Ancap societies cannot exist because they would be conquered!

>ancap societies cannot exist because they would be conquered!
>private armies cannot possibly function, despite private contractors of that type already existing today!

Why are anti-ancaps so dumb?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wuZAvEAZs-o
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It costs a certain amount of money to afford an army of a certain size.

If two countries are of equal population and wealth, one with a centralized state can raise taxes to pay for a large army. Now, unless everyone in ancapistan miraculously volunteers to donate a similar amount of money, you won't be able to match it.

Obviously that will never happen. You could of course mandate that they pay their fair share to the common defense, but that would be taxation.

Ancap is libertarianism for autists. A limited state is a necessary evil because a total power vacuum will collapse and be filled with tyranny.

Even if your example was accurate and the centralized economy state could be able to match the pure Capitalist state's wealth, which sounds nothing like reality, you could still see how an invasion is impossible.

I mean, do people in Vietnam speak American now? Do Portuguese speak Spanish? Countless of examples of smaller forces resisting invasion because invasion is fucking hard.

Besides, people pay the necessary amount. Not more and not less, if you perceive a threat you will have no problem giving away a larger chunk of your income as long as it is justified.

Many people think of themselves as red-pilled but they are incredibly affected by Hollywood's propaganda.

Their perception of business motivators comes straight from jewish movies influence and can't even root the issues of such moral corruption on the state.

That, along with public-education terrible business-mind orientation makes it impossible to conceive how a government disappearing would not lead into chaos.

States may be able to raise more raw capital using theft, but ancap armies will be far more price efficient thanks to the intense competition of the free market, requiring less money to support them in the first place.

Your assertion is groundless.

>as long as it is justified.
The fact that people are allowed to decide for themselves if it's justified or not means that some people will not pay. That in itself is enough to result in less funds for an army.

And your Vietnam and Portugal examples are idiotic. There are tons of countries that have been conquered in history, listing the ones that resisted invasion proves nothing.

States can hire mercenaries too you know

Anarcho-capitalism is the most retarded philosophy there is. People reverting back to anarcho-primitvism makes more sense, and even that's a retarded pipe dream.

The world as it exists now is anarcho-capitalistic on the macro scale.

If everyone owns missile launchers, would an-caps not have the largest army?

States can also buy your groceries and car for you.

Stop acting retarded. States always make poorer financial decisions than regular people. Why do you think the American defense budget is so absurdly wasteful?

You'd have to rely on private militaries like the ones from like 1300-1800. Good luck on that. Private contractors vs. mercenaries of 400 years ago are pretty different, although they do do similar things. The ones nowadays operate under mainly US laws. The ones of yesteryear technically operated under whatever laws of who hired them, but it was almost impossible to enforce those because who the hell would stop them?

The closest thing to what you're suggesting were the merchants and sailors of early America like during the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. They got letters of marque that allowed them to raid and harass enemy (British) shipping and navy. But they got those marques from the GOVERNMENT.

Well, people who are defending their homes have an infinitely larger incentive to pay for defense.

>There are tons of countries that have been conquered in history

This might have been the norm in poor shitholes where economy was zero sum due to little to no production output, where raiding and pillaging was more profitable than working because working didn't yield shit.

There's absolutely no motivation for moderately wealthy countries today to invade anything, and there's absolutely no way poor places could invade rich ones. You are basing your ideas from hollywood and history without even considering the most common incentives for war and the outcome today for tyrannic regimes (implying other countries will let you conquer shit and become a world danger, even if you actually could, which I doubt).

Do you know how much missiles cost?

It isn't "regular people" hiring your mercenaries in ancapistan, it's the whole country. Some kind of organization needs to choose the mercenaries, or some individual needs to do it with the approval (read: election) of the people.

Personally, I don't see the difference between that and a state, besides one having less money available.

Not an arguement

STOP REPLYING TO JIDF SLIDE THREADS.

There is a concerted effort to flood our board with Reddit (and probably Antifa) faggots doing a "Raid".

IF YOU MUST TAKE THE BAIT; THE WORD SAGE GOES IN THE OPTIONS FIELD TO NOT BUMP THE THREAD.

This thread is an attempt to slide genuine content off the board.

We are being invaded. Wake up..

Anarcho-capitalist societies can't exist because as long as there are people there will always be a sovereign regardless of whether it calls itself a government.

A single man stranded on an island, he is king.

The Japanese shogunate was basically your "privatized" alternative for security, and history remembers them well for being the "real government" because they had the actual power.

Anarcho-capitalism is not Anarchy it's just Feudalism.

A group of people without government but with the general understanding that murder and rape and theft is bad.

That is therefore the common law. Whatever group efforts that they would use to prevent that from happening and punishing those who did it would be the government that enforces the law.

Anarcho-capitalism is one of the dumbest fucking political positions to take. It requires actual autism and other empathy disorders to take seriously.

It's arguably dumber than Sovereign citizens but at least not as dumb as anarcho communism.

You can't just create a convoluted feudal Confederacy but say " it's okay they're called corporations".

Anarchism includes the freedom to start your own state on your land. If you wish, you can make your own Jonestown on your land and hope people join in.

>There's absolutely no motivation for moderately wealthy countries today to invade anything
He said, mere years after Russia annexed Crimea

At the VERY BEST, they will only ever equal the budget of the state with taxation.

I really do like how your natural instinct in defense of anarcho-capitalism was a fucking death cult.

Just be slightly smarter like The Sovereign citizens who call the United States a corporation.

You can try to get by Under The Radar from the corporation or you can just leave.

You can also be like those Ranchers fighting BLM who tried to physically reclaim property by force.

Clearly though we haven't had a system where we had billions of governments existing at once. For a combination of reasons things kind of gravitated towards larger systems. As technology advanced we could evolve from monarchies to modern federalism

Yes I know Anarchy would initially imply that you would be king of your own land assuming it wasn't mortgaged.

You are now Sovereign of that land therefore it's not fucking Anarchy.

But if anyone else was successful in reclaiming that Land by force they would have successfully toppled the regime that is your Jonestown.

And then they would be the government of your lands.

>but muh NAP

That Lockean perspective is the ideal, but it was Hobbes who was the real pragmatist.

Might determine who is right by default because it determines who is left.

Whoever has the power to enforce their Will in a given area with the most absolute of claim to that land is, until they are deposed, the Sovereign.

Anarcho-capitalism does not exist and will never exist. Not because it's a bad form of structuring society (which would inevitably reform itself through "trade agreements" that would be tantamount to a constitution), but because it is a logical paradox.

But yes it is also a bad form of structuring society. Without reforming those trade unions which would basically be new federalism it would be a clusterfuck.

It would unfuck itself by creating a new government that at the very least had Authority regarding roads, courts, security services, reclamation amd detention protocols, and "usage fee" collection.

You know, a government.

>Implying Crimea wasn't Russian to begin with

Pro Russian government, pro russian population, they are happier now under Moscow rule than under Kiev's.

That is not a war invasion, that is protected free association.

>he was a Russian shill the whole time

I think we're done here.

Ancaps just got BTFO

In 2014 75% of Crimeans voted to be annexed by Russia.

We're talking about war, invasion, and you bring this retarded example where population actually welcomed the "invaders"?

Just stop trying to get into debates that are way beyond your intellectual level.

made this in response to someone posting "taxation is theft" on facebook

people don't realize how corporate profits fuck us over

>In 2014 75% of Crimeans voted to be annexed by Russia.
They were being occupied at the time, and you expect me to believe that election was fair?

I can't say I'm surprised desu
youtube.com/watch?v=wuZAvEAZs-o

"private armies" today are used to escort trucks with food or evacuate VIPs, not to fight other armies
even those OH SO BADASS XD american private armies are just security guards

>When you replace your employees for robots so they don't whine about you stealing their surplus but now they whine because you're not stealing their surplus anymore

>literally 96% of the people who voted wanted to be Russia
>muh occupation

I thought we were talking all along about war, what war is there if your population literally welcomes invaders with open arms? How can you put that as an example of successful invasion?

"That Lockean perspective is the ideal, but it was Hobbes who was the real pragmatist. "

Wow, a real pragmatism: "man is wolf to man, therefore we empower some men to ensure our security"

This position makes sense, the idea that a society can organize itself only with a consensual law is a bullshit...lol!

>AnCaps are okay with this

>96% of the people who voted wanted to be Russia
Those kinds of numbers don't show up in free elections. It only happens when the election is rigged or the media is only allowed to talk about one option.

Carthage tried this.
Mercenaries turn out not to be a terribly loyal military force.

Carthage lost on a hair. It was by no means a sure thing.

>I mean, do people in Vietnam speak American now? Do Portuguese speak Spanish? Countless of examples of smaller forces resisting invasion because invasion is fucking hard.
There are infinitely more examples of people failing to resist invasions.

France did not spring into the world fully formed. It was conquered. So was Britain. So was Germany. So was Russia. So was the USA. Every state in the world today exists because of the failure of the smaller communities that make it up to defend their land.

The reason that America lost in 'Nam and in Iraq was because they went in to do regime change, not to conquer.

I hate retards like you who lionise guerrillas and think that rag-tag rebels are more effective than conventional armies. It's fucking retarded.

>"Whoever has the power to enforce their Will in a given area with the most absolute of claim to that land is, until they are deposed, the Sovereign."
>implying the United States is not a corporation/sovereign power
>implying the United States is not an anarcho-capitalist society

if anything anarcho-capitalism is the reality resulting from western civilization colliding with native american/indigenous populations. anarcho-communism was the nature of the indigenous people to the americas, the settlers brought anarcho-capitalism. new world settlers were right to lie, cheat, and steal from the natives?

the US will always be a hybrid of these two ideas, we will see if the government can ever come to a balance between them.

The funny thing is that we already live in anarchism.

Humanity's natural response to anarchism is to form states.

Loving every laugh.

Is Malta cucked?

This, they coulda worked out, but then Rome happened.

Even in the ideal, this would rapidly evolve into a plutocracy, regardless of whether or not anything is codified.

They're pathetic, I don't see how they couldn't be

youtube.com/watch?v=wuZAvEAZs-o

It already is consensual.

If you don't like the United States you can leave.

You're delusional if you think that in a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist land that there would always be some other unclaimed territory that you could escape to.

Nearly everywhere that you would even consider worthwhile living in would have some sort of person or entity with a sovereign claim to it.

So in the same way that you "voluntarily" need to eat and thus pay some store for the food, you would eventually agree to the terms and conditions of a given guilds lands.

Those various business entities would inevitably join together to ensure some sort of common medium of Exchange, Security, it would make it very apparent that you are subjecting yourself to their rules on their property which may or may not include dues.

And if you don't like it you can leave.

Just like today you can leave whatever government you live in.

There will always be government as long as there are people. Death and taxes are both certainties even if you call those taxes "usage fees."

Nothing is truly voluntary when it involves needs and practical realities. We surrender certain things to ensure these needs.

It's the reason why you haven't started attacking the government yet. Like with deadly force I mean. You go on by with your life obeying its laws for the most part and using the currency it has mandated.

So yes true voluntary society would not work, merely because someone would take advantage of it.

You need an entity that will actually enforce your precious NAP with threats of force and violence and loss of Liberty because there are people out there that are willing to violate your NAP.

Even if you reject this and try to live as a sovereign citizen, then even pretending that you really were sovereign that would mean that you are therefore the government of whatever patch of dirt you lay claim to. You would then in that scope be the government.

The story goes, and it sounds believable, that the romans captured a carthagenian ship building kit. It was all numbered like an Ikea build, this symbol connects with the same symbol there, that stuff. So they reverse engineered it very easily, and Rome had a navy in no time. There is simply more wood in Italy than in Tunis.
During the first Punic war, Rome won in the sea, not on land. Carthage didn't even levy all the trade navy to fight, it was completely unexpected.

Also romans devised a new naval combat strategy. Rather than shoot arrows or ram, they had a huge blank that they dropped on the enemy ship and ran into it. So they attacked with their side against the enemy side, which required less skill, while carthagenian sailors had to ram their front into the enemy side, a less reliable and more skill based tactic.

The planets aligned on that one, and it snowballed from there.

nukes TM are cheaper than armies

>>private armies cannot possibly function, despite private contractors of that type already existing today!
Not armies, and would not be able to fight an actual war.

Why would any less than 96% of those people vote to remain in Ukraine when being in Russian Federation is literally better in every single way? retard

>For a combination of reasons things kind of gravitated towards larger systems
it's called fagociting

>being a slave to putin
>better

lol ok

You can make rudimentary ones that can still deal significant damage out of a few pounds of pvc and some garbage.

>It costs a certain amount of money to afford an army of a certain size.
No. Finland and Russia could never afford to buy the armies we have. People who defend their home do it for cheaper and far better than mercenaries,

Do you think mercenaries would have defended Vietnam against the US even for a month?

And people who defend their country do so because of mutual loyalties. ANcaps have no such thing, even of they could manage not to die of starvation.

I agree with the rest of your post though.

Ukraine is poorer than Russia and has lower quality of life, more corruption, etc. Beyond that, Ukraine actively oppresses Russophones so there wouldn't have been a single reason for anyone in Crimea to vote 'no'. The Russian army didn't tamper with the results and never had to

Ukraine is a failed state run by US backed pseudo-nazis. Russia is a stable oligarchy, with growing standard of living, during the last 20+ years.

Peruvian here. It would work.

Chiapas knows.

Pizarro was a soldier of fortune.

how ""ancap"" is not a brand new feudalism?

I can't think of a single time an an-cap has successfully persuaded a normie into pure Hayek tier ancapism man, you need to make them into libertarian conservatives first and then give them six months to digest

Feudal lords didn't fight each other as often or as dirty as ancap businesses will.

Go get yourself an army of respectable size that is mercs.
You will see that they are just greedy kikes.
But sure, you have a greedy, low moral army while your enemy has a good strong army

>people still unironically support national (((socialism)))

ancap societies cannot exist because you can't trust the customer

Some things never change

Read upon swedish history 1700-1715

> you have a greedy, low moral army while your enemy has a good strong army
Or you have a coca cola heroin(tm) pumped super army.

can confirm the US chair force is a bunch of welfare queens that don't give a fuck about le_nation™
yet they're the most effective part of the armed forces
modern war is fought using tactics and crippling economies
since ancapism is econ-centric it might be the best force for conquest
think about it, massive companies with trillions in the bank completely unregulated treating little "states" as their bitch as the old way of life crumbles

All that comes from the socialists is a detailed description of how libertarians could not do what socialists do. Why the fuck would they want to?
Defending your country without (((taxation))) and a (((standing army))) is more common historically than not. You can do a lot with a little when you have a martial culture and you're not dying for MIC share prices.

Don't you know sage doesn't work if you post an image?

>Or you have a coca cola heroin(tm) pumped super army.
The only thing that those people would do is roll over their enemies.

Everyone's NAP would be violated very quickly and would escalate into another world war. An ANCAP world would be nothing but a dust bowl.

Seems everyone buys into the notion people are unstable and incapable of behaving reasonably, without supervision from "elites" as if those elites are somehow special. The strongest people in a free society are reasonable people. If you are unstable you are weak and no threat to anyone, unless you have the govt structure to protect you.