Why ancaps are so edgy / full of themselves?

They defend a system that has never been tested (muh medieval iceland doesn't count). Also they love to brag about Somalia somehow. They think they have all the answers not only the economical aspect, but also how moral should be handled. And they are no reasonable people. Try to offer them a scenario were anarcho-capitalism would fail and they will invent some magic scenario where all humans act like flawless angels and everything would be solved.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rebellions_in_the_United_States
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>where all humans act like flawless angels

Hmmm, humans are flawed, so how do we fix it... Oh, I know! Let's choose other flawed humans to rule over us with force, what could possible go wrong?

The best way to shut up ancaps and Libertarians is ask them to mention any country past or present that functions and thrives on an ancap/Libertarian mode of government.

The problem with Ancap is that each half of the phrase is detrimental to the other: for capitalism to work you need a nation that has the rule of law, public order and civility and copyright/IP laws for capitalism to be safe and profitable whereas anarchy is against any and all of these things?

Why would I even bother opening even a minimart in an Ancap country if I could be robbed blind by the nearest armed warlord, and have my store burnt down to the ground by looters who felt that paying for goods was inherently being "robbed" ?

You guys have a boner for the word "rule", I see.
Think more as an general direction in which a society should go instead of a free for all.

Don't you know what Ancap means? They want a no gov't/Mad Max like nation yet expect to have businesses and services making money hand over fist. Can't have one without the other.

monopolies are inherently bad for consumers because they provide lowest quality service at highest cost
government is a monopoly
please inform me why economic laws cease to exist when they go against you

Ancap is the mindset of the frontier, such as the wild west. Ancaps these days just have no frontier other than perhaps the internet. Once space colonization becomes feasible, they will have another frontier. Hatred of Ancaps is misguided, the solution is using their desire for the frontier to benefit the species by having them perpetually colonize an ever expanding the frontier.

Well, take the nordic countries for example. Their govt handles things very well. They have a high amount of tax, but public services are good. By your line of thinking, shouldn't they be bad by default?

>ancaps tired of authority settle in the frontier
>they make the frontier livable
>people move into this frontier because it is prosperous
>urbanization starts happening
>people desire leadership and authority as higher population density leads to conflict
>ancaps tired of authority settle in the frontier

Governments need the monopoly on violence for society to function

I'm just kind of baffled because a famous ancap from Brazil is wagging war on Twitter against the ONLY right-wing conservative candidate we have. His argument being "BUT HE'S NOT A REAL LIBERTARIAN REEE". The other option is Lula which would throw Brazil in the Venezuela situation. Go figure.

Exactly, that's why Ancaps serve a specific purpose of expanding society by constantly seeking out the frontier free from this monopoly.

yes, they are bad. their system is unsustainable. previously they had to pull back their welfare state and implement a much freer market because it was failing. this is happening again. a basic understanding of economics explains this.
why? statists are arguing the positive and need to back up their claims

>why? statists are arguing the positive and need to back up their claims
There has been thousands of years of writings on this

>why?
So ancaps can colonize the frontier because they want to be free from this monopoly, thus expanding the reach of society itself.

>"public services are good."
Because no one is fucking their shit up... Do you think they could afford to keep up repairs if their had a thousand niggers smashing up the place on a weekly basis.

I guess we'll know the answer soon enough.

And I don't know about Sweden, but Canada contracts out the majority of their work. What little they don't contract out is usually handle by "corporations" (i.e. "City Name Incorporated"). The government grands a non-profit corporation the ability to collect taxes within a "city limit" and it is than allowed to use said taxes to "handle things" for the citizens of that city. There aren't really any government employees, just businesses masquerading as governments.

(the tax system is a little bit more wonky than that, but it is essentially what I said with more steps).

They're like Marxists: so sure of their moral and ethical superiority that everyone else is a statist Marxist by comparison. Just look at the Marxists today, everyone who isn't them lacks morals and is a racist fascist.

Two sides of the same delusional coin.

Literally this.
We wanna be space cowboys and live on the cutting edge.
Ya gotta be edgy to live on the edge OP.

>Literally the countries with the highest human development index
>Bad

The only thing going against them is spending too much on welfare. But even without it they would still be good.

The problem is both of you faggots think that it's either one or the other. The answer is that you can have both Anarcho-Capitalism and Statism simultaneously and that's how humanity has functioned ever since civilizations began to form.

Welfare is a natural evolution from ancap policies

Ancap is literally just neo-fuedalism
You could structure any form of government within an Ancap city state (provided you can afford and defend it)

none of those writings have proven that economic law ceases to apply for whatever you decide. perhaps you have some new insight? you seem pretty confident.
monopoly is bad for consumers.
monopoly on foor=bad
monopoly on cars=bad
monopoly on law=bad

>pay your fair share and we'll "this"
As if you get a choice. That's the entire problem you idiot. That's what makes you a slave. You have no more choice to suck another man's dick through governance than some 18th century nig has.

That's the problem. What makes the problem so awful though, is your willingness to go along with this charade, to the point where the men who have enslaved you can off 50+ of you in a mass shooting and you have no recourse to stop them. You go along with it because you're afraid of saving money for your retirement or some shit. You're afraid of saving money. You want your $120/m phone plan and 4KTV w/ PS4/XBOne, and also want money for when you're pissing your pants at age 75.

Fuck the cutting edge. We wanna be on the bleeding edge.

Why do you view economics as the ultimate good?
You are free to leave at any time

You know you don't need anarco-capitalism to avoid monopoly on food and cars, right?

das rite

12 btw

>You are free to leave at any time
No, I'm not.
Used to be. Back before WWI, you could come and go across the US border as you pleased.

that's a stupid fucking question. what do you mean "the ultimate good"? i never said that it was. i simply said that your claim that a law monopoly is the best system is wrong according to economic law.
my point was that we an all agree food and car monopolies are bad, but all of a sudden monopoly is good here you decide

What's stopping you from leaving

>get rid of the regulations
>new york sinks into the sea
What a wonderful economic decision lmao

>They defend a system that has never been tested

That's a main reason why they like being ancaps. After all, how can you really be wrong if the ideology you're defending has never been truly tried (sound familiar?)

Take your typical late teens to early 20s white kid, add a penchant for not wanting to add a single grain of nuance or critical thought to their worldview but at the same time wanting to feel intellectually superior at all times, and you just now created either an ancap or a communist.

not get rid of regulations, get rid of monopolistic regulations, which are necessarily worse because monopolies are bad, which is something you fags have yet to disprove

>never been tested
Ancap is a transitional phase of the frontier, how the fuck can you claim it's never been tested? What do you think fucking happens in the middle of nowhere where there arn't any sheiriffs or police officers?

fixed

The fact that the law is a monopoly is the only reason why the law works.

...

Any American that mocks anarcho-capitalism is a disgrace to the colonists who settled throughout the American frontier.

What's the law a monopoly of? I'll give you a hint, it's not goods and services.

Autism.

> which is something you fags have yet to disprove
I will just go to an extreme here
The USRR had monopoly on the military. They had an army that was feared by everyone, and they went toe to toe with the US on scientific advancements. Why it worked?

Violence

??
You do know the US doesn't have a monopoly legal system now, right? You can be tried in state court or federal court.

>USSR worked
kek. So this is the power of uma delicia.

perhaps its time for capital punishment for those who destroy property

I dunno man. Magic I guess.

I guess you want me to say borders and passports?
Yeah. Those. Prison-planet type shit.

well, it's because we have good points that support our base.

if you can come up with a better reason, i'm all ears bro.

>how the fuck can you claim it's never been tested?

Because it hasn't. Even in the "middle of nowhere," there's still a state.

"the fact that my shitty car company is the only one allowed to make cars is the reason it exists" yes that is how monopoly works, dumbass

I'm talking about their military / space technologies.

Just get a passport idiot

Laws are not cars

I'd say force but that's nit picky. Point is, we regulate violence because we want less of it, that's the entire point of the state. We don't want less goods and services we want more.

There isn't a fucking monopoly on law you idiot. You *think* there is, but each state has different laws and there is also federal law standing alongside. Since you're a fucking moron, the best example for you is probably age of consent laws. They're different depending on where you are.

Sadly, after we started to hand out welfare monies, all the leeching commies started to pour into the US looking for gibs.
You're talking to their grandchildren when you talk to pro-state idiots like

>Space Technologies

Flimsy slavshit equipment that got unknown numbers of handpicked peasents killed in the process of returning to earth.

i think you're misunderstanding what he means

>Because it hasn't. Even in the "middle of nowhere," there's still a state.
Wrong

If you kill someone in the middle of nowhere, the state will do jack fucking shit. Where is the "monopoly" on violence?

judges are just guys that mediate disputes. the state has a monopoly on judges. we do not need a state for justice and law. if you and i disagree about who owns something, we can find a third party expert and he can make a decision. if he is the state and he makes bad rulings, oh well, it's the state so what can you do. in free market, if a judge makes poor rulings, we won't pay him to give his opinion and he goes out of business.

>why? statists are arguing the positive and need to back up their claims
>I don't need to prove a negative

>t. Retard

You have to prove any claim you make, be it a positive or a negative.

Every idiot, i.e. non-AnCap, ITT should watch this video before posting their stupid "arguments":
youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

>Computer science in the left corner
The only things that should go there are human sciences.

Bad rulings are whatever disagrees with me and only those who agree with me will get my money
Is that ok

If it was so brilliant why isnt there a USSR now? Also why did everyone starve?
>hey ivan i just built a cool new rocket
>sweet! Bowl of boiled leather boot soup to celebrate?

no as in you're qualitatively misinterpreting what the guy actually said, you absolute fucking idiot

>Colonists were ancaps
>Not subjects of a fucking monarchy
You ancaps are so retarded it becomes funny

Nobody will agree to that contract you idiot. You have to get the other counterparty to agree to the arbitration procedure. This is the problem with statists, if they aren't told what to do they cease functioning because they're not really people, they're subhuman automatons.

>If you kill someone in the middle of nowhere, the state will do jack fucking shit.

Oh really? I didn't know about this magical loophole in the legal system that says if I kill somebody in what you call "the middle of nowhere," I'm automatically off.

I guess every person with an inkling for murder should travel to some small town now.

>Nobody will agree to that contract you idiot. You have to get the other counterparty to agree to the arbitration procedure.
That is how we obtained the system we already have, yes

Because they didn't start WW3.
But you are right, lol. I went a little overboard defending USSR of all places.

>the colonists were loyal subject of monarchs
kek, how fucking retarded are you?

I don't give a shit what he said; if he's not AnCap he's a moron and doesn't deserve an opinion.

>Most company that push sjwism are tech companies like ((Facebook)), ((Google)), etc
>Somehow comp sci isn't leftist

Answer the fucking question, where is the state's "monopoly" on violence in the middle of nowhere where someone can kill you and get away with it trivially.

No; you get the current system because the state unilaterally decided it had the best arbitration game in town. You can't set up a private courthouse even if you wanted to, and you certainly can't bind people to the decisions of said private courthouse and deny their right to sue in a government-approved court.

When the fuck did I say the state has a monopoly on violence? Go attack your strawman some more and maybe learn to put forth an argument that makes sense.

The state does have the best arbitration game in town

>Oh boy let me write a code about gender equallity.
The companies are leffties, not the people.

>>the colonists were loyal subject of monarchs
>Paid taxes
>Respected British laws
>Retards today think they were ancaps

>You can't set up a private courthouse even if you wanted to, and you certainly can't bind people to the decisions of said private courthouse and deny their right to sue in a government-approved court.
Judge Judy does this kek

>When the fuck did I say the state has a monopoly on violence?
So this place that has no monopoly on violence is somehow still part of the state?
This is akin to saying me writing anti-islam speeches is illegal in some Muslim country, so while it doesn't have a monopoly on violence here, where I am currently is still part of this Muslim state because I broke their law.

incredible, you've just discovered that the law and criminal justice system aren't perfect.

If you work for a company, you're helping promote the companies values. It would be like an ancap having a government job: complete hypocrisy.

that because they have the biggest guns and tell everyone else they can't make their own system. this is how monopoly works.

Does the fact that if I go to this Muslim country I'd go to jail now mean where I am currently is part of that Muslim state?

First of all, there is no such location except maybe pic related (the part of Yellowstone park which is in Idaho), which is due to coincidence and weirdly interacting clauses in the Constitution and subsequent legislation. You can't "get away with" murder, if you turn yourself into the police station and say "i killed him" you will be tried and hung. Only the state can decide you are persona non grata and execute you with impunity, even though we have a 5th amendment that is supposed to prevent exactly that.

>discovered
My entire argument is that anarcho-capitalism already exists on the frontier in these "middle of nowhere" places. That's how it always been.

Did you fail US history?

If your court case was unfair you can get a new one

...

>monopolies are inherently bad
Yet sometimes it's better to have a monopoly than having multiple private entities trying to neck each other and with their own private goals, which can affect negatively your nation.

>why? statists are arguing the positive and need to back up their claims
>can't have combined arms without a centralized command over your forces
>can't manage a large front with just a small tunneled vision of your surroundings because your militia doesn't have access to some other militia's scouting info i.e. everyone dealing with their own fog of war
>dealing with uncompromising people who don't want to do what they must because they won't actively benefit from something, such as being bait for some other unit
>conflicting values would cause fights among the forces, see the soup of letters that composed the french "resistance"
There you have it, at least security/defense affairs should be "monopolized".

This is why I also think you're unreasonable, your rules aren't nearly as universal as you think.

Judge Judy is small claims; I was talking about big boy court. You know, the one that matters.

If I write blasphemy about the Quran then fly to Muslim country to turn myself in, does that mean where I wrote the blasphemy is part of this Muslim state?

the state has no monopoly on violence and never has.

Except for that whole revolution thing. And the literally dozens of rebellions and attempted revolutions that preceded the American revolution, that nobody ever talks about.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rebellions_in_the_United_States

>paid taxes

You mean dodged them chronically? The American colonists were notorious smugglers and tax evaders. Good for them.

>fair share
>maintain society
Oh hey, I found the sucker.

>t. Deluded ancap faggot blind to reality

Well yeah otherwise we'd just set up the KKKourt and sentence all the blacks to hanging