I will debate any arguments you have against anarcho-capitalism for the next hour or so...

I will debate any arguments you have against anarcho-capitalism for the next hour or so. Other anons feel free to join in and participate in this debate.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MLirNeu-A8I
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Bump

...

You're a faggot. Also shitskins can immigrate

...

...

...

...

...

Im just curious.
What do you think about personaly funded armies? will they do as efficiently as the current?

...

...

R O A D S
refute that kid

...

...

...

Why the fuck do ANCAPs always come off like megasmug pricks and act like they aren't as retarded as ANCOMs?

What resets the system, the concentration of assets in a ancap utopia?

I don't care if anyone agrees not to take my stuff or not, all that matters is that I'll defend it if they try

Have you read any books on either anarcho communism or capitalism?

Fuck your morals, I guess.

While I enjoy Hoppean snake memes just as any libertarian, he's wrong about the indiscriminate killing of communists. Aggression is only justified when the threat is present and tangible (not a promise of a future threat), potentially life threatening. Communists could only be physically removed à lá Hoppe if they started to expropriate property.

>Also shitskins can immigrate
read pic related

They could work on a free market, but most wars nowadays are between states and not peoples. War would be extremely reduced under AnCapism because there would be no states (territorial monopolists on taxation and legislation) to conquer geographical territory (and thus increase their tax revenue).

Private roads. Your turn, bucko.

Decentralization and separatist movements until the states collapse and we rearrange into private covenants and private cities, villages, neighborhoods, etc. and hopefully don't fall for the "le gib us your tax money and we'll protect you from the scary meany world" argument done by a wannabee state apparatus.

You sure you wanna go back to the law of the stronger my british friend? With humans it's always a game of numbers thou, so good luck defending against a gang.

Your argument is like on communism. That it would work but only if all nations and places will magically submit into it.

Ancap-2 reporting in. Let's dance

Negative externalities, asymmetrical information and inability to protect property rights.

The last one is iffy and argued more often. The first two are genuine problems that anarchocapitalism cannot solve.

No because I'm to busy reading books about the end result of their autistic screech fest: wars.

How will you deal with public goods and negative externalities?

How will you deal with immigration?

How you deal with entrenched poverty and spiralling inequality?

Anarcho capitalism doesn't work because some dictator in Asia will devalue their currency and take away any production advantage.

ROOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSS

Also the idea that everything will become decentralized again is laughable. Go ahead and split up your country into 100 small city states and get taken over by your neighbor that hasn't done that. GL getting an allliance strong enough negotiated in time to defend yourself.

A strong defense is far easier and cheaper to implement than a strong offense. Additionally war is expensive. If there's a decent chance you'll take a shotgun blast to the chest while trying to rob a shop you probably won't bother.

>negative externality
how? the whole idea of ancapism is to stay away from affecting others except in trade

>asymmetrical information
pls explain

>inability to protect property right
"oh ur taking my shit, including my life. guess i'll just bend over and pucker my boipucci for you too" said no ancap ever

Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads. Roads.


Checkmate, FAGGOT!

So the only recourse you have against waves of immigration from the third world is 'well entering my house breaches the NAP, so there's no way that's going to happen'?
I sure hope you guys don't do this

Also you can invade places that don't have a centralised state; I'm sure plenty of groups have done it. All you need to do is burn down one city (or street from a city) and ask the next one to give you all their money

privatize the roads and employ standards based on customer and business demand. and I only have to say it one time, faggot

Ummm, no....
The US seceded from the UK and managed to create a radically libertarian country in 200 years, only destroyed during the 20th century. Secession and decentralization doesn't mean that ALL countries do it, even if just one country did it and succeeded, others could be inspired to follow. And if states tried to damage control, they'd only be adding fuel to the fire. One thing is 50 or so freaks in Waco, Texas. Another thing is thousands of people.

>Negative externalities
Such as? Throw me a bone and I'll gladly tell you how it could be resolved in a free market.
>asymmetrical information and inability to protect property rights.
Information is nowadays easily accessible and faster than ever. Private property rights are secured by insurance companies, private armies and private defense firms, just like the state monopoly today does, but better since they're competing on free markets.

>public goods
privatized and the concept is abolished. Public property has been created through expropriation. It's impossible to determine how much of a person owns what piece of public property, so they'd have to be revered to an "unowned" state and then be appropriated by the first users.

if you aint taxed,how will you deal with a murder if you cant find a culprit? who pays for these services to catch them and to investigate?

and no "donations" is a meme

b-b-but muh roads

A negative externality might be something like CO2 (or numerous other pollutants).
Is the whole idea of ancap you aren't allowed to drive or use any oil products?

Asymetrical information = complicated financial / insurance products which don't end up paying out much and you are left without any savings or real insurance

a community, ie. ancom communities and coalitions between individuals, ie. corporations can still exist within ancapistan and there's nothing stopping them from hiring private military contractors or forming militias to protect each person's private land as stated in the agreed contract

But as you know, a border less country is not a country, thus making it just land to be claimed by a well organized official army of a neighboring country, that would defeat the personal funded armies that as you said, will not be as efficient in a war between two states. And basically, you just switched your current rule with the neighboring country's rule.

>How will you deal with public goods
Give examples. The answer is probably "With property rights"

>How will you deal with immigration?
People will have much greater choice of where they live. They might want to live in a zero-immigration community or something, and that's their choice. But an equivalent quality of life will probably be more expensive than otherwise.

>How you deal with entrenched poverty and spiralling inequality?
Capitalism offers the fastest route out of poverty and all the research shows us that the freer the markets the quicker it happens. And what's the problem with inequality? So what, someone has more shit than you. Deal with it.

And they succeeded because at the time it was sort of possible. Currently speaking, an anarcho capitalist sate will not be able to survive for more than a week tops.

>hur durrr ancaps think criminals don't exist!!1

Why don't you read up on the literature, the criminal question has been addressed by every major ancap philosopher.

in terms of unforeseen excess, the demand for a standard in society or by a few or one person will drive those people to either innovate or pay out to a group to innovate ways to reduce interference of said excess, which ultimately ties back to market demand

ALSO
Buyer's remorse isn't an argument. the consumer should've done more research

This. what stops people to just print money?

Roads?

Why would a corporation sign such a contract when it is unlikely to make the difference as to whether they get protected or not?
Everyone else will defend the city and I will still have my money.
Since I have my money I can lower my prices and put the people who paid for the defence out of business by taking their market share

How do you deal with interaction between an ancap society and a neighboring non-ancap country, especially when they try to take advantage of your ancap society or even try to take it over?
Do you hold similar views as marxist in the sense that there needs to be a world-wide revolution to occur, or do you have other ways of solving this problem?

A negative externality occurs when the public cost of a financial transaction is higher than the private cost.

You go buy paper from a paper mill(there no inter medium for the sake of simplicity). The paper costs a dollar to make and they sell it for 1.10$. We are also assuming this is 0 economic profit(the opportunity cost is .1).

Normally this would be an economically efficient transaction. But the pollution put off by the paper mill causes .2$ of damage to the public.

This means the cost is actually 1.2$ and the benefit is still 1.1$. This is not an economically efficient trade because benefit=/ cost. Some form of regulation is required to achieve economic efficiency, and since in anarchocapitalism the public(normally a government that works on behalf of the public) has no power this will not happen.


Asymmetric information is the idea that either the buyer or the seller has more information about the trade than the other. Best case example is smoking or insurance. The tobacco companies knew the negative side effects way before the public did. This caused the public to overconsume because they weren't aware of the full cost. Regulation forcing the tobacco companies to be fully transparent about the true cost of smoking is required for optimal consumption.

NAP is violated by a child accidentally sneezing on you. Since you can quantify it as a biological attack what do you do?

Money in an AnCap society would most likely be commodity money. You could "print" money as long as you found people stupid enough to believe it had any real value, unlike gold.

Everything wouldn't just change overnight, yeah that would be retarded. It would be a slow process meaning your scenario is irrelevant. Alliances, private militaries and voluntary militias, in addition to war being impossible without taxation because it's so expensive.

who said anything about central banking? can you even ancap???

Roads
Private Roads

Public goods are public because it is efficient for them to be public. Simply saying they are classified as private does nothing to solve the issues with them.

Capitalism cannot exist without a state to enforce private property, extract surplus value from workers, and repress revolutionary movements through the police force and army.

What stops them from just printing money in a statist society? The money is made hard to counterfeit. Next, please.

Regardless, how do you know paper money is most superior form of currency? Maybe because its relatively easy to counterfeit, it would be abandoned by consumers if given the choice. The only way you would know which form of currency was the best is if they were allowed to compete in a voluntary environment.

I don't think you've fully explained the subject of roads. Who will build them, the magic road fairy? Fucking ancaps and their magic.

Money would still have security features, possibly even more than they do now. Counterfeiting money is theft so it would be easy to justify raiding and shutting them down.

>PUBLIC
>PUBLI
>PUBL
>PUB
>PU
>P

you just answered WHO it is more efficient for. trick statement: no it is in fact NOT the public

Who pays and governs the roads? Do we repave? Who is paid to utilize the machinery to bust down the forest assuming someone doesn't privately own the forest.

Ancap is a hillarious economy meme but honestly is the Islam of current balance in logic

Commies pls leave. An organization that both violates property and protects it is a contradiction.

not an argument. kys

>Public goods are public because it is efficient for them to be public
Citation needed. The state has never done anything truly cheaper than the private sector. Yes, some economics of scale will exist but this is quickly overcome by their lack of innovation and zero need for efficiency and cost-cutting

Efficiency doesn't matter here. I'm not a utilitarian. Very easy for someone to steal money from you and then say "hey, it's more efficient like this." Then you end up with public property, which is filthy, overused and victim of a "tragedy of the commons."

Hoppe does say that world (or country-wide revolution) would increase the chances of succeeding, but private armies and defense firms could provide temporary aid against non-Ancap neighbors.

>Wait until you're asleep
>Smash your head in with a brick
>Loot and pillage your property
>Profit???????

Public goods like military defence, public health, getting rid of public menaces like criminal gangs and serial killers

Without public education, welfare provision, and basic healthcare and housing I don't see how people get out of the bottom rung; I think you get an underclass who turn to crime and drugs and everything like that

So the entire world will slowly give up power when the exact opposite has been trending for 150ish years. Alright.

No one would do that because Nash equilibrium dictates the first country to try and give up power loses and gets taken over by the larger country.

Why do you think government has been getting bigger and bigger? It's a response to other governments getting bigger and bigger

>buy a lock
>retards like you are stumped

Companies pay for the roads. Consumers pay the companies to use the roads. Next, please.

All forests are privately owned in ancapistan.

>Commies pls leave
Nope.
>violates property
Private property needs to go. It is exploitation in its purest form.

Right back at you.

You don't care about efficiency? You might as well be a communist then.

If war is impossible without taxation isn't that really bad for an anarchist society and really good for a neighbouring state?

>Asymetrical information = complicated financial / insurance products which don't end up paying out much and you are left without any savings or real insurance

That's not asymmetrical information unless the person selling your the instrument you're buying knows in advance that it will not pay out what he is advertising and does not share that information with you, and you do not acquire that information by other means. It literally just means one side of a transaction has more information than the other, which lends an advantage in all kinds of scenarios including future transactions.

>implying I sleep outside, butt naked, slathered in BBQ sauce, with a neon sign that reads "public use" as I wait for my imminent, and albeit pleaded demise

are you fucking stupid?

How does the state enforce private property when it itself survives by expropriating private property from its subjects? You're making no sense. Next.

Not an argument. Go read The Ethics of Liberty for a talk on "public" property.

A group of people will inevitably become powerful enough to enforce their will onto everyone else. By necessity there must always be a ruling caste

ok, if you insist on staying, then gimme an argument or start crashing this thread with spiderman memes, cuz it's hell of a better way to troll than your faggunism

What's your home security system look like, bud?

>he types on his privately owned computer, built buy a privately owned factory, by people from their privately owned homes and cars

Insurance companies are 100% asymmetric information.

The person buying the person knows their own health much better than the insurance company does. Anywhere where it isn't illegal to lie to insurance companies you have people telling them fake shit all the time.

Why do you ignore human nature?

He knows it will pay out what he's advertising but he knows more about what that is. Most people don't read documents all the way through let alone understand them. Sometimes the people who sell them don't even understand them but the company does- more or less

>A strong defense is far easier and cheaper to implement than a strong offense.

No it isn't. Thanks to tech, initiating violence has never given a greater advantage. Nowadays you've got long range rifles, drones, rockets. For you to defend yourself properly, you would need much more resources than someone would need to threaten or kill you.

A thousand years ago you could build a wall, and nothing smaller than a state backed force could harm you. Now, not at all.

youtube.com/watch?v=MLirNeu-A8I

If you don't care about economic efficiency I don't care what you think.

Explain to us in detail how exactly a state would take over an anarchist society.

What government functions would it seize? There is no tax base to speak of. Soldiers would have to go door to door collecting taxes; the cost of tax collecting would far exceed the taxes collected and the whole scheme would quickly collapse.

The only reason states go to war in the first place is to expand their tax base. If there is no tax base, there is nothing to conquer. It's like trying to grab jelly.

Military defence has been discussed elsewhere, though I concede that it's the trickiest point of anarcho-capitalism
Public health doesn't actually mean anything. If you mean the public being healthy then I think a fully privatised system with plenty of healthy competition would lead to better healthcare at a lower price. Also charities are still a thing.

Education is horrendous in the majority of first world countries and would be better served by the private sector. The vast majority of people were literate in the UK and USA before education became compulsory, and they went to school as well. Again, charities still exist.

Welfare provision and housing can be provided by charities which would offer more efficient services, providing what we currently have if not better for less. And as I've said, a freer economy means more people can do things to help themselves, like work for a low wage if they have a criminal record or no skills.

What if the private sector sells the land? Who even dictates land ownership. Next please to you, you gigantic cuck.

Not much of a debate when you pretend like you have every angle covered and the simple doctrine of this philosophy is btfo by me who was just passing by and not much of a debate folk

Ancap acknowledges human nature by recognizing that anytime there is an organization with a monopoly on violence they always misuse it.

>le "ancaps ignore the existence of bad people" meme

The average country size is getting smaller and smaller. Many countries are splitting and very few are joining together. Projects such as the EU are not working out. We're heading in the right direction but I agree it'll be a long process.

Wait, wait, hold up. What about the roads?

so is that a threat or??????
we could go back in forth all night and day about who has the better bullets to penetrate the worse armor or who has the better armor to stop the worse bullets argument, but the point is that either way, someone tries to start shit, no ancap is gonna be caught dead with a simple brick to the skull because they were sleeping within an easily reachable distance

There would likely by title or insurance companies that would verify ownership. Someone couldn't just, "I own everything I can see." They have to actually mark it out and then someone can verify it.

I mean, this is a bit of a non sequitur to what I posted but:

>Insurance companies are 100% asymmetric information.

Not at all. Insurance companies are very proactive in acquiring information about their customers. There is still some asymmetry, certainly, but it's not "100%", which would be incoherent.

>an organized, highly trained and efficient military complex with hierarchic command chain that allows for quick responses
vs.
>a disorganized clusterfuck of many small defense-firms
>of which none would own a jet or similar high-level equipment (why would a security firm own a jet? it would be highly unprofitable if all they are hired for is defending property)
>who may or may not support the foreign invaders
>who won't do shit if it isn't profitable
Sounds like a plan.

>How does the state enforce private property when it itself survives by expropriating private property from its subjects? You're making no sense. Next.

Private property didn't even exist before the 1600s. The state is always used to crush socialist revolts, from the Diggers, to the Paris Commune, to the endless US attempts against Vietnam, Cuba etc.

Private property is protected in law. Capitalism destroyed the feudal world based on birth and blood and replaced it with a society where property is what counts. There's nothing stopping all property being socialised other than the state.

A computer is generally personal property. Also that's a strawman. All of that can be done by workers and we live under capitalism, so of course even communists have to partake in the system. Same thing with capitalists under feudalism.