What is the Sup Forums argument against Ancaps and Libertarians?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin#Communist_Party_membership
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

pic related

But they can produce relations of trust.

Where's the argument for that claim? Pic related is part of mine.

Global markets are evidence of trust.

Where's the argument for that claim?

The evidence is the argument. What are you even trying to convey here? That markets are what...?

...

Lolbetarians are greedy degenerate cunts who will stab you in the back for thirty shekels. They all secretly yearn to be enslaved by the Jew and they think like niggers.
If you want to suck dick and smoke weed and live with no morals just fuck off and be a degenerate faggot, don't spend half your life being a degenerate and the other other half shameposting on this board aboard how you want to throw commies off helicopters.

>The evidence is the argument.
A claim isn't an argument. Google "the 4 pillars of argument".

>the 4 pillars of argument
Evidence is the second pillar and really the only one you need. For example, the evidence of gravity doesn't need an argument because gravity is self evident. In the same way, the very fact that global markets exist means trust has been established worldwide through markets.

Besides, you have not even produced an argument that markets do not produce trust.

Wow, you kangaroo fuckers can't help but prove how stupid you are every time.

The Idea of NAP is naive.

Lets say I own all of the land surrounding your home and decide to restrict your movement through my lands and force you to buy all necessities of live from me for prizes that are simply unreasonable. At which point you finally snap and violate my NAP or do you simply accept your fate and slowly impoverish and finally starve while I keep laughing away from the comforts of my sacred private property?

Private property and NAP are spooks.

Anarchy alone is a system of consent


What do when people dont consent?!

You'd be restricting my movement on purpose then, fwend, and that's a violation of the NAP. Besides, you couldn't buy property around mine considering that property needs an outlet. God you're stupid.

>You'd be restricting my movement on purpose then, fwend, and that's a violation of the NAP

Oh sue me and I'll shoot your lawyers.

>considering that property needs an outlet

And why is that? Is there a somesort of anarchist law that states this?

Road access is a law. It permits movement and is required where people live, idiot. If you bought property around my property, the road from my property to public access is still there.

Sue you? I'm pretty sure you'd be dead first for violating the NAP and restricting my movement, fucking retard.

>Road access is a law.

Exactly. Now who makes the laws and who is responsible for enforcing them?

>I'm pretty sure you'd be dead first for violating the NAP and restricting my movement, fucking retard.

Either way somebody is going to end up dead because I decided to be an asshole and you killed me for it. How do you propose society be governed so that assholes like me can't fuck your shit up for kicks in the first place. Answer is and has always been institutionalized violence and fear of it.

All human societal interactions come down to fear and violence. The rule of the strongest. This is the warlords argument ancaps and libertarians hate since they have no answer for it. We're always ruled by those who carry the biggest stick and this is why we formed states.

Freedom is a tool, not an end to itself

It is based on idealists and their believe that all men want to be free and leaders. Sadly reality is that most people are fine with just surviving and are more than willing to be a follower that is taken care of. Libertarians seem to forget the darker side of man and that any society they make will over time corrupt right back into what it was. History is in cycles. Not all men want to be free and lead their own lives, some want to waste away and others want to rule them all.

Yeltsin's Russia was anarcho-capitalism. No one in their right mind would want to live there.

>Yeltsin
He was a communist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin#Communist_Party_membership

Is that why leafs don't have free speech?

None of this matters. Violate the NAP and get thrown out of a helicopter.

You realize that party membership was mandatory if you wanted to have job that wasn't farming or factory work under the party members?

Idea of political freedom was imperialist propaganda to attack the party, people and motherland.

By whom? Anarchist are by definition against states and hierarchies. Libertarians? State that is powerful enough to protect your property is also powerful enough to take it away at a whim.

Even Adam Smith realized the problem inherit to this system. Inorder to protect ones property against masses wishing to seize it one either needs the state or has to become the state.

That's why communism sucks.

>Anarchist are by definition against states and hierarchies.

How fucking old are you? Are you that fucking stupid? Anarchy is an -without archon - rulers. You can still have a state, hell, you could have a fascist state in an Anarchist community. Its just voluntary. There's literally nothing wrong with people being libertarian, fascist, or a literal berry pick village as long as they don't force their will upon other surrounding towns.