2017

>2017
>Anarcho-capitalism still hasn't been refuted intellectually

Explain

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A&t=1379s
youtube.com/watch?v=6Ak3TwNXA0w
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Burden of proof is on you, nigger.

Make a working model before you try to convince people to throw away the system that built the modern world.

Subject:
>Anarcho-Capitalism

Status:
>not even wrong

Procedure:
> SAGE

Ancap was the original state. It is inherently unstable.

>feudalism
>working

youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A&t=1379s

lol dat guy looks like that faggot jimmy fallon lol
jimmy fallon your fucking face lol
ancaps are hipsters btw lol

>Ancap was a state

state of being, ya git.
funny, though

Please explain how ancap is inherently unstable

...

all systems are inherently unstable (thermodynamic universe)
To be precise, it is less stable than hierarchical societies, where different workprocesses are specialized and increased efficiency and the impoverished masses makes militarization, thus conquest possible - indeed, necessary.

He's not the one who said that. I did.

In anarchy, no one owns anything past the point of physical control.

This means that having physical control is the same as having sovereignty.

No one will go out to lynch a thief who is stronger than they are. If they do, they will just get killed, and the next group will be more hesitant.

This means that the strongest group will be able to grow stronger and stronger by continually stealing from the rest.

This makes it easy for the strongest in an ancap society to dissolve it from the inside, gathering all the power until they become whatever governing power they want to be.

...

hoppe's argument is literally a logical fallacy, non-sequitor.

>thermodynamic universe
>discussing politics
hungary, please. Just don't
>it is less stable than hierarchical societies
see>where different workprocesses are specialized
wat is division of labour

>no one owns anything past the point of physical control
Where in a statist society is this not the case?
>No one will go out to lynch a thief who is stronger than they are
>what are rights enforcement agencies

youtube.com/watch?v=6Ak3TwNXA0w

...

It's true in the USA, for example. I can leave my apartment for months. As long as I pay my rent, I have full confidence that I won't get squatters and that all my shit will be there when I get back.

Is it really not like that in the Netherlands?

You're being unaware of the consequences of the structure of the universe on social structure is not my problem.

So it's physical control which is secured by the police while you are away

>You're being unaware of the consequences of the structure of the universe

>The Universe will end in heat death
>Therefore Communism is correct

Sure, but they don't park outside my apartment 24/7. They exist as an idle threat, and don't actually prevent crime from occurring directly.

Being anti-ancap is not the same as being communist, believe it or not.

Ancaps and commies are both idealists. There isn't some magical balance where people will stop abusing the world around them for personal gain.

>They exist as an idle threat
A threat of physical violence to defend property and enforce the ownership of that property. You're going in circles.
>Being anti-ancap is not the same as being communist
"anti" ancap?
Being against private property and freedom is exactly the same as communism.
>There isn't some magical balance where people will stop abusing the world around them for personal gain.
That's why statism doesn't work

When we've stopped the plans to eradicate us, then we can talk about ancap philosophy.

When did I say I was against private property?

I recognize the need to defend a claim. In a society without a government to do that for everyone, you have to do it yourself directly.

How does it help me to remove the government, which currently does this service for me?

I don't like ancaps because they seem to think that removing regulations from corporations won't lead to harmful monopolies.