Stefan is my favourite asm-autist

stefan is my favourite asm-autist

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2U-RZZu6Afc
youtube.com/watch?v=gqaWsxXrJSw
youtube.com/watch?v=GKczW14EO_w
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

* >favourite narcissist.

Remember that time he got wrekt by a fascist and had to resort to "gubmind is violence"

>narcissist.
you say that cause you're a low intelligence dumb piece of shit jealous of him and don't have the mental ability to think of anything better
>he's got confidence in all the success he's created in life? (((kike invented word to attack white men and create beta nu-males)))!
pathetic

fpbp OZ shit posting literal genetic master race

literally genetically engineered from the dregs of the already awful English to be concentreted and selected to become the most emotionally and verbally corrosive race of man on the planet earth

Haha actually that fascist got destroyed. Are you denying that government uses violence to achieve its aims...what are you, retarded?

i'm a fascist and think cultured thug lost. cultured thug is a pussy. he just says the government will do good things while not talking about what the good things are and any kind of real doctrine.

i'm absolutely pro-violence and think starting ww3 to genocide shitskins is good. if i talked with moly i'd absolutely promote violence and ethnic cleansing, eugenics, and force.

i disliked molymeme cause his ancap and muh nap. nap? who the fuck cares. if we had an ancap society i'd get a large group and go raid them for fun cause fuck nap.

>you say that cause you're a low intelligence dumb piece of shit jealous of him and don't have the mental ability to think of anything better

Lol, just because I live in Australia, does not make me Australian. Am I right to assume that you're a fat, diabetic, virgin fuck, housed in your mothers basement? Maybe, but I shall not resort to such pathetic attempts of Ad Hom.

Stefan is a fucking tool, he refuses to acknowledge anything that anyone else has to say, unless he is discussing with another public figure. Why people even call in to this shill surprises me.

>he's got confidence in all the success he's created in life? (((kike invented word to attack white men and create beta nu-males)))!

Then why is he begging for money all the time?

Sorry chaps, forgot to link this autist.

>he refuses to acknowledge anything that anyone else has to say,
he refuses to acknowledge your fee fee and the stupid thoughts you subhuman trash make. are you a woman or something dumb fuck? you type like you've got an estrogen brain.

you're obviously some mental midget loser who is just jealous of his success and angry at your inability to even understand what he's saying. don't worry you're a subhuman and will live the rest of your life being inferior garbage unable to comprehend this world around you. just accept it and make peace with being so stupid. not everybody was meant to be human.

>fat
you think people are fat cause you're fat yourself you fucking ugly fat slob. as somebody who hasn't ever been overweight i don't even consider this as an insult cause it's so foreign. you're a dumb fuck who can only say and do things which are closely related to your shit life so you're definitely a fat pig. probably a fat roastie pig making it extra gross.

>you think people are fat cause you're fat yourself you fucking ugly fat slob.

Actually, I look to the general statistics of your once proud nation. Soz, not soz. Ad Hom, is literally for the intellectually handicapped, enjoy the rest of your day mate.

fat people are the least of america's worries. all the low iq brown people are the real threat.

>Ad Hom
says the roastie who only so far has said molymeme is bad cause he has confidence and doesn't allow garbage like you to pretend to be correct. stupid people really dislike molymeme cause they know in their entire life they'll never reach his level. you're a woman so it's even more impossible

I AM A PHILOSOPHER THE LIKES OF WHICH THE WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN
I HAVE COMPLETED THE SYSTEM OF GERMAN IDEALISM
I HAVE CRACKED THE CODE AND GIVEN PROOF FOR A SECULAR OBJECTIVE MORALITY
UNIVERSALLY PREFERABLE BEHAVIOR
DO YOU SUPPORT THE INITIATION OF VIOLENCE... AGAINST ME?
DON'T FORGET TO DONATE. FREEDOMAIN RADIO SLASH DONATE. EVERY ONE DOLLAR COUNTS

>he refuses to acknowledge your fee fee and the stupid thoughts

And meanwhile he falls back to "muh NAP. Do you support me being shot???" whenever there's anyone who doesn't agree with his retarded ancap bullshit. His fundamental problem is that he thinks the entire world should operate on his personal set of principles, and that whatever he decrees to be morally right must be so.

Or how about the fact that he apparently thinks the only thing stopping us from having our perfect ancap paradise and the only thing stopping us from all being 100% rational is... shitty schooling. Top fucking kek, what a moronic cultist.

I don't like the guy. His videos are always obnoxiously long and I can't be arsed watching one of his videos when I could just be reading something much more succinct and rigorous like Rothbard or Hoppe. I've learned far more from reading their works for 5 minutes than I have listening to his 30 minute rants. He's also got some terrible practices and he is an ungrateful bastard when it comes to donations.
He's got a majorly inflated sense of ego and it doesn't come across very well.
I mean, I agree with the guy on a lot of the finer points of Libertarianism, I just think his presentation style is way over the top

>says the roastie who only so far has said molymeme is bad cause he has confidence and doesn't allow garbage like you to pretend to be correct.

Are you intellectually fit for this platform? I'm advocating that either party should be free from interruption and free to discuss their point of view. I'm not saying that Molypoo is wrong, I'm merely stating that he's a narcissist and that he proves so time and time again when he disrupts a caller and spews his rhetoric at the viewers.

Are you one of these Pantyfa guys that does not believe in the right to speak if it goes against your views? Keep sucking the tit of free domain radio and give them more of your shekels.

>perfect ancap paradise and the only thing stopping us from all being 100% rational is... shitty schooling.
8 years ago molymeme was a joke who lived in an ancap bubble. now he's proto-fascist and regularly talks about how people make their choices based off emotions only and rationality and logic won't influence the masses.

he's not an idealist ancap talking about nap anymore.

>his personal set of principles
you mean not stealing, murdering, assaulting, raping, or harming other people? so which principles should society live on which involves these? i'm a fascist who wants eugenics and ethnic cleansing, but you seem like a butthurt retard. obviously the majority of people want something along the lines of nap but with the exception of government tax so they can be protected instead of full anarchy. people want personal benefits and the majority of people can't play on a level playing field so they want help from the tribe(government) to cover for them.

if you posted this 8 years ago i'd agree molymeme and ancaps were retarded. now i think you're just a fucking retard who can't understand what he's saying due to low intellect

>Are you one of these Pantyfa guys that does not believe in the right to speak if it goes against your views?
absolutely i don't. if you go against my views then i think you should be removed off the planet earth. stupid people should get put into their place. i think women like you should be enslaved so you're barking up the wrong tree retard. everybody isn't equal. there's superiors and inferiors. inferiors don't need equal anything. disrupting retards like you is okay. you should be thankful you aren't put to death instead of worried about telling others your stupid fucking ideas

>everybody isn't equal. there's superiors and inferiors.

Thank you for your insight, you appear to be amongst the latter.

Yes he is. If you peel back all the topical clickbait he puts out now, he's still that same retarded ancap. Check out his latest video where he "debates" (read: shouts over) a fascist and goes right back to his lolberg 101 shit about "DO YOU SUPPORT THE USE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST ME?!" shit.

The dude is a disingenuous snake oil salesman. Use his videos for the data he sometimes summaries, but dear god, the man himself is an utter piece of shit.
youtube.com/watch?v=2U-RZZu6Afc

lel, remember back when stefan was claiming he had solved philosophy, and it was the NAP

ITS NOT N.A.P.
ITS UNIVERSALLY PREFERRED BEHAVIOR
I HAVE SOLVED PHILOSOPHY FOREVER
I AM THE GREATEST PHILOSOPHER IN ALL HISTORY
DO YOU SUPPORT VIOLENCE AGAINST ME?
MIKE, SHUT HIM OFF

Reminder that saying "not an argument" in and of itself is not an argument.

He needs to make his videos shorter.

LOL that fascist didn't even know anything about farming mate. He's never even run a business so he has no right to even talk about economics.

Reminder that according to Moly, you're not allowed to have an opinion on anything that you yourself have not personally done.

I'd rather listen to ASMR girlfriends.
More believable despite the infinite impossibility.

i'm a fascist and i support the use of violence. the fucking faggot should've just admitted fascist want to use violence instead of dancing around it.

do you think everybody is as stupid as you dude? obviously us fascist will use violence. i'd tell molymeme 100% i'd use violence against him and anybody who opposes the fascist doctrine.

you're stupid and just want to "win" the argument but you don't decide if you win it or not. the fascist should've admitted he would use violence and then talk about why it's good. instead of being a fucking bitch saying no or it's not violence. yes, it is violence. you aren't some magical sovereign citizen and regardless violence is good.

since you can't even reach this level of thought you're too dumb to understand molymeme

No wonder that the last time someone asked him about debate techniques, the answers were
>so you think you're better than me, huh?
and
>MIKE!!! CUT HIM OFF!!! MIKE CUT HIM OFF NOW!!! SHUT IT DOWN

>someone who loves to talk in purple prose with embellished diatribes and jerks off to the sound of his own voice
>making shorter more concise videos

Yeah, no.
The only thing Moly is moderately decent at is bringing up data points. And even then, you have to sit through 60 minutes of meandering bullshit to hear them. It's much better to just go to The Alternative Hypothesis and read their articles on basically anything and everything instead.

The great thing about the ancap society is that people don't have to be rational, they have to be human. So long as people all work off of the same Natural Law, Anarcho Capitalism is the true way forward for people. We were experiencing a massive surge towards concepts such as Natural Law during the time prior to the Federalist Coup in 1788. The logical progression of the Jeffersonian philosophy was what we now call Natural Law, and this ideology is best constructed by Rothbardian Libertarianism; which was formed by Murray Rothbard using the concepts, embodied in Natural Law, as axioms to then use system building techniques to develop Rothbardian Libertarianism, or Anarcho Capitalism.
Because it was built purely logically using the systematic process and only deals with the rights of man, it is only refutable by refutation of it's axioms. The logic has been tried many times and always come out to be logically sound, unless you disagree on the fundamental point of Natural Law. If you do not believe in a concept such as Natural Law, then the entire Libertarian system is incorrect to you. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who is honest with himself that doesn't believe that every man is endowed with certain inalienable rights, the right to be as he is and the right to not be aggressed upon having not aggressed against another

>MIKE!!! CUT HIM OFF!!! MIKE CUT HIM OFF NOW!!! SHUT IT DOWN

Did he ever actually say this or is it just a meme

FPBP

>do you think everybody is as stupid as you dude? obviously us fascist will use violence. i'd tell molymeme 100% i'd use violence against him and anybody who opposes the fascist doctrine.

I don't consider it "use of violence" either, because that's arguing from a retarded ancap frame. I reject the moral frame to begin with. Plus, Moly doesn't give the guy a chance to properly respond, and goes off on how his UPB/NAP morality is the one true morality, and that if you disagree with him that violence (aka taxes and government) are bad, that this makes you an evil psychopath that shouldn't even be allowed to speak on his show.

I think the guy argued his points the best he possibly could, given the format of Moly's call-in shows and how he will only allow you to talk for ~10 seconds before cutting you off, whereas you also have to listen to him go on for 10 minutes at a time. Anyone arguing with Moly isn't exactly arguing from a level playing field, and so that needs to be taken into consideration.

no fucking way

He actually did.
It was in that video with Dave the Danish caller. He said he had used a certain debating technique best described as "placating the crybaby" with great success, but never saw or heard Stefan use it so he wondered if there might be a reason for that he wasn't aware of, perhaps something to do with debate efficiency.
Very first thing Stefan said
>so you think you're better than me

What followed was his most downvoted video ever.

He lies about literally everything in his life. Why wouldn't you expect him to sockpuppet like that too?

On an unrelated note, has this faggot talked about Daily Stormer getting shut down yet? Claims to be a huge proponent of free speech, and yet Molymeme has been completely 100% radio silent for weeks since DS got shut down, in an unprecedented move with politicization of domain registrars. But I guess it's okay because it was a private corporation?

>Natural Law
something that doesn't exist. natural law might as well be some sjw invented gender pronoun it's such a nonsensical stupid fucking idea.

the only right people have is their ability to enforce the right they decide.

I don't understand this opposition to violence.

Violence is fucking wonderful. Violence is the triumph of the strong, the noble, the just
Haven't you ever dreamed of the din of battle, the cries of your enemies as the flee before you, the mighty marching footsteps of a great host that shakes the earth?

youtube.com/watch?v=gqaWsxXrJSw
It's in our blood

(((Molypoo)))

Hahaha link to the video?

>i'd get a large group and go raid them for fun
He believes he'd be a successful lord ruling over his loyal serfs in his ancap utopia. In reality, he'd be murdered by the first warlord to wander through and his wife and daughter would be sex slaves.

>I am a great philosopher and please donate money to me, to save our civilization.

/NAP

Nonsense. Everyone has the right to their own person, and therefore the products of their person. This isn't about survival, or ethics, it is about man and our nature. At our core, we all our are own masters. Violation of this is always an act of agression and should be treated as one. Remember, this is a system built around rights and is therefore about what is just and what is not just. Things can be in an unjust way for a prolonged period of time, but that doesn't change the fact that it is unjust. Slavery was wrong even though it was popular and was seen as "right" at the time. We know slavery was wrong, because we were en masse denying the right of thousands of niggers to their own selves.
Popular, and seen as right, but known to be unjust.

Yup, he didn't even know farmers change crops yet he felt high and mighty enough to use it as a subject / example of his political theory. Typical of the fascist mindset, everything is simple and easy when you're retarded

>Performed a dance that dislodges the demons of philosophy.

MIKE!!! MIKE!!! SHUT HIM OFF

THIS COCKY 20 YEAR OLD CUNT THINKS HE'S BETTER THAN ME? I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 30 YEARS, YOU THINK YOU'RE BETTER THAN ME???

MIKE, CUT HIM OFF!!! GET HIM OFF MY SHOW!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=GKczW14EO_w

no the guy was a fucking weasel who just said they wouldn't use violence and when asked why fascism would work he just explained the people would be good.

that's NO different than communist saying well our system will cause this time i'll be the dictator doing the central planning. fascism works because it relies on the natural state of humans and their tribal instincts. it also gives them instinctive to move upward and doesn't have any type of equality/egalitarian mental illness that other things do. the guy wanted to weasel a win on molymeme and lost. simple as that. i think fascism is the future, but he lost and it's stupid to try and pretend otherwise. he didn't provide any good reasons why fascism will work outside bullshit idealist crap and then tried to say it won't use violence? bullshit.

instead of ideals it relies on realistic things. his ideals were whatever, but he didn't explain how they would work other than "the people would make it work". bad argument. stupid argument. it'll work because it relies on human psychology to create a system of upward mobility that's self-reinforcing and has a doctrine that cuts off loose and unstable elements so it naturally comes back towards the center

Ancapism has the similar problems as with communism. Obviously communism is a lot more incoherent, but they both rely on everyone in society following a moral axiom (ie, the NAP for ancaps, sharing everything for the commies) and the whole thing falls apart if you have anyone that decides not to follow "the rules"

You know what would happen in an ancap society? People that own land and resources would form contracts with people, have lists of rules for how to behave on their property, take rent from people living on their land, etc. It'd basically be a microstate, with whatever government you personally want. So to start, you'd had a bunch of tiny microstates. The ancap mindset wants to just stop here and act like this is great, but that's not really how it will work. In reality, the microstates would coalesce into larger and larger states (either through purchasing of other microstates or by simply violating the precious NAP and going to war and taking their shit). Eventually, you'd just end up having a state again.

Trying to have an ancap society is like tryingto have a bath tub of full of water, but without any walls to the bath tub to hold the water. It's inherently unstable and cannot work. It's nothing more than an idealized thought experiment.

Really, it happened. Molymeme is a supershill

A quarter of his audience is just fake accounts he made. On youtube that is

kek i could only hope to live up to the corrosive race.

>Everyone has the right to their own person
you don't have any rights. i say so and will enforce my view on you using violence. your rights only exist in your head. in this reality there's only whoever has the biggest fist.

>it also gives them instinctive to move upward
i meant it gives them incentive.

Does anyone have the screencap of Moly autistically going through the youtube comments and responding "not an argument" to everything, even when it didn't make sense

I agree completely. I'm just pointing out that Molymeme has this axiomatic crutch of MUH NAP, and if you ever disagree with his "violence (aka taxes) is bad" rhetoric, then he flies off the handle and acts like you're satan incarnate. This is obviously fucking ridiculous, but that's what would happen if you were to try to discuss this on his show. You wouldn't get anywhere with it, and you'd need to tip-toe around the issue just to not get sidetracked by that ancap bullshit.

The point is that molymemes ridiculous ideas on violence are retarded.

I don't, I deleted that awhile ago :(

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that it's really hard to actually make any succinct arguments when you're trying to talk with Stef, because he'll juts cut you off and go off on false premises for 90% of the duration of your call. I think the guy did pretty well given the circumstances. Of course, I may be biased and I understand what he was getting at in the first place, but I think the real loser in that debate was Molyneux, who just came off as the ridiculous sophist that he is.

Not at all. If the NAP isn't followed, then legal troubles get involved or maybe police forces if necessary. There is still government in an Anarcho Capitalist society, you're coming from this as if there wouldn't be law and order or a civil order at all.
Also you're wrong about States forming in an AnCap society. The current State has the monopoly over violence. They are allowed to use force in order to make us bend to their will, but we are not allowed to use force to do the same. We are constantly being aggressed against in that manner, thus the State is a coercive entity. A corporation can not aggress against anyone, no matter how large it gets. Because it cannot use coercive force, it cannot corner the market via regulations on it's competitors.
So no, corporations will never become States in a truly free society. They may become corporate communities, but the key point of these communities is that all the members are there voluntarily, unlike in a State. They do not have the power to force anyone to do anything against their will, as that is a violation of the NAP.

>If the NAP isn't followed, then legal troubles get involved or maybe police forces if necessary
You know ancoms say that if anyone owns property, the community should gather together in a mob and beat the shit out of them

Once again, you are confusing rights with power. You do not have the right to aggress against me, even if you have the power to do so. When you use your power to force me to do anything, you are violating my rights. The point is that you have done something that is unjust, not that you weren't capable of doing. If you were to fail at your aggression and be brought to trial, there logical argument would follow that you initiated violence against me and are thus guilty.
It's about what is just, not what you have the power to do.

Then I will be sure to not fail, and then tell everyone that you consented to being brutally murdered. It was just a fair exchange between two consenting adults.

Why are you so against violence? I don't understand

>anarcho-capitalism
>there is still a government
>there'd be legal troubles

No there wouldn't. And the rest of your post is not an argument, because you only argue from how you think things ought to be in your idealist version of ancapistan, rather than just accepting how it would actually turn out. Your entire premise relies on everyone strictly following the NAP and collectively ganging up to stifle anyone who breaks it. The whole concept is utterly nonsensical. Ancapistan would just turn into a series of fiefdoms that swallow each other up over time.

>really hard to actually make any succinct arguments
yes that's because he's fucking smart and has his own worldview. you're trying to validate your view which invalidates his. since you're trying to argue with somebody as intelligent and skilled as molymeme then you better fucking be prepared cause you already know what he'll do.

molymeme believes people have "natural rights" like nap. fascist DENY it. if you can't go into an argument into molymeme explaining why violence and his morality is wrong then don't even begin. it's just fucking stupid platitudes and you losing if you can't debate why nap is wrong, violence is good, and human life can be squashed like ants for the greater good. the guy set himself up for failure.

Rare MolyMeme(tm)

Source?

There are no such thing as "rights" faggot. Not in some universal abstract sense. A "right" in the common use of the term is merely something that we all decide to agree to uphold. If the government actually wanted to, it could rip up the bill of rights and decide to go around and take everyone's guns. And you saying "hey, you can't do that. This is my right!" wouldn't magically stop them. The only thing that would stop them is a use of FORCE AGAINST THEM taking your shit.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Might makes right. The only rights that exist are the ones that someone can enforce.

That's a lot different than what I'm suggesting. There are rules, stemming from property rights, about punishment. Punishment would be proportional to the crime and in a retribution style, rather than a prohibitive or rehabilitory style.
A criminal that steals $500 from someone must pay the person back $500 and then they must pay for the amount the person's rights were aggressed against. In this case, the person stolen from experienced the loss of $500 and all of the uncertanty that comes with that. Thus the criminal would have to pay an additional $500.
Punishment proportional to the crime. Rothbard wrote at length about this, because he was very keen on establishing a proper method of punishment, as that was lacking in Libertarian theory in general at the time. He wrote a lot about this in his book "The Ethics of Liberty" which you can get for free from the Mises institute if you're actually interested in understanding Anarcho Capitalist theory from it's axiomatic core.

Molymeme loses every debate because
>"DONT CUT ME OFF, it's my show"
>cuts people off continuously, over the most pedantic thing he could think of

>There are rules, stemming from property rights, about punishment
rules that you pulled out of your ass

not everyone is going to be a clone of you, do you understand this? To some people "violence" means using the wrong gender pronouns, or looking at your wife the wrong way

You say "must" a lot which implies violence and force.

I'm not against violence at all. I'm saying that violence is only justified if another has violated against you first. That's all Anarcho Capitalism is, however it is this structure that disproves the State and shows it to be the criminal organization it truly is.

meanwhile in real life you're an overweight neckbeard that looks down at his shoes when passing a black guy

>yes that's because he's fucking smart and has his own worldview.
No, I'm referring to the way he cuts people off because they can complete any arguments, while also hogging the time. That's nothing to do with being smart; it's just a question of how the format of the show is structured in his favor.

Now, should the caller have kept that in mind and prepared to be fighting in someone on their own turf by their own rules? Sure. But overall, I think it's better that he went on there and did what he did, rather than not giving Moly's viewers any thoughts about fascism at all.

Except they were having what seemed like a theoretical economic argument and Stef decided to take the question literally. And in what world do different crops have drastically different labor costs? But that's essentially the globalist argument, if you can't compete with 3rd world costs and standards then do something else, which works as long people value your currency.

You'd need to have someone capable of enforcing retribution. How the fuck are you going to do that in a stateless society? The only way you'd be able to do that is if you are more powerful than they are. If the entity that violates the NAP is more powerful, it's not like he's just going to accept any punishment if he doesn't want to.

This is literally just might-makes-right. You are too deluded to see it.

>You do not have the right to aggress against me
no, you see i do. if i feel like it and decide to move my body to do it then it's my right. your "right" is your ability to defend yourself.

>unjust
another imaginary term. there's only the winner and the loser. just is you being safe and winning while losing and harm to you is unjust. it's good for me to harm you so actually it's just for me to do so if i benefit.

cutting off people is fine. if they can't argue back over him then they're weak pussy so deserve it and never had a validate point to begin with. if you're weak and lose then you suck and it's good you lost.

>hogging the time
if you've got enough ideas then you could probably talk with molymeme for 8 hours straight going back and forth. it's because the people only have 30 minutes worth of ideas that it's 30 minutes long. repeating the same shit and going in circles is useless.

This is fucking ruthless, the gall on this balding cunt. I had not seen this video before, but this proves my previous arguments within this thread. Does Molypoo consider himself the Aristotle of our time? Is he really this far gone?

Once again, it does not at all rely on people strictly following the NAP. If they violate the NAP, which will certainly happen, then they would be brought to court or equally aggressed against. It also doesn't require mobs at all. The need for security for communities would quickly be met because it is a service that individuals can supply for compensation. You've bought into the memes far too much.

And that is why ancaps are similar to commies, in that both require literally everyone else to magically "play by the rules" of their own volition.

It's like balancing a pencil on its tip. Can you theoretically do it? Sure. But one ever-so-slight shift off-balance and it collapses.

>must
>should
>not allowed
>justified

These words mean NOTHING in a situation of anarchy. Who makes the rules and decides what is justified is merely whoever has the biggest guns.

You're being dense. If someone aggresses against you then you are JUSTIFIED in returning the aggression. Yes there would be people trying to aggress against others, but they would justifiably be met with an aggressive response. The entire point of establishing the rights of people is to determine when it is right for people in society to aggress against others. This is only when another person has aggressed against them.
Go ahead and flex all you want though lol

>what a meanie
>some pussy socialist cuckold 20 year old like me who doesn't know shit thinks he tell molymeme to change his tone
fucking losers. you think you idiot scum can call somebody and try to tone police them?

>your tone is mean so change it
this is your estrogen brain speaking. you don't get to tell an adult male who is more successful, intelligent, and respected than anybody in your entire family combined to change their tone you dumb bitch.

Except I never pulled these rules from my ass. To explain the entire property rights argument from it's axiom to the particular point about proportional punishment would just require a write up I'm not willing to work on. It took Rothbard about 8 chapters to built from Natural Law to Proportional Punishment. Sry m8 but I'm not fucking doing that. Go read the guy's book if you actually care

>this is your estrogen brain speaking. you don't get to tell an adult male who is more successful, intelligent, and respected than anybody in your entire family combined to change their tone you dumb bitch.

OMFG, I JUST FOUND STEFAN!!! CUT HIM OFF MIKE!!!!

>anarcho-capitalism
>courts

If I have the biggest guns and the most power, why should I show up to your make-believe court? Why should I follow your rules at all if I can get away with not following them?

>oh shit, I don't have a good retort so I'll just reference some 1000 page trieste by a jewish economist and claim victory

anybody that isn't an estrogen brained little bitch sissy or stupid roastie whore understands why some little faggot 20 year old socialist cuckold trying to tone police molymeme isn't acceptable. the little queer had the worst arguments possible about why it's good.

do you think you loser trash are new? it's old. i imagine molymeme has had tons of losers like you try and tell him why he should behave the way you decide. stupid roastie

Who makes the rules and decides what is justified are the courts, which have existed as long as there has been enforcement mechanisms. These enforcement mechanisms can and would be provided by private services which would be equally accountable by law. If a private service aggressed unlawfully against anyone, then another service would bring them to court. All of this particular structure happened naturally already in Natural Aristocracies. The Aristocrats were the lords which acted as the enforcers of courts. The aristocrats couldn't make the law, they could only enforce it. This structure is only a few steps away from the structure of anarcho capitalism. The difference is that the courts would be up to date on our understanding of the rights of man, specifically the axiomatic property rights of all men to themselves and the products of their bodies
Hoppe wrote a book at length about this called "From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy" if you're interested in the full story

You don't have to show up to court. If you don't, then your defense would be badly damaged. If you are found guilty then a warrant would be released for your arrest, and possibly a bounty would be put on your head by the victim party.
At least, they would have the right to do such a thing in an anarcho capitalist society.

Imagine I'm living in an ancap society with people labeled A through K.
A is well-liked in the society. Everyone loves him
B is an annoying cunt, and everyone hates him.
One day, A decides to just go over and kill B, just because B was annoying and A couldn't take it anymore.
He thoroughly violated the NAP, so it stands to reason that the rest of the people in society, C through K, should all gang up and dole punishment on A for his crime. However, everyone loves A and wanted B dead anyway. And so, they decide to not do anything about it, because fuck that annoying cunt.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? All you're saying is "I hope the people with more force will make sure to do their duty to the NAP and carry out punishment against aggressors". This is competently impotent. There's NOTHING backing it up. You're totally relying on there always being a more powerful entity, and you're relying on that more-powerful entity WANTING to dole out punishment against the offender.

>i imagine molymeme has had tons of losers like you try and tell him why he should behave the way you decide. stupid roastie

But I never mentioned how I'd like him to behave, merely stated his toxic self indulgent personality.

(OP)
* >favourite narcissist.

>repeating the same shit and going in circles is useless

Tell that to Molymeme

>cutting off people is fine

Are you actually retarded? Again, if that's the case, tell that to molypuke because he can't stop interrupting people whenever they're making a salient point- then he replaces whatever good direction they were heading in with bullshit pedantic references or a shit line of reasoning on the train to no-where'sville.

Like I said, I just don't have the time to walk you guys through from the baby steps of Natural Law all the way to it's specific developments. I'm sure if I did have the time to do it all, then there wouldn't be many questions as to it's validity. I might actually start up a thread after writing up a detailed explanation some other time

I just fucking hate how long his videos are. He thinks he's worth 20-60 minutes of my time? Fuck that.

Have some 5 minute videos ya cunt.

I'm also surprised he hasn't gone back to AnCap now that Trump is in office and he can RedPill more people. Seems like he sold out to a lesser philosophy.

Dude, you're debating with Molypoo right now, it's him, I swear, it has to be.

>they would have the right

You keep using that word. None of what you said is actually enforceable. If I had the means, I could carry out "punishment" against someone who's never even violated the NAP, so long as everyone agrees with me. Your entire presupposition is that the entire society will always agree to hold up the NAP as the sacred rule of the land. This is not so.

>cutting off people is fine.
Okay, I'm done with you.

Natural Law: I am bigger, I am stronger, I kill you

I think so too. He's the only one retarded enough to be poster.

B-B-BUT IN MY IDEALISTIC WORLD EVERYONE WOULD FORM A COURT TOGETHER AND PUNISH NAP VIOLATORS I SWEAR THIS WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN

I can't wait for people to actually start making ancap meme societies and then pulling the same "well that wasn't REAL ancapism!" arguments that communists do