Is it a coincidence that all arguments against anarcho-capitalism are made by economically illiterate retards?
I haven't seen a single objection that wouldn't be solved by picking up an entry level econ textbook. Could it be that statists have too low of an IQ to comprehend such a brilliant ideology?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Jewish Question.
> What if the child consents tho..
I don't want to live in a world with no morals and where everything can be bought
Why not buy some morality then famalam
are you implying that morals are decided by the government? so illegal equals immoral, and vice -versa? that's awfully morally relativistic of you.
I've read some of those mises articles and the main argument presented against national socialism was muh growth muh cost muh variety of products.
The thing is that we don't care about maximizing profits and importing cheap, sometimes dangerous products which lower the standard of living in the importing country. We're willing to work harder, to do with a bit less than what we have now and work hard to make our country the best it can be without compromising the well-being of our people.
uninformed opinions are not arbitrary. They follow patterns. You can't expect the uneducated to accidentally get things right, but you can expect them to be passionately wrong.
then kys cuz you just described right now
you do realize nobody is forcing anyone to buy those cheap and sometimes dangerous products, right? in a free society you can choose to buy expensive, trusted, home-grown nationalist goods too. if that's what the people want, and they're willing to pay to achieve it, then they'll do it.
but they're not, are they? Guess you're not that correct about what people truly desire, then, are you?
>Ancap is the default setting for value exchange among modern humans.
>Value trading is the primary social mechanism which delineates modern human from goyim.
>Ancap is secret doctrine of Trans-dimensional Bogs passed down as a reward for choosing the correct timeline.
>Ancap is descriptive of nature not prescriptive of economic presupposition.
>Ancap is least (((spooked))) analytical framework for value exchange.
>All other systems depend on ANCAP defaults.
Why do commies even try?
There must be government to impose regulations to prevent companies from doing stupid shit that they will profit from immediately but cripple themselves/economy/society later.
It's really simple... a world where people can sell their own children because they are their property is shitty.
ok but, you realize you just described how things play out right now right?
interesting hypothesis. what you're saying is that the government knows how to runs business better than actual business do? and that they know what they're talking about when it comes to the macro-economy better than everyone else, and thus should have control over it? very interesting.
in that case, why not just let the government run all business directly, ala communism? by your theory that should function much better than the current state, where idiot capitalists keep making bad decisions and making everyone poorer, right?
you cant sell your children because you dont own your children. Your children own themselves.
Also, child trafficking is an enormous international industry which makes its homes in the most oppressive states with the biggest governments. In order to make a criticism of ancapitalism, you have to describe an undesirable outcome that isn't already happening.
wtf are you on about, morals are universal
>gulag failure wall-in own people flag
Proofs.
Has real ANCAP even been tried? no. Because incompetents like you always feel like they'll be left out.
It was legal to buy children in sweden not that long ago, poor families sold their children to more well off families and they didn't have to live a life of poverty as a consequence.
Even if they had to work in the new family, its not like they wouldn't had in their old one.
>Has real ANCAP even been tried?
yes, during colonization by pioneers
shame the central planning and kikes took over
Anarcho-capitalism could work, but without government we could easily get invaded and all that can go away
nah
dont talk like a commie
ancap is being tried all the time with great results on small scale interactions. Every time people engage in person to person commerce without the state holding their hands, while also managing to not spontaneously murdering each other, is another example of ancap working great..
You're precisely right. We should remove that garbage, no?
I'd subscribe to military protection tbqfh. That way there's a contract and it's not a question who's serving whom...
gee whiz you're right. I guess we better allow the creation of a social super class with dominion over our lives. Because you know, we don't want some government to enslave us.
that applies to governments too. all governments have armies, and they get invaded and lose anyway. an ancap state should be able to defend itself using private armies and defense contractors. due to the efficiency of the free market, they would actually have stronger defensive capabilities than an authoritarian state of the same size.
it's very silly to assume that ancapistan wouldn't have any means of national defense.
How exactly do children own themselves?
What means does an infant have to sustain itself?
It can't even feed itself, let alone acquire capital.
Children are forced into an indentured slave contract merely by existing and are therefore the property of the parent. I suppose your non-aggression principle could lay out an agreed-upon path for emancipation through repaying that debt.
Are you going to suggest that we force individuals to subsidize the existence of someone else until they reach an age of maturity and just allow them to be independent from that point?
None of this is the domain of ancapistani government. Go feelspost in a commie thread.
>Every time people engage in person to person commerce without the state holding their hands, while also managing to not spontaneously murdering each other, is another example of ancap working great.
but user, don't you realize that governments is literally the only thing stopping people from murdering each other on the streets?!?!? I mean if the government didn't stop me, I would kill everyone!
it isn't about sustenance but ownership over one's own body
I believe that putting a child in indentured servitude would be a violation because the act itself implies ownership over the child's body by other party
I like pic related better, way faster
Main concern today is demography and ancaps have no answers for that. Yeah, we get it, free market is great, fuck the poor whatever. Not interesting because we're already rich.
>what you're saying is that the government knows how to runs business better than actual business do?
Did I say that?
The government knows what a business SHOULDN'T do because even if it is profitable for the company it would be harmful for the economy on the whole.
You may also like: Financial crisis of 2007–2008.
>Main concern today is demography
because of wealth redistribution, single-payer healthcare and payg pension ponzi schemes, literally no other reason behind such 'concern'
libertarian right future is inevitable and it'll come to be through disruptive technologies and subsequent pacification of violators who will invariably be comprised of negatively-selected specimens that thrive on contemporary vampirism
>But without the state, who will protect the trannies????????????????????
the next one: electric boogaloo will kill the €U, perhaps U$ too; can't wait for it desu
No...no no no. that was the manufactured crisis that allowed obongo to fork over shitloads of goybucks to the folks that just got him elected. That's the opposite of what would be allowed in ancapistan.
We would have piked the kikes...no doubt in my mind.
You don't even pay attention to American politics, get the fuck out of this thread.
now you focus your argument on the hypothesis that what the company does to profit itself is also bad for the economy as a whole, and the government knows which actions leads to this consequence and which do not.
Again, interesting hypothesis, but what is it based on? Once again you can extrapolate it to a full endorsement of central planing and controlled economies. You're essentially arguing that free market capitalism is innately broken, as actions that lead to increased individual wealth will lead to society as a whole becoming poorer. From my observations of history and reality, this is the complete opposite of how it actually works. The only occasions when profit-motives leads to decreased societal wealth is when the government becomes involved in it with its dirty hands.
Economically is on point but there will always be individuals to will want to creat a taxation monopoly and there's no way ancapism can prevent that.
This, essentially. Our main issue with libertarian systems is their inability to see things besides dollar signs, growth, markets, and rights. There are some things you cannot put a price on.
>ancapistani government
>le financial crisis was caused by free market capitalism XD
no.
I suppose a child could own a body until it fails from malnutrition.
That is tinfoil hat tier.
Lots of banks and funds went tits up. And those that haven't lost billions. But somehow the owners/major shareholders of them "profited on goybucks".
The reason of the crisis was failure of CES/government to fulfill it's regulatory functions.
Companies are forced to operate economically on a human lifetime scale. It's pointless for those profiting from a company to care about the state of the company beyond their lifespan.
A state must care about long-term sustainability, even if that means short-term economic pains. A way this happens is through regulation that limits to negative impact of companies.
This is the only way statists can understand...and it underlines how stupid their arguments are...
it would be in the parents' best interest to invest in it, after all without a welfare state families have no choice but to stick together throughout their lives
it's still like that for us more fortunate ones
It was caused by greedy people left unchecked.
No. It actually isn't, do your homework, toothpaste-senpai.
I don't believe there's an intrinsically known "best interest" that's wholly acceptable in a functional society. It could be in my best interest to alleviate an economic burden from a child I created in error by abandoning it.
No, that's wishful thinking. Wealth redistribution etc are already expansive means for pacification, even libertarians talk about universal basic income. Also, what are negatively-selected specimen? What libertarians would love is to brain drain the third world, get every non-retarded African and Indian with a degree and let them come in droves to maximize productivity. They would be positively selected (except maybe their kids and grandkids).
Yet again you twisted what I've said.
Thank you.
1. Become a CEO.
2. Do whatever you can for the profits to rapidly go up.
3. Collect a huge bonus check for it, resign.
4. If shit gets fucked as consequence of your action it isn't your problem anymore.
what are you basing this on? your ass?
governments operate on the scale of election cycles, usually around 4 years. This is the reason why countries like Greece go bankrupt, because as long as you get elected who gives a shit? corporations in comparison operate on the basis of however long the shareholders stay in, which actually tends to be pretty long. research shows corporations are highly efficient at long-term investment, much more so than other forms of invested capital.
you have a whole lot of conjecture, but you're not actually basing it on reality. the fact you think governments care about the far-off future is laughable.
your memes are garbage and based on idiotic assumptions
please try harder or something because it feels like you're just ironically trolling
>entry level econ textbook
That's exactly the problem. Lolbertarians never move beyond Micro 101. Markets fail all the time.
no im going to ask people to not be obtuse. Children own themselves the same way adults own themselves, and it has nothing to do with being independent. Rearing your children with enough food to live, and not burdening them with debt for it, is something people do because they want to and because they love their children.
Now don't be silly. People will buy what they have to in order to live. Some people make do with less money. I don't know how you could possibly decide what people really want based on how they act in an imperfect world. That isn't a capitalism vs Nat soc issue, that's a question of theory and trying to project it onto people.
At any rate, people working in shit conditions for shit wages will make cheaper products, generally. Especially today, many products can be made cheaply provided cheap sources of labor.
Again, I'm not interested in putting the market before the people. Nobody's being forced by anything but the profit motive, and we've seen what that's accomplished both good and bad.
Tldr I don't care about maximum freedom in the market. I care about the people being able to take care of themselves while combating corruption.
I'm not aware of any market failure that wasn't caused by government meddling. maybe you're the one who needs to study more economics?
identity politics are a fucking trap; an caps will perpetually consume their own ideology as a snake infinitely eating its own tail
serious question-what stops memeball scenarios from happening?
Current western governments perhaps.
I don't see how an ancap system wouldn't be worse in every way regarding the things you are criticizing.
"They don't do such a good job anyway" is not an argument if the counter-argument is "we just wouldn't try at all"
Take the hoppe pill
>AnCap
>only adopted by 16 year olds
>"brilliant ideology"
Capitalism is only a few hundred years old and requires a state to ensure private property for it to function.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Get fukt
Such as?
>he thinks the real world operates like an Econ text book
This right here is the crux of why ancaps and lolbertarians are retarded.
Family hops the border
>With a state
The family is subsidised by the taxpayer through healthcare and wealth redistribution. Maybe the family even gets to vote for more of it in the future.
>Without a state
The family either financially fails and moves back to their home country, or they create something valuable and they stay. Naturally weeds out the bad eggs (crazy how nature do that senpai)
if you wanted a le epic memeball thread you could've just asked
AnCaps shouldn't have to undergo some Starship Troopers-esque service to become citizens. Except instead of military service, they should be forced to work in an unregulated sweat shop for half of the federal minimum wage for 8 years, without the help from daddy that they all deny getting. If they come out of it unchanged, they get to be an AnCap. If at any time they quit, they will be executed if they ever espouse AnCap rhetoric again.
...
...
>should have to
Current capitalism != the non central bank, non govt regulated, no artificial monopoly, free markets that ancaps envision
for example
...
holy shit read a book.
>I don't see how an ancap system wouldn't be worse in every way regarding the things you are criticizing.
because ancapitan is not based on a monopoly. there is only one government, so if it goes bankrupt due to bad practices, you're fucked. Ancaps have many different corporations, and only those who are the most efficient will survive. That is why the private sector is many times more efficient than governed programs. That is why corporations who have been around for a long time are far better at money-management than states, which have sample size of 1.
you put up a lot of conjecture as to why, in your head, governments should be more efficient than markets. but that doesn't correspond with observable reality.
>The government knows what a business SHOULDN'T do
no. no they don't. This is an absurd claim you're making, and there is no basis for it. Furthermore, I will assert, that even if a government agency, or the state as a whole, did have this knowledge, it is not always going to be in their interests to prevent the business from doing that.
A real world example is the EPA. An agency specifically created to stop big businesses from destroying the environment, and the number one thing they do, their daily function, is to provide permits to businesses to allow them to pollute.
The EPA is an institution, backed by the power of the state, which gives people legal protection to destroy the environment if they pay a fee.
The Environmental Protection Agency, provides state power to protect polluters in exchange for money.
And yet without them, we're lead to believe, big business would go crazy and pollute.
...
>anarcho capitalism=Somalia
>succesfull
kys
...
...
...
and yet even with those digits you couldnt actually articulate why you think that way.
>We're willing to work harder
I'm sorry what's with this "we" stuff? I'll work as hard as I damn well please because that's my right
Unless you're going to force me to work? In which case pardon me while I exercise another of my rights, the right to shoot ye who violate the NAP
>EPA gets bribed by big business to destroy the environment
>if we stopped making corporations lose money to destroy the environment, they wouldn't do it anymore
>kys
howdy there reddit how's it going, when is your 13th birthday?
...
>identity politics
Ancap has nothing to do with that. Start a nig gay dwarf covenant if you want. Long as you can survive with no gibs, no affirmative action, free association only (right to discriminate, no diversity crap), you're good.
>ancaps should be enslaved by the government. That'll teach them to love big government.
>wishful thinking
it's solely dependent on reproductive strategy; both r- and k-selection has its place but the latter is clearly dominant in evolved societies, the former among what is generally referred to as subhumans in these parts
>Wealth redistribution
taxation is theft, no way around it; charity and voluntary contributions e.g. towards a local community project are a-OK
>universal basic income
coming out of whose pocket? ancap land is allodial
>what are negatively-selected specimen?
negative selection is providing resources to dead ends such as welfare moochers, government employees, lumpenproleteriat, niggers, addicts and so on
>brain drain the third world
why would you opt for out-group members in your community, you could get ostracised for trying to do so
...
People loving their children is a very modern concept. You're ignoring a massive amount of historical context from the vast majority of human history.
People kept their children alive before modern society mostly as a feudalist labor force, and it would devolve back to that... that is unless economic activity offers you a cheaper means of production, which technology does offer. You can imagine feeding your kid that sweeps the floors until you can afford that roomba.
Let's not even go into the risk a human has to take to have a child. It would make no economic sense to have your own. You'd either hire someone to impregnate or buy an infant. you can throw any notion of gender equality out the window as well, as males would always have an advantage as they don't have to assume pregnancy risks... which is a nice way to foster half of the population into becoming dissidents.
You're imagining a fantasy society that ignores the economic realities of capitalism, let alone anarcho-capitalism.
good idea
ancaps aren't really worth arguing with
they are convinced that their hypothetical inorganic thought experiment will work
better to just mock and sage
>wouldn't be solved by picking up an entry level econ textbook
How does the old saying go? Something like "25% of an economist's job is to predict what will happen, and 75% is too explain what he predicted would happen didn't actually happen"?
>AnCaps have rich fathers and have never voluntarily worked for less than minimum wage
>think they're qualified to tell others they deserve to lose their jobs to Mexicans if they won't work for $3/hr
There must always be rulers in life. However, there are nearly as many qualified rulers as there are people, for people are fit rulers in their own lives. At the same time as that is true, there are very few qualified rulers when you begin to require that a person rule over more than one life. For one human life is already a very complicated and intimate thing. How then can we believe that there exist people who can ruler over millions?
if they didnt have legal protection we could sue them, or worse, for it.
subsistence agriculture done manually is a thing of the past, there's no need for extra hands like it was a mere century ago
>our kangaroo courts with no legitimate claim to use of force will be more effective in administering justice than the evil, scary entity with a monopoly on force
>anarcho
Need I say more?