What goes on in the mind of AnCaps. What exactly causes them

You know how most teenagers get rebellious? Some of them never grow out of that phase and those that are interested in politics become ancaps.

something something cities have to "sell" themselves to their prospective citizens and operate under a profit motive because muh free market and muh competition will result in the best possible living conditions because citizens are customers who can vote with their wallet

basically magic

>>1947981
>signing the social contract
Very funny anon.

To answer your question, basically they take the classic American love of the free market and of entrepreneurship and combine it with anarchism and get this novel hybrid that no one other than them likes. To put it another way, they're libertarians who realized that eliminating the state is the logical conclusion of their beliefs.

>>1947981
>mfw ancaps like Hoppe basically operate under the premise of a social contract

>>1947981
I genuinely think it's mild mental illness, or due to being further along the autism spectrum than normal.

Paranoia leading to a persecuroty complex. A complete lack of social trust, commonness or empathy, etc.

>>1948047
>it's paranoia to be afraid of the government or of mob mentality
Yes, the government never knowingly does horrible things to its citizens for its own benefit.

>>1948068
m8 if you live now, in the West that really isn't an argument.

Institutional checks and balances are strong, public access to information is high, ability for citizens to affect change they wish is also high, society has advanced to the point awful oppression of a particular group (gays, blacks, cripples) is no longer acceptable.

File: le smug naturalized French philosopher.jpg (27KB, 266x370px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 266x370px

>>1947981
>Social Contract
That should be Rousseau. Voltaire never theorized anything of philosophical value. He only knocked down a strawman of Optimism and wrote a bunch of trollfics. That's it.

>>1948083
>what is the military-industrial complex
>what is the prison-industrial complex
>what is corporatist controlled government
>what is the morally bankrupt and financially motivated media
>what is representational "democracy"
>what is the violence and control inherent in the state
>what is the exploitation and destruction inherent in capitalism
Just because you never have to personally deal with the system doesn't mean it's good.

>>1948094
m8 we are all in the system.

I personally like that I am drinking coffee, sitting in my pants arguing with some dude half a world away.

As opposed to scrabbling in the dirt as a subsistence farmer.

Centralisation under state authority is literally where all civilisation has come from.

>>1947981
In an AnCap society, what would happen to the roads? Would they be someone's private property?

The idea of absolute volunteerism

>>1948102
You're not a subsistence farmer because of technology and societal progression, not because men with guns tell you what to do while stealing your wealth. Because against the system doesn't mean you can't keep drinking coffee and shitposting.

>>1948110
The men with guns I pay with my meagre taxes keep away more dangerous men with guns and preserve my property.

Technological progression is only possible within the security, surplus and centrally constructed infrastructure of a State.

>>1948104
>roads
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>1948112
>The men with guns I pay with my meagre taxes keep away more dangerous men with guns and preserve my property.
There's nothing more dangerous than the state. And you don't pay them, they rob you and so they protect their property.
>security
You don't need the state for people to be able to use weapons.
>surplus
The state doesn't produce anything
>centrally constructed infrastructure
The state doesn't build anything, it tells others to do so. Nor is the state necessary for coordination.

Half vestigial cold-war brainwashing.
Half the same moralistic autism that infests the brains of regular anarchists.

File: finally a good feel.png (28KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 645x773px

>>1948115
>your entire philosophy is debunked by roads

File: private vs public city india.png (1MB, 1125x675px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1125x675px

>>1947981
There is nothing wrong about private cities

File: 1448028349157.jpg (24KB, 562x504px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 562x504px

>>1948115

>>1948104
Every road would have a tollbooth on it.

>>1948122
>Nor is the state necessary for coordination
But it is. There needs to be expropiations to build meaningful infrastructure

They believe that even though they are not successful in this society they will somehow thrive in an ancap one. It's the same with monarchists who believe they will be nobles.

File: give evidence.jpg (15KB, 277x271px)

15KB, 277x271px

>>1948133
>There needs to be expropiations to build meaningful infrastructure

>>1948131
And you could charge whatever you wanted?

File: Assyrian-Military-Relief-Panel.jpg (103KB, 1500x458px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1500x458px

>>1948122
>There's nothing more dangerous than the state

Except other states.

>>1948143
Absolutely.

There's no regulations after all.

>>1948143
>
>muh competition

>>1948148
So if I bought all the roads surrounding a town I could effectively make the population my personal slaves?

>>1948144
Which you don't need a state to fight against; the Spanish Anarchists prove that. In a fully armed population a foreign occupation would be impossible. Sandniggers with IEDs and AKs cause the most advanced army in the world trouble, and they aren't even the majority of the population.

>>1948152
Yes, pretty much.

>>1948086
>That should be Rousseau.
But he just wrote a hack version of Hobbes and Locke's work.
Not to mention the theory of social contract is literally millennias old. And even if you just limit yourself to Europe, you still can go a full 2 centuries earlier than Rousseau with Suarez, who himself studied ancient roman jurisprudence to form his ideas.

>>1948154
You fucking dipshit.

Insurrection only works when the occupying force fights morally, the US military could have killed every single Iraqi and Afghani if they choose.

Relying on the goodwill of your enemies is stupid.

>>1948157
Sweet.

File: recreationalnukes.png (24KB, 218x168px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 218x168px

>What exactly causes them to adopt their ideology?

>>1948154
>Spanish Anarchists (who didn't survive the test of time) prove that
Anon...

>>1948141
>Evidence
Any big road/airport that has ever being built.Some people owned the land in which you drive your car at somepoint you know.

>>1948161
You don't need to buy all the roads, just a couple guys with guns and set yourself up as the local strongman warlord.

Anywhere we see the collapse of central authority, local warlordism follows.

>>1948163
Ancaps are just edgy like all anarchist that know a little bit more about economics than anarchosyndicalists

>>1948171
Yes, but by doing it without violating the NAP you get the smug satisfaction of knowing that they have no one to blame but themselves for their servitude. And in order to escape it they would have to admit that anarcho-capitalism isn't a good system.

>>1948160
Most countries don't tend to systematically genocide occupied countries, nor do other countries usually allow them to. If they tried the populace would know it's either insurrection of death.
>>1948165
Everyone loses wars. The point is they competently fought.
>>1948168
Wouldn't be a problem if land ownership was decided by possession and not by pieces of paper that the absent owners has.

The thing with AnCaps is that they're all fairly well off, educated, and kind of smart (Not smart enough to see the glaring flaws in their ideology, but you get the idea.) They just don't understand that some people are irredeemably fucking stupid and would ruin everything for everyone.

>>1948171
That would be in violation of the NAP. I would get armed guards to watch my roads though, so nobody can tresspass on my private prperty.

>>1948175
>Most countries don't tend to systematically genocide occupied countries, nor do other countries usually allow them to. If they tried the populace would know it's either insurrection of death.

That's a very recent thing. History is full of monstrous genocidal conquests.

File: NAP.jpg (46KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 620x387px

>>1948177

>>1948160
There's a difference between a foreign occupying force and a domestic occupying force. A domestic occupying force can't just holocaust the entire population as their implicit goal is to pacify the population rather than exploit natural resources for instance.

Yes, the US government could kill every single Iraqi. But they couldn't kill every single American civilian if they decided to take up arms against them.

>>1948175
>Everyone loses wars.
But most states don't outright disappear upon losing. Individuals on the other hand..
Also yes, everyone loses wars. Have anarchists ever won one?
>The point is they competently fought.
They got their ass handed to them.

>>1948172
Ancaps actually know even less about economics.

>>1948177
>>1948173
>NAP
You realise this is less realistic than hardcore communism ideals right?

>>1948178
Not really. Even mongols did their thing only to set an example

>>1948182
History is also full of crushed rebellions.

You don't have to hunt everybody down to their boltholes, just burn the fields break the roads and leave. Population pacified.

>>1948175
>if land ownership was decided by possession
So if I have the guns to keep my piece of land I can keep it and if I dont I can't? That respects private property less than the current system does
>>1948184
Not really.They have at least read some books by Hayek or Von Mises.Anarchosyndicalist just read about the moral justification of their dumb idea

>>1948187
I don't think you're talking to actual ancaps

>>1948176
No, the thing with ancaps is that they're too coddled to realize how much they actually depend on the state, and too naive to realize that the NAP is utter fucking bullshit.

>>1948189
>History is also full of crushed rebellions.
Obviously. It's also full of successful rebellions. This is a non-argument.

>break the roads
As the Yugoslav partisans proved a lack of roads only works in the insurrectionists favour. As it's the occupying force that relies more heavily on supply lines and communication. This is also observable in Afghanistan basically any time anyone has ever fought a war there.

>>1948178
And they either succeeded or failed, no system can do anything about it. All the Eastern European governments couldn't do shit as the Nazis were creating their lebensraum.
>but USSR
The USSR won because they had men with guns, not because they were the USSR. Those men with guns would've fought regardless of there being a USSR or not, just like the Spanish Anarchists fought.
>>1948183
>Also yes, everyone loses wars. Have anarchists ever won one?
They're only fought two major ones I can think of, both against much more powerful opponents.
>They got their ass handed to them.
Not really. They lasted pretty long considering the Nazis and Italian Fascists supported their military couping opponents while their only ally of the USSR turns on them.
>>1948191
All property is enforced with violence, that's not new. I'm saying expropriation wouldn't be needed if ownership was based upon possession and not pieces of paper backed by state violence.

>>1948191
>They have at least read some books by Hayek or Von Mises.
Top fucking kek. You can't possibly be serious.
The average ancap is just the average stirnerfag or christfag. They got their culture by listening to the internet equivalent of bar talk (aka 4chan/plebbit/facebook), and they rep an ideology due to group association.

>>1948200
>both against much more powerful opponents
Yes, and why was it that their opponents are always much more powerful?

>>1948191
>Not really.They have at least read some books by Hayek or Von Mises.Anarchosyndicalist just read about the moral justification of their dumb idea
This is the thing. Hayek and (especially) Von Mises aren't overly good economists and (Von Mises in particular) argue from extremely moralistic premises.

Anarcho-Syndicalists don't need moral justification as syndicalism is the natural outcome of acting in universal self-interest. Something ancaps and Austrian schoolers in general would be wise to acknowledge.

>>1948200
>The USSR won because they had men with guns, not because they were the USSR. Those men with guns would've fought regardless of there being a USSR or not, just like the Spanish Anarchists fought.

>Anarchist organisation can produce comparable amounts of ordnance, oil and vehicles

>>1948213
They can. As the anarchists of Catalonia proved.

They had no problem efficiently labouring and co-ordinating to the best of their ability. It's just that Catalonia versus the rest of Spain and Spanish Morocco will always be a losing fight.

Also notice how Catalonia was one of the last places to fall to nationalist rule.

>>1948206
Because anarchism has always been small and statist ideologies are more popular. It's not a secret.
>>1948213
>>Anarchist organisation can produce comparable amounts of ordnance, oil and vehicles
The USSR was already horribly inefficient, so sure, why not? Because men with guns aren't threatening them to do so? Because people stop working in their self-interest when not under constant threat of violence? Also this >>1948223

>>1948224
>It's not a secret.
But it *is* a problem, given that you rely on shit ideas like the nap, who would be smashed to smithereens by any state.
You can't argue that a system work if it can't survive in the environment, regardless of why it can't.

>>1948236
Leftist anarchists don't believe in the NAP.
>But it *is* a problem,
It is indeed a massive problem that anarchists are heavily outnumbered by statists. This is why half the battle of revolution is education.

This doesn't mean anarchism can't work, clearly it can. This means anarchists have to try harder.

>>1948223
>the anarchists of Catalonia
Funny how anarchists go full fascism when they take over. Is it very anarchic to make people choose between obeying the CNT's diktats or take a paseo?

>>1948242
>clearly it can
>as exemplified by their defeat
Anon..

File: 1313346644283.jpg (55KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 550x550px

>>1948245
>Enforcing ideas
>Fascism
I hope you realize that anarchists don't think we should all sit around singing kumbaya and never doing anything to another person unconditionally.

>>1948252
I hope you realize that if you accept the concept of violently enforcing your will on others, you're basically accepting power based hierarchy.

>>1948249
As said here
>>1948223
They lost, obviously. By that point it would a miracle for any of republican Spain to survive even the statist parts.

But the fact that it endured for as long as it did and functioned well for its life is what proves it can work.

>>1948256
I accept that power grows from the barrel of a gun.

I just think that we should aim to use this power to create a non-hierarchical society.

>>1948260
But that's a contradiction. The hierarchy will always be there, strongest to weakest. The very fact you have a gun will raise you above everyone without.
Anarchy only makes sense as the denial of power within social relationships.

>>1948267
>But that's a contradiction
I isn't though.
I think that labour and law enforcement should be democratic and horizontal organized. This is the non-hierarchical bit. No one benefits unevenly from this. Of course some people will object to this. But fuck them.

If you're suggesting that anarchists are empowered above non-anarchists then you would be right. But that's part of what makes society non-hierarchical, or at least as non-hierarchical as feasibly possible.

>Anarchy only makes sense as the denial of power within social relationships.
I don't deny it at all. I fully acknowledge it.

>>1948283
>or at least as non-hierarchical as feasibly possible
Oh okay. You're already past anarchy into minarchy. From here on, you'll slip down all the way back into classic hierarchical thought. Don't worry anon, you're healing.

>>1948290
I slip between anarchism and quasi Marxism-Leninism almost daily and have been doing so for years.

On one hand anarchist society would be the most enjoyable.
On the other hand people are stupid.

>>1948033
>murray "cops must be unleashed" rothbard believes in muh magic natural rights contract, legal torture and babymarket included
>friedman supports muh 10 million competing private warlord contracts, neutral third party arbitrator sold separately

>>1948194
This. Ancaps don't seem to recognize that criminals just don't give a fuck about rational cost-benefit analysis and decentralized forces would be horrible at stopping them. Or that private cops would inevitably battle for supremacy to fill the power vacuum that ensures in anarchy, and establish a centralized state with none of the stability that comes with the tradition and diplomacy of older sovereigns.

File: 70e.jpg (28KB, 567x565px)

28KB, 567x565px

>>1948008
>>1948026
>>1948047
>>1948102
>>1948112
>>1948126
>>1948127
>>1948130
>>1948131
>>1948137
>>1948163
>>1948172
>>1948176
>>1948180
>>1948178
>>1948184
>>1948187
>>1948204

not arguments

>>1948199
>As the Yugoslav partisans proved a lack of roads only works in the insurrectionists favour. As it's the occupying force that relies more heavily on supply lines and communication. This is also observable in Afghanistan basically any time anyone has ever fought a war there.
That's only if the enemy is actually trying to occupy you. They could just as easily fuck up your infrastructure and then say goodbye.

File: Argument.png (49KB, 348x642px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 348x642px

>>1948337
>le not an argument meme

>>1948204
>The average ancap is just the average stirnerfag or christfag
Not really.
t. ex ancap
>>1948200
So if you have lots of guns you are entitled to lots of property?

>>1948207
>Hayek and (especially) Von Mises aren't overly good economists
Hayek was respeted and even won a nobel lauret.
>Anarcho-Syndicalists don't need moral justification
HAHAHA
>is the natural outcome of acting in universal self-interest.
Kek
>>1948223
Anarchists were not even the main faction in Catalonia and they were more focused in fighting Companys than Franco

>>1948154
>the Spanish Anarchists prove that. In a fully armed population a foreign occupation would be impossible.
Except for the part where it fucking is. You simply murder all those who stand in your way. States are playing nice nowadays but they haven't always been playing nice. If the states were serious they'd crucify all those that stand in their way and chances are the only reason why they still don't do that is because it would give them bad press and give other states an opportunity to justify an intervention.

Not to mention that armed resistance only does something if it supports planned outside military activity and if it's supported in turn by proper military intelligence.

AnAnything is pretty much just edginess manifesting itself politically.

>>1948137
no one actually thinks that way retard

>>1948207
lol this is what you types actually believe spoooooked

>>1949312
>muh property

>>1948707

Not completely true. Sometimes its ironic shitposting.

Like anarcho fascism.

>>1948590
>Hayek was respeted and even won a nobel lauret.
Hayek was destroyed by sraffa and won a nobel prize for his economic philosophy, not for his economic theory. In fact, he hadn't written any economic theory for decades. The guy that shared the nobel prize with him said that he was only an ideologue. Even friedman said that he was "an enormous admirer of Hayek, but not for his economics. I think Prices and Production is a very flawed book. I think his [Pure Theory of Capital] is unreadable. On the other hand, The Road to Serfdom is one of the great books of our time."

File: laughing stock.gif-c200.gif (600KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 200x200px

>>1949633
>Being more than 12
>Being unironically an anarcho syndicalist

>>1948583
>So if you have lots of guns you are entitled to lots of property?
If you want to be technical, that's already how it is and forever will be. I'm saying that if property rights are based on if you're currently, directly using some land, then expropriation wouldn't be an issue.
>>1948256
You're not violently enforcing your will, you're violently preventing others for enforcing theirs. Anarchism is non-coercive, that means there has to be people who will violently resist coercion.
>>1948706
If the enemy plans on genociding you and you can't fight back, then you're fucked no matter what. An anarchist society would have to be universally armed to prevent such things. Just because the state disappears doesn't mean all the tanks and tank crews do also.

>>1947981
Same thing that causes anyone to suffer from mental disorder, familial dysfunction stemming from childhood experiences.

>>1948583
>entitled
No, you just have the ability to defend your property, it's yours because you can defend it. You're not entitled to it. It's just yours. You can also accomplish this by convincing other people to use force to protect your property. That's the way the legal system works.

>>1948115
>>1948127
>>1948130

>not realising there have been privatised roads for centuries
>not realising there are successful privite roads operating right now

>>1950306
Now try privatizing trans-national roads and see how that goes. Even building a road that huge would be impossible for the free market to do since it would require getting the approval of so many people to build on their property.

File: 1476487925626-g.jpg (20KB, 720x533px)

20KB, 720x533px

>>1948355
Not an argument.

File: 3.png (1MB, 1195x1080px)

1MB, 1195x1080px

>>1950323
>trans-national
>anarchy

File: image.jpg (4KB, 300x57px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x57px

>>1950357
I meant in term of size, not in term of borders. Anarchy couldn't produce a road going from west to east Canada, for example.

>>1949674
I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist. I just acknowledge that they have more intellectual rigour than fucking ancaps (which is not saying much).

>>1950363
So?

File: Burning of Atlanta.jpg (2MB, 2812x2124px)

2MB, 2812x2124px

>>1948182
>Yes, the US government could kill every single Iraqi. But they couldn't kill every single American civilian if they decided to take up arms against them.
Tell that to Sherman.

>>1948299
What about just basic organization? Voting gets kinda slow after a certain point and really doesn't do much for long-term planning. I feel like at some point someone has to tell someone what to do, and that that needs to be enforced for anything larger than a house to be constructed. I mean there needs to be levels of abstraction for people to work at or else it'll be too inefficient, so a hierarchy does eventually need to exist. It could be reduced if there was a large cultural shift to collective thinking but even then, someone has to organize things.

>>1950393
So that would kinda suck, compared to what we have now

>>1950452
Okay? Sorry we won't steal property to build giant roads for you

File: 38FB4761-77A6-44D1-8960-67CB1E4FAF09-882-000000ABBE254A91_tmp.jpg (49KB, 661x746px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 661x746px

>>1948115
>>1948104

>>1948258

>But the fact that it endured for as long as it did and functioned well for its life is what proves it can work.

Spot on.

>>1948154
>Which you don't need a state to fight against; the Spanish Anarchists prove that.

>implying CNT-FAI controlled Catalonia wasnt a state
>implying they didn't get BTFO

Capitalism IS anarchy

>people should make profit no matter how they do it without any government law
>it will all be better eventually (muh invisible hand)

I guess it's just following freedom to its logical extreme, which some people will do, especially in a society which prizes freedom.

File: Batman.gif (408KB, 500x345px)

408KB, 500x345px

>>1950684

>Capitalism IS anarchy

No, it's not. Capitalist countries have roads, police, government, etc.

>>1950744

>I guess it's just following freedom to its logical extreme

More like its illogical extreme.

>>1950765
regulation bullshit

in a real capitalist country roads and police are privatized

>>1950780

There is no "real" capitalist country then.

>>1950684
>government protected property
>anarchy
Haha no

they are either trolls or people who aren't mentally healthy
it's utterly pointless to debate them
it's similar to debating Hitlerboos or Stalinists
anonymous debate is worthless when you're dealing with people who are simply interested in propagating their ideas
in real life they can make fools out of themselves, here they are unbeatable
anarcho-capitalists literally don't exist in real life, outside of some fringe philosophers and few loons
furthermore there is zero chance of their ideas ever appealing to people, so even acknowledging them is a waste of time

>>1950657
They literally weren't a state. There was some authoritarian elements, but that's inevitable in a revolutionary society during a civil war.
>>1950904
Not even an ancap but your post is literally "not an argument" the post.

>>1949633
I never said anything about property mate you are just spooked

>>1950416

Sherman knew how to win a march. The march to the sea was the atom bomb of the civil war.

>>1951712

*win a war

>>1950373
>I just acknowledge that they have more intellectual rigour
But they don't

>>1947981

the thing is, if the state were to collapse anarcho-capitalism is exactly what would happen, and it would be complete hell on earth, and then the powerstructure that would arise would institutionalise that hell into a state

anarcho capitalists dont actualy understand anything about capitalism, they believe its about ethics and moral ideals, basicaly whenever some libertarian, left or right, or some neo-con, use the word 'capitalism' they dont actualy mean a opportunistic economic system based on profit and capital, they mean a set of ethical conclusions, moral values and beliefs about how something should logicaly work, like 'hand of the market' and 'rattional profit maximisers' and other such bullshit

in other words its sort of like a religion, and the ancap system would be besed on these shared religious beliefs, maintained by religious millitia and religious courts

>>1952021
I dunno why you people have such an axe to grind with anarcho-syndicalists.

>>1947981
Libertarian here. Not a hard ancap, but i'll try to explain.

All my life people with "authority" tried to force me to do things I never wanted nor enjoyed to do. Those things never benefited me, only the "community".

Now if the "community" were decent, productive and intelligent folk like it would have made sense- benefit it and it will benefit the entire world ibculding you right?

Wrong. The community consists of plebs,retards,cripples,subhumans,niggers and leftists etc. These people don't benefit anyone, and all they want is to leech on the fruits of the superior people, against nature.

Now my government just can't stay the fuck out of my life. It forces me and to pay taxes to fund these parasites, server years in fucking military to protect them(my country has forced conscription) and steals my money to fund corruption and warmongering.


Free market and nightwarch meritocracy government is the most logical way to make degeneracy fade away in non-violent means.

>>1952084
>le only gubmints can be coercive meme
The reason why statists are statists is they prefer the state's authority to some other authority.

>>1952107
I acknowledge the fact that private sector can be coercive. But right now my government has much more power, and facts show that authority built on deals and free enterprise tend to be much more logical, efficient and respectful than authority built on dictatorship of the plebians.

>>1952117
Until that authority is built on deals that you aren't a party to. And then you're back to statism, except with a state that's explicitly out to exploit you.

>>1952083
It is dumb

>>1952139
It's okay if you're already rich and very likely to be part of this new state.

>>1952117

you are wrong tho, when you remove state control capitalism just turns into total competition and would in no way be less coercive, since capitalism simply does not care what your notions of fair play or free enterprise are

>>1952157
I'm not an Ancap. I don't want to remove the state completely, just to limit its power and make sure it keeps our rights and preserves the NAP and security.

>>1952157
When you remove state control, capitalism turns into price fixing and monopolies.

>>1947981
Social contract is even more of a meme

>you somehow involuntarily sign a contract by virtue of being born in a country
>not spooky statist memery 101

>>1948200
>The USSR won because they had men with guns, not because they were the USSR. Those men with guns would've fought regardless of there being a USSR or not
No, the USSR won because they had a titanic, command-economy based industrialisation effort that they had relocated beyond the Urals, with massive material and tech help from the Allies.
And they still were close to losing until that plan completed.

Cunt

File: 1477183537269.gif (980KB, 450x287px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 450x287px

>>1948177
What the fuck is going to prevent people from violating NAP if there's no state?