Without resorting to leftist memes explain to me why you're not an anarcho-capitalist

Without resorting to leftist memes explain to me why you're not an anarcho-capitalist

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/WamKD5agoVE
youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4
youtu.be/z24rqrxlNPY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

i don't like fucking men in the ass

I like roads

Private companies build roads. The government is there to merely facilitate the transaction.

Also you do realize that toll roads are a thing right?

Not an argument

Because regulation is always needed.

Private sector will never offer enough protection. Protection will be offered only and only if it is economically necessary.

because there is a such thing as market failure.

Oppression under private institutions is just as bad as, if not worse than, governmental oppression.

Because I don't want to be a white civilized male that survived & succeded at the collapse of western civilization (economic and society collapse).

a company wouldnt sell its products (in this case protection) only when its necessary, its goal is to make as much money as possible so theres no reason to not provide protection to as many people as they can in order to make a bigger profit

I'm a fasho-capitalist

But I am...

How so

Because it would take several car crashes without seatbelts to make me retarded enough to believe in non aggression principle.

The market can regulate itself much more efficiently than the gov does -- also the regulations that the gov passes generally end becoming ways that corporations stifle competition

Theres also such a thing as heart failure but you wont end your life now because of the risk right?

Not an argument

>i'm going to except that heart failure is going to kill me instead of just using a procedure that will save my life.
minarchism is king. ancaps are retarded.

Corporations can't just use common sense and put in seat belts into their cars so they improve the quality of their product?

I mean.. this is literally not an argument.

It's a pointless ideology given what we have now. How would this make life objectively better for Westerners? No memes please. No tin foil hat theories. Just facts.

Absolute fucking nonsense.

Google 'Ford Pinto', you fag.

Cuz Idknt want to pay a toll every five feet

I don't want whites to become extinct in their own countries.

Bullshit. The market is totally inefficient regulator as long as ordinary people are as stupid as they currently are.

The market will regulate itself is just a shitty meme comparable to communist utopias.

Never understand why you guys want to be cucked so hard by big corporations. I work for one but I would never want it to be released from governmental control. Never

More personal liberties

Youre talking like the people in the government who regulate things are some sort of superhumans and not ordinary people too. I think youd be surprised how many average or below average iq people get government jobs

Because I know that it will lead to a power vacuum that will bring us back to the shit we are in today. Our only hope is evolving beyond our current stupidity and then anarchism could work.

Also, because we are currently so deep entrenched in certain forms of thinking and "everyone's a winner" mentality that we need a miracle to make us decent humans who can fend for themselves.

Such as?

And why do you assume people want more personal liberties? I feel like the only reason people such as yourself want these libertarian forms of "government" is because you are in one way or another social outcasts--you cannot seem to find your place with your people and so you simply want to live in a nation where you can freely isolate yourself and ignore those you dislike. Tell me if I am wrong, and if so, what is your personal reason for wanting anarcho-capitalism above our current system?

>Youre talking like the people in the government who regulate things are some sort of superhumans and not ordinary people too

But I'm not.

Anarcho-capitalism is almost as cringe-inducing as anarcho-communism. Both are based on delusional perceptions on human nature.

The market cannot regulate itself. That is a shitty meme.

>implying that minarchism is the life saving procedure without saying why

Also i didnt say the heart failure would kill you, im saying there is a risk that it could kill you. Every form of government has some sort of risks, we're aiming for the lowest risk and the highest reward

Corporations need to be held accountable in order to ensure that they don't scam you.

Have you ever noticed how chocolate bars of today are smaller than the chocolate bars of 10 years ago, but are more expensive? They're able to charge you more for less because companies go out of their way to ensure consumers remain ignorant.

Because I don't believe in fucking over children, the disabled, the elderly and the poor who wouldn't be able to provide for themselves and afford private security?

>i feel like
Not an argument

Its been proven that tyrannical governments are usually the slowest progressing and the least happy forms of government. With more personal liberties in an ancap society than you can pioneer a private community that is more authoritarian than other communities, providing you wont violate the NAP

>the market cannot regulate itself
How so?

You said that the market cannot be regulated by ordinary people, but the majority of the government is made of ordinary people so what makes the regulations from them so different?

>Not an argument

Yes it is? Humans have emotions. If your system of government is not going to account for them then it fails. Not everyone has social autism.

You still answered neither of my questions.

But anyway, tell me what is stopping some rich asshole from buying an army and enslaving everyone around him? If you seriously think people will adhere to some NAP nonsense on faith alone, boy howdy are you ever out of touch. That goes back to what I said about how I am pretty sure all of you libertarian types seem to be social outcasts who can't understand how people could be happy without 100% freedom to do whatever they want. Maybe happiness comes from WHO you spend your life with and not WHAT you spend your time doing?

...

If your country has a codified constitution (which all countries should) then the government has an obligation to remain unbiased when enforcing regulations. Such regulations are only to be put in place after considering the viewpoints of all parties. Should this process be corrupted through bribery and lobbying, then the people are entitled to hold the government accountable by revolting against them.

Businesses can't be trusted to do anything other than contribute to the economy.

Corporations are held accountable by free market competition. If they provide a sub-standard product they'll get out-competed.

Corporate bullshit almost entirely requires bribing the government to regulate the market in their favor.

But he's right. How are all taxpayers going to collectively send money to the companies to build roads?

>If they provide a sub-standard product, they'll get out competed
Hollywood, AAA games developers and publishers of YA novels disagree.

Some people just love eating shit because they don't know any better.

If we mixed emotions and government you would end up with a mob mentality of feelings over facts and an SJW run government, which i am assuming you are against

You asked me why people would want more liberties, i did answer that

>whats stopping someone from amassing an army

Other private institutions that adhere to the NAP.

> If you seriously think people will adhere to some NAP nonsense on faith alone, you are out of touch

If we can agree that faith is an emotion you would be contradicting yourself because you stated that emotions should be taken into consideration in government.

>you libertarian types seem to be social outcasts
>seem

Your feelings are subjective and therefore not an argument

>Anarcho-capitalism
>With a state

>what is a community organization.

yeah except your lowest risk is a system of roads owned by a monopoly corporation that charges out the ass for you to commute to work.

I don't subscribe to utopian ideologies because I am not a child.

NOT

...

Because they are weak and they know it. Only a person truly confident in their own ability to lead themselves would be ancap.

Its pretty clear that even though the government should not be unbiased, it definitely is and we cant really help it.

With everyone having different viewpoints and the free market being made up of those people, id say that all if not most viewpoints would be considered

The government definitely is corrupted with at least some bribery and with that being true it is our job to hold the government accountable and remove them

> beimg this dumb

It is tho. Easy life is the reason why men fuck each other.

Ancap is anit-utopian.

Maybe, but please tell me what does "the government facilitates the transaction" mean if not having a state

>ancap
>a (((road))) to an easy life

Pick one

He ment currently. As in with the current state of how things work there is a government who pays for the roads.

>those are anything close to a free market

>why you're not an anarcho-capitalist
>anarcho-capitalist
>capitalist
It's in the name.

Because I don't want to get rid of the state only to replace it with some mega corporation.

youtu.be/WamKD5agoVE

The sole reason the funeral industry is so monoplized is because of government "protectionism' enacted with the help of big funeral corporations like SCI and Arbor memorial.

Its nearly impossible to open your own Funeral home now because of all the hoops and red tape.

They're products, though. Purchasing these products effects the economy.

It's not really feasible considering without a central authority or collective, communities can be overrun and subjugated by any group of people with a centralized authority.

Oh I see, thanks

Watch this 5 min video, Molymeme explains why mega corporations with forced monopolies are a product of the state

youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4

Tell me. Without a state to enforce trade mark and copy right laws then how can a monopoly like you describe even form?

Well, not easy. But unfulfilling. I didn't mean to say that easy societies are the reason for homosexuality, unfulfilling societies are the reason for homosexuality tho.

Corporations can rape you more, and rape the environment more.

It's capitalism without regulations.

Which is basically a municipal government...

Lol I just posted that argument as well.

>But without the government, charities couldn't possibly exist, right?

car crashes violate the nap. you would be dead after your first

And those groups of people can be overrun by people with a centerlized authority adhering to the NAP

You don't need a government. You can open a company, hire soldiers and offer your services to people.

The problem is that eventually, someone will use the military power to annexe the land and enslave you, forming a government or monarchy.

>you can do anything you want
>be unfulfilled

Are you sure you are not already gay?

It has natural regulations put in the place by the people

No you fail to see the part where most people will be armed. And good luck financing your product while payimg out the ass for mercs while I am down the road selling the same thing for half the price while paying my workers higher wages instilling within them loyalty to fight for my buisness for free.

Why do I have to bring money to a FREE market? it doesnt make sense

>You either have to act based 100% on your emotions, or 100% on logic! No middle ground.

Uh-huh...

We already mix emotions with government. It is what keeps the homeless from simply being murdered on masse or newborns with defects being killed. The key is to have a healthy balance of decisions based on human emotion (morals fall under this as well) and on what is logical. Your proposed system has mostly logic and not much emotion factored in, as if humans are and / or want to be emotionless robots who do things only based on what it takes to survive and then thrive.

But!

To thrive is to succeed and achieve personal happiness... happiness is an emotion. So are you against happiness then, and if so, how could you even think the ancap system would benefit our current society?

I also asked you what those new personal liberties would be. There was no response for that question.

>Other private institutions that adhere to the NAP.

What does this imply? That the solution to a fault in your thinking is that men and women will kill eachother constantly to end squabbles? Because short of warfare and bloodshed you cannot stop a powerful slaveowner... even economic sanctions will lead to many deaths before the slaveowner gives up. That is supposed to be a new benefit to society?

>If we can agree that faith is an emotion you would be contradicting yourself because you stated that emotions should be taken into consideration in government.

Nice try but again, we don't live in the black and white world of your mind where it is all or nothing. Emotions and how people feel should be taken into consideration, but one emotion, in this case faith, should not be an essential pillar upon which an entire society stands. Our current society does not exist in such a way; when people fail to treat others the way they themselves wish to be treated, the power of the government intervenes and punishes.

You don't, you're free to beg my dude

the more people describe how anarchism would work the more it starts to sound like just as much of a state as the alternatives. Why can't ancaps just accept that with civilization comes government?

Isn't Profit the purpose of capitalism? In a world driven by profit, wouldn't we end up in the same mess we are today? The only difference being that corporations will be declaring war on each other instead of states. We're heading to that direction anyway (TPP gave corporation the power to sue states and overwrite their laws).
>Now tell me, do you want Premium Protection?
youtu.be/z24rqrxlNPY

i hit puberty and stopped believing in bullshit that couldn't possibly happen in the real world

Red pill me on the difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarchy.

How are taxpayers going to send money to the companies to build internet infrastructure?

Profit is the motive. The purpose is to satisfy the customers. Because without forcing people to pay or use products and services, businesses can't be shitty. They have to provide value.
War is expensive. Without being able to make fake money like USD, and without forcing millions and millions of people to pay, the cost is going to skyrocket even more.
Say all leftists see Ancap-McDonalds wants to build an army to invade some other place. They all decide to boycott, and so the bill goes up for everyone else who wants the war. But now with a higher bill to pay for the war, less people are willing to pay so they don't. Which leaves even fewer people with a even bigger bill. Until only one person is left standing with trillions to pay
Also TPP is a government program

Because anarcho-capitalism requires an intelligent, intellectually consistent, principled and constantly vigilant population to prevent society from devolving back into what it currently is. This would require getting rid of the vast majority of the human population, including nearly all Sup Forums posters. It's not doable.

I cant try and rebutt you right now because my class is starting but from i saw from skimming over it im pretty sure youre actually right about emotions being mixed in government, ill try and rebutt you in a thread ill put up later.

[Spoiler] its actually nice to have a civilized debate desu

Anarcho-capitalism is feudalism, basically.

A fucking cat can also only be male or female.

What about nuclear devices? How do those factor in?

If you make everything a private company, you'll have the cheapest, shittiest infrastructure in the world. I don't want to live in the US if it's all like Detroit/Africa.

Also, I'm not autistic.

Explain how you stop people reforming the state when they get sick of your shit.

I am, but dang son most of the planet statistically is not capable of being one.

So we should probably just have a 4th reich for a while.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NEEDED FOR MARKET REGULATION YOU STUPID NIGGER!!! DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK COMPANIES WOULD KEEP THEMSELVES IN CHECK WITHOUT THE GOV'T?!?!?!

Well feudalism can't be anarcho-anything.

Without government, who will throw the communists from the helicopters?

But user, Detroit is a liberal city.

>The purpose is to satisfy the customers
I want us to be treated like human being not consumers. This is the main problem of the world today, it has domesticated men into consumers.

>Because without forcing people to pay or use products and services, businesses can't be shitty
No one is forcing you to buy all the shit you are buying today, but you still do it. Just because someone won't put a gun to your head to buy it's product (they don't do that now either) doesn't mean they can force you other wise (wage slaving and commercial persuasions are just a couple of examples). And just because it won't be forced, it doesn't guarantee quality. People knowingly by a lot o shitty things that break after a week. Because people were turned into consumers. And consumers do what consumer do. Consume.

>War is expensive
So is running a business. If the profit exceeds the costs, it's worth it. And it will be extremely profitable for companies that make military technology or provide private armies (like black water). So it will all resume to whom has the most financial resources to wage the most efficient and less expensive war. You know, just like today.

>They all decide to boycott
We could stop all wars today using that logic, but people don't really work like that, do they. People act like they want not like you would want them to act. You think people want to pay for the wars fought today? Please.

>TPP is a government program
Governments are ruled by corporations nowadays.

WELCOME TO ANARCHO-CAPITALISM.

Thanks man. I'm glad you are one of the more reasonable ones, seemingly.

>implying
When someone has power over you, that's statism. When you have power over someone else, that's property rights. :^)

>emotion is what keeps us from killing homeless people en masse
>morals are based on emotion
By this logic, if I really hate some homeless guy, I should kill him, because morals are based on emotions, and my emotions no longer favor respecting that individual's right to live. This is self-evidently absurd. The whole point of moral principles is that you stick to them regardless of your feelings in a particular situation, because on the logical level you recognize that (e.g.) killing someone in said situation would be an instance of something you consider wrong in principle.

>whats stopping someone from amassing an army
A vigilant society that presumably isn't interested in company X having a private army exercising economic pressure.

Someone make a "hey Jimbo" meme where he explains private roads plz