ITT: Anarcho-capitalism What is it? Why is it so stupid?

>>1855979
Government ceases to exist. Corporations and other monetary interests use this power vacuum to thoroughly exploit people for profit.

It's hardly even worth discussion since it will never happen and very few people are actually ancaps.

>>1855979
Because you replace one monopoly on force with another monopoly on force. Just that the new one isn't bound by things as "rule of law"

>>1855979
Private property is a mutable not-universal social construct.

An-Caps assume it's the default state of man. That alone is silly.

>>1855979
There is no benefit to living under it unless you are extremely rich. Without a way to defend your property as a poor person, your personal safety is at the mercy of businesses with only the obligation to deliver a profit.

It just devolves into feudalism. As wealth leaves the middle class to the upper class, the wealthy quickly become landlords owning property lived upon by poor peasants. The "voluntary" portion of ancapistan quickly falls apart as the ultra wealthy will inevitably refuse to abide by the laughably retarded and simplistic NAP, while no poor person will be able to defend themselves properly.

The only thing that would make it even vaguely workable is in a society where everyone is armed to the teeth and is constantly not he brink of collapse, or a society in perpetual revolution, neither of which are even remotely desirable by any reasonable human being.

>>1856251
>a society where everyone is armed to the teeth and is constantly not he brink of collapse

Does this mean the US is an anarcho-capitalist society?

>>1856251

No offense, but that's the most ridiculous load of crap I've ever seen. It would not devolve into feudalism. Feudalism works based around a system of non-contractual obligation of people to militarily defend each other in exchange for social acknowledgement of superiority or inferiority.

If we throw that out, and resort ot pure naked mercenary force, you're going to see something much more like Sub-Saharan Africa and traveling warbands looting the less well armed populace to sustain each other, not feudalism.

File: edg edge and edgy.jpg (59KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 600x450px

>>1856261

>>1856267
>Feudalism works based around a system of non-contractual obligation of people to militarily defend each other in exchange for social acknowledgement of superiority or inferiority.
Which is pretty much what would happen. The ultra-wealthy would agree to defend each other to maintain their own status while they would practically enslave the poor.

>If we throw that out, and resort ot pure naked mercenary force, you're going to see something much more like Sub-Saharan Africa and traveling warbands looting the less well armed populace to sustain each other, not feudalism.
I disagree. First of all, mercenaries played a large role in feudalist societies. I doubt that anarcho-capitalism would turn into travelling war bands. Why would the ultra wealthy with all the power travel around when they can simply hire a mercenary force to defend their extravagant properties?

>>1856267
Aren't those warbands usually based around ethnic groups?

In which case it could be argued that these bands are under non-contractual obligation to defend the group.

>>1856267
And really, in a highly decentralised kingdom like France for instance, where exactly is the line between a Duke and a warlord?

>>1856302
>Which is pretty much what would happen. The ultra-wealthy would agree to defend each other to maintain their own status while they would practically enslave the poor.


Not unless and until they can exert some sort of oversight over their own armed forces, since I doubt the bill gates of our ancapland are going to be running around with rifles enforcing their will.

Historically, pure cash loyalty hasn't done a very good job of ensuring the reliability of said armies.

>I disagree. First of all, mercenaries played a large role in feudalist societies.

They were used, to be sure, but generally as a supplement to levied forces. It was a terrible, terrible idea to just turn a horde of sellswords loose, 9 times out of 10, they'd just take your money and run.

>Why would the ultra wealthy with all the power travel around when they can simply hire a mercenary force to defend their extravagant properties?

Why would the mercenary force agree to whatever bargain they have with their employer instead of just robbing him, or taking the money and running, or holding him at gunpoint and taking over his enterprise?

>>1856306

To be honest, I was more making joke than anything else.

>>1856364

The difference is that the Duke has a sort of soft social capital which enables him to get c ertain goods and services without paying out cash for them.

>>1856213
Insurance companies would fill though.

>>1856404
I'm sure the wealthy will come up with some sort of innovative solution to this problem. Even if they can't, my point still stands that there is nothing desirable about this society.

black propaganda to embarrass libertarians

>>1856463
Not if they can't get the will of the people.

>>1856478
I don't think you need to false flag a caricature of libertarianism to make libretardians look stupid

>>1856272
You imply that is not a perfectly adequate description of the US.

>>1855979
A more honest and better version of most western states, which isn't really saying much.
>>1856178
Corporations already do that WITH the help of governments.

The only arguments against ancapism that make any sense is from an anti-capitalist standpoint, not from an anti-anarchist standpoint that thinks the system could possibly be worse than it already is with the state.