Ancaps, why is anarcho capitalism better than just a regular free market with a government?

ancaps, why is anarcho capitalism better than just a regular free market with a government?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VYfF06CPHMo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because the state is inherently oppressive, corrupt, wasteful and inept.

...

what about a government that doesn't intervene with the economy?

It's not. Ancaps are just meme spouting retards who are too illiterate to read any actual books on economics or politics and get their "ideas" from meme threads and youtube ecelebs. Most of ancap is anti-capitalists trolling the gullible into supporting the ridiculous.

It's about the incentive base of the economy. The government provides a "legitimate banditry" incentive. You can appeal to the government and get the right to engage in legal banditry (they'll give you tax money or impair the operations of your competitors).
If you've set up parallel institutions in an an-cap framework, there is no "legitimate banditry" possibility. You don't get to just fake up a batch of consent when you need to do something, you have to go out and do the hard work of actually winning consent from the individuals involved.

Ancaps don't have a brain.

arent you describing people?

still taxes, which necessitates the initiation of force

Slippery slope and it legitimizes the state's right to regulate others. If you hate gays so much don't say they can't get married, ostracize and socially humiliate and shame them until they enter self-imposed exile or commit suicide.

Statists don't have a brain

FTFY

Amen

taxes in moderation are a good thing
keyphrase being "in moderation"
if you give no money to the government, then it will be a violent shithole

I never told you what my political views were, I just said that ancaps don't have a brain.

"the states right to regulate people" you mean like, laws? is it then bad that there is punishment for murdering people? we have to have some law and order to prevent crime from running rampant.

we should differentiate between government and state
government describes association of people coming together through some means to impose order in society, collects money from those who volunteer it for their own interests
state is when you are not allowed to opt out of a government, collecting taxes which necessitate force
basically, government is compatible with ancap as long as one may secede as an individual/household

if people could just secede from a government whenever something they don't like happens, then it would be a disaster within hours. besides, you can "opt out" of a certain government, move to another country.

i don't think that would happen, seeing as it is in everyone's self interest to have a society with order. and if it did happen, a new system would replace it. in any case, i don't feel that potential stability or security make the initiation of force moral

AnCap isn't anything tangible that can be compared to anything. It's just autistic rage against "the state" while simultaneously campaigning for property owners to get the same powers that the state has.

yes, and the state permits people to do that

>it would be a disaster within hours.
Like what?

> Why is personal freedom better than a coercive organization that steals, redistribute, kill, initiate hostilities with other countries, counterfeit currency, create incentives that lead to self-destruction, and always devolve to more authoritarian versions of themselves...

No idea.

You mean an organization that don't even tax its citizen? How would that work?

Because it's funny

anarcho-capitalist ideology is a jewish scheme

What powers?

Unless they're willing to risk their own livelihoods (which means their death), private owners can't:
> Steal from you directly.
> Imprison you.
> Kill you.
> Counterfeit currency to steal from you indirectly.
> Expel you from your property.
> Indoctrinate you.
> Force you in or out of an area.
> Compete with you using YOUR OWN FUNDS.
> Force you to purchase goods or services.
> Close down your businesses.
> Legislate so much red tape it ALLOWS for the creation of monopolies.
> Finance huge waves of immigrants
> Create incentives that cause your society to self-destruct

What limits on private property does Ancaps recognize that would prevent that?

the government is just like any other institution. It wants to grow and feed. Any institution that has the monopoly on force will follow the same path as hour government. Any institution that doesnt have a monopoly on force cant be reasonably called a government.

So if you want to have free markets and everyone submits to a national code of ethics and courts because we all recognize homogeneous rules leads to greater economic productivity and not because you'll be murdered if you dont. Then cool, if that's possible. If not then we cant have a government by any meaningful definition we understand right now.

and congrats on that by the way because now you've lost your opportunity to state your political views by admitting you can be cowed by being called a statist. Which you are because you dont support non-statism.

the only limits on private property should be natural limits imposed by the force of the free market and natural law.

Can you legally own a nuke? No. Why? not because there's a law but because it would cost billions of dollars and your reputation to do so. Unless the majority of people thought it would be a good idea for you to have a nuke, in which case then it would happen anyways.

None. And none is needed.

If a private owner does one of these, moral people will avoid dealing with that person, and immoral people will sense a weakness that can be abused.

As demand for whatever supply they offer dries up, his price has to go down, meaning he/she will be starved out, depending upon the gravity of the offense, meaning a de facto, unofficial exile.

That's the beauty of it: everyone get to suffer the consequences of their own actions.

Basically the difference is your minarchist / night watchmen state people believe that the state can be controlled to everyone's benefit. The Ancap is much more pessimistic in that they believe that it is impossible to control the state and it will always lead to negative outcomes from everyone.

The main problem I have with an-cap is the a lot of moral issues would require a few people to die before are resolved. i.e. So bar opens up in town a handful of people go there but they don't know they are being given water this is contaminated with a deadly virus. Those people die and no one trust that bar anymore so the owner loses all his money and the business fails.

I just don't see how this is preferable to haveing a small number (I realize that the current system has a lot) of regulations that would avoid the the deaths outright because his shop couldn't open until he proves he has clean water.

>It will always lead to negative outcomes from everyone.
It will lead to positive outcomes for those willing to initiate force on to others.

and if you have an institution which derives its revenue from coercion and has the authority to kill people who do not submit to its rule, in what sense is it not unreasonable to conclude that it is impossible to control such a thing?

Isn't that what insurance is for? Any sensible business owner would get an insurance to prevent these kinds of accidents from destroying your life.
In order to get insured however, it's in the insurance company's best interest to send a health professional to check up on the bar to make sure everything's up to snuff before sealing the contract.

Lethal accidents still frequently happen even when there's regulations on top of regulations, it's unavoidable

Because no one ever dies of contaminated or infected food in the US. No one dies from a new prescription medication in the US. All thanks to the infallible FDA.

Here's the real solution to your concern. We have private consumer protection agencies. Places whose business it is to make sure food you eat, appliances you use, and structures you live in are safe. They already exist today and are more successful, more cost effective, and faster than any government equivalent and in fact the bigger and more powerful the government body the worse it fares in each of those categories.

The free market created nations.

reminder that anarcho-anything has never existed and your claiming your amazing theory is perfect without experimental evidence is communism tier retardation
p.s. none of the historical examples often cited by hoppe et al were actual ancap

and evolution created cancer. So what?

So ancaps are dumb hypocrites.

then I guess oncologists are too.

Demonstrating my point.

then what would it do?

How would that work?

The free market did not create anything and never will. Men did. And if we've fallen for it, its under misrepresentation.

In the west, we've got rid of Dictatorships and Monarchies, moving to ever more free forms of government. We're inside it's next crisis of socialism, and either we fall back into obscurity or we raise to the next stage...

No. government. at. all.

Yes people die in the current system, I'm not saying it good, it requires fixing. I just don't understand why the entire system has to be trashed because some of its parts don't work.

Alright so the guy opening the bar has to pay his local (((insurance))) company to make sure his bar is up to snuff and safe to open. After all, if he doesn't do it then no one will go to his bar because they can't trust it. Problem is he can't afford the extreme rates they charge, there is now a new pay wall to opening your business, but he shops around and finds one that has lower rates. However it's lower rates come with lower levels of trust, because this insurance company hasn't been around very long. Turns out they kind of suck at there job and fail to notice the bad water. Store opens a few people give it a shot even though it's only certified clean by a new company. People die same story.

Market is a government creation, btw

so people patronize the bar and consume a product guarenteed by a less reputable insurance or consumer protection agency. as a result they die and their benefactors sue the shit out of the bar, the insurance company, and any other two bit firm that accepted a few bucks to slap on their approval sticker.

Lessons are learned. Crime is punished. Justice is served. And they'll never be able to hurt people like that again as they waste the rest of their lives trying to pay off their lawsuit with absolutely 0 business reputation.

Or how it is today, the exact same things happen but these institutions are entrenched facets of the state and even if you did sue them it would just be money taken from tax payers. Maybe some one fancy has to resign, with benefits, but the flawed institution still stands and everyone is still forced to seek their approval at the price and terms they specify.

what the hell? Markets emerge naturally.

> I just don't understand why the entire system has to be trashed because some of its parts don't work.

Its basis are immoral. There is no need for more justifications. If stealing, enslaving, coercing, killing and sequestrating are wrong, how can you justify giving that kind of authority to anyone?

Nigga what? "Free market" is simply people trading time spent creating stuff for other people' time spent creating stuff.

Government came in as a way for people to take part of the stuff traded for themselves. Democracy is basically saying "if more people say that taking your stuff is okay than there is saying it's not, it's okay, and if you refuse, we'll send people with guns."

Fuck off.

>The free market did not create anything and never will. Men did. And if we've fallen for it, its under misrepresentation.
Whatever. There's no difference between an absolute monarch and a property owner as ancaps envision it. If no restriction on private property is recognized there can be no objection to any government.
>In the west, we've got rid of Dictatorships and Monarchies, moving to ever more free forms of government. We're inside it's next crisis of socialism, and either we fall back into obscurity or we raise to the next stage...
No it's a step back to feudalism. And those revolutions were just violations of the NAP.
>No. government. at. all.
There can be no such thing as "no government at all" government is just an arbitrary label put upon an especially powerful property owner.

>I just don't understand why the entire system has to be trashed because some of its parts don't work.
Well, for me it's because I think stealing is unethical, and a state needs to steal in order to exist.

As for our scenario, I don't see why the good insurance would be overly expensive, since in a free market you'll make more money by selling your service to as many people as possible while undercutting your competitors.

you're going off the rails here. The government is pretty distinct from "a property owner." The government can kill you with new due process by way of the order of escalation if you do not submit to its authority. Regular jackoffs with land cant do that. Your landlord cant do that. Your boss cant do that. Who could? Lords of manors during feudalism where the majority of the citizenry was their literal property. Mass enslavement.

Mass enslavement which was only possible to execute because the power of the state backed it up. A peasant uprising was met with the might of the national military. A military paid for by taxation and not voluntary exchange.

Just stop trying to imagine this dystopia controlled by corporations and that the government is the only thing preventing it. The government is the only thing allowing globalized corporations to exist. If they couldnt count on protection provided by their bribes to politicians then all these big corporations everyone hates would be out competed by new competitors who people do not hate.

>If no restriction on private property is recognized
What kind of restrictions are you talking about here?

> There's no difference between an absolute monarch and a property owner as ancaps envision it.
Fuck you. I am my own property, not anyone else's. And nobody is mine either.

> No it's a step back to feudalism. And those revolutions were just violations of the NAP.
Fuck you again. Self-defense was never, and will never be a violation of the NAP. Governments by their definition breach the NAP and defending yourself against such an aggression is self-defense. USA's declaration of independance was actually one of the most peaceful act ever done, it was the British's reactions that brought pain and suffering.

> There can be no such thing as "no government at all" government is just an arbitrary label put upon an especially powerful property owner.
Fuck you thrice. If you say that and you can't see the difference between how Bill Gates and Obama dealt with their countrymen, you're an idiot. If you say that and can tell that difference, you are a dishonest person and wouldn't survive a month without acting as a parasite.

>The government is pretty distinct from "a property owner."
No it's not.
> The government can kill you with new due process by way of the order of escalation if you do not submit to its authority. Regular jackoffs with land cant do that. Your landlord cant do that. Your boss cant do that.
They could under ancapism if that where the terms.
>A military paid for by taxation and not voluntary exchange.
Taxation is no more involuntary than any other exchange.
>Fuck you. I am my own property, not anyone else's. And nobody is mine either.
Uh oh little ancaps little brain can't handle logic. That's how you like it not how it is. Your property rights exists along side and in subordination to the governments sovereign rights (which are logically just powerful property rights)
>Fuck you again. Self-defense was never, and will never be a violation of the NAP. Governments by their definition breach the NAP and defending yourself against such an aggression is self-defense. USA's declaration of independance was actually one of the most peaceful act ever done, it was the British's reactions that brought pain and suffering.
Pure socialism and hypocrisy. Taking the property of the rich for one self.
>Fuck you thrice. If you say that and you can't see the difference between how Bill Gates and Obama dealt with their countrymen, you're an idiot. If you say that and can tell that difference, you are a dishonest person and wouldn't survive a month without acting as a parasite.
There's a difference because Bill Gates is subordinate to the powers of government, under ancapism he wouldn't be.

Great now insurance companies can easily create a price fixing policy to make sure that no business they don't approve of gets off the ground. The free market is now run by insurance companies and the corporations that pay them tons to never give approval to small businesses that want to compete. While people don't have to pay taxes anymore an essential business tax has been created because you need insurance companies to check if things are safe. Congratulations you just made a new state. But don't worry, it voluntarily. You don't have to pay those companies, but keep in mind you business will never get off the ground other wise. So yes, its voluntary in the same way taxes are voluntary. Meaning it's possible to not pay them but you will be punished for not doing it.

>it's immoral
Says you. Immorality to seems to be based on whether something is voluntary or not. Well, I didn't volunteer to be born, in fact no one did. Life is immoral faggot. People are immoral that's why government turns to shit, so why is it that by getting ride of the government everyone becomes a moral paragon of justice? Good people by from companies that use shitty practices already why would it be any different in your stupid system. If you care so much about moral grandstanding then why don't you just end the human race, that way no immoral acts will ever be done again and I can die knowing that I won't have to exist on the same gay ass planet as you.

>The free market is now run by insurance companies and the corporations that pay them tons to never give approval to small businesses that want to compete.

Time to start an insurance company

Good luck getting the start up capital and gaining credibility while you company name is smeared by all the establishment insurance companies that don't want to give anyone else a cut.

> Your property rights exists along side and in subordination to the governments sovereign rights (which are logically just powerful property rights)

You don't get it, do you? Rights do not "exist". They're just observations of reality.

> Taking the property of the rich for one self.
I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion.

> There's a difference because Bill Gates is subordinate to the powers of government, under ancapism he wouldn't be.

So you're the first. No. The difference is that Bill Gate has no power over you BUT the ability to make you profit off of him. Which means that all interactions you have with him are voluntary.

> Immorality to seems to be based on whether something is voluntary or not.
That's a bit of an oversimplification. What is moral is what is desirable when it's done from everyone to everyone. It makes "voluntary" a nice binary to work with, yes, but not an absolute.

> Well, I didn't volunteer to be born, in fact no one did.
Not untrue, but as consent literally can't be obtained, being born being voluntary can't be established as a prerequisite to be moral.

> Life is immoral faggot.
I beg to differ. Morality is a successful reproductive strategy. Pure altruism, on the other hand, could be perceived as moral but is ultimately immoral as everyone sacrificing themselves for the well-being of everyone else would end up with no one being well.

> People are immoral that's why government turns to shit, so why is it that by getting ride of the government everyone becomes a moral paragon of justice?

Not everyone does. But everyone end up with the consequences of their own actions, which means that moral behavior become a prerequisite for success, a prerequisite for survival. And humans can, and will, adapt themselves to that. Note: It might require, and favor, a higher IQ than, say, the average Venezuelan IQ.

(Cont.)

>people notice that mainstream insurance agencies don't service anyone other than their major clients
>demand for small business insurance rises, as reflected by private investment in the market
>new firms are able to enter the market and capture the mass of small businesses and their giant supply of shekels, that these hypothetically retarded major insurance firms decided to give up for some reason
The problem with you people is that you claim businesses are so greedy that life will be terrible, but then in your arguments you use examples of businesses that are not greedy enough that they actually try to maximize their profits. Either businesses are greedy, or they're not. Pick one and stick with that.

>You don't get it, do you? Rights do not "exist". They're just observations of reality.
If rights don't exist what is all this whining about muh nap and muh tax=theft? Yea you are just dumb hypocrites.
>I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion.
That's because you are dumb. King owning American colonies. Colonists want it for themselves so they take it. Pure socialism.
>So you're the first. No. The difference is that Bill Gate has no power over you BUT the ability to make you profit off of him. Which means that all interactions you have with him are voluntary.
He would have the absolute power his property just like a government has over it's territory, only it would be worse because he isn't bound by a constitution. All your interactions with the government are voluntary as you can leave the country or kill yourself.

>ancap society will NEVER EVER exist

> Good people by from companies that use shitty practices already why would it be any different in your stupid system.

Well, I'll take my local pool store as an example.

> Over-priced chinese outside furniture with a 80%+ margin of profit
This is actually the fault of the government. Minimum wage laws make sure that local workers can't compete with the chinese products except through automation and aiming for higher quality merch. Meanwhile, governments take on debts and print money to pay for welfare and stimulate the economy, meaning the demand is deceptively high, meaning prices are adjusted up. These same over-inflated prices make sure one can't simply start producing furniture by himself to sell to the store, as asking for payment anywhere close would not allow him a living.

> Willful ignorance of proper chemistry resulting in over-selling of swimming pool chemicals.

There is a result of the lack of competition. If entry on the market to either produce chemicals or selling them was easier, then, even with higher base prices, a competitor with better, more efficient practices could solve swimming pool problems for a fraction of the price.


Both practices are held because the incentives and the market are skewed by the government.

> If you care so much about moral grandstanding then why don't you just end the human race, that way no immoral acts will ever be done again and I can die knowing that I won't have to exist on the same gay ass planet as you.

Because ending the human race would be immoral? Because life, even under the boot of an agent of coercion, still offer things worth living for?

I won't live or die purely for my convictions. But I won't produce anything more than I need to live if I am not the one that will benefit from that productivity. For example, I have a plan that will allow me to make a decent amount of money without paying a dime in income tax or mooching upon the productivity of others.

its not, lol rich people could hire provate army and kill and rape who ever they want nigger


youtube.com/watch?v=VYfF06CPHMo

Kind of like the government then?

No retard you assume that companies are so retarded that they will give their services away for a loss because that way they can reach a larger market. Also you ignored the fact that smaller insurance companies would be crushed either through mass smear campaigns or all the other insurance companies lowing there prices to almost non existence so that start ups, that can't afford to take a loss die out.

Also before you creat another straw man know that I'm not saying the current system is better just that your system is just as retarded and potential corrupt.

I want there to be a ANCAP nation, so i could build my very own NAP-Enforcement squad and rob people blind.

The world is one big ancap nation with 196 land owners.

Big business always keeping down the small and upcoming business men like me :(

Ancap can't coexist with other political ideologies. It is a selfish view that demands everyone play by their rules because their system sucks so much shit that it can't compete with other nations. It requires government protectionism to be competitive which is why any ancap society that didn't have a dedicated force for dismantling anything that started to look like a government would be doomed to fail.

> If rights don't exist what is all this whining about muh nap and muh tax=theft?

The NAP is the idea that you should protect your own property. If that principle is universal, others should protect their and you should not take or abuse from others' property nor allow others to take or abuse from yours.

If something is to be moral, it has to be okay for everyone to apply it to everyone else. This include doing it indirectly through a fake entity like a government.

If it is not moral for me to perceive X% of your income, even if I need it to survive, why would it be okay for the government to take it and give it to me?

> King owning American colonies. Colonists want it for themselves so they take it. Pure socialism.
If I tell you I own Pluto, do I really own Pluto? If I paid half the bill for colonists to reach Pluto with money stolen from people like you, does it make Pluto mine? If I have an army and threaten to use it to coerce colonists to my biding, do that make it mine?

No. It doesn't.

> All your interactions with the government are voluntary as you can leave the country or kill yourself.
If the only out options are exile or death, it is not voluntary.

Anarcho capitalism is basically monarchism.

>The NAP is the idea that you should protect your own property. If that principle is universal, others should protect their and you should not take or abuse from others' property nor allow others to take or abuse from yours.
And the government can protet it's own property through police etc.
>If something is to be moral, it has to be okay for everyone to apply it to everyone else. This include doing it indirectly through a fake entity like a government.
Okay so nobody can claim exclusive property of a given plot of land?
>If it is not moral for me to perceive X% of your income, even if I need it to survive, why would it be okay for the government to take it and give it to me?
Well they can because they have that right or "property" or "reality" whatever fits your autism. Just like how it can be okay for a given someone to use a given plot of land and not okay for others.
>If I tell you I own Pluto, do I really own Pluto? If I paid half the bill for colonists to reach Pluto with money stolen from people like you, does it make Pluto mine? If I have an army and threaten to use it to coerce colonists to my biding, do that make it mine?
Same can be said of all property claims hypocrite.
>If the only out options are exile or death, it is not voluntary.
Why not? Same can be said of any employer or landlord. Either you accept the terms or you don't.

>give their services away for a loss because that way they can reach a larger market
Why would they operate at a loss? Right now, insurance firms are not legally compelled to insure a given small business. And yet, most of them do, because their risk calculations indicate that it is worthwhile for them to do so. Similarly, business owners endeavor to reduce insurance costs and become more incurable because it's in their own interest. In your fantasy world, insurance companies don't actually want revenue, and would rather have fewer customers than more. This is at odds with reality.

>muh predatory pricing
Is not a viable or competitive business model and literally nobody can sustain such a practice, and yet you retards bring it up time and time again.

> Ancap can't coexist with other political ideologies.

One, it's not political per se, it is anti-political. Otherwise, that's the nature of political ideologies. Heck, look at Laci Green: she got attacked by her own side for saying what amounts to "Woah, maybe we need to slow down".

Me? I don't mind other anarcho-philosphies. Were they enacted, people will end up trading, and we'll end up with an anarcho-capitalist society anyways.

> It is a selfish view (...)

That part is true, but it amuses me that you see it as something bad. It's in our nature to be selfish, heck, we do acts of charity because it makes us feel good.

> (...) that demands everyone play by their rules because their system sucks so much shit that it can't compete with other nations.

Not at all. It simply points out other systems based on the state and its coercive powers will end up failing. Take something as simple and freedom oriented as the american constitution and look how american MGTOW avoid marriage because it allows the State to turn men into slaves for women.

Those other systems will fail by themselves, Ancaps simply state there's no need to rush to the next one.

> It requires government protectionism to be competitive

Niggawhat? No. It doesn't need anything to be competitive as one can always set his price lower if his value don't match it.

> And the government can protet it's own property through police etc.
The government is not a person and can't own anything.

> Okay so nobody can claim exclusive property of a given plot of land?
Not really, not until it is worked. This idea of land property we have right now is backward. Its value is speculative and based upon the power of the state.

Without the state, the claim to a plot of land on which nothing is built, that is uninhabited and whose resources aren't exploited makes no sense.

> Well they can because they have that right or "property" or "reality" whatever fits your autism. Just like how it can be okay for a given someone to use a given plot of land and not okay for others.

That made no sense. Let me type it again: Why is it okay for anyone to take your money / food / labor and give it to me?

> Same can be said of all property claims hypocrite.
Not at all. If I go on Pluto and build myself a house, it is the result of my time and efforts and it is now my property. I did not own the land until I started working on it.

> Why not? Same can be said of any employer or landlord.
So, in Denmark, you can't quit a job, you actually have to kill yourself?

Death, exile or sequestration (prison) are tools of coercion. If they're your only other options, then you are being coerced and you should defend yourself.

>I don't mind other anarcho-philosphies. Were they enacted, people will end up trading,
The weird flavors of anarchism, maybe. Perhaps even syndicalists. Not ancom though, their ideology is inherently expansionist and revolutionary. True ancoms will not content themselves to sit on privately-held communes and dig for potatoes. They will attempt to combat capitalist society. That is why it is both prudent and moral to physically remove them, so as to avoid any subversion from within.

>it doesn't work
>not an argument

Can you cite an example of sustained predatory pricing that wasn't enabled or
supplemented by regulatory capture?

>The government is not a person and can't own anything.
Arbitrary nonsense. The government is made up of persons just like any other entity. Regardless nobody has any reason to accept your definition of who can or cannot own.
>Not really, not until it is worked. This idea of land property we have right now is backward. Its value is speculative and based upon the power of the state.
So you do not accept inheritance, gifts, trade as valid methods of obtaining ownership? Do you have to personally work the soil or can you hire people to do it? Does a landlord use his property or do his tenants own it? Does letting people live on your land in exchange for submitting to your authority and paying taxes count?
>Without the state, the claim to a plot of land on which nothing is built, that is uninhabited and whose resources aren't exploited makes no sense.
So ancaps hate natural parks or whatever.
>That made no sense. Let me type it again: Why is it okay for anyone to take your money / food / labor and give it to me?
Why is it okay to collect rent and use it for whatever you want?
>So, in Denmark, you can't quit a job, you actually have to kill yourself?
No?
>Death, exile or sequestration (prison) are tools of coercion. If they're your only other options, then you are being coerced and you should defend yourself.
You are always exiled from the property when you do not accept the terms of use. By that logic you should rebel against all property holders.

How did the government come to own all the land within the territory it presides over? Inheritance? Gifts? Trade?

>No goyim, don't you know you NEED central banks!?!?!
kike detected

>How did the government come to own all the land within the territory it presides over? Inheritance? Gifts? Trade?
All sorts of ways just like all other property.

what if it's taxation with representation? I wouldn't mind just paying 5-10% of my income with no other taxes. That would be low as fuck and the government would be so small I'd barely see it.

> I wouldn't mind just paying 5-10% of my income with no other taxes.
What's to stop it from taking 12% next year? It's for a good cause.

Why not have a centrist economy?

We've had a small streak of natural disasters, some of your countrymen need financial aid. Look, it's just 3% more and its temporary...

> 15%

Hey, it turns out that we can provide a huge economic boost in the west if we build that set of highways. It will totally provide a return on investment within a decade, tops. We just need to prolong the 15% tax rate longer than expected.

Look, the southern part of the country don't fare so well. Their economy is based on agriculture and they can't export because our currency is worth too much. We'll give them a hand while they change it, we just need to increase your tax rate to, say, 18% for a while.

> 18%

Wooops... turns out they never turned their economy around.

Well, 18% is a bit rough on new couples, and it's not really fair. So instead we'll have really low income tax up to X$/year. Say 10%. But every dollar past that will be taxed at 21% You shouldn't see the difference.

>mass smear campaigns
Why isn't that already a preferred tool of business competition? We've got an open media, don't we? The most astonishing smears can set root in the internet! Yet we don't see businesses falling into a hate plague of smear campaigns, and we would expect to laugh and watch them fail if they tried.
Insurance companies would be specialists in managing reputation. If they can't survive a smear campaign engineered by their competitors, what are they even doing trying to enter that business? Yet even if the established insiders were insurmountable to outsiders trying to break in, you'd still have clusters of ambitious insiders interested in breaking away within the industry. Their talents could be bought or even self-directed in the establishment of hardy new competitors.

> 21%
Hum... that strange, recently a lot less people invested in larger businesses and a lot of people are now jobless.

It's temporary, but we can't let our countrymen starve in the street. Let's provide them with basic necessities for a limited period of time, while they search for a job...

> 23%
It turns out we never really caught back up to years back, and some people do run out of government support... So we're not really going to enforce those time limits and, maybe, abolish them.

> 25%
Unexpected turn of events. Apparently, people don't want to work 40+ hours a week and end up with 33% more than our welfare checks provided, so a lot of people just left their jobs and went on welfare. So we have no choice but to raise the taxes.

>28%
So, now, the companies had to raise wages. And by doing so, prices crept up. We've got courageous single mothers skipping meals so that their children can eat properly. It's not humane.

Let's increase their welfare checks.

> 32%
Look, it's clear now, children from single-mothers on welfare remain far poorer than their counterparts from wed-families. This is because they don't have access to the same schools.

Let's make sure everyone get some quality education. It's a big investment, but...

> 35%

Well... I know we've got more and more people on welfare, but if we cut anything, we'll have riots...

And the rich (who avoid taxation anyway) need to pay their fair share. They're the ones to benefit from the system anyway...

Like total anarchy.

The problem with anarchocapitalism is, with no antitrust laws corporations will merge and monopolize, until every major decision is made by a handful of the wealthiest individuals. What happens when Colt, Lockheed-Martin, Google, Wal-Mart and Monsanto merge into one giant megacorporations?

>What's to stop it from taking 12% next year?

The people.

You're talking about an awful lot of organizational chaos.

Which ways? Do you suppose a great deal of private owners gifted governments their land? If it was sold to them, where did the money to buy that land come from?

Evidently, they didn't. Tax rates today are far higher than a century ago. Far higher still than two centuries. Where were the people to stop it?

>merge and monopolize
No, they won't. Why would those separate companies in unrelated industries merge? In a market unimpeded by regulatory barriers to entry, why would small competitors not enter? Or do you suppose the only reason we don't have megacorporations producing everything is because of antitrust laws, and prior to these laws small business didn't exist?

Some people like being slaves.

I'll free them, even if that violates the NAP.

>is it then bad that there is punishment for murdering people?
Yes. Everyone can own any weapon they want. Just because the state won't respond to you killing someone, doesn't mean all the people who care about law and order won't come after you or hire private security to come after you. This is what truly deters crime.

I disagree with ancap and think we need a police and court system, but you sound like a gun-control enthusiast that thinks if guns were legal we'd all be shooting eachother.

>I disagree with ancap and think we need a police and court system
Ancaps think we need this too. So much so that they want multiple, competing police and court systems competing on the open market and subject to market forces, rendering their services accountable to their clients. As opposed to the violently monopolistic """protection""" system we have now.

It's not.

Free Market statism FTW

>Free Market
>statism
Pick one.