it's often pragmatic to be nice and social, just not to nativity level of "people will be nice and not abuse their power =)"

>>17937957

>He's right tho. Besides it's often pragmatic to be nice and social, just not to nativity level of "people will be nice and not abuse their power =)"

Who hurt you?

>>17937948
He's right Anon. His phrasing could have been less edgy, but he's right.

Damn, I wish there was some place to send all the folks who think Anarcho-Capitalism is a good idea and let them see how it works in real life

>Spoiler: lawless gangs kill them and take their stuff.

>>17938311
Gang members committing acts of aggression are violating the NAP. But an ancap, but just saying. I wouldn't mind sending ancaps there too. It would be pretty funny if they succeed and governments of the world start getting and trying to persuade people that they're still relevant and even funnier if it fails and ancaps will die trying to escape.

>>17938442
>Gang members committing acts of aggression are violating the NAP
Almost like the real world is not giving a fuck about ideologies.

Regulation, while only working 90% the time, PREVENTS corruption, not promotes it.

The private sector, by definition, will always be less efficient than the public qua their obligation to generate profit for their shareholders, whereas the public sector, ultimately has the interests of the people in mind, and perform services and provide infrastructure purely to serve the people. Regardless of how many lobbyists are out there, the govt. middleman, the intermediary, exists to ensure that the provider (business) provides goods to the people without endangerning them by cutting corners and unnecessarily raising costs.

The private sector will design a better system, but game it for their own profit, not have it serve the populace. (Without regulations in place)

This is why things like Prisons, Police Forces, Schools, and Healthcare must be public - they're non-comodoties, the provision of these things, by moral imperative (in a post-scarcity society), must be kept equal and equitable. Yes bring business leaders into consult, but if you give them the keys to the car they'll design a leaner system that pours the savings into shareholders' pockets, instead to increasing access to necessary basic life services.

This, of course, doesn't apply to commodities (electronics, fashion, leisure & consumer goods - these are open season/free game in terms of unfettered competition)

Profit isn't a bad thing, but regulatory bodies (even flawed ones) need to be in place to keep businesses in check and ensure that the public good comes first, while also ensuring that business practices remain profitable and competitive without devolving into oligarchy.