How would ancaps secure borders?

To be perfectly honest some rich dude would probably buy a huge area of land, and secure the perimeter. Then he'd start renting that land to people he deems worthy and keep all the others out.

>>131173734
now you can't get out without the guy's permission. Nice.

>>131173562
Ancaps think what will happen:
>hurdur we are all armed so no one dares mess with us!

What will happen:
>invading army: "Attention! Start killing each other. The plunder will be given to all who survives after 3 days. If there are more than 50 survivors, we will nuke the whole city. Begin."

>>131173562
Rich guys will rent their private armies which will defend their "borders" or they will send them on shitskins to plunder their shit. It will looks like Caesar in his Gaul campaign

>>131173562
People can go wherever they want so long as they don't fuck with people and their property.
People effectively go where they please right now; your dipshit overlords aren't terribly effective at doing what they tell you they do.

>>131176963
>People can go wherever they want so long as they don't fuck with people and their property

at least I still have my NAP/Constitution!

>People effectively go where they please right now; your dipshit overlords aren't terribly effective at doing what they tell you they do

yeah, let's remove ALL remnants of the extant borders. that'll surely make things better

>>131177317
It's worse now. Government fucks more with people than anyone else.

>>131177576
say what you want, but government is the only party capable of solving this Soros-funded armageddon at this point

>>131179292
If there were no government Soros wouldn't be rich or able to influence jack shit.

>>131179391
>being this delusional
of course he could; he has net worth of 25.2 billion. even a fraction of that amount can command shitloads of rapefugees. you think he has to care about fucking NAP?

>>131173562
There's a thing called "standards".

>>131180430
>If there were
>wouldn't be
Can you read English?

>>131180669
i was addressing the "able to influence jack shit" part, the point being soros doesn't need the government to drive his goals through.


what comes to the "wouldn't be rich" part, i'm not totally sure how Soros got his money in the first place

>>131180575
there's a thing called profits. don't be naive, now

>>131173562
Mafias would take care of borders and "protection" services.

>>131173562

They wouldn't. Anarchy is a meme ideology that's just as dumb as communism. You don't even need to invoke rapefugees or external threats, all you need to do is consider that a mafia would eventually form and rule the place. That or any sort of stronger collectivist ideology, like religions.

>>131173562
>How would ancaps secure borders?
The market would fix it

>>131181087
He *DOES* need government. Without government he can't bribe bureaucratic goons to make laws to suit his interests, which is what he does now.
Soros got his wealth through government contracts. Also, the wealth of Soros is a tiny itty bitty fractions of the wealth of any given state's population. If all of the wealth and assets of the top 1,000 richest people in the country were added up they'd amount to some pathetically small percent of the value of the middle 10% of people's wealth.

>>131181765
Without gov, he would be an autocratic warlord.

Are you saying that the middle 10% will form some sort of group? How would this coalition be organized?

>>131182216
I don't care how they organize or even if they do. The state causes more death destruction and havoc than any non-state actors ever have. That's demonstrably true.

If you want answers to pragmatic questions, get them from people making pragmatic arguments and not moral ones. David Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom" will probably cover anything and everything you could possibly care to ask.

>>131173734
So you mean like a government.

>>131181087
There's a thing called consumers and boycotts.

File: brain.png (329KB, 455x278px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 455x278px

>>131173734
And then the owner of land could contract with these small producers to receive a portion of their economic output in exchange for rights to the land

i love free markets

>>131173562
>Persons must pay the toll to pass
>Shitskins aren't persons
>???
>Profit

>>131173562
>talking about ancap
>no retarded answers

>>131182797
>everyone will sacrifice their own advantage voluntarily in this heavenly society:)

that's no way to address the free-rider problem

>>131182475
>David Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom"

lol what kind of simpleton is assured by that book

and seems like you kind of conceded that in practice this citizen coalition of yours is a utopian daydream

>>131184416
I don't want any coalitions - I loathe people. I want complete isolation. I couldn't care less what you do, since the consequences of your thoughts and actions are ultimately what you have to deal with and not what I have to deal with.

You haven't read a thing from it, so I can't imagine how you think you can substantively dismiss it as insubstantial.

>>131183389
This. Poor and stupid people are home bound.

>>131185825

Lol so silly. Soros will pay me and the other 10 anons 2 billions each to go and dump our trash on your land. Enjoy your utopia in isolation.

>>131186594
neat

>>131173562
Without government shitskins wouldn't have any money to pay for themselves.
They'd be forced to starve or live from crime, at which point they would be wiped out when the state wasn't there to save them.

>>131173562

a PMC blasts them on sight with a mini-gun after they step one atom of their being over the border onto private land thus violating the NAP unlike cuck state governments that let immigrants flood in to get more people dependent on them

>>131186838

You will never have complete isolation. It's just wishful thinking that crashes against reality really fast just like communism always does. Guess what happened to anarchist societies in the past? They got conquered by foreign armies.

Anarchism is a meme.

>>131187346
I don't care. Me liking not dealing with dipshits =/= expecting I'll ever not have to. Nowhere have I ever said I believe dipshit bootlickers will magically disappear in the future.

>>131187595

So you would like to implement an ideology that would inevitably collapse after a few weeks/months into some sort of permanent civil war shithole as opposed to what we have today?

Seems memetic.

>>131188516
>So you would like to implement
No - I don't want *ANYTHING* implemented. I'm going to live my life righteously until I die, and then I'm going to keep living righteously. I couldn't care less what you or anyone else does - I'm only railing against evil and sinful activity because I loathe evil and sin and because I'm commanded to rail against it. In the end, your sins are yours and not mine. You'll deal with them and not me.

>>131187343

You're not actually a libertarian. Responding with such violence in such a disproportionate way is itself a violation of NAP.

>>131173562
automated artillery strikes

File: 1495917111754.jpg (33KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x400px

>>131188901
that's no way to build a society, grow up

>>131189295
You can't even define society in concrete terms. You're a buzzword-spouting low-IQ dipshit.

File: simpsons.jpg (23KB, 275x284px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 275x284px

>>131189419
>my ideology ends up in a clusterfuck, so I'll just call people names lol I loathe people anyways bc I'm so enlightened also, my IQ's high

sure thing, kid

>>131190429
>my ideology ends up in a clusterfuck
No; I don't think it does. I don't think anything is worse than a state, which commits more violence than any non-state has ever committed.

>>131190633
if you're satisfied with characters like Soros flooding the Western world with low-IQ niggers, that's fine. Most of history governments have prevented that shit from happening, and without border control, we would have already been annihilated by now

>>131188901

The only reason you're allowed to do that right now is because you live in a non-anarchist society. If there were no rule of law, no police, no nothing, you would be a slave to whatever ideology would surpass your weak ideology. For example, let's say a random religion or mafia started taking control of your town and decided that no paying them a tribute is "evil and sinful". That's how your ideology falls apart instantly because that's what's going to happen. A stronger ideology is going to subjugate the poor anarchists that are each one going their own way. I would love to live in a perfect anarchist or communist society but in reality this utopia is impossible.

>>131191195
>if you're satisfied
Governments import people and give them welfare.
You want more of that? Keep bootlicking.

>>131191593
>allowed
Nobody has any say in what I'm "allowed" to do. If you wanna stop me, feel free to murder me. Make me a martyr.
State =/= law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBuGpTOwQbM&t=2s

>>131173562
Insurance companies employing defense forces to protect a given region.

Some conceptions also include a small standing professional officer corp. with civilian militia being called up when needed.

I think Mass defense insurance is probably the best bet though

>>131191985

Well, I didn't mean "allowed" in the legal sense or giving you permission to do something. I meant in the sense that you can find the time to post here and to whatever, which is something you won't have the time to do (not allowed) in an anarchist society since you'll be in a constant state of civil war against whatever group is trying to dominate said society

>>131191985
no government = nobody stopping shitskins from coming in

i'll apt for the government. I think we're getting nowhere

>>131176963
People can't go wherever they want if they have to cross other people's property. Public property doesn't exist in ancapistan.

>>131192551

Why does it bother you if "shitskins" come in? You're not forced to associate with them. Does seeing brown people in public really cause you that much disqualification?

>>131192407
>which is something you won't have the time to do in an anarchist society
I don't see why, given virtually all interactions between people take place without people pretending they have sole moral authority to enforce their arbitrary whims and pillage from the populace.

>>131191985
my private court says it's illegal to deny me health insurance, your says it's not. who decides?

>>131192815
you think there's no tipping point where there's too much aggressive low-IQ people in a society demanding your wealth?

>>131192702
Sure it does. I can maintain a park and open it to the public. It's my park so I decide what's done in it's regard, which can include letting anyone use it.
The park example itself is a really common occurrence.

>>131193172

> aggressive low-IQ people in a society demanding your wealth

Oh, you mean like most white people?

>>131193172
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBuGpTOwQbM&t=2s

>>131193305
I'm not going to spend 30 minutes for that. I've seen Bob's lectures on private law, and I tried to infer your main argument based on that

>>131193302
There's a huge IQ gap between whites and niggers, don't be an idiot

>>131192702

You're delusional, dude. Private property owners are already renting out and selling their property to immigrants. In an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be just as much, if not more, immigration.

>>131193629

White people are just as anti-libertarian as, if not more anti-libertarian than, any other race. Immigration doesn't really change anything.

>>131193158

I already said why, in a matter of weeks or months you're going to have a mafia or some other group running the place. You'll end up being forced to abide by their law of the land or suffering the consequences. So you will always be at war with them in order to survive.

I think the best examples are either a Mafia that extorts protection payments from the populace, or some sort of religious groups that not only does the same but also enforces certain behaviors.

>>131193629
Ok. You can use your time how you want. If you know Murphy's arguments then you ought to have an answer.

>>131193772
yeah, it's not in your country a certain group drains an extraordinary amount of resources compared to other groups

>>131193951
Or you aren't.

>>131193951
>I think the best examples are either a Mafia that extorts protection payments from the populace, or some sort of religious groups that not only does the same but also enforces certain behaviors
So the state. You just described the state.

>>131193991
my argument would be that if there's no authority forcing you to go to a court to answer for your deeds, law loses its reinforcing power. if I can't force you to play by my court's rules, the same applies to you.

>>131193991
my argument would be that if there's no authority forcing you to go to a court to answer for your deeds, law loses its reinforcing power. if I can't force you to play by my court's rules, the same applies to you.

badly written, but shall suffice

>>131194854
>>131194922
fuck

>>131182670
A government doesn't own the land it governs, at least nominally. Neither did it acquire that land legitimately.

If a nigger steals your bike, does it become his rightful property as soon as he lays hands on it?

>>131184085
Yeah there is. You kill them or alienate them from your community.

>>131194854
>my argument would be that if there's no authority forcing you to go to a court to answer for your deeds, law loses its reinforcing power
You don't need authority to use violence. If Jim steals your TV and refuses to give it back, you go to a court. You present evidence that you own the TV and that Jim stole it. If Jim didn't steal it, it'd be trivial for Jim to refute the claim or difficult for you to provide evidence to the court that Jim stole your TV. If the court rules in your favor, big burly guys are probably going to be viewed by people as reasonably talking to Jim and asking him to give the TV back, and going in to take the TV if Jim is still an ass.

That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. It's what happens now except with some crazy religious reverence of government combined with the state being aggressively violent and extortionary.

>>131194107

Well the state is separated from religion but other than that yes. The thing is that this will be worse than whatever refined form of state you have right now. Only the people in charge of said group will be able to say what's right and wrong. No checks and balances whatsoever. That's the whole point, anarchism will result in the worst sort of statism very rapidly.

If you don't think some sort of mafia or other group wold form and take power, tell me why not? It seems like human nature to me.

>>131195117
The "might makes right" relativist retards will unironically sit there and conflate possession with property.

>>131195787
No - state worship is religious in nature. People think the state has special magical authority to fuck them and others in the ass and be their own moral enforcers.

I do not buy - at all - that if the primary perpetrators of death and violence weren't viewed as legitimate in perpetrating acts of violence and subjugation that things would get worse.

>>131195117
Yes it does you retard

That property that you think you own is being leased to you by the government

They can take it at any time they want

>>131196551
In practice, yes. Now address my nigger argument.

>>131196551
So anybody who can potentially take your property with violence owns it?

What a nonsensical view. A 7 year-old with a gun could kill you and take all your things. That wouldn't make them his.

>>131196673
Technically it would, if nobody challenged him on it.

>>131196761
No. That's not how property works.
I don't own your TV if I steal it from you. It's why we talk about your TV as *being stolen from you*, and not simply as my TV.
Jesus.

File: 1388073159434.jpg (103KB, 600x601px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 600x601px

>read the whole thread
>no coherent answer to such simple fucking question
Jesus, what a joke the ankaps are

>>131196079

Recognizing the need or inevitability of a state doesn't mean you "worship" the state and that you consider it some sort of deity. Other than that you're not really disagreeing with me at all from what I understand.

Basically what I'm saying is that a Don Corleone will emerge from the anarchist system inevitably and that it will be worse to have a Don Corleone in charge than a State with lots of checks and balances. I'm not saying either of them are good and should exist in a perfect world. The perfect world would perhaps be anarcho transhuman communist but it will never happen, there will always be a Corleone or a Stalin taking the power and replacing the role of the State you have today.

>>131196942
>I don't own your TV if I steal it from you.

Yes you do dumbass. There isn't some omniscient principle governing property rights, it's enforcement that ensures your property is yours. In a system with no government, no courts and no laws, the only thing making your property yours is direct force enacting it as such.

>>131197259
There's no need to pretend some random people are legitimate in doing what no one else is legitimate in doing, which is violently subjugating and stealing from people. None whatsoever.

>>131195384
>If the court rules in your favor, big burly guys are probably going to be viewed by people as reasonably talking to Jim and asking him to give the TV back, and going in to take the TV if Jim is still an ass.

isn't there a huge risk of injustices here? Even in a semi-big city it's impossible to monitor how the courts rule and how these burly guys act. If some guys come and take my neighbors TV, I won't most likely be in a position to determine whether this act is just or unjust.

In addition, some Proudhonian socialist courts could see the TV thief as acting justly, because "PROPERTY IS THEFT hurr durr." Or, in a situation where half of the population sees healthcare as a human right, we'd be in an impasse.

>That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. It's what happens now except with some crazy religious reverence of government combined with the state being aggressively violent and extortionary.

Someone equipped with the authority to take your TV is capable of being quite aggressively violent and extortionary himself. Maybe the court made a mistake in declaring you guilty, but merely by deeming you as a thief, they assume themselves the authority to take your TV.
Furthermore, the justice system needs to use force somethimes, for people are not always reasonable

>>131197283
>Yes you do
That's nonsense. Relativistic nonsense. If you really believed that then you can't even talk about property, because property means nothing to you in the first place.

>>131197400
Jesus Christ everyone knows taxation is theft and shit but the point is that infringement's alternative is worse.

>>131197588
How the fuck is that relativistic? If you take something and nobody does anything about it, then it's yours. Everything you fucking own was somebody elses' in the first place.

Do you have any idea how many people you would need to kill in an anarchic system in order to keep your property?

>>131197588
>literal relativist view on property
>labeling others "relativist" for pointing out the only thing protecting property is the threat of violence from the government or yourself

you have to be trolling or stupid as fuck not to realize your own projection

>>131197428
>isn't there a huge risk of injustices here?
Not worse than what happens now. Since private courts don't have a monopoly they can't act with impunity or they'll eventually in all probability face backlash. Which is never something governments have to worry about - they can send people to prison for life for nothing and no one will ever be fired or punished or even known about because people have no recourse against state goons.

>In addition, some Proudhonian socialist courts
Yeah - some people are crazy. I'm advocating non-craziness everywhere, but I don't expect it. Nobody is arguing for a utopia here.

>Someone equipped with the authority
I think authority tends to be a buzzword. I'm not sure what you mean by it given how you're using the term. It's very possible for people to be wrong, but again read the first bit of this post.

>>131197950
>Jesus Christ everyone knows
No. That's is utterly wrong.

>If you take something and nobody does anything about it, then it's yours
NO. If I steal your TV, it's still YOUR TV. It's not MY TV - it's why I'm said to have stolen YOUR TV.

>>131176181
> Nuke the city so that the land is totally worthless to the invaders and all their time, money and effort spent has been completely wasted.

No suprise a commie has low time preference, btw what will happen in the theoretical communist society?

Since their guns will be taken by the state if they are indeed so lucky as to actually be able to abolish their state for true communism™ before it cucks them like Stalin. And of course commies don't actually believe in borders either as we've seen. Huh.

>>131197400

Do you accept that this would eventually happen in an anarchist society or not?

>>131198062
I base my understanding of property on how God treats property in the Bible. I don't see how you get more objective than God.

>>131173562
I can secure my own borders with landmines and MG nests. It's not really any of my business to force other people to not allow whoever they want to go on their property. I can socially and financially ostracize them but can't force them.

>>131198281
>making shitposting this elaborate

get a fucking life lol

>>131173562
>"I don't care if you niggers can afford it, I don't want you on my property. Trespassers will be shot btw"

Problem solved.

>>131198233
No - why would I? It could, but anything *COULD* happen. You could die in the next moment from a meteor landing on your skull. Acknowledging logical possibilities is trivial, and distinguishing between what's necessary and what's simply possible is logically imperative.

>>131198451
you really made me think

>>131173562
> in case of invaders
Everyone should have weapons and training in an ancap society
>in case of migration by not having gibs. There would be no way to stop low skilled labour other than explotation.

>>131198174
>NO. If I steal your TV, it's still YOUR TV. It's not MY TV - it's why I'm said to have stolen YOUR TV.

BUT IT'S NOT IN MY FUCKING HOUSE ANYMORE NIGGER, I DON'T OWN IT IN ABSENTIA WHEN I'M ROTTING IN THE GROUND AND YOU'RE WATCHING RERUNS OF THE MOTHERFUCKING RIFLEMAN.

>>131198891
>BUT IT'S NOT IN MY FUCKING HOUSE ANYMORE NIGGER
YOU'RE RIGHT - BUT IT'S STILL YOURS!
WEW
LAD

>>131198484

Then how come every anarchist society in human history has been swallowed whole by whatever statist society was in their vicinity or has not survived at all on its own whatsoever? That alone should be evidence enough that this will end up happening.

How would you go about start an anarchist society today?

>>131173562

Honestly people need to have a reason to be there and if it sounds like they're not taking responsibility for their culture then tell them to go back and figure out their own country before running away. If they want to live in the benefits of modern intellectual/technological society then they should try to implement European ideals into their own land. Literally farm some bananas in Brownville and stick with atheism. If they're a good shitskin they would go to the heavily regulated roads anyways and still have a decent chance.

>>131173734
"et us again use an example to make our thesis clear. To use Ludwig
von Mises's excellent device for abstracting from emotionalism, let us
take a hypothetical country, "Ruritania." Let us say that Ruritania is ruled
by a king who has grievously invaded the rights of persons and the
legitimate property of individuals, and has regulated and finally seized
their property. A libertarian movement develops in Ruritania, and comes
to persuade the bulk of the populace that this criminal system should be
replaced by a truly libertarian society, where the rights of each man to
his person and his found and created property are fully respected. The
king, seeing the revolt to be imminently successful, now employs a
cunning stratagem. He proclaims his government to be dissolved, but
just before doing so he arbitrarily parcels out the entire land area of his
kingdom to the "ownership" of himself and his relatives. He then goes
to the libertarian rebels and says: "all right, I have granted your wish,
and have dissolved my rule; there is now no more violent intervention
in private property. However, myself and my eleven relatives now each
own one-twelfth of Ruritania, and if you disturb us in this ownership in
any way, you shall be infringing upon the sanctity of the very fundamental
principle that you profess: the inviolability of private property. Therefore,
while we shall no longer be imposing 'taxes,' you must grant each of us the right to impose any 'rents' that we may wish upon our 'tenantsrlor to
regulate the lives of all the people who presume to live on 'our' property
as we see fit. In this way, taxes shall be fully replaced by 'private rents'!"
Now what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert
challenge? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this subter-
fuge, and resign themselves to living under a regime no less despotic than
the one they had been battling for so long.....

>>131199001
It's still mine about as much as your mother's hymen was still hers after that football team gangbang in eighth grade.

>>131173734
>>131199281
Perhaps, indeed, more despotic,
for now the king and his relatives can claim for themselves the libertar-
ians' very principle of the absolute right of private property, an absolute-
ness which they might not have dared to claim before.
It should be clear that for the libertarians to refute this stratagem
they must take their stand on a theory of just versus unjust property;
they cannot remain utilitarians. They would then say to the king: "We
are sorry, but we only recognize private property claims that are just-
that emanate from an individual's fundamental natural right to own
himself and the property which he has either transformed by his energy
or which has been voluntarily given or bequeathed to him by such
transformers. We do not, in short, recognize anyone's right to any given
piece of property purely on his or anyone else's arbitrary say-so that it is
his own. There can be no natural moral right derivable from a man's
arbitrary claim that any property is his. Therefore, we claim the right to
expropriate the 'private' property of you and your relations, and to return
that property to the individual owners against whom you aggressed by
imposing your illegitimate claim."
One corollary that flows from this discussion is of vital importance
for a theory of liberty. This is that, in the deepest sense, all property is
"pri~ate."~ For all property belongs to, is controlled by, some individual
persons or groups of persons. If B stole a watch from A, then the watch
was B's private "propertyn-was under his control and de facto owner-
ship-so long as he was allowed to possess and use it. Therefore, whether
the watch was in the hands of A or B, it was in private hands-in some
cases, legitimate-private, in others criminal-private, but private just the
same.
As we shall see further below, the same holds for individuals
forming themselves into any sort of group. Thus, when they formed the
government...

>>131199256
I neither know nor care what has been or not been the case. It's morally wrong to use violence and threats of violence against people to try to force them to obey your arbitrary whims. That's simply the case. It's so abundantly obviously the case it's ridiculous that I even need to reiterate it.

>>131173734
>>131199559
the king and his relatives controlled-and therefore at least
partially "owned-the property of the persons against whom they were
aggressing. When they parcelled out the land into the "private" property of
each, they again shared in owning the country, though in formally different
ways. The form of private property differed in the two cases, but not the
essence. Thus, the crucial question in society is not, as so many believe,
whether property should be private or governmental, but rather whether
the necessarily "private" owners are legitimate owners or criminals. For,
ultimately, there is no entity called "government"; there are only people
forming themselves into goups called "governments" and acting in a "gov-
ernmental" manner.6 All property is therefore always "private"; the only
and critical question is whether it should reside in the hands of criminals
or of the proper and legitimate owners. There is really only one reason
for libertarians to oppose the formation of governmental property or to
call for its divestment: the realization that the rulers of government are
unjust and criminal owners of such property."

>>131199673
>It's morally wrong to use violence and threats of violence against people to try to force them to obey your arbitrary whims.

Then how do you intend to stop someone from taking your property?

>>131199312
Then why do we still talk about it as your TV?
Why do we say "Tyrone stole Jayquan's crack", and not "Tyrone stole Tyrone's crack"? We have these distinctions in language that represent states of affairs that are meaningless in your fairy world of non-existent property.

>>131199825
I don't. I'm a Christian. I believe everyone is inevitably judged by God for their sins. Wanna take my stuff? That's on you. I don't envy you if you do it.

>>131199828
Because that's the past-tense context you dumb son of a bitch. Take an English class.

>>131199312
I think what you're not understanding is that the "might makes right" argument renders the concept of property meaningless, beyond merely describing which person the item in question happens to be near at that moment.

"Mine" and "yours" are concepts that necessarily invoke ethics. You can't wave that away without undermining the rest of your ethical system.

>>131199996
We don't talk about Tyrone's crack. We talk about Jayquan's stolen crack. In the present, Tyrone is in possession of Jayquan's crack. There is a SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE between possession and fucking property, Jesus Christ.

>>131189139
Exactly, I two eyes for an eye at most.

>>131199969
Then an anarchist society would literally kill you because everybody would take everything from you including your life, and all you'd have in response is a finger-wagging "shame on you you're going to hell".

Okay, say that's true, there is still no possible societal model you could create that would send the most people to hell any faster than anarchism.

File: 1494807432524.png (487KB, 1000x1083px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1000x1083px

>>131189295
> I agree that society rises spontaneously

> that's why we need gubmint to build society

>>131200012
Yes, it does, which is exactly why a system that is predicated on someone not breaking the ethical guidelines and overturning the entire thing by making might mean right will always fail.

>>131200297
>everybody would take everything from you including your life
No. If government stopped existing tomorrow, where I live would still be just as full of rural God-fearing Christians as it is today. Government doesn't stop anyone from anything in the first place - it's why upwards of 99% of all violent crimes and thefts either go unanswered or else are answered after the deed is already done. You're a bootlicking mong.

>>131199673

Well you should care because what this means is that anarchism, as I said in my first post is a meme and can never be implemented anywhere.

>try to force them to obey your arbitrary whims.

The likelihood of "arbitrary whims" is incredibly reduced under a state compared to a Corleone.

Is it wrong to use violence against a murderer?

>>131173562
It's simple really.
Most people hate niggers.
The kind of people who would be prosperous in a limited or no government society would want to make their property more valuable and darkies are bad for business. You know the reason we have niggers so integrated in America is because the STATE forces you to associate with them right?

>>131198174
Damn, I wasn't aware your kind were this retarded.

>>131200617
No. That's not the case.
Anarchism instantiates the moment some random violent goons are held as random goons and not magically specially legitimate goons. People see the mafia as illegitimate, and that limits the scope of the mafia by itself.

>>131200743
>possession = property
You're a special kind of stupid to unironically think you believe that. Think about it for more than a millisecond.

>>131200542
>No. If government stopped existing tomorrow, where I live would still be just as full of rural God-fearing Christians as it is today.

Okay, let's assume your community has a 0% crime rating and everyone is a perfect angel who would never do wrong. How the fuck is that going to stop some South American cartel from sweeping across the country and pillaging whatever the fuck they want from you? How does that stop some Chinese oil baron forcibly evicting you from the land so he can mine it for all it's worth? How does that stop an organized jihad from invading and beheading you for following the wrong religion?

Answer, it doesn't. Any ideology that requires everyone to act the same way WILL fail.

>>131200507
The NAP does not require niggers to adhere to it, it merely gives moral justification for defense.
White people do not go around murdering each other like niggers do.

A state does not stop people from murdering you and taking your shit. The state does that already anyways.

File: 1492480490928.jpg (83KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 960x960px

>>131173562
Next time you consider asking a question about what would happen in ancapistan ask yourself this. Is it possible the answer could be "the same way as usual, just voluntarily funded"? If so refrain from making the thread.

>>131201110
He who strikes first will be the victor. The NAP doesn't work on a personal level, not if someone doesn't care about violating it.

>>131198094
i think my proudhon/healthcare point is the strongest of the ones I provided. The fact is that most people legitimately believe that they're owed something by other people, or they adopt these positions just for self-interest. Private courts in a fisher village (or whatever) are totally different from private courts in a postmodernist booby-hatch; the attitudinal plurality is too overwhelming. The free market's "judicial branch" would presumably be pretty far from NAP and Lockean homesteading principles. Not having a law everybody must adhere to makes going about your life very unpredictable, and dealing with strifes is hard if you fundamentally can't agree who should get to rule on the disagreement

>>131201034
In what fairy world does that happen? That doesn't even happen in fucking Mexico where their government HELPS the fucking cartels.

>>131200617
The state is nothing but arbitrary whims.

"Or-and this has a long and honorable tradition in older Western law-the victim or his heir could allow the criminal to buy his way out of part or all of his punishment. Thus, if proportionality allowed the victim to send the criminal to jail for ten years, the criminal could, if the victim wished, pay the victim to reduce
or eliminate this sentence. The proportionality theory only supplies the upper bound to punishment-since it tells us how much punishment a victim
may rightfully impose. A problem might arise in the case of murder-since a victim's heirs might prove less than diligent in pursuing the murderer, or be unduly in-clined to let the murderer buy his way out of punishment. This problem
could be taken care of simply by people stating in their wills what pun-ishment they should like to inflict on their possible murderers. The believer in strict retribution, as well as the Tolstoyan opponent of all punishment, could then have their wishes precisely carried out. The deceased, indeed, could provide in his will for, say, a crime insurance company to which he subscribes to be the prosecutor of his possible murderer.
If, then, proportionality sets the upper bound to punishment, how may we establish proportionality itself? The first point is that the emphasis in punishment must be not on paying one's debt to"society," whatever that may mean, but in paying one's "debt" to the victim. Certainly, the initial part of that debt is restitution. This works clearly in cases of theft. If A has stolen $15,000 from B, then the first, or initial, part of A's punishment
must be to restore that $15,000 to the hands of B (plus damages, judicial and police costs, and interest foregone).

Suppose that, as in most cases,
the thief has already spent the money. In that case, the first step of proper libertarian punishment is to force the thief to work..."

>>131201364
I don't think that's a very compelling point, because it's just saying that people can have different opinions. Yes - people can. That's a trivial acknowledgment that doesn't detract anything from what I'm advocating.

>>131200366
you obviously didn't understand what I meant

>>131201273
Inevitably, that's the nature of force. How does a state change this though?

The NAP is literally designed so that you can morally justified in defending yourself against people who don't care about violating it. It doesn't matter if someone believes in morality or not, you can shoot them just the same. It's actually harder to defend yourself from niggers with a state.

>>131200617
"and to allocate the ensuing income to the victim until the victim has been repaid. The ideal situation, then, puts the criminal frankly into a state of enslavement to his victim, the criminal continuing in that condition of just slavery until he has redressed the grievance of the man he has wronged.
We must note that the emphasis of restitution-punishment is dia-
metrically opposite to the current practice of punishment.*
*

. Significantly, the only exception to the prohibition of involuntary servitude in the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the "enslavement" of criminals: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

>>131176963
Hello tripfag, aren't you a philfag? Is that why you're unemployed and spend this much time on this shit?

>>131200879

It makes no difference as long as they already have the power. I'm pretty sure most people today would agree with a minarchist state but that doesn't limit the scope of the state at all.

Anyway, do you think you should be allowed to use violence against a murderer in anarchist society?

>>131201034

basically this

>>131201713
Yep. Nope. I like arguing. I actively enjoy it. It's satisfying to me while it's frustrating for other people. I love it.

>>131201923
>crypto-gommie
>arguments
Pick one

>>131173562
>when you finally have your new ancap state so someone buys a bunch of land and establishes borders, then lets people live on his land and makes them pay taxes and follow rules and, oh shit, he started a state and it's no longer anarchist

>>131201899
If people don't comply with your demands you have less capability to have things done by other people.
That's blatantly obviously the case.

>>131201980
>commie
kek
says a collectivist helicopter shitter

>>131201982
Micro states would inevitably exist. People would voluntarily subject themselves to rulers like a sort of feudalism. The difference is that it's voluntary at the very least initially.

>>131201571
A state can take acceptable losses and retaliate.

>>131201899
Just completely ignore the literature, I love it.

Tl; dr yes violence can be justified, it must be proportional i.e violence greater than the 'two eyes for an eye,' rule is too harsh and is thus itself a violation of the NAP and *may* bring criminal charges against itself.

Their are already precedents for things like 'being blinded by passion,' which, though leading to an immoral over zealous use of force in self defence, may be permissible in a private court.

>>131202060

Yes. But they will comply or they will get their legs broken by Corleone's minions. So it's irrelevant what they think about issues of legitimacy.

Anyway, you already said that before, but you didn't answer the question. This is getting tiresome.

File: 1486556433448.jpg (42KB, 326x236px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 326x236px

>>131201370
>in what fairy world do people violate the lives of others and commit crime

>>131201486
It detracts from your argument because if someone doesn't believe as you do, that causes your way of life to be destroyed.

>>131202553
People tend to fight against people who use violence against them that they don't hold as legitimate. That's historically the case.

You're effectively just saying "people who can force people to do things can force people to do things". No shit retard - brilliant observation.

>>131202897
>You're effectively just saying "people who can force people to do things can force people to do things". No shit retard - brilliant observation.

It's an observation that destroys the concept of a peaceful anarchist society.

File: ancapreality.jpg (128KB, 634x390px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 634x390px

>>131173734
>>131198231
>>131198428

This pic is a good reminder what an ancap society looks like...

You have the extremes of socialism, the extremely anarchy.

People haven't figured out yet that the US system is actually the greatest in the world, it's simply has the problem of it's own leaders exploiting and destroying for their own greed rather than evolving the foundation for the better welfare of the citizens.

>>131203002
No society is peaceful. A state makes it harder to legitimize and implement self defense.

The state is NOT your friend and it never was. It is the reason (((they))) have any power here at all and why the words "freedom" and"liberty" are just words in America.

>>131203002
No. It really doesn't. If I'm on an island with one other person, we can get along. If you add another person, we can still get along.

You can keep adding a person one at a time, infinitely, and at no point does it magically become the case that it's impossible that people not use violence against one another to force them to obey their stupid shitty arbitrary meaningless whims.

>>131201486
It's not trivial since we can't solve disputes without being bound to a common framework of justice. What the state does is that it says, "this case can't be solved between you guys? fine. we have a rulebook ready." In an entirely voluntary society, there's no-one who actually is in a position to conclude whether I am in the right for demanding free healthcare or are my calls just lip

>>131199001
The only person who recognizes his ownership of the property is himself. Without others to validate his claim, the TV is no longer his. So, stealing a TV does transfer ownership of it if the theft is successful.

>>131203148
>the U.S.A is the best and statism rocks
>it simply has the problem of statism
Really activates the almonds.

>>131203231
>It's not trivial since we can't solve disputes without being bound to a common framework of justice
You only need a commonality amongst people who have relations with on another. You're not likely to have justice relations with commies if you're not a commie and hate commies, because you're going to stay the fuck away from commie-land.

>>131173734
This won't ever work in an ancap ideal society. The people surrounded by the guy could just kill him because that would clearly be limiting their personal freedom

>>131201444

>The state is nothing but arbitrary whims.

You could look at it that way but that's wrong because the word "whim" is associated with a sudden desire for something, and the state has a whole set of laws and mechanisms that pretty much work against the notion of "whims" while a gangster society has no mechanism to work against the "whims" of Corleone. Corleone will say he wants his minions to break your legs and he doesn't have to take his proposal to Senate or whatever. That's why it's not a "whim". You understand that when you open with this silly proposition, makes it hard for me to take whatever you have to say next seriously specially when it's a quote from God knows where. Anyway your notion of when violence can and can not be used >>131202537 could be considered as a "whim" by your own definition, not to say the notion of private courts is ridiculous by itself, maybe Don Corleone has his own private court and in order to be a judge there you have to kiss his ring first.

>>131203243
>The only person who recognizes his ownership of the property is himself
No. God governs justice.
>"B-but I don't believe that!"
I really really don't care.

>>131173562
>implying ancap wants to secure borders
Ancap is bunch of migrants.

>>131203301

Without some form of statism you wouldn't have the internet likely.

I don't understand why you ancaps are so hell bent on destroying the entire system.

Just move your sorry asses into a nigger city like Gary, Indiana or South Chicago. The government doesn't regulate these places much...

>>131200135
Because you have context to recognize it as Jayqan's crack. You realize it is Jayqan's property that was stolen. Yet, this doesn't stop Tyrone from claiming it as his own crack and using it. It could even become Tyrone's crack if enough people agree that it belongs to him now.

>>131203538
The government is what is preventing us from carpet bombing nigger cities and starting over.

Computer networking was invented by private individuals. The first implementation of it may have been invented by the U.S government but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have happened privately. Every common protocol was invented by private individuals.

>>131203538
>Without some form of statism you wouldn't have the internet
On what grounds do you believe that?
http://tomwoods.com/ep-333-could-there-have-been-an-internet-without-the-state/

>>131203680
>this doesn't stop Tyrone from claiming it as his own crack and using it
Right, just like you owning your television doesn't magically impose a metaphysical barrier that prevents me from walking into your home and using it without your permission.

>It could even become Tyrone's crack if enough people agree that it belongs to him now
No. It couldn't.

>>131203182
>A state makes it harder to legitimize and implement self defense.

Except the US has the second amendment and stand your ground laws.

>The state is NOT your friend and it never was.

Can you actually point to a time in human history where the state did not exist?

I think you're confusing a state itself with your idea of one.

>>131203215
>No. It really doesn't. If I'm on an island with one other person, we can get along. If you add another person, we can still get along.

Except if you get into a disagreement or one of them is just an asshole who doesn't care about what you think.

>You can keep adding a person one at a time, infinitely, and at no point does it magically become the case that it's impossible that people not use violence against one another to force them to obey their stupid shitty arbitrary meaningless whims.

Once you've personally known about 250 people the human mind has a steep dropoff point for empathy and it becomes impossible to regard anyone over that tally as a friend in any meaningful way.

Also if your supposition was true then every single state would exist in perfect harmony, but what you don't understand is that governments are made up of people.

>>131203454
The thief also doesn't care, which is why he'll rape your wife and kill your kids before taking the TV.

>>131203454
>No. God governs justice
So, by your logic if God governs justice no man can punish another and enforce justice? Meaning we should have no laws because God will surely punish the evil doers? Is that what you're saying?

>>131202897

No, they tend to kiss the ring if they don't see a way out.

>You're effectively just saying "people who can force people to do things can force people to do things". No shit retard - brilliant observation.

No, what I'm doing is asking you a question for 2 hours and you keep dodging it. Because you know whatever answer you provide you get to an ideological hole that shows the absurdity of your ideology.

Also that's not what I'm saying at all. You are the one who keeps twisting and doing mental gymnastics instead of speaking frankly and directly. All you're doing is convincing me that every anarchist is just some sort of bored elaborate troll who likes to argue over nothing.

I asked you how would you implement an anarchist society and if you think murderers should be violently punished in anarchist society and all you do is give me some vague sentences pointing at something else.

You're not entirely wrong in your conclusion but the way you squirm to lead the conversation the direction you want it to go should be an indication that there's something fundamentally flawed with your ideology. But yes, if you have the Islamic state and the DeusVult state as the only two countries in the world bordering your Anarchist state, what the fuck are you going to do?

>>131173562
Shitskins wouldn't last two seconds in an ancap society. Remember, NO WELFARE.

>>131204078
>Except if you get into a disagreement
We need never get into a disagreement.
Disagreeing is not a logically necessary thing.
LOGIC BRUH.

>>131204172
I don't care what the thief thinks. He'll burn in hell if he doesn't correct himself - not my problem.

>>131204172
It's okay. God will surely punish him! What is earth compared to the kingdom of heaven anyway? Let it burn, DEUS VULT.

>>131203148
> The US system
> The one founded on the principles of libertarianism.

>>131203148
Almost forgot,but that wasn't an argument, it didn't even have anything to do with what I posted you fucking dolt.

>>131204198
Men can punish one another. They're incapable of enforcing justice - only God can enforce justice.

God's Law is Law. Men are bound by it.

>>131203352
we can cogitate what kind of structures our societies would consist of had the state been absent from the start, but right now we have nothing nearly as partitioned as what you're describing. Withal, if have little Africa few blocks away from you, the changes are that you'll get a taste of that sweet cultural affluence eventually/every now and then

>>131204078
And who's ruining the second amendment you retard? Oh right it's the U.S government.
>Can you actually point to a time in human history where the state did not exist?
Every single time before there was a state? Humans were around for 600,000 years lad. Government wasn't around for more than 10,000 years. I don't even necessarily oppose government, just strong government.
>>131204172
People do this regardless of whether there is a state or not. Irrelevant point.

>>131204224
Some do. So?

>I asked you how would you implement an anarchist society
I've answered this dipshit. I don't want to implement *ANYTHING*.

>>131204274
Are you actually telling me that disagreement isn't something that is a part of human nature?

>Hey dude can I fuck your wife
>Uh, no sorry
>I think I'm going to do it anyway, she's hot

How do you resolve this?

>>131203866
American government is a private institution, public doesn't decides anything, public only hires the private company government on election day. Even American army is private army full of Mexicans and nigges, how is that not obvious they are mercenaries private army? If government was public owned then they would say "we don't want niggers" and they would neve exist in white town.

>>131204326
Well it's kind of your problem because now you've got a raped wife and no kids.

>>131204666
We actually do. States in the United States tend to have far more different cultures than your entire country compared with the surrounding ones. If states push nullification and succession - which I think is actually feasible - then what you'll get is people moving where their ideologies lie over time.

>>131204742

Yea you don't wanna do shit, you just want to pretend you have the moral highground and that problems don't exist.

This is why anarchism is nothing more than a silly meme. My suggestion is that you should have answered the murderer question with a "hmm I dunno man I just wanna be cool you know man" so we could at least laugh a little bit at this pointless discussion.

>>131204743
You can't tell me what human nature is. If no philosopher has managed anything remotely interesting in regard to that dead subject, I really REALLY doubt you have anything significantly groundbreaking to contribute.

>>131204824
No, it's not. It's his problem, because it's his sin. I'm not judged for his fuck up. What happens in this damnable world I just couldn't give less of a shit about.

>>131205151
>pretend problems don't exist
So I think the state isn't a problem as an anarchist? Wew lad.

>>131204683
>And who's ruining the second amendment you retard? Oh right it's the U.S government.

Gun control is the most losing issue in US politics.

>Every single time before there was a state? Humans were around for 600,000 years lad.

Protip, any group of humans is a state because any time humans exist in a group they form hierarchies with preferred and disincentivised behaviors.

>People do this regardless of whether there is a state or not. Irrelevant point.

And in a state he can actually be caught and punished, thus stopping that behavior in the future.

>>131204743

When you tell him that you gonna rape his wife he'll be like "well human nature says you can't"

Anarchists are top memesters

>>131205404
>And in a state he can actually be caught and punished
Is there some magical force that prevents people from physically acting in the world if there aren't random goons around who pretend they have super special unique legitimacy in doing exactly what it is a person would want to do?

>>131205219
You don't care that your wife got raped and that not only have you lost your children but you now need to raise the child of the one that took yours from you? Say it with me... C U C K

>>131205219
>You can't tell me what human nature is.

That's not answering the question, if someone wants to do something and you oppose it how do you stop it?

For example if I want a state and I want you to live in that state how do you stop me without violence? You can say "Oh maybe I'll just move", but then I can just say "Everywhere that exists is my state".

Your entire argument is illegitimate based on the fact that you currently reside in a state and do as it says because if you don't the enactment of force will crack down on your misbehavior and make you comply.

>What happens in this damnable world I just couldn't give less of a shit about.

Which is exactly why you're advocating for an ideology that cannot work.

File: putinCat.jpg (299KB, 1395x1040px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1395x1040px

>>131205665

This guy's cat wanders into your chicken coop. wwyd?

[A] Ask your neighbour if he thinks this is a violation of the NAP
[B] Say "sorry Putin my chickens didn't lay eggs today please don't nuke me"
[C] Challenge him to a Judo match

>>131203866

Idiots like you are no different than leftists who believe they will rise to power once their socialist leaders claim absolutely authority.

>>131203393
When it comes to the states whims it would depend on the state. A dictatorship is the whim of the dictator, a democracy is the whim of the mob. I'll admit the US has countered these a little but it is not enough based solely on the founding fathers libertarian principles, hence the bloated government we have today.

All quotes are from the 'ethics of liberty,' but I knew if I pointed that out the OP would just dismiss it as jew propoganda, despite the author being anti zionist and pro 'the confederate states.'

Free pdf:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Rothbard%2520(Murray)%2520-%2520The%2520Ethics%2520of%2520Liberty.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjPtZacutfUAhXqAMAKHaqnBWYQFggtMAI&usg=AFQjCNEqS62MSk3bs44ToN7cVREV0uDz0Q
Pages are 54 and 85.

I disagree that it's a whim because it stems from natural law philosophy.

Perhaps Corleone does, there's nothing wrong with tradition or prestige in a system, it's one thing I like about the UK.

>>131203507
Boy not a lot of evidence here.

Get fucked.

>>131205781
No. I don't care.
Job had a weaker will than me.

>>131205882
Your fucking question was
>Are you actually telling me that disagreement isn't something that is a part of human nature
dipshit. Why don't you tell us all what "human nature" is? Enlighten us with your intelligence bro.

>>131204413

The system collapsed. The civil war broke out and the old USA ceased to exist.

What makes you think you won't be my nigger locked in a cage if the U.S. went ancap?

>>131205404
>Gun control is the most losing issue in US politics.
And yet every year they take more gun rights away, little by little, give them an inch and they take a mile. Without a state, there is no one to tell me what guns I can and cannot own. Any form of gun control completely contradicts the purpose of the second amendment.
>Protip, any group of humans is a state because any time humans exist in a group they form hierarchies with preferred and disincentivised behaviors.
You have absolutely no idea what a state is. A state isn't voluntary. If you didn't like the tribe chieftain you could take your woman and fuck off to some other part of the world and start a new tribe. That's basically why human populations are all over the planet.
>And in a state he can actually be caught and punished, thus stopping that behavior in the future.
A state prevents you from doing that yourself, which is what was done for most of human history.
>>131206009
>when you have no argument
The NAP doesn't apply to non-whites.

File: 1481840058340.png (644KB, 946x502px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 946x502px

So, from what I've read in this thread. What's proposed with ANCAP is that we would be basically devolving to -2500 B.C.

The strongest tribe takes over the weaker ones, takes their women, and gets stronger. That's what it boils down to. No rule of law = no consequences for invaders' actions. You're basically in Africa with a bunch of Warlords competing for resources.

Great fucking idea... You fail to realize what man is capable of in his conscious/personality.

>>131205665
The magical force IS the goons. The goons are always present, a constant reminder that if you act out of conduct you can and will be fucked up. That is the point of a state, to make people play by the rules.

Also your question is funny because the alternate answer would be god. This is why there is no such thing as devout christian anarchism.

>>131206281

> And yet every year they take more gun rights away

They just legalized concealed carry in many US states.

What fuckin country do you live in? France?

>>131205987
I slaughter the cat because it's not a human and morality doesn't apply to it.
In the same way a farmer can't bitch when he doesn't put up a fence and his cows wander into someone's driveway and get hit by the owner rounding the bend, you don't have legitimate grounds to bitch if your pet kills my chickens and I kill it on my own property.

>>131203538
> The Internet was developed by scientists to better understand and compare data.

> No one would ever look at that and think: "Huh, I could make some money out if that."

Because the system is evil, it actually does enslave you.

Those "Nigger cities," are where big government is at its worst. Dozens of years of democrat big gov rule, it's just a coinkydink right?

>>131206281

Lets be honest, how many guy fawkes masks do you own?

>>131206323
No. I couldn't care less about the goons. The fact that you do is pretty pathetic desu baka senpai.
>implying I care about random rules goons make up

God judges people after their miserable corpses expire. He doesn't put up barriers to people's activities in the world. There is no such barrier.

>>131206171
>Why don't you tell us all what "human nature" is? Enlighten us with your intelligence bro.

Well we can probably identify at least one facet of human nature based on the fact that every group of humans in history has organized itself in a hierarchical state with rules of conduct.

But seriously if I want to bend you over a termite mound and spank your ass until you call me daddy what part of your anarchism will prevent that from happening?

>>131204996
>States in the United States tend to have far more different cultures than your entire country compared with the surrounding ones

lol not true by any means. every state has the same consumerist hollywood culture. don't kid yourself that you're living in 1700s

>>131206456
They are throwing the good goys some bones.
Why ignore the fact that we need to register our guns in a government database.
>They just legalized concealed carry in many US states.
And they just banned private sales in my state.
>>131206656
>when you have no argument so you insult him instead
Really makes me think.

>>131206524

> Because the system is evil

The move to Africa and claim absolute freedom you silly low iq butt hurt.

>>131206820

> They are throwing the good goys some bones.

> the good ones

Confirmed felon.

Just imagine, in an ancap society you'd be hung by a tree.

>>131206782
>every group of humans in history has organized itself in a hierarchical state with rules of conduct
Except that's not true.
How many people is a group? What constitutes "rules of conduct"? If you're not going to water down those concepts to mean effectively nothing or else be a completely arbitrary number I'd be impressed, but I won't hold my breath.

Nothing prevents you from doing anything at all. Cops existing doesn't stop you from doing jack shit - it only imposes things that might happen after the facts.

>>131206281
>A state isn't voluntary.

Yes it is. If you don't want to live in the US for example, why don't you just leave?

>If you didn't like the tribe chieftain you could take your woman and fuck off to some other part of the world and start a new tribe.

First off, no that would not be allowed. Secondly, if it was and you didn't find another state with more people, you'd just end up creating generations of retard babies. Thirdly if you think that's true why don't you just do it right now?

>>131206819
Are you meme'ing me?
Have you ever even been to the U.S.?

>>131206259
Better to die than be a slave. Don't go to sleep bossman.

Also keeping niggers in a cage is a bad way to profit from your niggers. You'd have to put me out to work or the enslavement is moot, financially speaking, if anything I'd cost you money.

>>131206776
I guess you also don't care if you get thrown into a cell or get your face beaten in or if you get executed.

>>131207126
no, but there's no comparison between Europe and USA. Don't be this ignorant

>>131206474
What if a person jumps the fence into your coop and eats all your chickens?

>>131206259
And of course, since slavery violates the NAP, I'm morally justified in killing you to escape bondage.

>>131207255
Yep.
I'd happily be a martyr.

>>131207309
You really know nothing about the states if you unironically think Finland and Norway are more different from one another than California and Alabama.

>>131207374
Neat.

File: YILn042.png (86KB, 488x384px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 488x384px

>>131207203

Your projections are showing your true colors.

;)

File: 5261c76e91539222544fd0a66c8b9e630af963dad02282bcc97b414253d789b1_1.jpg (46KB, 630x672px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 630x672px

>>131207474

>>131173562

From a realistic perspective, ancap society would be powerless to stop immigration from any arbitrary country. It would, however, be empowered to stop any crimes committed by those who enter the country. If someone sees the open border as an excuse to victimize the people within, they would not be afforded the same protection that they have been afforded thus far by "tolerant" western countries. If one police-like organization feels it is too racist to pursue a rape gang purely because they are muslims, another may offer their services in getting your children back and punishing the perpetrators.

>>131173734

And he would be powerless to stop planes.

File: usahisball.png (16KB, 578x427px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 578x427px

>>131207478
You really know nothing about Europe if you unironically think California and Alabama are more different from one another than Finland and Norway

>>131173562
Minefield.

>>131173562
What do you mean?

If I want to invite you to my private property and you want to come to my private property, then it's nobody else's fucking business but yours and mine. I invite you and you come, it's called moving.

If you are asking how to keep trespassers out, then again I have no idea what you are talking about. The government doesn't keep trespassers out, pretty sure that right now there isn't an armed police officer standing outside your house keeping thieves out.

>oh but hurr durr they can punish trespassers after the fact

Well, a lot of good does that to me. Great i got to lock a guy who stole some shit from me in a cage, wohoo, right, my life is so much better.

File: you sure.png (210KB, 525x254px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 525x254px

>>131206474

>I slaughter the cat

You sure you want to slaughter his cat?

>>131205404
This is what statist think justice is:

"What happens nowadays is the following absurdity: A steals $15,000 from B. The government tracks down, tries, and convicts A, all at the expense of B, as one of the numerous taxpayers victimized in this process. Then, the government, instead of forcing A to repay B or to work at forced labor until that
debt is paid, forces B, the victim, to pay taxes to support the criminal in prison for ten or twenty years' time. Where in the world is the justice here?
The victim not only loses his money, but pays more money besides for the dubious thrill of catching, convicting, and then supporting the criminal; and the criminal is still enslaved, but not to the good purpose of recompensing his victim."

How is this just?

File: 1479607342708.jpg (3KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x125px

>>131207681
Cool story bro.
You being wrong only makes me feel more smug.

>>131207079
>Except that's not true.
Except it is.

>How many people is a group?
Equal to or greater than one.

>What constitutes "rules of conduct"?
Do you know what the words "rules", "of", and "conduct" mean? There you do. Like, for example, a religion.

>it only imposes things that might happen after the facts.
Which disincentivizes certain behaviors.

You still haven't answered the question as to how you would prevent me from doing something that you don't want to happen in your anarchist system.

>>131176181
The amount of projection in this post is amazing LOL

because it's usually what happens (minus the nuking) once communist take over the government.

>>131207125
>Yes it is. If you don't want to live in the US for example, why don't you just leave?
Because I have a stake in this place as it is my homeland and I have a duty to my people regardless of the tyranny of the federal government.

>First off, no that would not be allowed.
>laws prevent people from breaking them
Really makes you think.
There would be nothing stopping people from leaving. The chieftain did not have a monopoly on force, and you could always leave at night or something. Saying that that is an impossible situation is retarded. It was certainly more possible than it is now and people are still doing that.
>Secondly, if it was and you didn't find another state with more people, you'd just end up creating generations of retard babies.
You could always take more than two or you could find others. There's a billion different scenarios that could play out.
>Thirdly if you think that's true why don't you just do it right now?
>implying i'm not doing the closest thing

>>131206827
> 154 is low IQ

Nice refutation /s

File: 1497212144934.jpg (41KB, 500x513px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x513px

>>131207829
objectively, I'm right

>>131207478
>Yep.
>I'd happily be a martyr.

Then why don't you rise up to destroy this unjust statist system right now? Clearly it would be justified.

>>131207508
Well boy, I guess you're going to starve to death when the winter comes.

>>131207874
Me and Bob meet one another. We are a number of people greater than one.
We talk about how naturalism is logically retarded, and leave.

Who was rules?
Why is hierarchy?

Jesus. Christ.

I'm not going to prevent you from doing jack shit. Murder and rape and then go to hell - not my problem.

>>131207611
> what is proportionality.

File: ancap_society_problems_by_party9999999-dav8jyq.png (125KB, 640x500px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 640x500px

>>131207894
>>131207956

Don't trailer park mr redbit, we will be archiving this thread for future analyzation.

File: pay-your-fair-share-and-well-maintain-society-for-you-7188824.png (83KB, 500x489px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x489px

>>131208156

File: 1479661576274.png (67KB, 303x386px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 303x386px

>>131207961
nah

>>131207478
>You really know nothing about the states if you unironically think Finland and Norway are more different from one another than California and Alabama.

Yeah because people in Alabama and California speak different languages, right? Pretty hard to find similarities with someone if you can't understand them.

>>131208107

"Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.” ( Mt 5.44 , Lu 6.27 , Lu 6.3 ) “Do not use force against an evil man.” ( Mt 5.39 ) “Do not resist evil with evil.” “Forgive and you will be forgiven.” (Lu 6.37 ) “Do not be anxious about your life.”( Lu 12.22 ) “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Mat 7.12 )

Burn in hell commie fag.

Actual politics discussion on /pol/? Wow

anarcho capitalism is feudalism with extra steps

>>131207579
> Dispose of instead of firing your employees is a waste of bullets ;)

> Slave children, see above

> Voluntary unions are mysteriously absent from moneycorp

>>131208379
Feudalism is great actually.

File: hunter.jpg (423KB, 1411x1007px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1411x1007px

>>131207829

After a thousand Soviet soldiers storm your property and disarm you, this guy enters and says he wants you to bring your wife to his palace next Tuesday so they can bang or else he will take your property and bang your wife. Wwyd?

[A] Do as he says
[B] Tell him this is against the NAP
[C] Tell your anarchist neighbors that someone broke the NAP

File: 0911fe4f621b155eff85491d52ac02809e198ac66aae9a5a1c77d2c4d69e5e5b_1.jpg (40KB, 640x500px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x500px

>>131208381

>>131207826
It isn't. It's not about justice, it's about controlling behavior.

IE, "Person A stole $15,000, got nothing out of it and ruined his life. Don't be person A."

>>131208200
>>131208238
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/refutation

>>131207874
>Which disincentivizes certain behaviors.
And how do you know that's the best way to disincentivizes those bad behaviors?

We never had competition in that area. It's like if only one type of cellphone existed in the world, and you were claiming it's a good phone, does the job.

Well the phone might be good and do the job, but you don't know of any other phones, so who knows what's possible?

>>131208251
They have more similar cultural norms.
>ho dey speakah da different languages!
Yeah they do. Is language your only determinate of differences? Because the nu-male faggot in Cali is more radically different than the Alabama whiskey hick than Sven and Sven when pretend they're all the same populations and look at how they all behave.

>>131173562
No social safety net means no problem with more immigrants. They'd still have to buy the houses they live in and the local militia would be much more entrenched if there was trouble. Wages will still go down due to immigration but they wouldn't be kept artificially high by government regulation so they wouldn't be undercut by as much.

>>131208238
Really? So you can choose not to pay?

That's what your picture implies, that it's voluntary to pay, right?

File: 0f6a38d60e2d565e97937d22128b0253d48ecf82_hq.jpg (42KB, 597x714px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 597x714px

>>131208647
>>131208808

>>131208244

Yea bro there are more differences between California and Alabama than Stockholm and Kiev. Great point. Don't nap me

>>131208868
yeah bro you get it bro

>>131208692
>Is language your only determinate of differences?
well it's a pretty fucking big one.

I mean would you by the same virtue argue claim that texas and mexico have more in common than texas and new york?

Obviously culturally texas and mexico are closer to one another. They border each other, same kind of food etc.

>>131208859
ramblings of a crazy person?

>>131208143
You both used a common language to communicate, with all the given platitudes of that language. If either of you said "hello" or "goodbye", or bothered to look at each other while talking, or allowed one of you to lead the conversation while the other deferred to them, then you followed rules of conduct and established a hierarchy of behavior between yourselves.

Also your example involves a situation that has no productivity and creates nothing, so it doesn't even begin to touch on all of the social bounds that need to be utilized to do any of that.

>I'm not going to prevent you from doing jack shit. Murder and rape and then go to hell - not my problem.

So long as you understand that your anarchist ideals go towards a society that enables more human suffering than anything else and is innately impossible and unsustainable. Also that statement implies that you think every single person working for or as a part of a state will go to hell, which includes you.

File: Ancap_405f4d_6054905.jpg (34KB, 562x504px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 562x504px

>>131209108

>>131209277
Roads are the cornerstone of a free society right fellow goy?

>>131208284
>commie

Nigger what? You're the commie. Red and black is literally the anarcho-communist flag.

>>131209108
On average in recent years, yes I would.
It you didn't count urban cesspits I'd say no, but since we're counting them then I would make that case.

>>131208522
Person A gets a free meal for the next decade of his life and person B foots the bill, along with everyone else.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Rothbard%2520(Murray)%2520-%2520The%2520Ethics%2520of%2520Liberty.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjPtZacutfUAhXqAMAKHaqnBWYQFggtMAI&usg=AFQjCNEqS62MSk3bs44ToN7cVREV0uDz0Q

P93-96, of the book not the pdf itself.

Tl;dr the behavior is not controlled, because if deterrence is the criterion then there would be nothing wrong with public execution for minor Infractions and yet we can all agree, innately, that this is not justice either.

>>131208672
Okay, then leave society and create an anarchistic society.

File: 1497190407972.jpg (50KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 512x512px

>>131208692
the nu-male faggot in Oslo is more radically different than the Lapland booze hick than Chuck and Jared;)

>>131208143

>Murder and rape - not my problem.

If I rape and then murder your wife, would this be against the NAP if I did it outside your property?

>>131209277
Why do you think I don't like roads?

I don't like $100 being taken from me, $90 of that going to a balding middle age bureaucrat, $5 going to the construction company CEO, and $5 going towards building the actual road.

>>131209245
>You both used a common language to communicate
No - I spoke in a language he didn't understand but thought he understood, and he spoke in a language I didn't understand but thought I did, and we both just utterly happenstancially thought we were each talking about the same thing, were seperated by a wall, and both spoke at random, spontaneous intervals that suited our momentary fancies.

>>131173562
Privately hired warlords

>>131209621
Hoooooo got 'em.
Das wrong tho Sven ;)

>>131209638
I don't believe in the NAP. You do you - try not to regret it if you end up in hell bruh.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (145KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1920x1080px

>>131173562
privatize them

privatize everything

>>131209638
Hey it wouldn't be against the NAP if you did it inside your property, he doesn't care.

>>131209722
So you don't exist, is what you're describing.

Yeah that sounds like an anarchist society to me.

File: 411.png (367KB, 680x656px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 680x656px

>>131209667
>>131209336

>>131208859
Primitivist retards aren't even Ancap. Get your fucking memes straight tard.

File: 084.png (298KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 600x512px

>>131209867
>unironically believing in hell

>>131209934
No - what I just described is utterly possible.
That it's inconvenient for your shittily constructed spontaneous "argument" about human nature doesn't make a brute logical possibility less logically possible.

File: 1479887613126.png (568KB, 852x880px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 852x880px

>>131210062
>unironically going to hell

>>131209947
> Parents don't 'own,' their own children.

What an amazing level of strawman you've reached.

>>131209962
just ignore him

pic has a watermark.

File: zqs39yj.png (234KB, 721x736px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 721x736px

>>131209962
>>131209911

>>131209947
When you're really looking forward to the birth of your first child from consensual sex, but your wife ends up going into labor in United States so they take the newborn into their public army to annex Iraq.

Yeah, your scenario is truly worse and is not projection in the least.

File: a08aeb67e56fbf3309a8959317845784898d3cfd9767a318b0558d27d376d881_1.jpg (59KB, 640x500px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x500px

>>131210181
>>131210349

>>131210136
>being a marxist and believing in an afterlife

>>131210246

>too retarded to right click the image and click "save as"

>>131209934
You can violate the NAP by enacting violence against other people who are on you're property. It's almost as if you're misunderstanding on purpose.

>>131199001
holy fuck you're dense. anarchists really are brain damaged morons.

>>131207826

>Life in anarchist society

>A steals from B
>B goes to A property to get justice, asks C for help
>A kills C, B got what the stolen loot back
>As A returns home, D is running away with more stolen loot
>D and B plan to kill A to take all his stuff
>Meanwhile C son converts to Islam and swears vengeance
>A manages to defend from D and B by hiring private mercenary group
>D and B decide to join ISIS
>A is now a puppet for zionist interests
>Foreign agent decides to help A against ISIS
>Eventually they all kill each other and a statist goverment takes over the land

The end

>>131173562

Depends. First of all, why would shitskins come here? They wouldn't get any welfare money in an AnCap society, so the parasite class would stay far away. Any shitskins ok with that would have to compete in the free market with their betters, and probably leave after a while.

If they're invading to conquer us as a people, well - it's not like AnCaps won't have weapons and the ability to resist such a thing. I mean, sure - some advanced army could probably come in and set up shop for a little while - but if every attempt at taxation or confiscation is met with thousands of locals hitting you with sniper fire, you're probably not going to want to stay long.

>>131210136
>i'm going to restrain myself because a illiterate doomsayer preacher said bad people go to hell 2000 years ago

unironic christians should be gassed on spot

>>131210394

>>131210439

> anarchists really are brain damaged morons.

Most are pedos as well

>>131210063
>No - what I just described is utterly possible.

That is completely not possible because neither of you could be having an actual conversation.

>That it's inconvenient for your shittily constructed spontaneous "argument" about human nature doesn't make a brute logical possibility less logically possible.

Nigger the argument is about how if you think anarchism works why do you still live in a state and follow state rules?

>>131210439
> Ancoms whose craniums are so empty they can fill it with God and the state.

>>131173562
Discrimination isnt illegal in ancap land. People can de facto ban foreigners from their institutions. The theory is that society would naturally sort itself into segregated communities, whatever that looks like. Afterall, thats what happened before the 20th century when governments decided that theyre going to aggressively force different cultures and ethnicities to live together at all costs

But realistically it would be done the Hoppean way where property owners in each city effectively make a neo-feudal system

>>131210396
No no no, see it's not violating the NAP because he doesn't care, whether she's on your property or not.

>>131210396

My private courts have legislated that murder and rape is not considered violence as long as they are done inside my property by myself.

File: Wz_Nll_TK.jpg (95KB, 542x557px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 542x557px

>>131210396

File: 1464403645487.jpg (395KB, 1279x1129px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1279x1129px

>>131210729
>arguing about the NAP unironically
Just post memeballs

>>131210729
I'm sure the person getting violated cares, I quoted 'crime insurance' regarding murder in wills somewhere above. Same principle applicable here too.

>>131210868
No they haven't.

>>131210950
>Just post strawmen, that helps.

>>131211440
>>131211531
>>131211673
>3 posts in a row by the same poster

You can answer multiple posts in just one, you know that?
Specially now that the thread is almost dying, no need to bump it

File: 49baa4cf18c2577f40f46e485a7bbb68b84277b0ee4955f111407c6a56edeabd_1.jpg (52KB, 640x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x500px

>>131211440
>>131211531
>>131211673

>>131210950
You all need to get over the idea that there will be trademarks in Ancapistan.

>>131212041
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)

>>131207930
>Because I have a stake in this place as it is my homeland and I have a duty to my people regardless of the tyranny of the federal government.

That's still voluntary. you are making that choice. Which is especially retarded because your state doesn't care for you at all.

>>131211531

Yes they have. They are my private courts, of which I am judge jury and executioner. Feel free to enter a plea if you so desire.

>>131212754
No this Is the sort of ludicrous suggestion you have to resort to. It's like saying the supreme court will burn the entire constitution tomorrow.

Good luck getting business in your court.

>>131213066

Why would my court need "business"?

>>131173562

I'm not sure if you guys understand the difference of anarchy and libertarians. Under anarchy, no one has claims to lands. You own as much land as you can defend. So some "rich" guy can own as much as he can defend. Will he hire an army to defend "his" lands? What is stopping these mercenaries from killing this rich guy and create a coup de tat of sorts? Nothing. In ancap, money gets you things but it is not guaranteed either. Everyone proceeds/trades with caution as is in nature.

How do you get what you want in an ancap society? Rewards and bounties. If you want some asshole killed and you weren't willing or capable of doing it yourself, put up that bounty. No one is forced to claim the bounty, it's free will. It's not like collecting that bounty is easy either, you'd be risking your life many times.

You may ask, how would we even form a border if there were no taxes. We the people don't want to be taxed, doesn't mean we cannot tax foreigners coming to our land. How do we enforce this tax? Bounties. Just because there is no government doesn't mean there can be no agreements among individuals. Individuals can form coalitions, unions and militias. If they are annoyed enough by foreign invaders, they can put up bounties and people from all over will come to do the killings and collect bounties.

>>131213326
You can afford to sit around in a powdered wig all day with a gavel pretending to be a judge but that doesn't mean you are.

>>131213344
>Pretending there's no rebuttals offered to this.
https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

Also the Ruritania quote above.