Post your best ancap memes

Post your best ancap memes

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=G82sz76kGJc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

...

...

...

...

...

kek

that essay changed my life/view of the constitution forever. it's one of the ultimate redpills for american politics

...

What essay?

The NAP allows for self-defense, it is not pacifist.

What is NAP?

What's the other version of this picture?

...

Holy shit new fav

...

non-argument principle
questioning an ancap's contentions violates it 100% of the time

memes against anacaps while there's nothing funny to laught at

hilarious spectacle, hard to gasp for low iq tards

Rousseau's Social contract. The fact we all have an obligation to prevent other from harm and that the state is the way to help the people

don't listen to him

it's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner

youtube.com/watch?v=G82sz76kGJc

The redpill of the thing in summary: The Constitution is a legal contract which by the standards of the very same courts that it designates, could not be upheld under it's own law.

>Constitution is a contract designed to apply to all americans living, and all americans in the future
>None of us signed the contract

It would be like your parents signing a lease agreement that applies to them, you, and all of your future offspring.

Boy they sure have done a good job of that

My personal favorite

>Literally if you kill me, then I win

horseshoe theory proven

...

Not an argument.

...

...

>When you are denied rights by someone attempting to imprison you

...

...

...

...

>Movies are real life
>This is what 60 IQ people believe

...

...

>le taxation is theft meme

How are these ancaps so retarded that they don't understand that the state has a right to extract tax from its citizenry in exchange for guaranteeing of certain rights and privileges. How do ancaps not understand that the state gets this right through its monopoly on violence. Might makes right you stupid assholes

>Can't tell what a fucking joke is
>Is a Hue-nigger

...

I don't know man that's a lot of aggression...

I think the argument is pretty solid
Not an ancap myself, but I get where they're coming from
You must take in consideration that you absolutely do not have the freedom of refusing to pay taxes, even if you willingly refuse the services offered by the government

And might makes right is an even stupider argument, lad
Why should you obey the powerful if they're immoral? Only because of the threat of violence?

The state exists due to the people banding together and consenting to entrust greater power to an elected and accountable set of individuals, to be an organizational tool for creating military and infrastructure ensuring protection and quality of life for those within.

To continue to exist in these societies and use their infrastructure, if you are free to leave, is to consent to abiding by their laws and to be responsible for paying into the common infrastructure you use. Taxation may be enforced by violence, but it is not theft. In fact, if you are using the state's property without the payment they have asked for, you are stealing and therefore violating the NAP.

If your ideology crumbles by just saying "roads," you're a dumb moron and your shit's all fucked up, re-examine your views.

>If your ideology crumbles by just saying "roads,"
Why are we talking about Nordic Socialism?

But what about the majorities that refuse to be ruled by the system and refuse its services by their own free will?

They still have to pay taxes, even if they are not agreeing to it. They have neither the freedom, nor the choice, as they're coerced under the threat of violence to sustain an institution that they don't want and otherwise wouldn't use

>To continue to exist in these societies and use their infrastructure, if you are free to leave, is to consent to abiding by their laws
Leaving means subjecting to another jurisdiction.
Inb4 >not my problem, >not an argument.

Also, I never got the roads meme
Wouldn't they be built under private initiative? I don't get the problem
Of course, initial investment would be high, but they could easily be paid by toll booths everywhere

What I don't get for ancaps is how would money work

>The state exists due to the people banding together and consenting
The problem is that not everyone consents.

>my parents didn't make me
>I don't have any obligation towards anyone
>even though the state, the people, your parents and family raised you and instilled their values and resources in you
>implying you're not a hypocritical cuck

>the government steals from people
>therefore, it's not stealing

I'm really hoping your post is satirical, but it's impossible to tell these days.

>They still have to pay taxes, even if they are not agreeing to it.

They have the freedom of assembly to leave. They do not have to pay the taxes, but they do not get to use the roads if so. They can form a stateless colony somewhere if they want.

Surely there is uninhabited area somewhere.

>Also, I never got the roads meme
>Wouldn't they be built under private initiative?

Whoever ends up doing it would have to be rich and have motivation to do so, which he doesn't except perhaps a limited network he would have to continually upkeep and protect from bandits - why bother?

>What I don't get for ancaps is how would money work

It basically wouldn't. No laws, any currency gets duplicated to the point of redundancy and if it doesn't everyone can limitlessly steal from others and buy off any local Theft Inspection Agencies lmao

>The problem is that not everyone consents.

You are able to leave. If there was no freedom of assembly in the country you'd have a legitimate problem. But you can leave and form your NAP communes somewhere else.

...

...

...

>hurr go somewhere else if you don't like it
You can't just do that, there's not much unclaimed land left in the world. Some desolate land in Antarctica, for example

Basically, what ancaps are saying is that there is a better solution for the society's inhabitants where the state plays a smaller role in people's lives. You can't just tell anyone with a differing opinion to go live somewhere else, do you do that when someone with different political beliefs gain power in your country?

Having the ability to avoid something doesn't mean people consent to it when it happens to them.

kek

>state has a right
wew lad

>You can't just do that, there's not much unclaimed land left in the world. Some desolate land in Antarctica, for example

You'll basically have to find someplace desolate if you want a stateless area, yes. Have fun defending it against states who might want it.

>Basically, what ancaps are saying is that there is a better solution for the society's inhabitants where the state plays a smaller role in people's lives.

That's libertarians or minarchists or whatever. AnCaps literally believe in lmaonostate.

>You can't just tell anyone with a differing opinion to go live somewhere else, do you do that when someone with different political beliefs gain power in your country?

You either try to inspire people to vote with you (including impeachment and referendums on issues), or you put up with it, or you leave. It's literally that simple.

That's the same argument sex positivist retards use. The fact of the matter is if you are unsuccessful in using your democratic agency to show the government what the governed wants (ie you lose the vote), then by continuing to live under it you are consenting to what happens.

Stay safe, boys

So my cousin's friend is one of these ANCAP people.

Firstly, I thought they were opposed to capitalism in any form?

Secondly, are they pure anarchists or more of a libertarian type?

It might depend on the individual.

So just to be absolutely and 100% clear, you are telling me that someone's failure to avoid something means that person consented to that something. Is that correct?

...

>I NEVER SIGNED THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

>Hey, you have to follow the NAP because I said so

>That image quality

Colgate here thinks that self preservation is a meme

Ancap is a retarded persons definition of libertarian. If someone identifies themselves as an ancap they are retarded and should be genocided.

Leave to where? There's nowhere tp leave where there's no state to pay taxes to

Secondly, remember that anarchists are utopian. Supposedly, there would be no need to protect anything from bandits. And I'd imagine it's quite easy to make roads profitable. Just make everyone pay to use them and then proceed to constantly expand them as an investment

The NAP theoretically is an unsaid agreement of non violence
If someone violates it, you'd have every right to strike back

i like how people here have 0 REAL arguments against ancap

In a situation where the presumed state is consent, you have the ability to show disconsent, and you do not. It is not merely failure to avoid.

>There's nowhere tp leave where there's no state to pay taxes to

Then leave to somewhere with less taxes. Or find that slice of unowned land. Doesn't matter to me.

>Secondly, remember that anarchists are utopian. Supposedly, there would be no need to protect anything from bandits.

That's nice, pragmatically there absolutely would be. I can dream up impossible situations too and they won't come true either.

>I'd imagine it's quite easy to make roads profitable. Just make everyone pay to use them and then proceed to constantly expand them as an investment

Fair enough, however you need someone with enough capital to invest into creation of the roads, and they need a purpose for it to start with. Then they have to pay people to uphold the tolls and maintain the physical structure over long periods of time, and WANT to keep doing it.

Nebby should've let that bitch die for violating the NAP. Also, Sun was the obvious choice.

What criteria are you using to determine that the presumed state is consent? Also, why is the only way to not consent to leave the country?

>What criteria are you using to determine that the presumed state is consent?

You live there and partake in the infrastructure and services, and enjoy the protections of the state there.

>Also, why is the only way to not consent to leave the country?

The primary way is to win a democratic vote on X issue. Plan B is leave.

LOOK HOW TRON LIVES AMERICA

because getting in a real argument would be a violation of the NAP

There aren't any alternatives because any attempt at an alternative is met with threat of theft and imprisonment. How does that imply consent?

Again, just so we are absolutely clear, you are saying that the only ways to not consent to something are to either win a vote against that something or to avoid that something. Is that correct?

>state has a right to extract tax from its citizenry in exchange for guaranteeing of certain rights and privileges

honestly, the option to leave is not an option at all
also a democtratic vote on issue X is basically a populist take on how to solve issues. Remember, you (an average 110 IQ Sup Forums poster) have the same voting power on an issue as the 80 IQ retard. Democracy doesn't really work, even trump who won the election said that the voting system is rigged in its nature because you can tweak the elements to lean to one side (unless you are aware of this tweaking) and still win the vote, thats how marijuana got criminalized, thats how abortions got criminalized, and thats how bitcoins got demonized in the eyes of your everyday 30 something normie

>Then leave to somewhere with less taxes. Or find that slice of unowned land. Doesn't matter to me.

For the first part, that would make them libertarians, not anarchists. They don't agree with ANY type of taxation

The thing is, there's NO slice of unowned land. I'm not sure, but I think that ancaps want no states anywhere, to guarantee maximum freedom

You dont need to sign it. You impliedly consent to its governance by living on thr land and its enforced under threat of force. You can leave if you dont like it. You cant just stay on someone else's land if you wont abide by their rules.

rate my OC

>someone else's land
Who's land? The state isn't a person.

>unsaid agreement
Would be a shame if someone didn't agree to it, right?

Read Hoppe, goddammit why won't you fucking read any ancap books

in the long run this is a disaster, if people generally believe "regulations" are something that protects you they will obviously still be on with voting democratically even though the regulation book is literally made out of a few thousand pages and are used when ever a statesman is bribed to take down someone. Regulations made basically America fat because fatty foods were mandated as unsafe, so the alternative for the capitalists was sugar. Sugar is literally a poison that will give you diabetes if you eat it since birth(wich many people do) by the time you are in your early 20's, it will make you bald, it will burn down your sex drive etc etc. On the other side you might say cigarettes are an excellent example of a product that was regulated. No, no they arent. People are and were aware of how dangerous smoking is, now they have an alternative in what way they might consume nicotine, be it with patches, dip, mouth fedora etc etc.

>any attempt at an alternative is met with threat of theft and imprisonment.

You have pre-supposed something that is not correct.

>How does that imply consent?

Services are being rendered and so you have to pay for those services.

>Again, just so we are absolutely clear, you are saying that the only ways to not consent to something are to either win a vote against that something or to avoid that something. Is that correct?

Yes. You might not want things to be the way they are in your life, but using the state's infrastructure means you have to pay for it. You could also try to vote for an opt-out system of sorts, and if it passes you get your way.

>The thing is, there's NO slice of unowned land. I'm not sure, but I think that ancaps want no states anywhere, to guarantee maximum freedom

This will never happen. Even if AnCap utopia happened forcibly by act of God TONIGHT, by le NAP you can't stop people banding together to pay into a system of elected officials anyway for protection. They could and eventually would use their superior infrastructures, firepower, numbers, and production capabilities to overwhelm le NAPfriends with force and retake lands, just like with every colonization of a "peaceful" tribalistic backward neolithic stone-age people that happened in the past millennium.

The state is the entity that owns the land. And the state is representative of the citizenry which is authorised to act on behalf of the people by assent of the people in enforcing the laws of the land.

This isnt difficult stuff. Its why corporations are recognised as people and given certain rights.

>yes

Excellent! I'm happy to know that when I shoot you tonight, you will have consented to it because you failed to win a vote against it and failed to avoid it. It'll really help me sleep, you know?

>Services are being rendered and so you have to pay for those services.

How about I come to your house and give you a massage? Or maybe I'll give you one million pounds of dog shit. Now fucking pay for it. I don't care if you didn't want it.

Forcing Nebby in a bag can be considered a NAP violation?

But that would violate the NAP...

...

You're using the internet right now. You are using state services and infrastructure in some capacity. Shut the fuck up

...

I never signed an order that involved me paying for you to shoot me, nor have I since birth used services rendered by you clearly lined out and codified which are paid for in blood.

This murder is outside of the purview of the social contract, violates the NAP, and is against the laws of both of our countries both of whom employ agencies of global jurisdiction. They will find you on your NAP commune within the hour, enjoy getting assraped in prison.

>How about I come to your house and give you a massage?

No thanks.

>Or maybe I'll give you one million pounds of dog shit.

No thanks.

>Now fucking pay for it.

No.

>I don't care if you didn't want it.

I didn't employ my freedom of assembly to use your one million pounds of dog shit or leaf massages. It doesn't matter if I don't want it, you didn't render a service thus will not be paid.

You've trespassed on my property and thus violated the NAP and Canadian law, either way you're fucked.

I didn't sign anything that allows the government to steal from me.

It's not murder; you consented to it.

>You're using the internet right now. You are using state services and infrastructure in some capacity. Shut the fuck up
Actually I pay an internet service provider. Its unfortunate that the state is involved but thats not really an argument.

I'm in a group of 20 people. 19 out of 20 people decide that we should all pool our money to pay for weekly servings of dog shit. I don't want dog shit. I didn't vote for dog shit. Yet dog shit is being served to me and I am being forced to pay for it. This is congruent with your reasoning.

>I didn't sign anything that allows the government to steal from me.

You use the roads and are protected by the police force which patrols and secures the area in which you live.

Taxation is not theft, you are still presupposing a falsehood.

>It's not murder; you consented to it.

I live under a government with a law system which protects me against murder, therefore I do not consent to it. Also if you had asked me in a lawless land, I would not have consented to it, nor did I use a service of yours of which the terms involved eventual murder. I did not consent in any possible fashion. You're a moron.

Unfortunate? Maybe. Thats an irrelevant argument in this context. The fact is that your provider uses infrastructure likely installed and maintained by the state. This infrastructure is located in or on the land owned collectively by the people operating as and represented by the state. You pay for this privilege.

You can't consent to be murdered anyway. Such a shitty non argument which shouldnt be entertained