Some questions for our Ancap and Libertarian friends in here
So i got into a debate with some friends about how an anarcho-capitalist society would look like i admit i'm not well documented on the theory but they were okay with me on pretty much everything until we get to some "immoral' behaviors that can be part of that soceity and i felt somehow like a commie explaining the fully automated space gay socialisme utopia so
- How would you justify the suppression of the age of consent
- Are children property ? if no how would parents protect their vulnerable child from the evils of society and pedophiles ?
- How would a poor household (or anybody that can't work or have wealth) pay for security and medical care and all the social services that society currently provide ?
Some questions for our Ancap and Libertarian friends in here
Roads.
Explicit contractual conditions an individual must sign in order to live on your free city arcology development. Within that you could create policies that one must agree to that basically become laws.
love it or be physically removed
That's just a government with more steps
Yes.
Explicitly local government. That's the entire point.
How is that an improvement to the current system ? what will prevent the local governments to gain more power implement more laws etc ?
People are allowed to leave it if they wish. They may vote with their feet and move to the next city over that is doing things a bit differently.
It's the idea of breaking every bit of authority to the most local level possible.
that's a seducing idea but user what would prevent a more wealthy /armed/ advanced group or people or city to conquer the other cities and impose their laws on the citizen
The Reapers from Mass Effect were a good example of Anarcho Capitalism
It doesn't matter because an ANCAP society would either get invaded or taken over from the inside within a week.
Somalia didn't get invaded yet user
bump
Nothing, which is why ancap always was and always be a meme.
that's sad tbqhwyf having total freedom in a modern society doesn't seems a bad idea
>How would a poor household (or anybody that can't work or have wealth) pay for security and medical care and all the social services that society currently provide ?
they wouldn't, they'd just die
they've been in a war for the past 30 years, what are you talking about?
They are held more accountable because the leaders aren't some billionaire who live seventeen states away and has an entire continent's GDP to buy bodyguards to prevent individuals from holding them accountable.
Why do ancaps and anarchists insist on going to the logical extreme?
Just a reasonable Neo-liberal economic system with libertarian social beliefs is the normal socially functioning human position. Everything else is pretend or being an ideologue retard
There is a place here on earth you can have 100% freedom, in international waters. And you know what's there? Pirates.
It easier to have robot slaves than human slaves at this point in time, why would another group want to feed, house, and take care of the health of some random little city of people?
That is a lot longer than a week.
>total freedom
What a meme phrase. The human being, even when beholden to no outside authority, is still set upon by his biological orders to eat, sleep, reproduce, etc. There is no "freedom," there is only "doing what you want" and "doing what you don't want." This applies to every maxim, every ideology, every system.
>reasonable
>neo-liberal
>libertarian social beliefs
>I'm socially liberal but fiscally concervative
yeah because no country wants their piece of shit land yet they can't even defend themselves against pirates and warlords, even then the only thing stopping them from being taken over by warlords at this point is the US
>pirates
I think you mean merchants.
>warlords
I think you mean capitalists.
>libertarian social beliefs
Oh, so the type of complacency that got us where we are now? Yes, we surely need MORE of that.
are you mentally retarded?
>How would a poor household (or anybody that can't work or have wealth) pay for security and medical care and all the social services that society currently provide ?
They wouldn't. The weak would die off and only the strong would remain.
>Oh, so the type of complacency that got us where we are now?
nope
initiation of force got us where we are now
opposite of libertarianism
>How would you justify the suppression of the age of consent
Well being unironic the age of consent is too high at the moment anyway and should be around 14 when the first girls should start getting married to early to mid 20s men. Think back to ancient greece. However, the age of consent would still be up to the law system which your rights enforcement agency has. You might have an age of consent of like 6 in a sharia agency, but given the modern intolerance toward such relations normal agencies probably wouldn't lower the aoc nor compromise when negotiating interactions with other law systems because people don't want it to happen to their kids.
>Are children property ? if no how would parents protect their vulnerable child from the evils of society and pedophiles ?
Children are property to an extent and have to abide by the rules of their parents, but the child still has certain rights not to be abused and should they wish to free themselves from their parents and run away they have the right to do so. As children age and acquire more agency they accumulate more rights.
>How would a poor household (or anybody that can't work or have wealth) pay for security and medical care and all the social services that society currently provide ?
First, we have to remember that security is likely going to be tied into insurance so that should a crime occur the victim is going to be able to make a claim against their insurance. Naturally, because poor people possess less property any claim is likely to cost the rights enforcement agency much less so a subscription for security may cost them less. Also many people will wish to contribute to private charity in order to cover these people and given the free market competition quality will improve and prices decrease from our current situation.
Everybody has blood and organs to sell, in India many poor families get money thanks to surrogacy.
Yes, let's see how long you survive without half your organs.....
People get by fine without a kidney, half a liver, testicles, ovaries, or an eye.
because power make people feel good and having power over a groupe of people is not the same as owning some robots
i didn't mean absolut freedom user but at least being free to collect rain water or grow plants in your backyard
no, freedom is absolute up to non-initiation of force against another
_A B S O L U T E_ in the full meaning of the word
1) I don't. Children cannot properly consent.
2) Parents don't have formal moral authority over their children. Children waive some of their rights to be parented. Protecting children from pedos wouldn't be done any differently.
3) Mutual aid societies.
you'll never be free from your natural instinct to eat survive and reproduce etc i think that was he meant
immaterial to this discussion
a red herring in fact
And no, i'm not mentally retarded just poorly informed :(
Wasting resources to conquer people who want nothing to do with you is not power, its a responsibility, if they were so wealthy and powerful, they would just use that power for propaganda and seducing new people to join them like a cult leader would, not conquering and imposing on people with firmly held beliefs.
>anarchs think there is ever more than one kind of anarchy
In a country within central government there is no rule of law.
In a country without rule of law, there is no peace.
In a country without peace, there is no advanced medical care, education, complex infrastructure or resource protections.
You really have to be a coddled first world moron to think that a first world civilized society just kinda holds itself together with a little elbow grease. Keep fantasy roleplaying about the island-societies you think you could maintain in an anarchic power vacuum and the ideologies you think you could impose on them.
>surely the wealthy and powerful wouldn't simply impose their will on others by force
You don't get wealthy wasting all your fortune on ideologues, nobody is going to be a billionaire or compete with billionaires trying to force the amish to watch cable.
>forcing the amish to watch cable
Yeah, user. That's totally the extent of what you have to gain by conquering territory and subduing a population.
Its not like you can garnish their resources and labor or anything.
They're already made by private companies, they're just contracted by the government.
In an anarchist society without national defense and borders individual armament will be one of the most developed business with drones and armed robots less expensive thanks to the free market so billionaires won't waste much resources on that
I think he mean groups of people collaborating or collectively paying for those companies would be impossible, he probably think such a society means everybody living by himself
Robots produce far superior labor and resource output without complaint, refusal, sabotage, or subversion if you just want the most efficient possible gain of labor output and resource acquisition.
>a magical future with magical robots
Oh sure user, its really my fault that I imagined this fantasy scenario was a little less stupid than it clearly is.
You know most of the modern agriculture and manufacturing infrastructure is already largely robotic and relies on a very very small portion of the human population to manage, right?
>How would you justify the suppression of the age of consent
i wouldnt, but i would kill anyone who fucked with my kids, my friends kids, or any young relatives
>Are children property
no, they are people. very tiny people
>if no how would
superior firepower
>How would a poor household (or anybody that can't work or have wealth) pay for security and medical care and all the social services that society currently provide ?
they either trade labor or have friends/family that will assist them. if not, tough shit
taxation is theft
>How would you justify the suppression of the age of consent
How do you keep people from sticking their hands in open flames or shitting their pants in public?
>the modern world is automated
Yeah user, that's still why you take peoples things and make those people work for you. You take peoples automated things and you take their land.
You make them work their equipment for you. You receive more resources for having conquered fewer people.
You're trying to describe a scenario in which its not worth while to rule over people and subdue them at all, when its clearly still totally worthwhile.
Pamperchu is that you, did you recover from cancer?
>Yeah user, that's still why you take peoples things and make those people work for you
By producing a new product or ideology they need to buy or apply en masse and getting them to voluntarily hand over their things and labor or change their behavior or you just wipe out the competition.
>You take peoples automated things and you take their land.
Then you have to take the people out too or get run off their land with as many of their things as you can carry eventually.
> You receive more resources for having conquered fewer people.
You don't though because they are producing all of that for their family and friends and you would still have to find a way to feed their family because they won't voluntarily work for you if you forcibly take away the things they love.
You've got the wrong guy.
But I'd probably agree with him.
Do you just not understand how any of this works because its theoretically happening in the future instead of the past or the present?
Like does the concept of human history and a change in controlling power interests just not register in these scenarios?
You tax these people under threat of violence. That's how it works. That's how its always worked. Eventually they accept you because normal people aren't actually much for uprisings and their alternatives are to be taxed somewhere else by different power forces anyway.
Or you just kill them anyway because as you said, you don't actually need much human labor. Oh, is that YOUR self-running factory? Is that YOUR automated farming equipment and agricultural development land? Is that YOUR plot of rare earth minerals/water supply/solar farm/ etc? Well now they're mine, user.
You're trying to describe a scenario in which stealing from the weak isn't worth it when there is literally no outside power to stop you, and that's just stupid. Its stupid as fuck, user.
You surely would, I would bet on it.
I want to ask what you were doing on a forum like that but I don't want answered.
You aren't threatening normal people, you are threatening all the people in some fortified cult.
>Or you just kill them anyway because as you said, you don't actually need much human labor.
You need capital and unique items or knowledge that arising from human labor or experience and you can't get that by killing everyone or forcing them to follow your rules.
It would be more profitable and comfortable to be a manufacturing cult that sells an earth cult their farming equipment at a high price than to be a death cult that just scavenges.
pamperchu is an old internet cringe celeb user, this image has circulated on Sup Forums for many years now.
I don't like cringe.
It is in the best interests (as far as profit is concerned) of defense insurance agencies to cooperate through contractual agreements and mutual arbitration as opposed to vandalism, violence and intrusions by other parties. Furthermore, defense insurance agencies would inevitably incentivize peaceful people and (*cough* white *cough*) societies through reduced premiums much in the same way that car insurance operates today. If anything, this is far more secure than what we have today given that a government would never allow such cooperation because it represents a threat to its existence, and many don't even allow this on an individual level with restrictions on firearms (and their respective magazines, distributors etc).
>everything is fortified cults
>a manufacturing cult that sells an earth cult than to be a death cult that just scavenges.
This is really my mistake again user, I keep forgetting that this is all Fallout/MadMax roleplay .
>I have never been sick
People would band together based on ethnic and ideological similarities and follow the lead of the strongest person who best idealized their valued traits, what else would you call it other than a cult?
To be fair he was cringy before "cringe" was really a thread topic that people just dumped.
Honestly user, finding the weirdest fucking people on the internet and cataloging them for our mutual amusement is one of the running themes that made Sup Forums great.
Thats a really convoluted way of saying that the weak will try banding together to resist the strong, user.
I suggest its purposefully convoluted because you know that its bound to fail.
People who don't like it will leave.
>City state A has an 80% tax rate to fund universal health care and unemployment for hordes of brown people
>City state B expects people to support themselves and doesn't let black people live there
>Decide you don't like living in city state A
>Walk or drive to city state B
>Apply to live there
>Sign a contract to follow their rules and code of conduct
>Buy property or rent an apartment
jewish movement wow it's literally nothing
>some "immoral' behaviors that can be part of that soceity
Consent is consent.
A country? A government? Any of these other labels people have used historically besides CULT?
Honestly user, people grouping together to form a functional society has been done many times throughout human history and it has literally never gone as you have described how you think it would go.
What you're actually describing is a cluster of separate city states. Despite all of human history, you think that is actually sustainable somehow. Its not, user. City states consume one another because they can and because they want to.
If they don't consume each other through violence, then they consume each other through politics. No level of technological advancement will actually stop that from happening.
>City state B has a 40% tax rate because it needs to heavily militarize to defend from the members of City States C through Z, the police force necessary to enforce their rules and conduct codes, and whatever infrastructure actually keeps the city from collapsing.
>start missing california somehow
>ancaps think they can actually achieve first world level society without bureaucracy
I didn't say different groups wouldn't change and merge over time based on new ideas and dynamics, I said one group wouldn't conquer the entire world by force and most groups wouldn't actually use force to subjugate others, they will just make better deals, have better ideas, and provide more precise support to get more reliable outcomes.
I get where you're coming from user but its just historically wrong. Groups war until they lose the capacity to gain from war, and in an ancap world the capacity to gain from war is enormous.
That's why most of the countries in the world today are so large and the little ones are either dependent niche economies or shitholes.
You said yourself most "normal" people aren't up for violence, so why would most people choose war over a little bit of work to trade with the neighbor you disagree with who still has some pretty cool ideas?
The capacity to gain from war is much greater in a world run by giant nations that control continents than one of a bunch of crazy nomads, merchants, and fortified arcologies.
>It takes 40% of your income to fund a HOA
>Military forces aren't just made up of a militia that people living in the city state are obligated to serve in or can serve in for lower HOA fees
There's an important step missing here. First you need to ask "do they look different?" Sure, a lot of cultural norms would probably shift. But in the general sense you'd still have a guy you pay to put out fires, someone who puts out crime, and people who sell bundle with those services and others or only others. On the whole such a society would probably be highly individualist and personal responsibility based but that doesn't mean that the economies or services provided within that society would be functionally different. Sure, you might not pay taxes. But you'd be paying fees so it's debatable if it matters whether you're paying one guy a bunch of money or a bunch of guys a little money. The biggest difference would probably be in how monopolies affect the general marketplace.
If you're still interested user, here is some good reading material
why is left anarchism in quotes?
It's a left school of thought, it's just not Marxism. Read some actual Anarchist lit. Property rights are protected by a state or might. Pick if you're a Cap or a Stirnerite jesus fucking christ.
1. Parents gotta look out for that shit. Rights protection agencies will certainly include child molestation and rape as a violation of clients rights. The protection policies held by pedophiles will certainly have child molestation included as one of the crimes that voids their policy. If the rights protection company agrees the rape took places, then the pedophile will have no protection policy, and can be killed with impunity.
Keep in mind with our statist system, kids still run away, blow gay dudes, do porn, and fuck up their lives. You're giving the state more credit than you should.
2. When you're a baby, you are essentially property. When you're 18, you're not. I don't know how the protection policy is going to shake out. But basically when parents generally stop feeling like they should pay for their kids' protection, and the companies reflect those preferences in the policies they sell, we'll have an answer to when you're more an adult than kid.
3a. The police fuck over poor people. Just being free of our police state is an improvement. Security not being socialized means it will be cheaper and actually serve the customers. Worst case, buy a gun. Detroit has no cops and its police chief adamantly supports private gun ownership to make up for it.
3b. medical care is under a state-enforced cartel, holding prices and profits artificially high for those in the industry. licensing, intellectual property for drugs, and a waterfall of tax money creates a situation where prices have no downward pressure. this is not government incompetence. the medical industry paid legislators to do it.