Why doesn't pol like ancaps?

Why doesn't pol like ancaps?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jcUZrDX5P7A
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because it only works when more than 75% have IQs over 100

Probably because they don't want their daughters consuming a free media that's riddled by kikes. They basically don't want their daughters being brainwashed, then blacked.

If the people didnt want their media portrayed in the way you say it is, then it wouldnt be funded by those people and wouldnt exist right?

Cant argue against that tbhq

because edgy teenage NEETS dont understand the world yet so they expect parental gov to guide them through life

Hollywood isn't funded by the state, it's funded by the people who're stuck within mass consumerism.

People are retarded in general. You need some form of Authority, weather it's capitalist, centrist, or whatever. (fuck commies).

Law and Order is what built civilisations.

Because homo sapiens is a species of primate and we have an instinctual social ranking system that manifests itself in Government so even if we abolished the state it would soon manifest itself again as soon as somebody powerful/ambitious enough made a move to claim it

how would those people become powerful enough in the first place?

...

by making money

In a society with no means to regulate power, they have all the opportunity in the world to build up the necessary force

>You need some form of Authority, weather it's capitalist, centrist, or whatever.
why? because people are retarded? it can be easily argued that that is because (most) children spend a their childhood in government schools that dont teach them in the right ways.

and how would they do that? would you give money to people who would become powerful enough to create a state?

power is regulated through a truly free market, no one would fund a organization that would use that power to violate the NAP

NAP is a stupid contradictory principle.

Abolishing the state is impossible

There are some situations where government regulation does actually provide a more efficient market.

Who's going to prevent this from happening, and on what grounds?

If more than 75% have IQs over 100, then they'd realize what a house of cards it is and still abandon it.

[Citation needed]

How would you prevent that? People are free to do what they want or are you going to violate the NAP to stop them?

I don't support government funded primary schools. Only Secondary.

Also, the state funded education system is currently backed and generously supported by Marxists

Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules". It means no rulers. Have you even heard of the machinery of freedom?

Infrastructure
Law and order
Illegals storming the boarders
Muslims blowing shit up
Roads

You mean shills for feudalism who all thinks they'll end as king and queens istead of peasants?

the people wouldnt fund an organization able to violate the NAP and even if they had built up money to amass an army 2 things would happen

1) The people who had been funding them in the first place wouldnt fund them anymore causing the army to not be able to sustain itself

2) other organizations would move against this organization for violating the NAP


not an argument

>NAP

youtube.com/watch?v=jcUZrDX5P7A

see

The consumerism you're referencing already exists in a country with a state. Why do you think the state is capable of preventing degeneracy when it demonstably fails at doing so?

The same reason I don't like commies
No government doesn't work, and I say this as a libertarian

explain why

>the people wouldnt fund an organization able to violate the NAP
>1) The people who had been funding them in the first place wouldnt fund them anymore causing the army to not be able to sustain itself

Why not? What's preventing them from doing these things?

Seems like AnCap society has to assume that everyone is going to pretty much be on the same page ideologically and working for the benefit of the continuation of that society. Very similar to why Communism if a fundamentally flawed system of government; this is simply not how the world works.

because market failures and inelastic goods
>muh free market
i am a lolbertarian as well but denying basics of economics is communist tier

Because it becomes impossible to organize anything past a certain point. Anarchy might work in a tiny hippie commune but when you've got a country with millions of people in it you need a central governing body.

1. You can consider anything aggression because it's not an objective thing.

2. "The state" is also a theoretical concept. Every "stateless" society is either a hellhole where no one actually wants to live they just can't physically leave or in the middle of nowhere with very little human interaction.

3. Natural monopolies, negative/positive externalities, asymmetrical information, market power.

Virtually any time there is a significant market failure you need an outside force to reestablish the rules if you want optimal efficiency. I'm not saying the government always does that but there are situations where it exists.

Sup Forums the musical when?

even if those (select few) people continued to fund that organization, the people who fund those people (their jobs) wouldnt fund them causing the people who fund the organization to lose their money and in turn not be able to fund the organization

> ...assume that everyone is going to pretty much be on the same page ideologically and working for the benefit of the continuation of that society

why wouldn't you want to support a more beneficial, free ,stateless society?

>Inb4 because of said organization rising in the first place.

that organization is rising because they dont agree with the stateless society, so why would you rather live in an already government controlled society instead of living in a government-less society with only the possiblity of a NAP violating organization rising?

what market failures would there be?

also saying your libertarian doesn't mean anything to me

Anarchy has never really existed? May a few brief solitary moments amongst a single individual but hierarchy is ALWAYS formed.

how would be impossible to organize anything? the will of the people isnt weak, if they really want something done they wont just mope around and wait for someone else to do it

>You can consider anything aggression because it's not an objective thing.

wrong the NAP isn't against aggression specifically, its against the initiation of force or violence.

before we had a slaveless society there were no slaveless societies, just because it hasnt been formed doesnt mean it doesnt work.

>hierarchy is ALWAYS formed.
explain how

>what market failures would there be?
lots of negative externalities like pollution etc.are hard to account to and regulate unless a government does it
than you have the problem of privately run necessities like water that essentially have no competition, and if they would, it would be extremely stupid to have 2 water grids in a city.
than you haver things like predatory lending, which exploits stupid and guiillable people to take retarded loans they will never pay off because they have to pay 10% of principal every month.
need i go on?

Ok what about the build up to use force?

NAP requires you have the ability to read people's minds and understand their intent. If you don't then it's impossible to determine if someone means to harm you or not.

Also what about cases where you accidentally cause someone harm, or situations where by sheer luck or coincidence there's a very clear power differential between groups of people.

Ancap like most extreme ideologies isn't realistic and assumes everyone else thinks the way they do.

>lots of negative externalities like pollution etc.are hard to account to and regulate unless a government does it

There would be no reason to fund a company that is a big factor in pollution, if it wasn't funded then it would have to disband right? the free market naturally regulates itself through profit.

>than you have the problem of privately run necessities like water that essentially have no competition, and if they would, it would be extremely stupid to have 2 water grids in a city.

again if there was a monopoly on water than a company would form selling water at a lower price, causing the other company to lower its price to compete the the afore mentioned new company. if they collude and set a high price then a NEW company would form selling at a lower price and again the 2 other companies would have to lower its price to compete. it wouldn't be stupid to have 2 water grids in a city if 1 sells at a reasonable price and 1 sells at a unreasonably high price

>than you have things like predatory lending, which exploits stupid and guiillable people to take retarded loans they will never pay off because they have to pay 10% of principal every month.

its up to the people to be informed about decisions like these and spending 12 years in a public school today certainly doesn't teach you about this. Those gullible people wouldnt be able to afford more children creating smaller growth in the population of those gullible people. Then that company who exploits those people would soon run out of business because there would be less people to exploit. Even though that would take a while in the meantime do you think people would take loans for a company that is known to exploit people? they cant censor those who have been exploited because that would violate the NAP

>Ok what about the build up to use force?

I dont think most people would keep funding an organization that is clearly building up forces for an unstated reason, you dont have to read minds to get an understanding of their intent.

>Also what about cases where you accidentally cause someone harm

i think thats a misunderstanding of the NAP, you cant purposefully initiate force or violence on someone and even if it did include accidents, You're not obliged to take force against that person. That would be the NAP violating itself. most people wouldnt take action against someone who has harmed them physically or economically because they did it on accident.

>There would be no reason to fund a company that is a big factor in pollution
imperfect information- how would u know how much it pollutes when there is no government agencies overseeing this? and dont give me BS that people would care about which pollutes how much when it comes to energy, they would just take whoever gives them the cheapest alternative in most cases
>again if there was a monopoly on water than a company would form selling water at a lower price
1 company owns all city water grid, how is there any competition possible? or are you saying the grid is...public??? or are you saying that oligopoly between water distributors would be a good solution? anyway what you idiots dont understand is that its not free markets that create properity its competition, if you do not have competition in an industry you will have inefficiencies.

>last paragraph
are you saying a 80iq retard in any society can make informed decisions based on loans? and i love the eugenics part of it, and how you basically say that they should deal with it with no repressions even though they got scammed like fuckers. love u ancaps :)

Retard that doesn't understand economics.

In a financial transaction the PRIVATE benefit is weighed against the PRIVATE cost.

When I buy paper I don't think about the pollution required to create the paper because it does not directly effect me. I only think about the cost of the paper. When I see one person is charging 1$ for a stack and another is charging 2$(presumably because They took care of the pollution and it cost them to do so). I don't give a shit because generally speaking it doesn't directly effect me.

But the people 100 miles down the river do care but there's nothing they can do about it except try to negotiate with the company. Unfortunately there's tens of thousands of them and the company doesn't really care that much so trandaction costs are too high for negotiation to even take place.

So the company that does care about pollution will go out of business because the other one has a competitive advantage due to not giving a shit.

But you don't know if it was on accident. And what if someone was being reckless?

There's a lot of nuance that It simply doesn't account for and it's the reason we have codified laws and court systems.

>how would u know how much it pollutes when there is no government agencies overseeing this\

private companies that specialize in science, the kind that exist already.

> dont give me BS that people would care about which pollutes how much when it comes to energy, they would just take whoever gives them the cheapest alternative in most cases

companies that dont care about environment as much as people do now would became less popular and receive less funding because of that and in turn be less successful. Other companies that are more environment friendly would be more popular, receive more funding, and be more successful so the previous company would be forced to be more environment friendly to stay in competition with the other successful, environment friendly companies.

> 1 company owns all city water grid, how is there any competition possible? or are you saying the grid is...public??? or are you saying that oligopoly between water distributors would be a good solution?

im saying that that certain water grid isnt the only source of water in the world and even if it costs lots of money to ship it in from other places they would still make more profit because they sell it at a lower price. Then again the previous company would be forced to lower its prices. Oligopoly isnt a bad thing if the companies keep each other in check, and again collusion wouldn't work because entrepreneurs would see the opportunity to create another company that sells water at a lower price and make more profit.

>what you idiots dont understand is that its not free markets that create properity its competition

a freer market makes way for more competition and as you said more competition creates a more prosperous country

>are you saying a 80iq retard in any society can make informed decisions based on loans

if they were taught more about it yeah they would have a better chance of making more informed decisions about loans, but they dont get taught this in public schools.\

> you basically say that they should deal with it with no repressions even though they got scammed like fuckers

in a freer market there would be less people being scammed but it will happen much like how (on a larger scale) it happens in todays society. Then again those kinds of people are a very small part of our population and would not cause society to collapse if a few or even a lot were scammed.

>In a financial transaction the PRIVATE benefit is weighed against the PRIVATE cost.

not sure if you read what i posted but in short it would cost them immensely in the future, if all companies were to go with the best cost in the moment and not what would benefit them in the future, there would be a lot less companies. you cant compete with a environment friendly company if your own company is riddled with debt because you chose what was cheaper 10 years ago

An-caps are a paradox, you cannot be for anarchy but also for capitalism, as capitalism necessitates a hierarchy.

Most An-caps I've met are just brain dead contrarian kids who would argue selling their own daughter into sex slavery is freedom because the government doesn't allow you to do it.

they chose to be reckless and unconsciously or consciously thought of the consequences.

>it's the reason we have codified laws and court systems.

in our society it doesn't matter if you accidentally shot someone or did it on purpose. You're still going to be charged with something that could very possibly end your career.

YOU ARE INSANELY STUPID. But luckily your bullshit ideology will never come to fruition.

Cause that's totally what happens in real life, right ? You do realize that the only thing that eventually catches up to those companies is the STATE ?

>capitalism necessitates a hierarchy.
no it doesnt? you dont need the government for a free market

>would argue selling their own daughter into sex slavery is freedom because the government doesn't allow you to do it.

That would violate the NAP.

NOT AN ARGUMENT

>Cause that's totally what happens in real life, right?

if pollution was a big problem yeah thats what would happen.

>You do realize that the only thing that eventually catches up to those companies is the STATE

you are really not reading what im posting are you? IM TELLING YOU THAT THE FREE MARKET CATCHES UP TO THEM. for more information see my previous 2 posts

R O A D S
O
A
D
S