Can someone school me on Anarcho-Capitalism?

Can someone school me on Anarcho-Capitalism?
I've been reading up a bit on it, but I feel like I'm not completely understanding all of the nuances of it.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics
youtube.com/watch?v=BHILi2IQhIQ
youtube.com/watch?v=AQmMe2IeGPU
youtube.com/watch?v=TICdCM4j7x8
hooktu.be/8vMypCinkRk?t=1m35s
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Do you have specific questions?

it's just a meme

>hasn't read anything about topic

t. brainlet

take no notice of it, bunch of faggots.

/thread
when you're too much of an autistic loser to even fit in with libertarians, you basically end up an-cap
hope we clarified it for you

Read Mises, Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Hans Herman-Hoppe, John Locke, Friedman, Hayek, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Hobbes and James Madison and then maybe you will understand

I think fiction might make anarcho-capitalism easier to visualize. There hasn't been a lot of ancap fiction written (yet) but I did enjoy Withur We quite a bit. Maybe some anons can cite other examples.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics

Milton friedman

Just like communism it's all fun and games until reality kicks in.

...

There is no nuance. It's a bullshit, teenager philosophy based on the desire to have no one who tells you what to do.

It's like communism, just more childish and delusional.

youtube.com/watch?v=BHILi2IQhIQ

Explain every successful, highly powerful industry leader and politician who happens to subscribe to this ideology

it makes no sense

basically advanced anarcho capitalist society has everything a state does but its just "voluntary" is some extremely contrived fashion

watch a bunch of hoppe vids if you're brainlet, he's good at explaining stuff at the really basic level
>youtube.com/watch?v=AQmMe2IeGPU

The main idea is to keep spreading the kool-aid so that your bitcoins become super valuable. Then you cash out and enjoy the rest of your life laughing at the 99%

Fantasy for little edgy kids. Has no way of being implemented.

the remarkable thing about hoppe is that he's actually come to the realization that libertarianism is inherently right wing, and that liberty is an end, and not a means. he talks about it more in a recent video here:
>youtube.com/watch?v=TICdCM4j7x8

>captcha: close road
>pic related

>successful, highly powerful industry leader and politician who happens to subscribe to this ideology
might wanna name them first? -oh, and btw... should they actually exist, none of them became succesfull in an anarcho-capitalist society, now did they?

>its just "voluntary" is some extremely contrived fashion
bingo, just like a state can be contrived as "voluntary" as long as you're free to leave it.

> 1 post by this ID
Life, Liberty & Property taken to its logical extreme. It's a framework from which spontaneous order of the market can keep a society prosperous and moral while you fill in your subjective preferences and find your meaning in life. That people should interact on a voluntary basis while respecting each others self-ownership, their choices and the fruits of their labour/property.

What about 30+ ancaps?

Ancap is basically the imagined utopia for 13 year old edgelords.

early onset dementia

Thanks my dudes, ill watch/read up more on it.

What about Aspie IT firm owners?

I love ancap but it will only happen if it’s forced on people. There are so many commies and leftists, that’s why i am a Hoppean. We need to force libertarianism on people or we won’t have it.

> right-wing
What use is a term if its used to lump together contrary belief systems? I've gone back to the "neither left nor right" paradigm because at the end of the day Classical Liberalism has always been the 3rd way between two warring camps of collectivists and I'd rather not be associated with them because they don't believe in Liberty, they're not allies.

You might just be disillusioned because of the impossibility of getting Liberty at the ballot box. Democracy won't ever get us freedom and there's no point being angry with politics, we have the best movement outside of politics and there are a dozen little pathways to getting to a free society by side-stepping the state, rendering it obsolete and giving people something they love so much that even lefties and conservatives would claw their eyes out to defend.

You can't con people into freedom, you can't force it on them, it has to seep into the culture bit by bit imo, with every technological or communal alternative day to day.

We don't even need 51% to do it.

That's a great summery

Or you can get it through separatism

Anarchist ethics seem sound, but as Molyneux has recently remarked:
"When I look at a rational world, the state falls short. When I look at the real world, we find that rationality is not evenly distributed amongst all the different ethnicities."

So, in short, the best system in the absence of irrational people is a completely free market. However, in this world, where there are irrational barbarians and anti-libertarians, a militant minarchist state that defends the values of its people is supreme. I would say The Law by Frédéric Bastiat is an essential read (not to mention quite succinct), and any further reading about economics, ethics, etc. by anarchists and their precursors are, while enjoyable, mere thought exercises.

I'm not OP...
But is it just a concept to work towards? Like you realize some form of taxation will always have to exist to pay for a national defense right? Also you realize that the brainlets who spend every dollar they earn without even saving for retirement will be completely fucked in your system.

My last pic, Charles and David Koch.
Pic related, Ronald Earnest Paul
John McAfee
Peter Thiel
NEED I GO ON
>inb4 not anarcho-capitalist
PROPOSE if you will a better vehicle for achieving an anarcho-capitalist society than supporting all principled libertarians in their quest to deconstruct the state.

great, now tell me about the anarcho-capitalist societies they became wealthy and succesfull in.

>Koch brothers

Fuck off Kochtupus Interent Defense Force

Basically the government forces people to do things which is wrong.

Yeah that too, plenty of avenues bit by bit.
No I don't agree. One thing people are missing is that freedom isnt dictating how to live life, its simply a framework on how to live in harmony with others and a platform to get what you value out of life.

So when it comes to issues like financial illiteracy, I dont see this as a failure of capitalism I see it as a failure of public education and something I subjectively value.

Which means my solutions wont be more state coercion, but a vast array of alternatives, from raising a financially literate family, teaching my friends, hell I even work as a Financial Planner so I teach my clients but the education system needs to be free'd. I want my kids to go to a school where they can learn the basics of money and wealth, the fact that the state hasn't done this makes me think they fear a populace with knowledge in important areas and critical thinking.

Pay check to paycheck people are better off in a system where they don't have to declare bankruptcy because the tax system was too complex when they got into a trade, one where apps and innovation can help them in areas where they're weak, one where high quality communal welfare like Mutual Aid Friendly societies can make a comeback or their idiocy can be insured or where they aren't thrown in jail and their lives ruined because they disobeyed a law that they didnt even know existed because no one no matter how smart can read all 10 billion pages.

Pic related became wealthy and successful in a near anarcho-capitalist society that unfortunately did not extend the NAP to people of color. He exploited this fact to great personal profit, but as a politician was instrumental in the defense of his society against aggression by a foreign state, this namely being the reason anarchy will only be achieved once the entire world's states are simultaneously deconstructed, through the libertarian deregulation process.

/thread.
AnCap is so bad I don't think it even deserves to be called a meme.

>a near anarcho-capitalist society
oh, right... society was not highly hierarchical in those days.

lol

No goverment and dont steal stuf kill/harm people or there proporty eveything is volentary

Libertarians like this thing called the non-aggression principle. Minarchists believe the government is needed to enforce that principle, and that should be the only thing the government does. Anarchists believe a government cannot exist without it violating that principle against everyone it claims to represent.

Bastiat would be proud. Well put.

Maybe in your LITERAL MONARCHY of a country, but in MY country we did things just a LITTLE differently, that's why we didn't like a ONE PERCENT centralized tax, hint hint

This

Go away, Soroshill Shareblue Correct the Net!
Yes, the ENTIRE board is 100% the armies of Soros and the Koch Bros locked in a perpetual paid flamewar, most definitely...

It happened though. It was called the American frontier and the Wild West

it is just a meme. google it up and the images are filled with them. I take communists more seriously than you fucks.

I legitimately never heard a good argument against Anarcho-Capitalism. It's either a misunderstanding of principles (lack of knowledge), unrealistic strawmen, or the muh poor people appeal (even though the free-r an economy is, the better off the lower classes are; this being evident in every point of history.)

Anarcho-Capitalism would work in a society of 200 IQ robots.

True anarcho-capitalism would mean jews literally controlling anything and everything in the western world. They've been given too much of a head start given their lax usury laws - this clearly isn't the way to go.

It's already been done though. It's called the Wild West. That was ancap

Those are all memes non-ancaps spam, reinforcing the idea that all of you are brain-dead animals that need to be culled or used as a consumer good.

Actually the American frontier still had meddling government bastards in the local governments. They are romanticized today, but something tells me there would have been a lot fewer famous criminals if police in the rural towns had been privatized rather than government monopolized.

Literal oxymoron. You can't have anarchy and order. Just like "crony capitalism". Its just cronyism. There's no such thing a late stage capitalism; it's just early state socialism. People no longer want to act like adults and accept consequence, so they shun reality and indulge in hypocrisy.

You can't add identity politics to capitalism. The moment you infringe on any factor of capitalism it stop being capitalism.

Capitalism exists whether anyone likes it or not. It's the cycle. You merely come to terms with it. Social economics indulges too much in hypocrisy.

Ancaps are just delusional faggots that think their idea of economy is sustainable. They're no better than libtards that deny "democracy" being socialism.

America was never truly capitalist. It tried to strive for it, but socialists meddled every step of the way.

>Anarchists believe a government cannot exist without it violating that principle

Some minarchists also believe that as well, but they calculate that it is a necessary "evil" in order to uphold protection of the basic three rights: life liberty and property.

The night-watchmen state should be a certain goal to be reached, but some pure anarchist principles should be gently applied and experimented with to see what progress could be made. I know for certain that as technology gets better, especially military technology, it is generally harder to maintain a civil an-cap society.

toll roads

> Lax usury laws
Sound currency and a free banking system literally stops jewish usury from destroying the populace. The state has given them monopoly control over currency credit and banks.

Equating the wild west to an interconnected globalist world dominated by jewish financial interests is true simpleton logic

That's because the state is and has been run by their minions throughout recent history

BuT whAt iF THe wILd WeST cAmE BACk

no, it would have been the other way around. Privatized police would have been several times more efficient than public ones.

>not real capitalism

True, But the jews real strenght is in their ability to buy the competition, they do that because the competition cant stand the taxes and fall to jew money, no taxes = no jew power

Which is the states biggest flaw, you need perpetual angels in charge and even a constitution is now guarantee that bad people (who flock to it like a moth to a flame) will weasel their way in and use it to benefit at the expense of others.

I'm not sure how anyone could argue that a monopoly implementing a banking monopoly can at all be more desirable than a free banking system and freedom, it just makes no sense. You don't fight fire that threatens your house with a nucelear bomb.

Thats what he said faggot

you don't need to force it, just give people the power to physically remove commies from their property, which is assumed in most ancap systems.

>Physically remove people
>Not forced
Okay.jpg

All you faggots with anarcho capitalism when we all know the real best government form is anarcho monarchism

The only good arguments I've heard are about the practicality of a purely private army, because it's never been done before. I agree that it is valid to be skeptical, and there's no way to know how functional it will be until it's actually tried. But that's all the more reason to try it, in my eyes.

>When you are tired of being run over by your king, so you stage a rebellion, kill him, become new king and let everyone do whatever they want, but if they dont do what you say you kill them
>marry into nice family make princes
>Some peasant trips on you, so you run him over with your horse
>Peasant kills you and becomes new king
>How the tables have turned.jpg

>You can't have anarchy and order.
People like you don't understand what the term means. The "anarchy" in anarcho-capitalism simply refers to a lack of taxation. That's it. You can have the same order and institutions as you can in modern states, as long it's based on voluntary business exchanges instead of taxation. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't mean the world suddenly turns into Mad Max.

If your not just memeing then in my opinion a personal army would go to shit real quick. Aside from the cost of running a usable and size able army you would have to make sure an up and comer it the ranks doesn't just shot you take the money you have and just keep paying the other guys to work for him now and then the cycle repeats.

Already surpassed by universalist isolationism.

Exactly. Jews only control the financial system because they control the central banks, which are propped up by governments. If they actually had to compete in the free market, their power would dwindle to near nothing.

You decide who steps on your property. Infringing upon someone's property is a violation of the NAP, thus validating physical removal (or even worse).

Anarcho capitalism is the economic system of which everything is privatized by the market. Everything is a commodity and will only be paid for only through voluntary transactions and not forced taxes. It's literally the perfect system.

I get it, but trying to say its not forced is a bit of a stretch, its forced, nothing wrong with that

Private armies and personal armies are separate things. You don't need to start and privately fund your own private security company just so you have mall security.

Even as an ancap i cant say its the perfect system, but it is the system that gives people more economic freedom, and that is the only thing that matters to me

What you need to know:

"Anarchism" is generally just a front for communism.

The Soviet supported anything that would weaken the West, and "anarchists" became an ally to communists early. "Destroy the state to create a communist society" is a rather natural ally to "destroy the state".

Then some people appeared who thought that the idea of a stateless society with free trade sounded good.

So the anarchists (crypto-communists) raged and sperged, and have declared anarcho-capitalists their eternal enemies.

Basically anytime someone calls themselves an anarchist, you can find out whether the's a soviet communist very quickly by just asking something like "what do you think about anarcho-feminists" first and then "what do you think about anarcho-capitalists".

Anarchism of all sorts is literally autism-tier ideology that seems to only be followed by the lowest grade of intellectual failure, rivaling that of Marxism.

What they fail to understand is that all of animal ecosystems (including the mostly insular Human societies) are built on hierarchies of power. Governments of all sorts are just the eventuality of enough human beings congregating in one place, it cannot be escaped. The only thing that is in doubt is what form of government? Now how do I make this assertion? Simple: there is no other logical conclusion. The government exists fundamentally for one reason: to form a monopoly on violence. Only it can say who can and can't die without repercussions, etc.

Now this next part is the most important when talking about anarchism. When a government lacks the ability to enforce itself (and therefore ceases to be a government anymore), the state of anarchy/chaos that follows cannot be sustained. If a government falls, what happens in every country that has ever had a collapsed government? The political groups within that country use the power that they hold to fight each other until one group comes out on top. That group then eventually has enough physical power to form a monopoly on power and thus turn themselves into a government.

Whoever has enough power to form a monopoly on violence becomes the de facto and/or de jure governmental body.

Anarcho-crapitalism basically represents a certain idea: that there is no de jure government, but has no problems with de facto Corporate entities assuming the vestiges of governmental power. Taxes become rents and you have a system that effectively becomes the Soviet Union (where the government holds all the economic power as well as political power, and the two become inseparable). Only difference of course is that it doesn't have any de jure accountability.

tl:dr It's a semantic meme filled with sleights of hand.

Literally just means freedom of secession. Respect for natural law above legislation.

>you can't have hierarchies without government
Where do people get this dumb idea? I see it repeated a lot.

That depends on what you define as governments? If you read the whole post, I clearly state that social hierarchies that are dense enough universally form de facto or de jure governmental entities who form monopolies on power. I never said that hierarchies cannot exist without governments or visa versa.

If you aren't Ancap, you either know nothing of it, are too stupid to understand it, or want to tread upon the rights of others.

Corporations are far worst than governement today, and people have no control, not even a possibility, over them today.

Nationalise the bigs and let little corp live.

What a load of rubbish. I'm not an AnCrap or a libertarian because I recognize that even if I leave everyone else alone there will always be some Marxist or some other subhuman trash that won't think that way. And that the only way to stop them from seizing power is to be in power and have the monopoly on violence before they do.

Sums up my thoughts on ancap. Would I like an ancap world. Yes. And more so than communism. Do I think it's realistic? No. There are too many who like to fuck things up.

If a communist does anything to violate the rights of others in his pursuit of communism, it is your right to kill him. However, you have no right to violate his rights before he violates the rights of others.
Anyway, in an Ancap world, most commies would probably just go live in their own hippie-communes with other commies.

>Corporations are far worst than governement today
That's utter nonsense. The vast majority of corporations are completely benign and provide you with goods which you couldn't live without. Only a small minority cause trouble, and those only do so because of their incestual involvement with government. Politicians only care what their constituents think of them every 4 years. Corporations care about their customers think every single day.

Ancap is more of an ideal. A philosophy. Not a political system. Ancaps can want to live in Republics, Monarchies, Communes, et cetera, and still be Ancap, as long as they let others decide not to join them or leave them, and take their property, including their land, with them. Or, as long as they allow secession.

Autistic corporatefags. Worse than marxism.

But if we based our ideologies on what is practical we would all be social democrat beta cucks

>Also you realize that the brainlets who spend every dollar they earn without even saving for retirement will be completely fucked in your system.
Yes, but they fucked themselves. That's their choice. Yes, it may seem heartless, but having a group of people demonstrating and living consequences are a benefit for many more. Many people like to think that by helping others we'll be repaid by them doing amazing things. "He could discover the cure for cancer." Yes, but leaving him to his own self chosen state also serves the people.
>It serves as a warning.
>These have value too.

help me with this one someone please.

hooktu.be/8vMypCinkRk?t=1m35s

Let's say USA goes AnCap tomorrow, what stops employers from sending jobs overseas to a less developed nation and exploiting them? The fundamental problem of this concept is that it hurts AnCap industry, the people of this other nation, and like Mosley says they will be egregiously angry with "Capitalism", jump into Communism and threaten the AnCap nation which has no sovereign military leadership to merk them, which means marxism spreads to an AnCap nation which will have higher unemployment due to the aforementioned movement of jobs.

I don't want to go full NatSoc but this is a serious question.