This thread is dedicated to the discussion of anarcho-capitalism, all facets of its implementation, and all other aspects of the ideology.
Anarcho-capitalism is Libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion. It advocates for a nation comprised of individuals + private property, with no central planning or government. It's operation depends on the market to control itself, being fully free and laissez-faire, and the non-aggression principle.
A few common arguments against it: >muh roads As it stands now, private companies already build the roads. Problem is they do it on government contracts, using government standards. They take their sweet time because that's how their contracts work, and they have no incentive to innovate and drive costs down. If the "government" factor was removed from the equation, contracts would be awarded via auction, which would encourage quality, innovation, and a hastened schedule, not to mention the lowest possible cost for the best of all three. As for the actual construction, and usage caveats, it would come down to the property owner. But the invisible hand of the market would also force the owner to offer the service in the way it is needed (whether it be toll or not).
>muh freedoms (/ muh laws) Good explanation here: (Archive: pastebin.com/K5z2F1Ew) This also covers "the state", and partly why communism will never work (in any spinoff).
>minarchism is better Maybe. It's easier to start with minarchism than ancapism. But power inevitably gets hoarded, and you're right back to square one (see "big government"). Though the two are at-odds, they both look at the same problems. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see which is better (my guess is ancapism, only because of the lack of centralized power).
>taxation is the price of participating in society Not when it's taken from your paycheck without your consent before you get to see a dime. Rent isn't taken out of your paycheck, and is the cost of living on somebody else's property.
>muh child labor Child labor was a thing when the economy was awful, and families could not afford to feed everyone. Yes, it would be an option in an AnCap society, but it would not be child slavery (violates NAP), and would only be in practice if the child wants or, or the child needs to.
Blake Lee
Bump
Parker Martinez
hmmm
Bentley Cook
really gets the brain thinkin...
Nathaniel Morgan
>that flag
Tyler Brooks
>"my philosophy" >taking someone's butthurt opinion as a standard for every other person's beliefs
You really must try harder than that.
Kevin Turner
>le not real socialism mémé Name one example of a ancap society
Colton Parker
Historically speaking, there's only been one attempt, and it's going on right now.
However, keep in mind that it's not AnCap. It's mostly just a libertarian thing.
Nicholas Brown
>what if the child consents? you get to argue that in front of a judge or maybe even a jury. and they will find in favor of the victim, just like they do today, except we wont spend taxes on beauracrats to slow up the process I have often found it is communists who argue that ancaps are secretly pedos. perhaps this is projection from the recent NAMBLA/antifa connection?
Anthony Thompson
>in other words what do you mean other words? >I couldnt actually find the words so Ill just make it up hitler did not believe in sutplus theft. fact
Chase Lee
A good point to make, actually. Molestation has serious and permanent psychological effects on the child, which has been scientifically catalogued. So even if the child consents, you are harming the child during a period in mental development where they are functionally incapable of making the proper decisions.
Chase Carter
You could have at least posted the usual recommendations...
Jonathan Mitchell
First time creating it, usually late to the game. Didn't have all the fun pre-assembled materials.
Thank you, user.
Christopher Moore
And why did it change from /lrg/ to /acg/ anyway? "Libertarian Right" seems a bit broader and at least includes minarchsim for example
Levi Hughes
...
Ethan Reed
...
Kayden Ward
I'm curious, how would this whole system be resolved from the perspective of a moderate Libertarian who still accepts things like taxation?
(the system of debt-spending that enriches bankers and is apparently impossible to escape from).
A socialist would argue this is proof that we need heavy tax on people that run these exploitative systems so it can be redistributed back to the people.
A Libertarian would argue, I suppose, that people should stop worrying about what others are doing and focus on finding their own route to joining the wealthy? That's a good individual philosophy to have, but it means you'd either be preaching the acceptance and ignoring of exploitative systems, or alternatively don't consider that this is exploitation but just clever capitalism from banks and people can stop playing the bankers' game when they want.
I generally favour Libertarian principles and am trying to understand Libertarianism and Ancap.
Ryder King
a child can definitelyy not consent before it reaches puberty. and even after reaching puberty it needs to know what it is gettign into. a guy couldnt just ask a girl if she wants a lolly, and then stick his dick into her mouth when she says "yes"
Matthew Mitchell
Name one example of a successful communist society
Evan Bennett
nazbol is a disease.
Anthony Perry
The problem with heavy taxes, is it only works as long as people are willing to pay, or you can keep them where they are. So the socialist also has to implement violence, which leads to its own collapse.
As for the libertarian style, the entire philosophy is egoism. Help yourself, and in the process you help the world. Exploitative systems only stay in place through violence (t. socialism), monopoly (see "Government Interference in a Market"), or willful ignorance (never seen it happen before).
If a bank is being shady as fuck, in an ancap society (or even a libertarian society), you can just find another bank. When enough people do this, it'll go bankrupt, and the entire market is better off.
Vote with your wealth. That's the most powerful weapon in a libertarian society (especially AnCap), because everything you put into the system makes all the difference.
Samuel Anderson
A Bolshevik posting propaganda saying libertarianism is a product of Judaism
He's making it too easy
Jeremiah Cruz
...
Aaron Sanders
...
Elijah Wood
Here's what I genuinely don't understand. If an anarcho-capitalism system depends on the market to "control itself" and a "non-aggression principle" then how are these enforced? What is preventing the advantage of the stronger from controlling the system, either economically or with violence?
Example of what I mean would be a company like Facebook. They stole Snapchat's idea for "stories" and put it on an app they own, Instagram, and within a couple of months already had far more users because they owned the larger established network. A free market is supposed to defeat a monopoly through competition but that is the point of the monopoly, it can stifle competition to the point where it will not be defeated and regulation by the state can limit this.
Additionally what do you do about military power? If the state were abolished how do you prevent whoever controls the greatest amount of military force from establishing a new one?
Cooper Perez
Who will build the roads?
Gabriel Scott
>What is preventing the advantage of the stronger from controlling the system
what is preventing it now? Other people who dont want to see people with antisocial personality disorder to rise in power. education, so people are aware that is in their on best interest to not let people like that get away with what they do.
Jeremiah Phillips
I'm an anarchy ball now inshallah
David Cox
Threadly reminder that ethnic communities are okay under an Ancap society
Joshua Anderson
ISIS I hear they do great work.
Juan Sullivan
Dumbass just post this in /lrg/. Absolutely no sense in making so many similar generals.
Alexander Clark
our plan is to resurrect hitler. he will biuld roads who will last atleast 1000years for the future. then we kill him before the natsocs think they can takeover.
Colton Roberts
If a single company can serve an entire market, no company can do better, and every customer is happy, that's fucking amazing! It's also very hard to do, arguably impossible.
However, let's look at your example, Facebook v. Snapchat. If Facebook does a better job, what's the problem? The market regulates itself because people want stuff, and people are willing to provide it. That gives way to competition, which is the reason why you've got a laptop that's as good as it is, and a WiFi connection as fast. If Snapchat wants that market power, they need to do a better job.
As for military, that was touched somewhat in the archived thread, but I'll cover it here:
You run the risk of takeover, regardless of what ideology your country subscribes to. The US could invade a big list of countries tonight, but they don't because some combination of: alliances (with or by association, or they have bigger allies), it doesn't sound like fun right now, it's not economically tenable, there's no point, etc.
In the event someone comes knocking, the ancaps will defend themselves however they are able. If they lose, they can revolt, or adapt. Same thing with any other invaded country. >muh McNukes™
David Johnson
Take the Hoppe pill or get in the oven.
Robert Flores
>education, so people are aware that is in their on best interest to not let people like that get away with what they do.
I think that is the problem though. This whole thing hinges on people being educated and aware enough to know what is in their best interest. It depends on individuals to enforce all these principles. The reality is individuals are flawed and easily convinced of incorrect things and things not in their interest at all. And that persuasion often does not come from the state. The internet is the greatest resource of information and education we've ever had and look how little people take advantage of it and how much they still disagree even when they do
Charles Bailey
(cont.) The only way to keep a monopoly in power is to do what I laid out, or have the state prop you up with cash and laws (banks, etc. Think of every bailout the US has ever done, those would've all failed in ancapistan). The latter, obviously, couldn't happen in the ancap world. But that's why it exists today, because of those same regulations you say help. They prevent competition.
Thomas Taylor
Reminder that all these smear attempts by commie, cyrpto-commie, and NatSoc shills of Ayn Rand are borne out of their gut wrenching realization that Objectivism is the greatest threat they have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy. ALL of the andversaries she descibes in her novels are EXACTLY what Sup Forums describes as the sterotypical kike. Kikes exist but Rand is quite literally the most based jew to ever live. I do not exaggerate. Reminder that AnCapism means well and is certainly preferable to statism but is utterly inferior to Laissez-faire Capitalism. LfCap>AnCap for the same reason Minarchism>Anarchism. Read a little of this lexicon to discover why aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html Also know that Libertarianism is incomplete Objectivism. Objectivism without the epistemology. youtube.com/watch?v=erytcpYpzRk Objectivism is Nationalist, Capitalist, Individualist, Egoist, Libertarian, Minarchist, and Meritocratic all rolled into one. Reminder that Cultural Marxists are terrified of Ayn Rand as she represents the American Constution completed. Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded.
Debate me.
Easton Sullivan
This. The only Libertarian pill greater than the Hoppe Pill is the Rand Pill.
Anthony Martin
OP, why post this thread and not a libertarian right general?
this This Is John Galt Speaking btfos communists and NatSocs in equal measure, that's why they hate her so much. Ayn Rand may be Jewish, but she's less of a kike than Hitler was
Sebastian Ward
/Lrg/ is supreme /acg/ must go back!
Samuel Edwards
>commies in charge of misinformation
(You)
Luke Butler
My fucking nigger. Now that we have flags (I do not like the notion) I wish Objectivism had a flag.
>"We take as our symbol the moral of the $" Something along those lines. Personally I would do a white dollar on black background as I have a boner for minimalism and monochromatic shit.
Zachary Ross
Cool kids go to /lrg/. This thread smells like Reddit Libertarians.
Bentley Jones
>commie >trying to blame others for being Jewish
Jace Smith
ANCAP TRAP THREADS WHEN?!?!
> human action = the fulcrum between the natural and rational
> antrap action = the respite between the eternal vagina and the mgtow wizardfest
>QED
I've been reading up lads, it's been awesome so far... I've never been interested in any philosophy before.
Cooper Rogers
Honestly, Rome was pretty close to Ancap.
Colton Brooks
/lrg/ is a sad man's attempt to adapt the libertarian mindset to the the NatSoc ego, and in your quest you become just as blinded. Take your Pinochetian aberration back to your containment board.
Don't get me wrong, you can do what you want on your property. But Hoppe's ideas go both ways, and that is why pure Anarcho-Capitalism is superior.
David Collins
Libertarians are just civic nationalist faggots
Carson Baker
Somalia
Wyatt Carter
* Somalia is an example of a failed state, not an example of anarcho-capitalism * Somalia actually has a govt now * Compare apples with apples - even in that period where Somalia had no government, it actually improved faster than similar/neighbouring countries in many HDI indicators and had a booming telecommunications industry
Justin Hernandez
...
Caleb White
Read the Lexicon I mention in To discover why Minarchism is superior to Anarchism.
Connor Thomas
>anarcho capitalist >anarcho >had a government and later and emperor
Liam Gray
Though I appreciate the free (You), minarchism devolves to statism eventually.
Lincoln Stewart
Fuck off crypto leftist, we are the pure Anarcho Capitalists. The way you call us Nazis shows it.
Samuel Thomas
It's you Hoppe faggots that are memeing up the libertarian ideals. Spoiler alert, Pinochet is not a role model for the NAP.
Angel Rogers
Wasted
Elijah Reyes
fqbq
Logan Lee
Anarcho-Capitalists, persuade me to follow your ideologies, is this anarchism but simply better?
Now, I'm not meming or shit-posting or something, I just want a real good statement that does a damn well good of explaining how this is the best ideology/political party.
Logan Hughes
/ancap/ is just globalism fuck anarchy, go nationalism!
Jack Turner
From your guys' perspective, of course.
Logan Baker
Ancap without Hoppe is just autism
Angel Sanders
Nations are natural and don't require the Nation state.
Jordan Flores
Anarchism is just the absence of government. Anarcho-Capitalism is what happens when you let the people make their own choices. You give them basic rights (Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), and let them do their own thing. The market regulates itself without interference, so you will see rapid changes in the quality and availability of goods, because there is freedom for competition to fight it out for consumer trust.
Like I said earlier as well: "Ancapism is about as altruistic as economics can get, because to succeed, you literally have to improve the lives of all the people around you."
If you have more questions, that's why there's an /acg/ thread specifically (it was here before /lrg/ today, but that's besides the point).
Grayson Lee
No what you describe is Laissez-faire Capitalism and the separation of state and economics. AnCap necessarily means either no government at all or one in constant flux. And a government in flux with means one that is subjective legally and that only can mean subjective. Rand Minarchism posulates (and supports)the notion that a government actually -should- have a monoploy in the very few things it is supposed to embody. It must to remain objective in nature. AnarchoCapitalism posists such absurdities as the the "competing governments" notion.
Seriously though friend: theree is zero reason to make this and not just post in /lrg/
Jaxon Ward
It's amusing that Rand, through her writings, refutes ancap 'philosophy'...best is her criticism of polycentric law: -let ppl choose their judge -can't punish ppl without them agreeing ...just unFUCKINGbelievable.
Jace Harris
>suporting Friedman's Machinery of Freedom >supporting polycentric law >"people will choose to be punished"
Logan Thompson
Well, it's choose to be punished or choose to be at the mercy of other men's violence. And surely, no person who isn't already a criminal wishes to do the punishable?
Joseph Johnson
>Well, it's choose to be punished or choose to be at the mercy of other men's violence If citizens punish violence, then violence is the only means of enforcement...and it's the jungle again...I have to ask, do ancaps even try to sound logical?
btw (((Friedman)))
Jose Watson
>Anarchy >Give them rights And if an anarchist decides that he doesn't like those rights? Ancap is a stupid ideology
Levi Carter
>And if an anarchist decides that he doesn't like those rights? Exactly. AnCap is not rational. PolyCentric law...don't waste too much time reading it...it does not make sense...just know that it's what AnCaps push.
Connor Ortiz
Violence is the only way to ever enforce laws. Do you think the state does not use violence?
Tyler Carter
What do anarchy capitalists feel on immigration?
Isaiah Wilson
nonwhites out
Lincoln Sullivan
>putting Ayn Rand up with John Locke
Alexander Cruz
I'm not trying to stir the shit here, but Objectivism is a crypto-jewish cult. I've come to think that Rand's circle of jews was intended to weaken western civilization. She maintains the state while promoting individualism: two contradictory ends. Promoting gentile individualism is ALWAYS a trope of secretive jewish movements. A non-subversive jew like Mises realized that statism works best with collectivism, and he praised fascism. youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU
Austrian economists and ancaps are different because they're ultimately a product of Carl Menger, a gentile. Mises was a student of Menger's. Rothbard married a shiksa. Hoppe is a gentile. While ancaps also promote individualism, they want to end statism and this is important because statism weakens intrinsic tribal or religious bonds among its citizens.
In short, citizens of a state must be collectivist to avoid subversion, a situation Rand wants to weaken. Sovereign individuals avoid subversion because the bonds to their tribe aren't weakened by the state. I feel like Kevin MacDonald could have written a chapter about Ayn Rand.
Ian Garcia
Why is your (((variable))) the Jews?
Jason Brown
>Why is your (((variable))) the Jews? Not sure what you mean. Judaic influences exist and they can sometimes be important.
