Anarcho-Capitalism

Discussion of the best political system!

Anarcho-Capitalism of course!
>The freer the market, the freer the people!


You cannot deny that anarcho-Capitalism works, and it improves the general economy!

...

ROADS

Private roads are the key to infrastructural stability and progress!

The government is only here to steal our hard-earned wealth.

A free market is a good market.

Roads will be constructed by the owners of said property, however, it is not necessary if the said owner does not wish to construct roads.

Public infrastructure is a DISEASE.
Tolls for driving on a road are much more efficient and realistic, and will be enforced with the NAP in mind.

sorry but I think roads are good

Police force

But seriously though, you guys have no idea how ancap would actually work. In practice it would be basically the same as current society except you would "buy" into the nation-state rather than just be forcibly taxed simply for being born there. In this manner the laws are also determined via the free market because the nations would behave as competing firms, which is why it's "anarchist:" the laws aren't just determined by a violent power who claims authority via a document, bloodline, etc.

A nation state could implement absolute lasseiz-faire economics with private roads in other such nonsense, but obviously that state would fail, like a business who instituted bad policies would fail.

The problem is it would inevitably result in what is essentially illuminism. You could argue that that's good for society, but you'd have to be pretty deep in the ancap rabbit hole by that point

..Is useless and a waste of tax money when we can be purchasing weapons in case anyone violates the NAP.

>tfw you would just murder all the ancaps and form a state

best ideology indeed but first we need 200 years of fascism and eugenics

Everyone but me gotta learn

ancap will never work because you're not allowed to preemptively strike when someone is gearing up to attack you but haven't violated the NAP yet.

Just a concept of an AnCap political map.
Basically highly balkinized with a lot of municipal corps and micro-state right?

it's not like you could enforce the NAP anyway so people would probably get murdered on the reg

Fascism would inevitably declare wars of conquest, it's just ingrained in the ideology. The only way a fascist country could survive indefinitely is if it's strong enough to dominate the world, a non-option in the age of nuclear weapons. Fascism is ded.

>military is the only way to dominate the world
you are like little bab
playing with bab politic

It has nothing to do with dominating the world. Fascism would simply be militarily aggressive for the sake of it. If you understood the psychological roots of Fascism and men that would make sense. Thus either it dominates the world or gets beaten and is forced to surrender to non-fascist countries.

But military conflict itself is not really doable in a nuclear world, so fascism is not really doable.

kind of true but it doesnt have to be as spergy aggressive as you seem to think.

Regardless, any aggression at all would be a nuclear provocation

for ancap to happen you literally need a fascist worldwide takeover. You don't need to take it by force and you don't need to own the whole world either hitler tooks several countries peacefully. You also need a state sponsored eugenic program like the national socialist had. You dont need to go full retard like them and kill people though.

i dont think theres another way to get an ancap society. You need very smart and well educated people and you need a totalitarian gov to set up the conditions it requires for this to happen

FRIENDLY REMINDER THAT Sup Forums LOVES POLICE

That's not really right.

Fascism is about taking back what they believe to be theirs that they have lost (land, identity, population, culture, advancement, religion) which may not necessarily be land and thus would not go to war. It's not about war for the sake of war, but there's no aversion to it if it's seen as necessary

It's very clearly a temporary system but what it would change into exact is uncertain because it got destroyed before it really had the chance to flourish.

Except having a strong fascist government is the opposite of ancap, you'll get the capitalism but it isn't anarchist at all.

You're talking about eventually building a minarchist society, not ancap.

AnCap could only come from a government implosion

who owns the property in the first place?

>Except having a strong fascist government is the opposite of ancap, you'll get the capitalism but it isn't anarchist at all.
no shit dude thanks for the input

No it wouldn't, when people conquer and take land they don't want that to be a nuclear wasteland

Why say
>for ancap to happen you literally need a fascist worldwide takeover.
If what I said is so obvious you fucking tard.

No, that's not the definition of fascism. Look up what fascism means, then come back and I'll explain why random wars of aggression are necessary if you still want to know. What you're describing is something like irredentism but also applied to culture and shit

a fascist government could exist as a nation state in an ancap society

nah, it'd be basically impossible to institute ancap at this point. The best bet would actually be to provoke nuclear armageddon and be mr. house

if you attack a country that has nuclear weapons, you're risking them firing their nuclear weapons at you. Hence global domination would be (rationally) impossible since at some point you'd push them to the point where they would fire off their arsenal.

>a fascist government could exist as a nation state in an ancap society
He said world wide, if he's were talking about multiple states and only talking about ancap in a national sense then it wouldn't matter if they were fascist or not.

And I suggest you go look up fascism your self since you're entire understand seems to be "war for the sake of war". What I said was a very simplified version of fascism, but that's what the Italians and Germans both talked about doing, and did

>f you attack a country that has nuclear weapons, you're risking them firing their nuclear weapons at you. Hence global domination would be (rationally) impossible since at some point you'd push them to the point where they would fire off their arsenal.
Not impossible, you just have to undermine their government till the point it collapses or willing joins, or entice them to join.

Think how the EU has absorbed nations. Direct way is certainly not the only way.

No he said a worldwide fascist state as a predecessor would be the only way to institute anarchism. You said "having a strong fascist government is the opposite of ancap" which is wrong.

And I said I'd explain the unprovoked wars of aggression thing if you looked up the definition of fascism, which you clearly have not done if you think fascism = irredentism

That's not war