LIBERTARIANISM

Progressive corporate taxation, small business grants, criminalise anti-disruption tactics, end of affirmative action.

Monopolies only exist in niche businesses, dangerous businesses and outright subjugation from large corporations.

>>138796368
Hm, how do statists prevent monopolies ?
Right, they cant and no one can but we take their political power to force you to buy their products. You can voluntary buy things from another company if the other fucks with you.

Also dont forget that the state is the biggest monopoly of them all.

Pure ancap would see monopolization as violating the NAP and probably result in the monopoly being forcefully disassembled.

Moderate libertarianism would allow some governmental regulation to prevent monopolies.

>>138796368
Monopolies are impossible without state coercion. At least not for a significant time.

>>138796965
This. Free competition will avoid monopolies.

>>138796368
Napoleon had it about right, I think. The ideals of the French Revolution were good, but sometimes it is necessary to suspend liberty to preserve liberty. Monopolies can arise that need to be dealt with, but directly by a Teddy Roosevelt-esque figure who has the public mandate to lead. My real political beliefs are this: Dennis Kucinich represents the more optimistic and idealistic side of my nature, Ron Paul represents the more realistic aspect.

It's not an accident that they were friends; I think Trump's idea of an Australia like healthcare system where we have a just good enough single payer option alongside a private system that preserves freedom of choice is a humane and viable way forward. The moral state of America is such that I don't believe we can rely on religious charity any longer in the way that Ron Paul thinks we can, some type of public option has to exist that isn't influenced by market forces. But, getting rid of a free market system and submitting your health totally to the state is the definition of insanity.

>>138797899
As long as we can make sure litigation from other companies isn't a barrier to entry.

Imagine if Henry Ford had patented the steering wheel?

File: ancap crap.jpg (269KB, 1220x1010px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1220x1010px

>>138796368
That's not too hard. Don't subsidize them.
>people bitch about high fructose corn syrup
>they blame capitalism
>try to explain the concept of governmental subsidization
>it's like speaking fucking hieroglyphics
Granted larger groups are going to happen as long as they provide good services and goods but that's just the nature of the beast. Also, don't buy the ancap meme of zero government. Pic related.

>>138796368
All monopolies are state companies or companies helped by the state. Free market may result in a monopoly of the monopoly is a company that's far better than any competition. Otherwise, a company won't be able to survive all competition
Plus, the government IS a monopoly

>>138798221
We kind of have that now with software patents, look at the mileage M$ got out of their patent on the Windows button.

>>138798419
Exactly. Copyright, trademark, etc etc, is a barrier to entry.

>>138798221
Theres no patents without the state

>>138796368
You don't. Monopolies are a good thing that naturally form out of the free market. If you try to prevent companies from growing you deserve a helicopter ride.

monopolies are impossible in the free market with free competition.

>best form of government
why do libertarians have their head so far into their ass

>>138798594
There are no courthouses either. I'm not one for removing the state, just making it smaller.

>>138798692
Great argument kid.

>>138798730
Theres still something for dispute resolution

Can be newspapers, or insurance penalties, boycotts. Courthouses can still exists as well

>>138796368
It isn't a form of government, it's an ideology of laziness and lack of responsibility; it's about weaponizing the natural selfishness of individuals against the people and society.

>>138796965
>You can voluntary buy things from another company if the other fucks with you.
Ancap retard demonstrating he doesn't understand what a monopoly is.

>>138797315
It wouldn't violate the NAP at all, as long as they've monopolized through the market "naturally", i.e. without artificially removing competition, i.e. through force/sabotage/etc.

>>138797574
>>138797899
Patently false

>>138798627
At least this ancap is honest about his psychopathic jewry.

With free trade and a completely free market for maximum possible amount of competition, monopolies are highly unlikely.

>>138799270
The opposite is true.
Your notion of a "completely free market" is an oxymoron. The only way you can guarantee the possibility for viable competition is through
regulation of the market.

>>138799382
Less regulation = easier to get into market

Free trade = easier for foreign countries to get into market

More in market = more competition

>>138799266
>Patently false
Well I guess you win then

>>138799266
>can't read
>capitalism is so lazy

File: cuck gary johnson.png (332KB, 558x968px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 558x968px

I like Ron Paul, but he is over the hill and so is libertarianism. Libertarianism failed when libertarians stopped saying "Don't tread on me", and started parroting “NAP! NAP!" Libertarians were suppose to fight back and start sniping commies. Instead all they did was start blathering on about their holy NAP and turned into cowardly pacifist anarchists. Libertarians blew it. It’s time for another Pinochet.

>>138799722
>Less regulation = easier to get into market
You're talking about regulations on individual businesses, not regulation of the market itself.

>Free trade = easier for foreign countries to get into market
True. But is that supposed to be a good thing?

More in market = more competition
Without regulation, the amount of room there is for people to join the market is entirely at the mercy of the market's fluctuations.

>>138799812
see >>138799382

>>138799837
>says others can't read
>thinks I was calling capitalism lazy, not libertarianism

File: 1458186720644.jpg (96KB, 500x730px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x730px

Night Watchman form of Gov't is the best most realistic we could hope for in a human society.

also, competition and human self-interest are the best protectors against a monopoly
>if a monopoly serves everyone's interests and is great, then what's the problem with it?
>the moment a monopoly tries to leverage its position to take advantage of people, others will pop up to take business away from it
a monopoly is only a problem when gov't is there with its laws to protect it from competition or force people to deal with it even when they'd rather go somewhere else

>>138798313

You know, the same could be said about socialism and communism. There's a stigma attached to one word, so since the other word is connected to it, however vague, it's seen in a negative light.

>>138800302
If a population can remain conscious enough of a night watchman state to keep it from expanding its power, it can be conscious of heavily-centralized states as well.

>others will pop up to take business away from it
Why?
You assume that because the monopoly is taking advantage of people, it means those people don't want to do business with it anymore. What's the basis for that?

>>138800299
Yes, regulations on businesses.

Yes, it is in the best interest of the consumer that the maximum amount of competition exists. Where the product is made is totally irrelevant.

I may be missing your third point. Are you saying that unprofitable markets have low competition due to less incentive for entering and competing in that market? Good, let that market die. It's clearly not necessary.

>>138800299
Ok now explain how Libertarianism makes people lazy etc. without bringing in capitalism

Alright good that you cleared it up for me.
Libertarianism is so selfish and Lazy all people just cry out for welfare for them and their friends (be it their aryan or their niggerfriends) an they want the state to control everything and what they like the most is this collectivism where one can completely believe that hes doing it for the greater good (some people fall for this when they have nothing else in their live so they want to fight for their racial/working class collectiv to bring sense in his life instead of just doing his race/class a favor and end his sad meaningless life)

>>138796368
There are 3 main ways monopolies form:

1) A company is so effective at selling a product or service that all other competition loses and the only way for them to keep new businesses from over taking them is to keep providing the best services.

2) Government enforced monopolies like utilities. Gov'ts decide it is best for there to only be one provider of a service and gov't shuts out all other competition.

3) A hybrid of 1 and 2 where a company starts out with a great business plan, out competes everyone then when they are at the top they use gov't influence to increase regulations that make it next to impossible for a small startup to enter the industry, driving out competition.

With a libertarian gov't scenarios 2 and 3 are eliminated because the gov't doesn't have the power to enforce a monopoly in private industry.

1 isn't necessarily a problem because the only way for the monopoly to not get threatened by upstarts is for them to continue to provide a product and service that the customers want. The minute they start pissing of consumers there will be a door open for a new challenger.

Also remember libertarianism is not anCap. If you can envision a scenario where a company had a monopoly and was positioned in such a way that no one would ever be able to compete ever, the gov't could then step it to break up the monopoly.

TL'DR Small gov't isnt no gov't

>>138798627
the first guy to monopolize the use of force is your new fascist government

>>138801397
>regulations on businesses
Ok, what do you mean then? What regulations make it harder to get into a market?

>best interest of the consumer that the maximum amount of competition exists.
I admit this, this is the core impasse between our ideologies. "Consumers" and "people" are different things, and have different interests; You believe a society can be comprised of consumers and be successful as long as their interests as consumers are met.

My third point is that a market is finite in size. There's only so many people spending money, and they only possess so much money to spend.
You say more people entering the market means more competition, and my point is that without regulations, the amount of people who CAN enter the market to create that competition is entirely dependent on the free market fluctuations.
>let that market die
Let thousands of people be plunged into poverty, displaced, homeless, etc. instead of taking measures to MAKE that market profitable.
>It's clearly not necessary.
Civilization is necessary.

>>138799069
You think these halfwits can comprehend any type of dispute resolution without guns clubs or coercion?

the government creates monopolies. it would be impossible to have a monopoly in a free market.

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

41KB, 628x864px

>>138801471
Bitch, read. It doesn't "make" people lazy, it is itself an ideology of laziness.

You shirk all responsibility to your race and society, in favor of a psychopathic hyper-individualism where you can look at a child being raped in an alley and say you have no moral imperative to intervene, since "they are not entitled to my labor! heheh"

You are parasites who want to enjoy everything that the nations and societies built for you, without being held accountable to its continued maintenance and survival.

You're lower than insects.

>>138801626
But what if you have a type 1 scenario like you described, and a corp buys/rents all the real estate available in the area, making it impossible for competition to form? Now they're free to give shitty service (since they gotta hike their prices from buying so much land) and small gov means small tax so they could keep it forever

File: hippity hoppeity.jpg (38KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x480px

>>138803449
>be successful private security firm in ancapistan
>buy out competitors until you have a majority market share
>defeat coalition of competing firms in all out war
>all other security firms are too far away or see no profit in interfering
>have only standing army in ancapistan
>be ancap
>get thrown out of helicopter for being anti-government anarchist

So obviously monopolies can't happen in the theory, but when it hits the pavement you'll all agree it's warped and all sorts of oddities happen. So how to you stop those oddities from creating what appears to be monopolies?

What if, let's say, a guy owns a gold mine and it's only gold mine in existence (there is no gold anywhere else). What do?

>>138804017
Govt would step in, likely selling off parts of the corp's real estate to subsidize upstarts.
Ancap response is that all the people living there would "move somewhere else"

>>138803097
A regulation such as a minimum wage hurts small business that cannot afford automation. It doesn't harm big businesses as they have the money to invest in automation. This leaves the big businesses and lowers competition.

Anyone who buys things is a consumer in a capitalist society. No change in interests.

If a market is too small (not profitable) to allow for competition, the lack of demand indicates that it's dying. No need to artificially sustain it through government intervention.

Look, I know it seems uncaring to let someone's job be made null and cause loss of employment. But when government subsidizes and artificially sustains that market, are not the people paying for it? Don't you consider their interests?

And if someone goes into poverty because he lost his job, then do something about it. This is not a society with no sympathy or charity.

We should be glad that the horse and buggy market was allowed to die with the rise of automobiles. Imagine if the government prohibited all car building because it would kill the jobs of the buggy manufacturers.

Old and useless businesses have gone and civilization has moved on, all to the benefit of the consumer.

File: monopoly.png (260KB, 550x309px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 550x309px

>>138796368
You don't, you become the monopoly.

>>138805285
A small business that cannot afford to pay employees a livable wage isn't going to compete with a big business that's investing in automation in the first place.
The core of the issue here was that the big business had an advantage, in that they have existed for longer and thus had more resources available.
Without any regulation, they are allowed to expand this advantage as much as they like, until the point where they own all of the means of production, all of the means of distribution, all of the means of exchange, so on and so forth.
What competition will there be then? Absolutely none.
Thus, the only way to ensure that competition is possible is to regulate.

>Anyone who buys things is a consumer in a capitalist society. No change in interests.
It's every change in interests. You said it yourself. As a consumer, what benefits them is being able to continue consuming, and being able to consume things they want more than what they're already consuming.

This is not what the interests of people are.
The interest of people is a safe, stable, and healthy society.
Case in point:
>when government subsidizes and artificially sustains that market, are not the people paying for it? Don't you consider their interests?
Yes, because their interests are for that market to be not only sustained, but improved.

>This is not a society with no sympathy or charity.
The model this society is built on dictates that you prioritize your immediate and individual financial interests over all else. Otherwise you will be outcompeted by the person who does.

As for the horse and buggy vs cars, that's my point again. It was to the benefit of the consumer that cars be introduced to the economy so they can expand their range of consumption.
This doesn't mean it's in the interests of people.

>>138804079
libertarian > ancap

Addressing this thread. My perception of what other people think monopolies are has come into doubt. I've always heard the argument "Yeah but what about monopolies" and defaulted to the Chicago position. There are no real ones, and the closest we have are using the government as a blunt-force club.

But now there are a lot of fucking normies arguing that Google is a monopoly, and I think that every time I've argued over monopolies, I was talking past the other person, and them past me.

Am I the only one who knows that Google isn't a monopoly? Am I the only one who thinks Google's dominance is thanks to hordes of sheep and corporate IT lazies continuing to use Google services and not actually find out that there are thousands of competing or open-source options?

>>138808183
>There are no real ones, and the closest we have are using the government as a blunt-force club.
What happened to Standard Oil?

>>138807100
1. I'm having difficulty imagining a world where McDonald's owns every single cow in the world, which would be necessary for them to have complete control over the burger market. If even a single person has the resources to make a burger, competition exists.

2. My interests are what they are. Engaging in voluntary trade is me pursuing an interest.

3. It is not in the people's interest to have the government take their money and spend it on a dying business.

4. No, you can live sacrificially in a capitalist countries. Every single act of charity made by Bill Gates is not pursuing his individual financial interests.

5. If it wasn't for the benefit of the people that cars replaced buggies, it wouldn't have happened.

>>138796368
>oh neat, a libertarian/ancap thread!
>NAPfaggotry within a few posts

The NAP is statism if you implement it any broader than your personal views and conduct. Stop this cancer and understand how monopolies die in a free market.

Protip: people NAP'ing all over monopolies doesn't kill monopolies. Competition and alternative market choices do.

One big company owns all the eggs? Eat goddamn cereal for breakfast instead.
One big company owns all the gasoline? Use goddamn electricity instead.

For a company to be so fucking successful and perfect that it takes over an entire market without collapsing under it's own debt is a signal to the consumer that they're the best manager of resources. Why would you destroy a monopoly if they're the best at what they do? They're the apex capitalist.

>>138809156
>Why would you destroy a monopoly if they're the best at what they do? They're the apex capitalist.

Since when did capitalism become collectivist?
Being the "best manager of resources" doesn't mean they're best at managing those resources to deliver a quality product to all their customers, it means they're best at managing them to increase their profits and secure the financial position of their company.

Will you honestly say you can't imagine any reasons for why that monopoly could be bad for society overall?

>>138796368
>how do you prevent monopolies?
you don't
the more money you have the more you make ----> monopolies

>>138797574
This

File: 1457852.png (343KB, 589x577px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 589x577px

>>138796368
DUDE
U
D
E
WEED

>>138798313
Most RIGHT-WING libertarians don't believe in the state helping those "in need". Charity is much better

>>138796368
>This seems to be the best form of government, but how do you prevent monopolies?

You realize the rigid libertarian ideology doesn't allow for even reasonable regulation of human behavior, and become a conservative instead.

File: pinochet.jpg (62KB, 220x299px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 220x299px

>>138800237
This. The NAP can still exist, but the Don't Tread On Me phrase should be first and foremost.

File: ikJ02Pd.png (237KB, 497x415px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 497x415px

>>138810467
>reasonable regulation of human behavior


this is that faggot shit where you start mutilating baby dicks and giving women free shit.....


get copter

>>138809112
1 Does that single person have the resources to not only make burgers, but sell them to EVERYONE?

2 A person's interests are completely separate from their own whims and desires. Natural law is absolute.

3. It is, as long as the business is providing something beneficial to the society.

4. If he continues to do that, he will be outcompeted by people who don't.

5. It wouldn't have happened if we were a society organized around what benefits the people. But we aren't, we're capitalist. Our society is organized around what benefits the consumers, and cars replacing buggies did.

>>138796368
you don't, if they are there they deserve it but it's unlikely to happen
(hint: there's not government enforced intellectual property)

File: heheh free helicopter rides XDD.jpg (68KB, 594x536px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 594x536px

>>138810647
Reasonable regulation of human behavior would prevent those two things, dumbass.
You would market them to make a profit.
Which is exactly why they're already happening here in the first place.

File: Screenshot_2017-08-23-22-08-53.png (89KB, 480x854px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 480x854px

>>138796368
https://twitter.com/TrumInTheNorth/status/899793901724336130

>>138796368
Fascism

>>138796368
Checks and balances, you filthy leaf.

>>138810726
1. As soon as he can sell a better burger, or a cheaper burger, he's making money and creating competition for McDonald's.

2. No. I spend my money on what I desire to spend it on.

3. Business that are dying are not providing services that are beneficial. If they are, someone else is doing it better or cheaper, and therefore they are not necessary.

4. And how do you you think that competitor would go about beating Bill Gates? By swimming in a pool of money? Or by creating a better and cheaper product? Is this not beneficially to the people?

5. No, I think it benefited the people to be able to travel much greater distances at much greater speeds. Cars replaced buggies because they filled the purpose of buggies better to the benefit of the people.

>>138796368
A true free market will result in any business that fucks people over being less popular and competition would sprout up and swallow up their market share.

In a true free market Monopolies would crumble once they start taking advantage of their consumers. MONOPOLIES ARE ABOMINATIONS OF THE STATE

File: IMG_0199.jpg (230KB, 1242x699px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1242x699px

>>138796368
Amazon $9.95.

>>138796368
The answer is laissez-faire capitalism is riddled with issues. Fascism answers most of them but opens a whole slew of other problems (mostly corruption based).

This is why most modern fascists used to be libertarians. They realize that libertarianism would lead to monopolies, and a replacement of the native libertarian people. It's a self-defeating idealogy. So then you take capitalism, and you put some reigns on it, and you've got fascism.

>>138811859
You overestimate your fellow man. Most would just fall in line, do whatever. Eventually you might have a communist revolution or something I guess.

>>138811665
1 How does he make money purely by being ABLE to sell a better/cheaper burger? How does he create competition for McDonald's in markets that he has no access to, since his only resources are the ingredients of a burger and a way to cook it, but not any method of distribution?

2 What you desire to spend your money on has literally nothing to do with what's in your interests as a person. You're still viewing yourself as a consumer.

3. That's a baseless statement. Businesses suffer for a myriad of reasons beyond not providing services that are beneficial. And if we're talking about in a capitalist, free market scenario, then it's not about providing a beneficial service, but about a service that people want.

4. If the competitor's committing 100% of his resources towards creating a product people want more, he has an advantage over anyone not using 100% of their resources. It's the same as the small business vs big business situation.

5. Explain how it's benefited the people, then.
Remember, the people; not the consumers.

>>138811859
ok but in a very general sense, what if you came up with something to sell people that had positive effects for 70 years and then killed them, and you made 16 million dollars off it? where are your checks and balances now?

>>138796368
monopolies only exist because of govt control
in a free market people would start new companies to dispute for the market with the number of producers is too low because it is profitable

>>138813551
You stop getting profits, eventually losing money over time.
I'm not an ancap, but this question was retarded.

>>138813001
1. He walks down the street and offers a better/cheaper burger to his neighbor.

2. I play guitar as a hobby. When I was a beginner, I purchased a cheap, low quality guitar. A few years later, I purchased a high quality, expensive one. It was nice to have those options.

3. Businesses suffer because they are not profitable. They are not profitable because what they provide either isn't beneficial/ of interest, or what they provide is offered cheaper/better by someone else. This benefits the people.

4. Yes, this is once again to the benefit of the people. Cheaper goods, more money to be charitable with.

5. Now I can travel great distances to go care for someone who is ill. Probably wouldn't make it in time if traveling by buggy.

>>138808183
It's an intricate question because technically google isn't a monopoly (tons of alternatives obv) but the EU court ruled them as a monopoly recently because it seems people are too retarded to actually use the alternatives (and google fucks the EU with taxes evasion so they're salty as fuck)
But I'm certain they aren't a real monopoly since I don't use their services so no you aren't alone

>This seems to be the best form of government

Hilarious.

>>138809956
how would they make a profit if they don't deliver a quality product fucking retarded idiot
voluntary transaction = win + win

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

>>138797574
This. Monopolies exist because of government issued licenses (patents, copyright, permits, licenses).

>>138814054
1 Does he walk to each corner of the country as well?

2 What you feel about having the option to do it doesn't effect whether it'd be in your interest, in any way, whatsoever. It either is or isn't.

3 "Unemployment and poverty benefits the people"

4 Why would they be charitable with the money and repeat the exact same mistakes as the person they just outcompeted?

5. You having to assume the responsibility of the state and take care of people who are mortally ill is not beneficial to the people.

>>138804079
> my fantasies are reality
Fuck that's an unrealistic scenario.

>>138814855
>Ancap retard equates a consumer's perception of what a quality product is to what would be objectively best for the society
If you expected me to be surprised, I'm not.

>>138797574
> people actually think removing barriers creates monopolies
Not historically, not logically & not in practice.

>>138815700
> objectively best for the society
....and what would that be smart arse? Go on fucking spell it out for us. Fucking intellectuals, you who judge humanity to be so small you are not of a finer clay than the rest of us you're a fucking moron tbqh.

>>138815537
>the exact scenario that's created nations from city-states and empires from nations is unrealistic
>>138815737
What happened to Standard Oil?

>>138796368
>>138815429
Inb4 muh incentive to invent

>>138815907
The unevolved, primitive Ancap ape is ignorant of the most basic, fundamental instinct of life
And spurns intellectualism
Also not surprising.

>survival

>>138815946
Standard oil had a large market share world wide that people enjoyed until they didn't & their market share fell. What of it?
>the exact scenario that's created nations from city-states and empires from nations is unrealistic
IF you think that's what it is, but it's not you're just painting McDonalds on the current system & calling it a refutation of a theory in practice in your own imagination I think they call that a strawman but whatever, keep burning it down if it makes you feel better. Strange fellows around here I swear.

>>138816179
Ancaps dont believe anyones opinion matters in regards to who gets to live. We think that a regulation and welfare free soceity is best for deciding who carries on the torch of humanity

>>138815488
1. He doesn't need to at first. Once he's made enough money he'll open a restaurant selling his burger. If he continues to sell better/cheaper burgers, the business will grow. Eventually he can open up restaurants around the world.

Or, McDonald's recognizes their loss of customers to this man, and realizes they need to offer even better/cheaper food in order to win customers back. Either outcome benefits the people.

2. If the only guitars that existed were $1,000+ high quality ones, I can assure you I'd have found another hobby.

3. It benefits the masses and temporarily harms those in the business. They can find other work, we can keep our money.

4. No, the guy who beats Bill Gates because Bill was being to charitable would provide a cheaper service in order to beat Bill. This would leave more money in the pocket of the people, with which they can be more charitable.

5. Me taking care of someone sick is beneficial to him. Everyone taking care of those around them is beneficial to everyone.

>>138816305
>What's wrong with Rockefeller owning our country?

>If I say history only exists in his imagination I don't have to substantiate my own positions

>>138796668
that dont sound like ancap

>but how do you prevent monopolies?
Since there's no government around to enable them in the first place, you just don't have to.

>>138816179
> survival
> objectively best for society
> consumer's perception of what a quality product is
Yeah mate you define the objective good survival metric for building houses from timber vs bricks vs concrete.
> And spurns intellectualism
The vulgar pride of intellectuals, people who think the know what's best for others, that they can plan society naively, people who are experienced in some area but think their brain is large enough to plan all other areas, people who pay no price for being wrong, yes the intellectual planners that gave us the worlds atrocities should be fucking hung. THere's nothing wrong with intelligence, but wisdom is recognizing what you do not know.

>>138816465
Yeah, I outlined in my first post here how libertarian/ancap is about shirking your responsibilities to your fellows.

But with that being the case,
Do you expect us to believe your opinion matters in regards to what you think is best for carrying the torch of humanity?

>>138816692
> le green text straw men.jpg
Wow really made me think, I think I have to reconsider my whole position now your logic is just fucking flawless cunt.

>>138816527
1 Is that fact or baseless speculation?
>Either outcome benefits the people
You're again confusing people with consumers.

2 Whether you choose that hobby or not doesn't change whether it would be in your interests.

3 They can only find other work if other work is available. You keeping your money is beneficial to you as a consumer. Since the cost of that is part of your society suffering, it does not benefit the masses at all

4 They don't need to provide a cheaper service to beat Bill. They're committing more of their resources to producing the service than him, that's enough to overtake him eventually. At this point you're just completely ignoring the original topic, which is that capitalism removes people's incentives to be charitable. "Weaponizing the selfishness of individuals against the society"

5. If everyone were taking care of those around them, your example for how cars have benefitted us would no longer apply.
How can you take care of someone around you if you're forced to drive a great distance and take care of someone else?

>>138817038
>I don't want to own my own position so I'll just say you're strawmanning me :^)

>>138816834
Why does there have to be a survival metric for what houses are built out of?

Spare us your pathetic, juvenile ranting
>wahh he thinks he knows what's best for others
>who's he to say that eating myself into a diabetic coma isn't good for me? The ARROGANCE of him!

>>138818007
It's not my position, that's the point of a strawman. I don't have to defend your absurd scenarios.

>>138818490
You're the one saying peoples voluntary choices & subjective values pale in comparison to the good of society but you won't tell us what that is except "survival". Why do you refuse to substantiate your assertions?

>>138818519
It's NOT your position that there was nothing wrong with Standard Oil's market share, since "people enjoyed it"?

>scenarios with endless historical precedence are absurd
Explain, please

>>138817831
1. It's a fact. Having quality food available is beneficial to people.

2. What I choose to do is in my interests.

3. Other work is always available. Only a small part of society suffers, temporarily. To the masses it's keeping what they own.

4. They will only overtake Bill by providing a better/cheaper product. Creating endless shitty computers will not beat Bill.

5. If I have the antidote and I'm hundreds of miles away, the car was necessary. The car is also able to spread the antidote faster.

Ideally, the transportation spreads the medicine at a faster rate, and communities take care of each other with the medicine they have.

File: 1502078196166.jpg (60KB, 607x608px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 607x608px

>>138796368

>>138796368
Minarchist? fine

You can't be an ancap, it's impossible, how are you going to stop rich people just hiring mercs and making a military then claiming territory and eventually just forming a state?

>>138818731
Why are you convinced that my assertions need more substantiation than that? Answer my question, because I don't know what you're looking for. Why do you think there's supposed to be a survival metric for the material of houses? If it's particularly related to the health of the society in some way, please share.

>>138818800
Nah the one about security firms yadda yadda.
Standard oil had a large temporary market share as long as it served consumers and was still open to competition but gained such a large temporary market share because of the sheer scale of innovation. I don't see a problem with this, it's not a monopoly & nowhere near the monopolies the state is creating and that the state actually is.

>>138796368
You don't, not every monopoly is bad, those that arose from a product that is so good and so cheap that noone wants another. Those who make that product are doing our society a great service and are to be commended.

On the other hand what we know as a monopoly cannot exist without government intervention.

File: dont tread on me or my son ever again.jpg (32KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 960x640px

>>138796368
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>138813816
yeah but i made 16m

>>138819198
"Security firms" aren't subject to a codified public law in Ancapistan. Hence they're equivalent to historical mercenaries.

>I don't see a problem with this

So my
>What's wrong with Rockefeller owning the country?
wasn't a strawman, as long as I'm not asserting that SO was a monopoly.

>>138800302
>a monopoly is only a problem when gov't is there with its laws to protect it from competition or force people to deal with it even when they'd rather go somewhere else

>>138796368
You break up the fucking monopolies.

It's a governmental system, not a religion. Roads are a gross tyrannical incursion on private property. You still say "fuck it" and build them.

Generally speaking, anything that requires something to be destroyed, seized, leveled, and broken up is the proper job of the government. That's true whether your problem is a stand of trees or a nation of Muslims.

It's when government tries to nurture and cultivate and help that it instantly and automatically, seemingly by chemical reaction, becomes a scam run by rent seekers who will tear down the country to protect their rut and drive everyone into the poorhouse so they can control the poorhouse.

>>138815700
the society you're talking about only exist in your head, everyone has his idea of "what's best to society" your shit doesn't make sense

>>138819191
You said that voluntarism doesn't matter because it doesn't serve the objective good of society, when pressed to substantiate you merely said survival, so I'd like to know wtf the survival metric is for housing material for your objective good of society? Clear enough or are we still not on the same page here?

>>138800911
> You assume that because the monopoly is taking advantage of people, it means those people don't want to do business with it anymore. What's the basis for that?

Because any smart guy could see the opportunity and start a business that's atleast a little less bad and destroy the former.

File: 3e2597516281a6b0467d1c966ab18b07.jpg (85KB, 564x778px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 564x778px

deregulate

all monopolies are granted by government

File: IMG_7145.png (120KB, 450x409px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 450x409px

>>138816706
And there's the problem -- the Cap part keep breaking the An part.

Who defines the scope and limits of the NAP? A for-profit McCourt? Which one -- the biggest by market cap, or one of the plucky up-and-coming startup courts that just launched their IPO?

>>138803867
>You shirk all responsibility to your race and society, in favor of a psychopathic hyper-individualism where you can look at a child being raped in an alley and say you have no moral imperative to intervene, since "they are not entitled to my labor! heheh"

strawman.jpeg

> You are parasites who want to enjoy everything that the nations and societies built for you

Yes and they have built that because we want to and we do pay for it.

>>138819822
more of that

>>138819491
Your view of security firms is a strawman, the idea that standard oil was a monopoly & a bad one at that is just plain wrong. On what level is a temporary large market share thats providing for people wants & needs until it didn't a bad thing?

>>138819688
for*

Coca-Cola Death Squads

>>138810467
>doesn't allow for even reasonable regulation of human behavior

Of course. What right do you have to tell me what to do? creepy fuck.

>>138803867
This.

>>138796368
monopolies have only ever existed in systems of strong government. in fact, communism / socialism explicitly establishes state-run monopolies in every industry.

when will the "ancap = monopoly" meme just fucking die?

youtube yaron brook

capitalism has no problems

democracy is communism and never works

democracy is why usa is prices up and shortages

>>138796368
Somalia is a libertarian paradise. How're they doing?

>>138820461
> Somalia is a libertarian paradise.
> a failed socialist state in the most regulated continent on earth ruled by warlords is the same as a free society
Is it?

>>138820461
>under fundamentalist muslim rule
>subject of nonstop attacks by NATO forces for 25 years straight

"ANCAP IS EVERYTHING BAD GOY"

>>138818920
1 I was asking if the parts about his business growing was fact, sorry.
But "quality" food isn't quality food.

2 As a consumer, not as a person. I'm not sure how much simpler I can put this.

3
>Other work is always available
>Only a small part of society suffers, temporarily
More speculation?
The masses keeping what they own isn't in their interests as a people if it results in their society suffering.

4 This is verging on just straight dishonesty. You can assume the consumer's making a better/cheaper product but that has nothing to do with the point. You have to produce MORE of them to overtake Bill.

5. Sure the car was necessary in that scenario. But since the scenario wasn't in the slightest bit beneficial to the people, it doesn't serve your point.

The car would spread the antidote faster, though, sure.
Is this an argument for people to have cars, or for hospitals?

>>138796368
Most cucked form of government

Fixed

>>138820809
most shilled against, for sure. i always take that as a good sign.

>>138819688
People have different ideas about what benefits the society's survival.
But survival is what's best for society.
If you have a different idea than that, you are a subhuman.

>>138820625
1. Quality food is quality food.

2. If you know so well, what is in my interests? Is it survival? I can survive with hobbies as well.

3. There is literally always work available. You may need to move a bit to find it. If the masses are benefiting, society is benefiting.

4. You can produce far less if somehow your profit is large enough to be able to overtake Bill.

5. Giving an antidote to someone sick is beneficial to the individual who was sick. What do you think "the people" is made up of? This is an argument for cars being better than buggy's.

>>138819982
What, the view of how security firms would function in Ancap?

>On what level is a temporary large market share thats providing for people wants & needs until it didn't a bad thing?
See?
Nothing, according to you. That's why the government didn't do anything about it?

>>138821017
Yes. So which individual's method for survival of society shall we pick?

Or how about since society is just a mass of individuals, we leave it to the individuals to take care of themselves? They know what's best for them, not you.

If each individual is looking out for himself, society survives. And if the individuals are caring, they'll look out for their neighbors as well.

>>138796368
>don't tread on me muh
As you said, but also what about the stock market, what about currencies? Who will regulate hostile takeovers e.g.?
Libertarians are the same people that always told us that everything just has to be deregulated to work properly.
It's the same people that told us trickle-down economics will be effective.
Libertarianism is as much of a delusion as saying 'if we have communism, everybody is happy with it no matter what'.
It just won't work like that, it's not that simple.
I work on the stock market for years, I know about real-world economy, I just can't take libertarians serious.

>>138819898
>>strawman.jpeg
You not being able to defend the basis of your ideology doesn't mean I'm strawmanning.

>they have built that because we want to and we do pay for it.
What?

>>138801869
this is the right answer. Traditionally, monarchies prevent monopolies from forming.

>>138804085
libertarianism is a meme, nothing more

>>138821877
> potential monopolies open to competition are badd mmkay so we need an explicit guaranteed monopoly so we don't have to worry about monopolies forming
You sound very silly.

>>138819440
And? You'll just lose that money over time. It isn't permanent. Also, why stop at 16m? Why not make more if your product is good? Why not pass your company down to your sons?

>>138796368
Dont step on snek is meme ideology. Fuck off /pol/ is nationalist.

>>138821267
1 McDonald's is "quality" food.

2 Your interests are the same as mine; to do as much as we can to protect and improve our society, nation, and race.

3
>You may need to move a bit to find it
So it's literally not always available.
The masses do not benefit from part of them suffering.

4 Market share isn't determined by how much profit you're making...

5 Your scenario was of having to drive such a great distance to give them that medicine that they may have died before you got there.

So far you haven't given anything that shows cars are better than buggies. There's plenty of other stuff that cars have done besides transport medicine. What about them?
>allowing us to create sprawling, tentacular metropolises that swallow our natural environments
Would you say that's a benefit to the people?

>>138821530
The one which through intellectually honest consideration, we determine to be the most viable, effective, and beneficial.

>society is just a mass of individuals
Nigger-tier mindset
>If each individual is looking out for himself, society survives
>If the individuals are caring, they'll look out for their neighbors as well
And if they aren't caring, they'll abuse, rob, rape, and kill others, since that's clearly what's best for them; they know best after all, right?
According to you that's what's best for society as well.
Interesting perspective

>>138796368

How is your "libertarian society" going to work when America resembles Brazil and Europe resembles North Africa?

When Muslims have a democratic majority so you think they will vote for you guys or sharia. Do you think the black brown underclass in America are going to vote to take away the gibs they use to survive or vote themselves even more gibs?

ANSWER THIS QUESTION LIBERTARIANS

>>138822514
1. It serves its purpose.

2. What are you using to post? Why haven't you sold it and given it to someone who needs the money? Hypocrite. Your highest interest is not in protecting your neighbor. It's in moral grandstanding.

3. It's always available somewhere. Or you could start your own business if you don't want to move.

4. I wasn't arguing market share. I was arguing overtaking Bill Gates.

5. The car got the antidote to the person before they died. The buggy wouldn't have made it in time.

>>138822356
>potential monopolies existing in a society where they're obligated to do whatever's in their own interest, even if it means closing up shop and running away with the profits, are bad
>explicit guaranteed monopolies existing in a society where they're obligated to do whatever's in their "customers" interest, and survive only by continuing to do so, is good

What confuses you?

All of you cunts going on about "oh a security firm will just buy all the other ones and make a monopoly" are fucking spastics that have never bought or sold a small/large business before.

I'd love it if you useless shits would prove otherwise but its pretty obvious you guys have no idea wtf you're on about if you aren't taking into account p/e , x Earnings ratios, debt loads & margins etc.

>>138822886
> And if they aren't caring, they'll abuse, rob, rape, and kill others, since that's clearly what's best for them; they know best after all, right?
> so let's give the a monopoly of violence to exercise their control over others that will work
You know incentives, you know you can either produce or plunder, freedom makes it less painful to produce than to plunder, universalizing and legimitizing plunder just draws sociopaths.

>>138822886
There would be no disagreements, surely.

Using that language makes me think you don't care much for black people. More hypocrisy. And what is society if not a mass of individuals.

That's why we have police. I'm not an ancap.

>>138823095
Monopolies being bad so we need a monopoly is a contradiction, does not follow, does not compute, does not work.

>>138801626
Or I just put bomb collars on all my employees because nobody actually cares and is just buying my shit because it's the cheapest but whuoh now I also have a private army to keep people from stealing my shit and I put bomb collars on all of them too just to be safe and wow my competition just burned down for some mysterious reason that you can't actually figure out because there are no police or dectectives who aren't on my payroll left and oh would you look at that I'm one guy that's enslaved the entirety of humanity but it's ok because it's not a real monopoly.

>>138823632
How are you going to afford bomb collars & actually stay profitable, maintain your cheap prices, pay people to destroy other businesses & pay literally everyone off that would be against it?

You don't think your fantasies through.

>>138823072
1 It serves its purpose to the consumers, which is to give them the "quality" food they desire. Not the quality food that benefits them.

2 Because I am doing more to protect and improve our society, nation, and race by keeping what I'm using to post and continuing to post.
It's not moral grandstanding, you are just intellectually dishonest, with the kind of one-dimensional thinking that liberals on Twatter use.

3. I cannot access "somewhere", only here.
>you could start your own business
Was wondering when this would come out. This holy argument is the most concrete evidence of libertarians and ancaps being completely incapable of thinking beyond individual people.

4. Overtaking Bill Gates in what? Money? lol

5. I agree, the state should make sure hospitals have access to the fastest means of transport available to make sure medicine gets to where it needs to be.
Now, back to how buggies being replaced by cars has benefited our society....

>>138823021
NatCap here. Militarized borders and incredibly strict immigration. Like ~100K a year from Europe. No refugees allowed.
Some government is necessary, but too much is harmful.

>>138823384
You skipped a few words it seems like. Should I try to use shorter ones?

>>138823789
I'm sorry that you're so infinitely stupid to think I need to pay people I've put bomb collars on.

>>138823807
1. It does benefit them. Does a McDouble benefit a starving man, or not?

2. Do you have evidence that posting is benefiting anything? Selling your device, using it to buy food, and giving it to the starving is tangibly beneficial.

3. I don't understand why you think starting a business is some ridiculous concept.

4. Sure. If someone buys a computer I created for the price greater than all of Bill's wealth, I've overtaken Bill in wealth. And what's my market share?

5. "fastest means of transport available" "creating faster means of transport is not beneficial"

Monopolies are a product of state power

If a monopoly is truly ripping people off and selling the product at a rip off price, then someone else will come along and sell the product at a lower price, therefore getting all the customers and creating an incentive for competition

>>138824471
And if this startup happens to oh I don't know. Burn down with all it's employees in the building and no evidence of foul play is found. Then I guess that startup is still gonna somehow break the monopoly right?

>>138824092
> nuh uhh I'll just put on my armour its infinity!
You sound like those 10 year old kids playing make believe, who's going to work for you dickhead? People wonder why we're so critical of public schools, you're dumber than our toddlers leaf.

>>138824681
> government subsidized union & central pacific railways were incentivized to blow eachothers track up to get $/mile of track laid
> some entrepreneur rocks up a few years later and puts a proper transcontinental rail in smashing the state funded robber barons with no subsidy and no explosions
> people would be okay with a random robber baron blowing cunts up in their city
Stop watching game of thrones & reading childrens books dickless.

>>138824681
Well that was a pretty big leap of logic. Sounds like something that would happen in Honduras..... You know, a society that doesn't respect persons or property.

Wouldn't expect much else from a LEAF

>>138824751
The better question is who's not going to work for me? It's hilarious to watch you fuckers stand behind your NAP like it will actually somehow protect you. Who's going to investigate crimes? Random fucking citizens? You could stab your neighbor in their sleep and take their shit all you like. Anyone who tries to confront you is violating the NAP on shaky evidence at best right? Get over yourself. I don't need to pay my employees because there are two options for them obey or die. The only person here with infinity armor is you.

>>138824308
1 Is the population comprised of starving men?

2 I've turned people away from ideologies that are causing harm, or would cause harm.
Do you have evidence that the person I'm saving from starvation will be tangibly beneficial to society?

3. That's not the concept you proposed. You proposed, as a solution to unemployment, for each of those unemployed people to start their own businesses.

4. Your market share is next to nothing. Overtaking Bill in wealth means nothing. That's not "outcompeting".

5. Who had anything against creating faster means of transport? You said it was beneficial for those faster means of transport to be made available to everyone. You have yet to demonstrate how that has benefited us.

File: horse-eating-straw-stable-side-view-male-brown-outdoor-56161968.jpg (348KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1300x957px

>>138825141
> muh limited understanding of the uneccessary NAP
> muh just kill everybody

>>138824968
Yes keep sitting he assuming a Monopoly that is gouging prices solely because it's a monopoly is really going to be against wiping startups off the map with shady shit.

>>138824471
Why does the monopoly have to be ripping people off?
Does Facebook rip anyone off?

>>138823832

Thats nice, but most libertarians are for open borders AND democracy. That tells me that most libertarians are just practicing a fantasy ideology.

>>138796368
A form of Strong Libertarianism might feature a corporate death penalty. The US has broken monopolies a few times.

>>138825335
I don't know what this means, I can hardly read it.

Are you drunk on Labatt Blue tonight Justin?

>>138825320
>Muh government is always and forever evil because it's a big army of meanies with guns
>Muh corporations are always and forever good because even if they make a big army of meanies with guns at least it won't be called a government
>Muh somehow not seeing this incredible cognitive dissonance

File: Free market sucks.jpg (562KB, 1348x562px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 1348x562px

>>138796368

>>138823268
>universalizing and legimitizing plunder just draws sociopaths
Who is doing this?

>>138796368

There is no problem w monopolies.

And they hardly ever built w/o government help in the first place anyway.

U need to study more libertarianism.

>>138825335
> a monopoly that is lowering prices to undercut competition is totally going to be able to afford to hire the mafia to take out every rival everywhere at all times without financial or societal repurcussions cos I'll put imaginary bomb collars on everybody

Fucking pure genius over here, are you sure you don't want to be president mate?

>>138822886
>being this retarded

kill yourself fuckhead ass muynch

>>138825625
>Doesn't realize limited liability corporations are a product of state power

>>138823286
Why wouldn't there be disagreements? There is no human that has a flawless intellect.

And no, I don't care much for black people. Where do you see any hypocrisy?

>what is society if not a mass of individuals
A mass of individuals interacting and cooperating to form a collective

>>138825254

(You walking down the street with a McDouble)

Homeless man: Please sir, I'm starving. Could you give me a bite of your food?

You: No. You have not shown yourself to be tangibly beneficial to society. And even if you were, this food will not benefit you. If you didn't have a n-----r tier brain, you'd understand.

Homeless man: Please, sir, just one bite.

You: No. I'm off to my horse and buggy to post on 4chan. It's the best place for my revolutionary ideas to be heard. I know this because I've made some people think like me. Next time someone walks by you and denies you food, think of me. One day everyone will deny you food, useless n-----r, and you will die. For society!

>>138825625
> always and forever evil
> always and forever good
Retard
> it won't be called a government
You really don't get the difference between a "justified" monopoly of force that claims to be above people and private property with no recourse or competition vs a service provider that doesn't claim to be above people, property or that it has legitimized violence/coercion/theft, has competition & has recourse
Calling a cat a dog just because they both go on 4 paws is asinine bro.
> cognitive dissonance
Says the cunt playing fantasy infinity armour like a 10 year old talking about imaginary bomb collars. Where is your self-awareness? Do you think anything through before you speak?

>>138825919
I must have missed the part where I sold my computer in order to buy that McDouble. Can you clarify?

>>138825752
>The absolute state of libertarian intellect

>>138825908
There would be disagreements. Therefore you'd have to pick one solution among many. Whose do we pick?

Statistics show that freer economies generally have higher HDIs. Shall we go with that evidence, or no?

>>138796668
Indeed. Low income and capital gains tax, but mainly tax corporations and dividends. Also, make fines for corporations stiffer than non-corporate businesses. And perhaps apply the US first amendment to the internet.

>>138796368
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l20Pac9YWM

>>138826010
>>>>138823095

>>138826059
Someone gave it to you and told you to give it to the homeless man.

>>138825672
I'm not sure. You seem to believe that the government is entirely capable of doing just that. Then again stupid does seem to run under black flags. Your entire system is retarded and since you can't seem to see it I'll go into more detail. You're basing this hope in the free market entirely on competition. Never mind the fact that bigger competitors always outdo their smaller rivals because they have the resources to do so. Even IF I were to adhere to the NAP entirely I could just drop my prices to half that of what the startup is selling. I may be operating at a loss but he's not getting much business anymore is he? So of course you need equally sized or at least closely sized competitors to come in and disrupt that monopoly. Here's where you run into the problem. That word: Monopoly means there ARE no other competitors in that field.

>>138825856
>Doesn't realize corporations have zero liability in a world where profit is the only goal.
If I make starving kids in africa build phones who is actually going to care? The answer is nobody every time. By the time you start caring if a company is getting too big it's always too late.

>>138826249
Business gets it revenue through selling shit, it can be easily cut off, the feedback is direct, the incentives are different, government, is a third party that takes from people after they have already interacted, it has an "endless" stream of income with no direct feedback, shit incentices and little recourse.

Operating at a loss is one thing, maintaining it without a central banking monopoly is entirely different. Competition is just and added feature for what private alternatives are superior to monopolies. The fact that you see one trying to become a monopoly as a flaw of a competitive system is a fucking joke, considering you're advocating monopoly but then criticizing freedom for potential monopolies with many many many avenues for preventing them.

Try running a business, I know it's not an argument but I've been involved with 5 startups and you might see things differently if you actually learnt how they work from the inside rather than on TV & movies. FF7 isn't reality.

>>138826124
The one we've determined to be the most viable, effective, and beneficial.

Considering that statistics show correlation, not causation, no we shan't go with that evidence.
It can be good discussion though. What are some economies freer than the US?

>>138826192
You're the one that's asserting there's something wrong with it, so you'll really have to elaborate.

File: 1502321040964.gif (2MB, 177x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 177x150px

>>138826547
> we
Oh cute he thinks he'll be involved in the decision making process. You were loud but unpopular in school weren't you Matt?

>>138826010
Here we see the ancap in his final form where he actually calls a super-corporation that rules over the entire planet by force "not a goverment" and "justified"
I'll put it into language you can understand:
>Me have pointy spear and you don't
>Me say you give me all your stuff or die
>You say is evil
>Me say I give you your life in trade for all your things
>You say is justified monopoly

>>138826708
It's off topic, but what does your investment portfolio look like? Have you heard of Jack Bogle?

File: 1503087362008.jpg (38KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 850x400px

>>138803867
There is literally nothing stopping you from simultaneously considering yourself Libertarian, and donating your time and money to charitable causes for your race and society which is why >>138819898 rightfully called your argument a strawman. If you weren't such an economic illiterate, you might actually understand why Libertarianism is beneficial in this regard. In the U.S, 70-80% of social security is wasted on bearacracy as opposed to actually helping those in need. That's 70-80% more that could otherwise be use to further the interests of your race. The bottom line is, a decentralized economy is one that can calculate the logistics of where money should be allocated to help people far more efficiently than a centralized/planned economy.

>>138826811
>You say is justified monopoly
No.
>Me have pointy spear and you don't
Nice fantasy mate.
> Only one spear exists and you have
> nuh uh!!! times infinity!

>>138796368
If a single firm can satiate 100% of a market, with zero better alternatives, and 100% of the clientele is pleased with their service, then they deserve a fucking gold medal (and their hold over the market)

>muh cost of entry
If people want an alternative, they'll fund it
If people don't like what's currently their, they'll use something else, or they will stop using it.

A monopoly cannot exist in free-market capitalism without a state, because it's (almost) by definition impossible.

File: 1502309688197.jpg (475KB, 1280x1646px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1280x1646px

>>138826708
>the people's voice can be heard but only if they're raving about how much they want someone to sell them a gold-plated fidget spinner

See how the cornered Ancap's composure starts to unravel as his ideology is dissected and found to be completely fucking empty

>>138826547
>>138826629

And once again, there will be disagreements. Who is making the final determination?

Hong Kong is more economically free than USA. It has an excellent HDI and the world's longest life expectancy

You don't believe you're obligated to help your fellow man, even when the means of helping was literally given to you. You don't actually care about your neighbor.

This was an elaborate by obvious troll. I'm sad I fell for it. Good night.

>>138826979
>If people don't like what's currently their
Motherfucker... Was too excited to proofread.
*there

>>138826858
Never heard of him over here but I'm familiar with Vanguard. I invest a little mainstream & a little bit meme, my job revolves around investing nowadays, retirement funds mostly so not having my own portfolio would be pretty embaressing here.

>>138827051
You've said nothing of substance in 43 posts, yet you've done what is it now a dozen strawmen? 2 dozen assertions? I'm fuckin losing count.

>>138826926
I'm sorry in what bizzaro fantasy world would I let you make your own spear while I have mine? The difference between my thought experiment and your actual magical fantasy land is I base my beliefs on reality. In this amazing place called reality people don't actually give a shit about your fee fees if they have a spear and you don't. No corporation that actually wants to maintain it's power is going to bother with even the semblance of the NAP or any other shitty system you naive anarchists can come up with. So again it's really fucking simple but I guess I need to explain it again. Whoever has the spear is in charge. Whoever doesn't have the spear isn't going to suddenly get one out of nowhere because you feel it would be fair.

>>138827113
> excited for freedom
> excited to dismantle shit statist logic
I like you. Hope you have a good day and convince a few people this week that freedom is a good idea.

File: 1502901173129.jpg (47KB, 615x705px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 615x705px

>>138827406
You too, friend.
If you know something that could benefit someone, and its in your best interest to share it, how can you not be excited?

>>138827351
You forget there's like 10billion spears on the planet already dickhead. Everyone knows about force & violence, you think we haven't picked up a history book?

You come across about as spastic as that old nazi on the vice documentary going on about the jews & nigger degenerates in public.

File: Jeffrey-Tucker-Smiling-On-A-Swing.jpg (59KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1280x720px

>>138827510
Gotta maintain that enthusiasm.

>>138827052
You can't say "once again" after changing the question multiple times.
Why is there a "final" determination? What happens in that stage which is different from the previous determinations?

>Hong Kong
Tell me more about it.
What's its military like?
Is it economically independent?

>You don't believe you're obligated to help your fellow man
A black person isn't my fellow man, nor my neighbor.

>heheh you're just a troll, nevermind me trying to shill multiculturalism as a copout.
Jesus.

File: (((freedom))).webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>138827406

File: 1501053382718.jpg (6KB, 238x192px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 238x192px

>>138827248
>the governments will be tyrannical, the people won't be involved in decision making

>not an assertion

Such intellectual honesty

>>138827406
What currency will be used, who will keep that currency stable, who will be the one printing the money?
Are you going to trade with other countries?
Which institution will control the rules of that market and what rules should be established by whom and why?
Who will protect patents and who are you going to call if they are violated?
What about the stock market, how will that work out, what about hostile takeovers?
Why don't you answer these basic question?
I already asked in this thread. Thanks!

File: download.jpg (11KB, 308x163px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 308x163px

>>138828239
crypto

>>138827594
I don't need to think at all about you picking up a history book because it's pretty fucking obvious you've never read it so what good did picking it up do?
It's funny that you call me a spastic though while I actually refute your points and you spend you entire posts insulting me and shouting "but muh perfect system!" Do you really think that every single human being on this planet is in a position to do everything themselves and thus not need to form groups? Probably not because you support corporations but that would also mean having to acknowledge that groups will naturally form and thus have a "spear advantage" over the smaller groups and use this to absorb them so how do we keep what are obviously now governing bodies from abusing their citizens? Oh wait they're not called governing bodies because somehow if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck and looks like a duck we need to make the clear distinction that it's actually a bald eagle.

>>138828299
Hey guys another one off the checklist. The obligatory "guy who doesn't understand what a crypto currency is"

>>138828239
You are a crypto faggot with your crypto answers avoiding answering a few simple questions.
Why don't you answer?
You can't that's why.
While you were surfing libertarian blogs from your parents basement I made real money on real markets, loser.
You libertarians don't have the slightest clue about the real-world.
Again why don't you instead answer these question, child?
>>138828239

>>138828299
that was meant for you sorry
>>138828576

File: 1503278242111.jpg (29KB, 480x446px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x446px

>>138828474
>found the salty leaf

>>138828625
Why the fuck is a leaf wearing a German flag? Stop saying sorry to the guy you just insulted bitch.

File: 1503012499468.jpg (43KB, 733x475px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 733x475px

>>138828625
keep apologizing to me, faggot

File: 1503082271910.jpg (33KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x480px

>>138828738
lol y'all are autistic retards

>>138828368
Groups aren't incompatible with individualism, the fact that you don't know that or a just willfully ignoring that is astounding. You have these little non-sequitur breakdowns like 3 or 4 times a paragraph and you don't notice them even when pointed out.

> not called governing bodies
If society decided to transition to a free society the idea that these private alternatives - of which I've listed what was it 6 or 7 differences in makeup - would be indentical to a current state monopoly is really absurd, how many differences do you need ?

>>138828239
Hayek's free banking system baby, competing fiats, metals, barter, crypto the whole shebang in a competitive currency market, protected with with a network of alternatives & third parties.

Beyond that I am not a central planner so to pretend to know exactly how 1,000 businesses will operate in a scenario for which I don't know the individual choices of the people involved only the broad trends is a useless exercise.

We aren't central planners, we understand the wide dispersal of knowledge but we can point to examples & theorize possibilities. When 7 billion people are free to solve a problem I would be naive to try and guess how that would look just like every innovation in history 99% of people couldn't possibly imagine, but I can see examples today that already work better than the state in many areas like credit agencies, ratings & black lists vs the court system for economic incentives at least.

Have a lovely day Hans.

>>138828239
>Which institution will control the rules of that market and what rules should be established by whom and why?
Germans are just incompatible with liberty. I'll make sure to hire at least one death squad to hunt down every German.

File: 1502754746677.png (65KB, 253x238px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 253x238px

>>138828474
BINGO!
... But who's gonna check my card?

>>138828683
Explain how a crypto currency in any way addresses these issues and maybe I'll apologize to your desperate ass.
>>138828740

File: 1503091216434.jpg (59KB, 640x632px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x632px

>>138828900
no.
the other faggot already apologized to me, I don't need an army of cucks, thanks.

bitch...

File: 1498008814196.jpg (21KB, 438x420px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 438x420px

>>138828815
Can you explain in a paragraph or less how the state is a monopoly and why this is a bad thing?

>>138829032
When do you think anarcho-capitalism will spread throughout the US? Within our lifetimes?

>>138828890
Are you sure you even understand the question?
Your 'freedom' isn't worth the paper written on, your retarded libertarian state will be run by corpporate monopolies in no time.
Your idea is nothing but a meme.
But don't worry there will be a time when you reach 25 and all of your nonsense will look like a bad dream in retrospective.

>>138828815
I didn't say groups were incompatible with individualism I was making a point that you once again failed to see.
On the differences between government and corporations: Sometimes governments aren't run by a single person that tells everyone else what to do.
There is no such thing as your dream "free society" If it could actually work it would have been established and maintained before big government ever came into being. Proto-humans weren't just born ruled by jews but of course lets ignore this. Let's ignore the lack of differences between a realistic theoretical corporation is this system and a governing body and pretend that everything I've listed as differences are actually valid.

File: 1503210850903.jpg (38KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x357px

>>138829360
you normies are so fucking screwed..
especially those german/canuck posters.

>>138796668
>Progressive corporate taxation
sounds like socialism to me senpai

>>138829586
>muh fed is bad muh cryptocurrencies, muh muh
Glad to see you can't answer any questions at all, I'm out.

File: 34828934982.jpg (162KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1462x1462px

>>138796368
>seems to be the best form of government
my sides

File: 1502689093592.jpg (14KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 500x500px

>>138829139
Off the top of my head:
The state is a monopoly because it is the sole institution that has the "legal right" to initiate force & violence over a given geographical area, for which all people & institutions are below. It claims to be a legitimate monopoly of force & it claims to be above people and their private property. They exist as a monopoly because people currently believe they should exist as the monopoly & highest arbiter.

This is a bad thing because monopolies offer worse & less efficient outcomes than competition & monopolies are immoral in their methods which deny human self-determination & property rights.

State monopolies violate self-ownership the most fundamental tenant of a free, peaceful, moral & effective society.

Now what intellectual trap are you springing on me friend? I could condense it down but it's 5 o'clock and I'm knocking off for the day and it's a long trip home before a late night appointment so that will have to do pending cleanup.

File: 1503244781411s.jpg (5KB, 250x140px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x140px

>>138829720
sorry, I need you to apologize one more time.
bend over for me.

>>138829139
Name one other group that is freely allowed to use force within a nation, and under their own supervision, deciding their own repercussions

The state is a monopoly on force

File: new sticker 2.jpg (398KB, 2700x900px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 2700x900px

I made this a while back to upset a friend of mine, he's kind of a stormfag.
It was based off an Antifa sticker I saw while walking through the downtown district where I live, you can see it as close an approximation as I could create on the far left (just like them!)

>>138829452
They are valid through observation, the invalid part is assuming these differences will magically end just because the service provided changes.

Everything is human progress, as humans have come together they have had to come up with ways of living together, they formed tribes, governments, monarchies, democracies, we've had the enlightenment, then liberalism, then Libertarianism and now Ancap is a continuation & expansion of these ideas.

I don't give a fuck that people didn't create a Libertarian society hundreds of years ago, though I'm glad that they got very very close, that doesn't say anything about the logic & evidence behind the theories and the practical applications, that only relies on truth and interpretation as with all ideas.
I haven't heard anything yet that would make me choose another idea over freedom.

>>138829821
Any group.

File: 9znqsvp0.jpg (130KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 333x499px

>>138830013
Gonna have to disagree with you there, friend.

>>138829975
Your system isn't freedom. I have yet to see a single method from any ancap of actually preventing an abusive monopoly from taking power. In fact I've only seen the opposite, willful embracing of such monopolies on the grounds that they are somehow more just then a governing body even if they choose to take on the exact same structure. Changing the name doesn't change the thing no matter how much you want it to. Antifa are still anarcho-communists (something more retarded then it's pieces) and the "free market" is only a free as the biggest guy lets it be.

>>138829751
Okay I'll go through it in good faith since you took the time to type that out.

"Legal right" is just something the state arbitrarily creates, right?
As well as the notion that all people and institutions are below it?
These are just ideas the state creates to justify its control, not concrete truths, yeah?

>monopolies are immoral in their methods which deny human self-determination & property rights.
Do those have to be its methods?

>self-ownership the most fundamental tenant of a free, peaceful, moral & effective society.
What's the basis for this claim?

>>138830561
Your doomsday scenarios are ridiculous weren't you the guy ignoring how businesses actually run and talking about bomb collars?

No one can convince you otherwise because you 1. Ignore evidence that others have you are unfamiliar with like how businesses cant just fucking by eachother and 2. Come up with ridiculous illogical scenarios. You dont care about truth it seems.

Lassie Faire captalism leads to communism. Fuck libertarian kike

>>138830091
Well what's the difference between the state and any other group in those terms you used?
>freely allowed to use force within a nation
If nothing prevents the state from doing this, what prevents anyone else?
>under their own supervision
If the state is qualified as being under its own supervision, why isn't everybody else?
>deciding their own repercussions
If the external factors related to your actions don't count towards whether the state's deciding its own repercussions, how does it for anybody else?

>>138830817
That makes zero sense.
Please elaborate.

>>138796368
Government props monopolies up, without govenment monopolies will not exist, because barriers to entry in business will be very low.

>>138796368
Every monopoly is caused by government intervention (because government holds monopoly already. not just because of that, it's a practical observation)

>>138831040
What are the current barriers to entry in business and why would their removal mean monopolies are incapable of forming?

>>138798594
Foreign countries would still have patents. If there was a libertarian country it wouldn't suddenly make the world libertarian

>>138830804
The only person ignoring truth here is you. You insist that violence is this magical impossible force to use against anyone while you have a monopoly. 1. I don't need to just buy you out if I can burn you down. Who the fuck is really gonna stop me? I have a monopoly so you're going to just stop buying from me? 2. Calling the basic principles of conflict and resolution "ridiculous illogical scenarios" is a fun way of denying reality as a whole.

>>138798313
What government subsidies does Google get? How is that subsidy make Google the most used search engine?

>>138796368

>capitalism
>best form of government

Kill yourself corporate shill

>>138796368
It's a terrible form of government. Libertarianism can only exist in some form of Conservative government. Ideally a Paleoconservative government.

>>138798627
If we let someone get a Monopoly on force we instantly have a state again

>>138831168
Licences, regulation, red tape, taxes, without those things it would be very easy for an unsatisfied customer to start his own xyz business and compete against the established entities if he wanted too, in most industries.

>>138798594
the current us patent system is utter shit and only caters to the rich.

>>138798688
Not every other country will presumably turn libertarian overnight if one country did. So you would be forced to deal with countries with state caused monopolies

>>138799382
Regulation is a club used to cause people to not enter an industry.
What major new bank has been formed since Dodd Frank?
See also occupational licensing

>>138830856
I got 90% through writing a response, and realized I read your question wrong. I was thinking it was from the perspective of a libertarian society, but then I went and read it again. Here it is anyways, since I'm too tired to turn around:

I'm not the same anon, but here's my answers anyway.
Keep in mind I've gotten an avg. 3 hours of sleep for the past month thanks to work, so there's a good chance I'll fuck up. I'll happily clarify for as long as I can stay awake, and I'll try to stay consistent.

>If nothing prevents the state from doing this, what prevents anyone else?
Nothing prevents the state from doing this. If you don't abide by their rules, they have the right, and in some cases the perceived obligation, to just shoot you.
In a libertarian/ancap society, it's a hierarchy of responsibility, automatically regulated through the market:
Most importantly, and at the top of the pyramid, is the individual, the aggressed-upon. Granted, in a murder case, this doesn't necessarily apply, but that's the pyramid.
Below that is the property owner. If your land isn't enforced, you're inviting someone to come in and fuck you up.
At the bottom is the surrounding populace. If someone murders somebody else, and nobody does anything to stop it, that incentivizes the rest of the world to go to that area, because apparently lawlessness is a virtue.
These things are held in place by the non-aggression principle (or however else you word it). If you act upon someone with unwarranted force, whether it be against their life, liberty, or property, they have every right to do so in turn.
>If the state is qualified as being under its own supervision, why isn't everybody else?
The NAP holds people in check, and the market keeps the NAP in place.
>If the external factors related to your actions don't count towards whether the state's deciding its own repercussions, how does it for anybody else?
I must be too tired to understand, or maybe I'm just retarded. Can you elaborate?

>>138830867
Capitalism is a step in achieving Communism. Lassie Faire smooths that process with open borders and free trade creating a more globalized world, necessary for "real communism" to work. It also creates an atmosphere of pissed off workers. Under laisse faire when the times get rough and people go hungry, the solution libertarians propose is ''lol just wait out the recession goy" . Workers and poor people wont stay hungry long and if they have to take out the rich and capitalists with them in order to feed their families they will. On the other hand Keynesian capitalism or mixed market economics make sure workers and poor people are taken care off and happy so they wont revolt and kill the bourgeois. That is why commies hate reformists, they want the working class hungry and angry and Lassie faire capitalism does a fine job at that, there is a reason why Marx defended capitalism, it is just a step towards communism, get woke goyim

>>138831551
>without those things it would be very easy
Why, though? Specifically
Starting a business is one thing,
actually competing is another

>>138803449
So how do you deal with corporations that have foreign government backing from stepping into a libertarian country and forming a Monopoly?

>>138831142
confirmed for non-american retard

>>138831704
Or it's a club used to beat down over-expansive companies in an industry so that more people can enter it.

Occupational licensing can be harmful if they're done wrong, sure, but not having them at all can be even more harmful.

>>138831891
Business acumen is required, as is a little luck honestly speaking as someone who has ran a business, but I believe it would all be much easier without the red tape.

>>138831364
There were many assertions in the thread. Buying everyone out and silly explosions.

Ive dealt with the buyout idea, and who would stop violence? Insitutions dedicated to keeping the peace, dispute resolution institutions, incentives, ostracism, the different feedback & recourse mechanisms between businesses and governments.

The problem is conflating business & government providing a similar service despite the structural differences and assuming they would act the exact same way.

Conflict resolution important, bomb collars is ridiculous.

>>138796368
>This seems to be the best form of government
No it's not you dumb fucking leaf.

>>138832273
So the police would save you from the businesses that get abusive is what I'm getting out of this. Why are all Ancaps geniuses?

>>138831830
First of all, nobody who is intellectually honest advocates open borders, because that violates property rights. I can't understand how so many people don't get this.
Free trade benefits everybody, though. It drives cost down, and ramps up innovation through far more competition.
>the solution libertarians propose is ''lol just wait out the recession goy"
According to whom? All indicators have shown that if there was a market of competing currencies, in the event of economic turmoil, the recessions would be on a considerably smaller scale. From what I remember, Mises covers this in good detail in his book Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure.
Additionally, when there is economic turmoil, it's going to affect the libertarian as well. We're not some isolated bubble-people, it affects everyone.
>there is a reason why Marx defended capitalism
https://mises.org/library/marxs-theory-stages-withering-away-state-under-socialism
>Keynesian capitalism or mixed market economics make sure workers and poor people are taken care off and happy so they wont revolt and kill the bourgeois
False. It makes sure workers and poor people are dependent upon the state by thefting wealth from the people who earned it, and distributing it (via centrally planned channels, I might add) to the poor.
You can see how "well" Keynesian™ economic fascism is working by looking at the social security, food stamp, and student loan markets are doing in the US of A right now.

>>138832435
I give you lists and you reply with a simplistic nonanswers that reduce large numbers of alternatives to a strawman you can burn, gg you are on the same intellectual level of a fucking democrat.

>>138831803
>Nothing prevents the state from doing this.
How would it be possible to establish ancap or anything similar to it, then? The state would shoot you, to preserve itself, and nothing can stop them.

>The NAP holds people in check, and the market keeps the NAP in place.
Through what means?
Somebody murdering someone else without repercussions shouldn't necessarily mean lawlessness. The state can do this, but still imposes law.

>Can you elaborate?
Some group could initiate force against the government, and decide its own repercussions; win, and pardon themselves by declaring the violence was justified
lose, and allow themselves to be captured and likely put to death
lose, and take their own lives
lose, and try to run away or hide
etc.

>>138832117
Would it still be much easier even when factoring in the absence of things like antitrust laws?

>>138832577
>First of all, nobody who is intellectually honest advocates open borders, because that violates property rights. I can't understand how so many people don't get this.
Corporations love cheap labor open borders give them. Private property rights? You can own private property and still have open borders. Ancaps oppose government, so there will be no one to protect the borders, or any borders since there wont be a state.

>Additionally, when there is economic turmoil, it's going to affect the libertarian as well. We're not some isolated bubble-people, it affects everyone.
No one is saying you wont be affected by it, just that you wont do anything to address it.

>False. It makes sure workers and poor people are dependent upon the state by thefting wealth from the people who earned it, and distributing it (via centrally planned channels, I might add) to the poor.
You can see how "well" Keynesian™ economic fascism is working by looking at the social security, food stamp, and student loan markets are doing in the US of A right now.
Yeah Keynesian capitalism is not the solution but it is better than Lassie Faire. I propose a mixed market economy where businesses are allowed to compete and make money but workers rights are protected and social programs are available to help your people out. The Nordic nations have done this, its called National Socialism.

>>138832577
>First of all, nobody who is intellectually honest advocates open borders, because that violates property rights.
How?

>>138832588
I haven't made a single strawman this entire thread. I've just followed the logic points of each of your arguments.
You think that the state is evil because it holds a monopoly on force and thus controls everything. You then insist that in an Anarcho Capitalist society that nobody would ever be able to replicate a monopoly on force. To have such cognitive dissonance is baffling to me. Do you think the state was just born in place? If not and you acknowledge the state came into being you would have to also recognize there is nothing stopping another one from happening. The NAP doesn't solve this problem. The Free Market doesn't solve this problem. You have no solution to this problem whatsoever because your ideology is about as well thought out as any other kind of Anarchy. You just want the current system torn down because you truly believe that if it was you'd be the one on top of the pyramid this time instead of those other people who you call evil.

>>138832991
The business cycle proposes that when misallocations of resources are allowed to reset you can smooth & reduce recessions far better than printing & kicking the can down the road.

What will you do when "Scandanvaian socialism" fails? Have you ever looked into community welfare before the welfare state and private alternatives? They allow your "folk" to band together and support eachother among a torrent of alternatives all competing to help people that need help and avoid wasting on rent seekers & leeches.

Mutual aid friendly socities, create a nordic society, freedom allows you that voluntary setup and allows your discrimination, it just also allows other alternatives alongsidd yours.

>>138832588
Actually the leaf is talking pure logic you stupid retard. Become a libertarian like an actual smart person.

Retard.

>>138833090
See that doesn't follow. Every libertarian will admit everything is possible, we can think of many scenarios where it would be and those where it wouldnt be. Thats the thing with scenarios they arent reality though.

You say "nothing" to prevent them Liberts give you long fucking lists of ways the prevent or discourage them and your solution seems to be quite fucking weak that because monopolies are bad and they are possible that we should as a solution have a monopoly. It doesn't make any sense either theyre bad or theyre good and either way the mere possibility of them and if theyre good or not isnt an argument against a free society.

>>138833306
There is no logic to ignoring 4 or 5 examples and replacing them with a single strawman you meme.

>>138833286
>avoid wasting on rent seekers & leeches
National Socialism does more than "avoid" this, you know that, don't strawman.

>freedom allows you that voluntary setup and allows your discrimination, it just also allows other alternatives alongsidd yours.
Scenarios aren't reality. How does this work in practice?

>>138833633
Lookup the various friendly/mutual aid societies that existed you will find those that suit you already existed.

I dont nat soc does, it either had a welfare state or it does and if it does you have the same problem of nordic countries where some white people probably don't deserve what theyre leeching but they play the system because its easy to game a third party with no direct feedback between those that give and those that receive.

>>138833488
They aren't strawman.

The fact is that anarchy is stupid, it will never work. On par with communism.

Now when we're talking ancap basically it's always gonna end in dictatorship or various forms of totalitarian government. That's why ancap is highly satirical. A purely free market sounds great in theory but in practice you get coco cola tier death squads.

Libertariansim is something else though and that could work, but we'd ironically need a powerful central (but small) government that would end up looking "imperialist" anyway

Look here's the thing you gotta understand, economic theory is just a theory. It's models. We have some examples.

The issues are significant.

IN fact pure liberatrianism will probably never work

which is why I altered it but I'm not talking about that today

File: _if the people stopped listening to the government.png (137KB, 1158x1393px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1158x1393px

>>138832637
>How would it be possible to establish ancap or anything similar to it, then?
The easiest way to think about an Ancap society is to take microeconomics to its logical end, and think of each individual as a country. You manage trade relations with your neighbor, and don't violate the NAP, because they would then respond in turn.
>The state would shoot you, to preserve itself, and nothing can stop them.
The difference between a state actor and an ancap is the state actor is the ancap will only transgress upon you if you've initiated aggression towards his life, liberty, or property. A state will attack you to make an example of you (IRS audits), to assume power over your body (DEA raids), to steal your children (CPS), to violate your second amendment (ATF), etc. Yes, they will do as the ancap does, but if that's all they did, I'd have considerably less grievances with the state.
>Through what means?
Through the hierarchy I described. The market, in the case of aggression, is the neighborhood.
>Some group could initiate force against the government, and decide its own repercussions
The problem with your example, is it depends upon the populace's complacency in your takeover.
It would only take about 10% of the current US population to completely overthrow the government. pic related.
You want to take over? Have fun! No pressure.

>>138833441
What would actually prevent a Monopoly on force from forming? No seriously what new thing have you invented that hasn't existed until just recently that somehow prevents this? My guess is nothing because otherwise you wouldn't be defending yourself with "I've posted lists" of bad ideas that actually don't solve the problem that you keep insisting is a problem. I've also not insisted the Monopoly is the solution to monopolies. I'm insisting that Monopolies always form and by converting a currently balancing country into full anarcho capitalism you're just flipping the table because you don't like where all the pieces are. Anarchy is an inherently selfish ideology that stems from idiots thinking "if only everyone and everything were brought down to my level I would be the one that rises above and rules the world."

>>138832991
>Private property rights? You can own private property and still have open borders.
Only if the person who owns the land allows it.
If nobody owns the land, it's homesteading.
It is up to the individual to defend his property, and whether or not he chooses to allow anybody onto it is his choice.
>muh corporations
They can literally do nothing unless they own the land.
>No one is saying you wont be affected by it, just that you wont do anything to address it.
And anybody else would? What is a blue collar worker going to do about the Great Depression?
>workers rights are protected and social programs are available to help your people out. The Nordic nations have done this, its called National Socialism
The Nordic nations do not practice national socialism, they practice regular economic socialism. And because of some of their practices, the richest Swede, Stefan Persson, has a net worth of $24.5bn, and most of his operational facilities are OUTSIDE the Nordic countries! Additionally, he has a 10% higher corporate tax rate than he would in the US, and according to the tax foundation, they raise 40% more taxes because they have a flat rate.

>>138833076
>How?
See above

>>138833912
> string of memes
Nice non argument mate. Someone listing a bunch of alternatives and the reply being "so just another government" is a nonsensical strawman. You saying fantasy 50 times doesnt convince anyone.

File: 1499926134435.jpg (105KB, 615x615px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 615x615px

>>138834063
>arguing with a Kekistani flag
Pic related is /pol/ on an average day.

>>138833809
>you will find those that suit you already existed
They existed alongside others, with no government above them?

>it's easy to game a third party with no direct feedback between those that give and those that receive
Stop strawmanning.

You're moving the goalposts now from "welfare states enable leeches" to "people will cheat the welfare state so they can leech"

>>138833918
Correction on the last point.
Turns out his net worth has gone down since I last checked.
He is now worth $19.6bn USD according to Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedish_billionaires_by_net_worth

File: 1500940476993.png (154KB, 376x290px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 376x290px

>>138833912
It makes the most sense from a business perspective. Anarchy means without Archs. There is no bread Tsar deciding how many loaves of bread are baked each morning, and yet there's enough white rye and sourdough bread at the bakeries I go to. There's no central authority telling the bakers how much bread to bake and yet the system works close to perfectly, there's not piles of bread in the garbage either. It's a system without a central authority and is a demonstration of this "anarchy".

>>138834231
It's not a strawman, or a No True Scotsman.
That's precisely what happens in wealth redistribution (economic socialism, like the Nordic countries practice). The people who are taxed don't see where the money goes, and the people who receive government checks don't know who the money is from.

"welfare states enable leeches" and "people will cheat the welfare state so they can leech" are the same thing.

>>138834063
"Hey guys I'm a socialist and instead of money we use this revolutionary thing called labor vouchers! They work exactly like money does now except it's illegal to exchange it between citizens even in trade!" "So just money but worse?" "Haha silly strawman guy stop contesting my points."
I hope you can at least understand it if I make the point like this but you'll probably just try and write this one off as "muh fallacy" under some other name. I'm not the one hiding behind armor that I say can't be dented. You are.

>>138834231
They were unregulated until natural insurance came in to regulate them out of existence. Theyre brilliant alternatives and perfectly suited to white nationalists.

> strawman
What are you advocating for then? There was mention of scandanavia so im going off that atm.

>>138831415
They don't, they simply have the best service for now

>>138834465
I agree. The person was talking about monopolies only emerging because of government interference.

>>138834063
memes are ideas fuckwit do you actually have any?

Obviously not since you can't form an argument.

Saying strawmen 50 times doesn't form a coherent argument. So not an argument.

You fuckwit let me ask you something.

Why aren't we all ruled by monopolies?
Oh wait we are. And we have a government.

to be honest I think you're just naive

>>138834307
The base state of humanity is anarcho capitalism. We've been doing it for 100,000 years.
It's even apparent in nature, animals show little snippets of ancap doctrines. For example, rats exhibit fairness in play, as described by JBP here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqTZCU_ViHg
In an utterly free market, you can't be totalitarian, and you can't be altruistic. If you rule with an iron fist, you'll either get insurrected or priced out of the market by competition. If you give away all you have, you have nothing left and you suffer the consequences of that.
Anarcho capitalism is truly the most altruistic system there is, because in order to uplift yourself to the higher echelons of wealth, you have to uplift everybody around you with goods, services, and barter.

>>138834307
The Baker decides how many loaves he bakes. If he has a boss he's told to bake a certain number of loaves by that boss because the company has a business strategy ad infinitum

>>138834242
Refugee hate preacher received $620K in social benefits in Switzerland
https://www.rt.com/news/400683-hate-preacher-swiss-welfare/

really makes you think

>>138833918
The state is not a monopoly, then.

Will ancap society only be populated by ancaps, who believe in ancap principles and want to maintain them even at the expense of his own financial security?

You said that hierarchy was regulated through the market. What means is the market using to regulate it?

>populace's complacency in your takeover
Does it detract from the fact that they're deciding their own repercussions from options determined through external factors, the same as the state?

>>138834405
Im admitting as any sane person that possibilities of changes exist, a democratic state can go socialist etc etc water can go hot and it can go cold.

Youre assuming these alternatives are like failed attempts at replacing money and i obviously think they work better than the current system, as ive pointed out through feedback, competition, recourse etc. The biggest problem is your scenarios are so ridiculous to anyone but you I dont care that you have a limited imagination, a small view of history & an inability to see reality vs your scenarios. I dont think i can help you there as Ive pointed flaws in your mystical movie scenarios and you just ignore them for random shit like exploding collars without actually showing how thats even fucking possible let alone probable, ignoring all of the logical pathways that lead to your scenarios breaking down but whatever mate keep trucking along.

>>138799382
You failed economics 101
A free market with free competition minimises profit for corporations and increases benefits for everyone else
A permanent monopoly can't exist when there's healthy competition and regulation kills that competition
Temporary monopolies eventually die or are beaten

>>138834607
Yes. The baker decides, but depending on the city there can be hundreds or thousands of bakers all making individual decisions. All without an arch.
http://wonderfulloaf.org

>>138834048
>Only if the person who owns the land allows it.
If nobody owns the land, it's homesteading.
It is up to the individual to defend his property, and whether or not he chooses to allow anybody onto it is his choice.
So basically a corporation who owns a lot of land can flood your country with arabs and africans. Wanting to live at the mercy of corporations just shows why ancaps are fucking retarded.

>And anybody else would? What is a blue collar worker going to do about the Great Depression?
Nothing. Its not up to him. But government can step in and alleviate it or at least stop people from going hungry. But by all means lets ppl go hungry and see watch how they overthrow capitalism, kill you libertarians and bring in Marxism because you did not want to help out because "oh not that is socialism!"

>>138834428
Did they exist with no government above them?
Tell me how they would be applied in Ancap.

And the guy who mentioned Nordic countries clarified Nat Soc afterwards