Is Anarcho Capitalism just neo-feudalism?

Is Anarcho Capitalism just neo-feudalism?

naw, it's just fucking retarded.

But how can a peasant become a king?

No, far worse than that.

basically, and that's always been the complaint about it. Except instead of a king with a divine mandate, you're beholding to a set of CEOs who don't view you as a human.

Feudalism has institutional Nepotism.
Personally I like it though, otherwise Jews just run everything.

>He's a temporarily embarrassed billionaire
Lmaoing at ur life

ancap is literally how the world works at the level of the most powerful people. you're confused as to why you aren't in on it because you are property.

Some versions of proposed Ancap societies do resemble feudal organization social structures, however there are some significant differences. A King is given the divine right to rule by God, any leader of an Ancap society would rise to the top of that society based on his ability to compete and be productive. In addition, an Ancap leader cannot take land or extract tithe/taxes without signing explicit contracts which hold him liable while a King requires nothing to demand resources from his subjects. Subjects in a feudal system have little to no recourse against a ruler for aggression against them, while in an Ancap society any leader who violates the NAP is subject to justified retaliation from any aggrieved party and places himself in an untenable position in which competing leaders could offer the offending leader's followers a better option and depose him.

In addition, one cannot hold slaves in an Ancap society because actual ancap's believe that each individual is an absolute monarch over their own body, no other individual no matter how powerful or rich can force you to do anything with your body that you do not expressly consent to, if they do they would be violating the NAP at it's most fundamental level.

Fucking libertarians are worse than feminists with their obsession with body and consent

At least you aren't a property.

If you allow into the founding articles of society that there are circumstances in which one individual can partially enslave another individual to their will, do you think that this will attract ethical and productive individuals, or unethical and corrupt individuals? On the surface it seems obvious that there are circumstances in which it would be beneficial to temporarily deprive an individual of their free agency, but you must also then concede that you or any of your loved ones could at any time of a powerful enough individual's choosing become subject to that power.

Who do you think would desire most to use that power? Historically there are very few benevolent leaders who abstain from abusing it, and once they start abusing it they often desire to expand it until you stop becoming a citizen and start becoming a slave.

lolbertarian/ancap ideoligal purists are as bad as communists. Always ignoring human nature.

lol@ respecting rights of individuals. You are high if you think the capitalist classes would not rule over the workers/slaves with an iron fist. You are high if you think they would allow policies or cultural artifacts that would challenge their power or their monopolies. Within one generation you would have an entrenched class of ultra-powerful rulers that own every sector of society, with everyone else working as slaves.

Remember kids, all the land is owned but rent is voluntary!

High-school tier politics.

no its just judeo-nationalism

Anarcho Capitalism differs from feudalism because of its absence of aggression. If you are working for a company, you are doing so voluntarily. You can always find another job or sign a different contract in a free market. The CEO duty is always to serve his costumers, not the other way around. If he fails to do so he will be promptly fisted by the invisible hand of the free market and replaced by a better one.

>CEOs

Kek, it's amazing how uninformed you people are. Corporations aren't a part of anarcho capitalism as they are a part of a state mandated way to evade liability.

> anarcho capitalism
> part of a state

???

except state violence isn't anarcho capitalism. i'm not agreeing with it, but ancaps abide by the NAP, and govts don't

You might want to reread my post.

>ancaps abide by the NAP

Oh, really?

Yes.

commies aren't people

The ideal you envision would never exist and you would have feudalism by way of human nature. I say this as a minarchist.

minarchism is even worse then anarcho-capitalism

Your post very evidently contradictory. Unless you happen to have a very peculiar definition of what corporations are.

Physically removing individuals who violate property rights is the NAP in its purest form. You have to defend your property against damage or immediate threat of damage.

I'll bite. How?

The difference is anyone can rise to the top in Anarchism but you are legally property in Feudalism with no rights.

There is nothing wrong with feudalism.

We live in a neofedual system now.

>Muh Human Nature
Not an argument unless you are more specific. What exactly about human nature that prevent property rights and voluntary exchanges?

>neo-feudalism
replace w/ 'in denial'

Who enforces the NAP? What would prevent burger king from annexing everything?

having a government soley exist to enforce property rights is unreasonable and will always result in even a night watchman state making deals with private corporations (e.g. roads) that disadvantages people, especially a government which "doesn't regulate"

Everyone who isn't bugerking chimping out.

no one and nothing. but they have to go up against every other company that is, or is trying to do that, including Amazon.

At least there is no law to prevent it.

So basically European colonization of the Americas: corporate edition.

>Who enforces the NAP?
Private security agencies and insurance companies that are hired specifically to protect their costumers. What prevents these companies from physically attacking their competitors is the high costs involved in armed conflicts, especially aggressive ones. Since companies require profit in order to exist, it would be unreasonable to assume that they would engage in such acts.
Also a CEO is not a king. If Google`s CEO decides to turn his search engine into a child pornography website, he wouldn`t be able to do so because that is not how corporations function. There are investors and other mechanisms of decentralization that prevent such unprofitable decisions.

>Within one generation you would have an entrenched class of ultra-powerful rulers that own every sector of society
What are you smoking? Any company that would divert it's resources to enslave/capture/buyout others would be rendered noncompetitive because those resources weren't invested in it's own development.
Also this has never happened in any voluntary society without outside intervention.

What happens if in anarcho capitalism, somebody buys all territory in the entire country and implements communism?

That's pretty silly. Where would he get the resources to do that?

>It's slavery if you don't let people enslave you

Shit statists say. The difference between capitalists and kings is that only one has the monopoly upon law and violence required to successfully extort you.

In AnCapistan, there'd be several competing private defense companies at both the national and local levels. If one violates the NAP and assumes the role of the State, it knows there will be several other companies of equivalent strength ready to come to the aid of the victim. Thus, violation of the NAP is heavily decentralized and the emergence of a feudal system would be nearly impossible as the enormous costs of securing a monopoly upon violence and law and slight chance thereof would heavily disincentivize companies from violating the NAP in the first place.

This would only be compounded by the threat of a heavily armed populace ready to resist any attempts to re-establish the State.

*heavily disincentivized

An-cap and an-com are retarded. Even mutualism would barely work

>communists
>having money

Your question, though silly, touches upon an interesting aspect of an AnCap society. I think there would be attempts by champagne socialists, who are morally opposed to liberty, to preserve the State even in spite of its abolishment. I could see Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg buying large areas of land to build Scandi-style model socialist settlements with intact States, but these would quickly wither away as no one would actually want to live there after it is shown the State was never necessary at all.

But this assumes that all private security agencies are of equal strength. Germany gobbling up Poland wasn't costly at all. And don't massive corporations form naturally through mergers? It seems much more likely that some fat Security Corp would chomp the rest of ancap land upon reaching something like 60% of the market share.

>Germany gobbling up Poland wasn't costly at all
Modern warfare simply does not work like that anymore. Simply look at ISIS, Taliban or even Vietnam. Not even an army that is more powerful than every other army in the world combined was capable of defeating a decentralized militia of sand people. That is mainly because big and organized nationalistic armies are only fit to combat other organized nationalistic armies through decapitation wars.

About the merges, if a company grows under a free market, it is due its capabilities of offering a good and reliable service. If a company whose sole service is to provide security becomes a market leader, it is because it is certainly not endangering anyone`s lives in any possible manner. This would include the capability of this company of preventing centralized and dangerous decision making, the enslaving of its costumers and the irresponsible usage of nuclear weapons.

>Not even an army that is more powerful than every other army in the world combined was capable of defeating a decentralized militia of sand people
If we shot every desert dweller for not having an American Platinum Protection Plan, ISIS and the Taliban would be gone in months. Mustard gas down the gookholes would have won us Vietnam in the same amount of time. Insurgencies are long and costly because of self imposed restrictions, nothing more.

>About the merges, if a company grows under a free market, it is due its capabilities of offering a good and reliable service.
If you look at America as a protection firm, its doing pretty well protecting its customers. The only requirement for being a good bodyguard is that the people who pay you don't get hurt. There's nothing in the job description about not hurting people who don't pay you.

"CEO" is just a stand in for any large business or owner or property owner who will basically become a feudal lord in ancapistan.

>If we shot every desert dweller for not having an American Platinum Protection Plan, ISIS and the Taliban would be gone in months.
There is no evidence that currently supports this claim. The US could technically nuke Iraq and Afghanistan out of existence but it hasn`t done so for reasons that would also apply for a voluntarist society.

>There's nothing in the job description about not hurting people who don't pay you.
If it were an actual security agency then it literally would. Not endangering the lives of your customers by engaging in unnecessary wars would be a must for every security agency/insurance company that wants to have a chance of being competitive and viable in the market.

>There is no evidence that currently supports this claim.
How did Germany deal with their Jew problem? By indiscriminately rounding up all Jews and sending them to summer camp. Its the same concept, except its even easier because everyone in the desert is either hostile or neutral, and Security Corp loses no money harming either.

>The US could technically nuke Iraq and Afghanistan out of existence but it hasn't done so for reasons that would also apply for a voluntarist society.
Mexican cartels are living proof that corporations are not above depravity. Although realistically, you would flatten the country with conventional weapons instead of nukes to keep the land habitable.

>Not endangering the lives of your customers by engaging in unnecessary wars
But we're talking Austro-Prussian war, not French and English war. There's no risk to the customer when the war is one sided. Why would a business not seize the opportunity of a one sided war?

>corporations are not above depravity
I agree with this. In the end, that is exactly the point of anarchocapitalism or New Libertarianism, it is strictly an Ethical stance. It simply states that acts of aggression are objectively wrong; thus the state is inherently wrong and should cease to exist. This could potentially generate many problems in the beginning, but all evidence points towards the free market being the best problem solver that ever existed. What really matters is being against depravity/sin/crime, regardless of the consequences.


What is the point of having a society that ignores God, morality and Ethics anyway? There is no future for such people and they would soon cease to exist, be in a statist or a stateless society.

>In AnCapistan, there'd be several competing private defense companies at both the national and local levels.

Until they conglomerate. What makes you think the people in power wont decide to band together and exert monopolistic force on the population?

Is it more profitable to compete with 2 or 3 other entities, or join up/decide not to compete with each other?

>Form a monopoly in a society where the government is either too small to help you or doesn't exist at all.
>Reduce quality and jack up the prices.
>People fed up with you and smaller alternatives start forming.
>No bought and payed for politician to alter their zoning laws, tax them into oblivion, or alter the market to benefit you.
>Go bankrupt as people switch to newer better enterprises.

This guy gets it

This user speaks the truth.

>believing monopolies can only exist with government
>forgets how governments form in the first place
>doesn't think monopolies will prevent people from starting new businesses with the PMCs they bought out

being this retarded

Were your brain functioning properly you would note that I never said monopolies are impossible in a theoretical Ancap society, simply that they cannot be prolonged in an Ancap society the same way they can in a Crony Capitalist system. For a monopoly to force society at gunpoint to buy it's product it would have to have enough force to fight a winning war against all of society which would not be profitable at all, assuming the members of said society value and believe in the NAP.

Were the scenario you describe to come true in an Ancap society it would cease to exist and transform into a generic dictatorship where a single individual or group of individuals hold absolute power over the rest of society through use of violence.

That's fair. I agree with the end goal, but I just can't see profit oriented corporations not acting like the Mexican cartel or an EVE online corporation.

The very nature of profit seems to be at odds with the NAP.

Yes

>Were the scenario you describe to come true in an Ancap society it would cease to exist and transform into a generic dictatorship where a single individual or group of individuals hold absolute power over the rest of society through use of violence.
That's my point. Any ancap society would inevitably and rapidly turn into a dictatorship. There is nothing more profitable than absolute control of a population, for a specific group of people at least.

History would show otherwise, not only are modern dictatorships almost all pathetically small and weak compared to non-dictatorships, but they generally also have greater trouble with backstabbing, rebellion, and internal upheavals. Yes generally the highest ranking members of the party end up rich, assuming of course they survive long enough to retire. The economic models of dictatorships are often fucked too, and that absolute control of the economy often leads them to massive economic collapse because it turns it it's actually much easier to allow an economy to self-regulate than it is for one or a few people to control the entire thing.

Only superficially