/ancap/ TRAIN TO ANCAPISTAN CHOO CHOO

What's up ancaps and reddies this is a thread to discuss whether an anarcho-capitalistic society would function in today's world commies are welcome too just share your thoughts

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9D-QD_HIfjA
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>commies are welcome too
staying true to form eh

you cant have a debate without opposing sides

Yeah it's why people call you the centrist brigade.

i declare this thread a memeballs thread

...And centrists are just people who refuse to come to a solution. They leave everything unanswered and think that is the correct answer.

Maybe one day the ancaps will progress to the point where they have to actually deal with the commie question.

middle ground fallacy is the term for which you search

>train to ancapistan
Who built the railway?

Thread theme here
youtube.com/watch?v=9D-QD_HIfjA

fpr a fee of 0.00089btc

the price has increased a lot since that meme was made

>whether an anarcho-capitalistic society would function in today's world
Yes. Liechtenstein is probably the best contender. Their head of state confirmed himself to be an ancap, and all their townships have the legal right to secede and form their own country.

>ancap only possible in a literal hereditary monarchy.
Pottery.

> hereditary monarchy
What do you think family owned companies are. And I think we should run "countries" the same way.

Not monarchies, you dolt. There is always a difference between sovereignty and being a corporation doing business somewhere. Also I'm not an ancap in case you couldn't tell, it's just funny and sad that they never seem to realize their minarchist ancap ideals always happen in white countries with strong leadership.

Better yet

It wouldn't be the same as a monarchy, but that's probably the closest extant approximation.

Ancap here, I've been sitting on this one idea for the concept for a while now, if an anarchial-capitalist society ever took place it would not last very long, but it theoretically can refine governments, it's not just us that would survive such a turn in society, and the average man may not like that reasonably, the NAP may allow self defense but it does not ensure that one with a better weapon or strength can be stopped from smashing your skull open, with all that worry It'd be hard to have a family that will survive, the man has to work, and while the kids may be cared for by the woman in the family we all know that women are on average weaker than men, BUT HEY, you may be asking, what about giving the woman a gun...

and to that I say again with the NAP, it is only there to help those in danger from violence but not to ensure no harm to the victim... furthermore, people do not like living in fear in general.

so, what is the solution to this?
Private Police...

No.

this is not the solution

if Private police ever existed then it'd be chaotic, each service would have their own "private laws" those accused by subscribers of their service may only be guilty of things like assuming one's gender or not wearing a burqa.

so unfourtunately, this leads to the real solution

Private Government,
[spoiler]a force of such would be established theoretically by either a higher class individual that would either buy land and sell parts of it bundled with the promise of keeping it safe along with property surrounding it with the same policies and of course, there will not just be one person doing this as security would be appealing to the average person, some governments would have better land, better fees, better policies, and that would be up to the individual to choose if they want to subscribe to these services... until one or more governments has enough to buy what land they're on...

Only in the sense that "property" is the closest thing we have to monarchical sovereignty. You are a monarch of your own car as much as most corporations "own" their assets. But yeah it's a good illustration to point out that every company is run with a CEO, but the left will say that it's because that's the kind of poison that "property" is. They'll push for "collaborative" power structures even when the market says no, and scream about the horrors of capitalist greed and exploitation while they do it. Maniacs.

this is a religion for feels and fedoras. you could try to stop me, but you will need borders.

>if Private police ever existed then it'd be chaotic, each service would have their own "private laws" those accused by subscribers of their service may only be guilty of things like assuming one's gender or not wearing a burqa.

that simply wouldn't be the case tho no one is allowed to persecute you in an ancap society just because you wear a burqa etc because that simply doesnt harm one's existence

the proplem with nap is that it only exists in the physical plane doesnt take into account the psychological harms something or one can bring but i am all for it since it ceases the existance of sjws

And no private police or court is allowed to jail a person in ancapistan unless they breached a contract and that contract specifies "if i breach this ill go to jaill" very simplified of course .The most extreme thing a private can do is to handcuff them and take them to a private court if they violate the and court cannot jail them of course if they didnt breach contract what they can do is exclude from society meaning nobody would buy their labor which in turn leads to starving (ye i kno)

about the warlord problem the second problem with ancap is that people assume everybody would abide by nap

>those accused by subscribers of their service may only be guilty of things like assuming one's gender
This would not happen, because it is not a competitive code of laws. Private laws are subject to market forces, recall. How many people would want to pay for a police service that apprehends people who don't use certain pronouns? Some, perhaps, but far less than the majority. And that service would cost more than one that doesn't do this, and deliver a worse protection service, because you need to allocate resources to dispatching cops to gender-related disputes instead of actual crime.

>or not wearing a burqa
This might happen in Islamic societies. The dominant laws in the market would depend on societal norms.

Either situation would be a violation of the NAP, though.

...

>waiting for free market to provide magnifying glasses to see this post

My question is: how do you get powerful enough to enforce the NAP without breaking it? If the NAP happens by democratic consensus and market forces working on societal norms, i.e. Rationality™, then what happens when another french revolution breaks out in which the majority is swept up? Note that it's not always possible for the libertarians to "exit" because that would involve giving up at least some of their property.

>how do you get powerful enough to enforce the NAP without breaking it?

you cant
you can only sign a contract that are willing to live under nap rules while all the other would be excluded from society/your society