Reminder that ancap is the ideal form of government and is the belief of true intellectuals.
Reminder that you can't bring up counterarguments unless you have an IQ of 120+ and have read the works of Adam Smith. If you don't know who he is, your opinion is trash and should be ignored. Not an argument.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
roads
private roads
>Adam Smith supporting unbridled capitalism
You stupid fucking neckbeards have literally never read any of that shit. He spends like a chapter and a half sperging out about how guilds, when left to their own devices. collude to raise prices and how government should step in to break it up.
He also believed in the Labor Theory of Value. LMAO
This thread violates the NAP. Private nuclear missiles have been launched.
You can't be an intellectual and an anarchist. Intelligence won't allow it. Anarchy is a fools belief, it will literally never work even in perfect conditions.
Fuck off.
Now I am not a true AnCap because I think Government does actually provide a very small number of services that it can do more efficiently than private individuals. And that's its role in the market should be a mediator. One example of it being a mediator would be requiring products to be labeled correctly. Decaf coffee refers to any coffee that has had any amount of caffeine removed, but US regulations require decaffeinated coffee to have around 97% of the caffeine removed to be allowed to be called Decaff.
And I hate it when any government does any form of wealth redistribution.
"Hello, Ethan Goldstein Fire Fighters Incorporated"
"Help, my house is on fire"
"I'm sorry to hear that, sir. If you'd like to sign up for our bronze package, we can put out the fire in two rooms, for just $50,000. If you'd like the entire house to be saved, you'll have to sign up for our premium package, only $140,000."
>anarchism
>ideal form of government
...
Ancap is even more deluded than ancom.
Friendly reminder that tyranny is the true patrician type of government and that any government run with an economical plan in mind first will collapse eventually.
I'd like to ask a question about company labeling too.
If I buy a coffee, but it does not state is says "Hot" anywhere on the coffee. Can I sue if it spills all over me because there was no warning about hot coffee?
...
Adam Smith is not the end-all-be-all, he's just an introduction to basic economics. The point is to get introduced to the concepts he articulated. It's hard to make comprehensive observations about free markets when you live in a highly interventionist society.
Then roads only go where the people owning them want to go. Unusable for most of the populace
No, it should be assumed that all coffee when you get it is hot. How else is it supposed to be brewed.
Its not like heat is a quality control issue.
Will you grow up and become libertarians?
>Then roads only go where the people owning them want to go. Unusable for most of the populace
what the fuck are you even saying. you're just mumbling incoherent messes now.
Shouldn't the consumer know what he is buying instead of assuming?
In other words, you shouldn't companies provide the information that can make this product dangerous or can add risk?
Im not the original guy you were responding to. If roads are privately owned the owners will only build them in places useful to him (from his house to his business for example) meaning most of the populace wont be able to use them because they are useless to them
Reminds me of my dumbass neighbor.
>MONOPOLIES HAPPEN BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT THEY WOULDN'T HAPPEN IF THERE WASN'T GOVERNMENT AND FREE INNOVATION
Bunch of deluded idiots
>there cannot be private sertificates
If a company wants its' products to have a certification of quality to attract more customers, they can buy one from a respectable company that provides certificates.
If any side breaks the NAP, all bets are off. If hot coffee burns your mouth or you don't pay, one side has initiated aggression and thus is a danger to society and without the protection of the NAP.
And that's why you buy a fire fighter service package before your house burns...
not an argument
I think Ancap is too much and won't work.
Libertarianism might work or Capitalisem but less inequality(people just need to be less greedy)
I met an ancap who had red pill symbology tattooed on their arm
>If roads are privately owned the owners will only build them in places useful to him (from his house to his business for example) meaning most of the populace wont be able to use them because they are useless to them
One of the concepts of private ownership is that the person who most values the land and will make it the most productive will be its final owner. Roads will be more profitable if they are licensed out and their use sold to the general public instead of just being made for a single person. It's just common economic sense. With time all roads will end up in the hands of contractors who will sell its use to the public, because that is where public demand lies.
Like I mentioned in the OP, you need an understand of economics to actually discuss an ancap society.
That's like asking a fish not to swim
>JUDEN DETECTED
>>MONOPOLIES HAPPEN BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT
but that's true. what is your counterargument?
...
Fucking kike
...
...
Monopolies do happen through government intervention and regulations.
Give me a company throughout history that created a monopoly in the free market enterprise system.
...
Also ancap will end up like today's governments just worse, it will be privete companies who will exploite people, while they grow bigger that even if they violate the ANCAP you can't do anything.
Capitalisem is better, just government sould put restrction on companies but not too much.
like instend stuff braking after 2 years, make it 3.
Or don't charge people way too much.
The restriction will still make the private companies profitable enpugh for thier high rank to have a luxury life.
it's will save money for you and you will not have to wagecuck that much like today.
Nigger
get fucked kiddo
Yes, and they will all collude to charge ridiculous prices because of how much demand there is for roads.
The funniest part about these ancap memes is that they all actually accurately reflect your retarded ideology.
Yeltsin's Russia was ancap, is that what you want? Ancap is just gangsterism, the NAP is fantasy, without law and order might will equal right.
kek
>higher demand = collusion and price fixing
user, please read an economics textbook. cartels, which you describe, only happen to to government interference. free markets are innately anti-corrupt.
I wasn't denying they don't however give proof that they wouldn't happen without governments?
Give me an example.
Reminder that this is what ancaps actually think, while in reality the natural state of an ancap society is called Somalia.
Monopolies would fail epically under the free market. There is way too much competition, that you couldn't run a business under a monopoly.
If you free up trade and take away tariffs, let th world come in, I guarantee you aren't going to out-compete them.
>implying Somalia is not Utopia
But it's so successful, not an argument.
>give proof that they would NOT happen WITHOUT governments?
user, you don't understand how proof works, do you?
I do, I wasn't saying monopolies don't exist because of governments. I'm asking you to give proof that they wouldn't form under an ancap system. Give me a rundown of how it wouldn't happen.
...
...
>'m asking you to give proof that they wouldn't form under an ancap system.
that's literally impossible because you'd need an ancap system to serve as an example. And even then, you're asking me to prove a negative, that X will NOT happen. that's patently impossible because you could always say it'll happen eventually.
I can give you the theoretical groundwork as to why monopolies wouldn't happen (as an above user did) but it's impossible to give proof as you request.
>cartels, which you describe, only happen to to government interference.
(^:,`
Lel
/minarchist/ checking in.
An ancap state couldn't resist as it would fall to guerillas.
Without the state, there is no one to ensure the NAP.
Read
what if theoretically someone couldnt pay debnts in time would he be shot?
Of course. Or his property trespassed. Your flag would go red and have a crescent on it if so.
...
Sorry that's what I meant just like a rundown.
This. Ancap would fall immediately as everyone pays protection money to gangs called private police and those gangs begin to act as a state.
did you say you needed a rundown?
>expecting niggers to do anything correctly
Perfect competition is a meme, there's always some economic rent for some companies. In the long run everything ends up as a monopoly.
??
Sure.
The reason why monopolies occur is due to government intervention. Specifically, by government regulations in a specific market. You'd think that since regulations and laws apply to everyone it would also have an equal effect on all competition, but that is not true. Regulations are in fact a subsidy for large established corporations, because they have enough money to pay for lawyers and such to comply with them. Regulations are disproportional punishing for small upstart business who do yet have very much capital. What regulations do is increase the entree fee for competition, which decreases the incentive for new competition for established giants.
And that is how monopolies form. By making the barrier for entry so high, competition becomes rare enough that it becomes practical to buy out any potential upstart competitors. Thus you have very few companies controlling the entire market, and anybody who tries to disrupt it is either stopped by the prohibitive cost of starting business or is bought out once they finally manage to jump through all the hoops. In a truly free market (e.g., lightly unregulated markets like food and furniture) monopolies are simply impractical and don't happen. Ever notice how monopolies only occur in industries with heavy government involvement? it's no coincidence.
Not every anarchy is anarcho-capitalism, you still need the second part, which was severely lacking. And, yeah, no NAP in sight (so doesn't qualify as "real" ancap, just like communists keep saying that all the communisms were wrong)
...
>In the long run everything ends up as a monopoly.
Really? How come chairs aren't a monopoly? How come apples are not a monopoly? How come phones aren't a monopoly? Home come... I can keep going.
You're making an awfully big claim there. Where is your proof? Your ass?
Valve with Steam
>Perfect competition is a meme
lack of perfect competition doe not mean markets fail to the point where only monopolies exist you dithering moron
Origin doesn't exist? Uplay doesn't exist? Gog doesn't exist? Microsoft store doesn't exist?
Oh, what do you know, it's not a monopoly! Unless you're arguing that Steam has a monopoly within Steam, which of fucking course it does. Every store has a monopoly within its store-shelves.
The only two monopolies that ever existed successfully under a free market was the New York Stock exchange in the 1900s and De Beers diamond company.
That's literally it, and I am not even sure those were complete monopolies, I am just quoting from Milton Friedman.
Steam must have an exclusivity of 70% of pc vidya production. Uplay and Origin have a microscopic library, you don't know your subject. Gog is seriously attacking the Steam monopoly (while still being infinitely less popular), but Steam had an effective monopoly for something like a decade. Arguing that it wasn't a monopoly because now it's almost over is retarded.
Did he know about Steam?
Governments enforce property rights by providing protection and punishing those who break property laws inside their state. They charge a fee for their services called taxes. The fee is non negotiable and if you don't pay the fee force is used to take your money or put you in jail.
Protection rackets enforce property rights by punishing those who commit property crimes inside their territory. They also charge a fee called extortion. The fees non negotiable and if you don't pay they use force to destroy your property themselves.
Both these groups need a monopoly overthe territory for their scheme to work. If there's no monopoly over their territory, there's no guarantee of reliable protection.
In Ancapistan, who enforces proeprty rights, and how does this operate safely without a monopoly on force?
Hoppe is also an intelligent ancap.
His "argumentation ethics" totally rek other ideologies.
...
>Steam must have an exclusivity of 70% of pc vidya production.
that's not a monopoly. there's nothing stopping the free market from creating one individual company with a far superior product and thus having the majority of the market share. That happens all the time. However, it's also temporary, and the company cannot exploit its marketshare (by price-gouging, for example) lest they lose it.
i mean, if Steam is a monopoly, how come its prices are competitive and they don't just make everything x2-3 times more expensive? The obvious answer is that they would lose business to their competitors, because they are part of a healthy market.
>adam smith
babbys first political economist