If a company would control a city, how would new companies be created? I mean:
1 They wouldn't be able to start the new company with out the old company's permission.
2 If a new company started, wouldn't the old company just either: Stop them with their private police, Or just not allow stores to sell their products meanwhile they ban trade out from the city?
Plus wouldn't that become state capitalism?
>1 They wouldn't be able to start the new company with out the old company's permission.
Why should you be able to do what you want on someone elses private property?
Startup on your own land.
>
2 If a new company started, wouldn't the old company just either: Stop them with their private police,
If they were violating the rules set for their property, yes, but see above as to why that doesn't matter.
>Or just not allow stores to sell their products meanwhile they ban trade out from the city?
They could do that, and in doing so, would be giving other cities that don't do that an advantage over them.
how much for a baby?
The concept of private property comes from the concept of self ownership.
If you can own someone else without their consent, than there is no philosophical basis for private property.
So no babies for sale in a an-cap state.
>They could do that, and in doing so, would be giving other cities that don't do that an advantage over them.
So if microsoft owned a city they would there wouuld never be any new Companys being created in that city?
>So if microsoft owned a city they would there wouuld never be any new Companys being created in that city?
They could make any good or bad decision they like as long as it doesn't violate the NAP.
You could also have a communist city right across the street.
That's the beauty of it, it allows for all types of societies to coexist.
Depends who you are. Either minimum or maximum.
Knows how stupid his ideology is.
Still believes it.
>They could make any good or bad decision they like as long as it doesn't violate the NAP.
But if bill gates started to violate the NAP who would stop them? They could just recruit the biggest army ever,
Not an argument.
ancap is more of a political philosophy than an ideology.
Plus if a company is as big as a city, controls police and military, controls all the production.
wouldn't that just be Luxemburg trying state capitalism?
>But if bill gates started to violate the NAP who would stop them? They could just recruit the biggest army ever,
Literally every single other person and company that doesn't want him to have that
MADD
It's also worth noting that Bill likely wouldn't be looking to violate the nAP in his tax free paradise.
Instead, he'd buy the Governments of other nations because they're for sale, and work to subjugate their people, who are already primed for that.
You don't properly understand ANCAP.
It's descriptive. ANCAP describes the de-facto mechanisms of human value exchange. The inverse of this is to declare a standard mechanism of human value exchange, or rather, prescriptive. That whole NATSOC/NAZBOL dialectic is prescriptive, and that's why it doesn't work, bad prescription. Bad ideal.
It's a waste of time to go replacing an a priori social construct with ersatz economics. Dumbfuck. Stop posting forever.
>Plus if a company is as big as a city, controls police and military, controls all the production.
>wouldn't that just be Luxemburg trying state capitalism?
No because it wouldn't be a state. It would be a private company on private land with private defense and security as we have now but to a higher degree.
>No because it wouldn't be a state.
But if it has the same functions and abilities as a government why wouldn't that count as a government?
Even if it doesn't count as a government with state capitalism it would be the same thing.
>Literally every single other person and company that doesn't want him to have that
But if the company is to strong? I mean microsoft would be able to create a larger army than any other company.
>But if it has the same functions and abilities as a government why wouldn't that count as a government?
It doesn't.
It doesn't have citizens, it has employees.
It doesn't have elected officials, it has board members.
Bill Gates can literally sell his city and give control over to who he pleases, a Mayor cannot do that.
Any one can leave.
Any one living in the city that willingly joins his hostile militia will know they're violating the NAP, therefore legal to hunt and kill in the whole nation, including the city he arises.
By creating the economic conditions for total control we ensure total control will never happen by companies or by Governments.
In our modern systems, The governments control all and they're for sale.
>But if the company is to strong? I mean microsoft would be able to create a larger army than any other company.
You have to ask yourself their motivations for putting everything they've built at risk and you have to realize other "cities" would be competing for their labor.
You can join Militia A and get paid X amount and be protected by the laws of the state.
You can join Militia B and get paid X but will be immiediately declared in violation of the NAP and your murder will be legalized. Meaning if even Bill kills you, we won't hold him accountable for it.
How much more would he have to pay you to join Militia B? There is no amount I would take.
Also, you have to ask yourself, what did they do to make themselves so powerful and popular?
What terms and services did they offer that made the majority of the population wanna work for them and live under their rules instead of on their own land?
You have to ask yourself if this company would survive if employees started to leave en mass because of shitty tyrannical decisions being made.
The will of free individuals becomes the check and balance against everything you fear in an AnCap society.
BTW, personally I'm a Minarchist.
>It doesn't have citizens, it has employees.
It doesn't have elected officials, it has board members. Bill Gates can literally sell his city and give control over to who he pleases, a Mayor cannot do that.
So what you do is switch power from a demorcacy to a full blown dictatorship?
(that work s as exactly the same way a state capitalist society would)
>So what you do is switch power from a demorcacy to a full blown dictatorship?
No.
Because there is no citizens to dictate over.
Only highly paid employees.
All these employees are citizens of a country that is not run by Bill.
Apples has a town right across the street and they're not looking to be tyrannical overlords to their employees. So tell me, why does anyone stay at Microsoft?
>You have to ask yourself their motivations for putting everything they've built at risk and you have to realize other "cities" would be competing for their labor.
You can join Militia A and get paid X amount and be protected by the laws of the state.
You can join Militia B and get paid X but will be immiediately declared in violation of the NAP and your murder will be legalized. Meaning if even Bill kills you, we won't hold him accountable for it.
How much more would he have to pay you to join Militia B? There is no amount I would take.
Also, you have to ask yourself, what did they do to make themselves so powerful and popular?
What terms and services did they offer that made the majority of the population wanna work for them and live under their rules instead of on their own land?
You have to ask yourself if this company would survive if employees started to leave en mass because of shitty tyrannical decisions being made.
The will of free individuals becomes the check and balance against everything you fear in an AnCap society.
Well i would't care about how much i earned rather which side would win.
Plus there are other ways of growing to power in the ancap system. By basically taking over failed ancap cities and since no other competion can be created eventully it will lead to gigantic Companys versus fighting for domination. and each company wont earn the exact same.
lake buena vista. The police force is literally Disney security.
>it will lead to gigantic Companys versus fighting for domination
This is exactly what we're hoping for.
Companies to compete against one another.
>1 They wouldn't be able to start the new company with out the old company's permission.
>2 If a new company started, wouldn't the old company just either: Stop them with their private police, Or just not allow stores to sell their products meanwhile they ban trade out from the city?
Welcome to Communism! Enjoy your stay, because you won't be able to leave alive!
Bump
libertarians are dumb
DAILY REMINDER: That a White Ethno"state" is totally legal in a Libertarian/Free Market Society.
>Because there is no citizens to dictate over.
So if you control all the production in a country all the security and there by control peoples salary and the laws in that city. But still you dont rule over them. Plus there is a difference between a tyranicly dictator and just someone who runs everything.
>Only highly paid employees.
In a city where everything what you earn is based on the production of materials.
10 guys, 10 cans, 1 dollar for each can, you earn 2 dollars
10 guys, 5 cans, each can costs 2 but to make the people able to buy it and other things they will increse you salary by 1 dollar.
so you might earn more but things will cost more.
All these employees are citizens of a country that is not run by Bill.
So? He can change the laws and everything all he want in the city. Plus why will there even be citizensships in a ancap society?
Apples has a town right across the street and they're not looking to be tyrannical overlords to their employees. So tell me, why does anyone stay at Microsoft?
Becuase if they move he will kill them.
plus even if the city isnt runned by a tyranicly leader why would anyone stay at microsoft if they had lower salaries?
This would lead to everyone moving to the best society.
>So if you control all the production in a country all the security and there by control peoples salary and the laws in that city
The market decides the amount of production and if you don't listen to it you fail.
You don't control the secruity. You pay them.
Any secruity firm you create will be a lot worse off than secruity firms which are meant in perfecting secruity, and they'd be coming after you if ya fuck up.
He doesn't control the salaries. Free individuals negotiate terms of employment, if he ain't paying enough, head to the next company.
>In a city where everything what you earn is based on the production of materials.
10 guys, 10 cans, 1 dollar for each can, you earn 2 dollars
10 guys, 5 cans, each can costs 2 but to make the people able to buy it and other things they will increse you salary by 1 dollar.
so you might earn more but things will cost more.
This is in a closed system. If the Microsoft city is a closed system no one will want to live there or work there. Definately not enough to make the worlds biggest army.
>So? He can change the laws and everything all he want in the city. Plus why will there even be citizensships in a ancap society?
Yes he can change terms on his property just like you can set the rules for your house and kick someone out if they violate them.
Citizenship allow you to live and work and travel freely in an ancap society and imply you;re adhering to the NAP and are willing to face the consequences of violating it.
>Becuase if they move he will kill them.
Then I guess no one else will be joining that team. And literally every University grad will avoid it, and every employee that dies will not be able to be replaced.
Oh, and anyone that decides to assassinate Bill will find he will not be facing legal consequences for it, making his murder extremely likely.
>This would lead to everyone moving to the best society.
RIGHT. So if you wanna compete you better start acting like the best society.
>The market decides the amount of production and if you don't listen to it you fail.
But there is no market in a city runned by one company.
You don't control the secruity. You pay them.
Any secruity firm you create will be a lot worse off than secruity firms which are meant in perfecting secruity, and they'd be coming after you if ya fuck up.
He doesn't control the salaries. Free individuals negotiate terms of employment, if he ain't paying enough, head to the next company.
1 Not everyone can move.
2 All Companys can just agree upon lowaring the maximum and minimum on salaries.
3 Even if you dont take the soiciety by force, eventully one company will take over all of the world.
>This is in a closed system. If the Microsoft city is a closed system no one will want to live there or work there. Definately not enough to make the worlds biggest army.
but my point is that every city will be a closed economy. because there will not be a free market within a company.
>Yes he can change terms on his property just like you can set the rules for your house and kick someone out if they violate them.
Citizenship allow you to live and work and travel freely in an ancap society and imply you;re adhering to the NAP and are willing to face the consequences of violating it.
But if he has a society that is stronger than everyones he wont care.
>Then I guess no one else will be joining that team. And literally every University grad will avoid it, and every employee that dies will not be able to be replaced.
Oh, and anyone that decides to assassinate Bill will find he will not be facing legal consequences for it, making his murder extremely likely.
YES BUT HE WILL OF COURSE DO IT WHEN PEOPLE LIVE THERE. face the consequences, yeah but if you have the best society you will have the larrgest population and that will lead to him just saying I will give you a bunch of shit if you help me conquer the world
1/2
2/2
>RIGHT. So if you wanna compete you better
start acting like the best society.
RIGHT so this will lead to one society being created, I mean which society will you live in a society where you get paid 2000 or 1000. of course you are picking 2000 but that will lead to the next guy who wants to pick to pick between 2000,1 or 1000.
Your argument breaks down into The WalMart Fallacy...
The WalMart Fallacy is that the given the openess of the Free Market, WalMart will become so huge they'll own everything.
This is theoretically possible, however, in practice, there are now half a dozen giant department stores competing with WalMart that wouldn't have existed before.
The complete opposite effect of what's theorized.
No because there is a difference between a free market where new Companies can begin and a society where companies run everything and can stop other companies from starting.
Your face is dumb