Reminder that if you don't adhere to anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism, you are too dumb to understand economics

Reminder that if you don't adhere to anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism, you are too dumb to understand economics.

I bet you don't even know what Austrian economics is.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VH4HfmBgOYA
mises.org/blog/dont-confuse-private-prisons-free-market-prisons
youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I don't know shit about economics. One group says this is for the best, another group says the opposite is for the best. Enlighten us.

>what are roads

How the FUCK will ancaps ever recover?

How is that an argument? That's just an opinion.

Basically, free market economics from the austrian school say that the private sector WILL ALWAYS be more effective, productive. And the state is shit.

Anarcho-capitalism is just libertarianism taken to it's final conclusion with the help of the teaching of the Austrian School.

Any questions?

Also I don't like to insult right-wingers. We should leave that shit for the centrists/liberals/commies.

Then why are the overwhelming majority of economists in the US democrats who lean left?

>How is that an argument? That's just an opinion.
Are you dumb? He's saying that there needs to be a strong enough third party (the state) doing it

Also, pretty hilarious that ancaps and libs pretend they read ''basic economics'' but dismiss pivotal snippets of Adam Smith's works for example

But what's the proof of this? Not saying it's wrong, but how is it better? Wouldn't State-controlled policies ensure the average citizens don't get screwed over? What protects the people's interests?

How are legal disputes solved in an anarcho-capitalist society? Who decides what's lawful and what's not?

What currency would be used in an ancap society? If it was a barter economy wouldn't that leave it open to some serious abuses?

Let me explain is simply, then. It's actually a lot less complicated then people think. There are two dominant schools of economic thought:

>Keynasian economics
This is "mainstream" knowledge. All economists employed by banks and countries follows this school. What they believe is that you can optimize the economy and prevent recessions by doing stupid shit like manipulating interests rates and printing more money out of thin air. These are dirty socialists who only exist because they advocate for bigger government, which politicians like.

>Austrian economics
This school advocates that the healthiest action for the economy is to do literally nothing. Everything the government does only hurts growth in the long term, and doing shit like getting rid of recessions (which are a good and healthy part of the business cycle) is fucking retarded. These guys don't get government jobs because they want to get rid of the government, so nobody listens to them.

If you hear any central banker or "economist" on the news, then he's a dirty socialist keynesian.

>You've just gone to jail for reason.

>Instead of a state institution, you've somehow ended up in a private correctional facility.

>Said facility realizes they've no incentive to release or rehabilitate you. They make more money the longer you stay.

>Come up with BS reasons to hold you longer.

>True story BTW

So, be a cuck and chalk it up to the free market.

or

Realize that the market doesn't always have best interests in mind.

Profitable

There's enough empirical evidence for you to see how fuckable the goverment institutions are. Before I go to how good it is, I have to say that the state is very shitty.

Even the USA, the whole pinacle of freedom, is turning into a communist shithole. Trump might turn this around, but you'd need to solve a demographic crisis to achieve that.


Under a free market with no goverment regulation, the better your produce is ( from a private firm ), the better the quality and the lower the price, the mores success you have. This can be applied to anything. If you have a more specific question I'd be happy to answer it but I have to answer some other guys first.


There is nothing in that quote which supports his opinion, therefore it's JUST an opinion. If you can present his argument I'd be happy to answer.

The private society you live in. Anarcho-capitalism is inherently authoritarian, because you are the ruler of your land. If you want to live in a society where niggers are outlawed, nothing's stopping you from that.
Allthough all societies would have one law in common, the NAP ( Non-agression principle ) .

Whatever currency you'd like. The most stable currency would be used thanks to the invisible hand of the free market. Anyway, you should stare all your savings in something that has inherent value, not paper.
Under a state, the free market is a meme.

More (((efficient))) and (((productive))). GDP doesn't take into account what is being produced. Perfect competition assumptions are so off base (perfect information, people know what's good for them, more material wealth = greater human fulfillment ect...).

There's tons of arguments against an-cap/libertarianism and anyone who says " if you don't adhere to anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism, you are too dumb to understand economics." probably just finished an econ 101 course.

Become a Natcap user, learn the truths of politics/economics

...

...

Yeah I don't support that argument, but you haven't presented any too.

any private bank would be free to issue its own currency. This is called free banking, and has actually been successfully implemented several times across history.

You might wonder how this could possibly work, since who is the one who keeps the banks from doing irresponsible actions when they fully control the currency? The answer is: the free market. Anyone can issue their own currency. Thus, if you have the choice between a sleazy bank that prints more money and devalues the dollar, or a trusted bank that maintains a non-fiat gold standard, everyone is going to choose the trusted and stable one.

Government control over currency is nothing but a noncompetitive monopoly. Inflation via printing is literally theft, but there's nothing you can do against it because they make any competitor currencies illegal. Why do you think bitcoin is so hated by central authorities?

...

...

I only see one wrong line in this:
*all the bad people will be PHYSICALLY REMOVED because they are bad for bussines

I'd say that not everyone would choose the secure one, but the reasonable people will.

Freedom is eugenics. The white race exists thanks to natural selection. This is a message to national socialists.

What about market bubbles? How do you prevent a housing market bubble for example?

The bubbles are made because of the interest rates essentialy. The interest rates are artificially low, the private sector thinks therefore it's a great time for investments and not for savings.

When it pops it's chaos, but it has to pop at some point.

I'm not actually sure what the interest rates would be in an-cap society, probably every bank for himself I guess.

>anti-road leaf

>roads
Where we're going we don't need roads.

>There's tons of arguments against an-cap/libertarianism

If there are so many, why can't you even name one?

destructive bubbles are created by government actions. without government interference, the economy follows the natural business cycle of increasing growth followed by recession. Recessions are extremely important as they punish bad investments and inefficient business through bankrupcies.

But what happens when the government "props up" the economy by bailing out failing business and issuing cheap credit? Then a bubble forms. Stupid borrowers and noncompetitive business would normally close in regular intervals during recessions. But by being propped up (to "prevent a recession"), it gets delayed. Bad loans are kept around longer and longer. They keep stacking until finally the pressure gets too much, they all blow and lose all their money at the same time, and a depression is formed.

This is a problem that is literally only created by the government trying to "fix" shit.

I'm arguing against measures of efficiency and productivity using GDP as proof of the system's primacy. The argument hinges on the fact that people can properly value goods and services to the amount of fulfillment if offers them. What people are willing to pay is what something is "worth."

But people are mostly shortsighted, don't actually know what makes them happy, and are easily influenced by advertising.

we don't need ancaps too

Yeah. Capitalism isn't perfect. Anything more?
Also I don't believe in any measures of wealth other than how well can you live on a low income job.
Tell me that when your goverment collapses because of the debt almost every western country now has.

but don't high interest rates encourage savings; which act as 'clots' in the 'life-blood' of the economy, otherwise known as cash-flow?

okay, but banks depend on each other; and they invest in one another - so what happens when one bank fails due to bad debt?

GDP is not perfect, but it's a fine approximation and I'm not aware of other competing quantitative measures that do its job better. If you're not going to bring up an alternative then you don't have an argument here.

I mean no shit nothing is perfect. But it doesn't have to be, it just has to be good enough and superior to all alternatives. It's like the retarded argument that perfect market knowledge doesn't exist. Yeah, and? It doesn't have to. Nobody has perfect knowledge or execution of anything. It simply has to be good enough.

>economists don't know economics

Savings doesn't stop economic growth. Our point is that the interest rates must be dictated by the state of the market, not by goverment. Pic related.
All the current "economists" are just a bunch of keynesian faggots brainwashed by the state public education. Their theory has empiric evidence of not working.

Yes, however there is obviously a point that is ideal that is not too high or too low.

Ultimately it should be decided by the free market

I think its far less than perfect. I think wealth always aggregates and what you get is a system of corporate entities where human work is so compartmentalized that there is no room for moral decisions. Profit becomes the primary objective and everything that gets in the way of that (family values, rural living, community bonds) will be acted against in service of increased profits.

I would also like to add that savings aren't bad. That money is being given interest because it is being spent by the bank and to make itself money.

the other banks lose their investment. If they invested too much, they would also go bankrupt.

Thing is, nobody is forcing them to invest in one another. Remember, this is a free market system. Some banks will invest dangerous amounts in one another, and other will not. Same thing with fractional reserve lending. Each bank will have a choice of whether to take the risk. If a customer values safety over high returns, they would choose a non fractional-reserve bank. If they didn't, they would go with the fractional-reserve one, but would have to deal with increased risk of losing their deposits. Every single policy will be available on the market, and customer choice will whittle it down to the most optimal and desirable for everyone, instead of incompetent government trying to half-assedly achieve the same goals using regulations.

They'd probably be hanged for stealing from people. Essentialy, under a free market NEVER put your money in a bank where they store only a fraction of your money.

It goes like that: a bank takes a 1000 of your money, stores 100. Gives 900 as a loan. The society now has 1900 but only 1000 real money.

Only believe banks which CHARGE for storage.


"I think wealth always aggregates" First off, what proof do you have of that? Second off, wealth isn't a zero sum game.

>just a bunch of keynesian faggots brainwashed by the state public education
Stop. Even if you disagree with these people you can't deny that these people know the field far deeper than anyone else on the face of the earth and are many times smarter than you or I.

>Their theory has empiric evidence of not working.
Isn't one of the main distinctions between most Austrians and mainstream economists that Austrians reject econometrics?

I don't care if they're smarter if they support a system which has led us to multiple crises. The difference between you and me is I support removing communists and socialists.

The second one I don't really care for. I just used it as a shorter argument so I don't have to write out the whole Austrian theory.

Mmmmh, okay, but how does a free-market society deal with fraud? I'm not trying to be a dick btw, this is actually really interesting; but I'm not sure how the ordinary person can deal with so many terms of service, and by laws and shit? Also, who can you turn to if someone screws you over? You would have no money left? Thus no means of retaliation in an an-cap society?

National Protectionist Libertarian here!
Reporting for duty.
God bless the white race.

>Even if you disagree with these people you can't deny that these people know the field far deeper than anyone else on the face of the earth and are many times smarter than you or I.

Is an Islamic scholar correct about his interpretation of the world because he knows the quran far better than you? Is his great education or knowledge of the field a mark of his wisdom and understanding of the world and reality?

No. Just because somebody is passionate about a subject and knows all its intricacies, it doesn't mean he's right. It's true that these economists have an excellent understanding of keynasian economic theory. The issue is that keynasian theory is fundamentally wrong, and thus this knowledge is worthless. It's like asking an expect in Newtonian physics to explain general relativity.

What you're doing is appealing to authority. You think that since governments are so big and strong, they must know what they're doing. That is incorrect, as history proved time and time again.

I would also curiously like to ask the an-caps thoughts on the EU at this moment, if you please? I have heard conflicting theories on the EU; socialists say the EU is too free-market; whilst free-marketers have said the EU is too socialist. Can someone please elaborate? Thanks in advance.

I take a great interest in explaining this philosophy to people, as it's libertarianism taken to it's final conclusion ( Taken from Christophercantwell.com - has a great show ) so even if you were a dick I'd still argue.


Anarcho-capitalism is based on private property and the NAP. So if there's millions of private property owners and each one of them can make their own rules, the society with the best rules will succeed the most. This is the argument against degeneracy essentialy.

Doesn't mean degenerate societies wouldn't exist, but they'd be segregated.

Law would PROBABLY be different in every single private society.
You should watch for yourself. youtube.com/watch?v=VH4HfmBgOYA

they do charge for storage, just not to you.
they use your money for loans, and the loans themselves bring in revenue in the form of interest. your payment is letting them use your money for profit. and loans are not that detrimental to society; having money right now is much more valuable than having money later, thus the interest.

the problem with this system is when banks are unregulated and they can ask for your kidney as interest.

>Reminder that if you don't adhere to anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism,

thats all fine JUST so long as it is entirely based on the NAP

>but how does a free-market society deal with fraud?
A free market system is based on trust. Before government regulated foods, for example, the free market self regulated by the introduction of brands. Food brands that were clean and did not poison their customers gained public trust, while those that did not eventually failed. There was a natural selection towards trusworthy food producers.

The same thing works for fraud. If a company becomes known for being fraudulent, they will lose business. Competitors then will pride themselves on their honesty and introduce policies to increase trust. For example, return policies. Remember, these policies were introduced spontaneously by the free market. They were not regulated in.

>who can you turn to if someone screws you over? You would have no money left?
You should always have money left unless you're an absolute retard. Remember, any purchase is a risk. If you aren't prepared to lose it all, then you'd pay a little extra for a safe company instead of a cheaper one. It's all risk vs reward.

If there was a truly huge miscarriage of justice, then you'd have to get dispute-resolution companies involved. But that's a far bigger topic.

The problem with this system is that if everyone would just ask the bank for say 20% of their savings and they only stored 19.5% it would go bankrupt. Let the free market decide.

I think the EU is a Germany owned, "fascist" regime designed to make us not only look like niggers, but through their economic reform to make us as poor as niggers.

I'd live in a private society with no communists, socialists or democrats.
And yeah.

reminder that libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion is georgism/geolibertarian/geoist and no ancap

I don't give a fuck about economics if it destroys my soul. Get fucked, mammon-seekers.

>Is his great education or knowledge of the field a mark of his wisdom and understanding of the world and reality?
No because he hasn't been educated in an objective understanding of the world and reality hes only been educated on the Islamic perspective.

>Just because somebody is passionate about a subject and knows all its intricacies, it doesn't mean he's right
I agree in principle but in reality its hard to imagine that the people that understand the field the best have got it all so wrong.

Also don't most economists subscribe to neoclassical theories which includes only certain elements of Keynesian economics?

>I have heard conflicting theories on the EU; socialists say the EU is too free-market; whilst free-marketers have said the EU is too socialist.

this is actually a pretty complex issue one could write an essay on. The issue here is the difference between free trade vs protectionism, centralization vs decentralization, and regulation vs deregulation. The EU has difference and sometimes contradictory positions on these. It's not as simple as being just free market vs not free market.

The EU itself aims to be centralized, protectionist, and heavily regulated. By most standards it's fairly socialist.

Whatever, I can at any point dismiss this argument as argument to authority.

What specific criticisms do you have of mainstream economics?

>A free market system is based on trust.

This is not true. Free markets allow for a multitude of options to be tried to find one that works despite trust.

>I agree in principle but in reality its hard to imagine that the people that understand the field the best have got it all so wrong.
This has happened multiple time in history. Hell, here's a contemporaneity example: multiculturalism. Is multiculturalism good because the majority of government experts think so? Of course not.

That it can be discarded just by proving how inflation hurts.

That they made my country into a national-socialist state where it's riddled with corruption and poverty and white niggers.
Yeah but trust is built along the way. I think someone wrote a book about a society on the moon that was like "WTF? How can you trade with someone if you don't trust them?".

it doesn't count land as a unique factor in production and doesn't have a way to deal with common resources

>What specific criticisms do you have of mainstream economics?

You don't need empiricism to know that 2+2=4. By the same token, you don't need it to understand laws such as diminishing marginal utility.

As a matter of fact, it's entirely wrong to use an empirical approach as its proof or foundation. These things are within the realm of the a priori.

>>Milton Friedman

>Chicago School

>Not Austrian

if there's no trust then not a single transaction can be made. If you can't trust the other person to keep his word, then how exactly are you suppose to exchange goods and services for anything? You always need at least some trust in order to engage in trade.

Remember that trust is quantified in the free market. It's represented by factors like personal credit and brand name. If a company acts unethically, it damages their brand. A brand that is damaged too badly loses consumer trust, and eventually will be unable to conduct business.

I would agree that I'd RATHER tax land than tax improvements.

If I were to choose, I would rather choose a tax on land than say a tax on work.

mises.org/blog/dont-confuse-private-prisons-free-market-prisons

You are conflating "private" prisons as you know them under the jurisdiction of a state and truly private prisons.

Dafuq does the free market determine interests rates without any central bank?

The bank that gets it right ends up not fucking their customers = ends up the most rich and being rich is a success.

What is ancap art like?

youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

>Dafuq does the free market determine interests rates without any central bank?

>Stockholm Syndrome for this long

It's just like setting any other price.

AnCaps hearts are in the right place. But their way is flawed. Massively.
LfCap>AnCap and it's because Minarchism>Anarchism

Any Rand all but debunks AnCap in her book "The Virtue of Slefhishness". Here is a collection of Anarchism-related quotes. aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

Reminder
Right>Left
Capitalism>Socialism
NatCap>NatSoc
NatSoc=GloSoc
Meritocracy>Democracy
Libertarian>Authoritarian
Libertarianism>Egalitarianism
Objectivism>Libertarianism
Objectivism>Subjectivism/Relativism
Egoism>Altruism
Individualism>Collectivism
Individualism>Statism
Nationalism>Globalism
Anarchism>Totalitarianism
Minarchism>Anarchism
LfCap>AnCap
Conservative>Progressive
Liberal>Fascist

>If I were to choose, I would rather choose a tax on land than say a tax on work.

Regardless, free markets do not have taxes.

the government should exclusively use ground rents as a means to gain revenue

why should we ever tax labor made things? The land was given to us by god and everyone should be compensated, in the form of a citizens dividend, from being excluded from prime locations since the title to them is a monopolistic state granted privilege. Law made property and allodialism is the cause of inequity in all modern societies.

Flying cars will be real soon and you will feel silly for those posts.

>austrian economics
>muh equilibrium
>muh macro is derived from micro
Logical fallacies: the theory.

Fuck off, Randroid.

Just to be fair; most people aren't intelligent enough to deal with complicated issues of fraud, or in a grander aspect, monopolies. I think of it like more of a hive-mind situation; not everyone can be educated on the complexities of terms of service, and whatnot. It sounds basic I'm sure; and I'm also guessing you guys have an answer for it; but how do free-market societies combat monopolies? (I'm just getting into this free-market philosophy; give me a pardon there).

Mine is that it does not Ayn Rand hard enough

its compensation for exclusive use of the commons its the collection of a rightful debt not a tax

>its compensation for exclusive use of the commons its the collection of a rightful debt not a tax

It doesn't qualify as commons on account of how land ownership is derived. Therefore, it is a tax.

Easy. The market decides. Only liberals support
"modern art" and most liberals have no money and rely on conservatives for their tax dollars. So conservatives would decide what gets the most money.
Give me ANY argument. ANY. If you read that book than give me ANY of her arguments against an-capistan.
As long as you don't do anything to my property I don't care about your ideology really.
Show me ANY of the fallacies leaf.
I'm sure my friend here will write a longer explanation but basically: All current monopolies are created by a goverment and if there were any monopolies under the free market it means the monopoly is providing the best quality service for the lowest price. So it's all good.
Air cannot be owned, land can. There are NO right TO. There is only freedom. And freedom is FROM something.

>on account of how land ownership is derived

flying the ancap flag and being okay with state granted privilege? are you familiar with the Lockean proviso?

I posulate that Rand is the second greatest Philosopher in history next to Aristotle.
The reason Commie's both deride and memory hole her is because they experience the gut wrenching realization that Objectivism is the greatest threat they have /ever/ encountered. As it represents the American Constiution epistemologically completed; the rejection of the primordial evil that is Altrusim that it lacked.

>Food brands that were clean and did not poison their customers gained public trust, while those that did not eventually failed.

But what about the people who got food poisoning? Just sacrifices to the altar of the free market?

>how do free-market societies combat monopolies?
The answer is actually a lot simpler than you think: they won't exist. All monopolies are formed by governments. If a field is deregulated, then it's impossible to corner, because anybody can start a business for no cost, thus creating competition. By increasing regulation, you increase the cost of creating competing business, making them so few and far between that buying out the competition becomes a viable strategy.

The whole free market = monopoly is just government propaganda. The more government tries to regulate a market, the more monopolies will form.

>flying the ancap flag and being okay with state granted privilege? are you familiar with the Lockean proviso?

Perhaps you misunderstand; I'm refuting the notion of the Georgist land "tax" on Lockean grounds.

Nothing is state granted. The state can only take.You think people don't get food poisoning today?
Jesus what an idiocracy we live in.
WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO DIE BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HEALTHCARE IS SHIT? JUST SACRIFICES TO THE ALTAR OF THE GOVERMENT?

>Lockean grounds

ancaps only like certain Locke quotes. Goergism is 100% congruent with natural rights

>I posulate that Rand is the second greatest Philosopher in history next to Aristotle.


Yes, you're a fucking randroid. Only randroids say retarded shit like this. Most philosophers are better than Rand.

You're about to sit here and tell me that Rand, whose "objectivism" is clouded by Nietzsche, is better than, say, Kant, or Wittgenstein, or even G.E. Moore? You need to find another author to read.

You don't have to be a fuck, faggot, I was just asking a question.

Yeah, people still get food poisoning now, but wouldn't cases of food poisoning grow exponentially without some regulation?

>ancaps only like certain Locke quotes. Goergism is 100% congruent with natural rights

I'm sorry, but it isn't. Homesteading unowned property is how land is acquired. I admit that you can have public property that would fit within your "tax", but that land can also be acquired by individuals and have exclusive natural rights to it.

Ok, sorry then.
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Maybe they would grow for some time and then start dropping.

I think the primary consumer is the shop and not the customer, so a shop's duty as a private firm is to get the best produce. Since a shop will often be smaller than the manufacturer ( or not, maybe just some of the time ) it will be much more easy to boycott it and cause it to go bankrupt if it supplies food which causes food poisoning.

>Show me ANY of the fallacies leaf.
An economy cannot be in an equilibrium as it is in constant change and is not a static model.
Austrians also completely ignore debt, which is a crucial part of capitalism when it comes to their models, according to you the 2008 financial asset bubble was perfectly normal as the value of those assets corresponded with their subjective value.

According to you, land becomes private property when you mix labor with it?

You are mixing what is yours with what is not yours in order to own the whole thing.

this notion is filled with problems. How much labor does it take to claim land, and how much land can one claim for that labor? And for how long can one make that claim?

According to classical liberals, land belonged to the user for as long as the land was being used, and no longer. But according to you, land belongs to the first user, forever?

So, do the oceans belong to the heirs of the first person to take a fish out or put a boat in? Does someone who plows the same field each year own only one field, while someone who plows a different field each year owns dozens of fields? Should the builder of the first transcontinental railroad own the continent? Shouldn't we at least have to pay a toll to cross the tracks? Are there no common rights to the earth at all?

To you there are not, but classical liberals recognized that unlimited ownership of land never flowed from use, but from the state

>wouldn't cases of food poisoning grow exponentially without some regulation?
No. Here's an easy example: you hear on the news that food from Company X caused widespread food poisoning. Are you going to avoid their food now? If you are, then there you go, the market is self regulating. The poisoned products will damage the company, they will lose business, and they will gain an incentive to introduce measures to ensure food safety.

There is a scenario in which you are correct, and that if people don't care about being food poisoned. If there is an outbreak, but customers don't care and sales don't suffer, then yes, there may be more outbreaks, because the market didn't punish the offenders. But then you must ask, if people really don't care, then why does it have to be enforced in the first place? Obviously in their mind it's worth it, and thus it's the moral and correct standard to maintain in the market. Some people might be perfectly happy to buy ultra-cheap foods that also have a high chance of making them sick. But that's their choice. Other people have no right to prevent them from making that choice.

>Give me ANY argument. ANY. If you read that book than give me ANY of her arguments against an-capistan.
Certainly.

First a quote then my own prose on it's nature.

>A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.
>Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.
>One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately.

It is clear that Rand is arguing from Minarchy. I for get the exact wording but in another book, "Capitalism The Unknown Ideal", she expands on why goverment actually -should- have a monoploy, yes a monopoly, on the roles it is actually supposed to embody. And this is not her approaching statism as it can be found that, it fact, it is the AnCaps that are opperating from the ststist original premise. AnCap-ism rejects this notion, worse it does not even address it.

fff