>>127033428 no

Pic unrelated of course
>>127033428

>>127033591
Care to elaborate why?

I am waiting for crypto to make banks obsolete. No idea where this will lead.

>>127033428
No I don't think so. We had this in Western Europe around the time of the Industrial Revolution, and it was absolute hell for 99% of the population. You end up Plutocracy.

>>127033428
>function
Define function

You could even argue that we have an unregulated economy of bribery and under-the-table deals.

You can operate as an independent small business owner, but the puppet state in which you operate will lock you up if you don't pay protection money, because you don't have enough guns to defend yourself from the state.

>>127033981
I mean have at least the ability to be stable and not make society collapse and be a fallout-esque hell hole with armed gangs roaming the streets
the stateless uncontrolled economy all the ancaps are always foaming about, could it even work or would we end up as slaves?

Despite what some have said here such a system has never been tried.

It would be amazing. Imagine how much that society would flourish. It would make the advancements made during the industrial revolution in terms of raising the standard of living of millions seem like child's play.

Also, very important...

Anarchy =\= Capitalism
Anarchy =\= Free Market

Ancaps are basically a bunch of clueless, ignorant idiots. They are capitalism's biggest enemy from within.

>>127033829
>it was absolute hell for 99% of the population
Then shy did people choose to move from the countryside to the cities to work? Stop comparing modern life to the realities of the past, the truth is that the industrial revolution greatly improved the lives of all people.

>>127033428
takes away all the power from the government

>>127034338
Wealth always compounds, regardless of the level of freedom.

We would end up where we are now: WIth rich people having bought the states to force the plebs into servitude

>>127034604
> Then why did people choose to move from the countryside to the cities to work?
I find it hard to believe it was to improve quality of life. It wasn't uncommon for 7 year olds to lose their arms in factories, then be fired with no compensation whatsoever. Are you saying the living standard on the countryside was even worse? It could be that farming wasn't profitable enough anymore and people had no choice but to go to the cities.

>>127033428
It would require a population of critically thinking intelligent individuals who would be willing to boycott a company to strong arm them into producing higher quality goods, lowering cost, etc. Or otherwise helping to generate or support competition for a superior product or service.

Obviously they shouldn't abuse this so a good company with good products goes under, but they would probably have to be immune to consumerist propaganda

>>127033428
A 'completely unregulated' economy is still regulated by market economics.

>>127035510
>Are you saying the living standard on the countryside was even worse?
Yes, starvation was common. Stop trying to judge the past by modern standards, rural poverty was far worse than urban poverty and far more common as well.

>>127034404
yeah... courts and liability are pretty important too.

>>127036012

That.

If the citizenry is educated and showed solidarity, they could also punish via boycott any le happy merchants who do anything criminal or engage in bad business.

>>127036204
It really wasn't. At the time of the Industrial Revolution, there had been an upswing in life expectancy in the UK, which was mainly due to continually improving agricultural techniques and better planning. But life in the cities was hell, hygiene being a big cause of that.

Tbh i'm just in this thread because as a straight white male, i'm attracted to pictures of women with big beautiful tits

>>127037459
>tfw not straight, not white, not male

File: 1315008604938.jpg (10KB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 350x233px

She looks like if Elliot Rodger had a very successful sex change