Sup Forums please give me your genuine thoughts on Anarcho-Capitalism

Sup Forums please give me your genuine thoughts on Anarcho-Capitalism

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo&index=1&list=PL1647CADF96760B37
mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

Good intentions, great memes, but probably not feasible.

Literally retarded.

complete autism

Not only will it never happen, it is physically impossible and can not work.

keep them coming guys

anyone have an actual argument though?

What are you looking for? To be roasted on your dumb beliefs?

Yeah right here

No I am looking for someone to explain to me why an ancap society won't work. I am open to changing my beliefs. Maybe to just basic capitalism.

Correlates strongly with low IQ

Its idealistic just like any other anarchist ideology. Just google arguements against it. Idk read Nozick

Men will use robots to re-enslave women, turning them into baby-making commodities. Every man will own hundreds of women to be used for reproduction and pleasure. Robots will keep them alive and under control. Each time a female is born, she will be placed on the market to be transferred to another man's fuck room.

There are so many reasons why it can't work. The main one that I usually point to is monopolies. Without law, large corporations would literally kill anyone who attempts to compete with them. These mega-corporations would practically become the state.

but user, IQ is a eurocentric and racist social construction - Fake News

It will not work because a country without leadership loses every time. It's not like a country can sustain itself without some sort of oversight in the interests of the majority of people. How would a response to war be appropriate and feasible? What if the majority of people don't want to leave their homes to fight? No draft = freely invadable.

SOON

I dont think any ancaps believe there shouldnt be laws?

How is Anarcho-Capitalism different from capitalists operating under anarchy?

Openned my eyes to the possibilities of a free society, in terms of morality and opportunity.

The most logical and consistent ideology humans have thought of currently with the best historical basis one could hope for.

No law ,but when we have economic freedom where we basically build our own private police.

If you understood economics, it would be self-evident. Here's just one death-knell of it:

>negative externalities exist

>therefore you must either justify government intervention to stop them (regulation) or abandon the non-aggression principle because negative externalities inherently violate it

>alternatively, you do neither but somehow rationalize that individuals should have the right to rectify the problem on their own by force. See: might makes right. Obviously, society would become manifestly worse under might makes right and supporting it would just mean you're an ideologue who doesn't care about practicality--the ideal above all.

Useful idiots at best, sociopathic Patrick Bateman wannabes at worst.

My main argument against i would be if your not to force a system since that would be considered aggressive how would.you even start that society and enforce the rules to make sure everyone is going to up hold liberterian principles.

probably would create a society with a higher living standard than ever seen before in human history. ancap is the true red pill

I disagree with you on almost everything. But I hate godless communism and we seem to agree on that.

have some OC, fresh off the vine

If you have no law or overarching structure like a state, why would anyone contribute to voluntary buisness transactions when they could just rob their customer at gunpoint instead. The whole concept is just ridiculous.

Right private police acting with private courts that is based around a common law.

Well would you rather protect someone with benefits of health and safety

or just be on your own

has the greatest amount of viability and retarded people who hate it ive ever seen

>Implying that the process of awarding Government contracts isn't completely corrupt
>Implying that road contractors don't completely gouge the Government
Someone has no idea how construction works.

fucking unions

Anyone living in this type of system would do whatever they needed to do to follow their self interest as much as possible. This is like the basis of how markets work, greed propels competition and thus innovation.

> might makes right
Is only one aspect to human relations and society. You're ignoring everything else.

>he literally didn't even read the post
I know ancaps are retarded and all, but this is next-level.

Who would choose what the law is in an ancap society? Who would enforce it and would people trust those to enforce it?

there is no law

Economics tells us that wherever there is a monopoly, you will tend to get worse service at higher prices over time.
Economics is telling us to expect government as we know to keep getting worse.

getting lost in a haze of retarded idealism and one's own farts rather than pragmatism

This 3-part series will greatly inform you if you can watch through it.
youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo&index=1&list=PL1647CADF96760B37

>Union donates money to get politicians elected
>Politician makes sure the bridge contract has a union-only stipulation
>This effectively cuts out all true competition from non-union contractors
>Price for bridge construction is astronomically high because union pays workers $40/hr to stand around and kill time to milk the contract
This is how it actually works.

There IS law in an ancap society. The whole point of opposing government as we know it today is so that we can have a true rule of law, instead of being forced to obey the arbitrary dictates of ignoramuses.

> alternatively, you do neither
> See: might makes right
Mate that was 70% of the way through your post, I may have misunderstood you there but it sounded like you were saying:
> I believe in negative externalities and the markets inability to address them
> because here is a dichotomy to deal with them
> or do neither and are left with might makes right
Sounds like you're saying either you have government, or force or might makes right (force), while ignoring various other aspects to society for addressing these kinds of problems without just force or even how we advocate a just use of force. Correct me if I'm wrong.

See:

It's even more retarded than communism.

>The main one that I usually point to is monopolies
Do monopolies actually exist in unregulated capitalism? The only time monopolies ever existed were under regulated capitalism, where direct and indirect government subsidies could further empower larger companies.

>Well would you rather protect someone with benefits of health and safety

No, because why should I? Especially, if I have enough resources to just racket the plebs? Especially if I ally with the other racketee... oops, I mean "private" police?

The best memes out of the political compass desu.

it's bad, but not as bad as an extortionist monopoly. And at least there is some method of redress

With minor reforms, it is easy to see how this fraud can be reduced

Economists have searched far and wide to try to find examples of natural monopolies and so far they can't find any.

If you're really concerned about monopolies, you should be more concerned about government, which itself is a monopoly.

You're advocating as a solution the problem you believe it will solve.

...

>but wait, we don't need ore than one bridge
This wasn't made by someone who needs a bridge to commute

1) Bridges always become backed up with traffic and there there are almost always multiple anyways.
2) Cirno is a baka

>true rule of law

Sounds like pathetic bullshit that you've made just to make up "argument". Explain it.

Its the most logical system but cannot take place until a white only demographic makes up the populus. A message to other ancaps and milquetoast lolberts, stop living by your principles when we live in a non free society. The NAP means nothing if you are the only one following it. There will be no more of us if we let the kikes win and the foreign hordes outnumber us.

I read the image and maybe I missed it but I saw no mention of an actual natural monopoly. Could you point it out if there is one?

> I may have misunderstood
>ancap
I'm shocked.

>I believe in
It's not a belief, it's empirical reality.

>the markets inability to address them
Ugh, here we go. There is zero market incentive to deal with them by definition. In fact, the market rewards negative externalities by enabling a lower cost basis simply by not properly dealing with them.

>because here is a dichotomy
*The only possible answers: Force their internalization by gov't regulation, abandon the NAP entirely because allowing negative externalities inherently contradicts the NAP, or allow might makes right.

>Correct me if I'm wrong.
>ancaps, ever right

Except for where empiracle evidence contradicts like the old US light industry. See: mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
(as an example) There are also innovations that change the dynamic like....wireless internet for example, battery power, solar panels on homes etc etc. (obviously the grid is a certain way but if we are talking about a free society things would look much different).

it listed some of them
>gas network
>railway infrastructure
>electrical grid
>bus service
>digital platforms (network monopoly)

>Economists have searched far and wide to try to find examples of natural monopolies and so far they can't find any.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The image portrays one of the relatively cleanest methods of dealing with competition.

I'm talking about so-called "natural law:" Law derived by means of philosophy as opposed to law made up just because people feel like it. Read some Hoppe if you want the gist of it.

It’s the only thing in the world more retarded than you

> Actions cause negative side effects
> Therefore there must be government to stop them.

Really? That's the best you can do? You could justify just about anything with that line of argumentation, from the existence to god to the ancap private security orgs and rights enforcement agencies and everything in between. It proves absolutely nothing.
I am an ancap, to play devil's advocate the best argument I have for a state is that humans evaluated as a mass are quite possibly incapable of operating under a paradigm absent political authority, in much the same way that domesticated cattle are incapable of operating in a paradigm absent farms. If you put those organisms in the circumstances outside which the majority are bred for, perhaps very few edge cases will survive competition with their wild counterparts, but the vast majority will just end up prey.
As we have tailored cattle to our preferences, so psychopathic wielders of political authority have tailored their "cattle" to their preferences, and the statistically extreme outliers that break that mould are so rare that it would be silly to construct a society designed according to their preferences, and they should just accept their actual position in society; to rule.
Ancaps may well only exist as a side effect of the current cultural norm toward extreme aversion to aggression and forceful imposition of equality, coupled with the facts of nature that people simply actually aren't equal, and some people fucking deserve aggression.

Wow that was an exercise in futility. Since you're not the kind to engage in serious discussion I will leave you with this:
> markets can internalize "externalities" through the demand to address them
> might makes right is not the only way of dealing with these issues

>Economists have searched far and wide to try to find examples of natural monopolies and so far they can't find any.

oh lol

None of those things are controlled by monopolies, other than the utilities which are a state-forced monopoly. There are plenty of examples of successful privatization of public transport or electrical grids.

give an argument fucktard

>Actions cause negative side effects [on non-consenting third parties]
Fix'd. Not even going to read whatever nonsense you wrote.

how can there be competition between electrical grids?

Will you have duplicate sets of electrical lines running to all the houses? This would be extremely inefficient when you could just have 1 network. That's why it's a "natural" monopoly

>Be Ancap
>Walk outside
>Pay the 1 Bitcoin toll to use the side walk
>Walk another block
>Different person owns this block
>Pay another Bitcoin
>Pay 12 different people to enter their blocks so you can get to get to the store
>Enter store
>Child servant welcomes you
>Buy your recreational nuclear bombs
>Leave store (and pay the 5 Bitcoin fee for leaving the store so you don't become a slave)
>Walk home paying each of the tolls
>Atleast the government isn't oppressing me!
>Detonate the nukes to escape this hell

>markets can internalize externalities through the "demand" to address them
>perfect knowledge exists
Nope, and there goes your argument.

All ancap 'economic' positions lead back to the absurdities of perfect competition.

>I'm talking about so-called "natural law:"

Muslims consider beheading you, infidel, a part of the "natural law" imposed by allah himself, you inbred idiot. Or does it not count? Not natural enough?

Your fix made absolutely no difference to the actual problem with your thesis, which was effectively "Problem, therefore government is the solution."
That's idiotic, because there are an infinite amount of solutions to any potential negative externality you haven't ruled out before jumping to "guise we need a government".

>company A builds bridge across stream and charges high fees
>company B builds another bridge downstream, charging lower prices
>company A has to lower price to compete
>road network throughput increases, traffic congestion decreases, prices decrease

wow so much waste fuck markets lmao

It can only work once all curent powers are purged Jews, gov, islam and big corporations all have to go. Past that purge the free market will pervent unfair monopolies.

>Company A buys B's bridge and all the other competition's bridges
>Can charge whatever the fuck they want

> might makes right is not the only way of dealing with these issues

The only one that is outright profitable and which provides the incentive for already strong players.
Also, if you believe that strong will willingly castrate themselves just because of "Non-agression principle" and "honest competition/fairplay", you need to ease up on the soy diet.

why build two bridges when they only need 1?
this is a significant waste of society's resources

Also, you are imagining some major metropolitan area with millions of cars, when this is clearly just a small town

Soyboy ideology

Nearly all of Sup Forums has absolutely no idea what it is.
It's not even a political ideology, for fuck's sake.
But it is, 100%, the only philosophical ideology regarding self-rule to be completely moral and ethical.

>gas network
This is a monopoly granted by a municipality, not a natural monopoly.

>railway infrastructure
If somebody can deliver better railroad service, they can go ahead and build new tracks. If they need to, they can build under or over existing tracks. Therefore, there is no monopoly.

>electrical grid
There is nothing aside from the government to stop people from running new electrical cables.

>bus service
There is nothing to stop competing bus services aside from the government.

>digital platforms (network monopoly)
People can pick and choose which platforms they wish to use. I expect that over time, competition will make it increasingly difficult to keep users attached to any particular platform. The reason why this hasn't already happened is because people are mostly content with things as they are. A lot of users probably don't even know there is a problem. What IS a problem is that services are presenting themselves as open platforms and then later proving to be anything but that. But maybe promises aren't the way to solve this issue. I know there are people in the crypto space who are working on decentralized, trustless solutions.

>Falling for the Soy meme

An electrical grid is a facility for the distribution of energy over a wide area, where it is transported from production to consumption, and where the production and storage is managed in order to meet the demand of consumption.
There are energy markets with varying prices per kWh all over the world, and various electrical power plants plan their operations at any given time around a combination of those running markets and their own operational concerns, and the ownership of the grid itself in any given particular location may be private, public or some combination of the two.
It's a terrible example to prove the necessity of political authority, it does exactly the opposite, the market effectively manages the electrical grid in the places with the most efficient provision and lowest prices for electricity.

...

>Your fix made absolutely no difference to the actual problem with your thesis
All ancaps are unintelligent and uneducated.

>what is the NAP
>how is forcing negative effects on others without their consent a violation of the NAP

> because there are an infinite amount of solutions to any potential negative externality
Except there aren't. You're just too dumb to realize any authority you'd contrive to stop negative externalities would literally be government or an effective government-equivalent unless you go with might makes right.

why do you believe everything Sup Forums tells ya?

Islam is not a philosophy in the sense I'm talking about. Read Hoppe. It'll save both of us a ton of time.

>people just go to whatever bridge/store is closest to them no matter how expensive or how shitty it is
>muh competition is omnipotent and omnipresent
god I hate economics

> Be statist
> walk outside because you don't have permission to drive your car yet
> get stopped for your walking license
> have $100 worth of taxes deducted from your pay check for "infrastructure" that you don't even use
> walk down the street and yelled at by a nigger baby momma and her 5 kids
> your mandatory welfare contribution hard at work
> cross the street
> actually you just crossed a border
> please provide your passport and ID details and pay a road "levi" and a fuel "excise"
> enter store
> "can I have a toy gun please"
> sorry those are illegal to import, we couldn't get them through federal, state, local and customs regulations
> wait in line at the public chemist for 4 hours
> sorry but those have been reclassified as Cat 4 drugs, you'll have to settle for asprin or paracetomol (you payed $20,000 in a socialized medicine levy for this "free healthcare")
> go to the DMV
> ask the lady what you need before you can drive your car
> get told that you need to pay for; registration, insurance, compulsory insurance, pay a little extra because the person who last owned your card had a seniors subsidy (fucking boomers), pay for your written test, driving test, pay for your license (it's only valid for three years)
> go for your test but because you went to the bathroom, it's 5:01 and the public sector doesn't stay open 1 minute 5, they aren't open on weekends or public holidays, so come back next year and try again sir
> go on a mass shooting rampage to escape this hell
Don't even get me started on you cunts getting glassed, knifed, bombed and melted to keep you safe from guns.

will inevitably collapse into fascism because a cohesive unit of many men is stronger than a group of rational actors working in their best interests because in the former people will sacrifice themselves (willingly or unwillingly) for the group, allowing greater flexibility, maneuverability and firepower.

any moral arguments are irrelevant.

I like it alot. Still learning about it though. My problem us that I'm considered "mentally ill" by the (((establishment))) so I'd still be denied my right to defend myself.

>perfect knowledge exists
Perfect knowledge doesn't need to exist because value is subjective and entirely dependant on the people in a given scenario addressing their concerns with eachother.

Equilibrium seeking and ever improving competition isn't perfect, it's in the direction of improvement everyone knows this. Stop your straw men, begone until you're ready to engage with some semblance of logic and respect.

Its basically a cartoonish exaggeration of my own political ideals.

Anarchy just doesn't work. Most of them are based on some dumbfuck delusion that you can run a country like a hippy drum circle. But at least ancaps make their dystopia interesting with recreational nuclear bombs & shit.

>Company A lowers prices
>Company B goes bankrupt since they need to payoff their debt
>Company A buys out the bridge and puts back the "honest" price.

Of course, that goes this way if there is functional law (e.g. state).
In the dysfunctional law enforcement system (e.g. Russia after USSR collapse) it's even more simple and funny.

>Company B builds another bridge
>Company A sends couple armed goons to Company B owner's house, making him sign the deal of selling his company for one buck or the picrelated will go up either his or his son's ass.
>Company B sells the bridge to company A

If on believes they own themselves the only form of government that is legitimate is one that allows you and your property to secede from that government and enter into a ANCAP life style.

>locals can't afford to use bridges anymore
>local commerce dies, population leaves
>bridge company goes under

wow its almost as if there is structural incentives to make prices affordable to your customer's demographic segment

>significant waste of society's resources

Value is inherently subjective. There is no finite amount of "society's resources".