>private police

>>1899445

not realy, its called feudalism

>>1899445

Careful, if you make fun of Lord Albrecht's private police force he'll cancel your police coverage. Either that or move you onto a low-tier coverage plan and jack up your rates.

no remember the free market™ fosters competition so the best service may prevail

why do statists want the gubment to have a monopoly on certain things?

kys u cucks

File: libertarian police.png (317KB, 1348x1243px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1348x1243px

>>1899445

>>1899467
This will never not be funny. I'd watch a 40 minute film about this.

How does someone stop a person from stealing money then using that money to buy a body of guards or small army or police to kill the person they stole from LMAO?

Private police can work and it can be better than state police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9TMI_oUfqY

>>1899481

thats more or less how basic acumulation of political power begins in a power vacuum

thats what an-caps actualy think would make anarchism work

>>1899481
If he steals money then he would violate the NAP, meaning that now he's a criminal. Why would any private security force want to work for said criminal? They would have to fight over other security forces, private armies, bounty hunters and so on. It's simply not profitable for them to work for the criminal.

>>1899502
That's already within a system that regulates that kind of thing wherein which these security guards answer to the actual police so they won't abuse their power.

>>1899533
Er, this implies everyone in a society would want to comply with the NAP or believes in its rules.

It also implies that every security agency would never wish to abuse the NAP or form a monopoly which is highly wishful thinking.

>>1899533
yeh, after all when in the history of mankind has a criminal ever gotten someone to work for him just for the promise of wealth

the very idea is just preposterous

>>1899533
>It's simply not profitable for them to work for the criminal.
>this is what ancaps actually believe.jpg

>>1899533

irl thats not how humans function, succesfull thieves become powerfull and less succesfull thieves organise with them to share in their power, those that controll deadly force often become even more powerfull and are automaticaly integrated into the powerstructure, and thats if they dont just choose to take over

this is a basic part and parcel of politics

an-cap society would function exactly like that,it would be the weirdest sort of totalitarism ever

>>1899533
>They would have to fight over other security forces, private armies, bounty hunters and so on. It's simply not profitable for them to work for the criminal.
What is the incentive for those other security forces, private armies and bounty hunters to fight the criminal, if the victim cannot afford to pay any of them?

Also, why would professional combatants be inclined to uphold the NAP? Together they can seize control of the land, because the non-combatants can't compete. Other professionals wouldn't be incentivated to protect the property of others over taking control of the protectees themselves because if hired they only take a portion of their protectee's wealth as opposed to controling all of their protectees wealth.

>>1899539
There are still going to be laws around. And if a security force starts abusing their power, since there is competition the people will hire another better security force. The one that abuses will eventually fail.

>>1899544
Most people would want to comply with the NAP because first if you violate it, everybody is against you and second diplomacy is more profitable than use of violence.

>>1899574
you're assuming humans will refrain in any way from acting illogically or engage in self-destructive activities

also what's stopping security forces from just using their weapons to start taking out the competition, banding together under strong leadership and eventually taking control of the entire population?

>>1899574

>if you violate it, everybody is against you

That assumes that everybody accepts the NAP. Most people don't.

>second diplomacy is more profitable than use of violence.

That kind of depends. If you have enough dudes working for you, and enough money to produce tanks, helicopters, etc, then what stops you from just taking over and enslaving everybody else?

>>1899574
>if a security force starts abusing their power, since there is competition the people will hire another better security force
what if the security force is benefiting the people who hire it but abusing others?

>>1899574
>if you violate it, everybody is against you
Except for all the other people that benefit from violating the NAP.

>>1899574
>diplomacy is more profitable than use of violence
Sometimes. Sometimes not. There's no reason I can't be a dick to some of my neighbors and share the wealth I take from those with my other neighbors.

>>1899533
>NAP
This is the biggest meme i've ever seen.
Consumers have already shown that except some bleeding hearts and hippies, the vast majority of people don't practically care that their household items(clothes, electronics, sweets) are produced in atrocious conditions and sweatshops.
So why the fuck would anyone follow the NAP is beyond me.

>>1899573
>What is the incentive for those other security forces, private armies and bounty hunters to fight the criminal, if the victim cannot afford to pay any of them?
His family or neighbours can pay for that. If there's a criminal in town you want him to be dealt with even if he did no harm to you.

>Also, why would professional combatants be inclined to uphold the NAP? Together they can seize control of the land, because the non-combatants can't compete. Other professionals wouldn't be incentivated to protect the property of others over taking control of the protectees themselves because if hired they only take a portion of their protectee's wealth as opposed to controling all of their protectees wealth.

Because it's not profitable for them. Eventually some other army will come along kill them and seize their property. It will be an endless cycle.

>>1899602
not to mention the benefit of charismatic leaders propagating ideologies that allow groups of people to take the wealth and resources of others without moral conundrums

hey guyse

remember london-manchaster 2011?

File: 1471594155687.jpg (49KB, 312x585px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 312x585px

>>1899606
>It's not profitable to control the land, the people, and the means of production

>>1899585
They will have to fight other guys that wish to uphold the principles of the NAP and anarcho capitalism. It simply is not profitable. You do that you better be prepared to fight endless wars.

>>1899606
vast majority of people do not give a crap about long term profits, they care only about short term rewards and satisfaction

banding people together under the promise of loot and comfort has worked incredibly well historically speaking

If you placed a million humans into an empty earth with no existing power structures - would anarcy remain or would they form the kind of society we see today (given enough time)?

>>1899616

so basicaly youre talking systemic collapse and 40 years of war

>>1899625
They would form societies but it wouldn't look like it does today, their history would be different.

>>1899616
why would they?
if a group is large enough it is quite simply not profitable to oppose them
so if a security force gains enough local power that no single sponsor could fund their competition to make fighting them profitable the other security forces will likely join up with them creating a snowball that results in a military dictatorship

>>1899587
>That assumes that everybody accepts the NAP. Most people don't.
Most people respect the laws of the state. What makes you think they wouldn't accept a simply concept such as NAP?

>That kind of depends. If you have enough dudes working for you, and enough money to produce tanks, helicopters, etc, then what stops you from just taking over and enslaving everybody else?

If you already have that it means you're probably rich. Why would you want to waste all that in wars just so you can enslave everyone? It's better to continue negotiating in deals and trade. Also remember people are more productive when they're not slaves.

>>1899606
>His family or neighbours can pay for that. If there's a criminal in town you want him to be dealt with even if he did no harm to you.
There's no reason to believe that it's impossible for me to enter into a mutually beneficial relation with this crimminal.

>>1899606
>Because it's not profitable for them. Eventually some other army will come along kill them and seize their property. It will be an endless cycle.
It is an endless cycle. It's way we have conquests and revolutions. So is competition within the market. But you can get a bigger foothold on the market if you skew it in your favor - taking the power to compete from others increases your own relative power as a competitor.

>>1899533
>If he steals money then he would violate the NAP, meaning that now he's a criminal. Why would any private security force want to work for said criminal?
Ancaps truly are comedy gold.

>>1899633
History is filled with small groups of people fighting large ones. Also you imply that someone could gather such a large force without news getting out about his intentions. He wouldn't have the change to do it.

>>1899616
>It simply is not profitable. You do that you better be prepared to fight endless wars.
>fighting wars isn't profitable to warrior aristocrats and their grunts
We need combatants to protect us from combatants - violence is a product that creates it's own demand.

File: 1476631859428.gif (876KB, 500x281px)

876KB, 500x281px

>mfw ancap logic

>>1899635
>What makes you think they wouldn't accept a simply concept such as NAP?
It's doesn't have any enforcing agency behind it, unlike state laws.
>inb4 the invisible hand.
Yeah, ok.

>>1899653
he does have the promise of wealth
which is sufficient

>>1899635
>Most people respect the laws of the state. What makes you think they wouldn't accept a simply concept such as NAP?

because theres no state to enforce it, and if you start enforcing things in anarchy you better have a army with you, because enforcing will prompt other people to either - start huddling together, digging in and arming themselves to the teeth/alternatively running tothe hills and vowing eternal revenge till youre dead - or - enforcing their own stuff with their own armies

only way to avoid this is to have ideological/religious homogenity, so people accept stuff based on group identity and ''public interest'', which then isnt realy an-cap

these arent even some cynical critiques, this is how shit functions and theres so many examples of it troughout history its like debating weather a glass will fall if you push it over the table -inb4 its not in your interest to push your glass over the table and pushing other peoples glasses over the table would violate nap and thats not profitable

>>1899467
>I hopped over them

oh fuck hahahahahaha

>>1899662
I can either work as a security guard an have a stable wage and life.
Or follow this nutjob that claims I'll be wealthier but will have a higher change of getting killed in the upcoming conflicts.

Yes could convince some guys to follow you certainly not enough to conquer everyone.

>>1899653
>History is filled with small groups of people fighting large ones
And losing.

Who the fuck remembers the Sythicans, no-one - they got buttfucked by the Slavs and other groups, subsumed and no one gives a shit about them any more.

>>1899678

and yet history proves you wrong generation after generation

>>1899678
>Yes could convince some guys to follow you certainly not enough to conquer everyone.
You might get enough to conquer a lot of people and have your rule last your whole life plus the lives of several of your successors - it's happened before. That's how we got most aristocrats.

>>1899671
>because theres no state to enforce it
There is private police, private courts, the people, they can enforce it.

>these arent even some cynical critiques, this is how shit functions and theres so many examples of it troughout history its like debating weather a glass will fall if you push it over the table -inb4 its not in your interest to push your glass over the table and pushing other peoples glasses over the table would violate nap and thats not profitable

I'm not saying that there would not be criminals or people trying to start dictatorships. But there would far less than now

Anarcho capitalism is a good system not because it assumes everyone is a good person but because it forces people to negotiate with each other

File: genghis.jpg (113KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1200x1200px

>>1899678
yup, nobody ever followed a capable leader on a massive pillaging spree

>>1899678
>Or follow this nutjob that claims I'll be wealthier but will have a higher change of getting killed in the upcoming conflicts.
the trick is making everyone have that chance, then it's an easy choice.

>>1899678
I'm pretty sure you'll have a higher chance of getting killed if you reject helping the guy with the bigger army.

>>1899695
>>1899699
That worked because there are governments. A government can protect criminals, deal with shady people and get away with it, there's no accountability.

In my example I was talking about an anarcho capitalistic society.

File: voltaire.png (1009KB, 760x920px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 760x920px

>>1899725

>anarcho
>capitalistic
>society

>>1899678
>I'm going to ignore the long history of mercenary companies selling to the highest bidder since antiquity
>but this totally won't happen in my little fantasy world because of some abstract principle that is at complete odds with the competitive nature of humanity

>>1899725
There were no governments until there were governments. Don't you understand? Private forces became the governments. Those private armies and private policemen you talk about? Germanic invaders that provided protection / ran protection rackets after the collapse of the Roman establishment. Their dominance was cemented over generations and associations between them and that's how we got feudalism.

>>1899725
You're on a history board. You should start by reading history.

>>1899744

>You should start by reading history

It's full of people like John Calvin who insisted that the monarchies existed because it was God's will... nevermind that the monarchies were cancer incarnate.

I wouldn't just say "read history", I'd say "study history"

Then call him a bitch nigga for good measure.

>>1899704

people dont like being forced to negotiate

people like grouping into tribes and making life easy, the kind of individualistic logic that an-cap is based on only functions under a state authority, without it humans would form tight groups and wouldnt give much fuck for legal profit margins and negotiating every silly shit

again, only way for that to work is if you achieved ideological/religious homogenity, and so a sort of hegemony

pretty much what youre describing is like a abstract form of selforganised fundamentalism, some muslim and early protestant societies sometimes functioned like that, religious militia, religious courts, the faithfull, ''they can enforce it''

>>1899751
Monarchies existed because it was the Invisible Hand of the Market's will.

>>1899741
If these private armies try to form government they will be against everyone else because since we live in ancapistan almost everyone dislikes governments.
Simply providing protection doesn't make you a government. There's accountability in private armies unlike states.

>>1899778
if they're holding all the guns and you're holding none of the guns you can dislike it all you want, there's jackshit you can do about it

>>1899445
No. Ancaps are retards. Actually, an-anythings are retards.

>>1899794

you can get explosives

>>1899794
Well explain me how would they manage to hold all the guns?

>>1899778
>Simply providing protection doesn't make you a government
If the only thing standing behind your kids getting raped to death by the neighbouring tribe is the group of people calling themselves your government - you will accept.

>>1899803

They bought the gun supplier and patented guns as intellectual property so now nobody else can make guns without violating NAP.

>>1899803

Gradual accumulation of power (manpower and money) through threats of NAP violation or outright violation.

Reminder that corporations that work within weak states, like third world countries, have often formed paramilitary organizations to repress workers.

>Between 1989 and 2002, eight union leaders from Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia were killed after protesting the company's labor practices. Hundreds of other Coca-Cola workers who have joined or considered joining the Colombian union SINALTRAINAL have been kidnapped, tortured, and detained by paramilitaries who are hired to intimidate workers to prevent them from unionizing.

>Alfredo Araujo, the former Head of Industrial Relations for the Alabama-based coal miners has been charged with the murder of two trade union activists lowered from a bus and shot in 2001. Valmore Locarno and Victor Hugo Orcasita, respectively the president and vice president of the Sintramienergetica trade union, were stopped by members of paramilitary group AUC while travelling near Valledupar, a city in the Caribbean region of Colombia.

>In February 2013 a former contractor for Drummond was sentenced by a Colombian court to 38 years in prison for organizing the killing of two labour leaders in 2001. The judge ordered prosecutors to investigate Drummond’s president and several former employees to determine whether they had a role in the killings. Consequently, in May 2015, a former executive of Drummond was charged with the murder of two trade unionists, after former paramilitaries claimed he took part in the murders ordered by the company. This case is now to be decided by Colombia’s Courts of Justice.


We need to send them some ancaps to teach them about the NAP as soon as possible.

>>1899811
>>1899817
You can't buy all the guns/soldiers in the world even if you try.

But let's say you somehow manage to gather enough to start a war. How do you know your soldiers are going to agree with you on starting an unjustified war? If you hire soldiers that are ok with that, then news are going to spread that you're willing to start a war. So before you're even ready to start you have numerous forces knocking down your door.

>>1899616
>You do that you better be prepared to fight endless wars.
Exactly like how we are, right now?

AnCap ideology sounds very nice, unfortunately human history has plainly shown that we are the reason we can't have nice things.

>>1899778
Almost everyone dislikes governments to some degree already. They just dislike anarchy more.

Governments in general are accountable to outside forces like other governments and the groups which their power relies on: militaries/militias, police, guilds/syndicates/unions (think of merchant republics), the majority (for democracies such as ours). We have formal "checks and balances" but power-dynamics have always been more complex than have/have-not.

Combatants will only be accountable to combatants if they chose to violate the NAP. There are incentives for combatants to violate the NAP, specially if they associate between themselves.

>>1899868
>AnCap ideology sounds very nice
Only if you like feudalism.

>>1899866
>So before you're even ready to start you have numerous forces knocking down your door.
Some of those forces will be there to join in. The war is justified to the winners, to the takers of it's spoils. To learn about private armies google "mercenaries". That should be enlightning.

it realy seems that, similarly to how the word 'socialism' is used to denote all sorts of absurd crap, the word 'capitalism' is used by anarcho-capitalists, and conservatives and others too, to denote not so much a opportunistic economic setup based around maximising profit, but a kind of ethical and moral system that automaticaly pressuposes a concrete ideology, worldview and value system, that individuals not only accept but operatively live in thought, word and action, almost like a religion

>>1899892
Again why would a private company risk getting exposed for their warlike ideas? And you're comparing mercenaries of the past with today ones. Wars today are more devastating than ever with nuclear weapons and such so there's less incentive to go to war. Also with current communications technologies its very easy to expose to shady deals of a company.

It's not profitable. Yes there will be some private armies trying to form states especially in shithole regions, but there will also be forces ready to deal with them

>>1899878
>Only if you like feudalism.
Well, it's not *supposed* to be feudalism... but that's what'd happen in practice as far as I can tell.

>>1899866
>But let's say you somehow manage to gather enough to start a war. How do you know your soldiers are going to agree with you on starting an unjustified war? If you hire soldiers that are ok with that, then news are going to spread that you're willing to start a war. So before you're even ready to start you have numerous forces knocking down your door.

Why would they disagree? They are soldiers, in your employ... presumably you'd have sorted out the mutinous sorts during the interview process, not to mention the free market doesn't exactly favor experts who fail to provide service (in this case mercenaries who don't fight) so the profession itself will self-select for people disinclined to consider moral justifications.

So at the very least, you'd have a personal army at the outset to deal with numerous forces at your doorstep... and that's assuming other forces are so principled as to fight over a problem that may very well not be their problem practically.

>>1899872

>They just dislike anarchy more.

im not sure about that, perhaps its a question of dosage, long periods of anarchy perhaps arent seen as desirable, but people seem to realy appreciate short periods of all out carnival

the anarchist dream has always been how to make this period of carnival into a stable constant

>>1899920
See >>1899917
The world will now you have such an army. It's not going to look good on you

>>1899917
There is not risk in getting exposed to their warlike ideas as long as they don't bother other companies (or, specifically, bigger companies). Corporations have militarily fucked third world countries in the ass and nobody has given a single fuck. If anything, other corporations cooperated. On the other hand, you are seriously retarded if you think private armies (aka mercenaries) will give a single fuck about your NAP, mercenaries are always on the side they think will win or the one that offers the most, and this is the case all throughout history.

>>1899920

mercenary units tend to develop a kind of loyalty to the group that is hard to achieve in egular armies, similar to guerrillas, special forces, cells and such, since thats pretty much their only safety net in crisis, and saving each others lives turns out to be good teambuilding

>people actually deny the NAP (peace be upon it)
how the fuck does these retards keep going?

>>1899966
There is a risk, the guy with the army wants to form some dictatorship and therefore implement taxes, something companies hate, so they would definitely be bothered about it.

If the won't care about NAP they will fail. Who would want to hire a private army that does not care about NAP? Or to an army that constantly changes sides? And don't compare mercenaries from the 1400s to modern private armies.

>>1899998

thats

not

how

capitalism

works

ever

>>1899998
>the fantasy world in my imagination is more important than what actually happens in the real world
Remember to never let your kids do praxeology folks, or this will happen to them.

>>1899959
>The world will now you have such an army. It's not going to look good on you
So... everything depends on a world army of overpowering strength who allows an AnCap paradise out of their sense of good will?

>>1899969
>mercenary units tend to develop a kind of loyalty to the group that is hard to achieve in egular armies, similar to guerrillas, special forces, cells and such, since thats pretty much their only safety net in crisis, and saving each others lives turns out to be good teambuilding
While true, mercenary organizations who don't deliver don't tend to stay in business long. Part of looking after the group means ensuring the group gets paid.

>>1899998
We'll just compare them to mercenary companies in the 1960's in Africa, who practiced barbarity on a far more institutionalized and profit-driven scale

>>1900015
>>1900027
Not an argument.

>>1899445
>Society based on a ton of voluntary contracts
>No central body to uphold those contracts
ayyyy what could go wrong?

>>1900040
>experience is not an argument
Okay mises, whatever you say.

>>1899445

Does ANCAP believe in intellectual property or not?

>>1899998
>Who would want to hire a private army that does not care about NAP?
Prolly someone interested in violating the NAP for their own personal benefit and the benefit of any who help them. That'd be my guess.

>>1900035
If most people don't want ancapistan then there won't be an ancapistan.
But since we assume we live in ancapistan then yes there would be a lot of people opposed to that army.

Does anyone actually believe in this ideology? Is there a single human being who fully comprehends it and still follows it? Or is it only mentioned for theory and meme purposes?

>>1900065
>If most people don't want ancapistan then there won't be an ancapistan.
>But since we assume we live in ancapistan then yes there would be a lot of people opposed to that army.
That's a bold assumption. And not a terribly useful one, since just about any ideology will suffice if everyone agrees upon it and never violates its principles.

>>1900054
Not that many people would be interested. And the ones that are interested would be ostracised by society and eventually fail.

>>1900084
There's only one principle though and its the NAP. And it's a very simple one. Also if you don't agree with the NAP and want to create your own syndicalist commune you can, you have the freedom to do so unlike other ideologies.

>>1900040

>Not an argument.

if corporations can field armies a number of major corporations or conglomerates will inevitably form, officialy or under the table, and monopolies or, bipolies will form, inevitably, and this, even if not resulting in a classicaly recognisable state dictatorship, will basicaly either turn into corporate feudalism, military domination, or some sort of civil wars scenario, probably all three alternately one after another or in combinations, and all of that possibly without any 'court' ever officialy declaring the freaking nap was ever even violated, surely some set of legal terms and regulations can be made up to designate the heaps of corpses in the streets as 'perfectly legal'

and this isnt even taking into account that the ''consumer base'' wont spontaneously form their own forms of forces, that the workforce wont find ways to fight back, that whichever organised crime groups that dont integrate into the system wont become guerrillas, that the 'lumperproleteriate' wont turn slums into maze fortresses and just do their own thing to the point you can only take them out with carpet bombing, that all sorts of silly shit wont spring up in a increasingly financialised and digitalised economy with shit like robotics and 3d printing and nano-bio-cyber-whatnot

i mean theres examples of states just going trough a period of crisis and corporations immediately start hiering security forces to deal with workers, examples of corporations settling scores and securing concessions with mercenary death squads, i mean you allready have integral examples of how this would work, you cant be that autistic

>>1900080
Are you surprised? Have you read rothbards work on child markets? Or mises on epistemology?

>>1899467
>Oikos Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs

Holy fuck hahaha

>>1900086
>Not that many people would be interested. And the ones that are interested would be ostracised by society and eventually fail.
Why wouldn't anyone be interested? People make risks to increase their power all over the world daily, partly for more power but also because power is self-perpetuating such that every time one expands their power it becomes easier to further expand their power. The notion that people wouldn't be interested is preposterous, unless there were some other overwhelming force which guarantees defeat... but then why wouldn't that overwhelming force seek to expand their own power?

>>1900105
>There's only one principle though and its the NAP. And it's a very simple one. Also if you don't agree with the NAP and want to create your own syndicalist commune you can, you have the freedom to do so unlike other ideologies.
Yes, and said commune is free to use their rejection of the NAP to fight and overtake other communes.

More importantly, *multiple* communes are free to do that, and other NAP communes are free to not fight against the non-NAP communes (which they may very well do out of self-interest if they aren't the ones under attack).

The problem with AnCap ideology is it only works with the widespread strict adherence to the moral principle of Non-Aggression. And frankly, if it were possible to get such widespread and strict adherence to any moral principle we'd have solved the problems of society long ago.

>>1899533
This has to be bait

>>1900124
No I have only recently started reading philosophy. What do they say?

File: 1472414276380.jpg (270KB, 1024x765px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1024x765px

>>1900144
Child markets:
>the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.
>Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.

Epistemology.
>Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. (...) Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.
>The ultimate yardstick of an economic theorem's correctness or incorrectness is solely reason unaided by experience.

Ethics, economics, history, they are as ridiculous in every other aspect.

>>1899778
>There's accountability in private armies unlike states.
Which is why the US gov has been using private contractors for their shady shit in Irak.

>>1900129
Because it won't be profitable. It's better to negotiate in deals and trade than go to costly wars. It's more profitable to expand with businesses than with force.
>The problem with AnCap ideology is it only works with the widespread strict adherence to the moral principle of Non-Aggression. And frankly, if it were possible to get such widespread and strict adherence to any moral principle we'd have solved the problems of society long ago.

Yes the more people believe in the NAP the better, but you assume that such a society is impossible to achieve when such society never happened in the first place. And why's that? Not because it doesn't work, but because governments constantly try to gain more and more power

Also ancap doesn't presume that people are inherently good, it knows people are shit and tries to make the best out of it by forcing them to negotiate with each other for their self interests.

>>1900181
>Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.
I could be uneducated but this sounds unsubstantiated. He does not describe how it is not inhumane or that it is humanistic.

>>1900184
These private armies work for the government which protects them, thus no accountability. But without government there's no one to protect.

>>1900206
I'm still waiting to know how have paramilitary groups financed by corporations been held accountable for anything.

>>1899635
>If you already have that it means you're probably rich. Why would you want to waste all that in wars just so you can enslave everyone?
And this is where I realize ancaps are actually autistic, clearly not understanding basic human motivations.
People don't want money just to be rich. People want power. Money is just a reasonable representation and/or means to power. If you could enslave an entire population through force you would have all the power. Why would you care about profit or money at that point, beyond paying for your force?

>>1900197
>It's more profitable to expand with businesses than with force.
[citation needed]

File: julius_caesar2.jpg (42KB, 260x355px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 260x355px

>>1899678
>Yes could convince some guys to follow you certainly not enough to conquer everyone.
Don't be so sure

>>1900218
>People want power
And ancap is a very good system to prevent people from using violence against each other. I'm not saying that humans are perfectly logical beings.

And there's a difference between engaging in a few shady deals to get little bit more power and outright war with everyone. Most people are not going to go that far simply because the risks negate the rewards.

File: Anarchists.png (957KB, 1328x2216px) Image search: [Google]

957KB, 1328x2216px

>>1899445

Ancapism is a cult, having the invisible hand of the market in the position of a benevolent god.

>>1900238
>And ancap is a very good system to prevent people from using violence against each other.
Are you delusional? Ancap is only good at preventing violence to that extent that people adhere to hit.

>>1900214
They haven't been accountable for anything because the government protects them

>>1900197

i dont know where you live or how old you are but your grasp on reality is highly lacking

private capital would love nothing more than to function in a stateless system with its own armed forces

maybe you dont understand how basic capitalism operatively functions, maybe you never lived in a country where private capital gets to do what it wants, maybe you dont understand that private capital effectively operates as if an-cap was allready a thing, and how this effects people, anything they can get away with, any force they can use, any shady deal and conspiracy and semi-legal cop-outs, anything that can increase profit and facilitate investment, anything at all goes, no holes barred, its brutal as fuck and remoing state power and giving them actual armies wouldnt change that in any positive way
corporations basicaly tollerate state rule only because its actualy profitable as a service provider, literaly maintaining police force, writing laws and making policies that suit their interest

its like youre saying a hungry tiger wont eat you if you take off his chains, its just the chains that make him grumpy thats all, but if you take them off hell behave, surely

>>1900238
Crushing people with no economic power (and therefore no military power in an ancap society) is not starting a war. Unless you are implying that other corporations will help workers if they are being oppressed by the corporation they work for, in which case you are even more insane than you seem.

>>1900254
Doesn't the same thing happened with governments though? Most people (in western countries) follow the laws.

>>1900263
I really don't get the guy who claims people will follow NAP because of private police. What's to prevent someone from creating a PMC? Why would a private police company go out of their way to attack a PMC? The PMC can act with impunity as long as it picks it's targets right. And the police company might simply decide to become a PMC, because raiding and defending might be more profitable than defending only. I mean, even with public police, we still have gangs and organized crime, who operate on extralegal conceptions of property by trafficking contraband.

>>1900259
Well, now you are outright lying. Corporation have killed workers in third wold countries without the help of the government, and have forced coup d'etats in the case in which the state gave them too much trouble.
If you have an ideology that requires you to ignore history or lie about it, it's not too solid, is it?

>>1900269
Only in countries with a functioning state where someone has a near monopoly over the use of force. In western countries, white collar criminals don't follow laws, because western countries refuse to use force against them.

>>1900275
>What's to prevent someone from creating a PMC?
Nothing, it's what happens when big corporations work within weak states.

>Why would a private police company go out of their way to attack a PMC?
No reason. And it has never happened.

He's a retard.

>>1900275

if corporations can get ''private courts'' to make legal grounds on which individuals get arrested, and line out the basis on which private police can use force, then they dont even need pmcs, the privaze police force then effectively are the pmcs, and its all nice and legal

what are poeple gonna do, sue them?

>>1900263
So are you saying that the only way to prevent companies from engaging in shady deals and generally fucking with the people is to have a government?

That has worked so well hasn't it?

A lot of these corporations are able to do what they want because of the government. With lobbyists and so forth they change laws and regulations to their advantage.
I guess we need more and bigger government to combat these corporations, right?

Without government and with a free market you wouldn't be able to do what you want. Regulations would still exist in contracts and would actually be stricter. If you try to take advantage of people you would eventually fail since there wouldn't a government to protect you and change the laws.

>>1900309
>If you try to take advantage of people you would eventually fail
And be replaced by someone doing the exact same thing.

>>1900323
Why would he do the exact same thing when the last guy failed? Unless he's an idiot he won't

>>1900309
You seem to think there's something magical about a "government" outside of the overwhelming force is possesses over a territory. There isn't, and military force will accomplish the exact same thing regardless of what you chose to call.

Your focus is on the corporations, but it should be on the power that violence entails, which is the same as it always is.

>>1900309
>That has worked so well hasn't it?
Yes, it works better than not having a government.

>A lot of these corporations are able to do what they want because of the government. With lobbyists and so forth they change laws and regulations to their advantage.
Have you ever heard the adage, if you can't beat them, join them? The government is the one with the ability to shut them down. So they're going to seek government approved ways of doing shady deals so the government doesn't shut them down. If the government wasn't there they'd do non-government-approved ways of doing shady deals.

>Without government and with a free market you wouldn't be able to do what you want.
Of course you wouldn't, you should have to do what pseudo-government-organizations want. That's what people don't like about anarchy.

>Regulations would still exist in contracts and would actually be stricter.
Yes, because there's no government to grant you rights or legal protections or representation or anything. They might leave a horse's head in your bed or cut off a finger or something.

> If you try to take advantage of people you would eventually fail since there wouldn't a government to protect you and change the laws.
It's not about me. It's about them. About the guys with enough money and guns that they can protect themselves. Just like real life mobsters, gangsters and kingpins do in real life. Are you going to claim the government is the real reason why gangs exist? Because gangs are lobbying politicians?

>>1900333
Unsustainability isn't the same as failure.

>>1900309
>That has worked so well hasn't it?
Comparing the situation in countries where the government is too weak to oppose corporations with countries in which institutions manage to avoid corporate violence, i'd say it has worked extremely well, yes.

>>1900309
>That has worked so well hasn't it?

it works like rotten rat shit, and imagine how wonderfull it would be if you take even that token layer of regulation away

>Without government and with a free market you wouldn't be able to do what you want. Regulations would still exist in contracts and would actually be stricter. If you try to take advantage of people you would eventually fail since there wouldn't a government to protect you and change the laws.
>Without government and with a free market
>wouldn't be able to do what you want.
> fail since there wouldn't a government to protect you
>a free market

christ jesus on a dragon dildo are you seriously 12 years old, seriously tho?

no its not an argument, i know its not, but seriously, what planet are you living on?

i mean what youre saying is basicaly that anarcho-capitalism would get saved by legalist popular uprisings against corporate elites that would then again set up anarcho-capitalism cause it obviously worked so well

and no there wouldnt be any government to protects you, you dont get it do you?

>>1900334
>You seem to think there's something magical about a "government" outside of the overwhelming force is possesses over a territory. There isn't, and military force will accomplish the exact same thing regardless of what you chose to call.
Well there's something special about a democratic government. Which is you get a little say in how things are run, unlike an autocratic government or a privately owned company you have no say in.

>>1900333
>Why would he do the exact same thing when the last guy failed?
And yet we still have people advocating for a communist society.

>>1900238
But some will be. In a society of naive pacifists protected only by forces to whom they pay voluntarily, it wouldn't take much for a few people not opposed to violence and chance to beat a neighbourhood into submission. Then all they have to do is show how involuntary tax is much better and stable to the other security groups, and all of a sudden you got fiefdoms.

Really all it would take to collapse ancapistan is one charismatic and patient sociopath to slowly build up enough power, or more likely just every organized crime group -like the mafia- just filling the power vacuum.

Actually come to think of it... The Mafia. The guaranteed ruin of any ancapistan

>>1900354
Perhaps. But looking at the dynamics between groups the relationship is pretty much the same as it always has been

>>1900355
Marxist socialism is about all common men trying to take power for himself as to not be oppressed by others.

Marxist communism is about trying to transcend the need for government, not pretending lack of government will fix things.

>Have economic system that was established due to state promoting merchants and budding industrialists in order to set up imperial systems and colonies
>yeah our version of this will be better because it has no state and more hookers

>>1900371
No it isn't. Do you really want to be a serf that badly?

>>1900379
Don't forget forcing people out of their common land to have more industrial wage slaves.

>>1900379
I do think we should have more hookers.

But they should be subjected to health inspections by the government and protected from violence by the same.

>>1900380
Not between economic groups. Violent groups.

This guy is kind of gay, but I get the feeling that /pol/ can only learn about things from youtube videos and infographics. I think he glosses over some major key points and ignores some things but whatever. So here's a really simply dumbed down vlog on basic political theory and power structures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

>>1900394
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts

>>1900398
Yes, the peasants did win in the end didn't they, those pesky democrats.

File: ..jpg (33KB, 640x640px)

33KB, 640x640px

>>1900412
So, how would ancaps actually act in the case of this pic?

File: zz_bismarck_escorted[1].jpg (147KB, 825x595px)

147KB, 825x595px

>>1899445

How would an ANCAP society sink the Bismark?

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-10-31 02:29:59 Post No.1900435
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-10-31 02:29:59 Post No.1900435 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/95309971