Ancap

File: ancap nazi 3.jpg (58KB, 620x607px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 620x607px

>>129047338

Or even better yet, when they loose to the jews they star wishing for a totalitarian mommy government to protect them from "degeneracy", "finance capital", and "soulless consumerism".

>>129048560
Ancaps are fucking stupid, National Socialism is the way to go.

Oh no what would we do if the 8 companies became a monopoly?

>>129047338
Those malnourished thots shouldn't have violated the NAP.

File: 1491882938704.jpg (114KB, 550x750px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 550x750px

thanks for giving me ideas on how to make you mad in the future
there really is no going back after you take the ancap bitcoin pill
imagine being so correct you hit dollar parity thousands of times over

File: ayn-rand.jpg (55KB, 1058x1058px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1058x1058px

>>129047338
>Corporations become states
>"Wow, obviously statelessness doesn't work! Ancaps BTFO!"
If anyone holds a monopoly on force, it isn't AnCap
>inb4 not real socialism
Critics of AnCap are correct that it absolutely wouldn't work with the state of modern intellectual and moral development. OBVIOUSLY, if everyone in your society desires the unearned and wants to exploit others, then you're gonna get exploitation. But that's true of ANY social system. AnCap as a form of government will not make people moral (respect the NAP). First, people have to become moral, and then AnCap is the result. This requires a philosophical revolution along the lines of pic related. Not everyone has to be moral - you're always going to have criminals and subhumans - but the zeitgeist has to reach the point where it's universally accepted, as the foundation of social ethics, that no man has the right to another man's life or property. Until that point is reached, there is NO social system that will guarantee freedom from exploitation, although a minarchist oligarchy or dictatorship - NOT full AnCap - might come close.

>>129047338
That's why anarcho-communism is better. ;)

>>129052161

I honestly hate Ayn Rand because she perpetuated the myth that the free enterprise system runs on greed by saying stupid edgy shit like "Greed is good". Granted she was doing knowing full well she was triggering leftists, but still...

File: 1496737944567.png (231KB, 643x537px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 643x537px

>>129053905
>Ayn Rand
((((Alisa Rosenbaum))))

>>129053905
>Implying greed isn't good
Care to explain? Why shouldn't I want to enrich myself? If I am greedy in a capitalist system, the only way I can pursue it is by producing more wealth - which, due to the division of labor, also benefits everyone else.
>>129054723
N O T A N A R G U M E N T

File: ancap reality.jpg (9KB, 263x191px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 263x191px

>>129056198

File: e7e.jpg (106KB, 932x960px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 932x960px

>>129052989
>Suggests any form of communism
>That flag

Ancaps are retards who adopted their ideology as a result of a marketing campaign by private business interests and members of the ruling class. It barely counts as a political ideology since it has a pacifying effect on those who come to adopt it. But proponents of the ideology who remain politically active do nothing more than defend existing power structures and the status quo, namely the interests of the business elite who currently own the world.

From an intellectual perspective, the ideology turns out to be incoherent or internally inconsistent after being exposed to even trivial inquiry.

As a result, Ancaps adopt the ideology dogmatically and uncritically after it is presented to them in a way which appeals to their station in life or flatters them in some way. This makes it essentially a religion, and its also why the people who adopt this ideology have a tendency toward cult organizing or cult-like behavior before (ayn rand, stefan molyneux)

>>129059136
>t.Noam Chomsky

>>129050065
>National Socialism is the way to go.
Socialism is never the answer.. unless its for a foreign aggressive country that threatens your country.
But then again, North Korea are not exactly enjoining their starvation in peace..

>>129059552
>Inb4 NatSoc is not Marxist socialism
All redistribution fags are socialists.

File: thomas-sowell-fair-share-era.jpg (37KB, 500x496px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x496px

>>129056198
>Fair share
whom dictate what the fair share is? is there a upper limit to how large that share can be?

>>129055102
> Care to explain? Why shouldn't I want to enrich myself? If I am greedy in a capitalist system, the only way I can pursue it is by producing more wealth - which, due to the division of labor, also benefits everyone else.

Note this apparent Ancap, who asks why greed isn't good. His mind has been rendered useless from uncritical consumption of a marketing campaign designed by the wealthy elite.

The merriam-webster defines greed as: "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something". Note the word EXCESSIVE, as in, "exceeding a reasonable or proper limit". This is also the commonly understood definition so I'm not being technical here or playing word games.

So, this Ancap is essentially asking, "Why isn't being unreasonable / irrational good?", a question which you will learn the answer to if you give even a rudimentary examination of the works of moral philosophy.

> Anarcho-capitalism: not even once

>>129053905
>Greed is good.
It is. Fags don't understand that providing for your family/helping others is in your own self interest. Do you think politicians give to charity because they're selfless?

>>129060158
>Wanting excess for yourself and your family is irrational.
It's literally not, it's the most rational thing you could want for yourself.
Prove me wrong Mr. Intellectual.

>>129060308

Ancaps agree: doing something that is by definition unjustifiable is good. Why do they agree? Presumably because it makes them feel smart to uncritically repeat marketing lines disseminated by their wealthy elite matters.

>>129060308
>Do you think politicians give to charity because they're selfless?
Are you claiming that Hillary's charity foundation was not created out of the goodness of her heart, that it was not a purely altruistic act?

Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence

>>129060958
You haven't made a logical proof for greed being "unjustifiable"

Drop the gimic, talk to me like you're a real person not like you're doing a behavioral case study.

>>129059136
>ayn rand is a cult
>ancap is inconsistent after being exposed to even trivial inquiry
>t. pseud brainlet who has never even bothered to pick up anything by Hoppe or Rand to see what it's all about and gets his opinions entirely from Wikiquotes pages and bluepilled Marxist thinkpieces
I'm not even AnCap and I think you're a colossal faggot.
>>129060158
>Note this apparent Ancap, who asks why greed isn't good. His mind has been rendered useless from uncritical consumption of a marketing campaign designed by the wealthy elite.
Boy, we are reaching levels of pretentious, sanctimonious horseshit that shouldn't even be possible.
>a selfish and excessive desire for more of something
100 years ago, for the ordinary man to desire a motor car would have been considered excessive. 200 years ago, a brick house would have been a mark of incredible, unreasonable affluence. 1000 years ago, eating meat every day would have made you part of the decadent upper class.
The point is that what you call 'greed' - the desire for more, to improve one's life, to strive for some better mode of existence - is what makes human life worthwhile. It was when mystics like you ruled civilization, that people groveled in the mud for century after century, never advancing, never progressing, always suffering.

>>129060668

In order to show that something is rational, you need to show how it is rational. You can't just say "its literally not [irrational]". That's not an argument.

I already demonstrated that the technical and commonly understood definition of greed is something like, "excessive desire for consumption of or ownership of something". Its excessive -- beyond reasonable justification. I have already proven you wrong. And then you restated your thesis and demand I prove you wrong again. By doing this, You seem like a bull-headed intellectual coward, prone to religious thinking.

You have consumed an ad campaign, uncritically, and you continue to repeat its marketing slogans, uncritically. The 'greed is good' meme is a paltry sophism, which redefines greed as meaning something like, "reasonable desire for personal security and enrichment" without ever explicitly saying so. Its a word game designed to mesmerize and confuse, and it worked on you.

Remember, your brain is like any other muscle: use it or lose it. Nothing about what I'm saying is complicated here.

File: 1480911170127.jpg (166KB, 795x799px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 795x799px

>>129052161
>>129053905

>>129062073

Yes I have. You ignored it, repeated "greed is good", and then demanded I proved you wrong despite not confronting the proof I already gave you of why it was wrong.

>>129047338
When the worst criticism your ideology gets is that you might end up just like you're now after decades, it means you're onto something.

File: freedom.jpg (72KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 850x400px

>>129062331
Egoists are brainlets.
>Too often, the ethical-political meaning of individualism is held to be: doing whatever one wishes, regardless of the rights of others. Writers such as Nietzsche and Max Stirner are sometimes quoted in support of this interpretation. Altruists and collectivists have an obvious vested interest in persuading men that such is the meaning of individualism, that the man who refuses to be sacrificed intends to sacrifice others.
>The contradiction in, and refutation of, such an interpretation of individualism is this: since the only rational base of individualism as an ethical principle is the requirements of man’s survival qua man, one man cannot claim the moral right to violate the rights of another. If he denies inviolate rights to other men, he cannot claim such rights for himself; he has rejected the base of rights. No one can claim the moral right to a contradiction.
>Individualism does not consist merely of rejecting the belief that man should live for the collective. A man who seeks escape from the responsibility of supporting his life by his own thought and effort, and wishes to survive by conquering, ruling and exploiting others, is not an individualist. An individualist is a man who lives for his own sake and by his own mind; he neither sacrifices himself to others nor sacrifices others to himself; he deals with men as a trader—not as a looter; as a Producer—not as an Attila.

File: 1467376133295.jpg (560KB, 776x1054px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 776x1054px

>>129062306
>you need to show how it is rational
Because it's in your interest to have a better life you dumb fuck. Just because you're too jelly to accept some people are better and more successful than you doesn't give you the right to steal their shit unless you want to reward nigger tier behaviour.

File: 1480903336689.jpg (315KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1920x1200px

>>129052989
(another fucking anarcho-mexican piece of shit on 2017)

pic related

>>129062157
> I'm not even AnCap and I think you're a colossal faggot.
Enlightening stuff thanks, you definitely come of as having a confident grasp on and understanding of the world

> 100 years ago, for the ordinary man to desire a motor car would have been considered excessive
If I wanted a motor car, and I had absolutely no use for it, I just wanted one to have one, that would be excessive. If i wanted a motor car because it would make it easy for me to travel to distance places, and I had a need or desire to travel to those places, that seems perfectly reasonable (or arguably reasonable). So I don't see why you say it would have been excessive for a person to desire a motor car 100 years ago. This same logic applies to all your examples, none of them make sense to me.

> The point is that what you call 'greed' - the desire for more, to improve one's life, to strive for some better mode of existence
BZZZZZT. Thats not what greed means, not by definition, not by common understanding, and not by what I told you I considered the word to mean. I literally told you what I mean by greed (its the meaning in the dictionary, and how nearly everyone thinks of 'greed'): "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something".

Your argument is a worthless lie, where you completely change what I'm saying.

> It was when mystics like you
Theres nothing mystical about what I'm saying. The ancaps I am arguing with are the ones who try to use sophisms and mesmerization via confusing language and unclear terms are the ones being mystical.

>>129062494
I'll have to check you on your definitions there, either way "wanting more than you need" is not irrational, you couldn't come to that conclusion of it was.

>>129062695
>Where you are now, but worse, is somehow a good thing

>>129063282

No one would say you are greedy for desiring a better life, since thats practically the OPPOSITE of what greed is intended to mean.

The broken brained ancaps can't figure out how greed, aka, "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed" is irrational, when EXCESSIVE is right in the definition.

Why is it that all of these individuals, who purport to be enlightened and supposedly hold reason and rational thinking in such high esteem, have not directly confronted this simple point so far in the thread?

>>129047338
>taking the ancap meme seriously to begin with
wew lad

>>129064486
Had to look it up to be sure "excessive" is not in the Webster definition. Either way I concede: greed is not good, morality can not be determined by simple self interest.

>>129063612
>Argues entirely from semantics
>Unironically uses a dictionary definition to evade dealing with real meaning of concepts
The point is that it is not immoral, not irrational, and is in fact the highest human calling, to wish to improve one's life - to wish to earn rational values. These values can be spiritual (e.g. one's integrity, romantic love, friendship) or material (a car, a house, an industrial concern). Now, whether you want to call this striving after better things 'greed' or some other word, is irrelevant. The word greed does have connotations of the desire for irrational values, for the unearned, as in the case of a gangster's pursuit of stolen loot or a communist dictator's desire for international 'prestige'. But because there is no English word available for the truly selfish, rational kind of striving, due to the concept of such a striving being buried and confused under layer under layer of altruist mysticism; and because it is the first insult altruists will always fling at successful men - the greatest exponents of that striving - 'greed' will do.

File: 1473334719700.jpg (52KB, 700x535px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 700x535px

>>129064486
>excessive
So having a billion dollars is gonna make my life worse?

>>129063676

I'm not talking about if "wanting more than you need" is rational or not, that would require more effort than is required.

To be absolutely precise: "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something than is needed" is irrational by definition because it is EXCESSIVE, which essentially means "going beyond justifiable / rational / reasonable limits".

Greed has been defined as and is commonly understood as PRECISELY SOMETHING THAT IS UNREASONABLE. Thats EXACTLY what makes greed different from any other kind of desire.

>>129063612
>BZZZZZT. Thats not what greed means, not by definition, not by common understanding, and not by what I told you I considered the word to mean. I literally told you what I mean by greed (its the meaning in the dictionary, and how nearly everyone thinks of 'greed'): "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something".
The point of my examples was that the dictionary definition of 'greed' is invalid because there is no way you can define 'excessive'. If it is in my power to earn, EARN, not loot or mooch, a billion dollars, is it 'greedy' to do so? Surely that would be 'excessive'?

Ancaps are retarded because their views are fundamentally weak, and does not take into account basic human nature.

The moment you wave a magic wand and institute anarchoanything, is the moment I take a group of 50 men and build an unstoppable empire via defeat in detail.

The very function prevents large scale hierarchys, and I will exploit the fuck out of it.

>>129063221
Stirner wouldn't be against most of that though, if you had actually read him

File: nap violation.png (783KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 793x794px

>>129066281
>What is a McNuke™

>>129052161
Well that still sounds awfully utopian. It'd be hard to "educate" people to become "moral" because achieving goals with minimal effort is a part of human nature™.
So you need penal law or some other force that will stop people from gaining resources with minimal effort (i.e. just bashing someones head and taking it for yourself). With private security companies protecting public order and the like we are dangerously close to state/feudalism again.

File: 1446376114626.jpg (52KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x375px

>implying the government is doing a good job
>implying the fair share we pay is fair
>implying that other people, who dont even fucking know you, are going to care about your shit more than their shit
>implying there is anything wrong with the profit motive
>impyling there is a system which encourages personal responsibility and work ethic better than libertarian system
>implying people arent corrupt
>implying you should tolerate corruption of other people
>implying you are entitled to any rights you cant take yourself, defend yourself, or negotiate yourself
>implying existence of the poor is somehow unjust
>implying we are all equal
>implying all sorts of implications

hippity hoppity
get off my property
privatization = responsibility
responsibility = prosperity

>>129065751
See>>129065047
I'm gonna need a link to your definition.

>>129066519
Something that requires a basic hierarchy to design, build, store, employ.

Unless you give your nuke to some other guy to watch, which would defeat the entire purpose.

>>129059846
>free education
>still cannot into english

>>129066469
Just from the meme you shared, I know Stirner isn't in favour of individual rights and capitalism.
>The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it.
So the labourers just take the products of the factories. Who needs bosses? Who needs policemen? Let's just enjoy ourselves!
Until the machines start breaking down, and the finances start getting screwed up, and the conscientious, hardworking laborers start getting sick of doing everything while their lazy colleagues mooch off their efforts, and everyone realizes, too late, that the boss's efforts to economize, to attain maximum efficiency and profit, were the only thing keeping the factory afloat. I'd expect them to last a month.
Socialism is the desire for the unearned, with a thin veneer of social utility to cover it. Stirnerism is pure, unadulterated desire for the unearned. Everything that gets in the way of your immediate, hedonistic whim is a 'spook'. It's individualism for predatory animals, not for men.

>>129067509
I added the "upper" after I had written the sentence; therefor it was an "a" instead of an "an".
rest seems sound to me.

Also, stop siphoning of the government and get a job. No one likes you..

>>129065110

I did not evade dealing with real meaning of words. I made a point of saying that this dictionary definition corresponds to the popular conception of what greed is. Something which no one has challenged, and you just admitted to ignoring.

> ... These values can be spiritual (e.g. one's integrity, romantic love, friendship) or material (a car, a house, an industrial concern). Now, whether you want to call this striving after better things 'greed' or some other word, is irrelevant

Actually, what is meant by "greed" is very relevant if you are going to make the statement, "greed is good".

For example, you should not refer to the "wish to improve one's life -- to wish to earn rational values" as 'greed', since by merit of its rationality, it is the OPPOSITE of greed, which by definition and common understanding is known as something like "an excessive / irrational / unjustifiable desire for more of something".

Much of the rest of your post is you repeating worthless and meaningless dogma, with no justification or attempt at explanation, which I'm sure makes you feel impressive.

But your only remaining claim that, "greed" will do in lieu of an english word that actually means what you mean, is not true. First, because it means almost the exact opposite of what you are claiming is intended to be conveyed. And You are admitting to misleading people, since just as easily we could refer to this "rational desire to improve one's" as exactly that. Let's try it out:

Rational desire to improve one's life is good.

> Wow, suddenly the phrase is so trivial its completely useless, and it won't impress or shock anyone.
> I guess I had better play even MORE word games to attempt to excuse this obvious misdirection!!!!

Anyway, I have to go back to work, so I won't be responding to any more "arguments", sorry everyone.

>>129067243
I'm not actually a pure AnCap; I prefer a homebrew I call atriocracy - the government consists of a constitution and Supreme Court, everything else is privatized. But the point is that AnCap doesn't mean lack of hierarchy - it means lack of COERCIVE hierarchy. You can't force anyone to join your state, commune or gang, but if a group of individuals have a common goal, they will naturally form an organized structure to achieve it. What corporations do today for productive activities, voluntary rights protection associations will do for the functions of government. Just because a hierarchical organization is voluntary, doesn't mean it's ineffective - just look at the efficiency of the private sector versus the public.

>>129067163

I said meriam-webster, here is the link:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed

> a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed motivated by naked ambition and greed

But more importantly, as I have said this whole time (and now someone has claimed I failed to realize) is the commonly understood meaning. However I feel that this definition corresponds very closely to this commonly understood meaning.

>>129068238
Right after that
>The state rests on the - slavery of labour. If labour becomes free, the state is lost.
So basically don't pay taxes.

Before that
>But the class of labourers, because unprotected in what they essentially are (for they do not enjoy the protection of the state as labourers, but as its subjects they have a share in the enjoyment of the police, a so-called protection of the law), remains a power hostile to this state, this state of possessors, this "citizen kingship." Its principle, labour, is not recognized as to its value; it is exploited [ausgebeutet], a spoil [Kriegsbeute] of the possessors, the enemy.
Which means essentially the "possessors" own the government and you shouldn't give them shit.

>>129047338
>>Companies take over in the form of monopolies

Name a monopoly that rose to power without the help of the state.

>>129050065
National Socialism destroys basic human freedom through excessive moral policing.
AnCap disregards morals to begin with.
Both are just two sides to the same shitty coin.

File: atlas.jpg (296KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1920x1080px

>>129066934
>So you need penal law or some other force that will stop people from gaining resources with minimal effort (i.e. just bashing someones head and taking it for yourself).
Absolutely correct. The point is that this order-keeping force can only ever be an 'exception-catcher': Criminals, gangsters and thugs have to be in the minority for civilization to exist in the first place. It is not the comparatively tiny numbers of policemen and soldiers which keep our society law-abiding, it's a common morality. If every man really was wolf to man, we'd have Somalia in a week.
This morality, however, is being systematically undercut by altruists such as Marxists. They teach that there is no such thing as private property or individual rights, that everyone has the right to food, housing, education, just for existing (who is to pay for it?). It is the people who make the society, not the other way around - and it is morality that makes people. The communists showed that human nature is malleable; they failed because their morality was incorrect. If one infused into the intellectual stream the correct morality - the morality of man's achievement, freedom, self-worth, and individual rights, not self-sacrifice and altruism - it would indeed be a utopia, or as close to one as philosophically possible.

>>129069045
You need to have the aspect of involuntary orders in a military setting to be a functional force.

You and your comrades can group together, fine. I will outright ignore you until I can overcome you.

If you choose to fight me before I fight you, you are directly in opposition of your core values, and even so sacrificial delaying actions can bleed you dry.

I come to your gates with an overwhelming force stating that I will spare you if you pledge alligence to me and give me a nice tribute, and if you dont I will kill every man woman and child, how many men in a completely voluntary agreement would stay on your side?

>>129069891
The state

>>129070580
Saving this post for later!

File: 1442197709941.jpg (133KB, 587x442px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 587x442px

>>129070207
>AnCap disregards morals
>AnCap requires everyone to be moral
Can you people make up your minds already?

>>129070767
topjej
>>129070724
>Involuntary orders
Easily achievable by contractual agreement. If you sign up for the McDeathSquad, you have to obey orders or face a McCourtMartial.
>If you choose to fight me before I fight you, you are directly in opposition of your core values, and even so sacrificial delaying actions can bleed you dry.
It's an interesting point. Presumably those agencies and organizations whose function is to protect the rights of their customers/constituents, have an interest in fulfilling that function. Thus, any action by your coercive 'state' towards a military buildup, would be interpreted as aggressive and trigger a rearmament on the part of the rights protection agencies.
In addition, there is absolutely nothing in individualist morality to prevent some opportunistic rights agency or vigilante group from Tomahawk™ing you as soon as you try to conscript or otherwise coerce anyone to build your state/army. Indeed, they would be outright motivated to do so, as it would save them the trouble and money of putting down the warlord later.
Obviously, you could win the war by pure superior force, but there's no social system that could get around that problem.

>>129072764
>Easily achievable by contractual agreement.

But then you fail to raise sufficient manpower as I would. Aka, a draft is absolutely needed even in today's world.

>Thus, any action by your coercive 'state' towards a military buildup, would be interpreted as aggressive and trigger a rearmament on the part of the rights protection agencies.

With this logic anything is possible under ancap and is essentially totalitarianism once organisation's get strong enough.

What you described is a defacto preemptive strike, based on a thought crime. Let me say that it is smart, and completely logical, but is against any ananything ideology.

As long as I don't touch mcemployees when I do should be ideologically irrelevant to them.

>prevent some opportunistic rights agency or vigilante group

Would again, be in direct opposition to any anarchist organization.

File: senate.jpg (111KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 640x360px

>>129070580
I can agree that there is common morality that evolved during the evolution process (don't kill other creatures of your species for no good reason).
On top of that there's common morality that comes from culture. Civilized people universally agree that you shouldn't rape or steal.
However there's also a huge chunk of things that are 1. harmful to society 2. illegal.3. only prevented because it's illegal and not because people consider it wrong.
I'm not having in mind some bullshit laws like don't do drugs or don't deny that the Holocaust happened. But people often want to do stuff like beating the shit out of folks who hold different views or maybe destroy their property and so on. They don't perceive this as immoral because the other party - in their minds - deserved it.

>>129047338
It's the very same with any anarchist movement.

>>129068853
>>129059552


>siphoning
>enjoining


Mine hojeste keks

>>129073794
>But then you fail to raise sufficient manpower as I would. Aka, a draft is absolutely needed even in today's world.
Not sure about that. The higher the technology, the less relevant hordes of grunts become. A pure capitalist nation (not state) would have an unbelievable advantage in terms of technology and equipment - just look at the USA in WW2.
>Would again, be in direct opposition to any anarchist organization.
I think this is the basic misunderstanding. Anarchy means that there is no central, coercive hierarchy (a state), not that there are no hierarchies. undoubtedly there will be hierarchies to achieve certain goals that are out of the reach of single individuals.
The principle of natural rights means that anyone who violates another's individual rights, is fair game for retaliation from any individual or organization. By violating the rights of another, you have rejected the moral basis of rights, and can no longer claim any rights. Rights are not a disembodied, primary moral principle. They are an agreement between rational men, so that all may live in peace with all. Any man who tears up that agreement and becomes a criminal, a social predator, will be rightly exiled or killed by individuals or organizations in that society, in self defence.

>>129076215
I give you "enjoying"
But siphoning is real, you fucking tard. If you have to play grammar police; then get your grammar straight your fucking cunt. Seriously google siphoning - oxford dictionary.

How pathetic are you, laughing over other peoples grammatical mistakes, while they don't make mistake, you just reveal your own stupidity.
how stupid are you? you are a fucking retard..

>>129074440
>But people often want to do stuff like beating the shit out of folks who hold different views or maybe destroy their property and so on. They don't perceive this as immoral because the other party - in their minds - deserved it.
True. But they're wrong.
Only on the basis of an OBJECTIVE morality - a morality whose truth is demonstrable logically from the facts of reality - can a peaceful society exist. If morality is subjective, then there is no standard for action, no standard of justice, no right or wrong, and then the man with the biggest gang wins.
Thus, Objectivism.

>>129076656
>The higher the technology, the less relevant hordes of grunts become.

Tech can't hold land, you need people for that.

>By violating the rights of another, you have rejected the moral basis of rights

Rights are, fundamentally subjective. Again you are describing totalitarianism once Mc company becomes large enough. If they decide that anyone who does not work for them lacks basic natural rights, then logically they are not in any opposition to ancap.

Being that there is nobody deciding who is violating what rights, and what those rights even are, anyone could simply decide what "natural" rights are (which were originally decided by somebody)

>>129079407
>then logically they are not in any opposition to ancap.

*to genocide any competing company until they submit

>>129047338
>Companies take over in the form of monopolies
Name one none government enforced or endorsed Monopoly

>>129079875
Late 1800s early 1900s us policy of Laissez-faire is rife with em.

>>129080238
>Late 1800s early 1900s us policy of Laissez-faire is rife with em
Prove it
This is probably the biggest myth in American accepted knowledge
All you have to do is look up the numbers to debunk this propaganda line.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/in-praise-of-robber-barons/

>>129081828
>>129080238
Also the most consolidation and Monopoly formation happened under the progressive era.
One of the most dramatic was the consolidation of phone and telegraph companies after the FCC was created.
Something like 90% of companies were ran out of business due to FCC regulations

File: the final argument.jpg (173KB, 1217x845px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1217x845px

>>129079407
>Rights are, fundamentally subjective.
No. If this were true, Stalin could have claimed the 'right' to throw dissenters in gulags. Rights could mean anything to anybody, anyone could claim the right to do anything he liked to anyone else, and you're back to the Hobbesian state of nature.
Rights are not subjective. They are an agreement, between rational men, to minimize conflict. There is only one logical, objectively valid way to do this:
>A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
>The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
>The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Also see >>129063221

>>129083462
>No. If this were true, Stalin could have claimed the 'right' to throw dissenters in gulags.

He very much did claim this right.

>3 paragraphs on what a right is

Just proved my point. In short; I disagree.

>you can't do that

See: Egoists

Example: I view it as my natural right to defend lesser races from themselves via subjugation