Ancap theorist here, debate me

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0IEQmuaJeew
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

lol no replies yet.

Give me a honest answer. I'm still not satisfied about what I have heard yet. How will the roads be built?

...

How is ancap different from corporatocracy?

You need a road? You build it. Not willing to invest the money, time and resources in building your road? You don't deserve it.

Wouldn't the inequality in a such a system give birth to class warfare or massive social division?

I'll give you a freebie, Daan. Read your post, think long and hard about why it is completely fucking retarded, and then make an actual tenable argument.

How the hell automatic NAP is not against the spirit of ancap?

What's retarded is my tax money going to roads I didn't ask for

Ok. What stops the strongest guy in the area from killing me and taking my stuff? If the answer is "your neighbors will gang up and stop him", how is that not a de facto government?

Just call the private police man ;) or just shoot him yourself, because in ancap society every has no problem shooting and killing people

funny how the arguments always come down to:

>it would be horrible because in the worst case scenario I can think up it would turn into the system we have now.

almonds stimulated.

Only people willing to war are those without anything to lose.

In a capitalist society there's way too much to lose even for the really poor people.

I will only live in a community that contractually enforces the people living there to respect property and life of others, with threat of physical removal upon contract breach.

You might have a state, but if you go to another country where life and property are not respected you will most likely get killed. Just limit your interactions to areas where people respect life and property and you will be fine.

suppose a highway is built but I own the land next to it, I put up a blinding flashing light that cause frequent crashes. Is there any recourse available?

In reality, what is stopping a coutnry go to shit if the entire thing went ancap?
After the mass violence and attacking that would last a few months.years, niggers and shit will starve out because no one will produce food for their payments etc
tl;dr Is ancap worse then socialism or communism in practice?

Ancap is pretty autistic ideology that will never work irl because it's not fit with human behavior.
Communism and ancap have that in common.

If a person is too weak to defend their property (eg. too poor to afford defence), then what stops other people violating the NAP and annexing it, killing the owner in the process?

My question presupposes that there's someone better at shooting than me, and they might want to kill me and take my stuff. If I have to devote a large portion of my time and resources to being a good enough fighter to stay alive, this seems inefficient. Maybe I'd rather just pay my damned taxes.

What's to stop me n my homies from coming and taking all your shit and ruling over you like a warlord?

what if the country next to ancapistan offers all the "ancap women" state welfare? Women being natural statists and preferring security above all else will move there and ancaps will all die out in a generation.
inb4 test tube babies they arent viable on a mass scale

In other words, to secure your rights, you intend to institute a govermnent with your fellow men, its just powers deriving from the consent of the governed? Sounds familiar, somehow.

>completely useless to society
Why wouldn't you nuke him?

The roads.
Tell me about the roads.

>Ok. What stops the strongest guy in the area from killing me and taking my stuff?
The NAP

when he naps you kill him first?

Meaning what? Everyone involved has to have a philosophical commitment to nonaggression, to the point that they'd fight and die to preserve it? We're getting into government territory, here.

You have needs, security is one of those needs, my choice would be to purchase a property where security is not a problem.

Is my contract with my landlord a government or a state? That would be reaching.

Anyway, anarcho capitalism is not about a total lack of order, it's the only framework that allows total lack of subjugation, but doesn't enforce it.

...

...

it's funny because they are both ideologies built upward from a system of "objective" morality and wouldn't work

And yet again I am still not satisfied.

ﷺ

The NAP is only the minimum amount of morality required in order to have a somewhat peaceful existence. Don't kill and don't steal, every society had those rules at some point in order to achieve prosperity.

Ancoms have way more moral rules and therefore need a state *they call it democracy, but democracy is a form of state like any other) to function.

every society had a way to enforce it. Don't get me wrong ancom far more stupid than ancap, but AN- anything is stupid as a concept, there is a reason anarchy is synonymous with chaos and these flavoured anarchisms are just delusion.

Is this made by that Latvian guy?

>way to enforce it
The people enforce what they want. The government only has as much power as the majority lets them have. If that majority were to decide it's in people's best interest to allow competition in insurance companies to enforce the law then that's what would happen.

Who holds your landlord to the terms of his contract?

How could ancapistan be defended if a foreign power tried invade it? Dont even try to give muh militia as an answer cause unorganized militia cant stop an organized army. Who would be in charge? How their chain of command works? How they manage their air force, navy, armored corps etc. How do they conduct military intelligence, man radar stations and air defence? How do they finance this?

The NAP

The state is like a drug, the user imagines that its harder to do anything without it.
If you take it away from the user and show them reality, they just kick and scream saying that anarchists dont want roads, healthcare and police.

Ofcourse you arent satistfied, the state is more addictive than cocaine and you dont like people telling you that you are high off your mind.

Theories like these operate on the belief that a man is an island unto himself. No person exists without the benefit of their environment. You breathe because you have air. You eat because you kill other life forms.

To say you have no obligation to the society that benefits you, wither that society is Japan or your mother who raised you, you have been provided for from the moment you were born, and thus you have an obligation to help those around you who cannot help themselves, as you were helped when you could not care for yourself.

This is the nature of human existence. To take advantage of those around you for your sole benefit and then claim you have done it all yourself without the things your environment provided to you is completely foreign to reality and cannot be substantiated with facts.

>The people enforce what they want.

So tribalism. No sane people will choose the NAP over his friend, family or group member if they break it. And once someone breaks it and gets away with it it will become an unenforceable sham and the tribe with the most members and the biggest stick makes the rules.

You know, as it worked out in history.

How do Ancaps deal with existential threats?

Watching my neighbor build a armada, hand out negative PR pamphlets, and generally demonizing me.... While also claiming NAP?

That's pretty much what has happened in Universties around the country. Yeah, the free market is supposed to render these peoples skill sets inferior, hence they have less influence, but the economy and life doesn't move fast enough to stop a brick to my head or angry mob at my door.

You don't even need to enforce this morality in anarcho capitalism, you would just need to purchase a property there where the NAP is enforced.

I believe in the NAP not because I want to enforce it but because I want to live by it next to others who believe the same.

Think of anarcho capitalism as the biggest social experiment possible, one where the market shows which ideas are better, it just so happens that I believe that Capitalism and the NAP along with some conservative values are the two necessary elements for maximum prosperity, but I'm willing to test my ideas against others.

In this case the justice system of the Maltese state, as it grants itself the monopoly on contract enforcement.

In the case I described, an independent private contract enforcing firm we both would agree on.

How is currency an organic institution but the state isn't?

>a man is an island unto himself
Immediate strawman. Nobody says people aren't gonna cooperate under ancap. In fact it's governments that make that cooperation deteriorate.
>ooh the politicians will take care of it
No they won't. And when they give empty promises and fuck shit people simultaneously rely less and less on their families and their community.

Threat of violence is aggression, doesn't fare well within the non aggression principle.

>biggest social experiment
if you want anarchy you could move to somalia, regardless you are admitting you aren't sure it will work so why would you want to shit where you eat.

>an agreement made by two consenting parties is the same as being born into a shitty contract you dont want and cant leave
I want govies to leave my board

Ancap says there is no social regulation or legislation. Without social regulation or legislation, how can you enforce ancap?

Might makes right. Your utopia cannot sustain itself. As soon as one person take advantage of another, succumbing to greed, or there arent enough resources to sustain the system and someone has to starve, it ends.

History shows that free markets without regulations against formation monopolies will eventually centralize wealth and it's inherent power into the hands of a few, destroying any opportunity of choice and the free market.

>most members and the biggest stick makes the rules
If a society can resolve disputes peacefully through democratic means when violently enforcing the law is still very much a part of that society...why wouldn't a much less violent society resolve disputes peacefully as well?

>Ancap says there is no social regulation or legislation
Stopped reading right there. Educate yourself before you criticize something.
youtube.com/watch?v=0IEQmuaJeew

So now we're just gonna make unfounded, retarded comparisons between a governing agency and substances that make you taste colors?
Not an argument desu sempai

Societies can't resolve disputes peacefully through democratic means. Mob action is the purest form of democracy.

The problem I have with the concept of democracy is that I don't want to be told how I have to live by the 51% of society with an IQ below 102.

But Somalia is not anarcho capitalism, it is a state in a civil war.

You cannot claim countries under civil war are anarcho capitalist, that's disingenuous. And even if it was anarcho capitalist, which it isn't, there's no ideology that under war didn't become a shithole.

do you not see how a public police force is better? multiple private firms would only care about their customers, if they break the NAP against non customers why should their customers care?

Ancap needs an independent police that enforces the NAP to work.

That's why minarchism >>> ancap

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists believe that, in the (((absence of statute))) (law by decree or legislation), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society")

Morris, Andrew (2008). "Anarcho-capitalism". In Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 13–14. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n8. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.

Edward Stringham, Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice, p 51

if any country became anarchic it would have large scale violence, you could presumably find some ancaps there to form a little society with

> if they break the NAP against non customers why should their customers care?

If most people didn't remove their support under these conditions, then it means people have no morals, how does the state help societies when these have no morals? How does the state make it better?

Ancapitalism is probably the worst ideology I can think of. People have no incentive to uphold the NAP and the situation would quickly turn into ganging up with neighbours to form a militia and killing others and taking their stuff and before long you have a government. also as soon as a country embraced ancapitalism they would be invaded by any sane neighbour as without an army or united people they would be easy pickings

Closest thing that ever existed to Ancap is native american tribalism.

>law by decree or legislation
>A decree is a rule of law usually issued by a head of state according to certain procedures It has the force of law.
>Legislation (or "statutory law") is law which has been promulgated (or "enacted") by a legislature or other governing body or the process of making it.
There you go. And I strongly suggest watching the video before posting further.

How far should puishment go for those who knowingly break the nap
Should they be considered human or like an animal that you may do whatever you wish
Can others punish those who violate it and be justified?

yeah just trick people into violating it when a leaf blows on ur property blow their head off and steal their shit.

The only way this could work is if the city state installed nuclear devices to destroy the whole society and then gave everyone a button so people had to be polite and fair.

if they have no morals then they are essentially allowing their private police (and whoever else) to form a state. So your ideology relies on a ridiculous amount of social unification and activism to prevent a state from forming.

>do you not see how a public police force is better?
No I don't. Any enforced monopoly degenerates into corruption and inefficiency over time. And it's not just the police. It's the courts too.

>if any country became anarchic it would have large scale violence

Non sequitur.

Contrary to popular belief, most people do appreciate safety. You're just straw-manning anarcho capitalism through the notion that the state would just disappear from one day to the other, again, quite disingenuous.

ancap functions for good people only

the evil get lynched

the only people that don't agree are the ones that are evil.
now you understand the ancap hostility.

>how does the state help societies when these have no morals? How does the state make it better?
in a state you can vote and the people who dont have morals dont vote, thus you have more moral people in control of the use of violence.

roads are inefficient. hovercraft will be used to travel.

>also as soon as a country embraced ancapitalism they would be invaded by any sane neighbour as without an army or united people they would be easy pickings

This.

There is a reason AnCap doesn't and can never exist. It will always be conquered by people who aren't philosophically opposed to roads, plumbing, power grids, and funding professional militaries.

That level of unification and activism is what spawns the state. This whole mental exercise is futile, as it boils down to "How can we have all the benefits that only a state provides without the need of a state?"

>no way to enforce anything except muh nap
>expects people to stop acting like people
>expects people value the nap more than the groups they belong to

>social unification
In a way. If people still supported kings we'd live under monarchy. But they don't. So now we have a democratic majority. And if those people decide democracy is no longer the best thing around. Guess what? The system changes.

Most people don't commit crimes. It just takes that one guy to spoil everything.

Under Anarcho-Capitalism, those who are victmized but cannot afford the Private Police to spend 2 years tracking down the perpetrator will not recieve justice.

This will lead to retributive violence. Extended vendettas, vigilante violence and all other kinds of shit that we prevent by having a courts and justice system that is the organized means of violence in society.


Ancaps are ignorant of human nature.

you said you want a stateless society where you can form an ancap coven right? You said it wasn't guaranteed everyone will be ancap, so why wouldn't some segment of the pop start mass robbing/killing etc
you would still have monopoly in ancap, one would expect a supermonopoly or oligopoly to form eventually.

Pay for the road. Now, who pays for it? Those who use it. Let's say you have a community A that wants to trade with community B. Those two communities, discussing the need for a road, decide how much each side pays voluntarily then builds the road. They then setup costs for maintenance.

Now, private citizens not belonging to either community are tolled to help offset the maintenance of the road.

How is this difficult to understand?

>>no way to enforce anything except muh nap
Why does every statist immediately come up with a strawman? Look people value safety. Therefore there's a market for protection. And if the state is no longer a monopoly they can choose between different protection agencies (which would likely be insurance companies, but who cares what they're called).

>cannot afford the Private Police
>retributive violence
How do you not see the irony is beyond me.

NIGGA I DRIVE ON THAT ROAD FO FREE WHATCHU GON DO?

The state acquired its legitimacy to act immoral through centuries and centuries of blood and conquer, believing that any private entity would just gain this legitimacy in the era of internet and information is just ignorance of how the current state was obtained.

Pretty sure you guys have a state. How is it helping?

Seems like many are forgetting that freedom doesn't need justification, the state does. If you're telling me we're going to have a problem if we're free, but we're still having that problem even after surrendering our freedom...

>one would expect a supermonopoly or oligopoly to form eventually.

This is how it happened historically. A few families would begin intermarrying and interbreeding (And eventually inbreeding) to secure intergenerational wealth.

Unfettered capitalism without progressive taxation and inheritance taxes is the fast lane to serfdom, despite what the ancaps believe.

Belonging to a community would most likely include the costs of the security of that community as part of your voluntary giving to maintain the community...

Go to the South Africa thread and watch some of the vids on SA. They have to use private police because of corruption. I think this is a great example of some Rothbardian/Hoppean principles (private police/Gated communities etc)but the issue is that its great in theory however in practice the place is a fucking nightmare. Murder rate is like 52 a day.

>you would still have monopoly in ancap
Why? And even if that is the case. The people are still not being taxed. If the company tries to rob people the likely well armed population would string them up because these people are still ancaps not democrats or monarchists. And if they support a state forming, guess what? It's not ancap anymore.

Ancap is a state that exists in the middle ground between governments.

Government always rises out of anarchy free markets because anarchy free markets have too much room for abuse and exploitation and humans can't be trusted to be fair.

The United States of America quickly rose out of such an anarchist state, born from warfare.

If I may... ahem...

"To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Sounds to me like Tom thought the government's job was to secure individuals against abuses inherantly found in Ancap.

>Slavshits not understanding why vendettas, vigilantism, and cartel style violence is a problem.

How you do not see the irony is beyond me.

>"protection" agency shows up
>tells you to pay up and robs you blind
>no one cares about muh nap because they dont want to challange them
>you cant hire any other agency because youre a beggar now

Stellar system. Using not one but several private armies with no accountabilty or responsibility whatsoever. Might as well just import some african warlords.

And I'm not even counting what if people just start to ignore the nap completely because they value their in-group more?

>nonsensical posting
>that flag

Why am I surprised?

But the short answer is security. The development of various groups that provide for access through paying out an amount. And if you fail to pay, apprehending for violation of property rights and repayment?

So taxes.