Reminder that if you don't adhere to anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism,

>>132418092
I don't know shit about economics. One group says this is for the best, another group says the opposite is for the best. Enlighten us.

>>132418092
>what are roads

File: 861372667-quote-the-tolls-for-the-maintenance-of-a-high-road-cannot-with-any-safety-be-made-the-property-of-adam-smith-267441.jpg (63KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 850x400px

How the FUCK will ancaps ever recover?

>>132418580
How is that an argument? That's just an opinion.

>>132418289


>>132418285
Basically, free market economics from the austrian school say that the private sector WILL ALWAYS be more effective, productive. And the state is shit.

Anarcho-capitalism is just libertarianism taken to it's final conclusion with the help of the teaching of the Austrian School.

Any questions?

>>132418092
Also I don't like to insult right-wingers. We should leave that shit for the centrists/liberals/commies.

>>132418092
Then why are the overwhelming majority of economists in the US democrats who lean left?

File: f16e8ece0fa5ce851088e7a111280259.png (85KB, 395x510px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 395x510px

>>132418840
>How is that an argument? That's just an opinion.
Are you dumb? He's saying that there needs to be a strong enough third party (the state) doing it

Also, pretty hilarious that ancaps and libs pretend they read ''basic economics'' but dismiss pivotal snippets of Adam Smith's works for example

>>132418840
But what's the proof of this? Not saying it's wrong, but how is it better? Wouldn't State-controlled policies ensure the average citizens don't get screwed over? What protects the people's interests?

How are legal disputes solved in an anarcho-capitalist society? Who decides what's lawful and what's not?

What currency would be used in an ancap society? If it was a barter economy wouldn't that leave it open to some serious abuses?

>>132418285
Let me explain is simply, then. It's actually a lot less complicated then people think. There are two dominant schools of economic thought:

>Keynasian economics
This is "mainstream" knowledge. All economists employed by banks and countries follows this school. What they believe is that you can optimize the economy and prevent recessions by doing stupid shit like manipulating interests rates and printing more money out of thin air. These are dirty socialists who only exist because they advocate for bigger government, which politicians like.

>Austrian economics
This school advocates that the healthiest action for the economy is to do literally nothing. Everything the government does only hurts growth in the long term, and doing shit like getting rid of recessions (which are a good and healthy part of the business cycle) is fucking retarded. These guys don't get government jobs because they want to get rid of the government, so nobody listens to them.

If you hear any central banker or "economist" on the news, then he's a dirty socialist keynesian.

>>132418092

>You've just gone to jail for reason.

>Instead of a state institution, you've somehow ended up in a private correctional facility.

>Said facility realizes they've no incentive to release or rehabilitate you. They make more money the longer you stay.

>Come up with BS reasons to hold you longer.

>True story BTW

So, be a cuck and chalk it up to the free market.

or

Realize that the market doesn't always have best interests in mind.

>>132419091
Profitable

File: 1497653416248.png (2MB, 5000x7500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x7500px

>>132419228
There's enough empirical evidence for you to see how fuckable the goverment institutions are. Before I go to how good it is, I have to say that the state is very shitty.

Even the USA, the whole pinacle of freedom, is turning into a communist shithole. Trump might turn this around, but you'd need to solve a demographic crisis to achieve that.


Under a free market with no goverment regulation, the better your produce is ( from a private firm ), the better the quality and the lower the price, the mores success you have. This can be applied to anything. If you have a more specific question I'd be happy to answer it but I have to answer some other guys first.


>>132419200
There is nothing in that quote which supports his opinion, therefore it's JUST an opinion. If you can present his argument I'd be happy to answer.

>>132419395
The private society you live in. Anarcho-capitalism is inherently authoritarian, because you are the ruler of your land. If you want to live in a society where niggers are outlawed, nothing's stopping you from that.
Allthough all societies would have one law in common, the NAP ( Non-agression principle ) .

>>132419521
Whatever currency you'd like. The most stable currency would be used thanks to the invisible hand of the free market. Anyway, you should stare all your savings in something that has inherent value, not paper.
>>132419584
Under a state, the free market is a meme.

>>132418840
More (((efficient))) and (((productive))). GDP doesn't take into account what is being produced. Perfect competition assumptions are so off base (perfect information, people know what's good for them, more material wealth = greater human fulfillment ect...).

There's tons of arguments against an-cap/libertarianism and anyone who says " if you don't adhere to anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism, you are too dumb to understand economics." probably just finished an econ 101 course.

File: National Capitalism.jpg (3KB, 250x156px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 250x156px

>>132418092
Become a Natcap anon, learn the truths of politics/economics

File: 1491811190083.jpg (19KB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x358px

>>132418092

>>132419975
Yeah I don't support that argument, but you haven't presented any too.

>>132419521
any private bank would be free to issue its own currency. This is called free banking, and has actually been successfully implemented several times across history.

You might wonder how this could possibly work, since who is the one who keeps the banks from doing irresponsible actions when they fully control the currency? The answer is: the free market. Anyone can issue their own currency. Thus, if you have the choice between a sleazy bank that prints more money and devalues the dollar, or a trusted bank that maintains a non-fiat gold standard, everyone is going to choose the trusted and stable one.

Government control over currency is nothing but a noncompetitive monopoly. Inflation via printing is literally theft, but there's nothing you can do against it because they make any competitor currencies illegal. Why do you think bitcoin is so hated by central authorities?

>>132420088
I only see one wrong line in this:
*all the bad people will be PHYSICALLY REMOVED because they are bad for bussines

>>132420084
I'd say that not everyone would choose the secure one, but the reasonable people will.

Freedom is eugenics. The white race exists thanks to natural selection. This is a message to national socialists.

>>132419562
What about market bubbles? How do you prevent a housing market bubble for example?

>>132420381
The bubbles are made because of the interest rates essentialy. The interest rates are artificially low, the private sector thinks therefore it's a great time for investments and not for savings.

When it pops it's chaos, but it has to pop at some point.

I'm not actually sure what the interest rates would be in an-cap society, probably every bank for himself I guess.

>>132418092
>anti-road leaf

File: 1497393175669.png (140KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1000x1000px

>>132420712
>roads
Where we're going we don't need roads.

File: 02716c93348d8af9a24755318963f3a0.jpg (24KB, 512x373px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 512x373px

>>132419975
>There's tons of arguments against an-cap/libertarianism

If there are so many, why can't you even name one?

>>132420381
destructive bubbles are created by government actions. without government interference, the economy follows the natural business cycle of increasing growth followed by recession. Recessions are extremely important as they punish bad investments and inefficient business through bankrupcies.

But what happens when the government "props up" the economy by bailing out failing business and issuing cheap credit? Then a bubble forms. Stupid borrowers and noncompetitive business would normally close in regular intervals during recessions. But by being propped up (to "prevent a recession"), it gets delayed. Bad loans are kept around longer and longer. They keep stacking until finally the pressure gets too much, they all blow and lose all their money at the same time, and a depression is formed.

This is a problem that is literally only created by the government trying to "fix" shit.

>>132420077
I'm arguing against measures of efficiency and productivity using GDP as proof of the system's primacy. The argument hinges on the fact that people can properly value goods and services to the amount of fulfillment if offers them. What people are willing to pay is what something is "worth."

But people are mostly shortsighted, don't actually know what makes them happy, and are easily influenced by advertising.

>>132420869
we don't need ancaps too

>>132420950
Yeah. Capitalism isn't perfect. Anything more?
Also I don't believe in any measures of wealth other than how well can you live on a low income job.
>>132420976
Tell me that when your goverment collapses because of the debt almost every western country now has.

>>132420554
but don't high interest rates encourage savings; which act as 'clots' in the 'life-blood' of the economy, otherwise known as cash-flow?

>>132420933
okay, but banks depend on each other; and they invest in one another - so what happens when one bank fails due to bad debt?

>>132420950
GDP is not perfect, but it's a fine approximation and I'm not aware of other competing quantitative measures that do its job better. If you're not going to bring up an alternative then you don't have an argument here.

I mean no shit nothing is perfect. But it doesn't have to be, it just has to be good enough and superior to all alternatives. It's like the retarded argument that perfect market knowledge doesn't exist. Yeah, and? It doesn't have to. Nobody has perfect knowledge or execution of anything. It simply has to be good enough.

File: carbon tax economists.png (105KB, 942x703px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 942x703px

>>132418092
>economists don't know economics

File: Keynesian vs Austrian.jpg (2MB, 1300x4080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1300x4080px

>>132421228
Savings doesn't stop economic growth. Our point is that the interest rates must be dictated by the state of the market, not by goverment. Pic related.
>>132421437
All the current "economists" are just a bunch of keynesian faggots brainwashed by the state public education. Their theory has empiric evidence of not working.

>>132421228
Yes, however there is obviously a point that is ideal that is not too high or too low.

Ultimately it should be decided by the free market

>>132421124
I think its far less than perfect. I think wealth always aggregates and what you get is a system of corporate entities where human work is so compartmentalized that there is no room for moral decisions. Profit becomes the primary objective and everything that gets in the way of that (family values, rural living, community bonds) will be acted against in service of increased profits.

>>132421228
>>132421591
I would also like to add that savings aren't bad. That money is being given interest because it is being spent by the bank and to make itself money.

>>132421361
the other banks lose their investment. If they invested too much, they would also go bankrupt.

Thing is, nobody is forcing them to invest in one another. Remember, this is a free market system. Some banks will invest dangerous amounts in one another, and other will not. Same thing with fractional reserve lending. Each bank will have a choice of whether to take the risk. If a customer values safety over high returns, they would choose a non fractional-reserve bank. If they didn't, they would go with the fractional-reserve one, but would have to deal with increased risk of losing their deposits. Every single policy will be available on the market, and customer choice will whittle it down to the most optimal and desirable for everyone, instead of incompetent government trying to half-assedly achieve the same goals using regulations.

File: 1497393346498.jpg (106KB, 823x767px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 823x767px

>>132421361
They'd probably be hanged for stealing from people. Essentialy, under a free market NEVER put your money in a bank where they store only a fraction of your money.

It goes like that: a bank takes a 1000 of your money, stores 100. Gives 900 as a loan. The society now has 1900 but only 1000 real money.

Only believe banks which CHARGE for storage.


>>132421625
"I think wealth always aggregates" First off, what proof do you have of that? Second off, wealth isn't a zero sum game.

>>132421587
>just a bunch of keynesian faggots brainwashed by the state public education
Stop. Even if you disagree with these people you can't deny that these people know the field far deeper than anyone else on the face of the earth and are many times smarter than you or I.

>Their theory has empiric evidence of not working.
Isn't one of the main distinctions between most Austrians and mainstream economists that Austrians reject econometrics?

>>132422265
I don't care if they're smarter if they support a system which has led us to multiple crises. The difference between you and me is I support removing communists and socialists.

The second one I don't really care for. I just used it as a shorter argument so I don't have to write out the whole Austrian theory.

>>132421940
Mmmmh, okay, but how does a free-market society deal with fraud? I'm not trying to be a dick btw, this is actually really interesting; but I'm not sure how the ordinary person can deal with so many terms of service, and by laws and shit? Also, who can you turn to if someone screws you over? You would have no money left? Thus no means of retaliation in an an-cap society?

>>132418092
National Protectionist Libertarian here!
Reporting for duty.
God bless the white race.

>>132422265
>Even if you disagree with these people you can't deny that these people know the field far deeper than anyone else on the face of the earth and are many times smarter than you or I.

Is an Islamic scholar correct about his interpretation of the world because he knows the quran far better than you? Is his great education or knowledge of the field a mark of his wisdom and understanding of the world and reality?

No. Just because somebody is passionate about a subject and knows all its intricacies, it doesn't mean he's right. It's true that these economists have an excellent understanding of keynasian economic theory. The issue is that keynasian theory is fundamentally wrong, and thus this knowledge is worthless. It's like asking an expect in Newtonian physics to explain general relativity.

What you're doing is appealing to authority. You think that since governments are so big and strong, they must know what they're doing. That is incorrect, as history proved time and time again.

>>132422789
I would also curiously like to ask the an-caps thoughts on the EU at this moment, if you please? I have heard conflicting theories on the EU; socialists say the EU is too free-market; whilst free-marketers have said the EU is too socialist. Can someone please elaborate? Thanks in advance.

File: punk's not red.png (315KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1000x1000px

>>132422789
I take a great interest in explaining this philosophy to people, as it's libertarianism taken to it's final conclusion ( Taken from Christophercantwell.com - has a great show ) so even if you were a dick I'd still argue.


Anarcho-capitalism is based on private property and the NAP. So if there's millions of private property owners and each one of them can make their own rules, the society with the best rules will succeed the most. This is the argument against degeneracy essentialy.

Doesn't mean degenerate societies wouldn't exist, but they'd be segregated.

Law would PROBABLY be different in every single private society.
>>132423194
You should watch for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH4HfmBgOYA

>>132421940
they do charge for storage, just not to you.
they use your money for loans, and the loans themselves bring in revenue in the form of interest. your payment is letting them use your money for profit. and loans are not that detrimental to society; having money right now is much more valuable than having money later, thus the interest.

the problem with this system is when banks are unregulated and they can ask for your kidney as interest.

>>132418092

>Reminder that if you don't adhere to anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism,

thats all fine JUST so long as it is entirely based on the NAP

>>132422789
>but how does a free-market society deal with fraud?
A free market system is based on trust. Before government regulated foods, for example, the free market self regulated by the introduction of brands. Food brands that were clean and did not poison their customers gained public trust, while those that did not eventually failed. There was a natural selection towards trusworthy food producers.

The same thing works for fraud. If a company becomes known for being fraudulent, they will lose business. Competitors then will pride themselves on their honesty and introduce policies to increase trust. For example, return policies. Remember, these policies were introduced spontaneously by the free market. They were not regulated in.

>who can you turn to if someone screws you over? You would have no money left?
You should always have money left unless you're an absolute retard. Remember, any purchase is a risk. If you aren't prepared to lose it all, then you'd pay a little extra for a safe company instead of a cheaper one. It's all risk vs reward.

If there was a truly huge miscarriage of justice, then you'd have to get dispute-resolution companies involved. But that's a far bigger topic.

>>132423485
The problem with this system is that if everyone would just ask the bank for say 20% of their savings and they only stored 19.5% it would go bankrupt. Let the free market decide.

>>132423194
I think the EU is a Germany owned, "fascist" regime designed to make us not only look like niggers, but through their economic reform to make us as poor as niggers.

>>132423622
I'd live in a private society with no communists, socialists or democrats.
And yeah.

File: rigtwinglpidiots.jpg (41KB, 754x382px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 754x382px

>>132418092
reminder that libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion is georgism/geolibertarian/geoist and no ancap

File: 1498403030451.jpg (14KB, 174x261px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 174x261px

>>132418092
I don't give a fuck about economics if it destroys my soul. Get fucked, mammon-seekers.

>>132423001
>Is his great education or knowledge of the field a mark of his wisdom and understanding of the world and reality?
No because he hasn't been educated in an objective understanding of the world and reality hes only been educated on the Islamic perspective.

>Just because somebody is passionate about a subject and knows all its intricacies, it doesn't mean he's right
I agree in principle but in reality its hard to imagine that the people that understand the field the best have got it all so wrong.

Also don't most economists subscribe to neoclassical theories which includes only certain elements of Keynesian economics?

>>132423194
>I have heard conflicting theories on the EU; socialists say the EU is too free-market; whilst free-marketers have said the EU is too socialist.

this is actually a pretty complex issue one could write an essay on. The issue here is the difference between free trade vs protectionism, centralization vs decentralization, and regulation vs deregulation. The EU has difference and sometimes contradictory positions on these. It's not as simple as being just free market vs not free market.

The EU itself aims to be centralized, protectionist, and heavily regulated. By most standards it's fairly socialist.

>>132424010
Whatever, I can at any point dismiss this argument as argument to authority.

>>132424154
What specific criticisms do you have of mainstream economics?

>>132423627
>A free market system is based on trust.

This is not true. Free markets allow for a multitude of options to be tried to find one that works despite trust.

>>132424010
>I agree in principle but in reality its hard to imagine that the people that understand the field the best have got it all so wrong.
This has happened multiple time in history. Hell, here's a contemporaneity example: multiculturalism. Is multiculturalism good because the majority of government experts think so? Of course not.

>>132424257
That it can be discarded just by proving how inflation hurts.

That they made my country into a national-socialist state where it's riddled with corruption and poverty and white niggers.
>>132424275
Yeah but trust is built along the way. I think someone wrote a book about a society on the moon that was like "WTF? How can you trade with someone if you don't trust them?".

File: marxandfriedmanonthesamepage.jpg (61KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x480px

>>132424257
it doesn't count land as a unique factor in production and doesn't have a way to deal with common resources

>>132424257
>What specific criticisms do you have of mainstream economics?

You don't need empiricism to know that 2+2=4. By the same token, you don't need it to understand laws such as diminishing marginal utility.

As a matter of fact, it's entirely wrong to use an empirical approach as its proof or foundation. These things are within the realm of the a priori.

>>132424515

>>Milton Friedman

>Chicago School

>Not Austrian

>>132424275
if there's no trust then not a single transaction can be made. If you can't trust the other person to keep his word, then how exactly are you suppose to exchange goods and services for anything? You always need at least some trust in order to engage in trade.

Remember that trust is quantified in the free market. It's represented by factors like personal credit and brand name. If a company acts unethically, it damages their brand. A brand that is damaged too badly loses consumer trust, and eventually will be unable to conduct business.

>>132424651
>>132424515
I would agree that I'd RATHER tax land than tax improvements.

If I were to choose, I would rather choose a tax on land than say a tax on work.

>>132419584
https://mises.org/blog/dont-confuse-private-prisons-free-market-prisons

You are conflating "private" prisons as you know them under the jurisdiction of a state and truly private prisons.

>>132421591
>>132421736
Dafuq does the free market determine interests rates without any central bank?

>>132424848
The bank that gets it right ends up not fucking their customers = ends up the most rich and being rich is a success.

What is ancap art like?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

>>132424848
>Dafuq does the free market determine interests rates without any central bank?

>Stockholm Syndrome for this long

It's just like setting any other price.

>>132418092
AnCaps hearts are in the right place. But their way is flawed. Massively.
LfCap>AnCap and it's because Minarchism>Anarchism

Any Rand all but debunks AnCap in her book "The Virtue of Slefhishness". Here is a collection of Anarchism-related quotes. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

Reminder
Right>Left
Capitalism>Socialism
NatCap>NatSoc
NatSoc=GloSoc
Meritocracy>Democracy
Libertarian>Authoritarian
Libertarianism>Egalitarianism
Objectivism>Libertarianism
Objectivism>Subjectivism/Relativism
Egoism>Altruism
Individualism>Collectivism
Individualism>Statism
Nationalism>Globalism
Anarchism>Totalitarianism
Minarchism>Anarchism
LfCap>AnCap
Conservative>Progressive
Liberal>Fascist

>>132424733
>If I were to choose, I would rather choose a tax on land than say a tax on work.

Regardless, free markets do not have taxes.

File: game-design-3-638.jpg (66KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 638x479px

>>132424733
the government should exclusively use ground rents as a means to gain revenue

why should we ever tax labor made things? The land was given to us by god and everyone should be compensated, in the form of a citizens dividend, from being excluded from prime locations since the title to them is a monopolistic state granted privilege. Law made property and allodialism is the cause of inequity in all modern societies.

>>132418289
>>132418580
Flying cars will be real soon and you will feel silly for those posts.

>>132418092
>austrian economics
>muh equilibrium
>muh macro is derived from micro
Logical fallacies: the theory.

>>132425079

Fuck off, Randroid.

>>132423627
Just to be fair; most people aren't intelligent enough to deal with complicated issues of fraud, or in a grander aspect, monopolies. I think of it like more of a hive-mind situation; not everyone can be educated on the complexities of terms of service, and whatnot. It sounds basic I'm sure; and I'm also guessing you guys have an answer for it; but how do free-market societies combat monopolies? (I'm just getting into this free-market philosophy; give me a pardon there).

>>132424257
Mine is that it does not Ayn Rand hard enough

File: landright.jpg (12KB, 327x154px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 327x154px

>>132425111
its compensation for exclusive use of the commons its the collection of a rightful debt not a tax

>>132425375
>its compensation for exclusive use of the commons its the collection of a rightful debt not a tax

It doesn't qualify as commons on account of how land ownership is derived. Therefore, it is a tax.

>>132424969
Easy. The market decides. Only liberals support
"modern art" and most liberals have no money and rely on conservatives for their tax dollars. So conservatives would decide what gets the most money.
>>132425079
Give me ANY argument. ANY. If you read that book than give me ANY of her arguments against an-capistan.
>>132425113
As long as you don't do anything to my property I don't care about your ideology really.
>>132425187
Show me ANY of the fallacies leaf.
>>132425360
I'm sure my friend here will write a longer explanation but basically: All current monopolies are created by a goverment and if there were any monopolies under the free market it means the monopoly is providing the best quality service for the lowest price. So it's all good.
>>132425375
Air cannot be owned, land can. There are NO right TO. There is only freedom. And freedom is FROM something.

>>132425517
>on account of how land ownership is derived

flying the ancap flag and being okay with state granted privilege? are you familiar with the Lockean proviso?

File: 1497141679894.png (117KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1000x1000px

>>132425331
I posulate that Rand is the second greatest Philosopher in history next to Aristotle.
The reason Commie's both deride and memory hole her is because they experience the gut wrenching realization that Objectivism is the greatest threat they have /ever/ encountered. As it represents the American Constiution epistemologically completed; the rejection of the primordial evil that is Altrusim that it lacked.

>>132423627
>Food brands that were clean and did not poison their customers gained public trust, while those that did not eventually failed.

But what about the people who got food poisoning? Just sacrifices to the altar of the free market?

>>132425360
>how do free-market societies combat monopolies?
The answer is actually a lot simpler than you think: they won't exist. All monopolies are formed by governments. If a field is deregulated, then it's impossible to corner, because anybody can start a business for no cost, thus creating competition. By increasing regulation, you increase the cost of creating competing business, making them so few and far between that buying out the competition becomes a viable strategy.

The whole free market = monopoly is just government propaganda. The more government tries to regulate a market, the more monopolies will form.

>>132425757
>flying the ancap flag and being okay with state granted privilege? are you familiar with the Lockean proviso?

Perhaps you misunderstand; I'm refuting the notion of the Georgist land "tax" on Lockean grounds.

>>132425757
Nothing is state granted. The state can only take.>>132425874
You think people don't get food poisoning today?
Jesus what an idiocracy we live in.
WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO DIE BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HEALTHCARE IS SHIT? JUST SACRIFICES TO THE ALTAR OF THE GOVERMENT?

File: locked.jpg (151KB, 500x651px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 500x651px

>>132425995
>Lockean grounds

ancaps only like certain Locke quotes. Goergism is 100% congruent with natural rights

>>132425771
>I posulate that Rand is the second greatest Philosopher in history next to Aristotle.


Yes, you're a fucking randroid. Only randroids say retarded shit like this. Most philosophers are better than Rand.

You're about to sit here and tell me that Rand, whose "objectivism" is clouded by Nietzsche, is better than, say, Kant, or Wittgenstein, or even G.E. Moore? You need to find another author to read.

>>132426035
You don't have to be a fuck, faggot, I was just asking a question.

Yeah, people still get food poisoning now, but wouldn't cases of food poisoning grow exponentially without some regulation?

>>132426176
>ancaps only like certain Locke quotes. Goergism is 100% congruent with natural rights

I'm sorry, but it isn't. Homesteading unowned property is how land is acquired. I admit that you can have public property that would fit within your "tax", but that land can also be acquired by individuals and have exclusive natural rights to it.

>>132426357
Ok, sorry then.
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Maybe they would grow for some time and then start dropping.

I think the primary consumer is the shop and not the customer, so a shop's duty as a private firm is to get the best produce. Since a shop will often be smaller than the manufacturer ( or not, maybe just some of the time ) it will be much more easy to boycott it and cause it to go bankrupt if it supplies food which causes food poisoning.

>>132425614
>Show me ANY of the fallacies leaf.
An economy cannot be in an equilibrium as it is in constant change and is not a static model.
Austrians also completely ignore debt, which is a crucial part of capitalism when it comes to their models, according to you the 2008 financial asset bubble was perfectly normal as the value of those assets corresponded with their subjective value.

File: tj.jpg (99KB, 500x595px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 500x595px

>>132426483
According to you, land becomes private property when you mix labor with it?

You are mixing what is yours with what is not yours in order to own the whole thing.

this notion is filled with problems. How much labor does it take to claim land, and how much land can one claim for that labor? And for how long can one make that claim?

According to classical liberals, land belonged to the user for as long as the land was being used, and no longer. But according to you, land belongs to the first user, forever?

So, do the oceans belong to the heirs of the first person to take a fish out or put a boat in? Does someone who plows the same field each year own only one field, while someone who plows a different field each year owns dozens of fields? Should the builder of the first transcontinental railroad own the continent? Shouldn't we at least have to pay a toll to cross the tracks? Are there no common rights to the earth at all?

To you there are not, but classical liberals recognized that unlimited ownership of land never flowed from use, but from the state

>>132426357
>wouldn't cases of food poisoning grow exponentially without some regulation?
No. Here's an easy example: you hear on the news that food from Company X caused widespread food poisoning. Are you going to avoid their food now? If you are, then there you go, the market is self regulating. The poisoned products will damage the company, they will lose business, and they will gain an incentive to introduce measures to ensure food safety.

There is a scenario in which you are correct, and that if people don't care about being food poisoned. If there is an outbreak, but customers don't care and sales don't suffer, then yes, there may be more outbreaks, because the market didn't punish the offenders. But then you must ask, if people really don't care, then why does it have to be enforced in the first place? Obviously in their mind it's worth it, and thus it's the moral and correct standard to maintain in the market. Some people might be perfectly happy to buy ultra-cheap foods that also have a high chance of making them sick. But that's their choice. Other people have no right to prevent them from making that choice.

>>132425614
>Give me ANY argument. ANY. If you read that book than give me ANY of her arguments against an-capistan.
Certainly.

First a quote then my own prose on it's nature.

>A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.
>Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.
>One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately.

It is clear that Rand is arguing from Minarchy. I for get the exact wording but in another book, "Capitalism The Unknown Ideal", she expands on why goverment actually -should- have a monoploy, yes a monopoly, on the roles it is actually supposed to embody. And this is not her approaching statism as it can be found that, it fact, it is the AnCaps that are opperating from the ststist original premise. AnCap-ism rejects this notion, worse it does not even address it.

>>132418092
fff

>>132418285

Austrian economics... long story short: The state is quite literally just glorified cult behaviour, so human beings are still essentially behaving like savages.

>>132425933
What about fields with high-cost, high-capital, high-skill abrriers to entry? Take for example advanced sciences, engineering or computer software; not just anyone can set up a rival company in these industries. I don't think the government are responsible for such difficult entries to these industries.

>>132421940
>"I think wealth always aggregates" First off, what proof do you have of that?

Economies of scale, being able to use profits for advertising and product proliferation which lets you sell above MC.

Also our governments are the product of our original state which was ancap. I big problem I have is I don't see ancapism being an equilibrium system.

>>132426868
>An economy cannot be in an equilibrium as it is in constant change and is not a static model.
Do you even know what an equilibrium is?

>>132426947
>land becomes private property when you mix labor with it?
>You are mixing what is yours with what is not yours in order to own the whole thing.

Not merely because i mix my labor with it. The homesteading principle is only applicable to property that is unowned.

>But according to you, land belongs to the first user, forever?

Titles can be exchanged. Abandonment is possible. It's not rocket science.

>>132426868
Wow... You obviously don't understand what we mean for that. What we mean by equlibrium in the interest rates is that it IS constantly changing and there is always that sweet spot you need to hit, it might be changing constantly to be higher or lower than before.

What the fuck do we ignore about debt? Any bubble is NOT fucking normal as it is caused by the keynesian camp.
>>132427079
Who defines those fucking roles? Because the founding fathers definitely didn't want you to pay for a shitty welfare system and a huge debt and the jewish run FED.
>>132427215
A small loan of a million dollars. Basically, imagine a world where you can save a lot off your money for your offspring through your entire life. Combine that with no goerment rules for taking a loan, just bank rules. Paradise for enterproneuers.
>>132427230
What's MC? The original state wasn't ancap, nobody believed in private property and the NAP back then. And nobody is saying that is is an equlibrium system.

>>132427251
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_equilibrium_theory#Unresolved_problems_in_general_equilibrium
Usually refers to this in economics.

>>132427215
not as high as you think. For example, anybody can develop computer software these days. You can literally make it in your garage. Same thing with engineering. It's entirely possible to make a prototype product in your garage and then gather investors to put money into it to actually make it a reality. Look at kickstarter. If there is a good idea, money will naturally follow and allow you to get started.

The reason fields like aeronautics are so prohibitively expensive is because of the retarded standards government puts on planes. If you didn't have to comply with all those regulations, you'd likely be able to make it for a fraction of the price. Do you really think drugs take billions of dollars to develop? Of course not. That is the cost of government compliance.

>>132427215
Also, didn't like Bill Gates start at his garage?

>>132427044
Let me ask about Food traceability in that case; Yes, maybe a food store who doesn't practise good hygiene may enable more cases of food poisoning; but government regualted food traceability measures help, not only to prevent food poisoning, but also help, that in the rare case they do happen, there is accountability; something which I think an-cap societies might not happen. Lack of accountability in this case, might mean plausible deniability; meaning the persons or persons responsible, might not be brought to justice; would an an-cap society be reactionary then?

>>132427044
But there was still an outbreak to begin with. It just seems a bit too nihilistic for me. Like not caring if your dog goes out and plays in traffic because, hey, the stupid dog should know better.

>>132427684
>What the fuck do we ignore about debt?
You ignore the total level of private debt.
>Debt doesn't matter since the banker will spend it instead of the capitalist
>Any bubble is NOT fucking normal as it is caused by the keynesian camp.
But 2008 wasn't a bubble according to the subjective price theory.
Read some Minsky, pretty interesting stuff.

>>132428153
Again, every society for himself. Since there would be at least thousands of different societies with different laws, you could choose what would suit you best.
>>132428319
>Comparing dogs to humans
That's why morality exists.
>>132428445
Debt does matter, but you will have to CHOOSE to participate in debt instead of being forced to participate in debt.

>>132428153
what constitutes "justice"? if you define justice as being punished according to the laws the government sets, then of course ancapistan wouldn't have "justice", as that is begging the question.

In ancapistan, the severity of punishment depends on the free market and direct conflict-resolution between involved parties. Isn't this far more fair? Instead of people being punished according to the standard of a handful of powerful people, punishment is handed down collectively on the business and the personal interests of those involved. I think this is far more just than our current system.

>>132427845
But aren't the regulations in the aeronautics industry there to prevent plane crashes; it's hardly fair that we wait until people die in all the bad airlines due to bad production, until we find the good ones? I mean, yes eventually, we will have better airlines; but in the mean time, we will have many failures, and incidents of innocent people dying due to bad airline practises?

However, I disagree with the barriers to entry point; high costs are associated with demand; high demand typically means high cost barriers to entry; I don't see the link to the government or state involved in this. Advanced Sciences will always have high-costs surely?

>>132428653
Well, if you're not a dog person, then how about a small child?

Human beings are not very moral creatures. I'm really skeptical about any system that implicitly trusts someone to do the right thing on their own accord because it's just the right thing to do.

>>132426236
>Yes, you're a fucking randroid. Only randroids say retarded shit like this. Most philosophers are better than Rand.

The dreaded, horrible secret that academic philosophers face (and why they do not even allow the notion of Objectivism as a philosophy) is that Objectism is not -a- Philosophy but THE Philosophy. Hers holds the particular distinction of being the first ever formulated META-Philosophy. And psudeo-intellectuals the world over are perpetually butthurt over this incontrovertible fact. Yes fact, I do not exaggerate. Including it among their other disaparate half formed, half actualized "philosophies", they find it eats everything it comes into contact with. This disrupts their vested interest in keeping a fanciful salad-esque collection of philosophies to catalog away and do nothing objectively meritous with it on their own terms. Despite what these sorts of people would have to say it isn't Ayn Rand but academia as it stands that is "the joke".

>The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual’s rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others’ ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say “..and that’s what I reject?” .Barbara Branden

>>132429069
>Human beings are not very moral creatures
What is civilization?
Ok post me one situation where an an-cap society fails in such a way we should definitely avoid it.
And it isn't just trust, there is the pinacle of our ideas, the NAP and the rules that would be established in that private society.
>>132429003
The regulations for aerounatics is just so the goverment officials can be paid and the "correct" firms have a monopoly on aircrafts.

>>132428653
i'd honestly take a dog over most people. no funny puckcuck shit either.

>>132428153
>>132428896
Just adding on, if you're curious on how justice is carried out in an ancap society, here's a good watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

>>132429482
I love dogs, but I just didn't feel like comparing a human to a dog is reasonable. I hate cats too.

>>132427684
>Who defines those fucking roles? Because the founding fathers definitely didn't want you to pay for a shitty welfare system and a huge debt and the jewish run FED
Agreed. And neither would I or Rand.

What the fuck makes yoj think that is Anything ng even approaching LfCap? It is diametrically opposed to it.

Another quote.
>I am for a separation of state and economics. Just as, and for the same reasons, we had a separation of state and church.
-Rand in interview with Mike Wallace

>>132429003
>it's hardly fair that we wait until people die in all the bad airlines due to bad production, until we find the good ones?
You are assuming that airline companies don't have a vested interest in making sure their customers don't die.

That's of course retarded. Just like the government doesn't want its citizens to needlessly die, neither do airline companies. They will self regulate because it's in their interest to do so. If they don't, their companies will crash and burn.

>>132429756
Before I answer, what is LfCap?

>>132429395
Isn't civilization only possible because of authority? People behave civilized because they fear the consequences authority will bring down on them if they don't. Otherwise, we just have chaos.

>>132430067
Private property is inherently authoritarian.

>>132429003
>high costs are associated with demand; high demand typically means high cost barriers to entry;
I just noticed this gem. What the fuck are you talking about? No it doesn't. Bread for example has high demand. Does that mean the barrier to become a baker is prohibitively expensive? no.

It really feels you are pulling your opinions out of your ass. It dampens the benefits of trying to explain the opposing perspective.

File: 1497290770455.jpg (79KB, 766x497px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 766x497px

Not everythings about Shekels Goy

>>132429873
Laissez-faire Capitalism.
From a famous occurance where a french bussinessman, essentially, told meddling statists to go fuck themselves.

LfCap is to Minarchism what AnCap is to Anarchism

File: 1494048534542.jpg (106KB, 497x427px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 497x427px

>>132418092
>Anarcho-capitalism
>Understands about economics

Oh God, have mercy on this stupid infidel.

>>132430242
But who keeps an eye on those who own the private property?

>>132430560
>Comes to this thread where we only value argumentation
>No argumentation
fagget
>>132430548
I don't think anything is approaching any sort of free market capitalism, I think we are going further away from it daily. I stopped believing just a white nation will work to have a free market and a happy society, my country is proof of that.
>>132430486
We hate (((banksters))) too.

>>132429859
Fair Enough; in that case I'm being very literal - but an industry like pharmaceuticals, were traceability is more difficult (especially when poorly regulated); it is much harder to say who is responsible for failures. If company X supplies you with a bad product; they can say company Y was responsible, because they supply them with an ingredient or component to a product. There is no government board to respond to; and the media is owned privately; so company X can pay them (the media) off to say it was company Y who is responsible for the failure. Company X won't by held accountable because company Y doesn't have the funds to prove they weren't responsible; and there is no independant board to prove they weren't the cause of the issue. Company X can then simply buy from another supplier; if things go wrong again they can blame the new supplier - and so on until someone finally finds out company x is responsible - however; in the meantime, innocent people are harmed due to company x's neglegence. Until that point; company X can build up capital to save themselves from a fall; allowing them to do the same thing under a different name next time.

>>132430889
I will answer this in two ways:
Who is keeping an eye on the current goverments?
and
Everyone who exists around the private property and the people who deal with the owner.

>>132428653
>but you will have to CHOOSE to participate in debt instead of being forced to participate in debt
Not the point.
I am talking about the macro level and household/corporate debt and how it inevitably causes a capitalist system to be unstable.
Austrians/Neoclassicals don't really look at this and usually assume that it's either the governments fault (either via direct intervention or fractional reserve).
The fact that debt growth causes demand and leads to a crisis when that demand drops.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6864/economics/financial-instability-hypothesis/
A bit short but it explains the basics I suppose.
tl;dr
>Business borrows to make a shoe factory
>Business is going really well and is projected to do even better in the future therefore asset prices rise
>Business borrows against the rising asset prices and builds another shoe factory since it is so profitable
>Economy booms as more factories have to be built and more workers can afford shoes, businesses keep borrowing on that premise
>A bank stops lending for whatever reason, businesses can't repay debts, assets prices crash, demand crashes, etc.
Note that this is not caused by artificially low interest rates but rather by an expectation of increasing profits, both real and fed fund rates were going up prior to 2008 for example.

>>132430338
Bread has a high volume aspect to it as well; it is viewed as a commodity market. That is significantly different to a software/engineering type market.

>>132431458
Why is anything wrong with that situation?
An idiot risked too much and got BTFO'd by the free market. It is literally un-comperable in scale to what the previous bubbles have been.
And economy doesn't boom, it's just a bubble.
>>132431033
Just tell people to not take pharmecauticals or drugs from that person/company. It's easy.
Nothing is stopping you from banning certain products in your community.

>>132431513
I should add, that high volume decreases the value of a product. Bakery also has low barriers to entry; buy an oven; buy some flour; good to go. Not the same as highly expensive lab equipment.

>>132420051
*pay your fair share, or we'll imprison you and if you continue resisting, kill you.

>>132431055
The people who voted them into power, supposedly.

And so the person who owns the property has no authority after all? They're at the mercy of those around them?

>>132432060
You said who's gonna stop a person violating the NAP, you got your answer. And no, the goverment 's power isn't checked by the citiziens, the citiziens are threatened with death at the THOUGHT of revolution. It's the goverment's around them.

>>132431949
I'd argue that pharmeceutics is mostly science, therefore the wealth, capital of knowledge, not equipment.

>>132431895
>Why is anything wrong with that situation?
Because everyone does it at the same time and it causes the global economy to fail.
It's a macro thing, not a micro one.
If I run a corporation and my competitors are taking market share from me due to borrowing I will be likely to do the same thing either due to stakeholder pressure or the fact that I'm a businessman and likely got there by taking risks.
If future profits are expected to be high, businesses will naturally want to borrow causing what I described above.
If you think we learned anything from 1933, 1990 in Japan or 2008, think again because debt is growing again.
http://stats.bis.org/statx/srs/tseries/CRE/Q.US.P.A.M.770.A?t=f2.1&c=&p=20164&i=43.10

>>132432698
So how expensive is the equipment? Can I afford to start up a pharmaceutical company on cheap lab equipment?

>>132432281
I'm very new to ancap, so maybe I'm just not getting it, but it seems very apathetic to me.
I think people should care about the welfare of their communities, they should care about their neighbors, and ancap seems like it's a very "every man for himself" kind of ideology.

>>132432898
>Everyone is taking huge debt
top kek
Debt is inherently bad, the global economy doesn't "fail" because idiots go bankrupt, it succeeds.
>>132433005
I dunno, I'm not into pharmaceutics.
>>132433215
That's only because we've been brainwashed to think that not paying taxes is killing poor people.

That's why religion is important, religion brings the most morality to society, private charity companies exist under TODAY'S laws and taxes, imagine that.
Imagine a world where wealth creation isn't hampered, where nobody gets free gibs for nothing and you can help out actual good people.

If that doesn't speak to you, then point out a theoritical situation where it makes us apathetic.

File: 18809485_1900500803563123_1983226343206158336_n.jpg (41KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x480px

>>132418092
>I bet you don't even know what Austrian economics is.
but it do

>>132433524
>Debt is inherently bad
I agree, yet it is an inherent part of capitalism.
>the global economy doesn't "fail" because idiots go bankrupt, it succeeds.
Yes tell me how it succeeded in the cases I mentioned.
>If you think we learned anything from 1933, 1990 in Japan or 2008, think again because debt is growing again.
The issue is not that "idiots" take on huge debt and go bankrupt but that everyone takes on a huge debt because they expect huge profits and are technically making profits every quarter due to rising asset prices.

>>132434632
the issue is always idiots

>>132433215
>I think people should care about the welfare of their communities, they should care about their neighbors,
There is literally nothing stopping people from forming closely-knit communities and charities in ancapitastan. In fact, that's how things are intended to work. That's how the social safety net and healthcare funding worked before the American government rubbed its nose in peoples' business.

Was early America an anarchic hell-hole? No. Despite the absence of a strong government, tightly knit communities thrived. Same things in ancap.

>>132434632
I'd call bankrupting an idiot who wouldn't stop taking risky debt a success of the free market.

After the first time they should learn to not take stupid debt anymore, what's wrong with that?
They won't take debt infinitely, because there will be always that 1 guy who got richer on the debt and others will see it.

>>132433524
Well, like you said earlier about the food poisoning. The free market will fix it, but only after a lot of people get sick. It seems like you value the free market more than you do the sick people.
Speaking of religion, it seems ancap has this borderline religious devotion to the free market. They value it above all else, even human lives. It seems apathetic towards our fellow man.

>>132418092
>knowing economics
>Austrian economics
wew lad

>>132418092
>>"""""(((""""(((("""""""((((economics))))"""""""))))""")))""""

>>132435190
I'm saying worst case scenario some people will get sick. A company has inherent interest to NOT fuck things up with their customers, so they gain profit.
>comparing an economic system to a religion,
yeah that's not even an argument.

Point out ONE instance where our system is apathetic.

>>132418092
What ever you fucking leaf

>>132429395
>Ok post me one situation where an an-cap society fails in such a way we should definitely avoid it.
Military takeover. What would be ancap's way of dealing with an overwhelming militant power?

Governments weren't created as a solely economical force, one of their major functions is holding together a sizable military potential, particularly to make sure that no one can just force something upon them by sheer violence.

In the absence of governments, anyone would be free to fill the vacuum of a uniform militant force, and then use said force to form a new government, most likely a dictatorship.

>>132435019
>>132434888
So according to you 90% of the people who run the richest corporations are idiots?
What are we supposed to do then?
>I'd call bankrupting an idiot who wouldn't stop taking risky debt a success of the free market.
HOW IS IT HARD TO FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN 99% OF THE BUSINESSES DO IT, IT DOES NOT AFFECT ONLY THE BUSINESSES BUT THE ENTIRE FUCKING ECONOMY.
DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF MACROECONOMICS AND AGGREGATES?
>After the first time they should learn to not take stupid debt anymore, what's wrong with that?
>They won't take debt infinitely, because there will be always that 1 guy who got richer on the debt and others will see it.
But that's not the case if you look at the data, they ignored 1933, 1990 in Japan, 2008 and soon it'll happen again in China/Canada/Australia.
Could you please tell me what what economic books you read/if you have any formal economic education?

>>132435918
Argue me on bases of merit you fucking leaf, or are you too afraid to do that?

Corporations are allowed thanks to goverment. In a free market society going into debt would usually mean with huge finance repricussions, like becoming a debt slave.
Why are you arguing with me about an-capistan when you are providing evidence from life with socialist goverments.
>>132435875
You should read my fucking post again, I was speaking about morals. The only way a military takeover would be possible, is if there was still goverment. If there was an absence of goverments than read this, it's interesting:
https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
The warlords argument isn't very good, but I honestly believe that ancapistan is unachievable in the current way of the world. I do believe though, that as a society we should aim for it.

Political science can't work in a multi-ethnic state, O.P.

File: statist nigger.jpg (35KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 850x400px

>>132418092
Reminder that if you believe anarchy works in any format then you are too dumb to understand basic human nature.

Good old 1776 'Murican Libertarianism is the only way.

Power must be balanced between the state and citizens to the point where the average degenerate won't think he can get away with killing someone without legal repurcussions ("you talked shit about my wife so I'll kill you" type of shit) and where the politicians can't pull a wool over our eyes with regards to what the law is ("Obamacare has to be passed for us to know what's in it" type of shit).

America didn't quite get it right so it devolved into a clusterfuck of corruption but it was the closest which is why it's the most successful country in the world after only a few centuries.

Also pride in one's nation is a necessity for meaningful progress. China makes 50 million iphones all with the same features every year and just slaps a new number or color on it in addition to the extra price because they have no pride in their nation or any other nation and as such no desire to innovate for the good of humanity, meanwhile America as the most patriotic country became the most technologically advanced in damn near everything until the past decade or so when patriotism became condemned by the left wing fucks.

>>132436633
No, because political science can't work in multi-ethnic state.

>>132436626
We know.

P H Y S I C A L
R E M O V A L
>>132436633
Only Hoppean libertarianism works. Your "murican libertarianism" led to a semi-totalitarian ultra democracy with a socialist economic system.

>>132435486
>I'm not going to address the observation because my truth is self-evident.
Yeah, we all think our beliefs are self-evident.

What if someone is only interested in short-term gain? It doesn't matter if they go out of business because they poisoned a lot of people. They made a quick buck, didn't pay any consequences other than going out of business, and then they're free to just do it all over again.

>>132435918
Debt is a part of capitalism, with both good and bad parts. It's not inherently bad and has its use.

Debt is a tool to increase your profit at the cost of increased risk. If you have a good business model or investment, you can potentially grow your company far faster if your finance yourself through debt versus savings. But it does come at the cost of risking bankruptcy should things go wrong.Debt is also not a problem without government intervention. Bad loans default. This happens all the time and and doesn't affect the economy as a whole. Bad debt only leads to a crisis when government interferes with the debt structure, such as manipulating interest rates or bailing out bad loans. These kind of actions give an incentive to borrow far more than they normally would. This leads to increased risk, and thus increased disaster when things go wrong.

For example, do you know why banks were so gang-ho about subprime lending in the 2008 crisis despite being aware of the risks? Because they knew the American government would bail them out. This was a precedent that already existed decades beforehand. If a deal has high-reward, and the risk is taken by somebody else (the fed) why wouldn't you take it? That's just good business.

As usual, the government is at fault for everyone.

>>132436934
Which truth did I say is self evident? I'm just showing arguments to you.


Then they would need to be an evil mastermind, quite literally. What if you live in a society that considers people like this criminals? Problem solved.

Also, nothing is stopping you in the current day to do that.

>>132436934
>and then they're free to just do it all over again.
no they're not. Do you really think people wouldn't catch on and avoid this guy's companies in the future?

Remember, brand is based upon trust. If he can't build up trust again (which takes years of hard work) he won't have any market capital to exploit.

File: monopoly-price-setting-diagram.gif (23KB, 606x582px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 606x582px

>>132418092

>what are monopolies?
>"buh buh the little guy will just sell cheaper"
>but the little guy produces less, therefore has a harder time selling cheaper
>and the monopoly hires armed mooks and destroys him/kills him
>same thing for Cartels

OP is a faggot and knows shit about economy.

File: tree of liberty.jpg (89KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 700x700px

>>132436709
If you think an ethnocentric state is the sole necessity to making Anarchy work then you're sorely mistaken.

Greece is 98% Greek and it still has crime and I can assure you that as a result of basic human nature that if there was no government the rate of murders and organized crime would skyrocket because people in small groups can't defend themselves and there is no proper procedure organized via a system of law with regards to investigation of crimes and so any private entity which seeks to investigate a crime will not be able to properly conduct an investigation without interference and evidence contamination happening en mass thereby dooming the investigation to failure and giving free reign to organized crime.

I'm not saying an ethnocentric state wouldn't help but it's not the magic secret formula for a perfect country

>>132437535
no monopoly has ever formed without assistance from the government.

>>132437535
>but the little guy produces less, therefore has a harder time selling cheaper
retard
>and the monopoly hires armed mooks and destroys him/kills him
even bigger retarded


Daily reminder that leftists are not to be argued with, but they are to be thrown from rotary vehicles into bodies of water.
>>132437851
But it defintely helps to have a white country.

File: my ideal white woman.jpg (723KB, 2160x3840px) Image search: [Google]

723KB, 2160x3840px

>>132418092

if you're an anarcho-capitalist, you're too dumb to live in society

do you realize what hell it would be to have private roads and a private police forces? what prevents the rich guy who owns that private police force from using that police force to establish his tyrannical government? what prevents isis from coming into an anarcho-capitalist society? isis would love anarcho-capitalism because they could enter without any government to stop them and they would establish am islamic caliphate

File: 1498994270593.jpg (73KB, 600x584px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 600x584px

>>132418092

>>132438133
Get out retard.

>>132436523
>https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
>I was speaking about morals
This article is retarded for the same reasons as are your posts. It speaks of morals and refutes some inane memeing about people devolving into stone age the second they hear there's no more government around.

Now put your effort into actually reading my post. I'm not talking about some retarded infighting. I'm talking about a single entity gathering enough military potential that it can essentially force everyone into forming a government under it, for it's own benefit. That's the most natural application of violence there is, and it doesn't have to be uncivilized, contrary to what the article states. Civilizations were actually founded on that principle. Depending on how cooperative the people are, there might not be any actual violence present.

Ancap also doesn't have a single means of opposing that, so I'm still eager to hear your take, if you have any.

>>132438133
>what prevents the rich guy who owns that private police force
tiny statist brains cannot comprehend the fact an ancap society would have many competing police forces instead of just one. It is okay, government is known to lower one's IQ by 2 deviations.

>>132438228
Did you not read the last 2 sentences of what I wrote you damn commie? It has many ways to oppose that, but I don't believe it is currently achievable anyway.

>>132438133

if you're poor in an anarcho-capitalist, you're forced

>no money to use private roads
>no money to buy a private police force for protection
>if you get raped, no police to capture the suspect and no courts to administer justice

you can't really have courts without laws and if there are laws, then what's the point of anarcho-capitalism? There's still government. laws and government are interchangeable

>>132437887

No faggot, it does not, because aside from lobbying it also has far greater marketing reach and the ability to innovate his product restlessly.

>but the little guy produces less, therefore has a harder time selling cheaper
>retard

Why do big retailers usually sell cheaper than the local grocery store? You shithead fucking retard.

>>132438530

you're fucked*

>>132438584

last mention was for >>132437978

>>132436523
What?
So you're implying businesses would not exist in an ancap society?
>In a free market society going into debt would usually mean with huge finance repricussions, like becoming a debt slave.
The corporations/businesses themselves don't end up going bankrupt, they just fire workers, sell off some assets and keep operating at high debt levels, however that causes economic stagnation as they are unable to expand business (see 1990-present Japan again or post 2008 economic growth).
>>132436954
>This happens all the time and and doesn't affect the economy as a whole. Bad debt only leads to a crisis when government interferes with the debt structure, such as manipulating interest rates or bailing out bad loans.
It doesn't until it happens on a massive scale.
>>132431458 again.
Also how would bankrupcy even work in your ancap society? On one hand you have >>132436523
saying that they would end up being debt slaves but then the banks would always get their due.
>For example, do you know why banks were so gang-ho about subprime lending in the 2008 crisis despite being aware of the risks?
Subprime lending was only a small part of 2008, the larger part being asset prices in general and the massive debt level, if the banks stopped lending prior to 2008, the same thing would have happened just on a smaller scale, the asset prices would have crashed as they were rising due to demand from new loans, not actual GDP growth.
I doubt the banks were aware of the problem prior to ~2006 since on paper everything looked good for everyone, the banks were making profit due to their loans, the corporations were making profits due to rising asset prices and aggregate demand was also growing while the economists talked about "the great moderation" and how crisis's can no longer happen.
All austrian/neoclassical theories supported this thinking.

>>132438530
You are retarded behind comprehension. All you stated are opinions and not arguments.
>>132438584
Those grocery shopes are really fucking bad! How could a grocery shop monopoly possibly even fucking hurt you, even if it existed?

>>132438396

the rich would have better police forces since they have more money to hire a better police force. what would prevent them from imposing on the rights of the poor who have shit police forces?

>>132438228
I think what you're trying to say is:

"What stops one defense company from growing larger than the all rest and forming a monopoly, thus becoming the new central government?"

Which is pretty use to refute: free markets are innately anti-monopolistic. It's a non-issue.

>>132438706
I mean crashing with debt would have serious repricussions. Nobody would trust a bussines owner like this and if he fucked someone over there would be possible legal repricussions.
>>132438769
Private property.

>>132438708

>you're retard behind comprehension

that makes no sense. Also it's an adhominem attack. you didn't refute anything i said.

>>132438897
I know. One way I'm sorry that I said that if you actually want to debate, but holy shit, please post an actual argument, you just posted a theory, nothing to support that theory.

>>132438584
Economics of scale don't lead to monopolies. If they did, then every single field in the world would be monopolized right now. That's because economics of scale yield diminishing returns -- growing past a certain point does not give nearly as much as the earlier growth. People assume you can just keep growing and it'll somehow accelerate the savings, but it doesn't.

You're pulling a lot of theocrafting out of your ass, but it doesn't actually correspond with reality.

>>132438858
Invoking private property doesn't actually account for anything.

File: mpv-shot0036.jpg (120KB, 740x1505px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 740x1505px

>>132438858

>private property

you think criminals give a fuck about private property rights? are you really this fucking retarded? not everyone in your society is going to share your anarcho-capitalist retardation. There are going to be some fascists in your society. what prevents them from establishing governements? this is one of the flaws with anarcho-capitalism. it's unrealistic. people would eventually establish a government. it's better to have a government with checks and balances than a tyrannical government. you might get a tyrannical government(a government ruled by isis for example) under anarcho-capitalism. at least with a government with checks and balances, you can prevent that tyrannical government from coming into existence. Under anarcho-capitalism there is no such prevention. everyone is a non-aggression principle faggot

>>132438708

>still doesnt understand

A guy already established with several factories and assembly lines has the power to produce more products at a cheaper price than someone who just started in his fucking garage or just have a fraction of the production capabilities of the first. Same goes for commerce like the retailers I mentioned (the grocery store never deals with the same quantities as a big retailor, therefore its impossible to compete in price).

If the same applies to an important sector, like oil while the state doesnt give two fucks about it (like it did with Rockefeller) then the monopoly has the ability of dictating its price after a while because theres no one left. Specially if it already controls/influences suppliers and/or all his sources of wealth.

Ah yes, also hard drugs. Ancaps say they should be sold legally. lol.

>>132438858
>I mean crashing with debt would have serious repricussions. Nobody would trust a bussines owner like this and if he fucked someone over there would be possible legal repricussions.
The business itself usually does not go bankrupt >>132438706
>The corporations/businesses themselves don't end up going bankrupt, they just fire workers, sell off some assets and keep operating at high debt levels, however that causes economic stagnation as they are unable to expand business (see 1990-present Japan again or post 2008 economic growth).
,but they still cause huge economic turmoil for the short and long term future.

>>132439394
>>132439250
>everyone is a NAP faggot.

This is why I want to own military equipment one day you faggot. Guess what would happen if some rich fag suddenly decided to do this in an already existing ancap society? He would get obliterated.
>>132439467
Yeah, like making drugs illegal helps anybody, fucking idiot.
If someone makes a better quality product at a cheaper price because he has more capital, let him.
>>132439575
Then the debt helped him, he took a risk and it payed off if he pays off the debt at some point. If he doesn't then this means he goes bankrupt.

>>132438423
>It has many ways to oppose that
>but I don't believe it is currently achievable anyway
To think that I'm the one posting under a commie flag here.

Am I supposed to laugh at that? Because you're basically admitting to losing an argument without explicitly saying so. You aren't listing things that would make ancap possible, you aren't naming any of those "many ways" either.

File: czf3p.jpg (12KB, 620x342px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 620x342px

>>132439780

>Yeah, like making drugs illegal helps anybody, fucking idiot.
>If someone makes a better quality product at a cheaper price because he has more capital, let him.

>>132439947
The article explains what ways an an-cap society would have to defend itself, but myself I don't believe that an anarcho capitalist society is achievable in the current day and age. I have a dream though and sharing this ideology and ideology of freedom and capitalism is my goal.

>>132440074
Just using >
>
doesn't mean anything unless you explain why you used it idiot.

i am pro-statist.

The state is necessary for individual rights. you need the state to protect your rights from others. Under anarcho-capitalist, there is no such protection. it would eventually devolve into mob rule because people aren't going to want to get raped or killed. they would band together into groups for safety. It's these same faggots who bash democracy for being "mob rule" as if there wouldn't be mob rule under anarcho-capitalism lol

File: robbie rotten money.png (461KB, 1330x880px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 1330x880px

>>132436812
That's because the balance of state power to civilian power was off. I listed this with reference to Obamacare in my post.

In regards to Hoppean Libertarianism it fails to account for the consideration of roads and other transportation property as property with regards to the ability to buy property and restrict access to anyone thus resulting in corporate sponsored genocides and regional takeovers resulting in a state of near constant civil war as roads surrounding a region are bought up thus restricting one's freedom to leave without paying literally everything they own within the region as payment.

Freedom of Movement is very expressly enshrined in U.S. law for good reason
>As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.
This would also be the source of the failures of American Libertarianism you described. Failure to enshrine all rights in the constitution under the false notion that it was so fundamental that they didn't need to.

Out of all the things which I can count on 1 hand that need to be enforced by an officiated enforcer this is absolutely number 1. while 2 is the legal system, 3 is freedom from discrimination which infringes on basic human rights such as food, water, shelter, and life. refusing to bake a cake for a fag couple is fine and shooting someone who without permission enters private property is also fine but if it's commercial property which sells necessities to human life such as those listed above then at the very least you'd need a section designated for them or hours dedicated to them shopping.
If you were to designate a "white's only road" it would need a road arriving at the same destination for other people so as to not obstruct one's right to travel and crossing the roads would have to be allowed.

>>132440262
You are a brainwashed idiot if you think the state can grant any right. The state can only take away rights. You'd think there would be no protective serviced under anarcho capitalism?
Again, sorry for insults but you hammered me through disbelief of what I'm reading.
Please read this if you have time:
https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

>>132437201
Maybe I'm mistaken, but if you consider them criminals then it's not really ancap, is it?

>>132437289
They're interested in short-term gain. They could care less about building trust.

>>132438842
>free markets are innately anti-monopolistic. It's a non-issue.
Military potential can operate outside of the economical laws. You keep seeing government as the only entity that forms monopolies, but overlook a situation where governing is just a means to form a monopoly. Any cartel is an example of that.

>>132440460
There is no "Freedom to" There is only "Freedom from". There is no right to other people's labour you communist.
>>132440547
That's where you're wrong, kiddo ;).
Again, as I have stated multiple times here, anarcho capitalism just means lack of goverments, not lack of rules, societies, religions, exc.
If you live in a society where taking drugs is illegal and you do it BY CONSENT, then why not?
>>132440644
So in the long term they loose and their money is given to someone more competent.

>>132439780
>Then the debt helped him, he took a risk and it payed off if he pays off the debt at some point. If he doesn't then this means he goes bankrupt.
It helped him but it causes widespread problems for the rest of society.
Would you agree that 2008 was a bad thing for most of society except for the corporations that were making insane profits due to the debt fueled aggregate demand and asset prices growth?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP
Individuals (try to) take rational decisions for themselves, not society and everyone being selfish is not necessarily a good thing, but anyways I digress from the morals, my point being that austrian and neoclassical economics on which libertarianism is mostly based ignore very important economic concepts and their economic models often don't apply to the real world.

File: 917cdd909ffbca128e9982f63ab973b695f168c1.jpg (622KB, 1195x1184px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 1195x1184px

>>132418092

>>132440741
You still haven't presented me hard arguments what from the Austrian school doesn't apply to the real world.

Please explain how a succesfully paid off debt is harming to the rest of society?

>>132440844
When has any capitalist system ever collapsed? Fucking idiots.

File: mpv-shot0037.jpg (1MB, 2160x3840px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2160x3840px

>>132440473

the state protects rights. i didn't say it grants rights.

>state takes away rights
no it protects them

if you try to murder someone it will imprison you for trying to take the rights away from someone, as it should. that's not taking away a right since you have no right to violate someone's else's rights

how i am brainwashed exactly? i come to my own conclusions by reading what i read i want. That's not being brainwashed. who am i being brainwashed by? the media?
you sound like an sjw. just replace brainwashed with racist

"you don't agree with me you must be brainwashed"

>>132441062
By the state. The state doesn't protect your rights, what are your rights exactly? We believe the most fundemntal right is the right of ownership, of private property.
Who protects that right? I'd say it's you.
Whom is the state protecting your rights from?

even though i am a statist in practice because i am a realist, i am for unrestricted freedom in theory which why i am for virtual reality. that's the only way to have true freedom. you can even molest kids(they would be virtual reality kids of course). i don't think you can have unrestricted freedom in the real world

>>132441404
If you think that molesting children is a freedom than I have nothing more to say to you.

>>132441486

it is in virtual reality since the kids aren't real

>>132441486

if you can't murder or rape, then you don't really have freedom. other people's rights are restricting your freedom; therefore, you don't really have freedom. you have freedom that restricted by other people's freedom which is not really freedom in my opinion

File: 1498066654108.jpg (48KB, 541x599px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 541x599px

>>132418580
Well ya see, as it stands now, private companies already build the roads. Problem is they do it on government contracts, using government standards. They take their sweet fucking time because that's how their contracts work, and they have no incentive to innovate and drive costs down. If the "government" factor was removed from the equation, contracts would be awarded via auction, which would encourage quality, innovation, and a hastened schedule, not to mention the lowest possible cost for the best of all three.

>>132441813

that's restricted

>>132440868
>You still haven't presented me hard arguments what from the Austrian school doesn't apply to the real world.
I have around 10 posts in this thread explaining how the Austrian school fails to explain economic crisis's except for blaming them on govt intervention or "artificially low interest rates" when historically rates prior to crisis's have been high.
There's also the whole equilibrium theory that tries to model economics as a static model and does not model private debt at all.
Also the whole money illusion/neutrality of money meme that is completely false since a change in money supply/inflation does affect the economy due, again, to the existence of debt.
I could go on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_of_money
>>132440924
Great Depression, Great Recession, etc.
>inb4 it wasn't real capitalism because muh govt.

>>132441851
Freedom is only FROM. Freedom is not TO. Besides, freedom of ones cannot be at the cost of others. Also the NAP. YOur freedom ends where my freedom begins.
>>132441971
>inb4 it wasn't real capitalism because muh govt.
I'm not even going to speak with you anymore, no point in it. Our whole philosophy is based on that the goverment cannot effectively do shit and that it is inherently corrupt, but you just disregard that.>>132441819
this

File: How business works.jpg (245KB, 600x849px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 600x849px

>>132440734
The freedom to restrict other's freedoms does not exist.

You cannot enslave others by buying the roads around their house and saying "give me your property or die of starvation" and expect to not receive retaliation.

You cannot say "you can't buy drinking water from anywhere because I have a monopoly and you're a [insert any descriptor here]" and expect to not receive retalliation

You cannot kill people for walking into your store during open hours and expect to not receive retalliation

You CAN force niggers to drive on a bumpy broken road that fucks their vehicle up

You CAN sell niggers only the unfiltered water which you sell for the same price as the filtered water

You CAN kill people who enter your store during whites only hours and not during your nigger only hours at 2AM to 4AM or enter into the whites only aisle where the fresh fruit is instead of the nigger aisle where the old fruit and none of the luxury products are.

Or you can make the whole nation ethnocentric and simplify this but you still can't discriminate against others for liking a different sportsball team or something like that.

virtual reality is the only chance we have at true freedom. it would be a world for you and by you in which you could do anything you want. you can never have such freedom in the real world because people get in your way. Unless you depopulate the earth, there will always be restrictions on freedom.
even in an anarcho-capitalist society, you would have restrictions because people would make restrictions.
depopulation is another solution to get of restrictions. no people. no restrictions.

>>132442492
As long as everything you wrote about is voluntary then yeah. If it's not voluntary then it isn't and I don't even know what the fuck you are writing about.
>>132442650
There is no freedom without responsibility.
No restrictions doesn't equal freedom, it means chaos and degeneracy.

>>132442898

degeneracy is allowed in a truly free society. if you're not for degeneracy then you can't call yourself a "libertarian"

File: ROAD OPEN.png (40KB, 389x94px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 389x94px

>>132442898
okay just making sure we understand eachother here.
>captcha = "ROAD OPEN"
pic related

File: fuck sportacus.png (108KB, 250x246px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 250x246px

>>132443163
restrict degeneracy to private property. keep degenerate behaviour off my private property or be shot.

There we go. Libertarianism.

File: 1497796116329.jpg (46KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 480x480px

You know, I see a lot of people talking about the state as if it's this shadowy entity that hangs above us all, making decisions on our behalf.

The state, is just people. Like you and I, reader. How can one person, or group of people, grant rights or regulations that you yourself are not able to? The only logical way is through violence, which is precisely why communism never works. You can't grant the means of production without ripping it away from the people who created them.

You also cannot be granted the freedom to do something for this same reason, because unless you own the territory the action is taking place in, you yourself don't have the right to grant that power. You do have freedom from something, though, because you hold that power inherently. There are some obvious exceptions, but they mostly surround your violating another's freedoms.

If you truly want to learn how the world works, and why they work that way, economics and philosophy are the one true path. Especially Austrian Economics, the philosophy of the NAP, and the philosophies of the strong individual.

Just a little something to think about.

>>132442162
So you're going to ignore all my economic arguments because you disagree with my opinion.
Literally the same thing as saying
>w-well it wasn't real communism if it was real communism the state wouldn't have existed
Here's a riddle for you -
Consider the following:
Everyone's income doubles overnight, but so do the prices.
Would this have any effect on the economy or the financial situation of an average person?

>>132443163
I hate degeneracy and I wouldn't allow it in my private society.
>>132443302
This guy understands.
>>132443321
And this guy
>>132443345
That's just inflation but sounds like no value was lost in the process. I think if only this happened then the purchasing power doesn't change. So no. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

File: mpv-shot0032.jpg (236KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1920x1080px

>>132443611

so if i go into your territory i lose my rights? let's say i use your private road to get somewhere, i lose my rights because it's private property?

This would be worse than fascism if so

File: b9ae8f5bfc6c2c7662243aa98026da69--worthless-kids-playing.jpg (37KB, 350x411px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 350x411px

>>132443345
What you've described is, in essence, hyperinflation. What happens after that event, behind the scenes, is now every dollar is worth 50% less. If you want to see how that turns out, check out the 1920's German currency value. Here's a nice little pic showing what happens. Those are blocks of Marks, because after a while it was cheaper to play with the money than buying toys.

>>132444068
I imagine it would be common sense, but my private road can be actually on your private property. Essentialy, yes, it would be possible, but a society like this would need HUGE ammounts of beaurocracy and beaurocracy is inneficient so nobody would want to do something like that.

>>132444293

so if i let a cute girl use my private road, i could rape her because she has no rights on the my private property?
why would anyone want to live in such a society?

People are inherently power-hungry, corruptible beings; the state isn't some abstract entity detached from human nature, it's made of people and the failures of state are an expression of human nature
Boundless market capitalism won't lead to an utopia because people will remain corruptible and power-hungry. It doesn't matter how perfect of a theoretical framework ancap autists are able to abstract, it will still fall prey to the cruel realities of the world. It's a conflict of an idealized vision of things vs the actualities of things, just like Marxism.

>>132443611
>That's just inflation but sounds like no value was lost in the process. I think if only this happened then the purchasing power doesn't change. So no. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.
You are correct according to the Austrians or Neoclassicals or if you answered that on your econ quiz.
However what changes is that the level of debt was effectively cut in half which would certainly have real world repercussions.
Corporations and most private individuals would benefit and the banks would also be mostly fine since they would just lend more to compensate (since they create money - http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf - pretty interesting read).
>>132444093
Nah, >>132443611 has the academically correct answer.
Hyperinflation would in theory not happen since it a one time thing.

>>132444526
Wrong. Rights cannot contradict freedoms, and rape violates her freedoms.

>>132444743
>Academically correct
According to whom? What you've literally described is devaluing the currency by 50%. That has a bigger impact that just "muh price increase"

>>132444526
What do you not understand about the NAP? Rights are bullshit, let's speak of freedom and laws.
Anarcho capitalism is inherently authoritarian, because you are the ruler of property, but the most sacred of all rules is the NAP. I'd like to live in a society where violation of the NAP would most likely result in the violator being hanged. Other rules I'd like to have is no commies, niggers, gays, jews exc.
>>132444727
It's not just like marxism because we base our political philosophy on logic and facts, and we do not claim our society to be an utopia. Just the most efficient way to have a good society.
>>132444743
You see, I disagree, because you clearly stated that the prices and all income EXACTLY doubles.
So yeah, normally the one who creates the money is effectively stealing all other users of that currency the inherent value. ( JEWS )
>>132444925
Not exactly. If the currency was devalued 2 times than everyone wouldn't just get a 2 times increase in income.

I gain 10 dolars per month and pay 8 dolars in expenditure.
Then I gain 20 dolars per month and pay 16 dolars in expenditure.
And since the 2 got doubled it's the same.
But IRL inflation doesn't work like that
>>132444743
I just want to add that I'm sorry if I insulted you because you seem smarter than me and although we may disagree a lot I'd like to continue debating you for some time more.

>>132445198
Switched over to laptop from >u12yoIbz

What I don't like about the theoretical scenario is the very premise.

To double the income, you'd have to convince every businessman to double the income (t. socialism), or inflate the currency to the point where it's value merits a doubling in everything across the board.

To double the prices, see the first complaint, adjust for sales instead of production.

>>132445535
Yeah the situation wihch he described could never exist.

>>132425079

you forgot the only one that matters

Righteousness <--> Wickedness

>>132444925
>according to the Austrians or Neoclassicals
and what is taught in schools.
>What you've literally described is devaluing the currency by 50%
Correct.
Your point being?
If you do not take into account, literally nothing happened.
I was getting paid 10$ an hour today and now I'm getting paid 20$ an hour.
My rent went from 500$/month to 1000$/month, my groceries went from 50$/week to 100$/week.
Your labor still buys the same amount of goods.
>>132445198
I don't mind, I'm kinda used to it from trying to discuss econ on /pol/.
I just don't believe ancapism would work for economic reasons since it's based on an economic and monetary base I have reasons to disagree with.

>>132445535 (continued)

Central planning or currency devaluing is the only way to achieve the premise, in which case is either no longer capitalism or... central planning. It's a bit late for me, so my finer points may be a bit off, but to respond to the riddle, the general premise is yes, there would be a big effect on the average person.

>>132445535
It's a theoretical scenario often used to demonstrate the illusion of money.
The same thing would in theory happen if you did the same thing over for example 10 years by having ~10% inflation every year.

>>132445916
But inflation isn't just money spontaniously duplicating. Inflation is when someone is creating money out of air and is stealing from everyone who has savings in that money by devaluing the currency.

File: 8f58d37314279c06715321f2cf5fed37.jpg (10KB, 215x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 215x200px

>>132445716
>what is taught in schools
Literally Keynesian economics. Get outta here man!

>do not take it into account
That's the problem, all your theoretical models don't take it into account. You just ignore it, because the models work when that part is pushed under the rug.

The labor buys the same amount of goods, yes, but now you've introduced a world of fucking pain by devaluing your country's market. And if, say, you applied this riddle to the USD, you would cause a sudden global economic catastrophe.

File: 1490820307705.jpg (26KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 327x316px

>>132425771
>Ayn Rand
>greater than Wittgenstein, Kant, Hume, Spinoza, etc.

>>132445916
Money is an illusion, yes.

But would you rather carry four loaves of bread, three chairs, and a 60" plasma screen TV so you can shop at the mall with your family?

Money only works when there's tangible value backing it (GOLD, sucks to be the Federal Reserve!), or trust in it. In the case of the USD (and most other world currencies out there), it's trust only.

>>132446069
Correct.
That's why we're going with the impossible scenario of it happening.
In that scenario you would be stealing from the lenders and savers and giving it to the debtors.
In the real world the entity which creates the money and gets it first profits (banks in the modern economy)
>>132446154
>Literally Keynesian economics. Get outta here man!
That's a neoclassical approach, keynes takes a bit of a more realistic approach to it (although still not entirely recognizing money for what it is)
>That's the problem, all your theoretical models don't take it into account. You just ignore it, because the models work when that part is pushed under the rug.
Exactly why I disagree with neoclassical and static models of the economy in general.
>The labor buys the same amount of goods, yes, but now you've introduced a world of fucking pain by devaluing your country's market. And if, say, you applied this riddle to the USD, you would cause a sudden global economic catastrophe.
And yet neoclassicals would argue that money is an illusion and does not matter.

>>132430486
>libertarians are libertarians for the sole reason of accumulating capital
why is self-ownership such a radical idea to you? I am not a libertarian because I wish to accumulate wealth. I am a libertarian because I believe that it is immoral to initiate aggression on another human being for any reason other than the fact that he initiated aggression himself. Take the time to learn more about our ideology you stupid NatSoc

>>132418092
Anon, I played Bioshock, that is all the Ovjectivist Bullshit I need. Anarcho/Capitalist? Can I violate your wife's NAP with my inbred cyborg-nigger army, provided I can claim she already voilated the NAP first by stare raping me while I was (covered in my cyborg-nigger armies feces as clothing) standing upwind on the demilitarized zone between our separate corporate-states?
But don't get me wrong, if I had 30 or 300 million, I would be on board too.

>>132446882
I mean under anarcho-capitalism you could live in a society which uses a currency that doesn't allow it's banks to create more money and under one which allows it to do so.
>>132447084
Your whole comment is retarded, fuck off. Violating the NAP is violation of someone's freedoms, it's pure common sense and there can be NO situation where the NAP is violated in an arbitrary way.

File: enhanced-32503-1449247374-2.png.jpg (35KB, 596x595px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 596x595px

>>132446882
You know, if you're going to base your arguments on an (((impossible))) scenario, you shouldn't fight so hard to defend it when logic comes a-callin'

>>132433215
>I think people should care about the welfare of their communities, they should care about their neighbors, and ancap seems like it's a very "every man for himself" kind of ideology.
Anarcho-capitalism =/= individualism. In an ancap society you would be free to care for whomever you like. Altruistic interactions would still flourish in an ancap society. The only difference would be that there wouldn't be a government to force you by gunpoint to pay and support a nigger's destructive and parasitic lifestyle

>>132446452
>Money is an illusion, yes.
And that's where we disagree, you (probably) believe in Menger's origin of money theory aka commodity money (https://mises.org/library/carl-mengers-theory-origin-money, look for the book if you're interested) which in short stipulates that money was created by private individuals to facilitate trade.
I prefer the law based explanation (http://www.monetary.org/a-refutation-of-mengers-theory-of-the-%E2%80%9Corigin-of-money%E2%80%9D/2010/12, a very long book if you want to read it) which defines money as a social/legal construct.
There's also credit money which is pretty much what we have today (banks creating money via loans).
>>132447316
Not my argument, it's a neoclassical and to some degree Keynsian argument, I'm just explaining the reasoning behind it and how it would make sense if you had commodity money.

>>132447570
This. Nobody is stopping you from donating to nigger children, except for your own intelligence. Also nobody is forcing you to pay for nigger children. How can people not comprehend that?

File: cocksucker.png (70KB, 446x427px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 446x427px

>>132447570
A good example:

Out of my pay check, a metric fuckload of cash gets siphoned off to pay for La'Qu'isha's seventeen kids and their crack addictions. I'd much rather invest that money into a business and employ them, or at the very least buy stock in the private correctional facility that'll house them all, make some money back.

Video related:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9ZTjknblQM

Why are ancaps so autistic and so few in number?

Why are almost all of them degenerates?

>>132448074
Strawman after strawman after strawman after strawman.

Why do national socialists have no arguments for their political system?

File: 19554582_437046233320612_3925862120909031448_n.png (120KB, 617x419px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 617x419px

>>132448074
You apparently haven't read the thread at all.

>flag

Oh. Makes sense.

>>132448137
Why, because it betrays the individual for the sake of nationalism. It really puts the Socialist back in National Socialist.

>>132447316
Liberty > freedom

Physical removal for those who tread on my liberty

>>132448252
This. Daily reminder that communists literally break the NAP simply by existing. Commies aren't people.

>>132448153
>he thinks Nazis are communists
kek

>>132448323
You're socialists, if you knew anything about communism you'd know there is no difference. There is like 10% of you that would understand the free market.

>>132448252

...

Liberty = Having freedoms...
Removal for someone who interferes with anybody's liberty (Violates NAP).

>>132447829
How about fuck that, fuck you, and fuck niggers they can all die

>>132443321
Did you choke and go retarded on your first redpill lol

File: enhanced-26574-1449243588-1.jpg (34KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x375px

>>132448498
Good arguments. How about a little dialectic instead?

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-07-05 07:08:40 Post No.132448692
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-07-05 07:08:40 Post No.132448692 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/bant/1309290