>>726766730 Actually pulled that shit straight from wikipedia bc didn't have any pic related. Anarchy-capitalism differed from the conventional understanding of pure capitalism because it is not mereley just a starless society, but more like a society that is ruled by certain principles as opposed to an oligarchy or any kind of established government. We believe that pure free market capitalism is a perfect ideology and, when placed fully into practice, would effectively solve all of its own problems in a self-perpetuating manner.
>>726767499 >a society that is ruled by certain principles as opposed to an oligarchy or any kind of established government Yeah that would work for all of 5 minutes until the first punch is thrown and then it's rule by whoever's the most violent
>>726766225 It's super fun to think about a society like this but I would call myself a small gov conservative, I want to go full ancap but i just think you couldn't trust people without some threat of force, and that total freedom and absolute individualism isn't really the "natural" state of man like Hoppe says, even animals share food and hunt in groups, ect, humans almost can't survive on their own in the wild.
>>726768247 Would this make a sweet tv series though, just a guy wandering around through warlord filled small territories, to large psuedo states filled with fueding private police militias and McDonald's selling heroin to children, ect. Infinite possibilities to run into every 30 minute episode.
OP here. While it's easy to find flaws in the practical implications of the philosophy, I do believe that it is the only ideology that is perfectly sound on and of itself. It's only flaws would be due to exploitation and abuse of the system which would, in turn, result from human flaws such as excessive greed.
>>726768746 Not really. You'd hardly be able to afford driving too far due to the toll roads everywhere or there would be 50 parallele roads around the corporate road, and then your car™ Might explode because nobody was there to make sure it was hardly functionable, because free market and people will figure it out. Ect
>>726768746 I hate the "humans are too greedy" argument. If our beliefs are flawed because of human corruption what makes any human run governments any different? The only way, I see, out of it is to make each man his own king or submit to a powerful machine overlord.
>>726769030 In a true An-Cap society, the consumer would yield all of the power over the corporations i.e. if there was a road with a 50 dollar toll, someone could simply build another road with a 40 dollar toll. This road would thus receive all of the traffic and would cause the other road to lower its toll as well. This trend would continue until the price bottoms-out at a price that the consumer is willing to pay and the producer is able to charge at the minimum he can while still making a profit. If this cannot "bottomed-out" rate cannot be reached, then there must be some form of innovation to reach a desirable conclusion to the issue. This sort of political environment would be ripe for innovation and improvement in and of itself.
>>726769030 Why would businesses not want you to be able to afford to visit them? Who would buy a car that explodes? You place way too much power with the government. Social mores don't just stop existig.
>>726769038 It's great to watch people take Mises out of context. Like his quote regarding children. If you read further he goes on to explain that child slavery is obviously abominable. In this he's simply describing that Fascism basically achieved its goal. Hardly an endorsement by any stretch of the imagination. Fascism is the polar opposite of Anarcho Capitalism. Fascism is balls deep and all in for the State and Ancaps want nothing more than to see the state abolished. This is a common tactic from leftists and associated retards that you can spot elsewhere else in media. If someone says the word fascist and what follows is not a blustery condemnation of it then they must themselves be a fascist. Libertarians and Fascists get along on 4chan because they're both edgelords on the margins of political thought and technically on the right of the spectrum.
>>726770103 >>726770103 >shilling for slancap you fucking idiots don't even know dick about ancaps and their ideas. you just circle jrek on revleft and call it a day. socialists will hang along side the nazis, communists and statists. thankfully ancaps are starting to wake up and realize the nap is bullshit. i may not be one of them, but i'll gladly fight along side them to liquidate you filth
>>726770157 Well the first thing most people, at least I would do, is acquire a large swath of land and rent it out to businesses and people to live there, with which money I would set up a police force and outlaw other police forces, set up a central court system, probably build state roads.
Which is what actually happened and why everywhere has a state more or less. I'd rather live in a guaranteed safe place with mandatory contractual laws perhaps against child prostitution or hard drug use than try to carve out an existence fighting off nuclear warlords in no mans land
>>726769881 Ancomms are a weird ideology because they purport to believe in a horizontal organization of society in which people will just work because they are able. They don't really understand the function and flow of capital and how it informs production decisions like how much stuff to make and where to send it. By rising and falling prices you basically know how much of your thing you have to produce. This is the fundamental problem that Communism has failed spectacularly over and over again trying to solve. Venezuala is imploding right now because a central planner, shockingly, isn't omnipotent enough to know how to distribute resources. Here's a meme to help you work it out.
How can you trust anything with that much "freedom". If the government gains too much "freedom" it ends up being bad and spooky and costing big business too much. But how many of you actually own a big business? How many of you will benefit from this ideology. I'm guessing not many people benefit. You see if you work a job, and you don't get paid enough, so you have to work two jobs why would you even think, that the corporations will help you? You're foolish for thinking that Anarcho-Capitalism is a sustainable way of maintaining society? Also Anarcho Capitalism is an oxy moron. It creates a hierarchy of very rich and very poor. >Anarcho-Syndicalist master race >get wit it bitchcez
>>726770315 Private tyranny creates theft by not allowing a minimum wage you twat, also creating imprisonment because you're not getting paid enough to afford the ridiculous health care costs, but you're going to pay as much as you can, because you don't want to die. Forever trapping you in four walls. Debt. Read a fucking book.
>>726770764 This is what ruins most for me... How can they be so scared of socialism and make wild claims about big brother ruining their life and redistributing their wealth... When that is exactly what Mega-corps are doing to us.
>>726770651 Exactly, you would have a smaller operating unit and clear explicit laws based on the protection of private property. You can exclude or include whomever you please and if people don't want to be there they can leave. Private security and policing functions would basically be rolled into your rent and contracted out through a landlord or consortium on landlords to make sure their properties are not overrun by criminals only in this context there will be a strict contract among you, your landlord and your landlord and those security/insurance companies regarding what is protected and what is not and not some vague social contract in which the police might show up and have no real obligation to protect you or your property. The contracts developed between you and your insurers/protectors and how you decide to reconcile disputes when you come into conflict with other companies or internally in the company amounts to private law. "You can smoke crack", they'll say for example, "but your premium will be higher due to the risk associated." Or your premium can be lower and they won't protect you from the consequences of smoking crack if you insist on doing so. This will inform people's behavior much in the way laws currently do only these laws apply specifically to you.
>>726772052 >complete monopoly on power Less power than the state because they can't breach rights. And you'd be handing it to competing businesses who won't be able to abuse it because of competition. That makes sense.
>>726771750 All socialism is naturally authoritarian it redistributes the product of labor as who ever winds up in charge sees fit. I think Jordan Peterson was correct Communism is just one assassination away from Utopia. If only it were you directing everything it would all work out right?
>>726772106 How is not having a minimum wage not theft? Please explain, instead of saying "Wrong" Mr. Trump. Health care costs are set by the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. The government is in bed with both, meaning that those industries pay out to buy in. If everybody needs to have insurance, and has to pay for it those industries get rich. If we just taxed it, it would be better for everybody involved. If you want better health care then buy it, but if you can't afford it, there should be a public option.
>>726772273 >Less power than the state because they can't breach rights. >they can't breach rights.
heh. that's pretty funny
>And you'd be handing it to competing businesses who won't be able to abuse it because of competition. That makes sense.
competition is choice, don't like what one guy is selling because he fucked you over? Go to the next one. businesses without welfare learn pretty fast that they need to make their customers happy else they go under.
Did anyone play Alpha Centauri? One thing I fucking loved about that game was that humanity was divided by ideology rather something as petty, incidental, and overall stupid as nationality, but I also loved the idea of ideologies starting from scratch competing against each other for supremacy on a new world. I hope so bad that we get to colonize Mars like that.
Wow look at this superhero who is defending capitalism against every criticism in this thread except for mine, the one that isn't a meme and is actually on point (i say this because I'm just pointing out the classic real-anarchist objection to "anarcho"-capitalism)
Private property is by definition a state. Literally checkmate.
if the point of the invisible hand is that no-one ("one" meaning single person or entity) is guiding it, then how would someone end up in charge? that is a complete oxymoron. As soon as someone is in charge of "unregulated capitalism" it is no longer "unregulated"
>>726772598 >How is not having a minimum wage not theft? How is your face not theft
>Health care costs are set by the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. This is only a primitive analysis. "Why is gold more expensive than copper? Because that's the price set by gold sellers". Stop playing dumb. The price emerges from a market in which supply is restricted and demand is subsidised.
>tax it That would make healthcare even more expensive
>>726773082 Everybody. We already pay enough in taxes to do it. We just have to budget. We have two budgets, mandatory, and discretionary. You know what falls under mandatory? Social Security, Medicare, you know major things. Not gonna change. Discretionary though, that's where you have room to play around. In our discretionary spending Military is at a whopping 54%. Why don't we take some of that money and put it towards a public option. You know NASA only receives 1% of the discretionary budget? We're not spending money in the right places. We're buying potato chips and snack cakes, instead of buying a rewarding and satisfying dinner.
What I don't understand is why people think that with a stateless economy the corporations would hold all of the power. If the people all exercised their cumulative power, would they not wield the power over corporations? The people cannot control government, however, because it is an entity that,by its very nature, inherently possesses power over the people.
>>726773504 Are you trying to get me to say that a leaderless business is just as much of an oxymoron? to also discredit the socialist line of thought. Again. They are both the same. Still not sold on how any form of anarchism would work.
>>726772598 >Regarding Minimum Wage Minimum wage bars low skill workers from entering the market and creates a permanent underclass in society. It is tyrannical to tell someone what he can sell his labor for. If I wanted to sell my time at a lower price to offset my inexperience I should be allowed to do that. A $15 minimum wage for example doesn't mean that everyone is getting a wage it means unemployment is going to go up as businesses ask more of fewer people to offset their labor cost. Still further, you'll be ordering your McDonalds from a touch screen kiosk now instead of a person. >Regarding Healthcare The anon you replied to is correct in every way. Healthcare providers are being pushed out as recipients are being pushed in by the mandate so prices go up. Your base assumptions are incorrect. >If everyone needs to have insurance They don't >Healthcare costs are set by insurance companies They are not. Pharama and other sectors of the industry set prices so high for a variety of reasons, but most because they know the money is there simply for the taking. The same thing happened when government got into the student loan business. All of a sudden there was more money to be had so they went right ahead and took it. >Re taxing the industry taxing them more is not going to make service better or cheaper.
>>726773737 You have no answer so you go to personal attack, you have no idea what you're talking about and you've made it very clear. If you got rid of the private insurance companies there wouldn't be a market, but that's beside the point. Taxing it would make it cheaper, because your taxes wouldn't be going to an bloated military and defense budget, but instead insurance you don't have to pay for.
Also I feel I have to point this out, if you say taxation is theft. Wouldn't private insurance be theft too? You're giving them money every month just in case something MIGHT happen. Sounds like theft to me, friend.
>>726773757 >Everybody. We already pay enough in taxes to do it. so let me get this straight you think a lack of minimum wage (for a job you voluntarily agree to the terms and conditions going into) is theft but taxation (try not paying your taxes sometime) is not?
>>726773774 In a capitalist economy (just like the 'statist' ones incidentally) money=power. Dollars are votes. When the owner class controls the majority of the money and by definition 100% of the capital, no, 'the people' will not have more control over it they will have less.
>>726767994 I think this is called the logical fallacy of false equivalency, but I haven't had a philosophy class in a few years. The difference being government forces you to do things, capitalism gives you the freedom to choose.
>>726774219 Is money=power, and corporations receive their power through revenue which comes from the people, then, yes, wouldn't the people actually have the power? That way I see it is like this >>726769435 I would say it could be faulted for being too idealistic by not on its actual merits.
The voluntary exchange of goods and services and voluntary entry, or decision not to enter, into contracts is not authoritarian. You can have your own hippy commune if you want in this version of society, but you can't force anyone else into it or to stay in it. Regarding "the invisible hand" that the other anon mentioned. That has more to do with the function of price action that I discussed earlier in the Ancomm meme it's how a timber producer knows how much lumber needs cut without knowing the status of various industries that rely on his production.
>>726774818 >Everybody pays taxes, it's the law. does not change the fact that it's literally theft
>Not having enough money is theft who is the perpetrator and who is the victim?
do you seriously not know what theft is?
let me help: >theft >a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it >b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
>>726775088 You choose it over the alternative. But you should consider gaining skills so that your time is more valuable, and you can work doing something more productive than operating a cash register, or flipping burgers.
>>726775125 In a sense they're depriving people of their wages for their labor. I do a $15/hour job, but I only get paid $11? No way jose, I can barely make it through the month. I have to work two jobs, one at $8/hr. Why is it, that my parents fucked, and I'm stuck paying rent? They're trapping you in an endless cycle of debt.
>>726775398 They do if you can't get another job, because if you quit your job, you can't pay bills, if you can't pay bills you end up without. And so on and so forth. Life isn't fair, which is why we have to make it fair. I'm fine with people having more, I don't like people having an extreme amount of wealth, so much that they own pretty much everything.
>>726774647 Obamacare is an insurance company's wet dream. They wrote the legislation after all. When I say "people don't need insurance companies" I'm saying they don't need an insurance company dictating to them how their health care is conducted rather than just working directly with your doctor. Your doctor should just have a price and its up to you how you pay for it either through some insurance you bought on your own or just cash if you want.None of this multiple fee schedule shit. A public option without a mandate and opening the market in general across state lines would be more tolerable,but still effectively double taxes those who would have private insurance instead. This is of course assuming that we have to have a government and it has to be in healthcare, which I don't believe is true in either case.
>>726775960 You may have to put effort into it. Focus on gaining skills in your current line of employment as well. Such as customer service skills, showing up early, volunteering for extra tasks, making suggestions to make processes more efficient, leading others in tasks. Then after you gain those skills, negotiate for additional pay, or interview at another place that pays more, but is looking for someone with the work experience you have. You may find that you actually enjoy work if you don't pretend your being exploited, and instead take pride in the service you're providing others.
>>726775592 then don't choose to work for a company who pays you less than you feel your worth. Last year I applied for a job at a competitive firm who were willing to offer me a 5k annual raise. I told my current employer that I was worth more to another company and in the interest of keeping me they gave me a 6k annual raise and a bonus. self advocate, I remember a couple years ago working sub-living standard jobs and living on nothing but student loans but I didnt bitch about the system. I agreed to the jobs that gave me little financial compensation. because they gave me something much more valuable: experience.
>>726775779 Working harder. >fucking kek I can work my ass off all I want, the company is going to try to get as much money out of me, that means working cheap. My time is valuable, I only got one life. You can save money all you want, but what happens when you break your leg? You don't have insurance because you're not getting paid that much. You use your savings because that is all you got.
Keys to financial success you're not a billionaire are you?
>>726766225 Kindly capitalize "Libertarian," you stupid Randroid fucknozzle. The word "libertarian" was coined to describe Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. As a mutualist-anarchist, I can guarantee you that Proudhon would have cheerfully beaten Ayn Rand to death with a clawhammer while singing the Marseillaise. I know you ignorant sacks of shit are thoroughly dishonest and it's expected that you would steal someone else's terms, lacking the creative capacity to make your own, but have the decency not to force others to have to live down *your* idiot theology of greed.
>>726776253 Dawg I love my job, but I can't afford anything because I'm not getting paid enough, and inflation has gone up while wages have stayed stagnant. I'm just talking bout the welder, the handyman, the guys who don't make that much money.
>>726774963 Let me address the charge of racism in anarcho-capitalism and I think it's why some racists are drawn to the Ancaps and outsiders looking in draw a line to fascism. Hopefully at this point in the thread we've learned that Ancap philosophy is based on private property rights and the rights of the individual.It is exclusive the a singular degree, you the individual. Please also keep the non aggression principle in mind as we go through this. In this society you have the freedom to associate with whomever you please. You also have the right to disassociate from whomever you please. If you trespass someone from your property they can no longer remain there. If someone trespasses you from their property then you can no longer remain on their property. You can choose to do business or not do business with whomever you want. Keep in mind however, that a bigot bears an economic penalty by shrinking his customer base. Many people point to the Jim Crowe south as an example of what happens when you allow something like this, but fail, conveniently, to remember that it was the State that made this law of segregation not the business community. Do you think a restaurant owner really wanted to build an extra wall in his shop and add separate facilities. That's expensive. This meme like most memes are strawmen or misrepresentations, but I think that the exclusionary principle that is inherent in the idea of liberty should be expounded upon. You have the freedom to be an asshole, that doesn't mean you should be.
>>726775960 You have time to shitpost on /b/ and are afforded the vast educational resources of the internet. If you can't google yourself up some of that sweet sweet education by now there's no helping you.
>>726776202 Statists of every type are stupid faggots who have never dared to believe that society could work better. I'll at least give the Ancomms props for believing that one day they can have a voluntary society even if they're method is doesn't make sense in my opinion. I'm happy to hear them make the case
Mostly just enforcing property rights, seems so random. In philosophy, the notion has been contended by a thought experiment I know as the "second astronaut". Basically, let's imagine someone lands on a planet and claims it all for himself. What then becomes of the second astronaut?
>>726768247 > and that total freedom and absolute individualism isn't really the "natural" state of man like Hoppe says Correct. Just to compliment what anon says is that the division of labour and the private property allows to more freedom since goods are being produced more efficiently, therefore people trade with others to sell their surplus goods or services
In my case i think the biggest risk for, suppose even small, ancap communities is that of economic monopoly
>>726778364 Is the first astronaut forbidding all comers to his planet? If so then the second astronaut will offer to make an exchange with the first astronaut in return for a portion of the planet or offer to pay some kind of rent in exchange for a resource that the first does not have.
>>726770315 >Government tyranny = theft and imprisonment How do you suppose people will make sure others don't steal their shit, finance infrastructure, or penalize people who can't pay their debts? Probably taxation (theft to you cunts) and imprisonment >he's not a king guys. I promise He'd basically be a king
>>726768314 This sorely misguided communist is conflated government with society. Ancaps absolutely want a totally voluntary society not a society where some mob elected cartel of thugs can just roll up on you and demand protection money (That's a state kids). Being an individualist doesn't mean respecting everyone's wishes. Some people wish me dead or wish to do me harm. I don't have to respect that. I don't have any obligation to respect anything about you and you have no obligation to respect anything about me. What we cannot do is encroach on each other's autonomy, which is the only thing in this statement that makes any sense whatsoever. I can almost hear this faggots commie voice as he tries to impersonate some revolutionary he heard once as he makes such broad and wholly inaccurate statements
>>726775583 Truth. Capitalism is pyramid scheme. Find guys to do the work for as little money as possible so you can keep more money for either further investments or a life free of work and responsibility by hiring other people to deal with the people working for you. Find something that'll always sell (don't sell - make others rent your stuff, invest in food production, products of everyday life, ...) to avoid market risks. Manipulate all you can to your advantage. If you're too big to fail you've made it.
>>726780399 im another anon but when people are not being stolen by the state they value more their property (property includes land, wage, rights) the ones who dont respect others properties wont live long its a mutual agreement, ancap communities wouldnt stretch to have an area of almost the size of a continent like we have today in republics relations would favorably be decreased, basically only trading cities (or higher pop density areas) would exist, since in an urban environment its harder to know whos who
>>726781186 in theory they are being paid to take care of as many people as they can, since more people, more tax payers. and the government due to its size is incredibly inneficient also a great amount of taxpayers money is directed to social parasites (welfare dependents)
>>726781186 >What right does society have on my private property it really doesn't answer, but we'll forge ahead.
Why would I live among vagabonds who do not respect each other's private property rights? Again, society is not the government. If you want to exile yourself with anti-social behavior be my guest, but don't be surprised when you are physically removed from someone's property.
>>726781087 People who don't respect each other's property could include any desperate grouping of people. A large enough grouping, means property rights mean nothing. Especially if ancap communities are small.
>>726781531 also since the USA entered the WWI, absolutist monarchies were forced to collapse, and since then the public law increased while private law are on a trend to go extinct (ie public law is judged as being higher in importance than private law)
>>726781754 veering off into wild hypotheticals now I see. In any case. Such a desperate and violent group could legitimately be resisted by an ancap community which is presumably much more well funded and guarded than a mob. The community itself is not the only party interested in its survival. There is surely an insurance interest there that would much prefer to continue receiving premium payments from that community that see it overrun by a desperate mob. If the place is overtaken they would have to pay out then subrogate which may just mean re-invading the locality.
>>726782288 take the example of switzerland basically everybody there is armed, ok the country is neutral, but what benefit other than getting natural resources and annihilating the local citizens with high costs would the invaders get? it would be too expensive, unless the main point of invansion was to decimate that group of people and prob in an ancap community everybody would be armed thats why my analogy
>>726782207 Physically removed by my private security you're changing the scale here. So your ambiguous mob of society is out to get my property now, but promises not to expropriate it for an indeterminate sum? You are right society is an agreement. and in this society we have decided to respect each other's private property rights. The reciprocal agreement here is that I respect your property rights as far as you respect mine. I'm not sure if you're not getting it or just don't want to...
>>726782288 Monaco hasn't been overrun. The revolution could go any number of ways, but the most practical way is to start locally and basically push the state and federal government further and further away from you as more of their functions become privatized in the area.
>>726782207 he meant expropriated by the government i think. > Society is an agreement. We respect your property, but in return we want x. and who sets x is the government and the decision of that amount doesnt come directly from the people that are being "guarded" by the government.
in short: governments have a monopoly of ruling in an ancap community theres the risk that companies would get the monopoly of economy, the "rulers" if there would any would be decided by that local community.
historically the protomonarchies arose that way, someone was knew in a location as a just ruler and people trusted that person to rule their causes.
>>726783311 Not that anon, but we're working on a tenuous premise here. Any small country could conceivably be invaded and conquered by a larger one any day of the week regardless of societal organization. What is the point here? That small localities can be violated by large military forces?
>>726783561 Historically, a land owner ruled by default, regardless of their capabilities. Their renters might have occasionally rose up and killed them, but it wasn't democracy. Democracy just skips the whole killing the king step.
>>726783557 You're conflating society and government again I think. I don't pay society for police services I am taxed by a government for police services. In a purely voluntary society, you're right, I may choose to try to defend my property myself, or I could pay for private security and insurance services. With the added benefit being that they are beholden to a specific contract in order to protect me and my property. Many of the services that you perceive as a useful function of government can be and to a large extent already are handled in the private sector to a much greater level of customer satisfaction
>>726783650 Yes. Ancap communities need enough people and resources to survive. Since they inherently favor those who have a lot, and only so many can say as much, other communities are likely to be far larger. Resulting in the demise of the ancap community.
>>726783311 there were plans by hirohito to surrender in early 1945. the bombs were what made him surrender. a coup to arrest him was attempted, so not all japanese wanted a surrender. but japan was an agressor (invader), and the bombs were dropped because an invasion of mainland japan would cost 5 million peoples lifes and would be too costly. so the allies never risked invading japan
>>726784105 i was talking about "protomonarchies", as in his companions and their families keeped in power. if their subjugates killed (jailed, exiled) him you would have an endless persecution of rulers. by your logic no one would want to rule, or specifically like you said "a land owner ruled by default", no one would want to own land. and thats not the case historically, proving your argument is fallacious.
>>726784653 Probably not, but any locality can be beaten into submission by a larger military force from commies to ancaps, but we're moving the goalposts here. If your only argument against an ancap society is that it can be invaded then no societal arrangement is immune to such an assault. There exist plenty of small nations that do not get invaded and operate freely. Singapore,Monaco, Switzerland has a great decentralized system in an already small country.
>>726785098 Check out the history of the Roman Empire. It's civil war after civil war, and emperor after emperor assassinated. It may not have been due to those on the bottom rising up, but every monarch's life hangs by some number of supporters.
>>726784779 See you've identified an economic interest in making sure that folks are taken care of and there's nothing in the ancap arrangement that disallows charity. If my and my friends don't want bums around then perhaps we should hire them or set up some kind of charity to keep people from starving to death in the streets. This is also an incalculable equation that Marx tried to make I believe. That the workers would, in his lifetime no less, rise up a seize the means of production. Obviously the world went the other way. The Marxist revolution that I think you're alluding to is not imminent and the have-nots of this world are not going to "just take it". People are not generally thieves. When you are truly destitute, revolution isn't something you're concerned about. You're concerned about eating. I'm not sure you can make any claims as you what the haves and so called have-nots will and will not accept. Egalitarianism is also a toxic mind set because people take the concept to mean that everyone can be a billionaire and live a lavish lifestyle. Which obviously we can't. People are not equal, I have a terrible jump shot and I'll never do any groundbreaking physics. You can't get hung up on what a rich man is doing with his money you have to focus on doing what you can do as best as you can do it. It's a regressive mindset to think that way; "haves" and "haves-not" don't get caught in that. Alright I gotta go, been real famalam see at the helipad
>>726785636 >but every monarch's life hangs by some number of supporters. correct. >Check out the history of the Roman Empire. It's civil war after civil war, and emperor after emperor assassinated. It may not have been due to those on the bottom rising up, with the term i used it was counfusing, but what i mean by protomonarchy is this: you have a small group of people/families that are self-ruled, each one has a shed, a conflict between two parties begin to exist, if the parties choose an diplomatic/civilized approach they will choose a mediator, this mediator will be the one that is seen by the parties as the most just in that location. thus the first step to trust in a person as a judge to pacify the conflits is taken. after some time that chosen ruler will increase its power/sympathy with the agreement of even more parties. the chosen ruler and by extension his family will be seen in general as good just people. thus, that way, forming in that small location a small case of monopoly of ruling. and that goes on. You mentioned the roman empire but in that case, even in early times, i assume, the territory to rule upon was very large compared to an area of a village. so the new ruler had to be accepted by the opposing power striving parties and the population. which is a lot harder to accomplish than on a small community.
>>726786555 >there's nothing in the ancap arrangement that disallows charity yup and in the current welfare states we live on we are forced to pay for the government for it to do charity with our money
>>726786555 So what if I'm not good at the jump shot but I am good at organizing and leading people. And I decide to put that skill to use with the have nots so they can pool their collective power in their place of work. Maybe even we decide to use violence against one of the haves and take his wealth and divide it among ourselves as we see fit. We would of course give this person an ultimatum at gunpoint so it would all be completely voluntary. What if this method is in fact the clearest path to attaining wealth for people who have no other paths to attaining it, and that's why my group all agree to work together because it's in our own interests. Why would that be a bad thing?
>>726787654 So violence is what makes you legitimate? Your solution to poverty is banditry? An ultimatum at gunpoint isn't voluntary so I'm not sure what your ultimate point is here. You sound an awful lot like a state. Were you the Ancomm I was talking to earlier or someone else? Is this your ultimate point that a mob of plunderers is preferable to voluntary capital exchange?
>>726788185 >An ultimatum at gunpoint isn't voluntary Neither is forcing people to sell themselves in a capitalistic system or starve to death. "Work for your master or die in the gutter" isn't voluntary.
If it's okay for the Haves to use survival as an incentive to make profit, why isn't it okay for the Have Nots to use survival as an incentive make profit? Can't have it both ways.
>>726787654 what you say reminds me of the historical piracy in the caribbean sea. btw the plunder payment was very anarchical since the captain only received up to 3 times the share of the plunder the lowest rank pirate in the ship. but anyway they take great life risks for an economic return, there were ways to defend against them (fighting or avoiding certain areas). >Why would that be a bad thing? if a person values his property that person will judge anyone who tries to expropriate his possessions as bad. idk if you wanted a longer or different response, maybe youre thinking that anarcho-capitalism also comprises an exact ethic (list of rules, global agreements), but theres none other than the valuation and protection of property
>>726788829 >If it's okay for the Haves to use survival as an incentive to make profit, why isn't it okay for the Have Nots to use survival as an incentive make profit? Can't have it both ways. im not that anon but ill try to answer. the offensive/HaveNots would employ their time on making weapons, robbing, conquering, instead of producing goods and selling the surplus. the Haves would employ a part of their time on defenses (since they would be better off just by being aware that production is construtive, since allowing them to produce-sell-buy weapons/hire mercenaries-produce-sell), but since the Haves have a bigger time-preference and are more industrious they, in theory, would be able to resist, just for having more economic power.
>>726788829 At what point did I assert that you HAVE to work for someone or starve at no point did I make this claim. At no point did I allude to a survival instinct or make any claims regarding it, however surely vagrancy is not a good long term survival strategy. Even Ancomm philosophes suggested "distancing" themselves from those who did not want to work in their communes. If your goal in life is to produce nothing and to be of no value to anyone then it really doesn't matter what system you're under you'll starve anyway. If you want a commune arrangement then go for it, but you can't force anyone into it and you can't prevent anyone from leaving it. You've devolved like the Soviet Union here just kill enough people and then we'll all be happy and never have to work again right? If banditry is your counterpoint to the voluntary ancap society then we are no longer discussing society, rather criminality and unless you have a more compelling or coherent point I think we have expended the utility of this conversation
>>726789519 >So if myself and my merry group are able to kill you and take your wealth as our own yes >there is not anything ethically wrong with that. its ethically still wrong because the decision to kill me was to expropriate my property
>>726791222 Would love to have an ancap give me one reason it is anarchist other than: A: We don't have *real* capitalism and B: *Real* capitalist relations are not based on coercion and enclosure of the commons! (Even though actually existing ones are)
>>726790440 >>726790967 also if you can only think of civility when you think about your personal political goal you end up with an utopia. in other way, what you said made it appear like you could only think of the advantages of your personal political system, because in your utopia, the disavantages (uncivility) wouldnt exist since selfgoverned private property is perfect and everyone would agree on that (respect for each others property)
>>726767499 there is nothing inherently moral embedded in pure free market capitalism.
aside from that, if this society is ruled by certain principals, it is by definition not anarchism; as government is an attempt at the physical manifestation of a societies ideals. as soon as you have an overarching ideal you need a system to enforce this ideal. we call that government.
>>726772142 capitalism takes your power from one vote, to however much capital you have. great system if you're wealthy.
americans have this retarded idea that things would run smoother if government just got out of the way of business; it really points to just how badly corporations have got into the heads of the broader usa. you've got things the wrong way around, it's not government that needs to get out of business, it's business that needs to get out of government
>>726791167 >There no such thing as "anarcho"-capitalism since it does not oppose the master/servant relation that anarchism is against. but it also doesnt approves it. the thing is that anarchism implies every person is capable of choosing what to do instead of letting others choose in his place. which is easier in a small community where the masters/servants would have to build up that distinction by themselves and not by hereditary rule or elections by unknowns
>>726767499 >We believe that pure free market capitalism is a perfect ideology and, when placed fully into practice, would effectively solve all of its own problems in a self-perpetuating manner.
This... is usually called neoliberalism, and it is the ideology of all western governments and financial institutions. It blows how mind how you can actually believe that when in practise it caused the financial meltdown due to the instability of unfettered capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is just neoliberalism on steroids, which will further plunge us away from capitalism and into corporate neo-feudalism
>>726792015 >capitalism takes your power from one vote, to however much capital you have. great system if you're wealthy. independently of your wealth you cant change outcomes of elections based on voting. since in a democracy, one head one vote. after the french revolution, some countries were experimenting with democracy and for example the minimum age to vote was to be 30 years old or have a certain amount of capital. in todays democracy, a murderers vote count the same as the most charitable owner of a company.
you see, a monopoly of ruling bounds together with "economic monopolies" and vice-versa. that means the government reinforces certain companies and the companies reinforce governments and elections. what anarchism tries to stop is that monopoly of ruling. when trump said he would join the presidential race he said he would finance his own campaign (no strings attached to companies), in that he started winning many votes
>>726792342 thats the socialistic view. the economic liberal view is that the division of labor and private property is better. dont you agree on that? that its easier to produce more if you own your means of production and you are specialized in what you produce?
>>726793201 Yeah I agree that its easier to produce more if you own your means of production and you are specialized in what you produce. Thats why the workers should own the means of production, not a board room of CEOs. Either way my goal is not to produce more commodities, my goal is to liberate mankind and to free up the enourmous creative potential in the working masses who are under capitalism told to just shut up and do their job
>>726773504 >invisible hand disregarding government fiscal or central banking policy, there are tons of laws in place to prevent market manipulation perpetrated not by those in charge, but players within the system.
the free market is pretty good, but has it's limits. we require government and the monopoly of force it brings to overcome those limitations
>>726793845 >Thats why the workers should own the means of production, not a board room of CEOs. having a boardroom of CEOs is not a guarantee for profit. having up to 30% of all workers in a country as public servants is not a guarantee for prosperity or freedom. also due to technogical advances some tools/machines are too expensive/restrictive for a single person to own and therefore produce the goods it wants to produce, thats why for example, that before industrialization guilds existed and someone had to coordinate the production in the guild for maximum outcome.
>Either way my goal is not to produce more commodities, my goal is to liberate mankind and to free up the enourmous creative potential in the working masses who are under capitalism told to just shut up and do their job And how do you achieve that liberation? My answer is civilization, according to von Mises civilization started when some individuals started stashing their goods for future use or applying in investments. these individuals had a higher time-preference, that means that with some overproduction they were able to keep a part of their goods to achieve with these even more goods. what we see today in modern democracies is the decrease in time-preference (infantilization) people work waiting to be retired and own governments money (that in some cases they were obliged to pay) while not "stashing" their moneys for when they get old. Welfare system giving incentives to the least valuable individuals, reinforcing their low time-preference, etc...
>>726792973 i'm not sure what you're saying in that first paragraph. are you saying some peoples votes should count more than others? or that some people should not have any political agency in their community?
the reason economic monopolies rule over government is exactly because they hold disproportional power over democratic votes and they wreak havoc upon society with this influence. you see this as a way corp exert power over society; but you don't seem to get it. government is the one power you can ever hope to have over these corps. it's the one tiny sliver of almost impotent protection that stands between you and the corps doing absolutely anything they could ever want
>what anarchism tries to stop is that monopoly of ruling how? you're proposing to take away the one hurdle left that prevents corps acting with complete disregard for anything
>>726794824 I think theres a high risk we're going to talk over each others heads here but I'll try to reply. To your first reply, I don't want individuals to own the machinery they operate, I want the entire workplaces to do so collectively, and to mane decisions over production collectively. >according to von Mises civilization started when some individuals started stashing their goods for future use or applying in investments. Okay. If I'm going to be honest here I don't really trust econs when it comes to sudying historical societies, as they usually talk in hypothetical scenarios. And I'm an anarchist, I do not want a welfare state, or any state at all for that matter
>>726793422 >>726790090 are you implying that productive non-violent people would somehow overpower violent people? are you also suggesting that productive people are somehow inherently nonviolent?
since you understand that productivity is the quickest path to wealth, why on earth would you believe people would not fight to control those means to productivity/wealth? do you not realise that almost every war ever, usually had it's roots in trade and prosperity in some way?
>>726766225 I believe that a core national fascist government is necessary to maintain civility and facilitate economic logistics. Of course the government should be working for the richest faction in the country.
So many fucking crying commies in this thread, holy fuck. Look, your little cucky commune isn't ever gonna happen. A lot of people would prefer a corrupt form of capitalism than the magical community where everybody loves one another, and you have no problems while you sit there and blame the big ol mean capitalist over any mistakes that happen.
>>we care about people >>wow the idea of free trade is stupid >>I don't understand subjective value >>but that wasn't real communism >>stupid aycapz dont have all the answers, checkm8 >>the NAP is stupid! WAAAAAAH >>we ARE anarchist! >>so what if I voted for Bernie sanders? >>WAAAAAAAH EVERY CAPITALIST IS A KING OR RULER
>>726769030 More like you'd have to travel 10 hours to a huge port city in order to get one car out of 4 brands and it would cost the equivalent of $250,000 for the cheapest one because the car cargo ship would need its' own navy to protect itself from pirates that want to sink the ship because king Abdul the 54th wants to see the west fail.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.