This upsets the ancap

This upsets the ancap

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

ancaps are consistently the most low iq posters on this board desu

This man is wearing clothes from the 17th century but I have tactical nukes

The government doesn't own the land of the entire country.

I don't live in an absolute monarchy and the government doesn't own my land but rather enforces my rights to own my land.

What is stopping you?

youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A

In an ancap society, could I buy 1500 acres of land, and give half of it to my buddies in exchange for them bearing arms for me and keeping their respective tenants busy working the land?

I DO NOT CONSENT I DO NOT CONSENT
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

This is the final red pill for libertarians, desu.

Rothbard refuted this autistic "logic" in The Ethics of Liberty, you commie cumdump.

England owns alot of land all over the world.
People behind Fed own alot of land in usa

Well yea. Most governments own a lot of land. They just don't all of it.

picrelated

Holy shit, this changes everything, now excuse me while I violently subdue my fellow white people.

People arguing against anarcho-capitalism are always debating some watered down, retarded Internet meme version, they never have a solid argument against real Rothbardians.

when shit goes off hand due to (((free market))) they never seem to hesitate upon calling the big ol' mommy goverment.

The national government is a sovereign ruler of all the land: while the property holders hold some within it, the government may nationalize or reposes it at will. We live in an Ancap world, the sovereign citizen of it is a nation, though.

Lolbertarians btfo

That is because anarcho-capitalism only exists within peoples' heads, never ever implemented at any scale or form. It is unsurprising that other people's outlook of it doesn't quite match with yours. There is no objective standard to compare with anyway.

That doesn't mean they actually own the land. It's like saying that just because a thief can steal your money he owns it.

this is why ancaps invented bitcoin
the first true private property

What is the difference between "owning the land" and "actually owning" the land? Owning a property means having an enforced privileged access to a resource or an object.

A thief has a pretty low probability to steal my money. A state authority over the land is assured and guaranteed by every national and international law.

>Not knowing about stateless prechristian Ireland

>Citing tribalism and nomadism as their ideal.
The absolute state of Ancap. Also, Somalia.

A thief that tried to steal your money specifically would have a fairly high chance of succeeding. Even if he wouldn't the chance of something occurring is irrelevant. If it were relevant then it's unlikely your property is going to get nationalized in most countries so you're saying that 2 things that have a similar effect and are about as likely to happen are somehow vastly different.
With your definition of ownership a thief does indeed own your money since if he threatens you to give him your money he does have enforced privileged access to it.

>hue hue muh Somalia lolspergtarians and AnCaps btfo

i dare ancaps to refute pic related

It's literally not free. It's included in the price of the spaghetti.

not an arguement

This is why Georgism is the most patrician economic pihilosophy.

It's really the only tax acceptable by true Natsoc Alpha Males.

Made me chuckle

I'm still waiting for you to explain what do you think it means to "actually own" the land.

>With your definition of ownership a thief does indeed own your money since if he threatens you to give him your money he does have enforced privileged access to it.
My privilege is enforced better than a thief's. Mugging is extremely rare on a global scale, and there are consequences of violence for it.

As for the state, it enforces laws of handling property. If a property owner would violate its' laws, he would also face its' consequences that he would be unable to avoid. Which means persicely that the state has sovereign ownership of its lands and values, even if they aren't nationalized.

>hue hue muh Somalia lolspergtarians and AnCaps btfo
Pretty much. If anything, show me how anarcho-capitalism is realized in practice without resorting to tribal societies that existed more than 500 years ago.

Ownership of property is just having the right of exclusive control over it. It's usually enforced through the government but not necessarily.
Under your "level of privilege" definition the thief still owns your money. If you were in a situation where you were being mugged your privilege wouldn't be enforced better than the thief's at that time so he would be the real owner of your money.
You're still saying that just because the government has the (physical) power of nationalising everything they own it. Government can't just decide to do whatever it likes. It's made up of people who still need to follow certain rules and are only allowed to do the things the people have granted them the power of doing.

>start your own country

Working on it faggo. Reform from within, especially in the US, isn't worth it.

Ancap doesn't even merit a rebuttal. Anyone out of 11th grade (or the emotional equivalent) and with a 3 digit IQ views ancap the way an adult views the opinions of a 5 year old.