If we can't even count to 5 consecutively, what hope is

>>136579412
Two

Three

Four

Five

File: 9b5.jpg (38KB, 611x404px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 611x404px

Well that wasn't what I expected at all

>>136579412
what the fuck

>>136579412
...well damn I guess that settles it

File: IMG_0150.jpg (54KB, 764x960px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 764x960px

Only niggers cant count

File: IMG_3794.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>136579901
Yeah, but your thread is still a high school tier retard's wishful hope.

The funniest part is not that you assume niggers and Spics will mentally align with you but that you somehow think Jews will.

>>136580097
Who ever told you that we'd even want Jews in our societies? Forced removal

>>136579412
>>136579658
>>136579752
>>136579783
>>136579810
samefag. Nice proxies faggot

File: IMG_3048.jpg (29KB, 330x282px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 330x282px

>>136580175
>Forced removal
>stateless
>anarchist

>>136580250
No proxy here ya fucking galah

>>136580097
no need to. An ancap state doesn't need to include them they can die in their socialist degenerate shithole.

non one actually made any proffit from this, if anything it proves that anarcho.communism can work

>>136580291
Do you believe that organization stops once you remove the state apparatus? You do realize that common law evolved out of a distinct lack of state authority, don't you? You are aware that there were law and order before the time of state police, aren't you? The state is a body of expropriation that monopolizes violence to force swathes of people to bend to it's will. The state is a parasitic institution, and all of it's functions have historically been done better by private actors in smaller political units

name one way private property can exist without the state to defend it

>>136580250
Actually a fascist and could have ruined it but I want to remove commies with some lolbetarians :^)

File: 1497026667661.gif (3MB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x240px

>>136579412
>>136579658
>>136579752
>>136579783
>>136579810

OP used digits
The rest used numerals
Ancap society confirmed impossible to coordinate.

>>136580483
Private property can be protected by private individuals. Farmers were able to stage legitimate rebellions against crown and state authority just because they were armed and willing to defend their livelihoods. Shays rebellion successfully brought down a state that was rampantly growing in size, even if it was temporary. Communal organization and mutual aid is all it takes to defend against all violence save invasion, which must be addressed on a larger scale by multiple polities

>>136580539
Yeah you are probably right. A state would have done a better job by putting those into prison who used words instead of numbers.

>>136579412
Mayweather will by points. MAY-PAC style.

>>136579412
Also, considering how controversial this decision will be, I can see a rematch too. Just in it for the money those 2. And can't blame them.

>>136579412
Go back to /b/
Sage.

>>136580813
This is unironically correct.

>>136579412
I see basically a Corporate Government made up of citizens by voluntary association.
The members agree on a tax or dues arrangemnet and they're used to cover the costs of services that the members want, or by land and make it "public" or whatever they want.
The difference between this and todays Government is participation isn't mandatory. If you're not happy w/ the tax arrangement, you leave the group and stop paying.

File: IMG_3742.jpg (118KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 600x450px

>>136580479
>common law
>not eventually becoming state law
>ever

>>136580969
Exactly. Rather than government be an institution forced onto people by other people that have claimed monopoly over violence, it should be a system organized at the grass roots level by voluntary association. Governance, not government.

>>136581021
So you're telling me that because a state adopted the laws that were discovered via hundreds of years of cases via market forces, that the state is the superior body? I'm laffing out loud over here m8. Common law was vastly superior to State law, because common law was constantly being reviewed and subjected to demand, thanks to the decentralized nature of law and order under most monarchies in Europe. The fact that a State adopted common law is not proof that the State is good or better in any way, it's proof that the State was never needed in the first place as common law handled everything already, and without the need of a gun behind every legislation

>>136580479
>we can organize an entire society to police who's allowed to live within it and deport all unwanted individuals
>but we can't organize it to be conscious of what the state is doing and prevent it from becoming tyrannical
Ancaps are a curious species.

>>136580796
>even if it was temporary.
If it was temporary, that means it's irrelevant.

What defines "private property", in your mind?

>>136580969
Do you provide the means to leave, free of charge?

>>136581512
>Do you provide the means to leave, free of charge?
Whatcha mean?

File: IMG_3242.gif (1MB, 300x174px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x174px

>>136581279
>Common law was vastly superior to State law, because common law was constantly being reviewed and subjected to demand, thanks to the decentralized nature of law and order under most monarchies in Europe
Fucking duh.

>The fact that a State adopted common law is not proof that the State is good or better in any way, it's proof that the State was never needed in the first place as common law handled everything already, and without the need of a gun behind every legislation
I never said the state was better. What I am telling you is that the state is inevitable. It always has been. Your wishful thinking is 100% dependent on people not forming groups and subsequent ambitions for those groups and even themselves.

That is naïveté non fucking compare, m80.

>>136581297
The whole 'forced removal' meme is an abstraction of the right to free association. People in an ancap society would have the right to associate with whoever they wanted to associate with. Communities with an in-group preference (Ethnic groups specifically) would naturally be anti-encroachment by foreign cultures and peoples. By using their right to free association, and their rights to private property, the community would expel those foreign cultures and people. There would be no forced association in any way, and therefore the community could use the natural social management tools of ostracization and forcibly removing those foreign elements if they trespass.

File: 1498681248310.jpg (233KB, 387x468px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 387x468px

>>136579412
commies and statists BTFO

>>136581710
Well you claimed that participation in your group isn't mandatory.
That means if I choose not to participate, you give me a free plane ticket outta Ancapistan, right?

>>136581785
The State being inevitable is exactly what all States want you to think. Believing that nothing can be done is how you demoralize a population. If the original founding fathers believed in such a concept, they never would have taken to arms against tyranny. The abolition of the state is possible and market forces are more than enough to ensure everything the state is supposed to ensure

>>136581918
If you decide not to participate then you're free to leave the community. If you refuse to leave the community then you are violating the NAP and will be violently removed in some manner.
Ancap communities wouldn't be large geographically, as it's been shown that group unity begins dissolving at 150 unique societal agents. Communities would organize into cities and such as naturally occurs, however large, expansive nations wouldn't be cohesive and different systems of law would exist only a few miles away from where you currently stood. If you were unhappy in one ancap nation then you could just walk to another.
If passage out of the nation is guaranteed by the society then you might get it, but that would be dependent on the community to organize and it isn't built in to the communities

>>136582452
Also I should note that this assumes you have no homesteaded your own property or own any property in the community. If you do, then it would be a violation of the NAP to forcibly remove you from your own property. However, no one around you has to associate with you, and if you are a caustic element to the community then you will quickly see stores turning you away and people demanding that you stay off their property or else face removal

File: NAP destroyed in 1 image.png (85KB, 960x535px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 960x535px

>ancap destroyed in 1 pic

>>136582654
A single individual living alone is certainly at risk of having their property absconded by thugs like in your pic, but that's exactly what causes people to organize into groups naturally anyway. We've always been creatures that thrive in groups, and so it's stupid to assume that you'd have a bunch of ancaps living alone; even though they'd be free to do so. What would realistically happen is that a person would join an ancap community that has similar values to them and they would protect each other via mutual aid

>>136581825
Well first of all, "free association" itself is an illogical, false, and dishonest concept. But I won't get into it since it's beside the point; just know that it's not an argument.

>By using their right to free association, and their rights to private property, the community would expel those foreign cultures and people.
That isn't how they'd do it, that's how they would justify themselves having the right to do it.
You also didn't give a valid explanation for why they WOULD do it in the first place.
Your assumption that ethnic groups having an in-group preference isn't relevant; not only because it's an assumption (and an entirely baseless one), but because it doesn't apply to the scale of the entire society; only to those specific groups, and the extent to which they're connected and coordinating.

>>136582452
>>136582560
>If you decide not to participate then you're free to leave the community.
I'm only "free" to leave it if I have the means to leave freely. This is why I'm asking you to confirm I'll be given such.
>and will be violently removed in some manner
That's working on the bold assumption that whoever I'm "aggressing" upon chooses to enforce the NAP, and chooses to do so in a violent manner.

>this assumes you have no homesteaded your own property or own any property in the community.
You'd need to expand on what you define as homesteading, and what counts as "private property"

>no one around you has to associate with you
Another bold assumption.

File: 178115B1-779A-4375-966E-BFF04A67BEC5-2523-0000030C416D2D2D.jpg (8KB, 265x190px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 265x190px

>>136579412
>>136579658
>>136579752
>>136579783
>>136579810
Sheeeeeeeeeit

ancoms are so much worse. They wouldn't even exist without Soros funding their antifa riots.

>>136580479
Law can only come from god

File: thats a great smash.jpg (34KB, 750x499px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 750x499px

>>136579412
>>136579658
>>136579752
>>136579783
>>136579810

covenant C O M M U N I T I E S

File: IMG_3168.png (84KB, 1246x938px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1246x938px

>>136582039
I agree. But just like the commie retards and other assorted political greenfoots on this anus of a website you are thinking of things in terms of absolutes, as if you have some totality of understanding and that your political alignment (the new sleeve of meaningless tattoos, the new beanie baby collection, the new Nintendo vs. Sega argument) is the end all be all.

It isn't. It would be temporary at best. And your miscalculation with it all is that you incorrectly and misguidedly assume that other racial, ethnic, religious, class, and political groups would ever abandon their desires and ambitions all to live in some temporarily utopian pipe dream until the next heeb decides to throw a wrench into the whole operation.

>>136583136
>free association is an illogical, false, and dishonest concept
>it's the concept that laid foundation for all of western society

Fuck off you r-selected, marxist retard.

>>136583342
That's fine if you believe in that, and there would certainly be religious communities that interpret law as coming from divine sources. Unlike what the state provides, in which law comes from the opinions of expropriators and thugs

File: 1496972107326.jpg (77KB, 750x390px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 750x390px

>>136583116
What would realistically happen is that process of forming/joining larger groups to protect yourself from others who have formed/joined larger groups would continue, and the small ancap communities would grow into societies, and the members of those societies would choose to delegate authority since (by your own admission) large societies with no centralized power are impossible to organize cohesively.

In other words, they would do what the primitive, barbaric, hunting-gathering societies figured out 5,000 years ago.
>civilization

File: China_people liberation army.jpg (252KB, 690x388px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 690x388px

>>136583116
>live in a community with the same values
>help each other out and own some guns to protect yourselves
>comfy little zone with perhaps a wall or something around it
>all of the sudden these guys show up
>they tell you that you've been liberated and are now a part of China
>you will pay taxes to the Chinese government and follow their rules
>1 fool shouts at them that they're violating the NAP and that he'll shoot them if they don't leave
>a machine gunner fires 200 rounds into his fat ass
what do?

>>136583430
Western civilization only became powerful thanks to the decentralization of their governments after the fall of the Roman empire. I believe what you're describing is more similar to the statement that "Organization is inevitable" which is, of course, true. However, the "State" is not inevitable, as it has been shown historically that private entities are perfectly capable at governing themselves via free association and private exchange. Law and order was handled by private entities. Insurance was handled by private entities. Markets thrive under private control. Everything save for orchestrated mass slaughter via war is handled better by individuals cooperating than it is by a coercive state entity. There would be a drastically reduced need for war for an anarcho capitalist society, where wars would be defensive rather than offensive means of conquest. Defense of the ancap society would also come from the ground up, rather than top down. Firms tasked with public safety (like the law and order organizations of common law) would have an inherent incentive to promote self defense, as they would be fronted the bill for failure to defend those they serve. Thus the population would be overwhelmingly educated in the realm of defense, and we've seen what can happen when a bunch of farmers are willing and able to defend themselves. Even the largest military on the planet and in history was unable to stop a bunch of organized rice farmers.

File: 1496971872717.jpg (441KB, 3500x2940px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 3500x2940px

>>136583526
>hehe free association xD, you don't have to associate with people unless you want to
>but all the property that isn't yours is owned by someone else, so you're free to starve to death in your house if you don't want to pay the toll to use my road and drive to the food market :')
>isn't freedom great!?!

>>136584172
>Hey look this asshole put a toll on a road that everyone has to use
>Lets boycott him and deny him service to our establishments until he either leaves or removes the bullshit toll
>Also who sold this faggot the property to build a road big enough to be a burden on the rest of us?
Free association wins again nigger

File: IMG_3745.jpg (123KB, 710x532px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 710x532px

>>136584090
Your immersion into your ideology borders on obsessive levels of tomfoolery.

The simple fact that you believe the US was "beaten" by "a bunch of rice farmers" explicitly dictates your History Channel understanding of reality.

You should seriously consider waiting 10 years until you're out of your misdirected (intentionally from external forces) 20s before you take any political direction. Trust me on this one, I used to think EXACTLY like you when I was your age.

File: 1496577137698.gif (3MB, 414x382px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 414x382px

>>136584397
>Wait a minute, on second thought...
>We depend on this road to bring us customers
>Who cares about one guy who doesn't want to pay the toll that helps keep that road maintained?

>>136584090
the 6th and 7th centuries were the pinaccle of western civ

>>136584688
And what, you're a fascist now?

>>136584865
>wait a minute, on second thought...
>that town depends on a road to bring them customers and they're getting fucked by some faggot with a toll that, for some reason, they haven't kicked out of their community yet
>it would be a solid business move to come in and undercut the faggot with the toll and build our own road at a lower price
Fixed again and the faggot tollster gets BTFO

>>136580097
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/filename/IMG_3794.gif/
is all you do is browse ancap threads and shill?

>>136585685
Also, just the very threat of this happening would prevent the tollster from setting a high toll. The same market force prevents people from charging $100 for a gallon of milk, even though it isn't illegal to do so.

File: keynescucks.png (1MB, 1224x1332px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1224x1332px

watch all the shills swarm this post and defend keynesianism.

they'll expend so much energy to defend the state, authority worship, religion worship... but the one thing above all. is you DON'T attack the monetary system.

KEYNESIANS NEED TO BE GASSED.

File: IMG_4014.jpg (41KB, 388x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 388x400px

>>136585527
Nah, although I wouldn't mind it. I'd like to see a return to our political past in the US but I'm not stupid enough to think for a second that will happen, especially considering the demographic onslaught we've taken since the 60s.

I don't have a specified brand of politics but I'm also not a nihilist jackass.

One thing I can demonstrably and agree with is the forced removal of Jews from our societies. If that means fascism then so be it.

File: unifiedagainstshillary.png (420KB, 1543x1032px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1543x1032px

>>136579412
>>136579901
how nu r u

File: IMG_3795.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>136585947
No. I spend a lot of time on almost every political thread I come across. This thread is no different. That doesn't mean I'm a MUH SHILL.

I honestly am blown away at how paranoidly stupid you are, though. Lol!

File: 1496731553664.jpg (57KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1024x1024px

>>136585685
>>136586110
>and they're getting fucked by some faggot with a toll
No they're not. You don't get to use Ancapistani voodoo magicks to alter reality so it's always in everybody's financial interests to protect Ancap principles and you get to say dah fwee mowket winz agayn.

The concept of free association applies to individual people, not "the amount of people whereby their refusal to use the road would constitute the town getting fucked",

I feel like I've gone a bit too hard on you, since you're already reduced to niggering and faggoting me.
Here, since you can't define what private property is, answer me this.
What qualifies as "association"?
Is it only direct interaction, or can it be indirect too?

>>136586574
>paranoidly
well at least you're not a subhuman and can be somewhat of a wordsmith. why do you change between nazi and usa flag though?

File: 1471233164622.jpg (30KB, 600x460px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x460px

>>136586311
Sounds like you're a retard without any conviction

>>136586311
I 100% agree. I used to be a fascist myself and in terms of blowing jews and commies (products of jews) out of the water, it's the best system. If there was a way to guarantee that, once the thread of cultural subversion was eliminated, that the state would dissolve, then I would be heavily in support of fascism to rid the west of the cancer it's facing now. Unfortunately, there is no such guarantee and centralizing that much power into the hands of the state is a dangerous move, as that power can be turned on the people if a corrupt agent gains power.
I'm also a staunch supporter of the Articles of Confederation, as they were the perfect model of a society aiming to minimize the State and maximize the individual. The Constitution is scam that Hamilton and Madison bait-and-switched into being, using Shay's and other rebellions as an excuse for more State power.

File: 1500160440648.jpg (351KB, 685x962px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 685x962px

>>136587033
>I used to be a fascist

dude, you can be a fascist and an ancap at the same time. it just means everyone in your city or community is there voluntarily. you can be a communist for god sakes (that's aside from the point that city/town/community will die in like 50 years) but you get the point. the most prosperous ancap community will be a fascist like eugenic one with high standards and only laws that mimic natural law.

>>136586707
If a toll exists on a road that is prohibitive to some of the people that use the road, then it certainly is a financial opportunity for another road layer to come in and undercut them, as they would quickly take the customers of the original toll'ed road. Also, tolls aren't necessarily the best way to profit from roads as it is. You're also assuming that it would be individuals that lay roads and not groups of people having it lain by a third party and maintained by the group that contracts it. That group would probably be those seeking to develop the land and would require workers and consumers and other industries to move in, so it would be in their interest to lay more road for further development. It wouldn't make much sense to deny movement on that road or to toll it, otherwise no one would come to develop the newly homesteaded land and the project would fail.

Also free association does apply to individuals, but it is the collective use of it that generates the market forces which work against anti-social behavior by reducing profits for those that engage in that behavior

>>136586707
Also private property is either property that has been originally homesteaded, homesteaded after abandonment, or privately traded among those who do have legitimate ownership of it. Private property would be guaranteed by the law and order institutions and insurance agencies which would have a built-in incentive to actually protect property rights else they lose their revenue streams

>>136586710
>implying that isn't a word
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/paranoidly

>why do you change between nazi and usa flag though?
Why shouldn't I?

>>136587430
I know, and I would personally flock to a society with fascist values. However, fascism as a state structure is something I oppose strongly. Their values and culture? I'm heavily in favor of those things and so any society I would join would have to have those as core values

>>136586978
No. I'm just not a hopeful optimist. I've lived through 4 decades and I can see how stupidly naive people can be when it comes to wishful politics.

File: confused.jpg (37KB, 600x535px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x535px

>>136588116
You're still trying to change the argument instead of validly addressing the problem.
>prohibitive to some of the people that use the road
It only needs to be prohibitive to one for your principles to fall apart.
>it certainly is a financial opportunity for another road layer to come in and undercut them
This is assuming there's room available to build a road on.
>as they would quickly take the customers of the original toll'ed road.
This is assuming the customers of the original road care more about having to pay the toll than having access to the businesses built on that road, which are the reason they used the road in the first place.
>individuals that lay roads and not groups of people having it lain by a third party
It doesn't make any difference to the problem being discussed.

>it is the collective us of it that generates the market forces which work against anti-social behavior
So you admit that the free market doesn't enforce the principles of AnCap; it only enforces whatever social practices are deemed appropriate by the participators in the market.

Will you also admit that people's personal, immediate financial interests have a stronger bearing on what practices they're likely to deem appropriate? Stronger than the abstract and distant and morality-centered principles of Ancap?

>>136587033
>centralizing a lot of power within the state is dangerous
>corrupt agents can turn it against the people

Can you quickly explain what this "power" is and why it apparently doesn't exist if there's no state for people to give it to, as in Ancapistan?

>>136588400
Can you specify what "homesteading" qualifies as?
Can you specify what "abandonment" qualifies as?
Can you specify what makes ownership "legitimate"?

>Private property would be guaranteed by the law and order institutions and insurance agencies which would have a built-in incentive to actually protect property rights else they lose their revenue streams
So exactly the same way the state works?
And you say people would choose to employ those services since it's in their interests to have their property guaranteed by something other than their own ability to defend it, right?

>>136588848
It isn't hopeful optimism that drives me, it's the realization that we've already skirted close to the end goal of Libertarianism. Had we been having this conversation during 1780, we would be seen as slightly radical but otherwise sane. The Overton window has shifted so far left, though, that Libertarianism is seen as a completely alien concept.

>>136589590
The principles of Libertarianism/AnCap are free association, the NAP, and private property. These are the only beliefs that are immutable under ancap, and everything else is left up to the individual ancap societies.
Free association means that an individual can just leave if the situation is not favorable to them. If the road is prohibitive to only them, and the community doesn't care, then they either deal with it, find an alternative, or leave. If you're priced out of the market than you either find another market or you adapt, as it is in any market situation. Of course, such a situation is highly unlikely because that is anti-social behavior, which isn't exactly the best way to deal with a population you rely on for funding

>>136589590
>Can you quickly explain what this "power" is and why it apparently doesn't exist if there's no state for people to give it to, as in Ancapistan?
The monopoly of violence into the hands of a few actors with no limitations on their applications of that violence.
It doesn't exist in ancap because there is no central body that claims to own the land of the nation and the peace officers that would crop up would be beholden to the same laws as the rest of the societies, unlike in the modern situation where they are by and large above the law. Likewise, the peace officers would actually have to protect and serve the people, unlike now where there are clause after clause and even a Supreme Court decision that states police have no legal responsibility to actually protect people. That would be done away with in ancap because the people would be able to guarantee that the protection agencies they work with must actually protect them

>>136590066
Homesteading is the act of developing previously undeveloped or abandoned resources.

Abandonment is what happens when the owner of the homesteaded property dies without heir. Communities can further expand on this to include time limits if they so please, so that you don't see land stay partially developed for 60 years until the original owner dies

Ownership is legitimate if and only if it is obtained through homesteading of the free trade among individuals.

>>136579412
capitalism is still globalism, though. it's internationalist by the very design of free trade.

>>136580479
authoritarianism is contrary to anarchism. it is 'without rulers'. NAP is meaningless.

>>136591414
Anarchy is what happens when the State fails to enforce it's laws. If there is no State then there is perpetual anarchy, but that doesn't mean there isn't organization.
The State is any governing apparatus that claims monopoly on violence. Destroy the monopoly on violence and there can be no State, but that doesn't intrinsically mean there will no still be governance by the people. People naturally organize into mutually beneficial arrangements, because there is a net gain to cooperation over plunder. We're social creatures by nature, after all

>>136591337
so what?

>>136591414
what if you choose someone to rule over you?

>>136591739
>Anarchy is what happens when the State fails to enforce it's laws
No, it's defined as a lack of rulers. There doesn't even have to be a state prior to the anarchist system. It's just no rulers.
>If there is no State then there is perpetual anarchy, but that doesn't mean there isn't organization.
No collective organization, sure. On an individual level, yeah. On a small commune level, most likely not. It is only about the individual. Even if you had some democratic prediction of events, the anarchist system is, by definition, without rulers. Any agreement you reach cannot be enforced on anyone else. There are no agreed-upon set of rules.
>but that doesn't intrinsically mean there will no still be governance by the people.
I don't have to listen to anything you say. Fuck your NAP, I want to do whatever I want to on my property. Whatever result your 'governance' yields, I reject summarily. Anarchy is without rulers, there cannot be 'governance' on a collective level, only individual.
>People naturally organize into mutually beneficial arrangements
Never claimed the opposite. We can agree to trade, sure. That isn't the same thing as a collective system of governance.
>>136591781
>so what?
The ethno-state is an impossibility.
>>136591781
>what if you choose someone to rule over you?
Not really anarchist if you hold elections, defeats the purpose of individualist philosophy. I don't care what the result of the election or monarchal boodline is.

>>136592192
Fine, if you feel like defining anarchy that way then anarcho capitalism/Libertarianism isn't anarchy. There will always be hierarchies and authority, however that authority will be limited by the NAP. Violation of the NAP would be met with removal, and the attempt to monopolize violence is violation of the NAP on many levels

File: ee5845b9831ae6f1d1f7fbd0723b8e448bd49f82389de960b34893a0340d99b8.jpg (8KB, 455x70px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 455x70px

>>136592192
forgot image

>>136590587
>immutable under ancap
Translates to
>These beliefs are permanent, as long as everyone believes in them.
I challenged you on why everyone will continue to believe in them.

>Free association means that an individual can just leave if the situation is not favorable to them.
So they can "just leave"? No matter what? Poof, gone? That's your response to the problem I posed? Walk me through how Ancap has accomplished this.

>such a situation is highly unlikely because that is anti-social behavior
According to who?

>>136590606
The power is violence, then?
But violence is not a commodity, or an industry. Something that can be produced by everyone, at their leisure, cannot be monopolized.
I'm still failing to see how this danger exists exclusively when there's a state.
When there's no state, there also aren't any limitations on the application of violence.
>But the NAP
You (correctly) don't regard the Geneva Conventions or UN rulings as limitations on the state's application of violence.
Therefore you can't regard the NAP as a limitation on general people's application of violence. Not without being horrifically dishonest, anyway.
So what gives?

>>136590768
Can you specify what qualifies as "development"?
Who is considered a legitimate heir?
And did you just say that communities can impose their own time limits on when a person's own private property is considered abandoned? Or am I misreading it?

>>136592583
>Fine, if you feel like defining anarchy
It's not my subjective interpretation, that is the definition. Here: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anarchy
"Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."
No rulers present. Absolute freedom=/=you can impose your morality on me.
>There will always be hierarchies and authority
Agreed. I will it to manifest itself as the state.
>however that authority will be limited by the NAP.
The NAP is just the survival of the fittest. Nobody will defend the inferior on their behalf. It's just the greatest hierarchies rise to the top and no governance will drag them down.
>Violation of the NAP would be met with removal
By who? The statist collective enforcing the rule of law... I mean the totally free people and don't call them a group of 'removal agents' acting for the 'betterment of the society'.
>and the attempt to monopolize violence is violation of the NAP on many levels
So? Who cares. If they monopolize violence and replace the hierarchal structure, by definition, nobody can stop them. If I amass a great army, then the NAP cannot stop me if I can just shoot you before you do anything about it, as I have more power.

>>136592643
>I challenged you on why everyone will continue to believe in them
The NAP would be enforced in the same way common law was enforced, via private institutions of law and order selected for quality via market forces
These are not things that have to be set in stone, they are what logically results from free association, which once again isn't something that must be enforced but rather happens naturally. Free association can't be forced, it can only be limited. Without a governing body trying to limit it, then it is allowed to run it's full course which will result in the NAP being enforced and property rights being guaranteed.

>So they can 'just leave'
Of course they can, free association includes the right to 'just leave' whenever they want if they no longer desire to be there. You aren't forced to associate with people, and you aren't forced to live in one place either. I've listed the three options a person would have in the absurd scenario of a toll being placed on a road that is prohibitive to only one consumer.
What happens in any place where the cost of living is too high? People leave and only those who can afford the cost of living there move there. The only difference in an ancap society would be that the price of roads would be calculated into the cost of living alongside the price of education, food, insurance, etc. You're turning this into a life or death scenario when it's nothing different than what we already have, but just with one more component to have to consider

>Monopoly on violence
A State expresses their monopoly on violence by using violence. They pass laws that state that only they are allowed to commit violent acts. They have occupying forces (the police) that dispense violence in order to enforce their laws and coerce the population into giving the State their property (taxation, eminent domain, etc).

>>136592192
>The ethno-state is an impossibility.
So trading with other races somehow destroys your ethno state?

>Not really anarchist if you hold elections, defeats the purpose of individualist philosophy. I don't care what the result of the election or monarchal boodline is.
You don't have to, that the point. If you choose someone that makes decisions for you is totaly fine as long as he doesn't force you or others. Getting individuals together doesn't really to persure the same goal doesn't really destroy the concept of individualism.

File: 1499953617804.jpg (58KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x650px

>>136579412
>>136579658
>>136579752
>>136579783
>>136579810
>>136579882
Best thread.

>>136592643
Christ all you're doing is having me play dictionary, in an attempt to find a weakness in my argument because of a mistake in diction. That's pretty fucking jewish desu, especially seeing as you aren't at all addressing actual structure you're just addressing the definitions.

Development is when you take a resource and organize it into a more productive state, such as building a mine to extract metals. The act of building that mine would be 'development'. This excludes act of destruction as 'development' as you are simply reducing the resource to a less organized position.

>>136594209
>So trading with other races somehow destroys your ethno state?
No, destroying state borders and allowing private business to run as they will (i.e. chase profits) will disallow ethno-centrism and its policies, as spic labour demographically replaces whites.
Oh, and the whole internationalist trade thing only accelerates the post-racial mindset, further alienating white identitarianism.
>You don't have to, that the point.
Then the result of the NAP is meaningless.
>If you choose someone that makes decisions for you is totaly fine as long as he doesn't force you or others
This also applies to the NAP. I can do whatever I please, nobody can stop me. The children all consent to me, basically. No AoC laws will stop me, no rulers exist. Hey, sign me up for an ancap society.
>Getting individuals together doesn't really to persure the same goal doesn't really destroy the concept of individualism.
It does when you start enforcing the 'goals' as a collective. I don't care what your NAP means, stop enforcing your morality upon me.

>>136592880
Once again, under that definition ancap isn't anarchy then, unless you consider their use of "government" to mean what Libertarians call "The State" or "Leviathan". There will always be governance and organization as there has been since we were living out of caves in roaming tribes.
This organization will only become a 'State" if they monopolize violence, which is a violation of the NAP and would be met with resistance by the institutions of insurance and law and order
They will not be able to monopolize violence, even if they themselves are a law and order institution, because there will exist a plethora of other law and order alternatives that people can subscribe to that don't violate the NAP
Also those other institutions would be tasked with responding to the violation of the NAP by their contracts with the population, as they are required to uphold it (Unlike State agitators)

>>136592880
>>Violation of the NAP would be met with removal
>By who?

By the insurance instituations as well as the Law and Order institutions, which would be tasked with upholding the NAP as it is the basic expression of property rights and autonomy and no such Law and Order or Insurance institution would be profitable without ensuring them (people want protection)

File: 1502210767740.jpg (179KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 500x650px

>>136594408
fixed

>Things need to be organised
>Therefore the state

Not an argument

>>136594162
>selected for quality via market forces
And your claim is that this "quality", as in the "quality" that's advertised to and witnessed by the potential customers, is equivalent to the real quality of the institution?
>they are what logically results from free association
So far you've resoundingly failed to prove this.
Hell, you've resoundingly failed to demonstrate that "free association" is a sound concept to begin with.

>You aren't forced to associate with people, and you aren't forced to live in one place either.
So PROVE this. Tell me the means by which I can "just leave" without associating with people.
The problem is about the concept of free association. You continuing to try and make it about the cost of living is not a valid argument.
>it's nothing different than what we already have
...This is correct. If you see that, how do you still think "free association" is a thing?

>A State expresses their monopoly on violence by using violence.
Using violence expresses the ability and the will to use violence, nothing more.
>laws that state that only they are allowed to commit violent acts
And no more do the Geneva Conventions limit the state's ability to commit violent acts, do the state's laws limit your ability to commit violent acts.
>They have occupying forces that dispense violence in order to enforce their laws and coerce the population into giving the State their property
So do you, in Ancapistan.

>>136594896
>Once again, under that definition ancap isn't anarchy then, unless you consider their use of "government" to mean what Libertarians call "The State" or "Leviathan"
Then call yourselves capitalists or libertarians. I can respect libertarianism, but I am socially ultraconservative so degeneracy doesn't work (devolves fabric of society). That's why I am not libertarian or whatever.
>There will always be governance and organization as there has been since we were living out of caves in roaming tribes.
The cavemen had hierarchies. If I can kill you and take your shit, I will. I don't care about morality because it doesn't exist. Woe be to the vanquished, basically.
>This organization will only become a 'State" if they monopolize violence, which is a violation of the NAP and would be met with resistance by the institutions of insurance and law and order
How do you intend to set up 'law and order' in anarchy is without rulers or agreed-upon governance? You're just minarchists, in that case.
Also, the NAP is meaningless if you are fully anarchist. It's literally kill or be killed.
>They will not be able to monopolize violence, even if they themselves are a law and order institution, because there will exist a plethora of other law and order alternatives that people can subscribe to that don't violate the NAP
The assumption that some agency of law and order (that people agree to, mind you) will step in on behalf of the people to stop monopolies on violence presupposes a state or some heavily centralized authority. It's just relying on a bigger army that doesn't kill its citizens it represents... or a state.
>would be tasked with responding to the violation of the NAP by their contracts with the population, as they are required to uphold it (Unlike State agitators)
Private hitmen breaking up my private armies? Sounds awfully restrictionist...
Who are you to judge whether or not I am 'violent'?

>>136595056
>By the insurance instituations as well as the Law and Order institutions
I reject their authority and civil code entirely.
>>136595391
It's more that "organization is required, but I don't give a shit about the result because I am beholden to myself and I reject whatever outcome of some collectivist nonsense becomes, you have no right to disallow behavior on anarchists, by definition."

File: 1495659337245.gif (3MB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x300px

>>136594446
I'm having you play dictionary because it's the only way to make you concede that Ancap is a nonsense meme ideology.
If I were to lay it out for you myself you'd just call me a nigger again.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

>take a resource and organize it into a more productive state
It's not your right to judge what makes a resource more or less productive. That's entirely up to the interpretation of the owner. If he owns a plot of dirt, and his desired use for the dirt is to entertain him by growing grass, it is productive.
You asserting your interpretations of productivity on his property, and imposing your own designated time limit for when his unoccupied property is considered "abandoned" and can be homesteaded, means you don't actually believe in exclusive private ownership of property. You believe you have jurisdiction over their property, on the basis that it's land that you could be using.
In other words, you believe in the State.

Welcome aboard, kamerad.

>>136594446
You ought to be the last one to talk about Jewishness, all your idols, from Rand to Friedman, were Jews.

>>136595398
It's the quality that the market (therefore the consumers) want, so yeah I'd say that it's true quality.

Once again, I honestly don't understand why you think anyone is forced to associate with anyone else. They can, at any time, go fuck off into the woods and homestead their own shit, grow their own food, build their own house, and otherwise never interact with another human being. Likewise, any two people can associate with one another and come to any agreement they want, so long as it isn't in violation of a non-involved party's NAP.
Freedom to associate is not freedom from interaction. If you don't want to talk to someone you can promptly tell them to fuck off, and if they don't and are in violation of your NAP, then you can make them fuck off. If you don't like a particular cultural or ethnic group, then under Libertarianism you would be entirely within your rights to never associate with them. You don't have to provide them a service and you don't have to even let them inside your building. If your community doesn't share your values, then you might be faced with consequences for that, but I never said you had freedom from consequences.

>Violence, again
This is a semantics argument at best and can be resolved by not using the word "Monopoly" as you seem to be unable to apply words abstractly. If a single entity is the only entity allowed to produce railroad, then they have a railroad monopoly. Yes someone can build a railroad if they wanted, but surely you wouldn't say that illegally producing a railroad breaks the monopoly on railroads do you? If you do, then you're using a definition of monopoly I've never seen be used in functional context

>>136595710
Fine, then go fuck off somewhere where there will be no Law and Order or Insurance institutions. You aren't forced to use their services and you aren't forced to live in a community with values you don't agree with. Free association and all that jazz

>>136595710
Oh, but if you violate another person's NAP then you can't expect your NAP to be upheld, so remember than when you think not being beholden to some Law and Order or Insurance institution means you are free to wreak havoc however you please

>>136597092
>I-I'll deport you!
>You aren't forced to use their services and you aren't forced to live in a community
>in a community
I live on my own property right next door, fuck off. Laws based on public nuisance are retarded statist bullshit. Stop violating the NAP.
>>136597154
>Oh, but if you violate another person's NAP then you can't expect your NAP to be upheld
If the threat of my violence outranks all yours because I rank higher on the hierarchal chain of command, it doesn't matter. If I can stage a coup d'état of the statist 'law and order institutions' that uphold morality and police behaviors/their codes, then none of that matters anymore. I already said this above: woe be to the vanquished.

>>136596328
Once again, you're attacking my definitions and not at all what I'm presenting. I, unfortunately, don't have my Libertarian dictionary in front of me so I'm paraphrasing already; before you claim goalpost moving

Did the person plant the grass or was it going to grow on it's own naturally? If they planted the grass and wanted to watch it grow, then yeah they've developed that plot of land and are using it. If anyone comes along and tries to develop it differently then it's within the right of the owner to claim that the other person is violating the NAP and their property rights and they can defend their property.
You wouldn't be a friend to many, though, if you just planted large fields of grass and then claimed you owned all that land by virtue of being a fuck. Enjoy living a solitary lifestyle with all your grass

>>136596510
Don't ascribe to me idols that I've never claimed as my own.

>>136597380
Fine, then you get to live in your own property right next door to all of the people who do subscribe to the Law and Order or Insurance agencies. Also there would more than likely be multiple law and order/insurance agencies to choose from, but if you still didn't want any of them then you aren't forced to be protected. If you want to live an isolationist lifestyle right next to a community then go for it, no one is stopping you. Just remember, no one is forced to provide you with anything, be it food or electricity or anything else, if they don't want to. Being anti-social hurts the one being anti-social because the other agents in the society can deny them service.
Ranking higher on the hierarchical chain does not grant you more right to violence or a higher level of threat

File: 1502098211828.jpg (106KB, 823x767px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 823x767px

>>136598195
>Don't ascribe to me idols that I've never claimed as my own.
Only God can judge me.
One thing I do agree with you guys on is private property, I believe it exists. Also, trading stuff and currency. All that is useful to civilization.
Marxists are a yooneeq breed.

File: 1491407400238.jpg (27KB, 315x325px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 315x325px

>>136598567
Our entire belief is based upon the three things you've just said you agree with lmao

Private property
Trading shit
Money

We just believe that governance will be handled by these three things, rather than needing a State entity to force cooperation (and coerce the population into subservience)

>>136596983
>It's the quality that the market (therefore the consumers) want
Are you sure about that? Let's test.
Lawyers: Are they hired to provide an honest and fair interpretation of the law as it pertains to their client, so the judge can give a just ruling? Or are they hired to win the client's case, even if it means being dishonest, skirting justice, and exploiting loopholes and technicalities?
It's the second one, right?
So then these private institutions, would the quality they're advertising be "we will enforce the NAP"? Or would it be "we will help you win your NAP dispute"?

>They can, at any time, go fuck off into the woods and homestead their own shit
I seriously didn't think you'd be naive enough to try and make this argument. Why would there be woods that aren't already someone's property?
But again you're skirting over the initial problem.
>fuck off into the woods
To get to there from my house I presumably need to travel. This presumably involves entering other people's property. Yes or No?
If you want your distinction between interaction and association to be meaningful, you need to play dictionary again.

>surely you wouldn't say that illegally producing a railroad breaks the monopoly on railroads do you?
of course I wouldn't, because for your analogy to be accurate, everybody is able to produce railroads at will, without needing to acquire the actual resources to do so, therefore there wouldn't be any monopoly to break.

>>136597610
I'm attacking what you're presenting.
>Did the person plant the grass or was it going to grow on it's own naturally?
Why does it make a difference? He's occupying the land and making sure the grass grows, because it entertains him.
Is that enough to qualify as development?

File: 1500755165010.jpg (79KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1280x960px

>>136597610
Also
>Enjoy living a solitary lifestyle with all your grass
isn't an argument, btw. You don't know what properties and lands I own aside from the grass.
I might not be a friend to the people around the grass but that doesn't mean I don't have more valuable friends elsewhere.

>>136599339
In your example you use lawyers, however you're thinking of lawyers today under a State with a codified and enforced federal law. In ancap this would be entirely different, as the very law institutions themselves would be competing for people to subscribe to them. The people select the law institution, they aren't prescribed it. It would be similar to how Common Law worked under monarchies, (the monarchies being only enforcers, not producers, of Law). Under that system, the laws of the land would be selected by the market for what the most people wanted. Uniformity would be promoted in most cases, and in cases where two people subscribed to different laws an arbiter would be selected for mediation. There's a lot more to it that I'm not the most adept at explaining, so I'll leave it at that for now
The private institutions would be selected by the market for those within the market. The NAP and property rights can be signed away if the populations wish to do so, however it would be highly unlikely that anyone would sign on that line if there were other providers that didn't require you to sign away your fundamental rights.
The reason there would be woods that aren't someone's property is because we don't live in a world with enough people to actually occupy or develop all of the land even in the US, let alone the world. I see what you're getting at though, so lets assume that you're surrounded by private property and in order to leave you have to travel over that property. Assuming you're dealing with normal people, the owners of the property would hardly bat an eye at someone just crossing through. If you're dealing with anti-social actors though, you might be in a pickle. In that case, your violation of the NAP would go to whatever Law and Order or Insurance agency would be in charge of protecting those property rights, and they would determine what is acceptable payment for the violation

>>136599339
I concede then that I use the term "Monopoly" only symbolically then to describe State aggression and their use of force to suppress the ability/desire of others to use force. It isn't a literal market monopoly on violence, because as you said, violence isn't a scare resource.

File: 1494248292670.png (308KB, 499x443px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 499x443px

>>136599618
By the way, I have to say this is the most fun I've had on 4chan in years. Fantastic thread and excellent conversation m8
See you on the other side of the 404

>>136601348
You yourself said the NAP was immutable. The question of having different laws is irrelevant, then. We're talking of an institution that enforces the NAP.
Naturally, one of its purposes would be to settle disputes between its clients about claimed aggressions.
Your claim is that the free market will naturally lead to institutions that enforce the NAP (through settling disputes in favor of the person who was aggressed upon) because that is what the consumers want.
But this isn't true, because people who are aggressed upon and want the NAP enforced aren't going to be the only customers. Just like lawyer's clients aren't only people that are innocent and trying to prove so.

>we don't live in a world with enough people to actually occupy or develop all of the land
It goes back to the issue of what counts as developed.
States sure as hell don't have a problem owning all the land.
If I own a lumber business, am I not allowed to purchase an entire forest? In case "entertainment" isn't a good enough reason for claiming the grass from before, I mean.
By owning the entire forest I'd be securing the future of my business.

>the owners of the property would hardly bat an eye at someone just crossing through.
That's speculation.
>your violation of the NAP would go to whatever Law and Order or Insurance agency would be in charge of protecting those property rights, and they would determine what is acceptable payment for the violation
What you're saying is in order to opt out of this voluntary society, I'd be forced to violate the NAP, and suffer the consequences?

File: 1490557249721.gif (3MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x404px

>>136601774
So the problem boils down to when the state is so much better at using violence than the citizenry that it's able to abuse them and impose its will on them arbitrarily.

And ancap's proposed solution to this is to get rid of all states ever.
Do you see that as reasonable, anon?

I propose an alternative solution for the citizenry:
>git gud

>>136598781
I observe the three things, to a degree (unlike interest speculation and whatnot), but that the last premise doesn't follow.
Don't want money handling governance.

>>136603652
>Law
Yeah there will be other laws and such, and they will develop just like Common Law developed back in the day. When it comes to property rights and the NAP, market forces would dictate that they be protected by the law and order/insurance agencies. This is because if a person is presented with two options: To have their NAP and property rights protected or to not have their NAP and property rights protected, they will almost always select the option where their property rights and NAP are protected. This creates a lot of pressure for law and order agencies to conform, because otherwise people would just use an alternative that does protect them (increasing the size of that business and thus their ability to protect). Because everyone personally benefits from property rights, it is in everyone's interest that their property rights be protected. Thus, because of collective self-interest, just about every L&A/Insurance agency will protect the NAP and property rights.

>Property
How did they come to purchase all that forest? Did they buy it from people who had legitimate claims to the property? Was all that forest really developed prior to their purchase? If so, then there's nothing wrong with a company buying massive amounts of land in that way to secure stock, but good luck maintaining it. Also just because you have utility for something, doesn't mean you've developed it or homesteaded it. I can't claim ownership of an entire mountain because I can mine it. I can claim ownership of a mine I build in the mountain though,

>NAP
It's speculation to say that the majority of people wouldn't care if you were temporarily crossing through their land to leave the area? Then I'm speculating, I guess.
If you were in that very specific situation, and you were surrounded by people that wanted to fuck you over, who didn't care about the social repercussions for openly being a shit person in such a way, then yeah I guess I don't have an answer to that yet

ancap society is the one thing that wont be happening this century, dont even bother

File: 1387235738389.jpg (127KB, 3320x2152px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 3320x2152px

>>136579412
'Anarcho'-capitalism is an oxymoron is and it better called neo-feudalism.

>Introduction to Anarchism
https://libcom.org/files/intro%20pamphlet%20reading.pdf

>The Anarchist FAQ
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionA

>Is 'Anarcho'-Capitalism a form of Anarchism?
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF

>Anarcho-'Capitalism' is impossible.
https://c4ss.org/content/4043

>What is Property, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen

>The Conquest of Bread, Peter Kropotkin
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread

>Markets not capitalism
http://radgeek.com/gt/2011/10/Markets-Not-Capitalism-2011-Chartier-and-Johnson.pdf

>>136605144
Well money wouldn't be handling governance, but it would be a central component of an ancap society. Perhaps a better way to put it would be

Private Property
Trading
Markets

Because it's the market forces that are the primary governors. Rather than having criminals run the society, the market would run the society. Such a setup utilizes the decentralized nature of information among populations to best establish price in all things from law to swimming pools.

>>136605601
Assuming that's true: So? We should always fight to bring about the world we believe is the best.

>>136605637
>Perhaps a better way to put it would be
Yeah, because earlier you said: Private property
Trading shit
Money

We just believe that governance will be handled by these three things.

Difference between the two statements.

>>136605926
Money is just a component of markets, which is why I adjusted my statement. I'm aware of the difference of the two statements

>>136579412
>>136579658
>>136579752
>>136579783
>>136579810

Shit, I guess I'm AnCap now.

>>136605401
>Because everyone personally benefits from property rights, it is in everyone's interest that their property rights be protected.
This is empirically false.
You only personally benefit from your own property rights being protected. If someone owning property you would profit from owning, it's in your benefit for their rights to NOT be protected.
This is the entire point, which you didn't address.
Whichever way the dispute is settled (honestly or dishonestly), to outside customers it will still appear as though they're enforcing the NAP, since after all it's their job to decide who has the "rightful" claim.

>How did they come to purchase all that forest?
Again, why does it make a difference? It had to have been homesteaded at some point anyway, if it's being purchased from someone.
>I can't claim ownership of an entire mountain because I can mine it.
If nobody else is claiming it, why not?

>the majority of people wouldn't care if you were temporarily crossing through their land to leave the area?
More along the lines of, would I be allowed on the toll roads free of charge?
This is what I was asking at the beginning.

>>136606906
That's what I'm saying. Everyone benefits if their own property rights are protected. Thus they will subscribe to the institution that protects their property rights. This doesn't include any consideration for other people's property rights specifically because it is a self-interest motivated purchase. The L&O agencies that provides protection for individual property rights and the NAP will see the most people flock to them, because those people are motivated by self-interest to have those things protected.

>>136606906
>If nobody else is claiming it, why not?
Because I didn't homestead the entire mountain as anyone could see. I developed only the mine, therefore the only thing I can claim to have homesteaded is the mine.

Property can only be made private through homesteading or trade. If the forest was not homesteaded then the person trying to own it all would have to develop it all in order to have ownership claims. If they do that then sure, they own it. If they buy it from other people who developed all of the forest, then also sure, they can own it too

>>136607703
So after the person wrongfully loses their property dispute, you're saying they'll just go to a different one?

>>136607891
How do you go about developing a forest?

>>136606906
Are you crossing over the road or traveling on it? If you're just crossing it then the technical depreciation of the road is far less than the cost of pursuing recompense for that depreciation in a court. If someone really hated you though, they could technically bring you to court for the violation and you'd have to shell out a fraction or a penny or two. The depreciation is such a negligible amount that it would be very hard to justify actually suing over it. It would cost more to waste the time than was lost by the person crossing over the road
If you're traveling along the road then you have increased your impact on the other person's property and they would be entirely within their rights to subject you to their toll if they wanted to and protect their property if you denied.

Why is so much time spent discussing an ideology that has almost no presence in real life?
Seriously, when did you see an anarcho-capitalist IRL?
Only reason it survives is precisely because it's so underground and it's hard if not impossible to convince cultists online. If it ever became more publicly visible it would get BTFO.

>>136608254
If they believe that the L&O agency failed them then they are within their rights to change agencies, though I doubt they'd get away with trying to bring a previous suit to a different agency. I doubt agencies will guarantee settlement of incidents before signing on to them. They might though and I'm unsure how that would handled or why they would

Depends on what you're doing, but for instance a logging company cutting down trees and replanting them would be development, or a person building a house in the forest with a fence would be development, etc.

>>136608483
>Why is so much time discussing liberty when it has almost no presence in real life?
Gee I don't know

>>136609007
Liberty is a relative thing. If ancap society magically spawned to life (which is more insane than the idea of communism), it would mean liberty for very few and slavery for a lot.
People joke about Mad Max but what ancaps have in mind is neo-feudalism.
And since the main selling point of ancapism is ultra-individualism (thus extremism) and fetishization of property, it's really hard to sell that idea to the masses.

>>136608286
I'm not allowed to just use the roads, then. I'm still subjected to the toll regardless of my willingness to associate with the owner.
Is what I just said true?

>>136608817
Would the financial losses from that person choosing to go with a different agency offset the profits gained from all the extra people going to the original agency to secure wrongful claims?

>a logging company cutting down trees and replanting them would be development
They only have to do this once, and they now own the forest?
Or build a house and some fencing?
That seems perfectly possible.
What makes you say there aren't enough people to own all the land?

>>136608483
Anarcho-capitalism is not an ideology, but a philosophy. It teaches how society operates and what brings liberty and prosperity.

>>136610131
If the owner of the road wishes to enforce his right to toll you then yes, you are subject to the toll. You willingly used his private property and thus you willingly accepted the consequences of that, be it the toll, legal repercussions, or something else.

I may be mistaken about my definition of abandonment, I'll admit it's been a few months since I was introduced to that particular concept

>>136610333
>a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Yep, it's an ideology.

>>136608483
>an ideology that has almost no presence in real life?
Is there a government in nature? Ancap is the closest philosophy to natural selection as it is.

>>136610880
>willingly used his private property
Not willingly. I chose to leave the society.
Either I'm not allowed to freely leave the society, and free association is a lie.
Or it's valid for other people to impose their laws on me against my will, and free association is a lie.

>>136611370
>Is there a government in nature?
There are many.

>Ancap is the closest ideology to natural selection as it is.
Is that supposed to be appealing?

File: conquestofbread.jpg (39KB, 218x317px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 218x317px

>>136605611
Communism was never anarchism, but to the contrary totalitarianism. Fascist Mussolini was a fan of Bakunin's syndicalism. No surprise that 3 years of syndicalism in Spain resulted in Franco dictatorship.

Kropotkin has never solved a question how to distribute scarce resources. His proposal to replace money with labor hours was a dismal practice in the USSR used in collective farming.

Prouhdon "property is a theft" also said that the jew must be exterminated. Both his ideas come to reality in XX century producing catastrophic results.

Operation of markets is impossible without private property. You have to own a thing to sell it. If you deny owning the means of production, you render industry out of the market. Economic calculation will not apply to them, they will not work efficiently. If you are a commie and want to become an anarchist you should educate yourself on MUTUALISM. It is almost the same thing as anarcho-capitalism, but using leftist rhetoric.

>>136611593
No, you made the conscious decision to use the other person's property. If there are consequences to that then you accepted them by using the other person's property

>>136612285
So it's option 1
>I'm not allowed to freely leave the society, and free association is a lie.

>>136611110
>Ideology is a comprehensive set of normative beliefs...
Ancap uses knowledge discovered by scientific method, not belief.

>>136613124
The invisible hand is belief.

>>136613541
>The invisible hand is belief.
I think even 200 years ago it was perceived as an allegory to label the effect achieved by many individual agents' actions.

>>136580250
Am actually not a proxy

>>136614021
The belief is that this effect is reliably positive, and actually caused by those actions.

>>136579901
Yeah it's very different from Facebook isn't this

>>136579412
>>136579658
>>136579752
>>136579783
>>136579810
>nobody used Roman numerals
>nobody used Chinese numerals
>nobody uploaded a picture of their dick with a number written on it
Other than that, I'm mildly impressed

>>136614851
>nobody uploaded a picture of their dick with a number written on it

Now I feel it's incomplete