No public roads

>no public roads
>no police force
>warlords
>food shortages due to lack of agricultural subsidies
>monopolies on medical procedures and drugs that could save millions of lives

Do people just believe in Anarcho-Capitalism ironically?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
libertarianright.org/reading/
mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

theyre all closet feudalists

>Do people just believe in Anarcho-Capitalism ironically?

no they are evidently just more educated than you on economics, history, philosophy and politics

4 letters go into the option field. This bait isn't even worth a (You)

Private sector best sector.

Also, how ironic is it a yank arguing to be a statist bootlicker, and a brit pushing rightful liberty? Paine and Jefferson must be doing high RPMs

>monopolies on medical procedures and drugs that could save millions of lives
You have that already with drugs that have no right to be monopolized (fucking epinephrine was discovered 100+ years ago and we've been using autoinjectors for decades) directly because of government intervention.

>food shortages due to lack of agricultural subsidies
How does that even work?

>corporate tyranny is OK by me! Just don't call it government!!!

>monopolies in an anarcho-capitalist society
sage

>no public roads
Businesses and individuals would build road systems with toll roads being the norm for city-to-city travel.
>no police force
Why would there be a need for a police force if criminal behaviors (fraud, threat, theft) would all be grounds for retaliation under the NAP. Social sanctions could be enforced via a covenant so that say homosexuals or degenerates would be subject to physical removal by the community of said covenant.
>food shortages due to lack of agricultural subsidies
The free market rarely creates food shortages, in fact, most food shortages are created or worsened thanks to the result of state intervention.
>monopolies on medical procedures and drugs that could save millions of lives
Are you stupid? The FDA and existing regulations are precisely the reason why medical monopolies are currently a thing in the US; they are huge barriers to entry that make new entrants into the market almost infeasible. There would be drastically more competition and fewer if any monopolies in these sectors under anarcho-capitalism.

Voluntary contracts and private property rights are the basis of a free society.

if there was an evil corporation people would dislike it and not purchase their products, making corporate tyranny a bad idea

People only like AnCap because they think they themselves are going to be the ones that will rise to the top unlike all the "dumb poor people"

This explains it well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

>implying

Explain your internet providers

>no public roads
Public funded roads or just buy a Rally Fighter
>no police force
Private police exists
>warlords
Bounty hunters/Mercenaries hired by communities or Corps
>food shortages due to lack of agricultural subsidies
Free market will fix it
>monopolies on medical procedures and drugs that could save millions of lives
Dead people isn't good for business, free market will fix it.

how are they tyrannical?
im not assuming they arent but im not educated on the subject

FCC propped up monopolies

They believe they will liberate everyone if they take power away from government and give it to private parties.
The same people love the constitution because it limits government.
But it only applies to the government, not private parties.
So they literally want to shrink the jurisdiction of a constitution they love.
So yes, anyone who believes in Anarcho-Capitalism does so ironically.
They just don't realize it.

>Why would there be a need for a police force if criminal behaviors (fraud, threat, theft) would all be grounds for retaliation under the NAP.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Literally government given monopolies. Look up into the history of them and see how they got millions of dollars and didn't do what they promised decades later. Any attempts to make a local isp gets stomped by the isps

Governments fault 2bh

No, we want what all libertarians want - to be left the fuck alone to live our lives. No fucking mallum prohibitum bullshit, no forced association, only voluntary cooperation.

It's true, go ahead and try to violate my NAP in an Ancap society, see what happens punk.

A problem that solves itself. You could have private security patrol for the prevention of crimes and private detectives to find the people responsible for said crimes. By monopolizing these functions and banning people from retaliating, you invite less efficiency and more crime more crime.

CHIM

>warlords

that sounds fun tho

Yes. The NAP doesn't have to be personally enforced. All that happens is the state no longer has the monopoly on judicial violence nor is it arbiter of when force is justified. Read hoppes the private production of defence. Even govts use the likes of academi etc

>see what happens punk.
I'd ally with the local warlord to ensure you don't get very far.

I just want good internet for cheap.

>Steal from me
>Recreational nuke pointed at your sustenance farm
I believe we've reached an understanding,sir.

>Larping a rec nuke
Fine, I'll just shoot you with a .44 while you sleep. Or your daughter. Or your dog. Or water your sustenance farm with saltwater. At the end of the day, the nap leaves it in my hands to seek retribution or revenge or justice or whatever you want to call it.

My gang will fuck you up lol.

There is only one law; and that is might is right. At the moment it is very abstracted but its still there. Basically, a gang of guys is ALWAYS ALWAYS going to take over a group of people and extract money from them in return for not killing them/ "protection" (although this is a distant second). Anarcho-anything is for manchildren.

>LMAO WARLORDSSSSSSSSSSS
>XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Autism.

Well any AnCap society would eventually evolve into a goverment based society like we have now (I know that because history shows that is the most optimal form of human societal organization).
I'm all for NatLib but AnCap is basically a pipe dream

Not so. Remember early America was libertarian, in some ways ancap, as towns ran their own economies, legal systems, etc as they were so far from federal assistance. Pinkertons for long range jobs, the sheriff for dindus, and the possee for gangs. All paid for.

If I was going to employ a private police force, I would prefer a tyrannical one.

Well, the way i see it, and the way most people i know who also defend ancap see it too is in therms of "where society is heading to".
We dont have some idealized society in mind, all we want is to make it a little bit more free today than it was yesterday. And with that move toward a more free future.

>Ancapism
>Literally profit above all.
>Literally a bunch of amoral cunts trying to fuck one another.
No thanks.

They could just hire goons to intimidate and/or kill any potential competitors and keep their monopoly.

...

The big fish will always eat the little fish.
People would rather get bought out and retire than work their whole lives for the benefit of a free market.

Bullshit

Early america was a special case that can only exist in that time, with that low technology, and in that location with lots of land, with that low population.

Coming from someone who's clearly never had a serious conversation with someone who believes this shit, if you ever had you'd know that for the most part they want only to have more freedom and mind their own business, it's everyone else who has a problem with them getting that freedom.

>>Literally a bunch of amoral cunts trying to fuck one another.
>cartels can't form because everyone wants to break the agreement for profit
>monopolies can't form or exist for long because some asshole will see all that profit and join the market to claim some for himself

>Literally profit above all.
No, voluntary interaction above all. You can and should refuse profits for protecting your family/community and other ethical reasons.

would you really kill your family if someone made you a good offer?

>What are nations
I agree with that, but absolute freedom for everyone is not good. because.
what if they pay you to kill someone else's family, knowing you'll live well for many years after that.

But all those things, private police, defence contractors etc still exist. Why should I and my covenant not have access to them? Basically, the free market can provide better local defence than the government can. Or how did Ferguson and Dallas go down? You think it might have been different if executive outcomes were contacted for protection?

what is diminishing marginal utility?

>kill someone else's family
Then you have violated the nap, and their covenants defence contractor will smoke your arse

>what if they pay you to kill someone else's family, knowing you'll live well for many years after that.
it what situation would I have any reason to be certain I'd be safe after killing someone?
retarded ad hominids=/=argument

>no public roads
>no police force
>warlords
>food shortages due to lack of agricultural subsidies
>monopolies on medical procedures and drugs that could save millions of lives

Implying implications.

Monopolies are only a thing when they use the state to gain and maintain their positions. The market has produced the most abundance of food in human history, subsidy not required only demand. Roads & order are only a problem if you literally have no imagination whatsoever. Go back to school, read a bit and dream big with us brother.

Besides when the state fucks off you won't have high fructose corn syrup turning your populace into lard slugs.

That sounds retarded, what's to stop a rich person from paying off any defense contractor that comes after him or hiring a private army to defend himself from justice?

That depends on what they have to enforce the law. The thing is, they can do it because I assume they are some sort of armed force of some sort, but then there's no difference between those and policemen.
Or if there is a difference, who says someone won't hire more troops and enforce his own laws.
You don't kill someone and stay in the same town, obviously. It was done in the past. It's not so far-fetched.

>What are nations
Are you saying an inefficient monopoly propped up by a neighboring government could defeat a free market enterprise? If anything the ancap society would be exporting their goods to them.

you're still responsible for murder and people WILL want justice, even if you get paid.

>what's to stop a rich person from paying off any defense contractor that comes after him or hiring a private army to defend himself from justice?
what's to stop them from doing that now?
At least the private contractor will have to defend their reputation for being impartial to maintain customers

>food shortages due to lack of agricultural subsidies
Man why the fuck don't all those African nations just subsidize agriculture? No more starving!

You are in the deep country side and using your telescope, you end up discovering a rogue asteroid that will impact Manhattan in 24 hours.

You know that if you can contact the right people, it can be intercepted and safely destroyed.

You are unable to use your phone and you are a day's hike to the nearest town.

There is a rich old man's house nearby. You activate his intercom at his gate and explain the situation.

He says that there is no such thing as positive moral obligations and he weighs the few cents on his phone bill higher than the lives of the city using his subjective value. He doesn't care about any social shaming that might happen, he just wants to be left alone.

Do you violate the NAP to break into his house and use his phone to save the city?

>the notion of a slightly less invasive government is now conflated with private child armies and tactical thumb nukes
>because the establishment is going to stop what it's doing if we give them more power

I miss the Ron days.

>what's to stop them from doing that now?
Laws.
>At least the private contractor will have to defend their reputation for being impartial to maintain customers
Or they can just maintain one very high-paying customer.

Implying that doesn't happen under the state now. Companies can be put under by their customers -
states only by civil war. The nap applies across the board, and how many customers is a defence company going to get after they break faith? Remember no artificial monopolies, true free market.

Old argument, deontology vs consequentialism. Thou shalt not lie - so do you tell the axe murderer where your wife is hiding even though you break a commandment and risk hell?

>laws

Reminder

Agricultural subsidies aren't required to keep the food supply going

Or just consider that there are sometimes such things as greater goods.

>people can't break the rules, that's against the rules.

If a company owns so much of the market that buying more isn't even worth the price of a company, isn't that basically a monopoly already?

Yeah because in an Ancap society people are magically going to grow the balls to risk their lives to harm heavily armed store owners and risk getting very well paying bounties placed on their heads. Nice plan m8 hope it works out for you.

HOL UP, I wholeheartedly agree with this, but I think someone should enforce this as the one and only law or someone else will. Anarchy leaves a power vacuum which attracts greedy people unless the community is bro-tier.

>unless the community is bro-tier.
unless the community is white*

BTW if anyone is interested in finding out more on ancap and rw libertarianism, the libertarian right general site has a reading list page with links to full texts of some of the key works

libertarianright.org/reading/

This is where covenants come in, basically a group coming together to live in an agreed way

...

Well shit. Where do I vote for this?

That's where we hit a slight snag I'm afraid. The mainstream libertarian parties tend be of the more leftist variety (eg Gary Johnson etc). We've got great theorists in rockwell, von mises, hoppe etc but not much to actually vote for...

Keep debating op. You will find the truth.

Anarchism is feudalism and eventually monarchy

If there's no state then the strong will put the weak into submission and become the new "state"

Organised anarchy doesn't exist
So basically anarchists wants the local warlord dong

This is my main concern with ancapism. A big but inefficient system of government can take over communities.

This is a common objection, and has been rebutted many times, for example
mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

They're closet statists.

I can admit.

I was an anarcho-capitalist, I just hated leftist states. Now I'm a Hoppean Fascist. Heil General.

internet was invented with the collaboration of international government funded scientists and engineers

It's true what they say about state intervention and protectionism, how governments annihilate small businesses and spawn monopolies.

Contracts enforced by whoever has the biggest gun

i bet most of the ancaps on this board support IP protection which is the main form of protectionism out there

Read, obese.

we don't
this board is a perfect example of how open source development by a collective can out compete a single developer if you let them

tfw you accidentally set off your recreational mcnuke, starting a chain reaction of mcnuke explosions that destroy the planet

>he thinks corporate tyranny can exist without a state to sanction it

What I mean when I say protectionism is obviously the rape of foreign markets and the abuse of national legislation to keep your ailing local economy afloat.

unless you can show them another system where they can have a child prostitute harem, you won't win them over

>food shortages due to lack of agricultural subsidies
kys

Nice reading all that useless shit for something that won't ever happen

If the nukes go off its only feudalism that will exist; and Islamic feudalism on top of that, in Europe

I unironically believe in all of this

If you can't make money and survive on your own then you deserve to be poor and die.

...

So you believe in some sort of anarcho distributism?

saved, thank you for posting this

>I shall conveniently ignore that nobody gives a fuck about how "evil" corporations are RIGHT NOW and happily purchase products that were made by child slaves and harm the environment
>m-must be the governments fault... somehow...
>p-people will magically become jesus-like and care more about ethical conduct than their own self-interest in muh ancap utopia!!! this totally doesn't blatantly contradict human nature!!

Shitting on people trying to make the world better.

What a faggot.

...

I think it's a form of narcissism.
>Just free up the markets already so I can prove myself to be better than everyone else.
>Why aren't I successful? It's da big gov holding me down.
Also, anarchists and communists both fail the human nature test making them equally shit ideologies.