Anarcho capitalism is literally impossible

Capitalism is, in large part, the enforcement of contracts. A government entity is needed to enforce contracts and make sure they are binding. Thus, anarcho-capitalism is impossible, and capitalism cannot exist without the state. The state is what controls and enforces binding agreements.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-as7GQThkuc
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

why does the government need to enforce contracts?

A contract means if you don't follow on the agreement, there will be punishment or retribution. Who enforces that aside from what is called government?

the person who signed the contract

>get shot by the counterpart

what do you do?

A contract is only a contract if its enforced by a neutral third party.

anarcho-capitalism is built on the fundamental understanding of the nap by all of the population, and that would be the neutral third party

>government
>nuetral third party

That's literally impossible.
You're asking for an extremely utopian scenario with no crime, etc.

>population
>respect principles

certain principles are widely accepted by its population (95%+) and the nap would be taught in schools, and being natural it wont need massive amounts of conditioning like the state does for it to be accepted by the population

Right Wing Death Squads

> Education will fundamentally re-shape humanity and alter the way all societies have operated until now, there will be more crime
You literally sound like a utopian communist now.

Litigation is king in the ancap world.
Expect the executive branch to shrink and the legislative and judicial branches to grow.
Just dont violate anyones nap tho.

Sounds like you're expecting too much from a bunch of apes.

and supermodels will fuck me while im skydiving while drinking champagne from a camelback.
Oh wait no, that was just a dream I had.

You know, I was discussing anarcho-capitalism with my father and I realized I was talking like I was a communist. I realized this when I said to him that we just need to teach people things.

So I propose dissolving the federal government and letting states do their own thing. Some people are going to do things that logically are not in the best interest. Really the best hope for anarcho-capitalism within American borders is to dissolve the federal state and claim territory and fight with the state. The more government a society has, the less the people's beliefs are represented, so rather than the impossible dream is eliminating state and federal laws, lets limit the American government and work from there.

>there have been no libertarian societies ever
see: thousands of years of monarchy

> A government entity is needed to enforce contracts
OP I found where your logic breaks down. Have a good day.

Have you seen the government try to enforce rental & retail contracts? We have black lists, ratings & credit ratings for a reason and that's even before the need to use force.

Who enforces the government?

How is monarchy about libertarianism? My understanding of monarchy is that kings and queens own the region where they reside and then have feudal lords control those lands which essentially means the peasants farming there are not really owning the land and it could be said that it represents federal and state government really well.

MORE GOVERNMENT

Well, in the abscense of government, contract enforcement would likely be conducted through reputation. If one party violates their contract, it may be difficult for that party to receive new contracts in the future, this ultimately damaging relations for that firm.

Nah, dawg you just have private courts who are funded by the communities that use them. These communities could even vote for who the judges are.

People you pay to do so. Your guild. Your family. Etc.

strong civic militias and strong communities

winning combo

No. Contracts don't even require enforcement to be contracts - all that's needed for a contract is terms and mutual agreement to those terms. That's it.

It depends on if you recognize the king as the legitimate owner of the property. The federal government has authority over how you use your land. An anarchcapitalist defacto King has authority over how you use his land.

Im sure you can imagine a nonstate entity that certifies contracts. If there is a dispute you go to a court and get a decision.
I remember reading in the Icelandic Sagas that people would have disputes over property. They would go to the Allthing, annual meeting of property holders, and each side would plead their case. The council would then render a verdict. At least one example of contracr enforcement without a state. The Allthing was just a mutually agreed upon body to adjudicate contracts and grievances.

Just face it, you can't enforce the monopoly on violence

What you are suggesting is closer to an-cap than statism.

Simply put a conbination of dispute resolutions organizations, third party contract rating agencies and various communal alternatives would fulfill the bulk of the states responsibilities as far as law/courts far more efficiently.

How would a free society enforce something like jaywalking laws? Well unless a specific city or gated community try to enforce that 90% of the country would recognize that its too inefficient and unimportant to enforce so it wouldnt be "illegal" so to speak. Whereas murder, theft etc the big 5 are much more straight forward and would come under these umbrellas. Tbh they would probably resolve much more efficiently than the current bloated inefficient court & police system. Less police involved in menial bullshit and more peacekeepers involved with keeping a community peaceful & happy. Hell I could probably imagine some apps integrating the community with the community security aparatus similar to what UBER does but probably not in the corporate side of things unless dealing with common areas & shopping centers etc.

Might is right. We would have to define ownership.

I'm convinced ancap will never work because certain products and services will always eventually evolve into monopolies and then in the absence of gov there is no third party to intervene and that monopoly lasts forever.

i would recommend you read hans-hermann hoppe's book on "democracy the god that failed" as it covers these topics from a anarcho-capitalist point of view

Monopolies only form BECAUSE of government. If governments did not hinder competition through regulations, there would be no monopolies.

thats the point of the state, state does it for you so you dont get raped by foreign invaders, but civic militias and strong communities act as a counter-balance to state-over reaching/tyranny, try to limit the state to justice/contract enforcement (could be just local) and protection of national borders, which includes walls for protection from refugee hordes

what is stopping the civic militias and strong communities from stopping foreign invaders?

The state is the one raping us the most.

It will be years when I have the chance to read it. Might as well spill the beans on the knowledge.

You can't limit the monopoly on violence; governments always grow large.

youtube.com/watch?v=-as7GQThkuc

Explain banana republics. Chiquita is good example of a company having total control of the hispanic land strip.

This was enforced through corrupt governments. "Banana Republic"

well it covers how democracy lowers time preference by having a ruler for a max of 8 years (atleast in the us) and how monarchy raises it by having rulers rule for their entire life, with democracy encouraging activities good for the short term and monarchy benefiting the long term well being of the nation, how with democracy national debt never decreased and with monarchy only increasing national debt during wars and how every other time it being deceased. it also covers how the king has an incentive to care about his kingdom due to his ownership of it thorough his entire life and with his son inheriting it, although i seriously recommend reading it. im only halfway through and its amazing.

...

Potential lack of wider organization and logistics needed to do so, which is what centralized military's are good for in the first place.

I dont think the state should have much of a role outside of defense and a judiciary, the most vital institutions needed for a proper society, along with some form of legislature if its a republic. I see the lack of monopoly on force as the major thing that would derail an ancap society, its needed often for proper society to grow in a turbulent world of geopolitics. A watchful and active citizenry is needed it for it all to work (resist any and all tyranny), other wise you get modern day America.

ok now you just went full retard

t. actual ancap

thats the point of civic militias and strong communities; open, vocal civic militias act as local defense and strong communities dont need federal handouts

which is why we should go 1776 2.0 and hang corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, and should do so whenever they get out of line

which is why we should go 1776 2.0 and hang corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, and should do so whenever they get out of line again

"Limited government" is an oxymoron.

When™ your™ argument™ is™ basically™ the™ same™ as™ communism™ but™ a™ shittier™ version™.™
>™ called™ anarcho™ -™ capitalist™ when™ there™'™s™ still™ hierarchy™.™

in the perfect society communists would be hanged along with cronies and tyrants, which is what enforces limited government

literally only issue with the current system is the lack of an institutional purge, which is what jefferson told us to do every now and then to preserve liberty

No - government never doesn't grow itself. All human incentive is for government goons to grow their trade.
Limited government has always gotten bigger. Never smaller. America was the largest experiment in "limited" government to ever transpire, and it has only ever grow ever since the beginning.

I agree. However, I am against the notion that there should be a monopoly, let alone a coercive one, on such "neutral" third parties.

>I agree
You shouldn't.

Hang the goons when they step out of line, problem solved.

How about not sanctioning the goons in the first place....????

Uh... people involved, third parties trusted with various duties (e.g., a holder of collateral), churches, communal organizations.

You do realize that secondary court systems exist alongside many government legal systems, right?

Like kikes enforce kike contracts for kikes.

The point is to have a republic for the voters, hence representatives rooted in their own conscious + voter interests. All reps who become solid goons get the rope.

How about instead of that, we NOT pretend people have a super magical special legitimacy in doing things no other humans are morally justified in doing?
Are you an adolescent? Do you year to play pretend THAT MUCH???

I see you giving no alternatives to work off of.

???
Every single one of your daily interactions in life is not a function of the activities of state goons threatening you.
Government doesn't do anything unique except threaten people and claim super special magical "legitimacy" in doing so. So I'm saying don't support the goons AT ALL. They're unnecessary leeches.

Your stupidity is the ressult of government schools.

I'm only advocating for basic limited defense, basic judiciary, and basic republic legislature that actually represents the voters. Nothing much more, its easy to limit if you purge swine regularly enough. Nothing meant to be on a day-to-day life level as you mentioned.

All those things - as a matter of demonstrable fact - don't need super special magic pretend legitimacy on the part of x arbitrary self-designated goons.

maybe you're right, im still working out a world-view, I still see an issue of no pure monopoly of violence as a major threat to any anarcho-anything society in such a dynamic geopolitical world

What is the British East India Company?
Fucken rekt, better luck next time kiddo.

It doesn't seem to be a threat to any of the other countries that don't even have militaries, many of which aren't even so much as allied with others.

Magical foreign invaders is a boogeyman in a world of economic (mutually beneficial) interdependency. The only foreign invaders are the fucking U.S. military into other countries.

Lolbertarians are cancer.

One of the big takeaways isnt just the difference in time preference but the difference in valuing property, the incentives of maintaining/increasing the value of what you own vs the tragedy of the commons style draining of value as you said in the short term. One of Hoppe's big things is property rights and the consequences of democracy/monarchy/natural rights/whatever on property rights structures & systems. Is a good book.

This guy knows.
The problem isnt hanging them its the incentives that create them and dupe the public in the first place and every placr.

The first government created corporation, state maintained with state privelleges.

Nigger, you're a brainlet. AnCap is far from Communism. In fact your American Democracy is a lot closer:

“Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.”
― Hans-Hermann Hoppe