In an ancap society, who pilots the helicopters and who pays for them?

In an ancap society, who pilots the helicopters and who pays for them?

I think the state is necessary for a society free from comunism

Is this the ultimate argument against ancaps and libertarians?

Pilot: People who want to receive payment in exchange for their time and skill as a pilot.

Pays: People that want to support the manufacture, maintenance, and use of helicopters.

>Muh Brain says
>State is necessary for a society free of communism

Why do you think this way?

Not an argument.

PDAs, Private Defense Agencies

>who pilots the helicopters
the pilot

>who pays for them
the owner

There is no way that this could go wrong !
Also post ancap balls

Better answer.

What Ancaps are really talking about is the balkanization of core services that are currently monopolized by federal and state governments.

>Force (police, army etc.)
>Infrastructure
... that's about it
Ancaps are usually against state/federal mandates for education, welfare, EEO policy etc.

Or, alternatives, an employee of the land that is helicoptering communists. It's a small distinction but important

>I think the state is necessary for a society free from comunism

Libertarianism isn't about having no governance. In libertarianism, essentially, every person is a gov't upon themselves. Your relationships are essentially foreign policy and your actions are your own. It's a very responsible system and you have to avoid the idea that no state = no governance.

>Is this the ultimate argument against ancaps and libertarians?
It is, and it's a trash argument. That's what makes libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism so great.

But the people who pays for the manufacture, maintenance, and use of helicopters will be in disadvantage in a free market society

Exemple:

Corporation X gives nothing to FreeHelicopterRides(tm)

Corportation Y gives money to FreeHelicopterRides(tm)

Corporation X will get beneficts from FreeHelicopterRides(tm) even tho they didn't pay anything
Corporation Y will be behind in the free market because they gave away part of their money

Anarchism is for children.

NatCap is the true redpill.

The Fatal flaw between a communist and an ancap is this:

Ancaps
>ideal: people are more productive workers when they have absolute control over their memes of production.
>responsible enough to manage all their own shit.
>Flaw: People are lazy, and lazy people will starve to death.

Communists:
>Ideal: People are inherently altruistic and working towards common goals and will work regardless of personal incentive.
>People aren't able to take care of their own shit, and must rely on the commune to get by.
>Flaw: people aren't lazy, and non-lazy people will be worked to death.

...

Pinochet : Chile :: Jehu : Kingdom of Judah

Corp X simply wouldn't be serviced in this scenario, or if it's just the general benefit of the removal of communists, that's an effect upon the entire market. Corp Y is getting their money's worth in communist removal.

Hello NatCap friend. I disagree on your ideas about state but I view you as an ally against evil leftists, and I hope you see me similarly.

NatCap
>Ideal: People are working towards a national idenitity of prosperity
>People have faith in the appropriate balance and faithful execution of both free-market and governmental sectors of the economy.
>Flaws: at the Government's best, it imposes trade restrictions that destabilize theFree market. Government can be tainted by special interest groups that destabilize the free market. The free market can coopt the government monopoly on violence to destabilize the free market.

>Corporation X (((gives))) nothing to FHR(tm)
>Corporation X Receives nothing from FHR(tm)

Bumping with Hoppean Sneks.

JOIN OR DIE FELLOW LIBERTINES

Wat? Who told you there would be a corporation giving Helicopter Rides for free?

No Step on Snek!

Burger King's strategic bomber and helicopter rental™

AGORISM IS KILL

ANCAP IS HOTTTT

LIBERTARIANISM IS PUSSY

Ancaps have the best helicopters.

That's just the name. Basically he's arguing that by paying for a service that the other corp benefits from by proxy of the market, the one to pull the trigger on buying the service is at a disadvantage.

It's a valid thought pattern but the problem lies in the oversimplification of the model. The benefits are different for both company, the markets those companies function in, the payment towards FHR depends on the market's health etc etc. The only factor that matters here is, does Corp Y get a valuable enough return on the expulsion of communists per the payment brokered to FHR? If so, it's a good economic move, elsewise, it's not.

Check'd

...

Economic Externalities. I see what you're saying.

The decision making by corp y would have to render the all-inclusive economic benefits of communist rain, including the relative advantage that corp X would gain from dropping communists from helicopters

TFW Islam seeks to impose their moral and economic code of conduct on you, warranting inclusion in the group of people that should be dropped from helicopters.

Pinochet was a gay homo that enjoyed large amounts of gay sex with homos.

>when a richer foreign state buys all the PDAs and you ended up annexed by an even more repression state

He had large amounts of sex with an extremely disgusting female in the missionary position for the sole pupose of reproduction.

Don't badmouth my general like that.

Throwing people from helicopters violates the NAP.

I don't understand

Communists are NOT people, therefore it doesnt violates the NAP

People that conspire to break the NAP are not protected by the NAP.
Also the commies have to be people in order to be protected by the NAP in the first place.

...

>captcha: road

Only ancaps want to completely dismantle the state. Don't confuse libertarians with ancaps.

...but who the fuck is paying for core services without taxes?

By not killing commies through helicopter use, Corp X is conspiring to break the NAP (anything other than actively killing commies breaks the NAP btw). In return, take all the commies and instead of dropping them from helicopters, put them on Corp X's property (this is okay since they broke the NAP first). Corp X will collapse very quickly and you can then take their stuff and kill the commies.

:^)

Private, subscription based services or taxes. Minarchists want them to be basically hull-only government with low taxation relative to the small amount of work that government does, an-cap would argue that businesses will maintain core services within the areas of the buyers. Can't buy groceries if there isn't a road to the grocery store.

>Captcha again : 29th road

>I think the state is necessary for a society free from comunism
What the fuck, do you even know what communism is?

Robots programmed to follow the NAP.