How would ancaps secure borders?

Seriously; what stops shitskins from paying the shitty little private road toll and toddling in? Are you willing to tolerate that in you society?

no retarded answers please

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nBuGpTOwQbM&t=2s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

To be perfectly honest some rich dude would probably buy a huge area of land, and secure the perimeter. Then he'd start renting that land to people he deems worthy and keep all the others out.

now you can't get out without the guy's permission. Nice.

Ancaps think what will happen:
>hurdur we are all armed so no one dares mess with us!

What will happen:
>invading army: "Attention! Start killing each other. The plunder will be given to all who survives after 3 days. If there are more than 50 survivors, we will nuke the whole city. Begin."

Rich guys will rent their private armies which will defend their "borders" or they will send them on shitskins to plunder their shit. It will looks like Caesar in his Gaul campaign

People can go wherever they want so long as they don't fuck with people and their property.
People effectively go where they please right now; your dipshit overlords aren't terribly effective at doing what they tell you they do.

>People can go wherever they want so long as they don't fuck with people and their property

at least I still have my NAP/Constitution!

>People effectively go where they please right now; your dipshit overlords aren't terribly effective at doing what they tell you they do

yeah, let's remove ALL remnants of the extant borders. that'll surely make things better

It's worse now. Government fucks more with people than anyone else.

say what you want, but government is the only party capable of solving this Soros-funded armageddon at this point

If there were no government Soros wouldn't be rich or able to influence jack shit.

>being this delusional
of course he could; he has net worth of 25.2 billion. even a fraction of that amount can command shitloads of rapefugees. you think he has to care about fucking NAP?

There's a thing called "standards".

>If there were
>wouldn't be
Can you read English?

i was addressing the "able to influence jack shit" part, the point being soros doesn't need the government to drive his goals through.


what comes to the "wouldn't be rich" part, i'm not totally sure how Soros got his money in the first place

there's a thing called profits. don't be naive, now

Mafias would take care of borders and "protection" services.

They wouldn't. Anarchy is a meme ideology that's just as dumb as communism. You don't even need to invoke rapefugees or external threats, all you need to do is consider that a mafia would eventually form and rule the place. That or any sort of stronger collectivist ideology, like religions.

>How would ancaps secure borders?
The market would fix it

He *DOES* need government. Without government he can't bribe bureaucratic goons to make laws to suit his interests, which is what he does now.
Soros got his wealth through government contracts. Also, the wealth of Soros is a tiny itty bitty fractions of the wealth of any given state's population. If all of the wealth and assets of the top 1,000 richest people in the country were added up they'd amount to some pathetically small percent of the value of the middle 10% of people's wealth.

Without gov, he would be an autocratic warlord.

Are you saying that the middle 10% will form some sort of group? How would this coalition be organized?

I don't care how they organize or even if they do. The state causes more death destruction and havoc than any non-state actors ever have. That's demonstrably true.

If you want answers to pragmatic questions, get them from people making pragmatic arguments and not moral ones. David Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom" will probably cover anything and everything you could possibly care to ask.

So you mean like a government.

There's a thing called consumers and boycotts.

And then the owner of land could contract with these small producers to receive a portion of their economic output in exchange for rights to the land

i love free markets

>Persons must pay the toll to pass
>Shitskins aren't persons
>???
>Profit

>talking about ancap
>no retarded answers

>everyone will sacrifice their own advantage voluntarily in this heavenly society:)

that's no way to address the free-rider problem

>David Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom"

lol what kind of simpleton is assured by that book

and seems like you kind of conceded that in practice this citizen coalition of yours is a utopian daydream

I don't want any coalitions - I loathe people. I want complete isolation. I couldn't care less what you do, since the consequences of your thoughts and actions are ultimately what you have to deal with and not what I have to deal with.

You haven't read a thing from it, so I can't imagine how you think you can substantively dismiss it as insubstantial.

This. Poor and stupid people are home bound.

Lol so silly. Soros will pay me and the other 10 anons 2 billions each to go and dump our trash on your land. Enjoy your utopia in isolation.

neat

Without government shitskins wouldn't have any money to pay for themselves.
They'd be forced to starve or live from crime, at which point they would be wiped out when the state wasn't there to save them.

a PMC blasts them on sight with a mini-gun after they step one atom of their being over the border onto private land thus violating the NAP unlike cuck state governments that let immigrants flood in to get more people dependent on them

You will never have complete isolation. It's just wishful thinking that crashes against reality really fast just like communism always does. Guess what happened to anarchist societies in the past? They got conquered by foreign armies.

Anarchism is a meme.

I don't care. Me liking not dealing with dipshits =/= expecting I'll ever not have to. Nowhere have I ever said I believe dipshit bootlickers will magically disappear in the future.

So you would like to implement an ideology that would inevitably collapse after a few weeks/months into some sort of permanent civil war shithole as opposed to what we have today?

Seems memetic.

>So you would like to implement
No - I don't want *ANYTHING* implemented. I'm going to live my life righteously until I die, and then I'm going to keep living righteously. I couldn't care less what you or anyone else does - I'm only railing against evil and sinful activity because I loathe evil and sin and because I'm commanded to rail against it. In the end, your sins are yours and not mine. You'll deal with them and not me.

You're not actually a libertarian. Responding with such violence in such a disproportionate way is itself a violation of NAP.

automated artillery strikes

that's no way to build a society, grow up

You can't even define society in concrete terms. You're a buzzword-spouting low-IQ dipshit.

>my ideology ends up in a clusterfuck, so I'll just call people names lol I loathe people anyways bc I'm so enlightened also, my IQ's high

sure thing, kid

>my ideology ends up in a clusterfuck
No; I don't think it does. I don't think anything is worse than a state, which commits more violence than any non-state has ever committed.

if you're satisfied with characters like Soros flooding the Western world with low-IQ niggers, that's fine. Most of history governments have prevented that shit from happening, and without border control, we would have already been annihilated by now

The only reason you're allowed to do that right now is because you live in a non-anarchist society. If there were no rule of law, no police, no nothing, you would be a slave to whatever ideology would surpass your weak ideology. For example, let's say a random religion or mafia started taking control of your town and decided that no paying them a tribute is "evil and sinful". That's how your ideology falls apart instantly because that's what's going to happen. A stronger ideology is going to subjugate the poor anarchists that are each one going their own way. I would love to live in a perfect anarchist or communist society but in reality this utopia is impossible.

>if you're satisfied
Governments import people and give them welfare.
You want more of that? Keep bootlicking.

>allowed
Nobody has any say in what I'm "allowed" to do. If you wanna stop me, feel free to murder me. Make me a martyr.
State =/= law.
youtube.com/watch?v=nBuGpTOwQbM&t=2s

Insurance companies employing defense forces to protect a given region.

Some conceptions also include a small standing professional officer corp. with civilian militia being called up when needed.

I think Mass defense insurance is probably the best bet though

Well, I didn't mean "allowed" in the legal sense or giving you permission to do something. I meant in the sense that you can find the time to post here and to whatever, which is something you won't have the time to do (not allowed) in an anarchist society since you'll be in a constant state of civil war against whatever group is trying to dominate said society

no government = nobody stopping shitskins from coming in

i'll apt for the government. I think we're getting nowhere

People can't go wherever they want if they have to cross other people's property. Public property doesn't exist in ancapistan.

Why does it bother you if "shitskins" come in? You're not forced to associate with them. Does seeing brown people in public really cause you that much disqualification?

>which is something you won't have the time to do in an anarchist society
I don't see why, given virtually all interactions between people take place without people pretending they have sole moral authority to enforce their arbitrary whims and pillage from the populace.

my private court says it's illegal to deny me health insurance, your says it's not. who decides?

you think there's no tipping point where there's too much aggressive low-IQ people in a society demanding your wealth?

Sure it does. I can maintain a park and open it to the public. It's my park so I decide what's done in it's regard, which can include letting anyone use it.
The park example itself is a really common occurrence.

> aggressive low-IQ people in a society demanding your wealth

Oh, you mean like most white people?

youtube.com/watch?v=nBuGpTOwQbM&t=2s

I'm not going to spend 30 minutes for that. I've seen Bob's lectures on private law, and I tried to infer your main argument based on that

There's a huge IQ gap between whites and niggers, don't be an idiot

You're delusional, dude. Private property owners are already renting out and selling their property to immigrants. In an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be just as much, if not more, immigration.

White people are just as anti-libertarian as, if not more anti-libertarian than, any other race. Immigration doesn't really change anything.

I already said why, in a matter of weeks or months you're going to have a mafia or some other group running the place. You'll end up being forced to abide by their law of the land or suffering the consequences. So you will always be at war with them in order to survive.

I think the best examples are either a Mafia that extorts protection payments from the populace, or some sort of religious groups that not only does the same but also enforces certain behaviors.

Ok. You can use your time how you want. If you know Murphy's arguments then you ought to have an answer.

yeah, it's not in your country a certain group drains an extraordinary amount of resources compared to other groups

Or you aren't.

>I think the best examples are either a Mafia that extorts protection payments from the populace, or some sort of religious groups that not only does the same but also enforces certain behaviors
So the state. You just described the state.

my argument would be that if there's no authority forcing you to go to a court to answer for your deeds, law loses its reinforcing power. if I can't force you to play by my court's rules, the same applies to you.

my argument would be that if there's no authority forcing you to go to a court to answer for your deeds, law loses its reinforcing power. if I can't force you to play by my court's rules, the same applies to you.

badly written, but shall suffice

fuck

A government doesn't own the land it governs, at least nominally. Neither did it acquire that land legitimately.

If a nigger steals your bike, does it become his rightful property as soon as he lays hands on it?

Yeah there is. You kill them or alienate them from your community.

>my argument would be that if there's no authority forcing you to go to a court to answer for your deeds, law loses its reinforcing power
You don't need authority to use violence. If Jim steals your TV and refuses to give it back, you go to a court. You present evidence that you own the TV and that Jim stole it. If Jim didn't steal it, it'd be trivial for Jim to refute the claim or difficult for you to provide evidence to the court that Jim stole your TV. If the court rules in your favor, big burly guys are probably going to be viewed by people as reasonably talking to Jim and asking him to give the TV back, and going in to take the TV if Jim is still an ass.

That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. It's what happens now except with some crazy religious reverence of government combined with the state being aggressively violent and extortionary.

Well the state is separated from religion but other than that yes. The thing is that this will be worse than whatever refined form of state you have right now. Only the people in charge of said group will be able to say what's right and wrong. No checks and balances whatsoever. That's the whole point, anarchism will result in the worst sort of statism very rapidly.

If you don't think some sort of mafia or other group wold form and take power, tell me why not? It seems like human nature to me.

The "might makes right" relativist retards will unironically sit there and conflate possession with property.

No - state worship is religious in nature. People think the state has special magical authority to fuck them and others in the ass and be their own moral enforcers.

I do not buy - at all - that if the primary perpetrators of death and violence weren't viewed as legitimate in perpetrating acts of violence and subjugation that things would get worse.

Yes it does you retard

That property that you think you own is being leased to you by the government

They can take it at any time they want

In practice, yes. Now address my nigger argument.

So anybody who can potentially take your property with violence owns it?

What a nonsensical view. A 7 year-old with a gun could kill you and take all your things. That wouldn't make them his.

Technically it would, if nobody challenged him on it.

No. That's not how property works.
I don't own your TV if I steal it from you. It's why we talk about your TV as *being stolen from you*, and not simply as my TV.
Jesus.

>read the whole thread
>no coherent answer to such simple fucking question
Jesus, what a joke the ankaps are

Recognizing the need or inevitability of a state doesn't mean you "worship" the state and that you consider it some sort of deity. Other than that you're not really disagreeing with me at all from what I understand.

Basically what I'm saying is that a Don Corleone will emerge from the anarchist system inevitably and that it will be worse to have a Don Corleone in charge than a State with lots of checks and balances. I'm not saying either of them are good and should exist in a perfect world. The perfect world would perhaps be anarcho transhuman communist but it will never happen, there will always be a Corleone or a Stalin taking the power and replacing the role of the State you have today.

>I don't own your TV if I steal it from you.

Yes you do dumbass. There isn't some omniscient principle governing property rights, it's enforcement that ensures your property is yours. In a system with no government, no courts and no laws, the only thing making your property yours is direct force enacting it as such.

There's no need to pretend some random people are legitimate in doing what no one else is legitimate in doing, which is violently subjugating and stealing from people. None whatsoever.

>If the court rules in your favor, big burly guys are probably going to be viewed by people as reasonably talking to Jim and asking him to give the TV back, and going in to take the TV if Jim is still an ass.

isn't there a huge risk of injustices here? Even in a semi-big city it's impossible to monitor how the courts rule and how these burly guys act. If some guys come and take my neighbors TV, I won't most likely be in a position to determine whether this act is just or unjust.

In addition, some Proudhonian socialist courts could see the TV thief as acting justly, because "PROPERTY IS THEFT hurr durr." Or, in a situation where half of the population sees healthcare as a human right, we'd be in an impasse.

>That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. It's what happens now except with some crazy religious reverence of government combined with the state being aggressively violent and extortionary.

Someone equipped with the authority to take your TV is capable of being quite aggressively violent and extortionary himself. Maybe the court made a mistake in declaring you guilty, but merely by deeming you as a thief, they assume themselves the authority to take your TV.
Furthermore, the justice system needs to use force somethimes, for people are not always reasonable

>Yes you do
That's nonsense. Relativistic nonsense. If you really believed that then you can't even talk about property, because property means nothing to you in the first place.

Jesus Christ everyone knows taxation is theft and shit but the point is that infringement's alternative is worse.

How the fuck is that relativistic? If you take something and nobody does anything about it, then it's yours. Everything you fucking own was somebody elses' in the first place.

Do you have any idea how many people you would need to kill in an anarchic system in order to keep your property?

>literal relativist view on property
>labeling others "relativist" for pointing out the only thing protecting property is the threat of violence from the government or yourself

you have to be trolling or stupid as fuck not to realize your own projection

>isn't there a huge risk of injustices here?
Not worse than what happens now. Since private courts don't have a monopoly they can't act with impunity or they'll eventually in all probability face backlash. Which is never something governments have to worry about - they can send people to prison for life for nothing and no one will ever be fired or punished or even known about because people have no recourse against state goons.

>In addition, some Proudhonian socialist courts
Yeah - some people are crazy. I'm advocating non-craziness everywhere, but I don't expect it. Nobody is arguing for a utopia here.

>Someone equipped with the authority
I think authority tends to be a buzzword. I'm not sure what you mean by it given how you're using the term. It's very possible for people to be wrong, but again read the first bit of this post.

>Jesus Christ everyone knows
No. That's is utterly wrong.

>If you take something and nobody does anything about it, then it's yours
NO. If I steal your TV, it's still YOUR TV. It's not MY TV - it's why I'm said to have stolen YOUR TV.

> Nuke the city so that the land is totally worthless to the invaders and all their time, money and effort spent has been completely wasted.

No suprise a commie has low time preference, btw what will happen in the theoretical communist society?

Since their guns will be taken by the state if they are indeed so lucky as to actually be able to abolish their state for true communismâ„¢ before it cucks them like Stalin. And of course commies don't actually believe in borders either as we've seen. Huh.

Do you accept that this would eventually happen in an anarchist society or not?

I base my understanding of property on how God treats property in the Bible. I don't see how you get more objective than God.

I can secure my own borders with landmines and MG nests. It's not really any of my business to force other people to not allow whoever they want to go on their property. I can socially and financially ostracize them but can't force them.

>making shitposting this elaborate

get a fucking life lol

>"I don't care if you niggers can afford it, I don't want you on my property. Trespassers will be shot btw"

Problem solved.

No - why would I? It could, but anything *COULD* happen. You could die in the next moment from a meteor landing on your skull. Acknowledging logical possibilities is trivial, and distinguishing between what's necessary and what's simply possible is logically imperative.

you really made me think

> in case of invaders
Everyone should have weapons and training in an ancap society
>in case of migration by not having gibs. There would be no way to stop low skilled labour other than explotation.

>NO. If I steal your TV, it's still YOUR TV. It's not MY TV - it's why I'm said to have stolen YOUR TV.

BUT IT'S NOT IN MY FUCKING HOUSE ANYMORE NIGGER, I DON'T OWN IT IN ABSENTIA WHEN I'M ROTTING IN THE GROUND AND YOU'RE WATCHING RERUNS OF THE MOTHERFUCKING RIFLEMAN.

>BUT IT'S NOT IN MY FUCKING HOUSE ANYMORE NIGGER
YOU'RE RIGHT - BUT IT'S STILL YOURS!
WEW
LAD

Then how come every anarchist society in human history has been swallowed whole by whatever statist society was in their vicinity or has not survived at all on its own whatsoever? That alone should be evidence enough that this will end up happening.

How would you go about start an anarchist society today?