Memes aside, do people unironically support this ideology? All

Do people unironically support states, all on the assumption that a small group with their own interests will be good to a larger group with different interests?

>>2416946
Do people unironically support markets, all on the assumption that a small group with their own interests will be good to a larger group with different interests?

File: bpYjFm5.png (607KB, 1554x1180px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1554x1180px

>>2416910
Fuck off collectivist

File: 1487714210887.jpg (171KB, 672x362px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 672x362px

>>2416910
yes

>>2416946
that's what democracy is for faggot

File: Kek is a Kapitalist.jpg (110KB, 1601x653px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1601x653px

>>2416910
Who am I to question the word of my god?

>>2416962
Real life isn't a fucking RPG game you nerds. Stop it with these retarded infographics.

>>2416955
The functionality of a market isn't reliant on the generosity of its agents. That's the entire point of markets.

>>2416974
Democracy is an awesome system in theory, but only if everybody is educated and has the will to go out and vote.

>>2416910
Is this a real story? What game?

File: Image (44).jpg (128KB, 711x1068px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 711x1068px

When mortal invade the plane of law to loot your gearworks, violating the NAP so you detonate the soul bomb you left behind on their home plane, rendering their entire universe into evenly distributed hydrogen atoms,

>>2417322
Probably EVE Online. I'm not sure about this specific event, but all sorts of wacky shit takes place.

>>2416910
>All on the assumption people will be good to one another?
Most ideologies believe this.

In fact AnCaps probably are one of the ideologies that believe this the least.

Anarcho Capitalism seems utterly retarded to me. What's going to keep me from founding my own state within the Anarcho Capitalist environment and then use my collectivist leverage to take over the weaker, individual actors?

>>2417442
The fact that it's impossible to amass that level of power without a brainwashed populous.

>>2417398
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodbath_of_B-R5RB
That it does

>>2417452
Historical reality disagrees with you because at some point in history people did found states.
They started with the most basic of all societal structures: the family.
From the family arose the clan, from the clan arose the tribe. And from the tribe it's not that far to the nation.
And the nation will conquer petty individuals, either peacefully, allowing them to join, or by force.

>>2417322
EVE Online. Look Burn Jita 2012.

99% of Ancaps are retarded classcucks shilling for neo-feudalism, and the rest are sociopathic academics

>>2417452
Why would it be impossible? I gather a bunch of like-minded people who agree to work together. This sort of thing happens every day.

>>2417463
>conquering a voluntary association of individuals where everybody has combat training
Yeah, good luck with that. Go invade Switzerland while you're at it.

>>2417486

It doesn't matter how much combat training foot soldiers have if you can shell or bomb them into oblivion.

>>2417520
That will really earn their trust and paint you as the good guys.

>>2417520

Before over running them with tanks.

Look at Warsaw rebellion.

File: IMG_2972.jpg (102KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 720x960px

>>2416962
>muh horseshoe theory
The quickest indication that the person has only a factoid level of information when it comes to history

>>2417486
Professional soldiers who can dedicate their lives to fighting will always emerge supreme over people who are only part-time soldiers.

File: pureideology.png (45KB, 1244x1292px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1244x1292px

>>2417559
truth, it is more like this tbqh

>>2417524
It will set a good example. It's not like we're living in a modern world filled with states after all who could actually do something about it. No, we live in an AnCap world composed of singular individuals with nobody to advocate for their rights at a global stage. Who would keep me and my army from subduing everyone who stands in my way by force? Subsidiary farmer Joe and his hunting rifle?

>>2417567
The anarchists have both so they come out on top no matter how you look at it. A statist uprising cannot occur in an anarchist collective because they would need to fight off every security company at the same time.

>>2416962
there are many things wrong with this graphic, the 4 labels on the sides are arguably wrong, the position of them wrong too and all of these labels are abstracted ideas. Not reflective of actual reality, let alone the complexities inherent in it. It's a way of simplifying the world to make sense of it and derive tribes and identity.

>>2416978
also this

>>2417567

You mean like the Soviets against the Germans?

File: longbowmen.jpg (56KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 700x467px

>>2417567
>Professional soldiers who can dedicate their lives to fighting will always emerge supreme over people who are only part-time sold-

>>2417592
The fact that you could never form such an army in the first place unless you only recruited dumb savages, in which case your army isn't much of a threat anyway. Aggression is simply not profitable, so no sane individual would take part in it.

>>2417593
If I had a security company, what would keep me from simply subduing you and your anarchist peons? Why would other security companies side with you rather than me and help me enslave you?

Me and my armed band of professionals could kill them. It would be a lengthy, bloody conflict that would end up with many dead on both sides. And for what? For a meagre payment and the maintenance of the status quo? No, I think they'd rather side with me if I promised them land and riches - titles even. They could become the lords of a new world - and effortlessly so.

I used to think the same thing about communists, until I met one irl, so I guess if that particular form of irredeemable retardation exists the so do ancaps.

>>2417617
The longbow is a meme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

Longbowmen without protection from heavily armed knightly infantry and properly built fortifications have been effortlessly mowed down by French cavalry.

>>2417617
>implying Longbowmen aren't as highly trained as knights
or
>implying crossbowmen actually won the 100 years war
Which incorrect statement are you trying to say?

>>2417613
If you think you could motivate anarchists to die for you in human waves - or even raise armies of that size outside of a statist environment you must be out of your mind.

>>2417627

At least the Communists have a functioning society for 70 years.

The AnCaps had what? Somalia?

>>2417613
what?

>>2417625
A security company cannot risk a rebellion because other security companies will come in and usurp them while the rebellion weakens them.

>>2417619
>Aggression is simply not profitable
History disagrees.

Plundering and enslavement is very profitable.

>>2417593
What would stop security companies from forming protection rackets in their areas of influence, forcing people to pay for their services, and turning society towards feudalism?

>>2417652
The internet didn't exist back then so people had no way to shop around for a better country.

>>2417648
Again: why would they risk fighting the other armed professionals rather than help them enslave the peons?

What do the peons have to offer?

I offer them land, riches and titles.

I think they would side with me. And do you know why? Because that's what has historically happened.

>>2417655
A more appealing company coming from outside and stealing their customers.

>>2417660
If I put you in chains and force you to work in a factory, you won't have have internet access.

>>2417666
Why would I allow that security company on my turf? If they wanted to make business with my "customers" they'd provoke a war.

>>2417661

Yeah all that war in Medieval Europe and Sengoku Japan was fake news!

File: 0de071bdc877d7afe4ca35265d1fcae9806d6335abdb1dd243037480ad12a09f.png (169KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1000x600px

>>2416910

>>2417666
First, security companies aren't a small business and on't sprout from the ground. And they are necessarily based around an area, they can't just take a few customers here and there.

Second, when you are forcing someone to pay, they aren't customers, and can't just say "We are paying this new guy now"

and what >>2417677 said.

>>2417661
Because quelling a rebellion is much harder than supporting one, and leaves your security force vulnerable to external threats.

>>2417672
So you reduce the percentage of people capable of defending your land from external threats. Great job.

It's like I said, the instant you become an aggressor, you become the enemy of everybody.

>>2417677
But you're the one who started it.

>>2417690
They don't own the land, they are paid to protect it.

>>2417696

What if the security forces want their own land?

I mean seriously, if AnCap would work now, why didn't it work in 1200's Europe?

Oh because of the local rulers?

What's stopping people from becoming local rulers in the future?

>>2417683
>violent manchildren try to look superior to their neckbearded cousins

>>2417696
My point was about how security companies are necessarily similar to, for example, cable companies in that they have an area of coverage, and won't take a single customer outside because of the cost of expanding that area is way higher than what that single guy pays.

>>2417702
>I mean seriously, if AnCap would work now, why didn't it work in 1200's Europe?
I mean seriously, if social democracy would work now, why didn't it work in 1200s Europe?

I'm not even arguing in favour of anarcho capitalism but damn that was dumb.

>>2417716
It's much easier to set up an armed outpost than it is to run cables across miles of land.

>>2417632
>will always
>>2417636
crossbows are an example of part time soldiers taking down professionals

>>2417721

Social democracy is not feudalism.

AnCap is.

Without a strong central government, how can you prevent people from being warlords?

>>2417692
>So you reduce the percentage of people capable of defending your land from external threats.
I don't need the peons to defend my land. I am well capable of doing that on my own.

>It's like I said, the instant you become an aggressor, you become the enemy of everybody.
Whether they consider me an enemy or not doesn't matter. Important is whether they can challenge me. And if they can't they'll want to do business with me because in the end, they're rational actors and important is not whether I'm a nice guy but whether I can help them make profit somehow.

>But you're the one who started it.
No, they started it by trying to take away my "customers". I obviously can't let that happen.

>>2417728
And it's much harder to defend an armed outpost when the local mercenaries don't like you expanding into their property.

>>2417736
>AnCap is
Clearly not, even if you think that anarcho capitalism would lead to feudalism, the ideology is not in support of feudalism. I think that people voluntarily forming states would be the bigger threat to anarcho capitalism really.

>Without a strong central government, how can you prevent people from being warlords?
Switzerland must be in strife at the moment then.

>>2416962
I like this.

Ideologies spread across a toilet seat like the filthy germs they are.

>>2417734
>will always
Yes, will always. If you think Crécy and Azincourt were won by the longbow you've bought into a meme.

>crossbows are an example of part time soldiers taking down professionals
Crossbows have always been the weapons of professionals. Obviously crossbows have always been employed by part-timers, e.g. city militias, but if you hired crossbowmen for your army, they would be professional mercenaries.

The point is: a professional has more time to train his craft. He has more experience in battle. There is absolutely no reason why someone who's not a professional would somehow be more adept at fighting.

>>2417740
So you're just pulling infinite military power out of your ass then.

>No, they started it by trying to take away my "customers". I obviously can't let that happen.
>People exercising their freedom makes them the aggressor.
Brb, reporting everybody in America to the police.

>>2417747
It's not their property though. People are allowed to station people from whatever security company they wish on the land that belongs to them. Taking any action against this makes you the aggressor.

File: 1461638803705.jpg (178KB, 1584x1584px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1584x1584px

>>2417747

What if you start a religion that convinces people to fight for you for salvation instead of money?

That or you just convert people to Islam.

>>2417751
>Switzerland must be in strife at the moment then.
You must have a pretty odd idea of how Switzerland works. It is not an anarcho capitalist country. They are federal (in the same sense as Germany is federal) but they also have a central government. They're also fairly collectivist in some ways and most definitely have plenty of things which the average AnCap retard would consider utter Socialism.

>>2417751

Um. Switzerland has a police force, taxes, and legislature, plus rule of law, standing army, and all those things paid by taxes that entail a strong central government.

One couldn't walk int Switzerland and start recruiting mercenaries.

>>2417728
It may be cheaper, but is still too costly without an large customer base in the area. And even if enough clients call on them, it's doubtful if there will be enough clients to justify a possible violent conflict.

>>2417692
>It's like I said, the instant you become an aggressor, you become the enemy of everybody.
So the systems depends on the whole or most of society to be willing and ready to form voluntary militias to suppress organizations violating NAP?

Talk about idealistic.

>>2417770
The question was how you stop feudalism from happening, not who was or wasn't the aggressor. Of course that the ones forcing people to pay them are the aggressors.

>>2417632
Or, y'know, protection from some mud and pointy wooden sticks.

>>2417770
>So you're just pulling infinite military power out of your ass then.
No, I'm a local guy with a local security company that runs a protection racket and I'm thinking about turning my security company into a feudal state.

>People exercising their freedom makes them the aggressor.
If I don't allow it and I'm the guy with the army, then they don't have that freedom.

>It's not their property though.
It's their property if they declare it their property and if they have the means to defend it from those who would disagree. That's what property is all about.

If another company wants to take over my turf they better have the means to do so because I'm going to defend it by force.

>>2417781
>The question was how you stop feudalism from happening
What do you think keeps feudalism from happening right now?

>>2417783
Mud and pointy wooden sticks are a good addition but much more important are English knights on foot which are often ignored in this bourgeois fantasy of the common Englishman valiantly defeating the haughty French aristocrat.

>>2417788
Government? Armed forces? Police? Take your pick

>>2417789

Actually. You know what got rid of the knight.

Muskets.

And how do you create muskets for tens of thousands of people and have chemists make the black powder.

Fucking taxes and military industry.

What are you self defending peasants going to do when I show up with muskets and cannon? And man-o-wars to be bombard their cities?

Will a private security company show up and defend them? Well I'll just raise taxes and bribe the security company.

>>2417794
That doesn't really answer the question. What do you think it is that keeps the governments of the world from running their societies as feudal societies?

Some ancap could educate me on how law would work in anarcho-capitalism? I know you guys claim that law could be privatized since there were polycentric systems of law during history, but at the same time I think that a polycentric law is self-contradictory because the concept of justice implies that all human being within the same society should have the same fundamental rights. And ultimately a monopoly on law would be required in order to protect such rights.

>>2417794

Wait. It just dawned on me...

Isn't private security forces taking basically mandatory fees for security the same as government with its army?

Both are taxes.

I mean even with the private security force you have to pay someone all the time so even if you say its voluntary its still mandatory.

So basically taxes...

>>2417734
Here's another nice example of a community of uppity freemen and minor nobles who thought they could raise their own subsidiary farming community being put down by statist might: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Visby

>>2417808
It's de-spooked government. The people don't have any unwarranted sense of loyalty towards the enforcers.

>>2417818

What if the enforcers collude?

>>2417802
That'd be because of the centralization of power, a historical process that went since some point in the middle ages till the modern era and the forming of modern nation-states. Essentially, that the central government finds the centralization of power and force desirable, and that at some points people agreed with that. But this is complex question, and I'm not sure I'm qualified for it, nor I see how it is relevant.

>>2417808
In an ancap society you could not contract anyone and deal yourself with any problem you run into. My point is it might stop being voluntary, and then, yes, it's essentially taxation.

>>2417828
The people also collude.

>>2417833

What to prevent the people from colluding to form a government?

>>2417832
>nor I see how it is relevant.
It's relevant because the reason feudalism died off is because feudal societies are weaker than what followed. The more authoritarian a society is, the weaker it is, because it focuses more power struggling against itself and deliberately weakening its own people.

>>2416910
That guy and all his friemds should habe gotten permabanned, shit.

>>2417840
Those idiots should never have played a game where you invest thousands into a virtual ship and can lose it all after one laggy dogfight.

>>2417840

It was Mittani. And they didn't perma ban him because he was in charge of an Alliance with thousands of subscription paying members.

Also he had enough members to vote him onto the player council.

Its is an example of human nature. They do things to hurt people on purpose because of the lulz.

>>2417838
The point is that the military needs the civilians to run the society, so any threats the military makes against the civilians are empty because they can't just shoot everybody without screwing themselves over in the process.

>>2417853

I actually met in game a person who he tried to get to kill himself too. Famous multi-boxer.

>>2417855
>un the society, so any threats the military makes against the civilians are e

Like how the Samurai treated peasants?

>>2417864
The difference is that people back then were retarded so they didn't realize this.

File: 1460162778484.png (582KB, 1600x2300px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1600x2300px

>>2417864

Speaking of which... How would AnCap deal with religious fanaticism.

What good is money if you can make people kill for you in the name of their God?

How would you prevent Muslim immigrants from showing up and converting your security forces?

>>2417871

And people aren't retarded now?

Wew lad!

>>2417876
This is the reason why we currently aren't using anarchism.

>>2417853
>Its is an example of human nature.
It is an example of gamers. Who are selfish pieces of shit.

>>2417839
No, it happened because socioeconomic changes made it obsolete, and one group (kings) managed to strip another group (feudal lords) of it's power. In anarchism, there is a power vacuum, so whichever group which can force itself upon others can accumulate power and turn into a de facto state.

>>2417855
I think you underestimate the coercive force of violence, and overestimate the willingness of individual to face against armed forces over perceived transgressions. A combination of selfishness, cowardice and self preservation natural to most people means they won't rise against an army/government unless the potential payoff is large, and the current situation is truly dire.

>>2417894

So all those hundreds of years of sociopaths was fake news?

>>2417912
Sociopaths aren't all of humanity

>>2417777
>>2417780
I never said that Switzerland had no central government, but probably the weakest central government in the world (in power, not juristiction).

This is in response to that anon saying that a strong central government is needed, not just any central government.

>>2417919

Estimates 1 out of 100 (1%) of the population are sociopaths.

So out of 300 Million that's 3 million.

3 million people that can't be bought with self interest.

>>2417929
>3 million people that can't be bought with self interest.
Wait, aren't they only self interested?

>>2417967

Not in money or security. That shits boring.

Honestly I can't see an Ancap society lasting too long. One way or the other the Church will probably gain immense power and form their own state. You'd be surprised how powerful religious figures have over people's lives.

File: 1461638635042.jpg (80KB, 862x582px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 862x582px

>>2418025

See. In order for AnCap to work, everyone has to be an atheist.

However, with the lack of public education and science spending, everyone is going to be killing each other over their version of the man in the sky.

But don't look at me. I'm all for another crusade.

>>2418038
Public education is useless though. As a result it makes people think that atheism is rational.

>>2418038

Well, for Ancap to work than the world must be ancap too. Because just say, The American government gets abolished tomorrow I guarantee you that every other world power are going to be sending their own mercenaries and military to try and get a slice of that pie. You'll no doubt see Canada and Mexico annexing sections of the country straight away before any organized militias can float up. It'll just turn into a massive shitshow.

Wew lad all these spooks.

>>2418038
Time to D E U S V U L T

>>2417457
Jesus Christ

>>2416962
>national socialism
>egoist

I think NS is complete BS but this is a fucking retarded assumption. Theoretical NS belongs more on the left side.

>real NS has never been tried