I have been seeing some people on Sup Forums that has used this flag and for an anarchist capitalist society. I have even seen an debate between one of these and Nordiska moståndsrörelsen.
m.youtube.com
Its in the beginning of the stream.
So I just wondered if someone could give a good explanation on what it means. (Because the guy in the video didn't really give a good one).
It's all about a society of multiple voluntary communities, sometimes as big as small countries, with private law, often set by the proprietor of the land in a contractual relationship with the people purchasing land within them.
Proprietors will, in their own interest, create rules that allow their property's value to grow, unlike governments, that only cater to what people think they want, proprietors will need to find what people actually want, therefore populism dies.
Its a thought experiment on how much you can decentralize government and replace with private services.
>It's all about a society of multiple voluntary communities, sometimes as big as small countries, with private law, often set by the proprietor of the land in a contractual relationship with the people purchasing land within them.
Well its sounds good in theory, but how about crime? Do you still have the police and if so what funds them?
Another question is: So a lot of the economy is based on land dealerships? Hence why laws should be set to benefit the one selling? Or is the land dealership just a small piece in the game?
If your society supports the ideology of capitalism along with capitalism, what would stop companies from treating their workers bad? Or is it up to the worker to find someone who doesn't?
>Proprietors will, in their own interest, create rules that allow their property's value to grow, unlike governments, that only cater to what people think they want, proprietors will need to find what people actually want, therefore populism dies.
But I thought capitalism depended on producing and selling a lot, which would lead to basically producing and selling popular things (since they obs sell best)?
>but how about crime? Do you still have the police and if so what funds them?
It's explained in my post, albeit maybe not too obvious.
Proprietors of land will want their property to gain value, nothing better than assuring their tenants that their life and property will be protected, either by community expenses or through contractual relationships with multiple insurances offering different law frames according to what people are interested in.
>So a lot of the economy is based on land dealerships? Hence why laws should be set to benefit the one selling? Or is the land dealership just a small piece in the game?
Land is a big piece in the game, bad decisions would tank land's value quickly without the state's socialization (small scale disasters are easily noticed). People will need to migrate between communities often before the market finds and offers some superior law frames in which their citizens will thrive faster. This migration and ample amount of choices will create a competitive environment, similar to the one we have between countries, excepting this time people would need to sign a contract and accept the rules or they will be evicted.
For example, the acceptance of drug use would quickly tank a property's value, therefore land owners will be encouraged to offer some sort of control over drug use.
>But I thought capitalism depended on producing and selling a lot, which would lead to basically producing and selling popular things (since they obs sell best)?
We're talking about selecting where to live. You might not understand exactly what makes Singapore or Liechtenstein work so well, in fact you might be a person who would love to live there but at home you vote the total opposite of what they do in those countries. This does not happen when you actually need to sign a contract accepting the rules before you get your property.
Not from the benevolence of the baker does he pay the farmer for his grain, nor from the benevolence of the baker do we get his bread. But by his self-interest the baker parts with his money in the first case and by our own do we part with ours in the second. The market is the harmony of the interests of man, that we may live value for value with one another.
>Can someone give a good explanation on what ancap has to offer.
A clear conscience. /thread
freedom. something we read about but have never actually experienced. sounds sweet though.
Sounds like feudalism desu
it's a meme
>Proprietors of land will want their property to gain value, nothing better than assuring their tenants that their life and property will be protected, either by community expenses or through contractual relationships with multiple insurances offering different law frames according to what people are interested in.
I see a flaws in this is:
The competition is pretty much already determined, people will move to the bigger community's because they have more to offer. Which will lead to everyone living in the same community, but if that happens. The Proprietors are going to pretty much going to become a government.
2 If criminal organizations for an example won't contribute to security.
Wouldn't mean that if they had enough people living there that the security wouldn't get enough to stop the criminals.
>Land is a big piece in the game, bad decisions would tank land's value quickly without the state's socialization (small scale disasters are easily noticed). People will need to migrate between communities often before the market finds and offers some superior law frames in which their citizens will thrive faster. This migration and ample amount of choices will create a competitive environment, similar to the one we have between countries, excepting this time people would need to sign a contract and accept the rules or they will be evicted.
1/2
Well if the problem I described in the other answer would be true.
That would mean that you couldn't depend on people wanting to move all the time.
All though it's true migration would create a competitive environment. Only one community would win and there for getting all the people to move to this places.
>We're talking about selecting where to live. You might not understand exactly what makes Singapore or Liechtenstein work so well, in fact you might be a person who would love to live there but at home you vote the total opposite of what they do in those countries. This does not happen when you actually need to sign a contract accepting the rules before you get your property.
But still the community's will be changing laws to attract people, isn't that populism?
2/2
These two cover the two major branches:
youtu.be
Feudalism is a form of slavery, the serfs can't own property of their own, have less legal protection under the law and can't leave the land they're forced to work on
It will require a solid culture of fundraising, which can be done with decentralized digital currencies.
It can be summed up in one simple truth:
The free market does everything better.
>people will move to the bigger community's because they have more to offer
Supply and demand. People often select moving to less popular areas in speculation of future property value rises instead of choosing the already established overpriced successes. This leads to smarter (in the sense of being able to predict successful formulas) people "leading" the way.
>Wouldn't mean that if they had enough people living there that the security wouldn't get enough to stop the criminals.
But these people who decide to stop contributing are subjected to a mutually agreed third party arbitration which will judge the situation and allow the owner to evict the free-riders.
If landowners are not capable of foreseeing such situations they will lose property value quickly and someone will buy their property from them at cheap and try again with a different formula.
>Only one community would win and there for getting all the people to move to this places.
There's no patents in this society, other communities will quickly copy the contracts of the successful ones and gain property value quickly.
Besides, people have different ideas of what constitutes success or happiness, for some, it might be economic status, for others racial purity, for others knowing that the poor will never fall through the cracks, there will be multiple choices always.
>But still the community's will be changing laws to attract people, isn't that populism?
Only if the proprietor allows democracy within his walls. I would not live in a place that allowed democracy, free unvetted immigration or socialism, for example.
Well a problem I see with that is, it's a Risky system that requires people to volunteer. Like the idea of a utopia.
you'd be right
the idea of feudalism sans serfdom is something Hoppe talks about as a possible ideal.
And? Are you saying that forcing people at the barrel of a gun is a better system?
>utopia
Shucks, you're right. It's not like we have thousands of examples of the free market working its magic right now. We have so many examples of hyper-efficient government spending with no waste, because they have a "higher ideal" than making money.
its an IQ test ...
90 and below Subhuman Islam Niggers
90-100 Nazis White pride nationalist ... why read a book ?
100-120 Commies Socialist Left scum
120 and above Ancaps, with a tiny spec of academia who are paid to remain commies.
Best way to learn about anarcocapitalism: daviddfriedman.com
rofl linking a pdf document to a nazi flag .... talk to a wall it has the same effect.
Sam Seder destroys ancucks and lolbertarians. Look it up on YouTube, it's hilarious hearing them squirm
>what ancap has to offer
A dystopian where corporations rules, and fights agaisnt other corporations with espionage and even wars. A fucking cyberpunk dystopia, to be pretty honest family.
tomwoods.com
for understanding what country comes the closest to our ideology, Tom Woods just released this golden podcast.
>Can someone give a good explanation on what ancap has to offer.
We have recreational thermonuclear bombs. What do you have?
Tom Woods is spot on about pretty much everything.
>checkmate, asscaps
Who needs roads when you have helicopters.
He's now following all the speakers from the Malta conference, which was fucking awesome, bet he will soon address the "memes" talk.
>Supply and demand. People often select moving to less popular areas in speculation of future property value rises instead of choosing the already established overpriced successes. This leads to smarter (in the sense of being able to predict successful formulas) people "leading" the way
The problem with this is that the people that want to move to communities with few people will have to contribute more for things like security. Especially in small communities because there easier targets to crime.
>If landowners are not capable of foreseeing such situations they will lose property value quickly and someone will buy their property from them at cheap and try again with a different formula.
But couldn't it also go:
1 One guy runs the biggest community and is able to pressure other communities to sell their land and eventually take over all of the communities.
2 The owner of the community that is going corrupt sells his community to the criminals for a higher price.
>There's no patents in this society, other communities will quickly copy the contracts of the successful ones and gain property value quickly.
But wouldn't it just be smarter to have community then if every other community is going to copy the successful own?
Plus even more of a reason to go to the biggest community, because if they all have the same laws, why not just go to the community that needs less funding (by the people).
>Besides, people have different ideas of what constitutes success or happiness, for some, it might be economic status, for others racial purity, for others knowing that the poor will never fall through the cracks, there will be multiple choices always.
So the system relize a lot on people wanting to not just be where it's most economically beneficial.
But I still think people rather go to a place where they have donate 1,000
Than a place where they have to donate
2,000.
>Only if the proprietor allows democracy within his walls. I would not live in a place that allowed democracy, free unvetted immigration or socialism, for example.
As I see it: the economic system is populist but not the rest.
Another point i want to bring up is: What if one of the communities by force tried to take other communities?
Or if a war broke out between a community and a nation?
Freedom