Ancaps debunked

>be huge corporation called 'the state'
>claim all property on earth
>let people manage some property privately for a fee
>call the fee 'taxes'

The state is anarcho-capitalist. QED

Other urls found in this thread:

autismweb.com/forum/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Babby's first neocameralism.

>the state will spontaneously disappear everywhere on earth without the overseeing and coercion of any kind of authority
t. marxist ideologue-I mean ANCAP.

Profitability being the only metric by which anything is allowed to survive is a terrible idea.

I'm just showing that anarcho-capitalism is a meaningless wordgame that isn't in principle any different from current states of affairs when you look past the big words.

I'm with you. The nation-state is essentially a corporation that monopolizes the use of force. Monarchy and feudalism are the only just forms of government.

My problem with Ancap is that you can't have property rights without any means if enforcing it. I want a minimal government, but not to the point where I have to hire mercenaries just to keep my house from being looted.

So instead of a democratically elected government having the monopoly, it should all be centralised around a king or a class of noblemen with inherited rights?

>>/leftypol/

Also, what's to stop the mercs from looting your house? They are organized and better trained.

Yes

>>/autismweb.com/forum/

>Disagree with an ideology only taken seriously be 15 years old and fat burgers.
>REEEEE YOU MUST BE EVIL MARXISTS REEEE

Literally you

Sounds pretty stupid tbqh famalam.

>>claim all property on earth

You'd have to violate the NAP to do this.

Who is enforcing the NAP?

Unsurprising flag faggot

Yes. With a state religion and the kings of individual European nations being subject to the emperor; preferably Rome.

ancap is for the internet, you babbling retard. See, cryptocurrencies. And get some PepeCoin before www.kekdaq.com launches

Then at the eve of anarcho-capitalism. How is property divided?

>ancap is for the internet
>pepecoin
>kek

FUCKING BASED

goddamn post more ancap memes

cucks

Nice argument.

Usually the marxists are first ones to make a fuss about Anarchocapitalism.

Your self.

It won't be spontaneous, it will be very gradual and slow. We will do it by contentiously limiting the power of the government until they have no power and can do nothing. But we have to do it wisely and very carefully otherwise we could fuck up with a mass surge in welfare and subsidized degeneracy.

How it is now, but people can divide property and merge properties however they want.

Mmm individualism and liberal democracy worked out so well for us. Thanks for the Enlightment you piece of shit frog. You people ruined everything with your god damned pervert philosophers.

What if another government wants invade the state you crippled?

>How it is now, but people can divide property and merge properties however they want.

ah but you see if original property is kept as it is now. Then the state understood as a corporation DOES hold all the property, undivided and complete.

>implying the nobles of the 18th century weren't a bunch of degenerate faggots
The peak of the western civilization was the end of the 19th century, not the 18th century

>It won't be spontaneous, it will be very gradual and slow. We will do it by contentiously limiting the power of the government until they have no power and can do nothing. But we have to do it wisely and very carefully otherwise we could fuck up with a mass surge in welfare and subsidized degeneracy.
By this logic all ancaps should become minarchists until they have abolished the state, which is amusingly enough is an exact inversion of Murray "sperggberg" Rothbards argument against Robert Nozick.

The 18th and 19th century can suck it. Europa was already ruined by that point thanks to French universalism.

>not wanting the world to look like this

Thats fine. But it can't be maintained under liberal democracy with liberty being the highest good.

They would have to be careful because the country they are invading should be have a heavily armed population.

>People holding the property as it is now
>State though some means no longer exists
>State still owns all property, it is just called a corporation now.
>Socialist Swedish logic

Gradual removal of power is the best way to achieve a peaceful anarchy.

>I want to remove authority with authority
This seems neither very thought through nor very anarchic.

>State though some means no longer exists

Why? Should Apple computers also stop existing if ancap spontaneously ''''happens''''?

It can, it actually was for a century until Hitler and burgers fucked it up

I don't have to argue with you. The Muhammed raping your daughter has done it for me.

You do know you have to be over 18 to post here, right mr 56%?

>armed population
With the will and organization to remain united? Nevermind the complete lack of air force, navy, and artillery.
>hitler fucked it up
Hitler was a reaction to the logical end result of liberal democracy; communism.

It may seem contradictory to use the very thing you want to destroy for the sake of destroying it, but as long as the people have some ability to change the government for the better and by that I mean less and less until there is none, then we should go as far as we can until we have to fight to avoid less damage.

And hopefully while the change is happening people will notice the wonderful affects of moving closer to pure capitalism with each passing step. It would be comparable to the growth personal freedoms and wealth China had when it gave up on communism.

You don't have to argue because your ideology is gibberish. It's not that I have a difference in taste or opinion, it's just that ancap flatout doesn't add up.

>taxation is equal to free market dynamics
I'm no ancap, but I will happily tell you that this is one of the dumbest things I have read all day.

taxation is equal to rent. That is what I'm saying here, nothing else.

The only reason that was sustainable is because the European population was much larger as a global percentage

le ebin French empire for example only had like 60 million or so people in the colonies compared to 40 million in France itself because you colonized useless sand in Africa. And of course on top of that you had a low birthrate and worked hard to try and get gooks and niggers to accept French language and culture and become citizens, which is why your country has been the pozzed man of Europe since the 1960s when all the colored Frenchmen returned to the motherland- and then their kids decided being radical muslims was cooler.

Germany was even more lopsided with more than 50 million people in the German empire itself and less than 10 million in the colonies. Britain was the only small nation to substantially colonize others during the 18th and 19th where India had 350 million and Britain had 35 million, but their colonies like Canada and New Zealand had another 10 million or so white people in 1900 so I guess it wasn't quite the same.

Oh right and there was Belgium, crazy little Belgium.

The point is in the modern era the Chinks, Brs and soon the Indians too will be colonizing Africa because African nations are still small compared to the 1.4 billion chinks or 200 million brs.

>taxation is rent
Amen.

It's not a little bit contradictory, it's agaisnt your ideological basis.
If you can't achieve your desired ideology without resorting to the very means you claim to stand against it's perhaps an indicator that your ideology is worthless.

>the logical end result of liberal democracy; communism.
Where did leftist revolutions happend :
- France 1791
- Russia 1917
- Germany 1918
- China 1945
- Portugal 1974
- Cambodia 1975
- a bunch of African shitholes 1950s - 1980s
Those are not liberal democracies

I made it vauge so that way it can mean litterally any thing causes the state to fall and why would this affect Apple, a private company? The sheer fact that you are comparing the two is bizarre.

But what if I don't agree to the rent, and what if I am going to be thrown prison for not paying rent?

Your using the system to tear down the system, it is indeed contradictory, but it is nothing more than a means to an end.

All I would really be doing is voting for the most libertarian and least socialist policies possible and if necessary start a political party to move us in the direction.

I don't have to go guns blazing to start an anarchy you know.

Ok, all shitposting aside, I think your country has done a great job with an ideology that was pretty much bombed everywhere but Scandinavia. It will be interesting to see how the refugee crisis plays out, but it could easily be an economic benefit provided that you get everyone to assimilate.

The basic premise of Ancap is a philosophical one, not an economic one, namely that it's unjust for people to take your stuff. To your first point, the difference between real Nozick style "night watchmen" state and the stat qou is that the state's monopoly on force would be used exclusively to defend civil and property rights, not to force bakers to make cakes for gays, tax people into buying healthy food, or redistribute resources to working age citizens who won't get a job.

USA 1776
UK 1688
Nearly every country on earth is best categorized under liberalism.

>USA 1776
>UK 1688
Those are not leftist revolutions

>The only reason that was sustainable is because the European population was much larger as a global percentage
As it should be
Hopefully chinks will genocide niggers

>I made it vauge so that way it can mean litterally any thing causes the state to fall and why would this affect Apple, a private company? The sheer fact that you are comparing the two is bizarre.

Then you are presenting a hypothetical, ok. I claim that the state agrees with ancap principles. I am not claiming that the state must by necessity be able to reform itself in accordance with the NAP if it were to be contractually disbanded by a clerical error. Talk about bizarre.

>But what if I don't agree to the rent, and what if I am going to be thrown prison for not paying rent?

Then you better not fucking rent, it's no more coercive than any contract with any other corporation. But good luck living.

>Ancap is not economic.

At the core of it suppose so, but many of the arguments that support ancap are economic.

Give this man cookie or something.

The corporation won't have the authority to kill you, worst case scenario they will just throw you out on the privately owned streets.

America's most certainly was. They overthrew their just king, fashioned a liberal republic, and waxed poetic about equality and universalism.

England's Glorious Revolution established Parliament as sovereign with a puppet king to keep the plebs docile. Both were far left given the time period.

>>claim all property on earth
that's not how it works
the free market will fix this

>your stuff

Your claim to "stuff" is just more gibsmedats, that's what I'm telling you. And you have to justify that gibsmedats just as much as a socialist or what have you.

>The corporation won't have the authority to kill you
In the ANCP world? Who will stop them?
>Poli...
Oh wait.
> Federal government will send national gua...
Oh wait.

Asking for more individual liberties is not a leftist thing. People don't have much individual liberties in communist shitholes

Well, yes. Its a philosophical position with economic consequences. I'm surprised that's the controversial part

>Landlords can change their rental agreements at a whim and makeup whatever punishment they want for you if they, themselves, alone, decide you have violated that agreement.
No, but the government can, and does. Yours, too.

No. I have shown that the state is EXACTLY analogue to a global corporation possessing all property. There is no difference in aggression.

Well, actually the supply curve for land is fixed, so the same quantity will be supplied no matter the price.

(manmade islands in China aside)

>claim all property on earth
Do you not know how property works?

Yes but communism promises to provide liberty. Just because it fails to provide does not mean anything. And asking for more individual libertiea is a leftist thing. Liberty itself is a leftist conception.

ANCAP landlords can.

>fair share
So what portion of our military is my fair share? Do I get to dictate where 1 in 500,000 bombs get dropped?

What if I don't want to drop that bomb?

I could try voting, but then two people who didn't "Pay their fair share" vote for a demagogue who then drops fair share of the bomb money on people who were simply unfortunate enough to be held hostage by terrorists.

How much of my labor are others entitled to? How much of your labor am I entitled to?
(The answer in both cases is, "fuck-all")

We can talk about the legal system and how that's gonna work in ancaptown if you REALLY want to. But I guarantee that it won't lead to any difference in principle. Whatever interdependence between state and judicial system you can claim to exist can be translated to a world where we call the state by another name. Makes no fucking difference.

Therefore we should all live in caves in a constant war of all against all. Good job ancap.

>Well, actually the supply curve for land is fixed,
Its asymptotic and we way below max. Look at all non-populated lands with no roads.

thanks for explaining. Means a lot and I appreciate it

keep it up

There's actually quite a lot of work that went into that during the enlightenment. The general consensus was that an unclaimed thing became yours when you mixed your labor with it in such a way that you could not be deprived of it without also being deprived of your labor. For example, plowing an empty field would make it yours, but collecting apples from a feral orchard would not.

Honestly, that's not really an issue to today, because essentially all holdings are the result of returns to labor, or returns to capital that was originally paid for with labor earnings.

>mfw the endgame of communism and ancap are essentially the same

>Liberty itself is a leftist conception
>American

All this assumes that man is born free which he is not. He is under his sovereign his father.

not really

the endgame between NatSoc and AnCap are much much more similar because AnCap economically punishes degeneracy

Duty > Libery
Freedom is a myth.
I only mean they are both utopian.

you're right, nonetheless as the quantity is fixed the price of the land is far more likely to increase to a point where it's too expensive to be bought cost-effectively than the opposite.
Also as opposed to a real state a huge company wouldn't have a bank to bail them out once they fuck up, which is bound to happen on a long enough timeframe

Government get out

Alright John Locke

Ancap is gay we need BASED feudalism.

>we looked at the data and it turns out property is real

Those are normative judgements. Go pick an argument with marx or someone.

John Locke is a godless commie bastard. Robert Filmer is the realest nigga.

Are you meaning to imply that AnCap is impossible?

I assure you, it's quite doable. Capitalism works, AnCap just uses it to its full potential. Communism on the other hand, well, even the states that actively tried to be communists are rejected by modern communists as failures evident by the "not real capitalism" mantra lol

>be huge corporation called 'the state'
>oh wait corporations creatures of the state... and don't exist in anarcho-capitalism.
Nice try OP

Does someone own that land? If the answer is yes, then it has been supplied.

No one is arguing that we have reached maximum development

Collecting apples isn't super easy. You have to do a lot of walking around and climbing ladders. And a feral orchard implies a lot of weeds and bushes obstructing your way that you have to clear out.

I want to beleive this is a troll.

>not real capitalism

not real communism* I mean. pic related. christ I need some sleep

nope, I say with complete sincerity

Ancap is not desirable. It degrades mankind with its vulgar focus on materalism and economics. Captialism is only good at making more wealth and raising the material standard of living. Its not enough to maintain a society.

>Its not enough to maintain a society.
>an invisible fairy in the sky is required
Sure thing m8-o

Capitalism: free-market, laws & regulations

Ancap: free-market, arbitrarily applied pacifism, please don't steal

Full potential: None of the above.

You got it. Civilization requires something outside of itself to strive towards or it dies.

See: Western Civilization

anarcho-anything is a meaningless wordgame

Honestly, if you look at GDP data, housing is real but non majority proportion of value added, especially for medium rich countries. Most of the value added in developed countries is in services, which are almost entirely produced with labor, not capital.

>It degrades mankind with its vulgar focus on materalism and economics

ah, but these degraded men, what sustains them? what grants them welfare, social safety nets, benefits? what rewards degeneracy? what sustains shitty businesses pandering to this degeneracy, what subsidizes, what buys them out, what supports them? Why, a state of course.

Degenerates will have an incredibly hard time in Ancapistan, because being degenerate is well, degenerate, and no welfare props them up. Stable, traditional, faithful and in a sense nationalistic people to their ethnic identity are what would thrive in Ancapistan. Not to mention most of all their love for freedom and liberty.

>Capitalism
>laws & regulations

lol

>arbitrarily applied pacifism

It's not arbitrary. It's fairly concrete: no violence outside self-defense.

>please don't steal

You can still steal just like in the state we have now, nothing's stopping you. There would still just be equally if not more consequences for your actions that you suffer with.

I don't get it.
Did western civilization "die"?
Or are you implying the western civilization succeeded because of an invisible astral super dwelling?