Give me 1 good reason why Anarcho-Capitalism wouldn't work?

Because unless you're rich right now and can afford everything you want, you'll get fucked up on every turn

>>138196923
>Not an argument, kiddos.
???

you dont respond at all to the counter arguments

>>138197571
theft
sovereignty
sovereignty
free market

File: ancaps.png (41KB, 628x864px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 628x864px

>>138196923
your entire ideology is reliant upon people not being dickheads and abusing it, which will fall through entirely in practise

>>138197571

>roads
The same private companies that the government pays to build them will still operate in AnCapistan if the coin is right.

>degeneracy
Not an argument because its about muh feefees. But ill entertain the argument by simply stating social darwinism; survival of the fittest. The degenerates will die out and the strong will breed.

>NAP is flawed
Humans are not all psychotic maniacs who need big nanny gov't to stop them from firing off recreational McNukes™ at their neighbors. Not an argument.

>muh corporate greed
Just don't buy their products or work for them if the corporation goes against your morals. Simply put, in free market capitalism you have the freedom to choose

>inb4 muh roads
really though, you can't take profit efficiently from roads
and society won't run without proper transportation
>placing toll gate every 100 feet

>>138196923
ancap would create pedophile havens were pedophiles abuse and rape children daily. it would make it legal for parents to throw their kid on the lawn and let it starve to death.

warped ideology. sickening.

>>138196923
>start a home buisness
>get kneecapped by megacorp

>>138198168
>>138198182

Refer to >>138198139

File: thiskillstheancap.png (63KB, 1565x521px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1565x521px

>>138196923

>>138198139
>not all humans are psychotic
it only takes 1 to nuke everyone else

>>138198315

What's stopping a psychotic rich maniac from nuking us now?

>>138198139
>social darwinism; survival of the fittest
so you're not gonna oppose today's governments?

>>138196923
>your lynch mob lynches the wrong person so the lynch mob needs to get lynched by another lynch mob

>>138198302

>1 ancap on a /pol/ thread defines the entire ideology

Wew lad.

>>138198413

Why not? Survival of the fittest means you fight for survival and relevancy.

If AnCaps can overthrow an authoritarian corporatist government for violating the NAP, wouldn't that prove social darwinism at play rather than sitting idly by and saying "well big brother has us beat. Guess its survival of the fittest, we lose and they win"

>>138198463
i see you didnt bother to answer any of those questions

>>138198463
the point is that he's an example of hundreds of ancaps on /pol/ that will dodge questions regarding those matters since they lack an answer or it undermines the entirety of anarcho-capitalism

>>138198463
respond to the questions in the image then lol

Anarcho-capitialism is flawed, government is more stable and safter for majority of populace.

Ancaps are literally worse than commies, and least commies can say it's been tried with some success.

>>138196923
Is nap non aggression principle?

>>138198634

Because you didn't ask them. You posted a picture that is cropped out with no proof that that man didnt reply to these questions. Its essentially not an argument.

How about giving us a reason why it would work?

1. we already live in anarchy
2. present governments exist within that anarchy
3. you are a brainlet faggot for not realizing this

No guarantee of upholding of property rights.
No stable way of creating a proper national defense.
Preventing border encroachment by states is extremely difficult.
Equality before the law and codified laws will likely be lacking.
Market has no mechanism to stop epidemics of infectious diseases.

Skeleton state > no state tbqh

>>138198700
i didnt post shit. i was interested to know the ancap solution to those were. i notice you still havent answered those questions though.

>>138198649

The only "arguments" against AnCap are strawmans and logical fallacies that wouldn't happen in a real life scenario

You spergs like to come up with unlikely things such as your NAP violation ancap ball memes that contain ludicrous acts just to undermine our ideology.

Why do you think we always tell you "Not an argument?"

Watch more Stefan Molyneux

File: __junko_touhou_drawn_by_okema__d0318b543e8cd7e3114a2bde105ad460.jpg (114KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 600x600px

>>138198700

>he can't answer the questions

>>138196923
>create enormous power vacuum
>expect it not to be filled by invading nation, communism, corporations or other competing hiearchical system

ancaps are fucking stupid

>>138198688

Because its practical and fair.

Taxation is theft and we don't need to be governed by higher ups to keep us in line

AnCap is basic human nature put into an ideology and it stays true to our species as a whole.

File: 1497140275537.jpg (72KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x600px

>>138196923

>>138198900
answer the fucking questions then and prove theyre incorrect
>>138198302
here, have the link to the post so you dont have to scroll up and can get it done quicker

>>138198700
I dare you to answer the questions. here they are again:
Can ancaps explain: How the NAP in unabusable, how you would defend against a conquering nation as it is still anarchy, how you would prevent larger companies from ganging up or forcing smaller ones out of buisness, keeping communities homogenous without hive mind, currency and banks, who enforces contratcs, preventing corrution, why anyone has to follow the NAP, ect.

>>138199006
>Because it's practical and fair

For how long? What happens if one, or a series of companies grow too power? What happens if they can now form their own private protection and find themselves above the established system of law protecting everyone in an AnCap society?

What's to stop someone from working specifically to grow strong enough to form a State and impose their own will by financial and militant dominance?

>>138196923
Why would it not make more sense to have a federal government that runs the military/defense and have local democratic republics where the only people who can vote are land-owning white males who are married with children? Why be opposed to government entirely? It seems that big government is the real problem and having the power lie within local governments would be a much better solution than no government at all.

>>138199055
>no reply
hmmm

>>138199494
they always back down when confronted with logic, just remember that if they challenge you

>>138199722
)))

>>138199150

1. NAP is not unabusable. That's why an NAP exists in the first place. To help serve as a moral boundary. Think of it as the same with global thermonuclear war. Can it happen? Yes. But is extremely unlikely because all countries know that as soon as a missile leaves its silo, all hell breaks loose. This prevents such a confrontation from happening. An invisible boundary and guideline of morals - henceforth what the NAP essentially is.

2. Another strawman, but ill answer it. In the unlikely event of a military conquer, civilians all own their own private property and can choose to work together with other people or form militias together to combat such a threat.

3. There is no big government restriction on business, so its up to the people to decide where their money is spent. If there's a monopoly, it only exists because the people allowed it to by continuing to increase their profits instead of going for a more localized small business alternative.

4. Homogeneity is apart of the degeneracy question which is essentially not an argument because its muh feefees, but let me entertain the question by saying that if people mix up their genes, their offspring will be low IQ and due to social darwinism will most likely not be fit to survive in an AnCap society, basically breeding out the genetically weak.

5. With no federal reserve, we can return to the gold standard and no longer feed our money to (((them)))

6. No one enforces contracts. Its a voluntaryist society where the goods and services that are needed are made through consensual contracts and incentivised with currency.

7. Refer to my first point

>>138199494
>>138199722

Here's your reply. >>138199945

>>138196923
Because jewish bankers will come into your country to loan everyboy money so they can buy tanks to defend themselves. Then you are going to do a lot of slavery to pay of your debts so you breed more slaves but these slaves will revolt and everyone will be sooo fucking poor the jew bankers cant get their interest money out of you so they confiscate your land, your material wealth, your slaves and you as well as your 250 next descendants because everything is property and everything can be both and sold in muh good ol capitalist system.

>>138198631
>If AnCaps can overthrow an authoritarian corporatist government for violating the NAP
You can't.

>violating the NAP
The NAP is a subjective morality, so claiming a moral high ground in defending something other than your own survival is faulty logic.

>>138200261

>You can't
Not with that attitude

>subjective morality
Morality is objective, Sven. But keep sucking that Tyrone dick while your education system teaches you otherwise

File: IMG_3423.png (77KB, 232x250px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 232x250px

>>138196923
>anarchy
>work

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*inhales*

hhahaahhahahahahaahahahhaahhaha

>>138200255

>banks and loans

That would imply we have a central finance system or a federal reserve.

AnCaps believe in the gold standard or cryptocurrencies

>>138196923
>Give me 1 good reason why Anarcho-Capitalism wouldn't work?

Because the overwhelming mass of weak and inferior and a few smart people at the top controlling them will band together to create a government.

Ask yourself, who will enforce anarcho-capitalism? No one because with enforcing it isn't ancap. And because it doesn't have any enforcement it will automatically trend towards government being formed and people being forcefully robbed of their resources by the mob rule.

>>138200414

Not an argument.

>>138200377
>Morality is objective
lol

>>138200377
>Morality is objective
Only if you believe in a God, in which case you'll follow his morality.

Otherwise morality is entirely subjective, a government is just as subjectively moral as the NAP.

>>138198410
Cypriot turk BTFO

>>138200261
>The NAP is a subjective morality, so claiming a moral high ground in defending something other than your own survival is faulty logic.

Cooperating is better for survival. The NAP facilitates that.

>>138200500
You either believe in the advances and evidence science provides or you don't. If you don't then you're a moron and have no business arguing about anything. If you do, then go and read. Morality has been confirmed for almost 5 years to have origins in genetics and can be seen in the entirety of the primate family.

>>138196923
>no borders

>>138201208

>nobody is stopping you and your community from putting up your own border

>>138196923
Human nature is selfish. That's why.

>>138196923
>not an argument
Not an argument

>>138196923
>Other than the exact reasons anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work, tell me why anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work

>>138199945
>no reply
hmmm

>>138198023
Natural monopoly doesn't exist and is always created through the state in some manner.

>>138196923
>Valid arguments given
>"Not an argument, kiddos"
Is this even a fallacy for just a retard with a keyboard?

>>138198023
>your entire ideology is reliant upon people not being dickheads and abusing it
Oh and your entire point is nonsense. Why would you give up your freedom in the UK if people are horrible? What about your healthcare relying on these bad people? You're fucking retarded m8.

>>138201880
Explain.

>>138196923
>be ancap society
>communists legally form armed militia groups
>take over and kill anyone who disagrees with them
>impose communist dictatorship

AnCap would never work because it assumes everyone would just try to get along.

>>138201410
Good thing there won't be a government that can give power to a mob of selfish people then. The NAP works against all non-consentual (i.e all selfish actions).

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

117KB, 1000x1000px

>>138196923
Best post ITT coming through.
AnCap is a step in the right direction but no, it is not concurrent with reality. Reminder that while AnCapism means well and is certainly preferable to statism but it is utterly inferior to Laissez-faire Capitalism. LfCap>AnCap for the same reason Minarchism>Anarchism and THAT is because objective law>polycentric law. Read a little of these lexicons to discover why.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html
https://fee.org/articles/the-nature-of-government-by-ayn-rand/
Ayn Rand's criticism of pure anarchism is irrefutable, especially in C:TUI and TVoS. I like Molymeme but a case against anarchism can be observed in his attempt, and failure, to "rebutt" Ayn Rand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My2sLnHpyG4
Observe the comment section.

>>138202051
Not much to explain. If you're a dickhead or try to monopolize the market someone else will take advantage of the situation and profit. Look at auction houses for examples in MMO's. What happens when one person tries to charge a higher premium?

>>138196923
>population control

whats stopping the low income low iq dregs from out breeding you faggots. if theres no welfair you'll see all the deshaundas and mary kates pump out 10 children as a survival tatic even more so than today. how do you stop that?

>>138202299
>whats stopping the low income low iq dregs from out breeding you faggots. if theres no welfair you'll see all the deshaundas and mary kates pump out 10 children as a survival tatic even more so than today. how do you stop that?
They can't and won't because they'll kill themselves as well not only the children. If you can barely feed yourself you likely wouldn't even need an abortion as malnutrition would help terminate those pregnancies.

>>138197459
unless you work, dammit

>>138198023
people being dickheads will result in them not being able to trade and do business with anyone. which means they will starve and die. no one wants that.

>>138198182
bad people will get bad life because social stigma and probably being killed by the family of the victim. but then again, if the family's revenge is unjust, they will be badly stigmatized as well and face difficulty in surviving.

>>138198302
how do you even conquer something? there's no state so how do you even conquer them?

>>138199277
people can have their little collective colony if they want to. the thing about ancap is that you can form a little communist heaven in your environment (if every local person agrees to it). while in ancom, you can't.

>>138200467
basically, strip down all states, and let people decide with whom they want to group with.

>>138201410
why do you want to violate human nature? are you not hooman?

>>138202086
...
>not be able to survive anyway because no businesses
>die
ancap is not against guns, btw.

>>138196923
me on the left
also i love your new twitter meme

>>138202617
>ancap is not against guns, btw.

yeah i'm sure that would work out when groups like antifa and BLM start purchasing anti-tank weaponry and making roadside bombs.

>>138198182
>ancap would create pedophile havens were pedophiles abuse and rape children daily. it would make it legal for parents to throw their kid on the lawn and let it starve to death

Whether or not it's legal people still do these. Making it illigal doesn't exclude the possibility of these things happening.

>>138202086
>Be democratic society
>Communist form armed militia groups
>Take over and kill anyone who disagree with them
>Impose communist dictatorship
Why isn't this happening today? It's because there's enough armed opposition to make such a communist takeover not very probable.

You assume an ancap community wouldn't be armed to the teeth. With no state and rights that need protection it's only natural that communites will band together to create security companies that protect their rights. A high gun per citizen count also heavily disincentivizes invasion since the resulting guerilla warfare would result in extreme losses for the agressor. Cooperatively run militias would also be more effective thanks to them having to compete and thanks to less useless bureaucracy.

File: Girls.jpg (77KB, 600x536px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x536px

>>138202269
>look at auction houses in MMOs
WEW

Anyway, his is when a private police force is created to protect profits and prevent competition, that is only one way that they could kill all competition and charge a higher premium.

>>138198139
I am a psychotic maniac who needs big nanny gov't to stop me from firing off recreational McNukes™ at my neighbors.
Come and take them, over my cold hard dead penis.

ancap wont work
the reason modern capitalism works is that when doing buisness with people you can trust the law not to get fucked over. in ancap all you have to do is put all your money into mercenary's. noone would actually make stuff except guns.

Ancap is literally what the modern illegal drug trade is right now

>>138198410
They don't have nukes you braindead spastic, that's what stopping them.

>>138202511
then the poor would straight away take control of the country. you heard it here first. anarco capitilism leads to full blown communist take over

>>138203076
Other private police forces would incentivize a business owner to compete for profit rather than violently conquer people for profit. Warfare against heavily armed people cost a lot more than making your product more competetive.

File: 1479822441036.png (1MB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x900px

>>138203537
>Psycothic rich maniancs don't have nukes

>>138202981
>communites will band together to create security companies that protect their rights

>hmmm lets band together to protect ourselves and arm ourselves from dangerous threats
>hmmm this is turning out to be larger and complicated, maybe we should agree to have some sort of management structure
>maybe put some people in charge of running and managing it and delegating responsibilty?
>its turning out to be quite expensive, maybe we should get each participant to put in a tithe to be able to finance this armed protection

Just don't call it government.

File: 1446140583909.jpg (73KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 256x256px

long story short

>>138203550
Unless they choose to work together instead to become huge multinational corporate conglomerates which use their combined private police forces to cull competition and subjugate the masses.

>>138196923
>taking a parasite seriously

>>138202981
This assumes you can maintain some kind of arms industry still exists after you tear the state down. The amount of logistics required to make an AK and the bullets needed to make it a threat are beyond a cottage industry. At some point or another, all of an ANCAPs guns will break down, run out of ammo or rot away from extreme use. The effective replacement rate isn't good enough without some form of mass production plan.

>>138198413
This is such a good point, T.B.H. He's not, Anon. He is a parasite.

>>138202727
>>138202727
so it should be controlled because you're scared of it? so centralized laws should be made out of the most popular opinions? in an ancap society, people will be scared to fuck up because it will fuck up their lives. just like so many things that you feel you shouldn't do in your job, even if it's not against the law, because you don't want to be fired and be replaced by other workers.

>>138201090
L.O.L.

>>138204029
Which is what we have today. Government forces you to buy all these bad services that the free market could've handled better, for the profit of the political elite. This scenario you're fearing is the one we have now. Giving people their rights back and arming them is the first step away from this.

>>138196923
Show me one ancap society that ever worked

>>138204287
Actually plenty of people do reloads on their own among other things. UK for example they had a guy (Luty) make weapons with off the shelf components as a matter of protest. Gun jesus explains it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIhGCRIQnCA
State wasn't required to make firearms or ammunition at all up to present times my friend.

>>138204611
Show me a socialist or communist one that worked and didn't murder it's people as well?

>>138203160
>the reason modern capitalism works is that when doing buisness with people you can trust the law not to get fucked over
that's not true. that would even be against capitalism, because basically the state in interfering in the agreement process. it's like minimum wage and anti-discrimination law all over again.

File: iq-europe.jpg (101KB, 542x616px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 542x616px

>>138204611
>Show me an example of democracy that ever worked before democracy was tried
Italian intellectuals, everyone.

>>138204611
ancapism is logically sound. communism is not even feasible in theory.

>>138198139
>The degenerates will die out and the strong will breed.

Don't you mean the strongest pedos will win out by breeding all the 10 year olds they can find?

I know I'm pretty late to the thread, but here's the main reason your perfect anarcho-capitalist society can't work.

Anarcho- implies no rules and regulations on the capitalism part. Guess what happens when companies and businesses don't have to follow rules? They'll bully their opponents out, they'll buy everyone out, and when people try to compete, they'll suddenly end up dead. Then, this company will actually advocate to create a government to create regulations and legislature to ensure the company keeps its profits and its stream of cash uninterrupted.

Basically, the United States was kind of what you dreamed of. No taxes, no bullshit regulations. Guess what happened in the late 19th century? Big businesses bullied others out and bought others out. Oil kikes, rail kikes, and (((Federal Reserve))) kikes got power by lobbying in Washington for regulation and legislature to secure profits. Sure, they nuked the fuck out of Rockefeller's oil meme, but guess who they can't nuke out? The Rothschild kikes who literally abused the ancap system SO MUCH that they LITERALLY OWN MONEY. They fucking own money. It doesn't even matter if they make a profit now, they literally own the money everyone uses.

Basically, the US is why ancap doesn't work. Capitalism is a shit system when there's no regulations, unless you like sucking corporate dick and "voting" to change the system your shit system created.

>>138200580
nope. morality would STILL be objective whether you believed in him or not
he made morality, after all

File: 1502031586770.jpg (14KB, 413x287px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 413x287px

>>138196923
Oh great ancaps again

I am now a #rothbardmissile

The last thing I want is for someone to call me a statist.

>>138203853
>go to jail for not paying taxes
>dont go to jail for not paying contracts you never asked for, used, or implicitly needed
totally the same

>>138198182
>why do scandos always immediately think about kid-fucking

>>138204611
everyone that currently has bitcoin is part of an ancap society

>>138204581
This is why I don't think that anarcho capitalism is the answer. The corporation replaces the government and is even worse because it just enforces everything and anything that serves its business model and people's rights are even more abridged than they were before. The scenario that I am fearing is paralleled by the one we have now, but exaggerated 10 fold.

>>138204581
and the point is that anarcho-capitalism is self-defeating

it requires a strong (enough) government to stop corporate monopolies from effectively becoming the new government

most self-branded "anarcho-capitalists" and libertarians are just angsty free market capitalists

>>138198182
Obviously, since the child's liberty is being threatened, pedophilia would be outlawed or at least restricted in some aspects in a Libertarian society. You have to read more about Libertarianism if you don't want to become even more ignorant.

>>138205113
>trying to molest a child with a gun
good luck

>>138196923
well how will you pay for basic shit like fixing roads and bridges?

just because you dont want to have any hard questions to answer doesnt mean people wont ask any one putting anarcho forward the same shit

>>138203853
A government system where everyone consents would be fine. Problem is that is not the case currently. For some reason governments are allowed to step on your rights (i.e steal from you and force you to fight for them).

>>138205440
>The scenario that I am fearing
I too make up doomsday scenarios in place of an argument

>>138196923
You're just going to end up with corporations that act exactly like a state in all but name.

>state drops out, people start buying the land
>companies have the most money/means to do so, will end up with the most land
>people gotta live and work somehow, so they'll rent living space and buy food/etc. from the companies
>companies set up rules that anyone who enters/lives there has to follow
>anyone who's born inside the company's premises falls under those rules, as they are universally applicable
>companies like tracking employees and people on their property, so they'll implement things like passes and such that show where you are and dictate where you're allowed to go
>companies have protect itself and its tenants, there is no guarantee the NAP is not violated, so they set up a police/military force

You now have a governing body that determines the rules, charges people for merely existing on its property and has a police/army to enforce it, that tracks people's every step and you don't even get to have a say in it. This is what you refer to as a state.

>>138205679
not an argument

>>138205617
gas stations want people to buy gas from them
every gallon of gas they sell is apportioned to pay for roads, to their gas station!
and when you have 2 gas stations?! well now the funs just started

>>138205855
it is but you arent smart enough to understand
you need to take the context of your previous reply

>>138205617
Taxation is a necessary evil. It's something we all have to accept even amongst hardcore Libertarians. Those who disagree cannot accept reality and risk flagging my ideology as reversed communism.

>>138205151
but that company would have no one buying their products which mean they would go bankrupt.

that's the point, no government, means no excuse to be powerful over anyone.

>>138205440
A company forcing you to buy their products is much less of an evil than a government, althought very much of an evil in it's own way.

A government doesn't only force you to buy it's products, it steals from you, takes right away from you, displaces and replaces your people for it's own benefit, forces you to fight for them when the time comes and silences you should you oppose all of this.

>>138196923
Who needs roads when you have helicopters

Ancap, like communism, works best on paper. Except even on paper it's not that great.
Natsoc not only works off of paper, but in practice it's better
>inb4 "I don't know the difference between Marxist socialism and national socialism"

>>138196923
Whatever it takes to end pic related

>>138196923
It relies on the assumption that we can overcome human nature

If you haven't noticed yet, we can't

>>138205982
>Taxation is a necessary evil
Get rid of that flag, faggot.

>>138205982
no, taxation is still bullshit
statists try to pretend that other things like contractual obligations somehow qualify as taxation, but they dont
taxation is the explicit threat that you must pay for things you did not order, use , or implicitly need

>>138205440
but they'd have to have people buying their products. the best part is that we consumers have options, because there would be more than one producers competing which one could satisfy us the most

>>138196923
Because contracts and fair trade wouldnt exist.

Suppose you hire a guy to fix your plumbing. He either fucks it up, or doesnt finish the job, and now you have no means to either make him keep his end of the bargain or sue him for the damages without any kind of government of law.

If you hadnt paid him yet, sure, you could find a different guy, but that wont give you back the time you lost or the money you have to spent to fix the extra damage he's done.

Now imagine this on a nationwide level, where nobody can be sure that the other guy is going to keep their end of the deal, and you'll have an economy that is about as stable as your mom's sexual history.

>>138196923
Some mega corp will be too powerful, to sustain such empire, it will become a state, hence the ancap is gone.

>>138205617
bridges and roads will be made if there's actually demand for it. remember, demand-supply

>>138202269
... lol retard

>>138205754
>company gets no one buying their products because people hate them
>go bankrupt
>life goes back to normal

File: 501.gif (996KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

996KB, 500x200px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flge_rw6RG0&t=9

>>138196923
because presenting actual arguments in greentext and adding "muh" in front of them somehow makes them invalid. And people wonder why ancaps are retarded

>>138204885
Did I ever imply that socialism or communism are better?
>>138205028
Why has it never been tried before if it's so efficient? After all anarchism and to a certain extant capitalism are ideologies that have existed since the fall of feudalism. Why did no one bother to combine them and see if they would work in real life?
>>138205067
That's not an answer to my question. Don't assume that because of my dislike of ancap, I automatically like socialism or communism
>>138205432
I strongly doubt that currency is all a society is about

>>138205483
You make the false assumption that people wouldn't defend themselves via militias in times of need. You also make gross a oversimplification of how many resources it takes to conquer and neuter people.

If the US couldn't invade Vietnam, what makes you think McDonalds would be able to invade a population with a much more guns per capita as well as a military force much more efficent from it's lack of bureaucracy?

>>138206233
It actually assumes that humans are completely separate from nature and the rules don't apply to us, like Marxism. Look at OP just making things up without proof "that wouldn't happen because I don't think it would based off the simulation of a perfect frictionless vacuum that I have in my head"

>>138206531
>state gets no one living in it because people hate them
>go bankrupt
>life goes back to normal

>>138206186
except communism doesn't even work on paper you faggot

>>138196923
Shooting people is easier than economically competing with them. I think OP would enjoy himself more in the anarchy-capitalist paradise of Somalia.

>>138206083
Funny you say that.
What if these companies are behind everything, but have the ruse of being separate entities. I don't have the picture of all the companies connected in a web to all the Jews that own it, but a small oligarchy of people that are closely related will run the entire market inevitably unless a state regulates it. You should get rid of the idea that the state is just broad power. States exist to create order and stop things people don't like. After a while, if the state is ineffective at what it's supposed to do, people WILL get pissed off and they WILL overthrow it. That simple. Point is, state exists to please the people, and it really is up to the people to be educated enough to tell their market is getting kike'd in the background.

Also, whoever has the most guns, the most property and the most metal is the most powerful in an ancap society. There will always be a hierarchy.

>>138206146
Thousands of people die in cars every year, imagine if you'd let any random dumbass have a helicopter. Houses would be destroyed and you'd have a almost certain chance of being dead in an accident.

>>138206301
>what is collusion

>>138196923
>Give me 1 good reason why Anarcho-Capitalism wouldn't work?
have you read Henry George?

>>138206295
>taxation is still bullshit
If you believe this than stop using public roads and see how far you get

>>138206361
>someone you hire doesn't do what you paid them to do
That's when you warn your neighbors and or go to a media source and air your complaint.

Not judging anarcho capitalism, just curious:

How would policing and justice work? Like if a guy robs a store, who arrests that guy and who would determine his punishment? If theres no government, thered be no policing, no court system, no judges. How would it work? Again im just curious

>>138206361
Yeah but you can just write a bad review on Angie's list. Problem solved :^)

>>138206186

>NatSoc will never work because it refuses the international financing system and thus causes jews to declare war on it and drag in global superpowers

>>138206301
>the best part is that we consumers have options
these is essentially only 1 company in the entire world, how is that options? I want to do what I want commercially, but there is always some cunt running my pockets, thats not options, thats crime

>>138206361
are you an indoredditor ?

>Suppose you hire a guy to fix your plumbing. He either fucks it up, or doesnt finish the job, and now you have no means to either make him keep his end of the bargain or sue him for the damages without any kind of government of law.
then i would be his last customer.

>If you hadnt paid him yet, sure, you could find a different guy, but that wont give you back the time you lost or the money you have to spent to fix the extra damage he's done.
the first plumber would have thought of not being paid and not having another customer, so he wouldn't do that.

>Now imagine this on a nationwide level, where nobody can be sure that the other guy is going to keep their end of the deal, and you'll have an economy that is about as stable as your mom's sexual history.
except we can be sure, because the consequences would be as strong as the law. even stronger

File: 1502822435093.jpg (7KB, 161x144px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 161x144px

>>138196923
He thinks we can replace the rule of law with everybody pointing guns at each other.

>>138205969
well, well, well. It appears the tables have turned on the molymemer.
Yours is a convenient and intellectually lazy response, because it allows you to dismiss distinct possibilities and hypothetical objections to your own hypothesis. As such, meming "not an argument" is usually just a way of not actually responding to objections to your positions. tl;dr, not an argument.

>>138206531
But what about your golden calf that is the concept of "demand-supply" doesn't that interfere with peoples' hate for the business?

>>138206586
>Why has it never been tried before if it's so efficient?
(((They))) won't let you. All the economists in the government know that a free market would benefit the consumer greatly. It just isn't in their agenda to remove the institution that provides with such massive power and wealth. They know it's immoral, but politicians want to keep their fat pay checks, even if it's gonna infringe on the rights of your average man.

>>138206763
Not until I don't get taxed :^)
Gotta recoup my losses somehow.

>>138204581
>which is what we have today
>doesn't realize the USA is the source of this and it started as what was essentially AnCap in all but name
>durrrrrr it won't happen this time though, because reasons

So this is the power of extra chromosomes

File: 1496398429291.jpg (122KB, 780x620px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 780x620px

>>138206989
>He thinks this isn't what laws are today
lmao @ the tard

>>138206096
This is why I take a minarchist position. I consider a government necessary to protect the rights of the people, but it should be constrained to only its most basic functions.

>>138206852
If someone robs a store and the surveillance cameras get enough footage of identifying characteristics of the perpetrator, then the store would likely hire bounty hunters to find and kill the robber.

>>138196923
It could have a shot at working in an all white country. Shitskin monkey people don't understand abstract concepts such as the NAP.

The NAP in itself is a very very white thing.

>>138205858
How will gas station get gas without state sponsored wars in the middle east?

>>138196923
Its basically what we have in mexico. look at us

>>138207064
>(((They))) won't let you.
That's a very poor argument. Why would an hypothetical Jewish world elite that thrives off of liberalism and international capitalism be against an ancap society? Those two ideologies are what ancap is about.

>>138206678
neither does true ancap

File: ancap.png (224KB, 650x637px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 650x637px

>>138198287

File: pygmass.jpg (313KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1200x1600px

http://exploreistaxationtheft.com/

>>138207484
So the punishment for a medium level crime is execution? This sounds kinda 19th century sandnigger

>>138207711
is that a trap

>>138198023
Not from the benevolence of SUPPLIER do we receive our daily PRODUCT, but from the mutual acknowledgement of self-interest.

>>138207330
>System is bad because it got taken over and turned into something else
I guess democracy sucks because one time there was a democratic nation that was invaded and turned into something else.

The circumstances in the US were much better before, I think we can both agree on. The issue lies not with ancapism being a bad system that creates poor circumstances for people (the US wasn't ever fully ancap, thought), it lies with foreign forces taking over and warping a libertarian US into something worse (a crony US).

>>138196923
Not an argument because you cant refute it? Consider necking yourself

>>138206974
Consequences? Consequences in a fucking anarchy?

The only consequence you have for providing a shitty service is a bad reputation that lasts as long as just that one guy who knows your face and how long it takes for you to make a new brand. Are we going to make privately owned prisons and police forces next?

File: free speech not hate speech.png (319KB, 434x429px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 434x429px

>>138207482
Now this is reasonable and I could get behind it. AnCap is a meme, and a retarded one for people that can only think one dimensionally. With no state to protect people's rights we're at the mercy of corporations whose only duty is to maximize profits. This fantasy about them acting in a moral manner because it will somehow increase profits is verifiably false, as we've seen with how many corporations end up getting caught harming the environment/people and fined by the EPA and sued by people. AnCap, like Communism, does not track with human nature.

>>138208019
It necessarily morphs into this over time. It is the end product. AnCap is the larval stage of the crony capitalist corporatism we have today.

>>138206874
>good systems don't work because Jews will ruin it
>you can't do anything about the Jews, goy. Don't even try!
>that's why I like a system that the Jews embrace. That way the Jew is happy and doesn't declare war
Nice blackpill, faggot. You must have a lot of estrogen in your body. Speaking of which, what is to stop the kikes from poisoning all of the tap water with estrogen to make people more docile? They can make plumbing very cheap with the abundance of money they have (they would take the loss like they do with propaganda in movies) and they don't need to tell people the quality of the water
>inb4 nobody would drink it because people are all perfectly rational and could investigate with high tech equipment that the Jew just happens to sell
People drink fluoride every day

>>138207802

Hopefully

>>138207802
Are you fucking blind???

>>138206586
>That's not an answer to my question. Don't assume that because of my dislike of ancap, I automatically like socialism or communism
the answer is clear you moron, yes there's no ancap society yet, but why should it be an excuse for it to not work? we always have to start somewhere. the founder of natsoc, did he think about "hmm has this ever tried before?". the founders of everything, basically, did they think that way before creating anything? did steve jobs back down because his ideas had never been tried before?

>>138206720
it doesn't matter. people buy what they want, so both the producers and consumers get what they both want. as long as everything is acceptable for both sides, there's no problem.

>>138206741
i need concrete example of scenarios

>>138207053
nope, idk what you're talking about here, stop using inside languages

>>138207525
it could have a shot in a country with no welfare with no mandatory taxation. the only people that can decide if a nonwhite is able to live in an apartment is the landlord. the property owners.

>>138207699
in what part of capitalism do you not understand?

>>138208188
that thing can happen as well in a non anarchist society, btw. people making new brands because their old brand disappointed their customers. well the thing is, it's only fair. your judgement is not the objective judgement.

>>138207787
When you violate the natural rights of others, your forfeit yours. If you violate my right to private property, you forfeit your right to life.

File: 34pxll4.jpg (58KB, 521x636px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 521x636px

>>138207614
The global financial elite doesnt thrive off of libertarianism and free markets, they thrive off of being granted monopolies on certain markets (schooling, healthcare, certain drugs, weapons, mining, oil, telecom etc etc.) by a large government. This why you hear of Soros and his goons funding antifa, femen and other left leaning groups that work towards a bigger government.

Libertarianism and ancapism is to the benefit of the consumer (and small businesses over larger ones). I guarantee you that you won't find an example of a financial elite shilling for ancapism/libertarianism, whilst I can find many that shill for larger government via socialism and pseudo-communism. This is because they get all their money from having the government do their bidding (like forcing you to pay for medicin when you could've chosen from lots of different actors).

Small groups of people (grown men) would simply beat, rape and murder everyone else into submission that is not protected by an equal or greater group of fighters.
Basically, you'd have pirate crews inhabiting large areas, maintaining NAP with a few other crews, while ruling in an ISIS-tier dictatorship over every orphaned child and widowed woman that happened to be in their area either when captured or since birth. The slaves cannot even escape the premises of their owners, let alone own anything or hire anyone. No one would come to their aid because it is economically unsound to do so and there are no laws to be broken. Everything would be taken by force since stealing/looting/conquering maximizes profit, and THEN groups would negotiate for essentials, and only THEN would they trade for anything. The only people producing anything would be slaves, out of fear of more pain at the hand of their AnCap masters.

Basically, AnCap already exists, its an African hellhole called Somalia.

>>138196923
>>138198139
>>138198287
>>138198410
>>138198463
>>138198631
>>138198700
>>138198834
>>138198900
>>138199006
>>138199945
>>138199979
>>138200377
>Makes a bait thread
>is the one getting mad

>>138207482
Minarchists are okay tbqh

Why is "not an argument" every an caps favorite phrase. Faggots.

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

How can statists ever recover?

>>138199945
1. Replace every instance of "NAP" with "laws" and I dare you to claim nobody is breaking laws. Read up on the prisoners dilemma and its relevancy to lawful behaviour. The same applies to your NAP and not breaking it.
2. They will try to oppose the new government but the smart new government will make it so that your self-interest is on the side of abiding with the new rule. You're a capitalist so you believe in the power of maximising your personal happiness. That is usually done by abiding to a new ruler.
3. The rule of increased efficiency in larger scale makes monopolies less unlikely than you think. Also, breaking monopolies in very specialised or technologically advanced markets can be very very expensive and very risky with huge upfront costs. This makes it more profitable to invest in the monopolist than in a potential rival.
4. you missunderstood the problem: Why would everyone be on your political preference? How would you ensure that when you have a community that has ancap values that the people will still have those same values next year? In 10 years? In 100 years? The problem with your society is that it needs to be homogenous ancap minded people to work.
5. Ok so you do away with electronic cash and everything.
6. When I have no assurance that contracts are upheld, proper economics tend to break down when you have people rationally breaking contracts with you because it is in their self-interest.
7. Refer to my first point.

>>138208252
>With no state to protect people's rights we're at the mercy of corporations whose only duty is to maximize profits
but why is maximizing profits wrong? companies can maximize profits because people like their products.

>>138202269
You're an idiot

>>138208513
National socialism stems from other previously tested ideologies, that, to a certain extent, worked. Has an anarchyc system ever worked? Inb4 anarchist Catalonia. It worked for a very short time and was easily put down by foreign powers. Same as what would happen in an ancap society imo

>>138208660
The problem is letting corporations get a monopoly on force. An individual person of the working class will never be able to acquire enough force in order to protect and enforce his rights. He is left up to the mercy of the most powerful corporations. How do you solve this problem?

I'm not worried about financial monpolization, since if a company has even a pseudo-monopoly in this hypothetical situation, it was earned by having the best product/service. But what they do with that power is what I'm worried about. You, and other AnCaps, seem to assume they will act in a moral manner but what if they don't?

>>138209192
It is not wrong, in and of itself. But what if maximizing profits means poisoning people? What if they find they could increase their profits 1% by killing x, y or z customers (or if it's healthcare related, they could just let you die.) But muh market will punish them! Yeah but how many people will have to die before the invisible hand acts?

>>138209318
Anon., the actual answer is because nobody wants to take a significant risk to help a parasite, even another parasite.

>>138209066
The NAP isn't some law you have to follow. It's a moral guide-line that most of us base our moral compass on (even non ancaps/libertarians).

For example, if I stole your shoes, you would be mad at me because I did so without your consent. Had you consented, it wouldn't have been theft, but a gift from you to me. Our western morals are based in the NAP (althought many don't call it NAP), so it makes sense that our judicial system should be based on the same thing.

>>138209677
>parasites having morality
Funny.

>>138198023
Actually it's the only ideology that relies on people BEING dickheads and looking out for themselves for the best outcome. Competition is a bitch, and that's exactly what drives ancapism to be so great.

Only without competition (such as with the state) can dickheads be unaccountable.

>>138209677

This all only works on paper, with good natured white people in an area abundant with resources.

>>138209497
>Yeah but how many people will have to die before the invisible hand acts?
that's not an objective judgement. that's just as subjective as "we need to help the poor"

>>138209955
No, it's a valid question. How does your system ensure companies won't do that?

>>138208513
You cant rebrand in an actual market that has a functioning government in that context. Your license to be a plumber would have been suspended, if not outright revoked after a few times.

And thats not the point I was trying to make, the point I was trying to make is that there are no consequences in an anarchy. Hell, you could be a career robber and there's not really much anyone can do about that without a police force. If the local community has gotten wise enough to your tricks, all you gotta do is just hop to the next city and youd have a clean slate.

You dont even have qualifications in an ancap society. Who's gonna keep the records without the government? How would a company run backround checks on a person they're hiring? I dont think you realize how much can go wrong without a government.

Because sabotage, subterfuge, framing and insubordination exist. If you can benefit without people finding out, you can freely break any NAP you want. There's none of this retaliation if you don't know you've been attacked.

>>138196923
>muuuh private militia storming your house
>muuuh human nature makes us naturally form larger groups which will inevitably create governments
>muuuh corruption with private police

I defintely prefer it over gommunism doe.

>>138196923
Eventually some rich fuck will own a huge swat of land on which he'll allow people to live and work under specific conditions. And that's how a state is born.

>>138209497
>The problem is letting corporations get a monopoly on force
And the solution is to give government a monopoly on force? The cure is the disease and it's simply hypocritical to fear a monopoly of force so much that you advocate for the creation of another monopoly of force to protect you.

When government is given this monopoly on force, it makes the same transgressions that you fear from a company with a monopoly on force.

>He is left up to the mercy of the most powerful corporations
So many critics of ancap think ancapism involves being complacent in the face of looming threats. This is simply not the case, in ancap society arming of the populace is necessary to ensure freedom (just like it is necessary for whites in SA to arm themselves if they want freedom). Conquering people waging guerilla warfare is extremely costly, so costly that it's almost never worth it.

If the US (the most powerful military force in the world) couldn't conquer Vietnam, why do you think McDonalds would be able to conquer a population with access to much more resources thanks to free trade, a higher gun count per capita and a military force more efficently organized thanks to no bloated bureaucracy?

>>138209937
These white people then form rules in their communities based on the NAP, shitskins are then BTFO.

>>138208660
>The global financial elite doesnt thrive off of libertarianism
I mentioned liberalism, not libertarianism. And the global financial elite definitely thrives on that.
Not that I believe that there are any real differences between liberalism (inb4 Americans sperging out: your "liberals" are socialists, plain and simple) and libertarianism.
>libertarianism and ancapis benefit consumers and small businesses
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Consumers could easily get poisoned/scammed/frauded if it weren't for government legislation. Yes, in an ancap society a fraudolent business would be put out of competition, but after how much damage? How many people will drink hormone filled plastic water bottles before they realize that the company that produces the has poisoned them? Who will pay for the fraudulent damage that they suffered? The company? Who will force them to if not a central government through its legal system?
As for the small businesses, how can they hope to compete without any government protection/barrier against international corporations?
>you will not find elites advocate liberalism
Oh, but they do. They can't get away with advocating communism since it killed millions, but the openly advocate for freedom, openness and hyper individualism against all identity

>>138209955
companies will not do that because they wouldn't want to risk it. you, are like asking questions like "how do you make sure people aren't born poor?'

>>138210197
>there are no consequences in an anarchy
there are. it's the social stigma and the possibility of being shot by someone.

>you could be a career robber and there's not really much anyone can do about that without a police force
i can use my gun

> Who's gonna keep the records without the government? How would a company run backround checks on a person they're hiring?
even nowadays companies do background checks from google not from the government

>>138210447
>Implying the state and the populace have a consentual relationship
You know it's not a state if people work and live on this land out of their own will, then it's just a mutual contract like any other.

>>138210447
that's fine, that's how a society should be. where everyone is willingful.

>>138210968
>>138210136

>>138210772
No, An.-Caps. say that no white people should go public to organise such a thing. Anon., this is a group of parasites.

>>138198139
>start a home business harvesting infant organs
>neighbors complain to homeowners association
>McCops™ can't bother you because the babies gave their signed consent

>>138210772

But what is to stop one community from seeking land, women or resources from a smaller, neighboring community and either offer extremely bad deals or taking everything by force? In an AnCap society, only a loose subjective morality is keeping everyone from just taking what they want. Everything would devolve into violent gangs and slave-like peasants. Again, Somalia.

>>138196923
Who's gonna stop a group of people from organising a gouvernment that works?

>>138202617
>unless you work, dammit

How is honest work going to make up for the years of years of stock market manipulation some people have engaged in?

Just look at any given MMO out there. Yes, you can do your dailies like a good goy and trudge along or you can engage in market manipulation and make THOUSANDS times more just by preying on your peers.

The only way this system would work is with a total reset and with the total removal of currency and the ushery which comes with it.

>>138211362
They're too cowardly and parasitic to even get to step one, Anon. You should have seen them going nuts disavowing over the course of the last week. Sickening, "respectable conservative" cucks (and aliens, too, I imagine).

>>138211448
nothing

what the ancaps don't realize is that life is naturally ancap. 4000 years ago we lived in the ancap dream, and from it a group of people organized themselves into governemts and rulers

what's to stop it happening again? another governmet? a group of people that prevents the formation of a government?

get fucked

>>138210968

> Who's gonna keep the records without the government? How would a company run backround checks on a person they're hiring?
even nowadays companies do background checks from google not from the government
And Google is a multinational privately owned titan. You're giving them even more power by removing governments.

>>138211055
>that's fine, that's how a society should be. where everyone is willingful.
This is true, but reality does not deal in ideals. If you want some ideal to be real one day, you have to shape reality by force. It's as if every rational being is a micropotent God in this Universe. For an AnCap society to work, you need to not only lay out what the ideals would be, but you also need a way to convert people from real, actual, current societies into joining yours, while keeping it sustainable and protected from external threats until it is ideal. And then you still have to keep protecting forevermore, as is the fate of all Life, to either persist or perish.

>>138198826
>Hoppefags
>absolutely
>a priori
>BTFO

There is a regulation that says natural gas must have a specific chemical added to it to give it an odor. Before this rule was created, gas leaks would go undetected and build up until they detonated or someone died of asphyxiation.

How would an cap ensure only safe gas was sold?

File: aGepZVz_700b.jpg (106KB, 700x873px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 700x873px

>>138196923
Taxes are awesome

File: Regent-Bowerbird.jpg (37KB, 530x372px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 530x372px

>>138198826
These are MY almonds and you did not get my consent to activate them

>>138211770

>what the ancaps don't realize is that life is naturally ancap
This sentence is true by all definitions. Thank you, anon, for summing it up perfectly. Nature is already AnCap.

>>138209955
South Africa have the best socio-economic and moral system which is not based on collection of wealth but on ubuntu. Sure they didn't invent the wheel but are nonetheless are happy.

Ubuntu: is a Nguni Bantu term roughly translating to "human kindness." It is an idea from the Southern African region which means literally "human-ness," and is often translated as "humanity toward others," but is often used in a more philosophical sense to mean "the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity".

When whites attempted to colonize Africa and introduced capitalism, then that's when everything went to shit.

>>138196923
shit would work if we were spherical cows in the void but we're not
tbqh I could see it work if we were starting from the ground up but the way wealth is distributed makes a decent implementation pretty much impossible

>>138211936
>How would an Ancap ensure only safe gas is sold?
There would be no enforcement of such a rule, however, having safety odorant would be a easily proven/disproven selling point for a gas company.

>>138210777
>Believing liberalism=libertarianism
Let me stop you there. There is a reason classical liberals changed name to libertarians when the US liberal plague sprouted up, they are almost polar opposites (social freedom vs economic freedom).

>Consumers could easily get poisoned/scammed/frauded if it weren't for government legislation
You can never 100% prevent fraudulent behavior from businesses, you're always gonna have some bad apples. This is no reason to believe that the government alone holds the solution to preventing fraud, concerned individuals could pay a quality control company to assure themselves goods aren't harmful before purchase. Many governments run such quality control services today, but there is no reason to believe private actors couldn't do it better.

>How many people will drink hormone filled plastic water bottles
Stuff like this is allowed by your government because they don't see it as a danger to you. You want dumping birth control hormones in your water outlawed? Too bad, big daddy government said it's not an issue :).

>Who will force them to if not a central government through its legal system?
Local private courts and police forces

>but the openly advocate for freedom, openness and hyper individualism against all identity
Leftists don't advocate for freedom (I think you've noticed it yourself). Libertarianism or ancapism isn't about opennes at all. Nor is it against identity. All of these things are things socialist government shill for and that you wrongly attribute libertarianism for some reason. There's a big mixup on your behalf.

>>138212192

If you take a moment to think about it, "human kindness", "human-ness", "humanity toward others" are most prevalent in caucasian people in Western societies.

In a sense, "ubuntu" means "White-minded", which is hilarious.

>>138196923
Because the owner class will be synonymous with the military, meaning they could essentially coerce you into doing whatever they want.

Those are actually arguments though you shitlord. They are such defining arguments with such simple problems and answers that they totally eliminate the needs for even having a conversation on Anarcho Capitalism.

>>138201090
got a source on that? genuinely interested

>>138196923
Ancap would only ever work if every person was an honest and good person. And we all know its not the case.

Easiest example, lets say you have your ancap community, one company builds all the roads (or at least most of them) sets up tool booths etc. everything works like you'd want it to work.

Suddenly they decide to make the prices 10000x larger.
They can, what are you going to do? Make a law against it?

So? What are you going to do now? Wait a year for someone else to build more affordable roads?

>>138196923
What's to stop me and my neighbors from forming a state within your stateless society, then proceeding to slowly take over the land of the weak until we can no long be challenged by individuals

>>138211543
that's the nature of stock market even in a non anarchist market. it is a very risky thing to do. and traders will know if a company is doing that. and it will cost that company a lot of reputation cost.

http://capitalism.org/stocks/what-about-stock-manipulation-under-capitalism/

Niggers.

>>138212576
Obviously cultural appropriation.

>>138212301
Yeah but odorless gas would be cheaper. When entering someone elses building you would have to ask "do you have safe gas?". It would become a ritual, everywhere you went, check the gas, because there's no government to manage that shit for you.

>>138212801
Build your own road and become rich

>>138212181
Natural creatures don't fight against their own tendency to build systems of organisation, Anon.

>>138196923
Most people are too stupid and voilent.

>>138209887
>competition is a birch
That's the exact problem with your idea. Why would I subject my business to competiton when I can just engage in practices that make it impossible for rivals to challenge me. This gives an even greater incentive to form anti-competitive monopolies, of which your lack of a government cannot do anything about. Sure you could get others to cooperate in mutual benefit to stop a monopoly, but at that point you are now basically just forming a state to stop a corp which is basically forming a state

>>138211862
>And Google is a multinational privately owned titan. You're giving them even more power by removing governments.
at least it's a good kind of power. the power that i'm actually willing and consentful to give. not by force, not at gunpoint.

>by force
or by consequences

>but you also need a way to convert people from real, actual, current societies into joining yours
i'll just need to gather people who already believe in what i believe in. i don't need to convert people.

>while keeping it sustainable and protected from external threats until it is ideal
can you even picture a scenario of an actual threat?

>>138212192
i can't trust you on this, i might have to research about it by myself.

>>138209887
>he doesn't know the difference between competition and parasitism

File: 1444328336488.jpg (7KB, 250x187px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x187px

>>138199945
uggg i hate replying to threads about 'anarcho-' anything, but wew lad here we go.

Can someone please explain to me how natural monopolies that arise from the inertia of monumentally large investment in infrastructure or technology that keeps competitors out of the market. A good example is utilities. If you have to build dozens of power plants and put up grid lines to serve power to a community to compete with the existing power company what would stop the other power company from lowering their prices and operate at a loss so you can never recuperate your costs and drive you out of business. This assumes that you have enough capital or can enough credit to build an entire power grid to compete with the existing one. Not only is this terribly inefficient, it guarantees no one would ever put money up for that business because the risk of losing is so great.
Next lets move to the NAP. So the energy company is a monopoly and decides that it wants to gentrify, or remove political or commercial opposition to its business. It therefore shuts down power (heating oil or whatever you wish) to the area in the middle of winter and everyone freezes to death. Is this a violation of the NAP? The power company didn't kill them, the cold did. Do not say that everyone in the world will need to hedge against thing like this happening by having wood stored up or some shit (obviously there isn't enough wood in the world for everyone to have years of fuel stockpiled). If you say the free market will work it out with other companies coming in and selling them fuel, which is only possible if there is a distribution infrastructure on a large enough scale and the people are not poor.

File: mine_canary.jpg w=594.jpg (61KB, 450x336px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 450x336px

>>138213084

>not just carrying a canary

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

151KB, 500x651px

>>138196923
it lacks a theory to manage common resources

>>138213439
ancaps are pretty much monarchists that wanna hit the reset button anon

>>138213439
>"can someone explain to me what should we do so that the fastest runner can run slower so someone else can win?"

File: Ancaps36.jpg (167KB, 1197x1123px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1197x1123px

>>138202617

>how do you even conquer something? there's no state so how do you even conquer them?

I do not believe it is possible to be this retarded.

>neighboring state rolls tanks in to the lawless area that's know as the Ancap Freehaven™
>sets up rules and anyone who doesn't obey them is shot
>"b-but there's not state, so the Ancap Freehaven™ can't be c-conquered"

Come on man.

>>138209677
And now the NAP is basically western morality and you've still not solved the fucking problem of how you enforce it (you cant, because muh anarchy so that you specifically introduced the NAP for to get around the problem of enforcing basic human standards) or make it unabusable (you cant because of what I wrote).

>>138213439
You can see a good example of this with cable internet pricing in the US. It is way too expensive for any company to build an entirely new internet distribution infrastructure for the majority of the country, so the oligopoly of service providers collude to keep prices high and service only as good as necessary to keep customers. They are not legally obligated to rent use of their infrastructure like phone companies are which is why you now have the ability to have a land line phone that doesn't charge you per phone call or long distance. US also had to break up Bell monopoly. If you think new companies behind fiber internet won't act like this then you are gravely mistaken. If fiber starts to look like its going to take over than the big comm companies like comcast will just buy them up and it will be business as usual.
tl;dr how do you solve utilities

>>138196923
>you succesfully built ancap
>pure social darwinism is natural
>some people are loosers and became poor, some are winners and became rich
>rich people want to gain guaranties that their wealth will not go away
>rich people bought all the land and own it
>rich people establish laws for poor living on their land.
>rich people start to take money for the right to live on their land
> no, its not a taxes, because we have ancap. Its just a rent.

Fuck off, we already have what we deserve. If you want to live in real ancap i advice you to move to Somalia.

>>138214075
lawless != gunless

>>138214311
no. maybe Hong Kong or Switzerland

>>138214029
they are not the fastest (which im sure you mean to imply the best or most efficient) they are just the first to market retard

>>138198139
>Not an argument because its about muh feefees
Enjoy demographic replacement and societal decay. Faggotry and mixed babies will replace the huwhite working man as "statist borders" fall apart and a globalist utopia becomes fulfilled.

>>138214546
>switzerland
>everyone between 18 and 40 is forced into military service every few years
>an-cap

>>138214770
Shhhh, let the idealist dream.

>>138214029
>Athletic metaphor
notice how literally all sports need rules to be a fair measure of ability?

>>138214546
Hong Kong is a city which gets resources from the surrounding countryside, the Swiss state is ethnomasochist and replacing its people with Mozzies who will establish an extremely different society as their population continues to grow. Stop promoting parasitism, unless you need somebody else to do that and also do the rest of your thinking for you as well, Anon.

>>138214678
They're parasites.

>>138196923
Because the vast majority of people are too low IQ and uncivilised for it to work. Maybe after a few generations of NatSoc it would be sustainable but you may as well stay NatSoc at that point.

>>138198139
>private companies that the government pays to build them will still operate in AnCapistan if the coin is right.
Who will pay them?

>>138196923
The reason is very simple.

You were probably born somewhere in 1980s or 1990s, but unless you're a boomer you were already born into a world where money (replace it with gold, silver, buttcoins, sea shells, whatever you consider a trade medium), already flocked to a certain population. I.e. the higher you started the easier it is to stay relatively wealthy, if you have a million in your account you can run a deficit for a while, if you have a thousand in there and are essentially living paycheck to paycheck you're one accident away from homelessness.

Look at Donald Trump, if man was born in a trailer park in West Virginia there would no small loan of a million dollars, followed by a larger inheritance for him to start his empire upon. You can't get into real estate without a whole lot of money to trade the property you'll flip later.


So basically instead of having recreational nukes and a dungeon full of lolis you'd probably be born into debt slavery to someone else because one of your ancestors fucked up.

>>138215346
They feel the need to obsess over "how dare you point out societal decay and moral subversion, we defend progressivism so don't call it degeneracy!" because in their free society, all the nonsense that's bad will only get ten times worse. They can't have state authorities removing the filth because that's statism. They seem to forget that capitalism is globalist in practice and theory.

>>138215556
how is that different from someone being born into the inferior race? who should i blame on, for making me not white?

>>138196923
as soon as monopoly occurs, you have a state.

>>138215671
>we defend progressivism so don't call it degeneracy
said no ancap ever, retard

>>138198139
>The same private companies that the government pays to build them will still operate in AnCapistan if the coin is right.
Yes, but who will pay them?

>>138210588
My point is individuals lack the power to challenge a large force. They don't need to conquer an atomized populace all at once, as was the case in Vietnam. They can slowly take over territory in both legal and extralegal ways.

I'm not suggesting the government should have a monopoly on force either. I'm saying they should act as an outside party to make sure everyone plays by the agreed upon rules. They need force in order to do that. It does not prohibit private individuals or institutions from also acquiring force.

>>138200377
Morality is not subjective, it is the prevalent feelings of most of a certain subspecies. Niggers raping babies in South Africa are not white men, and should not be held to our standards.

>>138215803
a consentful one, where every resource is basically people willing to pay for it.

>>138214591
the second to the market can take over the market if they're good, retard. by your logic, Samsung shouldn't be able to outcompete Ericsson

>>138215864
See: >>138214678
>muh feefees is pointing out how progressivism is a degenerate scourge
>hey stop criticizing that, we need to have their opinions in our diverse society
Enjoy demographic replacement. You have no solution to white demographic decline, you only accelerate the issue with your globalist ideology.

File: 1499313140670.jpg (63KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x375px

>>138196923
It forms unbreakable monopolies that would naturally develop to the most extreme abuses.
Collusion and cartels are vastly more profitable than competition.

File: 1501775902243.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>138196923
free market is impossible. Who will stop me from creating government, police, army, roads?

>>138212192
Bantu people aren't native to South Africa retard. Only the San people are.

>>138216389
This. There will always be a government that forms unless a government is formed to prevent another government from forming.

>>138196923
It's the natural state of man.

>>138216389
People who defend themselves?

>>138216757
/thread

>>138216298
>Collusion and cartels are vastly more profitable than competition.
I guess that's why cartels are more common than traditional businesses, oh shit wait

>>138196923
>Not an argument because I don't agree with it

>>138217097
It's why cartels are illegal and governments are always looking make sure competitors are competing rather than colluding.

>>138217342
>Implying nothing would combat cartels in ancapland
You know you can pay for cops without government pixie dust, correct?

>>138216295
degeneracies happened because the government is actively pushing it. but without any rules, most people will always go traditional. there's nothing more 'feefees' than collectivism, retard. my feelings is irrelevant to how the society should be ran.

>>138215671
"Capitalism" doesn't even exist, as it was only ever the straw-man to support the argument for communism, Anon. Also, they'll never get their idea of a free society because many of them rapidly disavow anyone speaking up for white people in public, but at the same time many of them say that whites are one of if not the only race with which their policies would work. They're parasites (or aliens).

>>138217713
...Said the parasite.

File: 1499608021229.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>138216805
but that will violate my nap.

>>138217519
>>138217342
plus there's this thing called boycotting, btw

>>138216298
also, cartels don't matter. as long as the people are okay with it, the products and the prices are acceptable and they still buy it, there's no problem. there will be another competitor anyway if the cartel is getting more shady

>>138202269
LOOKS like you don't understand what a natural monopoly is.

>>138217823
>Ad hominems when he can't argue
Burger intellectual at his finest

>>138217519
>You know you can pay for cops without government pixie dust, correct?
You can pay for guards without government, but police require a code of laws and a legal system which requires government.
Who would break up cartels and force competition if no government existed? The cartel members?

AnCap fails due to a number of reasons but the most vile are because of cartels and monopolies. At the point of total corporate ownership you are effectively no better off than communism with full state ownership.

>>138215746
In that being born into inferior race is just shit genetics. Being born into debt slavery is just anarcho capitalism.

So basically, AnCaps would make majority of people niggers.

>>138218041
Why is the parastic position so intelligent, Anon.? What made you a parasite?

>>138216389
Anon., the actual answer is because nobody wants to take a significant risk to help a parasite, even another parasite.

>>138217823
lol parasite. a person who advocates for true freedom and individualism is a parasite.

>>138217901
No?

>>138218157
>implying anyone should take a parasite seriously

>>138196923

Because you would need to enforce ANCAP continuously to prevent it from shifting to a government.

Who's going to keep budding governments down? A governing body.

>>138217713
>degeneracies happened because the government is actively pushing it.
And states who remove it and subversive state officials solve it.
>but without any rules, most people will always go traditional
No, they won't. You can't have any restrictions on what the individuals can do, hence the "lack of rulers" of anarchy. You have no basis to determine how and why people will be traditionalist because anarchist societies have only actually occurred when mankind had yet to even harness the power of electricity. It's pure idealism that you're operating off of.
>my feelings is irrelevant to how the society should be ran
Hence, my accusation of how your globalist ideology will crumble and the white ethno-state will never actually be achieved. You only accelerate the browning of the US and the West because all that matters is profit.
>>138218041
Pot calling the kettle black. You can't attack his ad hom... then insult/dismiss his reasoning because he is a "burger".

>>138218157
No, they're idealist and globalist.

>>138218107
Did an ancap consentually bang your mum or something?

I just tell statistics that if we all drove 4x4s there would be no need for roads. Hummer = freedom.

>>138196923
Because anarchy always leads to fascism when the population wants a society, that requires some sort of laws and justice system.
The problem isn't the capitalism, it's the anarchy that is the failure.

>>138218104
being born into shit condition is all the same, anon. some things just can't be controlled. doesn't mean they can't be fixed/dealt with. so how do you explain people who are born poor? should we give them money? should we be taxed at gunpoint to ensure they're always equal?

>>138217988
The point of cartels is that you can't boycott them because they collectively control the whole market, have integration with their suppliers and supporting industries. It makes it so that no one else can enter the market.
What happens when people are not okay with it and the prices are unreasonable? Do you just make due without food, water, electricity, fuel, refined metal, machinery, transport and shipping?

>>138218297
>Pot calling the kettle black. You can't attack his ad hom... then insult/dismiss his reasoning because he is a "burger".
Do you think I dismissed his ad hominem because he was a "burger" or because he made an ad hominem attack in the first place?

>>138196923
Crime?
War?
What about if one coaperation took over?
What determines workers rights?
To finish it off, build some fucking roads fag

>>138218542
>Only government can pay for police and military
How can ancaps recover from this one?

>>138218351
Even if that happened, Anon. That An.-Cap. would still a parasite at the end of the day, and the same with anyone who considers himself an An.-Cap. Parastic ideology is grotesque and of course extremely short sighted.

>>138218494
No, the poor should be culled. Druggies and alcoholics, disabled and the rest should be destroyed. That's statism that your ideology disallows; instead, you opt to allow the 'free hand' to let them die off instead: assuming that they even will perish instead! You'll be left with sheboons having twelve kids, three of which survive. They'll still out-breed you and replace huwhites in your neighbourhoods by means of white flight. And you can't say shit because niggers and spics living in your neighbourhoods is separated from your 'fee fees'. Like I said, enjoy replacement.
>>138218537
Both. Your rejection should have ended with the recognition of the fallacy, not committing it yourself, rendering your accusation useless. You're both in the same boat.

>>138218814
It's alright, friend, you can let it all out here. No hard feelings brah

>>138218723
Yes, how the hell do you have a national military? It is collectivist in nature. You call the soldiers 'bootlickers' for a reason, you can't have a national military at all if you are individualist and opposed to statism.

>>138218537
Looks like the parasite's getting outnumbered in the argument! Who could have expected that?

>>138218844
>Both. Your rejection should have ended with the recognition of the fallacy, not committing it yourself, rendering your accusation useless. You're both in the same boat.
That's actually true, I got caught up in the moment, apologies.

File: ddm4.jpg (31KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x427px

The Ancaps best friend, how do u stop corruption and cronyism, you kill it. Positive side effect, low population density and all the benefits that come with it.

>>138219042
What's done is done. No use dwelling in the past.

File: 1502564043184.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>138218194
It will. In ancap i can do whatever i want to as long as i do not violate nap of others. Most of people are hopeless and will be more than happy to join my new nation.

>>138218988
You can have a national military where all parties consent. Soldiers who genuinly believe what they fight for are also the most valiant fighters. Forcing cowards into your ranks does nothing good.

>>138219225
So a volunteering army?

>>138218227
you think like a thirdworlder, ok, you don't deserve a firstworld country

>>138218297
>And states who remove it and subversive state officials solve it.
how can anyone trust the state? the state is just an opinion with a gun. it's like democracy again. just go full islam, dude.

>No, they won't. You can't have any restrictions on what the individuals can do, hence the "lack of rulers" of anarchy. You have no basis to determine how and why people will be traditionalist because anarchist societies have only actually occurred when mankind had yet to even harness the power of electricity. It's pure idealism that you're operating off of.
if it was the state that dictates the badness to them, they will not truly learn. this is just like environmental regulations. it's more like the government caring about environment, not the people. without the regulations, the people wouldn't care about anything environmental, because they have no sense for it, because it's always the government making the decision. but as long as the people are paying for the regulations, somehow they're moral too, right? forcing people to do good things doesn't make them good people, anon. people aren't Lego pieces.

>Hence, my accusation of how your globalist ideology will crumble and the white ethno-state will never actually be achieved. You only accelerate the browning of the US and the West because all that matters is profit.
what is the wrong in that? what is the wrong in profit? what is the wrong in people wanting to succeed with their own money and using their own money for their own interest? the browning of america is just your personal ideology. you're too angry to even be rational. let people choose their own moralities. they are NOT your barbie dolls, forcing them to be moral doesn't make them moral, it just creates this illusion within your mind that everyone is moral. just like how little girls think of their barbie dolls.

>>138219196
Forcing people to join your new nation would violate the NAP

>>138219332
Yes, no qualms about that

The Swede has made the statement that a police force may function outside of a State... That's not actually correct, however. The Ministry of Justice is in fact the foremost duty of a State.

>>138218723
You can have private police, but the whole 'rinse and repeat' cycle must occur frequently, because I'm sure the first iteration of 'pay for protection' police will be rather one-sided: I pay you to patrol the neighbourhood and keep criminals out based on a criminal code we've drafted. But how do the patrollers the next district over compare (with regards to the criminal code)? Who decides what is an infarction of the law? Is it voted in, or is it simply subject to interpretation (of the patrollers or the people who hire them)?
>>138219225
That's a militia, not a national army. You can choose to leave if you want to, then. Capitalism always relies on the rational agent choosing reasonable choices like a... rational agent, so tell me: who will choose to fight and die for a greater good if the entire concept is collectivist in nature? It doesn't affect me, so what do I care if some random state gets invaded, that's their private military's problem. Why should I fight and die? btw, the statist law disallows soldiers to desert, they will be subject to punishment if they do.

>>138219455
>you think like a thirdworlder, ok, you don't deserve a firstworld country
Why is the parastic position so intelligent, Anon.? What made you a parasite?

>>138219713
Private police forces can't function outside of a State, Anon. See >>138219600

>>138219332
more like a self protecting nation, when everyone is capable of deadly force it acts as a deterrent, to violate an individuals rights. Sprinkle just a little of doomsday prep, as an official state "if attacked" plan and you're mostly done. something not far from this is currently being practiced in Switzerland, as a nation without a massive standing army, it relys on mobilization of citizens in time of emergency, which is why every citizen has basic combat training.

>>138219564
The question was how ancaps want to found the military. But do you seriously a country will get more shoulders through volunteering?