Ancaps debunked

>>128069814
Babby's first neocameralism.

>>128069814
>the state will spontaneously disappear everywhere on earth without the overseeing and coercion of any kind of authority
t. marxist ideologue-I mean ANCAP.

Profitability being the only metric by which anything is allowed to survive is a terrible idea.

>>128070054
I'm just showing that anarcho-capitalism is a meaningless wordgame that isn't in principle any different from current states of affairs when you look past the big words.

>>128070684
I'm with you. The nation-state is essentially a corporation that monopolizes the use of force. Monarchy and feudalism are the only just forms of government.

My problem with Ancap is that you can't have property rights without any means if enforcing it. I want a minimal government, but not to the point where I have to hire mercenaries just to keep my house from being looted.

>>128070875
So instead of a democratically elected government having the monopoly, it should all be centralised around a king or a class of noblemen with inherited rights?

>>128070684
>>128070447
>>128069814
>>/leftypol/

>>128071096
Also, what's to stop the mercs from looting your house? They are organized and better trained.

>>128071118
Yes

>>128071133
>>/https://www.autismweb.com/forum/

>>128071133
>Disagree with an ideology only taken seriously be 15 years old and fat burgers.
>REEEEE YOU MUST BE EVIL MARXISTS REEEE

Literally you

>>128071309
Sounds pretty stupid tbqh famalam.

>>128069814
>>claim all property on earth

You'd have to violate the NAP to do this.

>>128071412
Who is enforcing the NAP?

>>128070684

Unsurprising flag faggot

>>128071118
Yes. With a state religion and the kings of individual European nations being subject to the emperor; preferably Rome.

File: big_guy.png (404KB, 770x578px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 770x578px

>>128069814
ancap is for the internet, you babbling retard. See, cryptocurrencies. And get some PepeCoin before www.kekdaq.com launches

>>128071412
Then at the eve of anarcho-capitalism. How is property divided?

File: e.jpg (8KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 259x194px

>>128071641
>ancap is for the internet
>pepecoin
>kek

FUCKING BASED

File: 1495756892078.jpg (179KB, 739x538px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 739x538px

>>128069814
goddamn post more ancap memes

>>128070875
>>128071309
>>128071598
cucks

>>128071574
Nice argument.

>>128071343
Usually the marxists are first ones to make a fuss about Anarchocapitalism.

>>128071523
Your self.

>>128070447
It won't be spontaneous, it will be very gradual and slow. We will do it by contentiously limiting the power of the government until they have no power and can do nothing. But we have to do it wisely and very carefully otherwise we could fuck up with a mass surge in welfare and subsidized degeneracy.

>>128071701
How it is now, but people can divide property and merge properties however they want.

>>128072018
Mmm individualism and liberal democracy worked out so well for us. Thanks for the Enlightment you piece of shit frog. You people ruined everything with your god damned pervert philosophers.

>>128072153
What if another government wants invade the state you crippled?

>>128072153
>How it is now, but people can divide property and merge properties however they want.

ah but you see if original property is kept as it is now. Then the state understood as a corporation DOES hold all the property, undivided and complete.

>>128072209
>implying the nobles of the 18th century weren't a bunch of degenerate faggots
The peak of the western civilization was the end of the 19th century, not the 18th century

>>128072153
>It won't be spontaneous, it will be very gradual and slow. We will do it by contentiously limiting the power of the government until they have no power and can do nothing. But we have to do it wisely and very carefully otherwise we could fuck up with a mass surge in welfare and subsidized degeneracy.
By this logic all ancaps should become minarchists until they have abolished the state, which is amusingly enough is an exact inversion of Murray "sperggberg" Rothbards argument against Robert Nozick.

>>128072483
The 18th and 19th century can suck it. Europa was already ruined by that point thanks to French universalism.

File: 1900-map.jpg (423KB, 1891x1561px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1891x1561px

>>128072625
>not wanting the world to look like this

>>128072948
Thats fine. But it can't be maintained under liberal democracy with liberty being the highest good.

>>128072305
They would have to be careful because the country they are invading should be have a heavily armed population.

>>128072394
>People holding the property as it is now
>State though some means no longer exists
>State still owns all property, it is just called a corporation now.
>Socialist Swedish logic

>>128072592
Gradual removal of power is the best way to achieve a peaceful anarchy.

>>128073160
>I want to remove authority with authority
This seems neither very thought through nor very anarchic.

>>128073160
>State though some means no longer exists

Why? Should Apple computers also stop existing if ancap spontaneously ''''happens''''?

>>128073149
It can, it actually was for a century until Hitler and burgers fucked it up

>>128072038

I don't have to argue with you. The Muhammed raping your daughter has done it for me.

>>128073629
You do know you have to be over 18 to post here, right mr 56%?

>>128073160
>armed population
With the will and organization to remain united? Nevermind the complete lack of air force, navy, and artillery.
>>12807357
>hitler fucked it up
Hitler was a reaction to the logical end result of liberal democracy; communism.

>>128073364
It may seem contradictory to use the very thing you want to destroy for the sake of destroying it, but as long as the people have some ability to change the government for the better and by that I mean less and less until there is none, then we should go as far as we can until we have to fight to avoid less damage.

And hopefully while the change is happening people will notice the wonderful affects of moving closer to pure capitalism with each passing step. It would be comparable to the growth personal freedoms and wealth China had when it gave up on communism.

>>128073629
You don't have to argue because your ideology is gibberish. It's not that I have a difference in taste or opinion, it's just that ancap flatout doesn't add up.

>>128069814
>taxation is equal to free market dynamics
I'm no ancap, but I will happily tell you that this is one of the dumbest things I have read all day.

>>128073969
taxation is equal to rent. That is what I'm saying here, nothing else.

>>128072948
>>128072625
The only reason that was sustainable is because the European population was much larger as a global percentage

le ebin French empire for example only had like 60 million or so people in the colonies compared to 40 million in France itself because you colonized useless sand in Africa. And of course on top of that you had a low birthrate and worked hard to try and get gooks and niggers to accept French language and culture and become citizens, which is why your country has been the pozzed man of Europe since the 1960s when all the colored Frenchmen returned to the motherland- and then their kids decided being radical muslims was cooler.

Germany was even more lopsided with more than 50 million people in the German empire itself and less than 10 million in the colonies. Britain was the only small nation to substantially colonize others during the 18th and 19th where India had 350 million and Britain had 35 million, but their colonies like Canada and New Zealand had another 10 million or so white people in 1900 so I guess it wasn't quite the same.

Oh right and there was Belgium, crazy little Belgium.

The point is in the modern era the Chinks, Brs and soon the Indians too will be colonizing Africa because African nations are still small compared to the 1.4 billion chinks or 200 million brs.

>>128074081
>taxation is rent
Amen.

>>128073896
It's not a little bit contradictory, it's agaisnt your ideological basis.
If you can't achieve your desired ideology without resorting to the very means you claim to stand against it's perhaps an indicator that your ideology is worthless.

>>128073891
>the logical end result of liberal democracy; communism.
Where did leftist revolutions happend :
- France 1791
- Russia 1917
- Germany 1918
- China 1945
- Portugal 1974
- Cambodia 1975
- a bunch of African shitholes 1950s - 1980s
Those are not liberal democracies

>>128073458
I made it vauge so that way it can mean litterally any thing causes the state to fall and why would this affect Apple, a private company? The sheer fact that you are comparing the two is bizarre.

>>128074081
But what if I don't agree to the rent, and what if I am going to be thrown prison for not paying rent?

>>128074412
Your using the system to tear down the system, it is indeed contradictory, but it is nothing more than a means to an end.

All I would really be doing is voting for the most libertarian and least socialist policies possible and if necessary start a political party to move us in the direction.

I don't have to go guns blazing to start an anarchy you know.

>>128073949

Ok, all shitposting aside, I think your country has done a great job with an ideology that was pretty much bombed everywhere but Scandinavia. It will be interesting to see how the refugee crisis plays out, but it could easily be an economic benefit provided that you get everyone to assimilate.

The basic premise of Ancap is a philosophical one, not an economic one, namely that it's unjust for people to take your stuff. To your first point, the difference between real Nozick style "night watchmen" state and the stat qou is that the state's monopoly on force would be used exclusively to defend civil and property rights, not to force bakers to make cakes for gays, tax people into buying healthy food, or redistribute resources to working age citizens who won't get a job.

>>128074569
USA 1776
UK 1688
Nearly every country on earth is best categorized under liberalism.

>>128075080
>USA 1776
>UK 1688
Those are not leftist revolutions

>>128074184
>The only reason that was sustainable is because the European population was much larger as a global percentage
As it should be
Hopefully chinks will genocide niggers

>>128074713
>I made it vauge so that way it can mean litterally any thing causes the state to fall and why would this affect Apple, a private company? The sheer fact that you are comparing the two is bizarre.

Then you are presenting a hypothetical, ok. I claim that the state agrees with ancap principles. I am not claiming that the state must by necessity be able to reform itself in accordance with the NAP if it were to be contractually disbanded by a clerical error. Talk about bizarre.

>But what if I don't agree to the rent, and what if I am going to be thrown prison for not paying rent?

Then you better not fucking rent, it's no more coercive than any contract with any other corporation. But good luck living.

>>128074847
>Ancap is not economic.

At the core of it suppose so, but many of the arguments that support ancap are economic.

File: 1386612262800.png (391KB, 542x540px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 542x540px

>>128069814
Give this man cookie or something.

>>128075346
The corporation won't have the authority to kill you, worst case scenario they will just throw you out on the privately owned streets.

>>128075188
America's most certainly was. They overthrew their just king, fashioned a liberal republic, and waxed poetic about equality and universalism.

England's Glorious Revolution established Parliament as sovereign with a puppet king to keep the plebs docile. Both were far left given the time period.

File: demandsupplycurve.jpg (38KB, 420x349px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 420x349px

>>128069814
>>claim all property on earth
that's not how it works
the free market will fix this

>>128074847
>your stuff

Your claim to "stuff" is just more gibsmedats, that's what I'm telling you. And you have to justify that gibsmedats just as much as a socialist or what have you.

>>128075527
>The corporation won't have the authority to kill you
In the ANCP world? Who will stop them?
>Poli...
Oh wait.
> Federal government will send national gua...
Oh wait.

>>128075563
Asking for more individual liberties is not a leftist thing. People don't have much individual liberties in communist shitholes

File: eva braun.jpg (112KB, 634x484px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 634x484px

>>128075396
Well, yes. Its a philosophical position with economic consequences. I'm surprised that's the controversial part

>>128074081
>Landlords can change their rental agreements at a whim and makeup whatever punishment they want for you if they, themselves, alone, decide you have violated that agreement.
No, but the government can, and does. Yours, too.

>>128075527
No. I have shown that the state is EXACTLY analogue to a global corporation possessing all property. There is no difference in aggression.

>>128075685

Well, actually the supply curve for land is fixed, so the same quantity will be supplied no matter the price.

(manmade islands in China aside)

>>128069814
>claim all property on earth
Do you not know how property works?

>>128075873
Yes but communism promises to provide liberty. Just because it fails to provide does not mean anything. And asking for more individual libertiea is a leftist thing. Liberty itself is a leftist conception.

File: 52345234.jpg (38KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x300px

>>128075885
ANCAP landlords can.

>>128071929
>fair share
So what portion of our military is my fair share? Do I get to dictate where 1 in 500,000 bombs get dropped?

What if I don't want to drop that bomb?

I could try voting, but then two people who didn't "Pay their fair share" vote for a demagogue who then drops fair share of the bomb money on people who were simply unfortunate enough to be held hostage by terrorists.

How much of my labor are others entitled to? How much of your labor am I entitled to?
(The answer in both cases is, "fuck-all")

>>128075885
>>128075957

We can talk about the legal system and how that's gonna work in ancaptown if you REALLY want to. But I guarantee that it won't lead to any difference in principle. Whatever interdependence between state and judicial system you can claim to exist can be translated to a world where we call the state by another name. Makes no fucking difference.

>>128076372
Therefore we should all live in caves in a constant war of all against all. Good job ancap.

>>128075993
>Well, actually the supply curve for land is fixed,
Its asymptotic and we way below max. Look at all non-populated lands with no roads.

File: 1496334563820.png (290KB, 480x716px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 480x716px

>>128071133
>>128072153
>>128073160
>>128073896
>>128074713
>>128075396
>>128075527

thanks for explaining. Means a lot and I appreciate it

keep it up

>>128075788

There's actually quite a lot of work that went into that during the enlightenment. The general consensus was that an unclaimed thing became yours when you mixed your labor with it in such a way that you could not be deprived of it without also being deprived of your labor. For example, plowing an empty field would make it yours, but collecting apples from a feral orchard would not.

Honestly, that's not really an issue to today, because essentially all holdings are the result of returns to labor, or returns to capital that was originally paid for with labor earnings.

>>128069814
>mfw the endgame of communism and ancap are essentially the same

File: kim-jong-un.jpg (28KB, 354x313px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 354x313px

>>128076077
>Liberty itself is a leftist conception
>American

>>128076908
All this assumes that man is born free which he is not. He is under his sovereign his father.

>>128077020
not really

the endgame between NatSoc and AnCap are much much more similar because AnCap economically punishes degeneracy

>>128077123
Duty > Libery
Freedom is a myth.
>>128077181
I only mean they are both utopian.

>>128075993
you're right, nonetheless as the quantity is fixed the price of the land is far more likely to increase to a point where it's too expensive to be bought cost-effectively than the opposite.
Also as opposed to a real state a huge company wouldn't have a bank to bail them out once they fuck up, which is bound to happen on a long enough timeframe

File: gunsnake.jpg (136KB, 1027x667px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1027x667px

>>128069814
Government get out

File: pKsPT9J.jpg (193KB, 600x403px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 600x403px

>>128077144

Alright John Locke

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 02.35.27.png (807KB, 790x542px) Image search: [Google]

807KB, 790x542px

Ancap is gay we need BASED feudalism.

>>128076908
>we looked at the data and it turns out property is real

Those are normative judgements. Go pick an argument with marx or someone.

>>128077453
John Locke is a godless commie bastard. Robert Filmer is the realest nigga.

>>128077296
Are you meaning to imply that AnCap is impossible?

I assure you, it's quite doable. Capitalism works, AnCap just uses it to its full potential. Communism on the other hand, well, even the states that actively tried to be communists are rejected by modern communists as failures evident by the "not real capitalism" mantra lol

>>128069814
>be huge corporation called 'the state'
>oh wait corporations creatures of the state... and don't exist in anarcho-capitalism.
Nice try OP

File: 3a8TFGU.jpg (89KB, 559x765px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 559x765px

>>128076667

Does someone own that land? If the answer is yes, then it has been supplied.

No one is arguing that we have reached maximum development

>>128076908
Collecting apples isn't super easy. You have to do a lot of walking around and climbing ladders. And a feral orchard implies a lot of weeds and bushes obstructing your way that you have to clear out.

File: Deja.png (271KB, 437x304px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 437x304px

>>128077710

I want to beleive this is a troll.

File: 1494122720821.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>>128077710
>not real capitalism

not real communism* I mean. pic related. christ I need some sleep

>>128077943
nope, I say with complete sincerity

>>128077710
Ancap is not desirable. It degrades mankind with its vulgar focus on materalism and economics. Captialism is only good at making more wealth and raising the material standard of living. Its not enough to maintain a society.

>>128078094
>Its not enough to maintain a society.
>an invisible fairy in the sky is required
Sure thing m8-o

>>128077710
Capitalism: free-market, laws & regulations

Ancap: free-market, arbitrarily applied pacifism, please don't steal

Full potential: None of the above.

>>128078272
You got it. Civilization requires something outside of itself to strive towards or it dies.

See: Western Civilization

>>128070684
anarcho-anything is a meaningless wordgame

File: 1481070179783.jpg (168KB, 540x723px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 540x723px

>>128077567

Honestly, if you look at GDP data, housing is real but non majority proportion of value added, especially for medium rich countries. Most of the value added in developed countries is in services, which are almost entirely produced with labor, not capital.

>>128078094
>It degrades mankind with its vulgar focus on materalism and economics

ah, but these degraded men, what sustains them? what grants them welfare, social safety nets, benefits? what rewards degeneracy? what sustains shitty businesses pandering to this degeneracy, what subsidizes, what buys them out, what supports them? Why, a state of course.

Degenerates will have an incredibly hard time in Ancapistan, because being degenerate is well, degenerate, and no welfare props them up. Stable, traditional, faithful and in a sense nationalistic people to their ethnic identity are what would thrive in Ancapistan. Not to mention most of all their love for freedom and liberty.

>>128078278
>Capitalism
>laws & regulations

lol

>arbitrarily applied pacifism

It's not arbitrary. It's fairly concrete: no violence outside self-defense.

>please don't steal

You can still steal just like in the state we have now, nothing's stopping you. There would still just be equally if not more consequences for your actions that you suffer with.

>>128078536
I don't get it.
Did western civilization "die"?
Or are you implying the western civilization succeeded because of an invisible astral super dwelling?

>>128077532
Feudalism is ancap tho

>>128069814
>The state is anarcho-capitalist. QED
Half truth.

In the end we're just gang bangers repping oil cartres.

>>128078979
Cartels

You're right, but for the wrong reasons OP.

We live in anarchism right now today. The planet is structurally anarchic. States are a RESPONSE to the structural anarchy of the world. States themselves are not anarchic but they are the product of anarchy.

That's why anarchists make me laff. They bitch about anarchism at the individual level but don't realise that the reason we have statism at the individual level is because of anarchy at the international level.

If the USA went anarchist tomorrow it would be carved up between Russia, China, the EU, and the UK inside of a year.

Ancap is not sustainable long term. Soon enough, someone will gain a monopoly on something, therefore gaining power. They will hire their own corporate police force and make their own laws.

Anarcho-anything is not sustainable, really. Soon enough, the chaos will cause unhappiness with people taking advantage of others, and create laws against such things.

Ancap just ensures that the laws created will favor the corporations who have created the police force.

>>128079039
Precisely this

>>128078794
So ancapistan is in favor of ethnonationalism then? I just see ancap as self defeating and rootless. If it can be tied to the Nation then fine.

File: marx.jpg (451KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 900x900px

http://mailstar.net/classwar.html

>"the Protective system is nothing but a means of establishing manufacture upon a large scale in any given country, that is to say, of making it dependent upon the market of the world: and from the moment that dependence upon the market of the world is established, there is more or less dependence upon Free Trade too. Besides this, the Protective system helps to develop free competition within a nation. Hence we see that in countries where the bourgeoisie is beginning to make itself felt as a class, in Germany for example, it makes great efforts to obtain Protective duties. They serve the bourgeoisie as weapons against feudalism and absolute monarchy, as a means for the concentration of its own powers for the realization of Free Trade within the country.

>But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade."

what did he mean by this?

>>128069814
I think in order to have a legit criticism of the ideology you'd have to show how it would break down while all steps stay ideologically consistent. But in this one you just described a state emerging and then acted as if it was permissible to ancap. But it's not. So what are we really talking about here?

>>128079293
>I think
Prove it

>>128078835
We are dying. And no. I'm not saying God maintained Europe. I'm saying politics and downstream from culture is downstream from metaphysics. If the material world is all their is then things like beauty and honor become just words. For anything objective to exist it must exist outside of the whims of man.

>>128078794
>self defense
As defined by property lines drawn on "moral" basis.

You are dodging. Ancap is not the full-potential. Violence can also be understood in terms of economic value, the full potential is darwinism. Sort of a moot point considering how ancap doesn't really have a basis in reality. Read my posts.

>>128079293
The state is a fact. Ancaps continually claim, even in this thread, that the existing distribution of property should be respected. There should be no redistribution. As it happens, all current property is consolidated under states.

File: 1489063397341.png (2MB, 5000x7500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x7500px

>>128079174
Ancap is extremely compatible with ethnonationalism, and as I've said, they share a lot of the same endgame. What you picture is what we picture. The means is just different.

To clarify, the difference here is largely the pace of things: NatSoc is hard eugenics over a short period of time, AnCap is soft eugenics over a longer period of time. Both still incredibly poisonous to the degenerate, and why they vilify the right-libertarians that compose a majority of AnCaps. Why play the long game rather than the short? Because in many ways, it's also more stable and consistent in result, instead of alarming war and defeat.

I was very much like a NatSoc until I stopped judging by the memes alone and really opened my mind to AnCap. Tradition, values, strength, identity -- you still have freedom to these things in AnCap, and it is that same freedom that will allow you crush communists and other degenerates in non-violent private property.

Think about it.

>>128079195
Marxism predicted automation would make capitalism kill itself, and that the more capitalism that happened, the faster automation would happen

>>128079482
>As defined by property lines drawn on "moral" basis.

What are you talking about? If you initiate violent force outside of self-defense (i.e. if you're already under attack), you're breaking the NAP. It's not rocket science. It's as simple and straightforward as that.

>Violence can also be understood in terms of economic value

Are you the same Stirner swede? Really, you're still this sour that you cannot act like a nigger and be violent when things aren't in your way?

Deny it or not, I can very much assure you that capitalism is a valid and legitimate basis rooted in reality. Capitalism is what allowed western civilization to prosper economically.

>>128079810
>ancap
>national identity
Wut

>>128079810
Just stop. Nationalism is collectivist. Ancap is individualist and retarded. There is ZERO compatibility. Most importantly ancap is not compatible with logic and reality.

>>128079718
Idk any an caps who believe that the property owned by the state is legitimate. Who have you been talking to?

wow haven't heard that one before

>>128080190
>I can very much assure you.

I have refuted all of your arguments several times in this thread. Your assurance means very little. Just read and then come up with something that makes sense.

>implying that everyone would sell their property
>implying that property prices wouldn't skyrocket once a large portion of them are not for sale anymore, due to someone not willing to sell them

The truth is that such thing where one person owns everything could only ever happen by force, and not by free trade. There are people who will not give what they have for any amount of money you can conceive.

>>128080285
>property owned by the state
read the posts, hell read the OP atleast

>>128072153
>Usually the marxists are first ones to make a fuss about Anarchocapitalism
The literal communists are also anarchists. People tend to hate heretics more than heathens.

>>128079810
My main problem has been brought up already. I don't see how ancap can foster a nation. Nations are at least partially socialist be definition. I'm not a natsoc just for the record.

>>128080220
Yes. You are free to hold a nationalistic position in AnCap, in much the same way you're free to believe in anything else.

Within your private property, you can impose harsh rules, penalties, and discrimination against degenerates instead of allowing dirty smelly hippies on your property. With no welfare money, these hippies won't last very long and you can expand your covenant (voluntary societies) accordingly with strong principles and ethnic determination.

>>128080271
>Nationalism is collectivist

There is no denying that, but you can still follow nationalistic principles within your private property. Nothing exempts you from that. AnCap is freedom from a central state, nothing more, nothing less.

>Ancap is individualist

And upon your individualism you can voluntary choose to join a nationalistic covenant. There is no contradiction. There is instead, compatibility just on a voluntary basis.

>>128069814
This is not ancap because the state doesnt heed to the NAP.

>>128069814
ancaps are about equal laws, state has special privledges that are not granted to everyone. State also forces people to do things without voluntary exchange or contracts.

now go kill yourself moron

>>128080477
>I have refuted all of your arguments several times in this thread

Then refute them

>>128080691
>Yes. You are free to hold a nationalistic position in AnCap, in much the same way you're free to believe in anything else.

It would be but under ancap owning slaves violates the nap.

>>128080789
Why debate if you won't even read and understand the OP? You seem to me incredibly dumb and/or stubborn.

Do you realize that the cases in which self-defense is premissible by NAP is dependant on the notion of property?

religion poll
http://www.strawpoll.me/13091457

>>128078794
>degenerates will have a bad time in Amcapistan

No the fuck the won't
If there is a market for degeneracy (which there is and always will be), you bet your ass someone will supply it. Learn2freemarket.

>>128070447
>lol we're perpetual slaves of the state. hahaha I beat you. We're chattel to an oligarchy! I'm the smart one!

I bet behind the whole ancaps thing are just big corperations

>>128080614
>I don't see how ancap can foster a nation

You can still foster an identity. A group. A strength in unity. It is just done on a voluntary basis. If you don't like, you are physically removed from the property and thrown into where degenerates are instead of shot.

These degenerates will not last long on their own, they are inherently parasites by nature. They will rot unless they submit back to civilization. They will purchase guns in desperation and shoot themselves instead, doing the job for me.

>Nations are at least partially socialist be definition

That is true, as far as establishing a state goes. But you can still have a voluntary society, on contracts, to establish borders on what they do own and control, as well as cooperation with other covenants to form a sense of national identity as small private property enclaves communicating with each other. Think city-states in a way, but voluntary. Shared identity is still there, just not done by force of a state. But still there, nonetheless.

>>128081285
Corporations only exist with a state.

>>128081210
>what is free association and ostracism

>>128081295
So why the focus on anarchy and capitalism? Two idealogies which are historically rootless, universal, and which strip national identity to the bone? I don't much see a differenfe between your voluntary society and a state to be honest.

>>128080916
Slavery is against the NAP yes, but you can certainly still have people working for you.

>>128081020
>Do you realize that the cases in which self-defense is premissible by NAP is dependant on the notion of property?

Yes, and people have property of themselves and their labor, including land that they work on.

>>128081210
>If there is a market for degeneracy (which there is and always will be), you bet your ass someone will supply it

How far can they supply it, if these degenerates are fully discriminated from employment, housing, and even food if some people choose to sell them any?

There is no "anti-discrimination" laws, nor is there welfare. We'll sell them degeneracy until they can't afford it anymore to get what money they have, and then leave them to die. For once, we take our own money back instead of being forced to give them money as mandated by a degenerate-enabling state.

>>128081272
Yeah dude it literally makes us smart.

You'd just die, man. Don't lie.

>>128081840
>Yes, and people have property of themselves and their labor, including land that they work on.

Oh so the workers own the land they work? That's a different kind of ancap I'll tell ya.

File: Screenshot_2017-06-01_22-15-30.png (1MB, 857x1960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 857x1960px

>>128069814
Wow it's almost like you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

>>128081411
Can I form a corporation in ancapistan?

>>128082216
>seizing the means of production
Where have I heard that before?

>>128082222
Well, present the argument in your own words and I'll be happy to discuss it.

>>128081798
Anarchy is freedom from state, and capitalism is the tool used for wealth generation. This tool can for once be used to its potential instead of corrupted by a state.

>I don't much see a differenfe between your voluntary society and a state to be honest.

Because a state is inherently violent and reinforces itself onto others. We do no such thing. We leave degenerates out to their own, and let them rot once they realize there's no central taxation vehicle to fund entitlement programs.

The problem with a state is that it is extremely easily corruptible. A single state can be corrupted, and everyone suffers. There's nothing else you can do about it, other than continue to feed into their system by voting democratically despite democracy being a flawed concept akin to soft-communism of the masses. Compare this to say, a series of voluntary covenants, each individual, and yet each still each as one? Much harder to corrupt. There's no backup plan in a state: if things go bad, you just live with it. You get sent to prison, you get raped, you die.

At least in a voluntary society, if your covenant doesn't work out you can go to another one with different rules that might suit you better. It just so happens that nationalistic ones based on traditionalism prosper the most, and the endgame is that most if not all of these covenants will share similar properties without a central coercive body.

>>128082256
No because a the state treats a coporation like a person with rights that sheilds personal responsibility. All business transactions would be handled by contracts and contract enforcement.

>>128082216
I never mentioned workers, friendo :^)

The owner owns what is his. Workers work for him on a contractual basis. Don't try to put words in my mouth when it is clear what was meant.

Mutualism solves the problems of both ancapistan and ancomistan, but ancaps and ancoms aren't literate enough in political theory to come to the drawing board and discuss mutualism as they're too busy making fashy accusations and actions against one another.

Prove me wrong? If only you could, boyo.

>>128082608
Who enforces the contracts? Who provides for common defense?

>>128069814
>claim all property on earth
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

There are only 4 legitimate ways to own something as your private property.

>inherent, a priori ownership
i.e. your body, because you are born with exclusive direct control over it.
>Being the first to lay a claim on appropriating goods, resources, or other property, that no other person owns.
i.e. you discover uncharted, unclaimed land, or something.
>new goods created/produced exclusively from resources you already own.
i.e. you carve something out of a log on your property, or you create a work of art, or otherwise produce a good.
>Through voluntary exchange/agreement
i.e. you and someone else decide to swap goods, or you purchase something, or someone wills/gifts you something and you accept it, etc.

The strawman you set up in which the state "claims" all property is illegitimate appropriation of property. It's theft. Because of that, it violates the non-aggression principle.

>>128071929
>implying taxes are voluntary

That meme would be fine if you could opt out of paying taxes, and participation in the state were voluntary. Which is basically all ancaps want; a voluntary society.


>>128079810
this

>>128082528
Do these voluntary societies have laws? Or is the unenforcable NAP prime?

>>128082777
Private courts and militias/private defense

>>128082669
Let's see here:

>People[eligible to be workers] have property of themselves and their labor[work], including the land that they[the people who work i.e. workers] work on

>>128082608
You don't realize that ancaps place no limits on contracts. Corporations are contractual agreements between people. How a legal entity would handle corporations is besides the point

>>128083030
Foolishness. Militias and a shotgun cannot defeat a motivated state actor. Private courts may as well be run by kangaroos.

>>128075188
UK should be 1641-1660.

>>128082777
>Who enforces the contracts?

A private entity. Probably on an insurance-like basis, meaning that if a contract is broken then it would communicate to others of the offenders to ostracize them and not do future business, while also provide compensation for the people whose contract was broken.

>Who provides for common defense?

Private militias. Funded and staffed voluntarily to have arms, as well as research, development, and production of necessary military technology like tanks, planes, ships, battle-cruisers, bombers, etc. In time of war, these militias can form their own contract to band together to neutralize a common threat that is against all of their interests, like outside invasion forces.

You can see a pattern of "who will provide what" with this line of thought, but the gist is simple: any and all functionalities of a state, a private version can do better. Funded voluntarily, funded freely. This especially includes roads.

>>128082430
We can't even have a discussion unless we define our presuppositions. Read what I posted and then reformulate your criticisms of ancapism so that they actually criticize ancapism.
>>128082777
Contract insurance. Things like title insurers are extremely common even today. Or you could secure a contract with a performance bond.
Home insurance will do intelligence gathering on all armies and they'll either hire private defense companies or have their own armies. There will second and third order insurers against rogue insurance companies.

>>128083367
Only if you agreed as clause under contract to treat a collective as a coporation.

>>128082702
Hey look, no responses. Ain't that typical of the pseudointellectual partisans of the anarcho-sphere?

>>128071118
Absolutely.

Here's why:
both leftists and righties agree on one thing: there are old money families with generations of wealth who actually hold all the power. If you tied them to the nation, make the people "their people" then the long term success of those families becomes intertwined with that of the nation and it's people. As it is now, they have pulled themselves free of this obligation and hide in the shadows, bouncing from nation to nation as they drain them all dry.

>>128082913
Absolutely. Private laws, common laws people would agree with or else they wouldn't live there in the first place. And of course, there would be private police enforcing them, contractually obliged to only do what they're supposed to instead of warped by their own power and authority into abuse with no consequence. Ancap is all about consequences, cause and effect.

Anyways, your conceptualization of society remains largely the same in Ancapistan. Just better.

>>128083611
This is completely ridiculous. Its a complete fantasy. It totally discounts human nature. All this talk of labor and contracts is very Marxist. It tastes bad in my mouth.

>>128083611
So straight out of Trigun?
I did like that show.

>>128083611
>Private militias. Funded and staffed voluntarily to have arms, as well as research, development, and production of necessary military technology like tanks, planes, ships, battle-cruisers, bombers, etc. In time of war, these militias can form their own contract to band together to neutralize a common threat that is against all of their interests, like outside invasion forces.
I laugh every time I read this.

You really think that the city-state of New York is going to send its troops across the continent to defend the city-state of Los Angeles from the Chinese? Why? Out of the goodness of their heart? Hell, New York might even be trading with the Chinese.

Ancap "defence" turns into a clusterfuck of competing interests and will be wildly inefficient.

>MUH FREE MARKET IS ALWAYS MORE EFFICIENT
But this isn't economics. This is politics.

>>128082913
>>128083397
This explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IEQmuaJeew

tl;dw: Insurance companies collectively evolve something like British common law.

>>128083397
Swizerland begs to differ.

Private courts would uphold the NAP because their reputation(profit motive) of being a fair court would be at stake. An infair court would be quickly ostrasized as such.

>>128083100
Yes, so if you own something, that's yours as an individual. People as in plural of an individual. There's no forced democratic means of production either.

You can't pull a communist twist on this, because private property is antithetical to communism, and with no state means no socialism.

>>128084070
Yes they would because the freetrade between california and new york would be interrupted. There is a profit incentive.

>>128069814
>what is labor-based land appropriation

>>128083636
You are dodging the debate, I can present my argument simply and clearly. And I have done it. Be somewhat reasonable, I can't read pages of mostly unrelated material without context and understand what """your""" argument is. But it's not really your argument, throwing pages with no context and refusing to clarify.

Is it that land is not monopolized? It is by the state, note that we are talking about property as belonging to state as distinct from property managed by private citizens under states.

>>128070054
awww babbies first comment

>>128079195
Free trade wouldn't be such a big problem if it existed outside of the capitalist system.

>>128081411
What if corporations became the state?

>>128084010
>private police
This is hilarious. Who owns the police if not the King? You ancaps are just describing a secularized feudalism.

>>128084232
Then it's not possible to own land and have others work it while you relax. Seems reasonable to me, but that's not the way it functions in the world today.

>>128084273
>Yes they would because the freetrade between california and new york would be interrupted
You don't think going to war with China would interrupt the free trade between New York and China?

Which is the bigger economy? Which is New York likely to rely more on?

And even if in this case you're right, this same argument is going to be had in every city-state in America before they decide to fight. It's a huge dumb bullshit mess, worse even then the backstabbing bullshittery of feudal vassalage. Modern states developed precisely because you can't win wars like this.

>>128084608
I argue that the state already is a corporation with a monopoly on violence that is run for profit.

>>128084052
>This is completely ridiculous. Its a complete fantasy. It totally discounts human nature.

How so?

>All this talk of labor and contracts is very Marxist. It tastes bad in my mouth.

I'm sorry to hear that, but you must understand that this is against any kind of collectivization. Completely antithetical to Marx's doctrines.

>>128084065
Pretty much, but definitely more civil. A lot like the society we already have, just with the degenerates softly culled to stop them from holding us back.

>>128084070
>You really think that the city-state of New York is going to send its troops across the continent to defend the city-state of Los Angeles from the Chinese?

If the Chinese was invading, then yes, because the Chinese might move in, restrict their freedom, and ruin the good system they had going. Not only that, but it would disrupt a lot of trade deals going on and generally fuck up the AnCap system. Much easier to protect it than to let authoritarians shit the place up.

>will be wildly inefficient.

I don't see how. People can cooperate, coordinate, and communicate with each other to stop a growing inevitable threat to themselves in the future. Fairly simple and straightforward.

>this isn't economics. This is politics.

Politics and economics go hand-in-hand, they are in many ways very much just different sides of the same coin of society and how people are to be managed (or as how they manage themselves).

>>128084052
Nice argument.
>>128084070
>You really think that the city-state of New York is going to send its troops across the continent to defend the city-state of Los Angeles from the Chinese? Why? Out of the goodness of their heart? Hell, New York might even be trading with the Chinese.
>Ancap "defence" turns into a clusterfuck of competing interests and will be wildly inefficient.
They'll be contracturally obligated to each other. If China looks aggressive, the insurance companies will be extra careful to prepare defense, even if it means hiring companies from across the continent.
>>128084273
Fucking this.
>>128084625
Crime/home insurance companies will be interested in raising the property values (so they can charge more) and doing everything they can to prevent claims. Why wouldn't they form agreements with security agencies? Moreover, covenant communities will have clauses that prevent freeloading.

>>128084842
The beauty is people themselves would go to fight. You wouldbt need a "city state" to make the decisions to go to war.

Would you not help your neighbor whose house is being burgalarized? Who is to say you wouldnt be next?

>>128084070
In ancapistan there wouldn't be city states. It doesn't work like that. What would happen is that the insurance companies that provide security to the people in New York will also likely serve people Los Angeles. If the people in Los Angeles are attacked, the company will defend them as well, since they're customers.

Something else to consider is that in Ancapistan any person can purchase any weapon. Given that people tend towards self-preservation, that effectively means nearly EVERY SINGLE person in Ancapistan is a soldier. The people in LA are far from defenseless.

>>128084766
>Then it's not possible to own land and have others work it while you relax.
It is if they freely exchanged their labor for your freely offered compensation. You can't force people to work land, otherwise it's slavery, which is illegitimate in Ancapistan.

>>128084892
>I argue that the state already is a corporation with a monopoly on violence that is run for profit.

This is mostly true, but to complain about 'monopoly on violence' is strange because given the reach of the state's property, all the violence that states normally exercise would be legitimate as defense of property and upholding of contracts, with the exception of warfare between states.

>>128084625
> Who owns the police if not the King?

The people own the police, as they are the ones funding them on a voluntary basis.

>You ancaps are just describing a secularized feudalism

It is not feudalism if you're not forced into anything.

>>128084766
>Then it's not possible to own land and have others work it while you relax

If I own the factory, and the workers are contracted to work in it, then I own the goods made and of course the profit. The ownership is all mine.

>that's not the way it functions in the world today.

This is exactly how the world already functions today.

>>128085296
read the context before you post

>>128085043
>If the Chinese was invading, then yes, because the Chinese might move in, restrict their freedom, and ruin the good system they had going
What if the Chinese are only interested in securing the Pacific coast and not in making an overland war across the entire United States so that they can get embroiled in an Atlantic rim conflict with Europe?

Is New York going to flush their economy and the lives of their soldiers down the shitter out of mere moral outrage?

>I don't see how.
You are seeing how right fucking now. When the US goes to war, everyone goes to war. In an an-cap society you have to sit there and haggle with every city state to send enough troops or even get involved in the war at all.

>People can cooperate, coordinate, and communicate with each other to stop a growing inevitable threat to themselves in the future
But that's your mistake. It's not a growing inevitable threat. New York might get more out of China than it does out of Los Angeles. They might even benefit from the war. Stop being an idiot and think.

>Politics and economics go hand-in-hand, they are in many ways very much just different sides of the same coin of society and how people are to be managed (or as how they manage themselves).
Wrong.

>>128084625
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKGzw8GROf0
Watch this. It's not unprecedented. All the shortcomings of the system come from the government in not allowing private apartheid.

>>128085452
Ah, you were being facetious. nvm.

>>128085322
People are not property of the state so violence against the people or taking their property is wrong.

This is the essance of liberty.

>>128085136
>contractually obligated
Ohhh nooo not a piece of paper. Ancap is far and way the mosr Jewish, modernistic ideology I have ever come across.

File: peepsrepub.png (14KB, 944x89px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 944x89px

>>128084842
you're an idiot
>state of a republic, which is at war with another republic, will rely on the exterior republic for trade.
you're fucking stupid.

>>128085405
But you already admitted that workers own the land they work. Don't switch this to factories that opens up ambiguity. You said that workers own the land they work, then how can they work in the capacity of a hired hand?

This is important, I have never encountered this opinion among ancaps before I want to see what you mean.

>>128085043
>against any kind of collective
Except for your city states, private armies beholden to no one, private police beholden to no one, and shadowy (((insurance agencies))).

>>128085136
>They'll be contracturally obligated to each other
New York decides not to send troops anyway.

>>128085169
>The beauty is people themselves would go to fight
Wrong.

That's why states institute conscription. Mere patriotism isn't enough. And when patriots do arrive they get scared and run away pretty quick. It's why Washington had to start shooting his liberty-loving patriots for desertion. Otherwise his army would have simply up and melted away.

>>128085296
>What would happen is that the insurance companies that provide security to the people in New York will also likely serve people Los Angeles
Insurance companies cannot stop China. You are not talking about an insurance company, you are talking about a private army.

Now tell me, why would New York be okay with its private army getting embroiled in a conflict it wants no part in? This war would weaken New York's army and New York wouldn't even be fighting it. No sane person would ever allow that.

>in Ancapistan any person can purchase any weapon
Can't afford any weapon, though.

Armies are expensive. The development of the modern state is entirely due to the insane exponential increase in the cost of war.

>>128085723
>a piece of paper
What's wrong with a piece of paper?

>>128085716
State property supercedes personal property. That's the premise. Personal property is a way of managing a state's resources.

>>128085796
A voluntary collectivism is perfectly ancap, muhammed.

>>128085788
What part of "the central government of the US no longer exists?"

New York is not at war with China until they choose to be. Why would they ever choose to be?

File: ancapthinking.png (57KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 256x256px

>>128085405
>The [humans] own the [humans]

Police are not slaves m8

>>128086001
That's not what he said you illiterate cretin. You don't even understand the premise of the OP. I though I was going to get some serious argument in this thread but it seems more likely at this point that anarcho-capitalism is AIR.

>>128085510
>What if the Chinese are only interested in securing the Pacific coast and not in making an overland war across the entire United States so that they can get embroiled in an Atlantic rim conflict with Europe?

LA might have a contract beforehand that NY would provide military assistance in exactly this kind of situation, meaning that LA is then paying NY for its service. Not only that, but it can do the same with other voluntary societies in the area or across the land.

>Is New York going to flush their economy and the lives of their soldiers down the shitter out of mere moral outrage?

How would their economy be flushed? They're getting paid, and the soldiers are well-compensated. Morally speaking as well, even if the Chinese only claim to expand to the Pacific coast, the possibility of them further expanding as an authoritarian state is still present and wouldn't be ignored.

>When the US goes to war, everyone goes to war.

Oh yes, because every war the US has fought has been a world war.

>In an an-cap society you have to sit there and haggle with every city state to send enough troops or even get involved in the war at all.

Why waste time? They can discuss these things and plan ahead accordingly instead of foolishly doing things at the heat of battle. You underestimate Ancapistan.

>It's not a growing inevitable threat

China is using military force, and military aggression to spread itself. Of course that's a growing threat.

>New York might get more out of China than it does out of Los Angeles. They might even benefit from the war.

How do you know this? Is it an absolute?

>Stop being an idiot and think.

I say the same thing to you.

>Wrong.

Not an argument.

>>128085995
Wrong. The state cannot grant rights that a person already has.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certainunalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

>>128084892
Thats not the case because a corporation wouldn't care about things like human rights. In fact, they would own you if you lived under them and you had no rights. Ancaps will bring doom to this planet and the reason why anarchy is attached is because corporations want to take over the state. The state has always been a thorn in their flesh.

It's basically like communism. A few people hold the strings and it's pushed through by blind ideologists that don't actually understand what is going on and what will happen.

File: ancapanime.png (460KB, 750x1020px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 750x1020px

>>128086241
Come back when you decide not to kill anyone who disagrees with you faggot.

>>128086294
If you are serious about challenging your worldview a little bit you should read the beginning of this thread and the discussion there. It deals with your complaints.

>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certainunalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Are you a genius troll?

>>128085796
>But you already admitted that workers own the land they work.

Yes, if they homesteaded it and laid claim. I was talking about unclaimed land in context, not all land as an absolute.

>Don't switch this to factories that opens up ambiguity

lol you can't weasel out of this one

>You said that workers own the land they work,

Again, within context. Don't be silly.

>how can they work in the capacity of a hired hand?

By contract, meaning the ownership and employment is still tied to a single individual.

>>128085963
You're right, I was a bit unclear. Forced collectivization would be more appropriate.

Voluntary association? Completely fair game. There is no contradiction. There is still consequences mind you, these things you've named, they're not just "beholden to no one", they are beholden to the consequence of their actions. Poor performance means no funding, and no support.

>>128086499
I THINK you are living in a bubble fueled by anime and costs sunk into degeneracy. But I KNOW that's not an argument.

>>128085966
>New York decides not to send troops anyway.
Then they lose their massive performance bond/security deposit.

Why would you take someone's word without anything to back it up?

If you break a contract and you can't pay the performance bond, the private legal system will send the repo men to get what you "stole" from the other party.

Or if it was secured by a contract insurer, people involved will never be able to buy contract insurance again in their lives, never be able to buy property in good communities etc.

>>128085405
>people own the police
I thought it was a private police force? Are who are these "people" you speak of in this individualistic, non binding contraft hell you've built? If the people, assuming they even exist, collectively own the police then when do they not collectively own the land/factory/etc.

>>128086282
>LA might have a contract beforehand that NY would provide military assistance in exactly this kind of situation, meaning that LA is then paying NY for its service. Not only that, but it can do the same with other voluntary societies in the area or across the land.
Cool.

New York backstabs them and doesn't send any troops.

>How would their economy be flushed?
Because China is a larger trading partner than LA.

>Oh yes, because every war the US has fought has been a world war.
Every single war the US has fought, the central government has had the power to levy any resources it wants to prosecute the war effort. This is an inarguable advantage over needing to negotiate and beg for them.

>They can discuss these things and plan ahead accordingly instead of foolishly doing things at the heat of battle
That's literally what we're doing right now. Tell me why New York should defend Los Angeles from China.

>How do you know this? Is it an absolute?
China is the bigger economy. Stands to reason. Of course it's not guaranteed, but the point of this hypothetical is to raise this type of issue. You can't just say "all ancap polities will always engage in trade that is more mutually beneficial than all other trade they do with anyone else because of magic." It's bullshit and I don't buy it.

>>128085979
It can't hold a gun an enforce itself.

>>128087000
>>128086826
Just more confirmation that you guys have no idea what you're talking about.
Read Rothbard and Hoppe before you put words in their mouths.

>>128085966
The insurance companies would have private armies/security forces. You don't seem to be grasping the concept of a STATELESS society. Ancapistan wouldn't have federal, state, or city governments. Ancap doesn't mean balkanization or feudalism. If you're interested in learning more, this is a great video explaining how security/safety/law and order would work in a private law society: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IEQmuaJeew

>>128086826
>Then they lose their massive performance bond/security deposit.
If that's the case they'd never even sign the contract.

"In the case that anyone is attacked you have to come to their aid no matter what and regardless of it's in your interests or we cripple your economy. Sign here please?"
No, thanks.

They'd sign up with the competitor who has no such clause. That's what ancap's about, right? Competition. New York buys an army just for New York with no stupid bullshit that drags them in to wars they don't want to fight.

>>128086813
>Poor performance means no funding, and no support.
But they already have the guns, tanks, and aircraft. What's to stop them from reintroducing a state?

>>128087240
>The insurance companies would have private armies/security forces.
Yes, I'm aware of that.

These armies are inferior to one army, singular, because of the political bullshittery involved in getting them to work together.

Not to even fucking mention logistics.

>>128087245
>interests or we cripple your economy
Firstly, we're talking about a single entity, not a whole city where everybody pays involuntarily.

>They'd sign up with the competitor who has no such clause.
Why on earth would they do this?

>>128087188
I've read Hoppe. He's the only reason I don't immediately discount you lolbertarian types.

>>128087408
Why doesn't China just give New York more money than LA does?

>>128085966

>>The beauty is people themselves would go to fight
>Wrong.

You have not studied swizerland and their confederate militias.

>That's why states institute conscription. Mere patriotism isn't enough. And when patriots do arrive they get scared and run away pretty quick. It's why Washington had to start shooting his liberty-loving patriots for desertion. Otherwise his army would have simply up and melted away.

Except george washington did no conscript soldiers. He offered them land after the war was over.

>>What would happen is that the insurance companies that provide security to the people in New York will also likely serve people Los Angeles
>Insurance companies cannot stop China. You are not talking about an insurance company, you are talking about a private army.

>Now tell me, why would New York be okay with its private army getting embroiled in a conflict it wants no part in? This war would weaken New York's army and New York wouldn't even be fighting it. No sane person would ever allow that.


See

>>128085169

>>128087625
>Firstly, we're talking about a single entity, not a whole city where everybody pays involuntarily.
Oh, so they can voluntarily choose not to involuntarily pay the massive security bond?

In that case they'd not send troops AND keep their money.

>Why on earth would they do this?
So that they don't get dragged into wars they don't want to fight. Are you seriously implying anyone would ever give away their foreign relations power to a fucking insurance company?

I know you've probably never actually experienced a war but they are serious fucking business. People die. You might be one of them. Getting dragged into a war that you have no good reason to fight is fucking retarded, and nobody's going to sign up for it.

>>128086541
Rights are not gifts from tne government because rights still exist when there is not a government.

>>128086154
>>128086871

Yes, they fund them. They are what give them the currency needed to sustain themselves, else their business can't survive. I never said they were slaves. I had meant that they are accountable to the people that they serve.

It's still a private police force. It's still bounded by contract. But they are obliged to serve the people, else the people no longer gives them money, obviously. There is no forced collective ownership of a police.

>>128086992
>New York backstabs them and doesn't send any troops.

Then other cities notice this, and then distrusts NY cutting businesses, ostracizes them, and generally act against its interest because NY acted very much against the interest of everyone else. NY suffers the consequences of its actions.

>Because China is a larger trading partner than LA.

Economically speaking, LA and its contacts, trade network, deals, and other asset might make it more appealing rather than the chinks.

>Every single war the US has fought, the central government has had the power to levy any resources it wants to prosecute the war effort.

Yes, but at what cost? People hated being drafted. Voluntary service however, that inspires more loyalty and dedication as it was done on its own volition.

>That's literally what we're doing right now. Tell me why New York should defend Los Angeles from China.

Tell me why NY would defend China over LA? Really, you're just pulling out of your ass all sorts of fantastic scenarios because I had already answered why NY would favor LA.

>Of course it's not guaranteed,

You admit I am right?

>You can't just say "all ancap polities will always engage in trade that is more mutually beneficial than all other trade they do with anyone else because of magic." It's bullshit and I don't buy it.

I understand your skepticism and that's very healthy, but it's not magic at all. It's just agents acting in the most rational means according to circumstance. Mutual defense is rational.

>>128087408
I think you severely underestimate the political bullshittery involved with public works. Look at the credit card companies. You can swipe almost any credit card anywhere using a single machine. All the private credit card companies coordinate on standard dimensions etc for their cards. They all coordinate because they have a profit motive and they do it very efficiently.
>>128087709
Go here next. Or read MES. There are even audiobooks for both.
https://mises.org/library/ethics-liberty

>>128087245
>New York buys
There is no "new york" as an entity to purchase security for only itself. Ancap means "no governments". None. At all.

>>128087408
If that were the case, then no government military would contract with private businesses. There's a good/interesting interview with the dude who started Blackwater that talks about this a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBTCVgZUuso

>>128088094
Sounds like commie bullshit to me.

>>128087833
That's also an option.

>>128087909
>You have not studied swizerland and their confederate militias.
And where are they today?

You haven't studied the American Revolution, where George Washington conscripted people at gunpoint to fight for "liberty". Furthermore, not every country inhabits a mound of impenetrable rocks containing nothing of value for its defence strategy.

>Except george washington did no conscript soldiers.
Yes, he did. The states drafted men for militia duty and they had the power of naval impressment. Furthermore, you could be shot for desertion.

>muh neighbours
LA is not New York's neighbour.

The free market has never failed.

>>128079810
>1489063397341.png
Wow you Liberal-tarians are real fucking retards. Thanks for the laugh.

>>128088094
>Then other cities notice this,
The other cities are backstabbing LA too, for the same reasons.

>Economically speaking, LA and its contacts, trade network, deals, and other asset might make it more appealing rather than the chinks.
Sure, but in this hypothetical they don't.

>Yes, but at what cost? People hated being drafted. Voluntary service however, that inspires more loyalty and dedication as it was done on its own volition.
That's not enough. Which is why people were conscripted in the first place.

After a certain point you just need warm bodies to hold guns.

>Tell me why NY would defend China over LA?
They wouldn't. New York would merely remain neutral.

>You admit I am right?
kek, don't jump the gun retard.

>>128088321
You put liberty in quotations like it doesnt exist.

>>128088143
>Look at the credit card companies
Look at Apple. Standardised much? How about the format wars? Tons of people left with media players that don't have media to read anymore because of the format wars.

For every winning example you can name I have a counter-example ready.

And this isn't some niggling question about how wide the greeble should be. This is a question of war. You think nobody's ever been backstabbed in a war?

>>128088339
That's not at all true. The free market fails all the time... But what makes the free market superior to other alternatives is that it course-corrects almost instantly. And every failure produces an improvement, because it's replaced by superior competitors. It's a similar concept to evolution.

>>128088228
>There is no "new york" as an entity to purchase security for only itself
So long as New Yorkers exist, New York exists. However they organise themselves is up to them, but in this hypothetical New York buys more from China than LA.

>If that were the case, then no government military would contract with private businesses.
The mind boggles that you think hiring contractors to supplement your massive conventional army is the same as relying solely on contractors.

>>128088802
Show me one instance

>>128088568
Its an empty word. It doesn't have an actual meaning.

>>128088568
Are you suggesting that being forced to fight for America at gunpoint is true liberty?

>>128087365
>What's to stop them from reintroducing a state?

Other militias, who are paid and funded voluntarily by the people to uphold their freedom, security, and peace else face contract consequences. If a militia goes rogue and becomes a threat intending to establish a state, then others gang up to neutralize it. Very unlikely however, since remaining as an independent militia is much more profitable than having to deal with suddenly becoming a state, facing resistance, and then having to substitute all other state functionality when they were just founded as a private militia.

>>128088303
>Sounds like commie bullshit to me.

In what way is it anything like commie bullshit?

>>128088475
Not an argument.

>>128088506
>The other cities are backstabbing LA too, for the same reasons.

Oh wow, yet another twist to your fantastic story. It doesn't even matter, I have already given you an answer based on the most rational and logical course of action. Saying "suddenly they also backstab!" is just moving the goalpost.

>Sure, but in this hypothetical they don't.

Exactly. Keep moving that goalpost.

>That's not enough

How do you know this, and is it an absolute?

You don't know, because you can't know, because the situation you are describing calls for more information neither of us can really determine unless the event is actually happening.

>They wouldn't. New York would merely remain neutral.

What a twist!

>kek, don't jump the gun retard.

The only person jumping the gun here, is you by continually expanding your wild tales, retard.

>>128088321
George Washington did not conscript anyone. The state militias did. Thats different. The federal army was voluntary.

>>128088930
Blockbuster versus Netflix.
Blockbuster failed, Netflix won, the market as a whole benefits.

File: 1495155676885.jpg (43KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 960x720px

>>128069814
>has the nerve to play the QED card
>33 posts by this ID

oh look, a retard using terms that he clearly does not understand yet feels arrogant enough to act like he stumbled across some kind of be-all-end-all "argument".

4chan is 18+, misprint norway. it's time for you to fuck off and go fuck yourself.

File: 1495919186915.gif (945KB, 330x319px) Image search: [Google]

945KB, 330x319px

>>128089102
>misprint norway

>>128088934
Just because you dont know what liberty is doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

>>128089003
The federal army was voluntary. The state militias were draft. I did not argue this wasnt the case.

>>128077893
But your labor directly nets you the apples which are yours even if you don't have the field.

If you start cultivating the feral orchard so that it produces more with less labor, then it is yours.

>>128089100
Companies failing is the market succeeding in driving progress forward. Thats not a market failure, thats an outdated buisness model failing.

>>128089008
Its end state communism. Communism was always a stepping stone to anarchy. That was Marx's intention from the get go. Don't conflate the USSR with Marx's idealized state of being.

>>128089008
>Oh wow, yet another twist to your fantastic story.
If you can't give a good reason why New York should defend LA, I can't imagine you can give a good reason why Boston should.

>Keep moving that goalpost.
I established it at the outset. Not my fault you didn't bother reading the hypothetical before you replied.

The entire point of this hypothetical is to expose how the system fails. Yes, the system requires certain conditions to fail. Outside of them it will work fine. But I don't think "City A has more to lose than to gain by defending City B" is an outlandish prospect considering it has HAPPENED MANY MANY TIMES IN HISTORY AND LED TO SOME OF THE ALL TIME GREATEST BACKSTABS.

Fuck, have you ever opened a book about Ancient Greece?

>How do you know this
Because if it was there'd be no conscription.

>What a twist!
Again, established at the outset.

>continually expanding your wild tales
I can't help it that you refuse to read them in full because you're so eager to jump in with your simply epig LDDD replied.

I bet you don't even read the posts before you reply. You just type up in stream-of-consciousness at the same time as you read them.

You're an intellectual catfish.

>>128069814
Isn't your country ruled by a communist party lol?

>>128089414
Eh... Yes. I misunderstood what you were saying. We agree, then.

>>128089055
"Hey, I need more dudes for my Federal Army."
"Okay, George, no worries, take our volunteer town guard! We'll just conscript some locals to replace them."
"Oh, thank God, I thought for a moment I'd have to do my dirty work myself. At least now I can remain ideologically pure."

>>128070875
this is why the 2nd amendment is important. if it were used how it was intended, with the individual citizens being the nation's "military" there is no monopoly on force.

gun control laws are a prelude to slavery. they take your weapons until you have no power. when you have no power, you have no say.

>>128089267
>The federal army was voluntary.
see >>128089689

File: 1493923720351.jpg (4KB, 250x193px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 250x193px

>>128088055
>they can voluntarily choose not to involuntarily pay the massive security bond?
What are you talking about?

>>>They'd sign up with the competitor who has no such clause.
>>Why on earth would they do this?
>So that they don't get dragged into wars they don't want to fight.
The insurer in LA subscribes to a militia in NY. There's a clause in the subscription are that if the militia fails to perform its end of the bargain, it will be tantamount to theft of some millions of dollars from the insurer. This can be repossessed.

If there's no security, then the paper will be worthless, as in the insurer will not be willing to take such a gamble. Other militias will see this and offer to put up security. The first militia will go out of business because they're basically trying to sell dirt.

>>128088733
Formats are intellectual property, which can't exist without government and won't exist under ancapism. You've just used a construct of statism to try discrediting anarchy. Bravo. How are you so retarded?

Look at the *nix ecosystem for a thriving example of anarcho-capitalism solving problems in the real world. In fact, this is the very best example currently in existence

>>128089267
Define liberty.

>>128088934
liberty |ˈlibərtē|
noun (pl. liberties)
1 the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views: compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty.
• (usu. liberties) an instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one: the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties.
• the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved: people who have lost property or liberty without due process.
• (Liberty) the personification of liberty as a female figure.
2 the power or scope to act as one pleases: individuals should enjoy the liberty to pursue their own interests and preferences.
• Philosophy a person's freedom from control by fate or necessity.
• informal a presumptuous remark or action: how did he know what she was thinking?—it was a liberty!
• Nautical shore leave granted to a sailor.

>>128089789
see
>>128089813

File: rtyery.jpg (70KB, 771x563px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 771x563px

>>128069814
They'd have to buy the land first, retard. You don't "claim property", you negotiate for it. I'd tell them to hippity hoppity get off my property and that'd be the end of your dumbass fantasy, fagget.

>>128089735
>The insurer in LA subscribes to a militia in NY.
So every insurer in every city is going to have a network of subscriptions covering the entirety of the nation?

I don't believe you.

>>128089735
>Formats are intellectual property, which can't exist without government and won't exist under ancapism.
Nigga, so is the tech inside credit cards.

In one case, IP was shared. In another, it was not.

Use your brain.

>>128089689
The original argument was that there was no profit motive for new york to defend California.

I just proved there was a voluntary federal army. Hell, the us military is completely voluntary.

People would go defend california for a profit motive. How is this incorrect?

>>128089813
Gee I never thought to use a dictionary. Now all we have to do is come to terms with "free" and " oppressive". We should probably nail down "society" too. Liberty is an empty value because it is such a limtless word. Liberty to do what? Freedom to do what? Anything?

>>128089462
>Its end state communism.

How is it communism, when there is private property and the workers aren't forced any kind of democratic means of seizing production?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is not followed in the slightest because the needs of degenerates are entirely ignored if they do not abandon their degenerate ways.

>>128089586
>If you can't give a good reason why New York should defend LA, I can't imagine you can give a good reason why Boston should.

I've gave plenty of reasons. Perhaps you should reread my posts instead of moving the goalpost,

>Yes, the system requires certain conditions to fail.

uh, like any system? Obviously failure is a possibility, that is a truth is any system as product of humanity! To be clear, for AnCap fail it would have to be a series of very unlikely consecutive conditions to occur simultaneously.

>it has HAPPENED MANY MANY TIMES IN HISTORY AND LED TO SOME OF THE ALL TIME GREATEST BACKSTABS.

So you are saying these are then guarantees to occur as an absolute? Just from historical speculation alone? Maybe you need to put that book down and actually look at the world in terms of reason instead of speculation.

>Because if it was there'd be no conscription.

Is this is an absolute?

>You're an intellectual catfish.

Not an argument.

>>128069814
You're too bad. Look at this.
>be goy
>eat other goyim on free market of ancap, or be eaten by them
>meanwhile no jew harms or rivals other jew, they pull their kin with them as they grow and always work together infiltrating different groups, in some time no goyim entity have influence comparable to diaspora
>subdue goyim as your slaves and cattle, just like written in Talmud
>result no different from communism

>>128090320
>The original argument was that there was no profit motive for new york to defend California.
Wrong.

The original argument was that a nebulous web of private defence arrangements will collapse quickly. The New York hypothetical was merely an example of how it might. New York has
1. incentive to stay out of the war
1a. trade with China > trade with LA
1b. huge geographical difference
1c. little to fear from Chinese expansion along the Pacific Rim
2. no incentive to go to war other than moral outrage

>>128090533
Anything that doesnt impede on someone else's liberty.

File: Screenshot_2017-06-01_23-23-48.png (759KB, 1194x2013px) Image search: [Google]

759KB, 1194x2013px

Everybody read this for a concise word on contracts.

>>128090084
Yes. They will. What is a network. There'll be teams of lawyers grinding out contracts with blinding efficiency because these contracts actually save everybody money. EVERYBODY.
>>128090182
Do you understand the legal difference between a trade secret and patent? Do you know anything about the federal laws against reverse engineering?

>>128090320
don't bother with him, he'll just continue expanding his nonsense so he somehow magically always wins by changing a few factors around

I'm sure there was a smuggie about this but I didn't save it

>>128090559
>I've gave plenty of reasons
They're all shit.

It's either "A PIECE OF PAPER SAYS THEY HAVE TO" or "PEOPLE WILL THROW THEMSELVES AT MACHINEGUNS FOR LOVE OF LIBERTY."

Both are incorrect.

>Obviously failure is a possibility
The point is that failure of the state system requires drastic circumstances. Failure of your system requires basically nothing at all.

>So you are saying these are then guarantees to occur as an absolute?
No. Learn to read.

>Is this is an absolute?
Yes.

If we didn't need conscription to fight wars there wouldn't be any conscription.

>>128090703
So x is anything and everything that is not x. Super.

>>128090635
So if china is an irrational actor, whats is keeping it from invading new york?

Thats like buying stolen goods if they trade with china.

>>128075563
But it was a result of Enlightenment ideology, which ultimately led to Roman Fascism, Falangism, and National Socialism.

If Jews were not in the mix, America would be a Federation of Fascist republics.

>>128090823
People throw themsleves at machine guns for profit and defense of their own property.

>>128090710
>Yes. They will.
I don't believe you. The reason why I don't believe you is because systems reflect pragmatism. Any system that drags New York into a war it doesn't want to fight will be sledgehammered until it doesn't, because nobody is going to accept being subjected to famine and death because it says in a contract somewhere in a lawyer's briefcase that they have to.

And the sooner you realise this, the sooner you'll understand why ancap doesn't work.

>Do you understand the legal difference between a trade secret and patent?
If you've got a point to make, make it. I'm done indulging condescending rhetoricals.

>>128076574
The "absurd absolute" tell for cognitive dissonance.

Mutualism solves the problems of both ancapistan and ancomistan, but ancaps and ancoms aren't literate enough in political theory to come to the drawing board and discuss mutualism as they're too busy making fashy accusations and actions against one another.

Prove me wrong? If only you could, boyo.

>>128090823
>Both are incorrect.

Contractual obligation is not incorrect, nor is a voluntary patriotic duty to preserve the freedom enjoyed not just for their countrymen, but for their children. The point stands.

>Failure of your system requires basically nothing at all.

No, as I've highlighted it would require if not equal or greater drastic circumstance to occur.

>No. Learn to read.

I say the same to you.

>If we didn't need conscription to fight wars there wouldn't be any conscription.

uh, explain the US wars done completely without drafts. Conscription simply isn't always necessary. Aussie shitposting at its finest.

>>>128090868


If somoone opposes their will on someone else, they are under opression

liberty |ˈlibərtē|
noun (pl. liberties)
1 the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views: compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty.


Its like you went to a government school.

>>128091311
Imposes*

>>128090984
Fascisms birth from the Enlightenment is the very reason I'm not a fascist.

>>128076574
Except limiting government has always led to less war.

>>128091311
Suppose I want to play loud music? Loud enough that it is mildy annoying to my neighbor? How are we to resolve this conflict in a society that worships liberty as the highest good?

>>128090902
>So if china is an irrational actor, whats is keeping it from invading new york?
It's not an irrational actor.

>>128091040
>People throw themsleves at machine guns for profit and defense of their own property.
When's the last time you saw that happen?

>>128091249
>Contractual obligation is not incorrect
Explain all the times contractual obligations concerning mutual defence have been broken, then.

>nor is voluntary patriotic duty
Explain conscription.

You literally can't, and that's why you're not convincing.

>explain the US wars done completely without drafts
There hasn't been one.

The US has ALWAYS had the power to conscript. The US has NEVER entered into ANY war without having its finger on the conscription button ready to press it if manpower dries up.

>>128091519
kek, we are living in the most peaceful time of all human history.

Yet we also have the strongest government.

Cry more.

>>128091727
>>So if china is an irrational actor, whats is keeping it from invading new york?
>It's not an irrational actor.

Invading a country is irrational. Breaking the NAP is irrational.
>>People throw themsleves at machine guns for profit and defense of their own property.
>When's the last time you saw that happen?

The us military is completely voluntary. Dumbass.

File: fxNO8c5.jpg (113KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1000x1000px

>>128090533
>nothing means anything ever because anything can mean anything
>postmodernism/moral relativism
>ever

oh shit nigger what are you doing

I realize that's not an argument, though. So how about this: Just because you don't "believe in" liberty, doesn't mean other people don't. And because other people know what freedom means, they'll behave like it's a real thing.

Basically, just because you claim to reject the idea of liberty, doesn't mean that everyone else wont fight for it. They'll fight for freedom regardless of your beliefs. Therefore, in that sense, in the sense of what actually happens in the real world, in the realest sense, your literally opinion doesn't matter.

>>128091519
But not necessarily less conflict.

>>128071096
what is the difference between anarcho-capitalisim and plain old anarchism?

>>128091727
>Explain all the times contractual obligations concerning mutual defence have been broken, then.

A few irrational exceptions doesn't break the rational rule.

>Explain conscription.

Forced service to the military as mandated by a state -- completely unnecessary if people choose to go to war on their own.

>You literally can't, and that's why you're not convincing.

I just did.

>There hasn't been one.

Oh? I don't recall being drafted into the Middle-East, now do I?

Don't be silly. The draft hasn't been officially declared in decades.

>The US has ALWAYS had the power to conscript. The US has NEVER entered into ANY war without having its finger on the conscription button ready to press it if manpower dries up.

Sure, I'm not denying that. But they did not always use it because they had no need to.

In Ancapistan, such a need to is also unnecessary.

File: im-retarded.gif (2MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x180px

>>128092157
>your literally opinion

>>128091779
Strongest by firepower.

But our government cant even take its citizen's guns.