Why haven't you taken the Ancap pill user? Is freedom too much for you to swallow

Why haven't you taken the Ancap pill user? Is freedom too much for you to swallow

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=y-Yszp3SmxE
youtube.com/watch?v=q-XVqpkGquc
freenation.org/a/f12l3.html
lewrockwell.com/2005/10/stefan-molyneux/the-stateless-society-an-examination-of-alternatives/
m.youtube.com/watch?v=0IEQmuaJeew
youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Newfag here, what is ancap?

Society without government where services are provided by businesses. Your free to do anything as long as it doesnt threaten or harm another human

Best be ye lurk for 3 months before posting ye first there, matey. Arrrrgh

>tfw you didn't pay the staircase toll

Who will enforce rule??

Freedom is an alpha ideology & it appeals to people with strong character & a sense of self worth.

Plot Muslims, the patriarchy & recognizing that taxation is indeed theft and you have your answer.

the person being infringed

Who enforces the laws against threatening or harming another human being?

I never understood, is this like radical libertarianism with the smallest amount of government oversight to stop practices that harm individuals or is it full anarchy with no government at all?

Ancap is no state, replacing the way it provides services for alternatives. Make sense? Minarchy is minimal government.

Then there is no rule

Anarcho-capitalism has no means of addressing externalities.

Poli-sci student fail bullshit that isn't any more workable in practice than communism.

Nation states are fucking awesome, bruh.

The better question to be askin is who will protect ye land lubbers booty when me and mine come to shore. Arrrrgh

Take the fash pill my friend. It's a lot better than this retarded libertarian bullshit that completely fails

youtube.com/watch?v=y-Yszp3SmxE

...

...

...

Shut your mouth you dirty skallywag! Ancap is the best thing for ye western states. No coast guard or navy to protect ye plunder from the likes of me!

...

...

story?

Nation-states would still exist in an anarcho-capitalist society, and is arguably the only way such a society would exist.

Rule is determined by the landowner(s). Who ever doesn't follow such rule is physically removed, so to speak. Don't listen to "le open-border ancaps", Anarcho-Capitalism couldn't exist without all individuals consenting to it, so it's within our best interest to kill or remove all communist or other ideologies that could oppose a threat to our libertarian social order.

Read "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans Hermann Hoppe.

So things like private security contractors instead of police forces? If so, doesn't that screw over everyone that can't hire a person 24/7 to watch there house and other shit they "own".

I suppose you could set a business model where you can call a rental police officer to your house if you're in danger or if your shit gets got. What about products regulation? What would you do if you used a product and died from its use, supposing it was used as directed and as intended of course. How would others seek restitution for that death or would you just hope the market would correct itself on its own because, hopefully, no one would buy that product anymore?

I love that there's a resurgance of a Liberty movement around the world. The good thing is there are so many practical examples of side-stepping government that it's easier for people to see the market, themselves & their community as a potential solution.

There's so much literature out now as well, more than 200 years of economic & philosophical thought to draw on. Things are lookin good.

Just need to get past this religeous war with Islam and take advantage of the wide political divisions between conseravatives and liberals. A 3rd way using Liberty is the only realistic solution to bring back some peace & cooperation, the current way of alt-right vs SJWs is just going to lead to constant and accelerating conflict.

Yuri Bezmenov was right, freedom is the cure to idealogical subversion, the rest are basically useful idiots.

it's gold

the topmost of keks

>Nation-states would still exist in an anarcho-capitalist society, and is arguably the only way such a society would exist.

If you have nations, that means you have laws. So how is it really any different than what we already have?

You're a nationalist/lite-fascist. Like most sane people. All the best countries are like this. US, China, Russia.

I really don't see society & the market with a Libertarian culture (which is needed for a transition) directly immitating the state. Honestly the state is really shit at keeping society peaceful & cooperative long term and its pretty shit at resolving disputes. Court system and local government are shit and private alternatives have already been developed to help mitigate their incompetence.

Think first of things like credit ratings, rental blacklists & economic/social incentives and you clear up a majority of social disputes. The true stuff around force would have to be taken care of as well but even then its hard to imagine a market coming up with just a McDonalds police force & McArmy. I'd honestly be pretty excited to see what 7 billion people could potentially come up with as far as competing alternatives and innovation vs the current stagnant mess.

Have you read Molymeme's "The Stateless Society an examination of alternatives" it's a good starting point....and honestly if we just privatized & decentralized everything the state did I think it would be more efficient without even taking into account the various alternative ways to solve problems and innovations that could be possible.

I think markets would seek equilibrium in these areas but people have to go back to solving problems either directly and with much better third parties than the state. For example I like the idea of a contract rating agency, both free and paid that can be involved with employment and rental contracts as mutually agreed arbiters etc. Again though the current court system doesn't really protect us anymore, not from corporations (thanks government) and it can barely be used for neighbourhoods disputes. It's costly, it removes peoples ability to communicate problems and compromise with eachother and it gives us a really shit third party to defer all of our problems to. We can do better.

Yuri has foresight

youtube.com/watch?v=q-XVqpkGquc

Its more like every individual is their own governing body with with exception of independent capital and an NAP guiding social interaction in the court of public opinion.

Another great thing to look at is the history of social welfare. Have a look at the way Mutual Aid societies worked with lodge doctor practice & think just how easy it would be to cover the few truly poor people in healthcare no covered by insurance, mutual aid, savings, family etc.

freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

Then I think, how would we as a society and the market apply the same innovation and mass access to resources that we've done for iphones, the internet and how we used to handle healthcare etc, how would that be applied to police & law:

lewrockwell.com/2005/10/stefan-molyneux/the-stateless-society-an-examination-of-alternatives/

From there the possibilities just open right up. Would love to hear your thoughts, it's been a long time since I first read these articles and had my own interpretation.

Reminder ancaps are antifas, and didnt exist here just prior to the election. They are antifa shills. They are anti-state, which makes them anti-fascist.

sage

>If you have nations, that means you have laws.
Communities in Anarcho-Capitalist society would be formed by people who voluntarily live together in close proximity. The community, or collection of communities would be considered a "nation". Laws are determined by what this nations inhabitants considers moral or preferable. So if a nation does not want a product such as a drug, then this product and everyone in this nation who owns this product be removed or handled with. This can apply to specific people, such as one's with an ideological preference, or with any physical attribute like race. The way such rules are enforced are up to this nation's inhabitants.

I may have butchered that explanation, so I recommend you read that book I was talking about in my last post.

Why does he keep running up the stairs and towards the dude shooting him

>anyone i dont like is a shill
ancaps hate commies more than anyone else faggot

>he uses a poll with a sample size of a fraction of a fraction of Sup Forums's users as "proof"
Kek.

Post the proper one where Fasc duked it out with Libertarians & it was like a straight up 50/50, 40/40 + other result. Be realistic mate.

Because your propaganda branch is shit.

Meaning you fucks STILL can't decide what is essentiall AnCap reading material. Is it Atlas Shrugged of Gulag Archipelago, The Plight of Young Werther or Child Harold?

>Communities in Anarcho-Capitalist society would be formed by people who voluntarily live together in close proximity. The community, or collection of communities would be considered a "nation". Laws are determined by what this nations inhabitants considers moral or preferable.

So you still have the externality problem, then. And you also have a bunch of wars between your shitty little tribes.

Those aren't nation-states. They'll always be fighting with each other over resources and externalities. It's degeneracy.

Pic related to the solution to all these problems.

>anarchists hate commies!
>anarchists are your friend!

Youre Trudeau.

>post national state

So Canada.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=0IEQmuaJeew

Tl;dw: insurance/security companies

countries are independently-operating entities within an anarchic universe, therefore ancap already is the de-facto state of the universe and inescapable.

what's to argue about? why make a stupid flag about it? you don't have to argue for ancap just like you don't have to argue for gravity. you may feel like the world "should" be something else like communism, or you may feel like the world "should" be an-cap, but that doesn't change the fact that the world is already ancap, just like arguing about whether should or shouldn't be gravity doesn't change whether there is gravity.

tldr; you're all fucking idiots

youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

Competition it's the name of the game with or withouth goverment.

Anarchists are not libertarians. Bikelockfaggot was an anarchist.

not so fast statist!

Sooooo the state gets a new name? and a corporation nonetheless. Surely no corruption in this fantasy land

Trade proved to be more mutually beneficial than war & far less costly. The only thing keeping war going is that it's the lifeblood & necessity of the state. People cooperate peacefully within a nation all the time without police presence and that with really shit statist systems in place to keep the peace. That only really leaves if a state wants to invade and forcibly occupy the entire populace of an area which long term is impossible if there's not defined monopoly power structure to take over otherwise it becomes and endless bog that even the US wouldn't be able to win. Not even taking into account Libertarian propaganda would be an even better detterant or war-ender than Switzerlands plz trade motto.

I'm not completely convinced. A lot of your argument, at least to me, seems to be based around the whole "perfection is the greatest enemy of good" idea. Yeah the system we have sucks and has flaws but perfection in a system meant to maintain order is always going to have those that disagree with the way the system works.

To its credit, the free market does do a better job fixing issues than the government, because it needs to turn a profit, but none of that works without competition. Why, as a wealthy businessman, would I ever let any competitor raise up in the first place. If I'm the sole provider for widgets I have no need to improve my product, and if another person tries to start selling widgets I can just have him killed have all his shit robbed so and can't compete.

I'm honestly trying to look at this viewpoint as fairly as possible but whenever someone brings up a potential problem the whole "the markets will figure out the solution" doesn't really sell me on it. It just seems like the "can't somebody else do it" of ideologies.

>Those aren't nation-states. They'll always be fighting with each other over resources and externalities. It's degeneracy.
>implying this doesn't already happen between governments

>no a drop of blood
fake as fuck

I think a state military is necessary, but apart from that, I'm AnCap to the core.

> t. Minarchist

WOW. And I thought leftist memes were bad

I mean I consent to taxes to keep the courts running, fund national defense, and basic infrastructure things, but I never agreed to pay for single moms and old people who didnt plan well enough for their retirement.

The Machinery of Freedom

or better yet, just watch Robocop. it's the argument for why going halfway with state/capitalist solutions will fail, and why government authority must be abolished completely

Also the one I posted was from 2015, before the election. Before that, it was much more National Socialist. The one you speak of is from this year, pure cancer. Post Reddit invasions (2014&15) and post election. Worthless. It was also a straight 50/50 vote with no other choice.

Pic related in this post is from 2012, and the meme larpers of the time took part, which is why it had commies. Its their goal to make themselves seem more powerful than they are. I always avoided these senate threads like the plague, that was seen as Sup Forums tier crap. This is the best representation Ive seen of what old/pol/ was like, though.

to drive the point home: it doesn't matter how many trudeaus or obombyas or stalins your faggot country votes in. it doesn't matter whether ron paul, donald trump, hitler or qaddafi is running the show.

it's still all ancap whether you like it or not, because the imaginary things you call governments still exist within anarchy no matter how many layers of imaginary communist or capitalist systems you think there are.

it's all based on anarchy. these nuanced systems have evolved in the societal minds within that anarchy.

A lot of key differences.
> The state is a justified monopoly of violence
> A business does not try to justify it in the same way
> A business does not claim to be a geographical monopoly and owner above private property
> A business is subject to competition
> A business is subject to incentives
> Consumers of a business have recourse
> A business will never convince people to allow them to provide a service without proving proper checks and balances because we all have the same fear

Same thing with community alternatives, personal, familial & private alternatives not including businesses. There are a lot of key differences and if it just ends up turning into a state then wow we've come back to the same spot but with some imagined chaotic scenario inbetween.

Guy said it was 2012, but apparently hes wrong because it says 14 in it. Goes right along with what I said about it being Sup Forums tier, even the senate threads were just a cancer way for people to try and force non-national socialist ideologies on the board, and skew peoples view of what it was really like.

>> The state is a justified monopoly of violence

The state literally exists within anarchy.

Yeah they did, they just called themselves libertarian. Before Sup Forums is what it is today, it was a predominantly libertarian board. Are you really that retarded?

>it was a predominantly libertarian board
kinda like libertarianism was a common stepping stone for a lot of authoritarians and fascists. You don't actually think libertarianism is a matured ideology. LOL it's a middle point for evolving minds

The NAP. Ancap literally has more magical thinking than communism does.

Except Libertarian (Ron Paul) was #3, and accounted for. Youre the retard. Anarchists are not libertarian. The only thing you share in common is the yellow and black, thats about as deep as it goes. The rest is just "anarchy! Punch a Nazi!!!"

Commies are to Ancaps what ice is to fire. Commies are literally our complete opposite and mortal enemies. We worship Hoppe and Pinochet; dudes that advocate killing or otherwise physically removing degenerate communists.

Who look after the mentally ill and disabled?

ay i like this guy

>Why, as a wealthy businessman, would I ever let any competitor raise up in the first place
You would try to outcompete the competitor in terms of quality and prices of goods. I fail to see the problem with this. The potential competitor is still a threat, if you try profiteering and raise prices that competitor will gladly step up to undercut your business by offering lower prices or higher quality goods, and would be pulling in your customers.

Even if you were the sole provider of a good you still face competition. If I'm the only provider of soda in the entire planet, I still have to compete with water, milk, tea, juice, coffee, etc.

>I can just have him killed have all his shit robbed so and can't compete.
You'd then be attacked by his rights enforcement agency. Warring typically costs a lot of money and resources, a business that is directed by profit has no incentive to start unprofitable conflicts.

Competition can be healthy, or it can be unhealthy to the society at large. Government's job is to ensure that it remains healthy and not deleterious. It's a valuable role.

>Trade proved to be more mutually beneficial than war & far less costly.

Bahahah what? Look at any suitable parallel, like the Italian States period, for so many counter examples of this claim. See above: competition can be healthy or unhealthy. You need government to referee, and to hold a monopoly on the really extremely dangerous forms of force that technological society especially can bring to bear. The last thing we need is some tiny inbred gaggle of corporate collectivists building nukes to lob at their neighbors.

Governments become large enough to reach steady states. Warring factional tribes never do.

>not like my video games, must be fake

>IP addresses "voted" in a completely meaningless and maximally unscientific pixel battle that may or may not have ever happened

>no one gives a shit

nice flag faggot.

all of your team jersey flag labels are gayer than AIDs.

hyper autism is this LARPing flag waving shit. no one cares about your internet flags.

>we worship authoritarian states

No. Youre confused, thats all. You dont know what you are. Youre not an anarchist, and ANcaps are anarchists. They hate any state, they desire anarchy. No laws.

Libertarians desire a state to ensure their way of life and protect them. They want liberty, not anarchy. The ones around here want an ethnically pure society, too, and are willing to use force to achieve it. Thats not you.

Got a question for ancaps: What is your stance on usury?

When you're ideology has to use a non-argument to have anyone consider it as anything other then a joke. Individualism is for fags. If you wanna sit there playing with your butthole go ahead, real people are going to create a nation together and strive for something greater that lasts beyond their lives.

looks like he was a hitman sent to kill the older guy.

> "perfection is the greatest enemy of good" idea.
I'm not actually sure I understand what you're trying to say here.

> Why, as a wealthy businessman, would I ever let any competitor raise up in the first place
Always a strange objection to me. I mean the government is the biggest and almost sole entity for creating & maintaining 99% of monopolies. The reason why the government is so good at creating & maintaing monopolies is because there's little recourse, it's easily controlled by special interest, it is the only one that has the justified power to someone as big as violently enforce a monopoly on a continent.

It's not hard for me to imagine systems that discourage needless costly violence. Violence costs a lot of money unless you're using homeless kids like gangs do and keeping everything for yourself. Even then look at Molymemes idea of DROs with contract rating agencies. Would you kill someone if it meant no one would do business with you at all? Would you then just accept being part of the low rating black market or would you kill everyone until people decided to....buy fidget spinners from only you? Like lol how ridiculous of a scenario do we have to imagine?

> I'm honestly trying to look at this viewpoint as fairly as possible
> "can't somebody else do it" of ideologies.

Fair enough, that's cool. The reason why its brought up so much is because Libertarians are the opposite of central planners, the idea that society can be planned by a small group of individuals is beyond ridiculous, I mean see Hayek's The Use of Knowledge in Society to have that whole worldview open up like cathedral doors. Libertarians don't claim to know what solution suits 7 billion or 200 million or 24million people, it's amazing what people have come up with when they were free to do so, shit no one at the time could imagine, but we do use past & present examples for ideas on what is possible & then theorize what could be possible on top of that.

Its a National Socialist board. Nice Reddit spacing and general overall shitposting.. You will never be a Sup Forumsack, this clearly bothers you. Before you showed up, years before you showed up, we had flags, and if you posted this drivel youd receive no less than 8 responses telling you how to hang yourself in detail. Thats Sup Forums. Sup Forums wants you dead. Sup Forums cares about white genocide, and cultural marxism, and knows full well about kikes and their agenda. You need to go, back to your marxist shithole where you can cry about muh racism and how you wish you could #KillAllWhites

We only worship them for their practice of physical removal which hoppe theorized and Pinochet pioneered

wtf does that first bullet ricochet off the ledge and a fragment hit near the camera? why those sparks?

>free markets actually don't lead to prosperity
>it's actually good genes
wew lad, kind of demolishes the entire premise of libertarianism doesn't it?

>Poli-sci student fail bullshit that isn't any more workable in practice than communism.

You are literally living in anarchy.

>t. actual political scientist

>Government's job is to ensure that it remains healthy and not deleterious.
You're making a distinction between healthy and unhealthy competition but you're not actually explaining what determines whether it is "healthy" or not. Are you arguing that the government has fulfilled its supposed role? The government giving special privileges to businesses, bailing businesses out, granting subsidies, and regulating businesses is maintaining healthy competition?

Are you actually arguing that consuming resources to fight and killing your own workforce somehow raises society's standard of living? Do you also think that WW2 ended the great depression?

*yawn*

So how are you going to deal with declining white birth rates and the rise in savage birth rates?

Who manages communal property?

>You dont know what you are.
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

>They hate any state, they desire anarchy.
Reddit ancaps do. Most ancaps with sense like states that removed the enemys of a libertarian social order, such as pinochet.

>Libertarians desire a state to ensure their way of life and protect them.
The state is still comprised of people, they aren't omnipresent gods who are the only protectors in the universe. The state does not care for liberty, they only care for the state itself. Look at the transformation of America from it's conception to now for proof. Liberty can only be defended by the people who want it.

>They want liberty, not anarchy.
They clearly don't if they want a state.

>The ones around here want an ethnically pure society, too, and are willing to use force to achieve it.
Huh. And you think the state is going to help you do that? Ethno-states are perfectly possible in Ancapism.

> When you really want to live in a cyberpunk dystopia, but without the cool gadgets and cyborg implants

How is the ownership of resources defined?

With soda that analogy works because it's a beverage and there are multiple types but I'm referring to a wholly original product in its entirety. Let's say I am the sole provider and producer of cars, sure I have to compete with trains, plains, and bikes, but those serve largely different markets, and the independents afforded to those that have a car is priceless. I'm already swimming in money Scrooge mcduck style so who cares if I have to spend some cash to kill my competition, and who is to say I wouldn't just buy out his "rights enforcement agency's" contract so they don't bother me? Once I do it enough times people will relies that it won't work and stop trying.

Form communities with like minded individuals and block out non-desirables from entering such communities.

oh, kind of like a state?

why arent you in Somalia punk ?

Czech'd

We're anarchists in the sense that we don't want involuntary external governments. Not in the sense that we reject all order, civilization, and hierarchy. We're not postmodernists or moral relativists. We want a voluntary and stateless society, not chaos.

Ancap is a name we use because libertarianism became classical liberalism and anarchy became chaos.

The reason states produce tyranny for consumers and free market corporations don't, is because participation in businesses is optional. If an ISP becomes a tyrant in a free society, there is no state to enforce their monopoly. There's nothing forcing you to stay their customer.

The thing preventing corporations from tyrannizing workers is also voluntarism. Workers form labor unions (I.e. group negotiation companies) to negotiate mutually beneficial employment agreements with companies. The lack of a state prevents union tyranny over businesses.

BTW I'm actually something along the lines of a national capitalist. Basically if nazi germany were free market purists and funded the government with (theoretically voluntary) tariffs. Something like chile under Pinochet crossed with early America. No central banks and no fractional reserve lending combined with a free market in currencies would prevent (((userers))) from taking over the country and economy.

government inc. of course

State implies rule without consent.

It's funny you make this comparison, because the governments of the West are the most responsible for white genocide.

You realize that is in direct conflict with a core principle of AnCap, right? The right to self-ownership seeks to allow the individual to express their will freely - this includes moving about wherever they like.

>can't somebody else do it?

the more I think about libertarian/ancap ideas, the less I think of it as a hippieish "live and let live" ideology

we want humans to take decisive control of their surroundings. the core of economics is that resources are scarce, and we must choose how we use them.

market economics and private property are a continuous, systematic process of testing and changing who is in control of everything in our world.

it's more of a copout to say that a government should be in charge of some aspect of our lives

>why would I let any competitor raise up

government is the tool that established businesses use to shut out competitors.

in a market economy with no government to manipulate, an established business has some advantages over an upstart, but is much more susceptible to being overtaken

The owner of such property sharing for free. Or a group of people that shares ownership of that property.

>State implies rule without consent.
You just sound like a commie desu.