ATTENTION ALL ANCAPS

>>129736582
DELETE THIS

File: wasting time.jpg (33KB, 268x268px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 268x268px

Because we're all grown ups and don't need to be treated like children by the government.

File: IMG_1520.png (99KB, 500x397px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 500x397px

>>129736582
Bad thread. Literal college socialist teir questions.

Most of these questions have nothing to do with ancap and can be answered by doing this simple thing called logic.

So stop wasting our time with your bullshit bait.

File: 1493072896393.png (892KB, 1280x1143px) Image search: [Google]

892KB, 1280x1143px

>>129740644
ANCAP is shit.

>>129736582
>Who protects your property when you're away?
My paid army and automated defense systems.
>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
The NAP will keep you safe.
>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
You can just get a better job elsewhere, the free market will regulate it.
>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
He can be bought out by other rich guys.
>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
The corporations, as companies that make shitty food will lose profits and be abandoned.
>Who would build the roads?
People that want to make money.

Next?

>>129740907
I agree with that image unironically. You're just a butthurt hippy dipshit.

File: cecilia.jpg (99KB, 960x812px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 960x812px

/lrg/ LIBERTARIAN RIGHT GENERAL - THREAD HIJACK EDITION

This thread is for Discussion of Capitalism, Libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Minarchism, Anti-Communism, Right-Wing Populism, and the PHYSICAL REMOVAL of COMMUNIST FAGS from our board of peace. Reminder that this is the Libertarian RIGHT General. Aleppo Johnson-fags, Left-Libertarians, and other Shit-Libs need to fuck off. Voice your complaints to r/libertarian.

>Recommended Reading list
http://www.libertarianright.org/reading/

>Vanilla /lrg/ pastebin- CREATE IF YOU DONT SEE ONE IN THE CATALOG
http://pastebin.com/7K1EJYb8
>/lrg/ Chatroom
d i s c o r d: y3BzZM

>Bump for Life, Liberty, and Private Death Squads

File: ancap squad.png (252KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1920x1080px

FAQ:
>Do you support open borders?
No. The government does not own the land, therefore it cannot determine the border policy. Seeing as 90% of immigration is harmful to the country, by default a vetting system is essential to protect the rights of the citizens.
>Whom'st'd'll've builds the roads?
The people who are going to use them will pay the road crews, and maintenance is provided by the toll money.
>Do you support drug use/other degenerate behaviour?
No, we strongly discourage it as it damages a society built on non-aggression. Most covenants would be built around family (to fill the void after the government is largely/completely gone), and family life is vulnerable to these socio-pathological behaviours. If degenerates want to form their own communities, they are welcome to choke on their own filth or clean up and become productive members of the society.
>Are you Jewish?
No, our Jews are better than their Jews. Few movements (apart from NatSocs, duh) have been accused of anti-Semitism as much as we have, and that's including our more moderate/mainstream figureheads, such as Ron Paul. We support Palestine over Israel (because it's their land, not because they're brown) and we strongly support cutting all foreign aid to Israel (and to pretty much everyone). The international financiers would be significantly set back by freeing the currency system and implementing an actual standard for money to prevent over-printing and inflation. Also we don't trade with our enemies, what the fuck.
>What will you do when governments take over you/reform?
Toss them out of helicopters again. Our crusade is eternal. Liberty or Death!

File: anarcho-cute 2.png (532KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1000x1000px

RECOMMENDED READING LIST:
ECONOMY
>The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
>A Treatise on Political Economy by Jean-Baptiste Say
>The Law by Fréderic Bastiat
>The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich August von Hayek
>The Economics and Ethics of Private Property by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
>Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard
>Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
POLITICS
>Democracy - The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
>Second Treatise of Government by John Locke
>Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick
>For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard
>Against the State by Llewellyn Rockwell
>Reactionary Liberty by Robert Taylor
>What Must Be Done by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

File: DON'T.jpg (356KB, 720x1148px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 720x1148px

MEDIA:
GOOD TIER
>Minarchy Memes on faceberg - sometimes posts edgy stuff
>Liberty Hangout on faceberg - libertyhangout.org - adamant fighters against communism
>jasonstapleton.com - The Jason Stapleton Program - right-libertarian podcast
>youtube.com/user/ThatLibertarianT - That Guy T
GREAT TIER
>Hoppean Snake Memes on faceberg - the source of the snake memes we keep posting - keep up, nerd
>youtube.com/user/FreedomFighter631 - radicalagenda.com - christophercantwell.com - Chris Cantwell - host of the Radical Agenda
>youtube.com/channel/UCRr7mGBwURyRGM2BRPV3hNQ - Augustus Sol Invictus' ramblings and other content
>youtube.com/channel/UCIwnY7Ee4Kfn8g6tz9tjfzA - 1st Irregulars - former Cantwell's supporters, decided to go even further right
>1stirregulars.com - 1st Irregulars' main site
>youtube.com/user/stefbot - Stefan Molyneux
>tomwoods.com - Tom Woods's podcasts
INFORMATIVE TIER
>mises.org - Mises Institute
>cato.org - Cato Institute
>propertyandfreedom.org - Property and Freedom Society
>lewrockwell.com - Lew Rockwell

File: 1497342852017.jpg (22KB, 426x333px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 426x333px

>>129736582
nice peace sign

>>129741381
pls tread on me

File: hahahah.png (482KB, 625x625px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 625x625px

>>129741837
Oh she will.

>captcha: roads

>>129736582
>Who protects your property when you're away?
Private Security
>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
It would be really hard to be that poor.
>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
No, wages for a job would be fixed at a rate the market decides.
>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
I will shoot his ass if he fucks with me
>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
Consumers
>Who would build the roads?
Private Firms

>>129736582

>>129741381
I'll bump for this.

>>129736582
Will definetly last longer than any communist system desu.

Everyone would be able to acquire the means to defend themselves, and the spectre of mutually-assured destruction if you really fuck with someone would keep people from being total assholes to one another. Everyone keeps everyone else honest and decent enough for society to function.

Also- bring back duels

>>129742499
>bring back duels
This. So. Much.

>>129736582
>>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?

Citizens with a personal Nuclear deterrent would be hard to boss around.

Not a andycap answered the presented questions.

>>129736582
>>Who protects your property when you're away?
Robots.
>>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
Start your own police force .
>>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
That violates the non-aggression pact. Start a mutiny.
>>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
Grow your own, or form co-operatives.
>>Who would build the roads?
Invent flying cars instead.

File: the_west_is_the_best.png (57KB, 478x618px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 478x618px

nice one lads

>>129742631
what if I just built one instead?

File: Badge.png (192KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1000x1000px

>>129742846
Why would we, communists can't into property or subjective value. Fuck em.

Also bump for life, liberty and private death squads.

>>129736582
We will bury you in our roads?

>>129742047
I think maybe there would be something like a "police insurance" or something you can pay if youre poorer

idk I feel like people assume if something doesn't exist similarly to its current form, it wouldn't exist in any other way in the market

>>129736582
>>129742047
Also, who decides who owns the land? If a guys shows up with a land deed claiming that it's his land why should I take him seriously, who issues said land deed?

>>129740907
this but unironically

Nothing is wrong with ancap

>>129736582
Here you go:
http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

File: 5 stages of libertarian.png (2MB, 1544x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1544x4000px

>>129736582
>whom'st've'll do all those things?

People. Individuals have always been doing things and they will continue to, without the coercion of the state.

File: 1497343047378.webm (91KB, 210x283px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 210x283px

>>129742979

>>129736582
The real question is: What's the difference between a sufficiently large company and a state?

this is why we still need a limited government
thanks green man >>129736582

>>129744738
> without the coercion of the state.
Oh yah, can you give an example of a stateless society?
And maybe you can also answer my question:>>129743942

>>129739781
this

>>129736582
Privately employed and deployed guards, also structures that provide defense and security.
Private police's price will be marginal, if you're too poor to afford them then the property you own would most likely be low, and you and your family/neighborhood will then provide defense.
They compete for workers, and as companies grow numerous as markets expand wages go up and up to the point of normalization.
Those who he invades will be capable of defending their property, if not then property around said dictator would be undesirable.
The free market, and companies competing would ensure that all healthier options expand into further prominence.
Private entrepreneurs who would deem it profitable.

Private security like in South Africa

>>129740907
>equaliating libertarianism with corporatism
libertarian is neither corporate or ancap but here's your (you) anyways bc that was good bait

There is still no credible ancap answer to the warlord problem. 100 men that work as full-time soldiers will easily defeat 100 men that work as farmers/workers and are only part-time soldiers (i.e. a militia). Literally just gather your own private military, go around the land demanding protection money from communities and use the profits to buy more weapons and more men.

Maybe eventually a warlord realizes that instead of wandering around the world looting villages, it may be a better strategy to just hang around a single pet community of food producers and demand annual protection money in exchange of protecting the community from other more adventurous warlords. The people will likely agree, as it's better to lose 10% of your annual income to a warlord that gives you some protection than to take the chance of another warlord showing up and taking all your shit and your life. Perhaps said warlord will pass his position down to his son and start to wear a shiny crown. Now we're back in 2000 BC.

A centralized state is necessary to prevent warlord feudalism.

>>129736582
>You have exactly ten seconds to explain why your ideology won't just collapse in five minutes
>anarchy
>collapse
???

>>129742499
does everyone have nukes? what the fuck is mutually assured destruction

>>129736582
>>Who protects your property when you're away?
I hire someone or make deals.
>>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
Then you die/get robbed/raped/sold into slavery.
>>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
Because no one has any need to work for them then
>>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
Then it happens.
>>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
If you don't have enough then its your own fault and you deserve dying.
>>Who would build the roads?
Slaves etc.

>>129736582

It doesn't matter. AnClaps are not now, and never will be a majority of the population. Very few people want to actively take responsibility for themselves.

File: Hoppe Quote BW 2.png (2MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2000px

>>129745705
Hoppe wrote The Private Production of Defense which is a short essay on that. You also have The Myth of National Defense.

>>129746035
hoppe literally describes feudalism

File: meme science.png (159KB, 900x758px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 900x758px

>>129745217
>>129743942

I can give you some pretty good reading material if you'd like answers to that. Part of the libertarian philosophy requires some reading, contemplation, and thought. There isn't a one word answer that would satisfy your question (imo).

>>129745765
anarchists unironically believe this

File: ancap reading.jpg (2MB, 2426x2676px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2426x2676px

>>129746112
Hoppe says feudalism was close to getting us to a natural order if only serfdom had been abolished completely.

>>129736582
The free market will fix it

>>129736582
all ideologies are shit. identifying with one shows weakness.

>>129744932
Is this too hard of a question for Ancaps to answer?

>>129736582
Nice we got old flags back. Ancaps are kikes who put muh profits over nation

>>129746335
yet feudalisms end result is hegemonic nation states

>>129746270
I don't expect that, but surely you could summarize the answer in one paragraph. This is just one issue after all.

>>129745217
>Who decides who owns the land?
Land is obtained via homesteading (or voluntary exchange). See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
>Can you give an example of a stateless society
https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west

>>129745818
perhaps not, but the majority has never truly decided the course of human history. it has always been motivated individuals.

>>129746609
sometimes this is the case but if ones personal interests are tied to the fate of the nation then there is not a considerable leap from ancap to nationalist

File: Hoppe Quote BW 4.png (395KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1000x1000px

>>129746649
You have the privilege of living in one of the territories Hoppe considers modern-day "oddities." You're in the Hoppe-approved country list. Singapore is a great example.

>>129736582
twst

>>129746872

>perhaps not, but the majority has never truly decided the course of human history. it has always been motivated individuals.

The majority don't make decisions, but you do need their support, because if you don't have it, someone else will.

>>129739781

Not really true. Approximately 30% of society act like grown ups, the rest are niggers, white-trash, vapid intellectuals, welfare-dependents, and other types of people incapable of thinking for themselves and taking responsibility.

>What happens when a gang of negros show up at your house for their reparations?

>>129746889
lol wut
singapore is neither free nor anarchic

File: joker-clap+.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>129746889

This quote reminds me that there *are* elements of AnClap thought that I can get behind.

>>129745705
Your cognitive dissonance is amazing.

THE GOVERNMENT ARE THE WARLORDS.

The government does everything you have said; it doesn't matter whether it's a monarchy or a republic.

>>129740809
>can't afford private security
>you die

Logic'd

>>129747130
This. Most people act like children.

>>129743942
In a covenant community model they'd have courts to determine the legitimacy of his deed as they'd probably get such a deed from the greater community owner. It would be pretty straight forward. Not a real big issue.

>>129746562
no, it's so easy that we didn't think it was worth answering.

The state is coercive, a company is not.

>>129746764
So what, If we were to transition to a an AnCap society I would just own my apartment, that I rent at the momment? And say I own something, how do I proove it without a central authority to validate my ownership? I could just forge a land deed right? How do i get people to aknowledge that I'm the owner?
The wiild west had plenty of unoccupied land, it's not the case at the moment. Not to mention there was still a state, the US.

>>129747430
That's my point you dingus. All modern states are successors of warlord-states. You tear this whole thing down and it will just re-emerge because anarchy is not a stable system.

File: 1497372047117.gif (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>129747105
that's true, but the majority is already primed to accept the fruits of capitalistic development via products, services, ideas, and other commodified elements of their lives— therefore for the sake of varied consumption of these fruits of captialism they are more easily accepting of our goals than they claim to be.

You will find that the end-user/consumer's desires as a consumption-machine conform highly to free market captialism. Under a communist system access to variations in the production of goods is extremely scarce.

So in many ways, the abject cultural ruination of the 20th century which has lead to an absolute moral collapse amongst the general population in favour of fetishised commodities is actually really positive for us as a whole. We can effectively meme ourselves into positions of wealth by employing our understanding of the business cycle and our ancap goals lead us directly towards establishing ourselves as major producers in the near future—

That is, if you've got the guts

>>129747876

>people need water to survive
>I own this water anon, here pay me if you want to drink it
>not coercive?

>be me
>live on land with rich natural resources underneath it
>corporation decides to buy the land, and force me off if I refuse
>my shotgun can't fight off the corporate mercs
>gee I wish there was a state to protect my rights
>not coercive?

I could go on all day

>>129747797
That just sounds like feudalism. These courts are still like a state right? just on a local level.
>the greater community owner
Who's this guy? The baron?

>>129748252
Yeah, it's kinda like feudalism.

>>129747983
>So what, If we were to transition to a an AnCap society I would just own my apartment, that I rent at the momment?
The transferal of the current system of property rights to an ancap one is a complicated issue. Most things would be syndicated or returned to their original owners: You can read Hans Hermann Hoppe's chapter on it in Democracy: the God that Failed (he does a good job of explaining it). It's chapter 6, iirc.
Private companies are capable of providing law services such as the validating property claims, so it's no easier to forge a deed than it is under the US government.

>>129747876
>companies arent coercive
except the mafia

File: 1492972388730.jpg (59KB, 500x249px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x249px

>>129748243
a bunch of computerised 60mm turrets located strategically on the perimeter of your estates, and an army of patrolling drones might help though.

Besides, shouldn't you be drilling that stuff yourself? What are you, a pussy?

>>129747876

If you want to learn about the results of Ancap, just watch any classic Western film.

>independent freedom-loving settlers move out to live in the territories
>get abused, terrorized and taken advantage of by corporation-like group of bandits/outlaws
>the nearest sheriff is 200 miles away!

>>129748502
The mafia isn't a company, they're a gang of extortionists. Like the state.

>>129748615
You forget the part where a guy with a sweet jawline saves the day and makes everything awesome.

NOT AN ARGUMENT

>>129748425
>Private companies are capable of providing law services such as the validating property claims
But laws only exist within a government. What give such a firm the aythority to validate anything? I could Start my own firm and say who owns what, why should anyone take me or any other firm seriously?

>>129748615
dude, the wild west was awesome.
read some books.

My uncle was the one of the first sheriffs in southern Alberta. That position sprang out of the need to reenforce the anarchistic values of the town, as the trains going through the area weren't paying their municipal dues. True story

>>129748581

Case in point, Ancap ideology is only appealing to people who think they would be the ones with the guns and drones.

>in effect the philosophy is useless
>it just comes down to might makes right, whoever has the bigger gun

Sounds like fun, why don't you go try it far away from here.

File: hoppe secessionism.png (668KB, 659x824px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 659x824px

>>129747288
Freer than most our shitholes. And even if it isn't exactly free nor democratic, a world of millions of Singapores would have far more competition for citizens than the current super state we're heading in to.

Daily reminder that beleif in Government and Authority is a religion not based on rational thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CvhYyuGifw

>>129748989
So you think military grade technology should not be accessible to you?

What if I were to tell you that national armies perform the whims of international corporate interests? Does that make you feel better?

File: file.png (707KB, 696x768px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 696x768px

>>129748898
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law
Law has existed without central ownership by government many times before.

File: 1497378447600.png (41KB, 337x437px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 337x437px

>>129736582
What if none of these hypotheticals happen literally ever?
Then what? Will you sympathetically like my nuts and my niggers nuts?

>>129736582
It doesn't CAUSE immoral behaviour, it permits it.

>>129748957

Yeah I like the West too, I just wouldn't necessarily advocate that model for a modern developed nation.

I'm descended from Alexander Majors, since we're swapping ancestor stories.

>>129740998
Why would you need an army if the NAP will keep you safe?

>>129749430
Is meme, calm down.

>>129749223
Ok, so what you really want isn't no state, just feudalism like the other guy said, you just want local government.

>>129748039

I tend to believe that something similar to the kind of extreme Balkanisation which AnCaps usually advocate, actually is the future; or at least, I hope it is.

For me, the two biggest problems are federalism on the one hand, and corporations tending to be run by omnicidal psychopaths on the other. I am not inherently opposed to business at all, but I *am* opposed to this planet completely losing the ability to support life, because the average CEO doesn't seem to literally care about anything other than money.

If the market was able to solve the problem of corporate immorality and destructive behaviour by itself, then I would support that; but I haven't seen a lot of evidence that it can. Better consumer choices have led to *some* improvement, yes; but you've still got Monsanto almost completely replacing plant species with genetically modified forms, and Nestle attempting to monopolise the water supply.

>>129740998
What stops all the rich guys coming together and forming a state/ dictatorship/ etc. Also if that happens they can just say fuck the NAP and do what they want

>>129749199

No I don't think it should be available to private citizens, nothing beyond small arms and personal weaponry.

I don't get your other point but what I was saying is that the Ancap philosophy only seems to work if you have a gun in your hand. Because in a chaotic society, people will not respect your self-sovereignty and will try to take what you have. Basically you are expecting everyone to play along with the Ancap ideals when in reality it would just be mob rule and anarchy.

>>129749861
A state is a territorial monopolist of force; and multiple law agencies can practice in the same area. So not technically, though it is a more decentralised and local system.

>>129749390
I am not sure how you characterise a "developed" nation since Canada is literally being overrun by uneducated, low IQ third-worlders.

Look, you like having state oversight in your personal, social, and financial affairs. That's cute. Me though? I prefer to manage my own life and make my own contracts. It is pretty easy to become a reasonably important person in this world, and it sure isn't by conforming to the false authorites that are presented before you.

At the end of the day, it comes down to what you are willing to give up, as far as your own liberties are concerned, in exchange for an artificial sense of security which the state brandishes as its ultimate symptom— we ancaps reject this assumption on the basis of false initial principles.

>>129748685
they are a company with the purpose of profit
>in b4 not all companies lool

>>129736582
>Who protects your property when you're away?
Who's protecting it right now? I haven't seen a cop car around here in months
>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
It's hard to be poor when there's no taxes and goods are cheaper and more readily available
>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
Because at some point your labor will be worth more than the wage being paid which doesn't attract any workers
>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
Shoot a nuke™ at him if he breaks the NAP
>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
They don't have to be, but customers will prefer food that's bee approved by food inspectors
>Who would build the roads?
Whoever owns the land and wants traffic there

>>129750080
Everybody seeks profit. Even communists do.

>>129749996
Well, you shouldn't have access to it then.
What makes you a private citisen, out of curiosity?

No one respects your individuality in this system, you are nothing more than a number. Interesting that your own personal fear of freedom leads you to ignore the obvious anarchy under which we currently live.

>>129750056
>I prefer to manage my own life and make my own contracts

Exactly, I prefer this too. In an Ancap society I think a lot more people would be trying to interfere with my personal affairs than just the government is now. In effect, we are trading a bit of state oversight for the freedom not to worry about that freedom being taken away by roving gangs of savages.

>since Canada is literally being overrun by uneducated, low IQ third-worlders
>Canada

A FUCKING LEAF

>>129750310
nope, not monetary profit

>>129750046
>multiple law agencies can practice in the same area
But there is still someon government making the law common to all of those right? Otherwise those aren'tlaw agencies, just gangs that enforcee different rules.

File: ancap is not sustainable.png (127KB, 1086x372px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1086x372px

>>129736582
Daily reminder that ancap is a garbage ideology. Pic related.

>>129736582
Because the most powerful corporate congolmerate would immediately take power and subjugate anyone and everyone they could, bringing about a globalist dystopia that cannot fall due to its enormous monopoly on power.

>>129750472
Profit is not only monetary. If you were honest enough to into subjective value you'd know that.

>>129750446
You think the state protects you from that?
That's very cute.

You see, it's peabrains like you that make all of this insanity possible.

>>129749996
>self-sovereignty
the idea of sovereignty is given that you can defend yourself as free.
the implication is that you will have to defend it at some point.
likewise you can be sovereign simply by relinquishing your citizenship

>>129747130
Then those faggots will either grow up die off when nobody else is babysitting them. Problem solved.

>>129739781
That.

>>129750612
>But there is still someon government making the law common to all of those right?
Wrong, each agency can practice different rules with inter-agency laws (since it's in the best interest of each agency to cooperate). See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

>>129750769
companies run on monetary profit.
have a nice day, and stfu

>>129750316
>Well, you shouldn't have access to it then.

And neither should anybody else.

>What makes you a private citisen, out of curiosity?

Self-ownership.

>No one respects your individuality in this system, you are nothing more than a number. Interesting that your own personal fear of freedom leads you to ignore the obvious anarchy under which we currently live.
>thinks I am happy with the current system
>nigga please

>>129751047
Thanks for playing. Idiot.

>>129747445
Sounds like a you problem.

>>129750970
>inter-agency laws
So you don't actually contradict me. Who sets up these inter agency laws if not a government?

>>129751183
you werent even in the game retard

>>129751385
They make agreements among themselves. Do you need a government to make a deal with someone? I suggest watching the video I sent.

File: 1497247395035.png (834KB, 1463x3639px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 1463x3639px

>>129750807

The state at least tries to ensure that all parties engaged in business play by the same rules and provides a method of redress for when someone is cheated. What's your method of redress? Violence?

Out of curiousity, how does your ancap society deal with pic related? In America we have laws that force people to maintain standards in business. In China they have no such laws or standards, "the free market will decide"?

File: 1497247168144.png (946KB, 1400x5552px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 1400x5552px

>>129751640

>wrong fucking pic

sorry

>>129751177
>And neither should anybody else.
except the "government", right?

jeez. so what if I want to 3D print linear detonation triggers for my DIY thermonuclear devices and sell them on Shapeways?

Your entire argument is effectively that since you are lazy and callow that I should be as well. Nop

And I am sure you are unhappy, but why beat down your fellow hardline right wingers? I like monarchy but that doesn't mean I just let anyone sit on the throne mah negus

>>129751640
No, it doesn't.
It clips the wings of anyone who opposes their agenda while simultaneously granting historically unprecedented access to the military industrial complex by ultra-wealthy international corporate interests..

Do you honestly think otherwise?

>>129751562
>They make agreements among themselves.
Of course they do. But people don't always come to an agreement. These AnCap line that people will just sort things out and agree on everything has never been proven, and seems to me totally ridiculous.

>>129752246
Watch. The. Video. I can't explain these things perfectly for the 100th time.

>>129752246
Because governments never just carpet bomb entire countries on behalf of their international financial masters, right?

>>129751640
>The state at least tries to ensure that all parties engaged in business play by the same rules and provides a method of redress for when someone is cheated.
Lol yeah because there totally arent any laws made specifically to favor one business over its competitors and the lawmakers totally arent paid by the company to do it.

>>129736582
>well that would violate the NAP so they wouldnt do that

Ancap is physical autism

>>129752411
Yah if the government is a democracy and can be baught by said financial masters. You just want to get rid of the government and let the financial masters loose.

>>129752680
I want you to have the power to control your own life

File: 1489131117429.png (139KB, 321x289px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 321x289px

>Who protects your property when you're away?
I have paid security now, so literally no different if there's "police" or not.

>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
You have neighborhoods who are pretty much better than nowadays police. Well to be fair, that's what happened in my country.

>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
It's their right to do so, if you don't want to have shit salary then just move to better condition. Later, the competition between employers to recruit workers would be about the quality of the worker's treatment.

>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
As long as it doesn't violate my NAP, then he can do whatever he wants. Even if I don't do something, the other rich guys would fight him.

>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
The competition between corporations.

>Who would build the roads?
Anyone who want to have profit to do so.

>>129751865

>except the "government", right?

Yes. Because if someone has to have them, they should be selected by their merits, well trained, and held accountable by civilian authorities. I don't know 99.99% of the people in this country, they are not accountable and have no training. So yeah I don't want the criminals or gang members to have access to weapons of mass destruction just because you believe in your libertarian fantasy.

>Your entire argument is effectively that since you are lazy and callow that I should be as well.

No my argument is that in an anarchical society, the vast majority of people will act purely in their own interests and will not think twice about raping, murdering, and stealing from other people if they can get away with it.

>And I am sure you are unhappy, but why beat down your fellow hardline right wingers? I like monarchy but that doesn't mean I just let anyone sit on the throne mah negus

I'm not sure I understand, but I used to be a hardcore libertarian before I utterly lost my faith in humanity. It would be possible if all the people 100% bought into libertarian principles, but since they don't it would be no different from tribalism and violent mob-rule. In fact in a true ancap society you would actually just get a lot of small societies forming around leaders, soooo basically medieval feudalism with guns. It sounds pretty degenerate to me.

>>129752559

Of course there are. The system is set up so that businesses are incentivizes to try to buy privileges from the state. That's obvious. But we can try to make the system better without burning the whole thing down. It's not an either/or.

>>129751865
if you werent lazy a callow youd be able to succeed in a state equally as well, if not more easily

>>129752806
Idividuals can't control shit, unless you'r one of the super rich. And the tirany of international materialist is much worse than tha of a government.

>>129753219
>how do we stop powerful businessmen from taking advantage of the system in place by making laws that give them an advantage
>i know, well make the medium by which they make and enforce these laws even more powerful
Im not an ancap. I just came here to call you dumb

>>129753844

Sounds like you're putting a lot of words in my mouth friend.

>and greentexting a lot of shit I never said

I'm always for federalism and reducing the power of the centralized state. But I do believe in A state, unlike ancaps.

>>129752982
Anarchism ≠ Anarchy, which is what we currently live under.

Again:: here on /pol/ we are developing a political ideology that is part fascism (borderline monarchy) and at its core based on libertarianism, and specifically the physical removal of communist elements from our societies.

In the absence of centralised national governments the next obvious most coarse structure would be city states. IMHO we are currently experiencing a protracted period of techno-feudalism, grossly, which is loosely described as democratic-socialism internally.

You haven't addressed my core point: If I can manufacture my own weapons for personal defense and for profit, why shouldn't I?

Who decides which people are the bad people? In my "libertarian fantasy" as you call it, these people wouldn't even be acting elements of society because they would effectively be either consumer-level drones or they would be working towards their own goals in a personal setting, probably like they are now.

The point is this: who gets to tell me what to do? I contend that it is me. If you think it is you, then I respectfully disagree on the basis that if you were capable of deciding for me then I would also be capable of deciding for you, which leads to a complete annihilation of my agency. Since I refuse to reject my agency, I cannot reject yours.

>>129753313
I already succeed in this communist shithole known as Canada.

>>129753399
I agree with you on principle, but in practice you can find yourself to be quite useful if you are willing to do what is necessary

>>129754318

Sure. I 100% believe in your right to tell yourself what to do.

I simply also happen to believe that you are responsible for that right, and if you abuse it there will be men with guns who come to lock you up (i.e. some kind of state to enforce moral standards.)

>you can live your life however you want to live it, but if you try to deprive me of my life, there is still some kind of structure in place to prevent that and to take away your agency since you decided to forfeit it.

there is nothing wrong with having local warlords

>>129754318

libertarian fascism sounds good to me, just not sure how it would work that's all.

>>129754921
Why do you put so much faith in the state which you know to be a corrupt and morally wrong agency?

At what point does it become necessary to assert that the notion of centralised authority is what leads to congealed international powers such as those we are currently living under (TPTB so it were).

It seems that this line of argument is a form of resignation. I tell you that money drives the world, and it drives your centralised justice system as well.

I am not effectively sold on the idea that individual actors would not be capable of asserting that agency in such a manner as to promote the enforcement of law without the bloated central governmental appendages.

>>129755269
that is what we are trying to figure out here on this board and elsewhere. We are rebuilding the west.

seriously though, I spend too much time on this board. I get that a lot of people here are fucking losers but some of us are actually getting shit done.

>>129754921
If you abuse something, then of course it would violate others' NAP. In that case, you'll get ""punishment"" from people who are their NAP is violated by you. I don't think you're wrong with that.

>>129747130
>What happens when a gang of negros show up at your house for their reparations?

easy, i threaten to shoot them if they dont get the fuck off my property.

all the welfare queens will have to find jobs.

File: blocks your path.jpg (48KB, 749x733px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 749x733px

>>129736582
>>Who protects your property when you're away?
Private authorities or trustees
>>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
Better hope someone is charitable enough to lend you a hand
>>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
Because then they wouldn't get workers and they'd go out of business
>>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
Battle of the personal armies and private authorities
>>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
Hired experts
>>Who would build the roads?
Probably whoever own the land and would it would be up to them whether they impose a toll on it or not or put it up for public use

I'm not even an Ancap, it's not hard.

File: 1496502833135.jpg (57KB, 977x658px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 977x658px

>>129740998
So the whole basis of your arguments is "I'm rich", "They'll be paid off", etc., but here's a good question: what's to stop the people who make food, who make these other products, to come together and reduce their quality so that it becomes the norm? And if someone comes along and produces higher quality products (for the same price), what's to stop them from being bought out, and the quality of these products dropping once more?

File: 1444968986139.jpg (93KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 600x450px

>>129736582
>>Who protects your property when you're away?
Anyone you choose
>>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
I suspect police would be voluntarily funded by the community as a whole and instructed to protect anyone in the community. People value community safety so it makes no sense that this wouldn't happen.
>>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
Because you'd work for someone else
>>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
Kill him?
>>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
Voluntarily funded organizations
>>Who would build the roads?
Fuck you stumped me.

>>129736582
>Who protects your property when you're away?
landmines, domesticated wolves, drones
>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
I don't need no police
>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
implying I would subjugate myself to someone
>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
come and try to take a NAP
>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
only urban faggots buy their food
>Who would build the roads?
who cares, got KTMs and Landcruisers/BTRs

>>129755417
>It seems that this line of argument is a form of resignation

It is a form of resignation, or rather a form of realism. I do believe in individual freedom and the immorality of the state, but I also think it is a necessary evil. For one thing, as long as every other country in the world has a state, we need one too. The second we abolish the state to all go larp ancap, we'll all be speaking Chinese.

>I am not effectively sold on the idea that individual actors would not be capable of asserting that agency in such a manner as to promote the enforcement of law

Sure, it's tough to tell. Suffice it to say that I think libertarianism appeals to highly-intelligent people and it would work for a group of highly intelligent people. Unfortunately the majority of the country and indeed the planet is pretty fucking stupid, selfish, and greedy. I really don't have faith in most people being able to participate in an ancap society without it devolving into real anarchy and chaos.

The only really libertarian society to exist in history as far as I know was Medieval Iceland, which has no government but instead a system of freeholders who were farmers and homesteaders. The society eventually collapsed due to a weak legal system (no way to satisfactorily redress grievances) and power was eventually consolidated by a few powerful families that just turned the entire country into a constantly feuding oligarchy. I don't see it working out better this time especially since we have a lot more guns and a lot more degenerates willing to fuck things up.

>>129736582
>Who protects your property when you're away?
Neighbors, same as now. What, don't you have decent neighbors? Solves the next "question" handily.

>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
Why don't they do it now?

>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
Who will he pay? The robots? How long is he even going to be able to keep it up?

>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
Who does it now? Certainly not the FDA with all the health scares that happen.

>Who would build the roads?
Who cares?

Mc nuke

File: 1486010540250.jpg (129KB, 885x720px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 885x720px

>>129756190
Market for both of then.
Monopoly creates unhealthy market, thus freeing them can lead many competition which makes the market healthy again.
If they reduce the quality, and someone offers better option for sure the consumer will choose better option. If the that better option reduces the quality, there will be another alternative that will topple them.

How is this any better than the current situation?
Are there any considerations for people who contaminate the environment?
How would ancap deal with overpopulation and food shortage?

>>129756548
whether the society would be considered explicitly libertarian or if it would be stratified by other elements remains to be seen.

My principle assertion is that, despite your obvious correction observation of the morally degraded and non-contributing elements of society which must be held by some sort of societal structure, that you still maintain that this should be in the form of a central state..

It is on this point that we depart: you know the state is an immoral actor whose agency depends greatly upon who is "pulling the strings". I assert that national consolidation of power does not necessarily cause the inherent corruption of the state's moral agency but rather that it requires that it allows for a facade behind which international financial interests may operate.

It is clear to me that moral authority can be asserted in society without allowing for the portals by which centralised global government can and will be enforced. Further centralisation of power will inevitably lead to world government controlled by international central financiers.

>>129757461

I definitely agree with a lot of what you're saying, a lot of it appeals to me. I'm not attached to the idea of a "central" state necessarily, but rather to some kind of fascistic structure, what form that would take I'm not sure. Ideally libertarianism would provide the moral and philosophical basis, but that basis would have to exist within some kind of structure otherwise I just see a devolution to anarchy (just like a central state devolves to socialism and globalism).

I'm definitely interested in this new political ideology if it can be made feasible, the West must be saved.

File: 1494370602179.png (811KB, 636x509px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 636x509px

>>129758414
Deus Vult, broyder
We'll figure it out

File: 1494166944394.png (133KB, 305x424px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 305x424px

>>129736582
>Family and/or other members of your society. Lack of formalgubmint doesn't prevent close-knit communities acting in their self interest to form.
>acquire wealth/band together with other poorfags/sucks to be you
>be of worth to employer, clause in contract, or sabotage machinery and threaten owner to continue employing you
>army would act against self interest while eradicating you (shortened contract) and commanding officers will betray "cause" for a better bid
>t. no one ate anything before fda was made
>private contractors, also you just lend land for them to put road on which makes it a bilateral contract where you both use each other's property

>>129757309
>How is this any better than the current situation?
In my country, making business is easy as fuck. So there's no really difference except the freer the market and no censorship. Maybe in your case, making business would be far easier? since your censorship is almost non-existent with legalization of lolis which is a good thing.

>Are there any considerations for people who contaminate the environment?
If that affects the community, then the guilty people will get punishment from community though maybe it's more socially way like get talked from the back, get trash talked by people, or people stay away from him.

>How would ancap deal with overpopulation and food shortage?
Stock food then sell and profit it?
Also well to be fair having many children is people's right so well, overpopulation might can't be handled well.

File: 1497379001773.jpg (19KB, 520x346px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 520x346px

ahoy there mateys, Pirate-Anarrcho-Capitalism alliance when?

ye have the NAP, we have the Pirate Code. You take the land, we take the seas. Aye, why I could even say that the pirates were the original AnCaps of the Caribbean!

so what do ye say, laddies? as a bonus, we'll physically remove these commie scallywags fresh from the plank

>>129758414
>otherwise I just see a devolution to anarchy
There's no worship of anarchy here, but the spontaneous order is a magnificent manifestation, that's what it is about.

File: 1494456039684.jpg (276KB, 937x530px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 937x530px

>>129761147
>so what do ye say, laddies? as a bonus, we'll physically remove these commie scallywags fresh from the plank
deal

>>129760018

What is the value of a contract in a system wherein there is no method to ensuring contracts? The whole reason we even sign contracts today is so that if one person cheats you, you have the evidence to sue them for damages.

Without that process, a contract is no better than a handshake deal, and the only way to enforce a broken contract is violence.

>>129736582
>Who protects your property when you're away?

Your army of security robots

>What if you're too poor to afford private police?

Work more to afford it

>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?

People would leave to work at a better paying company

>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?

1 Dictator vs. ALL of the population with their recreational nuclear warheads... think about it

>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?

If food was not up to health standards, people would not shop/eat there and it would go out of business

>Who would build the roads?

Private citizens on their own private property and having a mutual that driving on said roads is not a violation of the NAP and probably having tolls at the rods on your property to make more money

>Happy?

File: Final Argument.jpg (89KB, 1024x628px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1024x628px

>>129736582
>>>Who protects your property when you're away?
Police (and neighbors), like right now.
>>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
You get muh gunz, muscular friends, etc...
In case of being jumped at by a random nigger in a back alley, state police or no state police will not change a thing.
>>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
There is literally nothing wrong with this. You can form voluntary unions of course.
>>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
No difference ancap or not here.
>>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
Independent inspectors, like you have ISO standards inspectors everywhere. This is in no way unusual if you have ever worked in any industry.
>>Who would build the roads?
Construction companies, like all other buildings.

I don't think the whole thing is practical because you would have conflicting common law eveywhere, but these are really shit questions.

>>129739781
Not true at all. Look at the average person today, they are all degenerate children.

>>129736582
fuck off leaf.

>>129763347
that's why if those irresponsible manchilds don't get gibs or support from the gov, they'll starve or be forced to be responsible to work. Degeneracy simply can't last in ancap without a state to sponsor it, the traditionalist nuclear family can finally outcompete and sofly crush them into starvation from discriminatory employment policies

>>129763347
Because the (((democratic state))) has brainwashed the population from an early age with it's propaganda, in the process destroying all traditional and social values.

>>129736582
>Who protects your property when you're away?
Trusted people from my covenant. They won't take my shit and they won't let anybody do so, either.
>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
See above. You better have a strong reputation.
>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
Because they would get outcompeted by companies that pay fair wages.
>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
He's getting an ANFO delivery as soon as there is reasonable evidence he's going to violate the NAP.
>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
Anybody who doesn't want to become a live organ donor if somebody dies as a result of consuming his product.
>Who would build the roads?
The child slaves. Who am I kidding, who needs roads when you can own a helicopter?

>>129763347
That's why they don't get welfare or a right to vote.

Muslims. Just nuke them all?

File: 1490135778721.png (602KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 793x794px

>>129767635
McNuke*

>>129736582
Ancapistan only has the possibility of working if there are only white people in the country.

File: Fuck_Islam.png (290KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 793x794px

>>129767972
McGas*

>>129736582
>>Who protects your property when you're away?\
my 3th panzer division
>>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
being poor
ancap
pick one
>>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
self employed
>>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
how do you know my plan
>>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
the free marketpalce
>>Who would build the roads?
who ever pays for it

>>129747130
>the rest are niggers, white-trash, vapid intellectuals, welfare-dependents, and other types of people incapable of thinking for themselves and taking responsibility.

so child slaves

>>129767972
>>129768542
make it a McCombo meal then

>>129768126
obviously

>>129744932
The state has a monopoly on violence and does not give you the right to fight back.

>>129741381
Sorry it says discord invite expired

>>129746609
>profits
Any profits an owner earns in ancap will have to be fought for tooth and nail.

>>129747876
>company

>not coercive

And Easter bunny drinks tea with Santa Claus.

>>129770957
Yes, these infamous lawsuits and threats of expropriation and fail if I don't buy their stuff.

>>129770957
literally how can a company be coercive

you're not forced to buy their product lmao

>>129761147
I'm down. scallywags and commies be damned.

>>129740809
How do they have nothing to do with ancap? They all seem logical arguments opposing it.

>>129771813
they're srawman-tier questions to anybody who doesn't know anything about ancap other than the memes

>>129772051
>calls the argument a strawman with a strawman

>>129771813
retard teir questions that have probably been answered in some fags youtube video in under 3 minute.

>>129771307
I can think of a few things. Weapons manufacturers encouraging wars in our current system is nothing new. Other corporations could basically destroy or buy the competition, and have absolute control over valuable supplies like vaccines. With ancap, they just cut the middle man (government). I fail to see what would stop corporations from getting so powerful as to make them a kind of dictatorship.

>>129772464
>hurr please spoonfeed me on BASIC COMMON-SENSE answers

if I asked "what if hitler is too racist?" you would lose your shit at how utterly clueless the person asking the question is

File: 1485310658330.png (282KB, 699x356px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 699x356px

>>129736582
>M-MUH ROADS

>>129755901
Okay so u manage to shoot one of them the rest of his friends fill you with bullets, then claim your property as their own. Since there's no government there are no records to even prove that you owned the property.

File: 1457396941819.jpg (102KB, 600x924px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 600x924px

>>129745404
People should only use the term "Corporatism" if they know what they're talking about.

>>129772962
>what would stop corporations from getting so powerful as to make them a kind of dictatorship.

the people? they don't have to work for them. They can work for someone else. You can't have a company without employees. Likewise, the people don't have to buy their product or service either, meaning no resources to continue operations. In fact, they can boycott and protest. There's nothing a corporation can do against this, and if they do get violent, there's private militias and the goddamn citizens with guns to retaliate. Even then other corporations can also ostracize, blacklist, and stop doing business with freedom-hating corporations they don't like if they threaten free trade and competition

>b-but what if all the corporations join together including the militias and force you to give them money like a kind of...violent monopoly

then you have another state and the people would rebel

>>129773266
>government is needed to keep records
>people can't keep and share/communicate records with others in order to recognize them
>private police isn't there
>private militias aren't there
>neighbors aren't there to help you gun down niggers because then their own property would be threatened by the same principle

>>129739781
So i will build an army of my own and enslave your ass, then what?

>>129742499
Yes, because as we know, people are so trustworthy and honest...

>>129748996
And yet it the fact it exists was ensured by a relatively authoritarian rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew

>>129773766
Well, you assume that people would do a lot of things, like leaving their jobs (in my hipothetic, if you work in a laboratory and there is no competition, you could try making the vaccine on your own, but that could get you killed and nobody would risk that) There would be no way of boycotting since vaccines and many other goods are indispensable. And if I have to go by history, people tend to organize in a hierarchy, even in informal relations, and some even want everybody else to follow the same rules as them, either because the think God told them or they are in position of a final and perfect solution.

>>129775601
>if you work in a laboratory and there is no competition, you could try making the vaccine on your own, but that could get you killed and nobody would risk that)

you can work for someone else

>There would be no way of boycotting since vaccines and many other goods are indispensable

if they're so profitable then developing a copy or alternative is all the more valuable, a.k.a. hiring you

>I have to go by history, people tend to organize in a hierarchy

we're not opposed to hierarchy, just one by coercion. There would absolutely be hierarchies, but only voluntary and NAP-compliant

>>129778972
Again, if your bosses think don't want you to leave, they can just kill you. They wouldn't want you to ruin their profitable monopoly, and since they pay you, we assume they are more powerful than you ad they would have easy time dispatching you. And creating a copy of a medications or vaccine is not easy, and depended greatly on resources, so people could die of diseases and/or starvation (a lot of medications go to maintaining animals alive). The top richest people wouldn't have that problem, and would live well, while the not so rich are fucked.

>>129771813

All of these retarded "arguments" (they are just statements, not arguments) fall into one of these categories:

1. Then who would provide X service that government does now? I can't think of a solution with my tiny brain, therefore it must be impossible.

2. I'm scared of monopolies! I think the only way we can stop monopolies is to create a violent monopoly at the center of our society.

3. I'm scared or am jealous of rich people! It doesn't matter that the way to get rich in a free market is by providing society with stuff they wanted and making people's lives better. I want their money, the only way to do this is by choosing some sociopaths and giving them the power to kill, steal, and kidnap rich people.

4. I'm concerned about Y issue and I want it to be regulated/inspected/banned! I've never heard of the invisible hand or market equilibriums! I don't care that I'm imposing violence on non violent people!

5. I'm concerned for the poor, but I'm too stupid to understand how government programs like welfare, the war on drugs, affirmative action, regulation, and licensing actually hurt the poor. I'm too uneducated to have read about things like mutual aid societies and private charity. I'm really glad that, instead, my taxes instead go to prop up 3rd world dictators under the guise of aid. Then I can feel good and virtue signal on facebook about helping starving children of some 3rd world country.

6. I've never considered that there could be no government before, and my first reaction is that sounds scary because it's new and different. I'm just going to pick the first concern that comes to my mind, then declare your idea impossible.

>>129780305
It does amaze me that people feel the need for a top-down, centralised solution to be clearly presented for them to accept an idea is possible, where in reality spontaneous order, decentralisation and mutual voluntary aid are much more effective in every case.

File: a1b9pGR_460s.jpg (51KB, 460x309px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 460x309px

>>129736582
Because all that exist only in your delusional mind. Normal people want to pay each other for good work and don't want to steal shit. Lefties are just neurotic paranoind misanthropes, kill yourself faggot.

>>129780206
>they can just kill you

this breaks the NAP. contact private police, or better yet competitors who want to see your old company go down. They now have an incentive to keep you safe, and because your old company is literally threatening to kill employees if they quit, they can sue on your behalf on private court. You can also tell other employees that they must work there or die, killing their morale and encouraging them to also leave with you

a company that threatens with death only kills itself with no gov to let them get away with it

>>129745751
>does everyone have nukes
no because how would you afford one and why would you want it

>>129741434
You support Palestine because it's their land? As in like "state" land? Or like "national"? You are disgusting

>>129781149
I didn't say anything about treats. They could just kill you after you've serve them, and keep it a secret, or make it look like an accident. And also, what would stop them from protecting themselves? They could develop chemical weapons, or just hire a PMC. It would be reduced to who has more money and resources. They will have the power.

>>129736582
- You pay the local defense force or hire a security guard
- Work harder
- Because then you wouldn't work for them, and a government with better wages would get all the business
- Uprise. How do you think an ancap society comes out of the state in the first place?
- people still inspect, and journalists can investigate as deep as they want into the inspectors because there are no laws to protect them
- where we're going we don't need roads (but between tolls and taxes we pay more for roads than we would under a buisnessman)

>>129782587
>I didn't say anything about treats.
>They could just kill you after you've serve them, and keep it a secret, or make it look like an accident.

that's a threat senpai, and even then if you didn't know they would kill you after you leave that's still a loss on their side. There would still be investigation by your family, or at the very least the competitors who hired you or were looking to hire you because dirt on their enemies is gold

>what would stop them from protecting themselves?

other people. They don't recruit people from the void; people would know a company that normally sold X goods are now suddenly purchasing chemical weapons and a PMC. The private militias that people pay for can then shut it down, possibly funded by those same competitors because of foul play. I mean really, a company suddenly wasting all their money on military shit when they can continue their luxury lifestyles as is by the product/service that got them there, no sane businessman would risk it when their competition equally wants them to fall

It really seems like you're are imagining this giant, single, conglomerate of a company as a kind of pseudo-state when other large companies are also in competition against it. This is true checks and balance, true competition, instead of a single violent monopoly. You think a government can't already kill you and "make it look like an accident", leaving no questions asked because "they have the power"? You can continue twisting your story into "what if's" this and that, but instead I encourage you to understand the principles to answer your own questions

If there is no monopoly of violence, proper competition hedges against abuse. Private citizens/employees/police/militia included. They're not just going to watch and let the free they've fought for just get turned into another state -- that's the point of AnCap, to abolish the state and keep it that way

>>129741155
What the fuck are you talking about? Then we agree faggot ancap is shit so is libertarianism garbage.

>>129783920
Yes, other companies are in competition. For them being balanced they would have to make the same profits. Which is dumb to assume. And I am no statist, but I don't trust business to play fair, because they don't do it in the real world.

>>129785039
>For them being balanced they would have to make the same profits. Which is dumb to assume
>they would have to make the same profits

I have never made such an assumption. I am stating, clearly, that competition is actually there not as one alternative, but an infinite possible amount. There's no start-up overregulation or other means for new businesses to get crippled. Small business can fight against the big ones on equal footing without the state to give the big corps the edge

>I don't trust business to play fair, because they don't do it in the real world.

Exactly. This is what AnCap actively anticipates, not somehow hope to magically not happen. The shitty businesses can be called out and countered, the state cannot silence dissent anymore. Competing businesses can form mutual agreements with each other ostracize and blacklist a certain business they do not like that's not playing fair, or the way around such as mutual small businesses taking down a natural monopoly.

There's no violence, just wits and the best businessmen

>>129785792
With equal footing?! How? I mean, if you want to develope something that needs lots of investments, then that already limits the number of business that will offer the product. And yeah, the competition can try to unite against it, or can also take the easy rout and be assimilated, and that is something that we see again and again.

>>129785792
>Competing businesses can form mutual agreements with each other ostracize and blacklist a certain business they do not like that's not playing fair

hmm yes surely they will do that for the good of the people and not instead form mutal price fixing agreements to maximise profit

> mutual small businesses taking down a natural monopoly.

yeah anyone can just set up a small local oil well and refinery and take down a monopoly

>>129780806

You're alright.

>>129786614
>if you want to develope something that needs lots of investments, then that already limits the number of business that will offer the product.

true, but if enough demand warrants it then investors would be more than eager to get you on your way to get a slice of that pie instead of exclusively letting the current big businesses take the spotlight

>or can also take the easy rout and be assimilated, and that is something that we see again and again.

that is a possibility, but that cannot be taken as an absolute or inevitability. Why would people assimilate and give up their profit to someone else, when they can each individually make so much more by remaining separate?

this is why the "all companies will just merge" meme is silly -- it makes no rational sense to share if it does not benefit them, concentrating power just means someone else gets to call the shots instead of people having ownership and full control of themselves. It may not even be money, some people just do not like the ethnics and management styles of others and refuse to sell even if they can make tons more by merging

>>129786685

>they will do that for the good of the people and not instead form mutal price fixing agreements to maximise profit

nice assumption. I never said they would do it """for the good of the people""", they do it because it benefits them. if multiple companies agree to price-fixing, then customers will go elsewhere. Some of them may even start a new business specifically to capture the market by offering lower prices, forcing the competitors to do the same to compete. End result is low prices for everyone

>yeah anyone can just set up a small local oil well and refinery and take down a monopoly

I don't see why not if the resources and capital is there. They can be a former employee of the monopoly to have industry knowledge and go on their own to make the big bucks for themselves, providing what the monopoly can't

>>129788035
What could offer a smaller company that couldn't be improved by a bigger one? And if the smaller can't compete, it will have to either maintain it's low profit or diverge to other sources. And you don't know if they would make more by separate. Companies agree on prices to maintain high profits all the time, and big companies buy small ones commonly if they make them lose money. If you want to know what pure capitalism is, look to the fine interactions drug cartels have.

>>129741381
This thread hijack is a violation of the NAP

>>129790712
>What could offer a smaller company that couldn't be improved by a bigger one?

a better, superior product. A bigger company does not necessarily mean your product is automatically better

>if the smaller can't compete, it will have to either maintain it's low profit or diverge to other sources.

Good. Companies that can't compete don't belong in the market

>And you don't know if they would make more by separate.

If Company A makes money, and Company B makes money, merging to Company AB doesn't necessarily mean they get the same profit as company A + B. Not when they've now got to share control of their products and services, share management, share names, resources, etc. when company A can make a better product than company B and earn more at B's expense

>Companies agree on prices to maintain high profits all the time

which makes smaller companies that offer better products all the more lucrative by not entering that price fixing. Customers change

>big companies buy small ones commonly if they make them lose money.

and small companies don't have to sell either. In addition, the less competition there is the more valuable that small company has to sell. Even if they do sell, they can justify selling at an exorbitantly high price because they'e the only competition left, using up that big company's resources. And then another small company comes in, etc. etc. It's just incredibly difficult to maintain a natural monopoly if your product is shit instead of actually improving it and being the best on merit, not buying out competition

>If you want to know what pure capitalism is, look to the fine interactions drug cartels have.
>drug cartels
>using violence

that's not capitalism my dude, that's just coercion. Capitalism by definition is a mutually-advantageous transaction between private owners, no violence or state needed

>>129791971
By necessity, bigger companies are more capable of producing better products than smaller ones, specially the example I've been giving since the begining, that is, medical treatment of any kind. Wealthier people will get it, and not the rest.

>>129791971
Capitalism may be a lot of things in theory, but in reality the marketplace has only the rules that people join to enforce. And that is called government. They don't work perfectly, they tend to be corrupted, but it is the best we have.

>>129793222
You need to understand, and soon, that if instead of dividing labor we all tried to hunt, we would have never got clothes.

By this I mean, let the best at a field be the ones who provide, as that will allow others to focus on other fields of the economy.

If big companies are better at making a product, then there's no good argument about why smaller companies should exist in those fields.

>>129794444
Except that if a company has the monopoly of life antibiotics, aircraft (or other systems that give clear military advantage) and they want to enforce either ridiculous prices or supplies there products only to those who have common interest, then you get a society that is much worst than the one we already have

>>129793222
>By necessity, bigger companies are more capable of producing better products than smaller ones

that's just not always the case. It's not an absolute; if there is a demand, it is most profitable to meet that demand by marketing it out. That development is what grants that medicine to the masses, as selling it to the masses once it is sufficiently mass-produced is highly lucrative

Take the automobile or cellphone, once luxury items now an essential to the common man. Someone had to pay for it first, and that is the wealthy, until it is improved upon and mass-marketed to everybody -- all at the same time driving prices lower and lower. Comparatively, car and phone prices have gone down exponentially while offering tons of new features. This is no accident.

>>129794111
>the marketplace has only the rules that people join to enforce. And that is called government.

these "rules" can be conducted voluntarily, through contracts, through private law on private property. Government is not necessary.

>>129795420
>has the monopoly of life antibiotics
How would that even be possible without the state?

I'm not claiming competition shouldn't exist, I'm claiming we should not endorse inefficiencies in the name of competition.

If a company believes they can provide a service better than the current market king, then they should.

>>129749940
So the worst possible outcome of an ancap society is a statist society?

Great, seems like a worthwhile effort then.

>>129756190
Imagine if those people who produce food had the power to throw in jail anyone who competes with them.

And the ones that they don't throw in jail, they can just take 50% of their property.

And the ones who still survive, well they can just inflate their money away into the ether.

Can you imagine how shitty the food would be then?

>>129795927
If you have the monopoly to something that could cure a terminal illness, people will pay anything they can. The ones who can't afford it will die. Animals in stables need antibiotics. If they are too expensive, people will have to resort to other foods, that may or may not be available. Top weapons manufacturers could give power to anybody that suits them at any moment, and your utopia would end.

>>129750310
Communists don't know what profits are

>>129797330
The top weapon was developed in 1945 and that's all you need to guarantee peace.

Patents on medicine is a state-given privilege and would not exist under anarcho capitalism.

>>129796150
In my country, there is public healthcare that gives coverage for expensive treatments to a wide public. It's not perfect, but it's probably one of the most popular aspects a government can have (they don't have many)

>>129797330
>The ones who can't afford it will die. Animals in stables need antibiotics. If they are too expensive, people will have to resort to other foods, that may or may not be available.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. People die all the time, if someone in their whole life has been unproductive and lazy, not saving money or spending recklessly for when illness hits, well obviously he has chosen for himself to die by not having the money needed when he actually needs it. Probably didn't even buy insurance. I see no problem.

>Top weapons manufacturers could give power to anybody that suits them at any moment, and your utopia would end.

Which has consequences. For one thing, power companies wouldn't be centralized as a result of no state, so good luck trying to coordinate all power to one entity specifically for no reason. Even then, if power is concentrated -- the people can still resist. Private militias, decentralized, can still coordinate with each other to eliminate a common threat to their freedom. A weapons manufacturer is also useless without soldiers using them. Employees can quit.

Come to think of it, why would weapon manufacturers go against their customer base by oppressing them in the first place? They would lose money when otherwise in peace they receive wealth. Speculation like this just makes absolutely no sense.

>>129798149
If the state wanted to provide good coverage, they would only tax the rich so the poor could afford it, and they'd let the rich pay for their own insurance.

They don't want to provide good coverage, they want to live out of your pocket.

>>1297979
You don't need a patent. Cures for lethal viruses aren't easy to develope. The top companies are substantially more likely to develope them, and they could (in theory, not saying it is likely) create a virus and then the cure, and keep the formula a secret. And there are more destructive weapons than atomic bombs (kinetic bombardment) that are superior in destroying armored shelters and are faster to deploy than nuclear weapons

>>129798726
Their hands are tied, because democracy is corrupted by big businesses that control the media, and the elections, and pursue privatization

>>129798408
The reason can be money. If you don't intend to start with a comunist dictatorship, there is going to be enormous differences in wealth. There is going to be super rich, with common interests. And they probably want to keep themselves rich, and some will want more. If any of them gets their hands on catastrophic armament, very few people are going to die for nothing. And slowly and insidiously, liberties would be cut down.

>>129800498
And anarchy is not a meritocracy. Rich people will have children that will inherit their wealth, and they can maintain it easily. Hard working people can work hard and rise to the top, but not necessarily.

The problem with ANCAP is that there's so much you could take.

If you're or someone is sensitive to people killing cats he will try to do something against it, he will try to get people who agree with him to try and find an asnwer to that problem someone will propose a rule, them you must follow that rule to live in that community then the community grows and more problems are solved by mutual agreement until the rules grow out of control and spark a new kind of gov.

I can go deeper on this.

You can't solve this, you can't have ANCAP.

>>129800498
>there is going to be enormous differences in wealth

this is natural

>they probably want to keep themselves rich, and some will want more.

well yes, and they get richer by more business, meaning more goods and services, more employment, lower costs in competition, and generally raising the standards of livings for everyone

>If any of them gets their hands on catastrophic armament

where is the line? that seems awfully arbitrary

>liberties would be cut down.

why would they take away liberties if liberty is mutually advantageous, profitable, and beneficial to everybody? I don't think a communist dictatorship is the answer either, not when capitalism works and has been proven to work

>>129800866

>Rich people will have children that will inherit their wealth, and they can maintain it easily

which they lose within multiple generations if they just sit on the money instead of contributing back with the same drive and energy that got their parents rich in the first place

>Hard working people can work hard and rise to the top, but not necessarily.

it's not just about "working hard". It's working smart. Finding new innovation, meeting a new need, starting a new business or venture never before discovered ripe for the taking. This kind of growth is what gets us all new things to enjoy

>>129736582
1. Security systems and my community; neighbors
2. Go KYS if you are too poor. You failed
3. Wages? WTF are those lefty? We run businesses and create and sell products and services.
4. What comes around goes around, you think that guy would be breathing air for long?
5. Fuck your health standards. Raise meat, kill it, butcher it, cook it. Grow food, harvest, cook and eat.
6. Not even going to answer this, stupid fucking question.

>>129736582
>Who protects your property when you're away?
My McGuards© that came with my meal
>What if you're too poor to afford private police?
Stop being poor
>Why wouldn't companies just shrink your wages as much as possible?
Then they'd have hardly any workers as the company across the street would simply pay their employees more and thus get more business, since there are no government-enforced monopolies to stifle competition
>What if some rich guy decides to buy his own personal army and become a Dictator?
A large scale NAP violation would prompt immediate retaliation by all neighbors and other concerned; the dictator is deposed via helicopter
>Who would ensure the food is up to health standards?
People are responsible for their own health and safety, companies would either charge for private inspections, or the concerned people in question would just have to make/purify/etc their own food
>Who would build the roads?
Private companies, hired by the common interests (Chiefly the richest there who are altruistic by proxy) of any given population center

File: anzu.gif (293KB, 428x360px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 428x360px

>>129741535
>anzu is an ancap

>>129746035
Hoppe is an idiot if he thinks that decentralized groups of citizens could hold out against bands of trained organized fighters.

You have to be frigging kidding me.

File: 1496691208621.jpg (106KB, 574x500px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 574x500px

Exact thoughts on syndicalism?

>>129805799
There's a few million Syrians, Yemenis, Iranians, etc. who would disagree.

File: saudi houthis.jpg (320KB, 1245x1303px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1245x1303px

>>129808420
this.

>>129749940
In history, the only time a corporation came close to becoming a massive state was the East India Company. The company had an army, could imprison individuals, and execute wars. The gained that power with the help of the government. What differentiates this from contemporary corporations is that there wealth is not gained through force, but through consumer demand.