Sup Forums, NatCap when?

Sup Forums, NatCap when?

Other urls found in this thread:

ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/capitalism/Vindicating-Capitalism-The-Real-History-of-the-Standard-Oil-Company
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Explain

When will Sup Forums drop the National Socialism meme the Jews have perpetuated in favor of something Nationalistic that works?

I mean explain national capitalism

The idea behind National Capitalism is to retain the traditional qualities of Capitalism (concentration of the factors of production in the private sector) but without the obsession with deregulation. The goal of national capitalism is to instill in young entrepreneurs a strong and healthy dose of nationalism so that they create businesses that benefit their nations as well as themselves. When I worked as a marketing executive for a local Saskatoon company a couple of years ago, I was tasked with sourcing a set of promotional items for a summer marketing campaign. I complied a list of certain Vancouver companies that I thought offered competitive pricing. My boss, however, politely discarded the list and asked me to source the goods from China instead. A healthy dose of nationalism ensures that a nation’s wealth multiplies and remains in the nation.

NatSoc is capitalist you idiot.

Nationalism and capitalism are contrary propositions. The pursuit of profit doesn't know borders.

When? U.S.A. Pre-1913.

So pretty much just Mercantilism?

/thread

I'm onboard 100%

I hate the socialism crap the nazi fucks keep trying to shove down our throats

Socialism is opposed to capitalism

Free market is active but authorities will more actively scrutinize items depending on their value to public health in natsoc. So companies would be free to start window manufacturing because that is good for public health but something like a new soda would be less active or maybe even denied due to soda not being that good for you.

This

...

So basically Corporatism, which is Fascist economics 101 and has existed for decades. You've just given it a new name and a fancy flag.

>businesses arent allowed to be started or expanded without state approval
>which goods and services you are allowed to provide are regulated by the state
>"capitalist"

moron

> Capitalism is an ideology

>When I worked as a marketing executive for a local Saskatoon company

These fucking leaves

>"you cant start a porn company, fast food restaurant, or a bank that lends usuriously."
>somehow a bad thing
>nationalist

...

National Capitalism is impossible. Nationalism and Capitalism are directly at odds with one another.

The main problem would be that capitalism encourages a competitive mentality where you see enemies in your fellows. Socialism can provide a bonding with organized national programs where people join together. capitalism is still the best system tho ,and socialism is corrupted by kikery ,but i fear there will always be an element of socialism needed to enforce a national unity

>nationalism
>with a free market

You people are just wewing now, read an economics book

This pretty much

Having said that, free markets and limited enterprise are able to be integrated into nationalism.

This is what the jew wants you to think.

fuck off faggot ancucks and your kike capitalism

Does NatCap allow for Trade Unions and promote the interest of workers?

Whatever is good for business and doesn't tread on the people.

>Implying Capitalism is Kiked.

Thoughts on this?

Capitalism is merely exploited by Jews.

Those are my thoughts.

it is fucking kiked
only NatSoc is opposed to kikes and degeneracy
It's more than an economic system, it's a governmental and social way of living.
Ancucks lolspergs never even research what NatSoc is , they just blurt out alex jones cuckservative neo-con-tier shit

Producing wealth for you nation doesn't exclude selling outside of the nation.

This is a plebbit tier strawman

capitalism is a fucking kike meme faggot
it sells out the white working class and it makes the immigration of nonwhite cheap labor easier to attain .

You're a retard who thinks Libertarianism supports open borders and multiculturalism.

Libertarian values ARE white values.

>it sells out the white working class and it makes the immigration of nonwhite cheap labor easier to attain

You're no better than commies who blame the rich for everything.

>"you cant start a porn company, fast food restaurant, or a bank that lends usuriously."
>somehow a bad thing
It is a bad thing faggot

Moving on from just calling each other faggot for 20 minutes.

Capitalism, with closed and well guarded borders and very strict immigration, is as white values as values can be white. The white working class is forced to do what the white working class does best, compete with themselves to improve the whole. Without niggers breeding 10 welfare sucking jail monkeys a year(that take additional resources to trial, imprison, and care for during their life sentences of repeat offenses) the family is freed to retire and let younger age groups take up labor. Closed border capitalism solves the lazy shitskin problem altogether as sheboons will starve in the absence of social spending.
Close the borders, reduce the federal government's power to the absolute minimum required to preserve national sovereignty, and watch every leech die in the streets as the people willing to work(spoiler alert it's whites) prosper.

This is the gayest shit ever. The nation you are in creates profit for you. Therefore, your profit should obviously benefit the nation as much as possible, so you and your children can benefit from the feedback from others applying the same principles and values.

fuck off Ghost's bitches

soon

you're literally talking about ancap ideology, fuck off moron

This sounds exactly like nazi peacetimes economics... i doubt actual capitalists will adhere as profits is EVERYTHING. Humans are nothing but economic units that can be swapped around. Not sure how you can change this economic fact

>without the obsession with deregulation
Are you mocking us? Stop larping, fag. Regulations and taxation are always bad for any economies and it's what pushes companies to expand their workforce in other countries, so they can pay less taxes. Just look at Goolag and Fakepamphlet doing the double irish with a dutch sandwich. If US would go AnCap or MinarchoCap and stop taxation and welfare, its economy would skyrocket.

>Not wanting a more capitalist Sup Forums.

Americans don't know about European socialism, they only know about Marxist socialism.
AMERICAN EDUCATION IN A NUTSHELL

>nationalism
>capitalism

Choose one, they are both enemies

Commie fag, in a free market economy, you are allowed to start your own business and be your own boss and even do cooperatives (your dream of "workers revolution"). And by the way, in any non-totally controlled market, (You) negotiate your wage, if your too beta to ask for more, you deserve it. Also, if the company doesn't want to offer more, you can just leave and go somewhere else - if your really good at what you do (as you pretend you are), then the company you just left has lost efficiency and the one you moved to has gotten more efficient.

But you just want free gibs.

leafs are retarded.

>The nation you are in creates profit for you. Therefore, your profit should obviously benefit the nation as much as possible

This doesn't sound like capitalism.

Fascism != Capitalism
In free market capitalism, be it minarchist or anarchist, nobody decides for companies except the market (aka: the people who buy products, using their wallet). The state should not be able to regulate businesses based on what it thinks it's beneficial for the country.

That's pretty good, I'm glad we can agree on this!

Then what's with the
>A healthy dose of nationalism ensures that a nation’s wealth multiplies and remains in the nation.
Assuming you're talking strictly about AnCap and not some minarchy, then you can't regulate the market in order to stop people to buy cheaper products from other countries. If you want a minarchist state, which protects the borders of the country and dictates prices of imported products, then that's regulation. Not sure which country did that and the products made in their borders became of worse and worse quality, because it knew it had interventionist protection from the state.

They were corporatists and state capitalists, they were similar to the Soviet Union in that regard.

If you wanted to be successful you had to comply with the Nazi party and be as close as possible to them, which is why some companies and industrialists received more privileges than others. For example, Hugo Junkers had his own company, Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke, confiscated because he wasn't supportive enough of the Nazi party. One of the major industrial conglomerates of Germany during Hitler's regime was the Reichswerke Hermann Göring, which was owned by, surprise surprise, Hermann Göring. Another one was Organisation Todt, which again was owned by a senior Nazi figure.

So yeah, they were " capitalists."

>Regulations and taxation are always bad

Ancaps are so fucking dumb it hurts. What about regulation against murder? Regulations against violating property rights? What about a basic law code is "that too much regulation"? What about taxation to support a military? Infrastructure? A court system?

Just fuck off to your stupid fantasy land already.

>What is this yellow from? Your piss?

>Be me
>Pay taxes
>Realize they did this with tax money.
>A conveyor belt for people in the middle of the walkway that spans less than a block.
>They probably reported an higher expenditure during its installation so that the crooked government officials in charge of the work could keep the surplus money, as they have already done before with other stupid useless "improvements."
>All governments in my country have been like this, except for two and those were ousted by military coups.

FDR's government also nationalized industry and confiscated private businesses that didn't agree. A wartime economy is rarely "free". Ironically the National Socialist German government didn't go into full "wartime status" until 1942 and was arguably freer than the American economy which had transitioned to state control by 1939.

>a local government does something stupid

welp it's time to revert to anarcho-primtivism and abolish the government then! It's not like a form of government has continually existed in every advanced human society since the dawn of civilization or anything. Nope, someone built a moving sidewalk, a device present in most international airports, so it's time to abolish the government.

Fascism is mostly capitalist anyway

Not really. It's mostly single party everything-within-the-state, nothing-outside-the-state. There are still industries but those don't define fascism except that they are maintained and take direction from a single party centralized bureaucracy. And if you disagree you are thrown in prisons that very in size from buildings to large multi-facility camps.

does anyone know where i can find this vid?

Most if not all local governments are like this where I live. In this particular case, we're talking about the capital city, and instead of expending money in useful things they do this.

Politicians and bureaucrats have higher spending capacity than medics and teachers due to higher wages. Trade unions are shady mafias. Tariffs are stupid as fuck, and all imported products that should be cheaper end up costing way too much in order to support our shitty national industry which keeps raping our wallets while those fortunate enough to live near the border prefer to buy things in other countries.

Couple that with the fact that people here have loved populism since colonial times and you get the perfect recipe for a corrupt-ridden shithole.

The guidelines which companies follow under fascism arent that restrictive though. It's basically just no spreading anti state, anti family, degenerate material through products. After that its pretty normal.

>local governments are like this

Because the local people don't hold their "leaders" responsible. This is largely thanks to globalism and neoliberalism, but that's barely worth getting into when you're arguing with someone that doesn't believe in "any" government.

>expending money in useful things

You'd just complain about real infrastructure spending anyway

>Trade unions are shady mafias

Trade unions are there to keep wages higher. I'm sure you're love to replace every good paying job with some below minimum wage mestizo substitute because you're just that shortsighted.

>Tariffs are stupid as fuck

No you're stupid as fuck for thinking we should outsource jobs to low wage asian countries instead of keeping them here.

>support our shitty national industry

Just admit you're a traitor that hates your own countrymen and your own race and would rather send all the money and jobs you possibly could to China.

>people here have loved populism since colonial times

Populism fights against corruption. Corruption is spread when the government and corporations aren't held accountable by the people, which is exactly what you seem to want.

But nationalists believe in border control and protectionism therefore they r da reul communists!

So you would rather have your money taken and not benefit any service from them. Then why would you not invest in private charity, instead paying taxes?

Taxation, for services that you don't benefit directly, is theft. If you bought land and you are now an owner of land, why do you have to pay taxes to keep it yours? Also, if you earn money, why should you be taxed for earning money? Or why should anyone pay VAT if you buy things and resell them for higher price? In a minarchist state, I would be ok with taxes for roads, infrastructure or law-related institutes (police, army and courts). But why should people be taxed through separate means that don't make sense? Also, people should be able to opt-out of them if they don't want their services.

>Because the local people don't hold their "leaders" responsible
And what are the people supposed to do? Overthrow him? How? Jail him? And let him get fed via tax payers' money?
>You'd just complain about real infrastructure spending anyway
The government / state officials make those stupid stuff just to earn votes, instead of building highways and maintaining current infrastructure.
>Trade unions are there to keep wages higher.
Trade unions don't represent the people and companies wouldn't be able to hire people on a too low wage, every one of them will flee the company for the one paying higher.
>No you're stupid as fuck for thinking we should outsource jobs to low wage asian countries instead of keeping them here.
Nobody said that, tariffs are stupid, it keeps companies under protectionism and they become less efficient.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

>You'd just complain about real infrastructure spending anyway

I would. But hey, at least they're using it for something useful, like hospitals, but instead of spending money on public hospitals and schools (ruined both of them) they subsidize private schools and contract companies that belong to friends and family of political figures.

>Trade unions are there to keep wages higher. I'm sure you're love to replace every good paying job with some below minimum wage mestizo substitute because you're just that shortsighted.

Trade unions here "fight for the rights of their workers" by holding everyone else hostage. If syndical leaders fought for their workers they would start donating their fortunes for the cause, but they don't. They are money launderers, extort people, make deals with narcos and funny enough they also avoid taxes.


>No you're stupid as fuck for thinking we should outsource jobs to low wage asian countries instead of keeping them here.

The reason those low wage Asian countries get more jobs is that regulations and taxations are too high. By regulating and taxing companies you are doing nothing, you're not even helping.

>Just admit you're a traitor that hates your own countrymen and your own race and would rather send all the money and jobs you possibly could to China.

If I hated my own countrymen I would sit by them and support their stupid choices at shitty populist governments that keep fucking them over and over again. They already hate each other anyway.

>Populism fights against corruption. Corruption is spread when the government and corporations aren't held accountable by the people, which is exactly what you seem to want.

>Populism fights against corruption. Corruption is spread when the government and corporations aren't held accountable by the people, which is exactly what you seem to want.

By populism I meant demagogy.

>your money taken and not benefit any service from them

The point of collective taxation is that you get some benefit out of it. Even in the old warlord days your "taxation" went towards keeping the warriors from plundering your home.

>private charity

charity is for voluntarily helping people not structuring society as a whole.

>is theft.

The government is the monopoly on force and therefore the sovereign so it isn't "theft". The sovereign can't steal from you because it effectively owns everything within its geographical domain.

At the same time a functioning government allows some private property claims to exist for obvious utility purposes.

>why should anyone pay VAT

>should

VAT taxes shouldn't exist, but it's your fault for not opposing them politically. In the old days taxation without representation led to literal violent revolution.

>And what are the people supposed to do?

What did the American revolutionaries and nationalists do to the British?

>companies wouldn't be able to hire people on a too low wage

Except they do and then they lobby the government to subsidize low wages by giving illegals free welfare.

>Nobody said that

You just said it

>implying "capitalism" exists
No, O.P. It never did exist, for all it ever was was the strawman that Mr Karl Marx used in attempt to advance his "solution" of commie-ism.

>holding everyone else hostage

If they don't use collective action to keep wages higher they lose all bargaining power.

>They are money launderers, extort people, make deals with narcos and funny enough they also avoid taxes.

But enough about Goldman Sachs.

> By regulating and taxing companies you are doing nothing, you're not even helping.

Health and safety Regulations keep you from living in a deadly Chinese shithole where every food product is caked in lead.

>By populism I meant demagogy.

You call everything you don't like "demagogy"

>nationalism
>capitalism
pick one and only one

Corporatism != Capitalism

>charity is for voluntarily helping people not structuring society as a whole
>then they lobby the government to subsidize low wages by giving illegals free welfare.
That's why I'm against the welfare state. If we are to live under a statist society (hopefully minarchism), people shouldn't be forced to pay taxes and have a way to opt-out or better, an opt-in. Now let's say you have an opt-in Social Security. What makes this any different then going to a private company to get medical insurance? Especially if they are price competitive and not restrained by the state taxing them to keep their social security competitive.
>The sovereign can't steal from you because it effectively owns everything
Oh, so I own land, but it's not my land, it's the state's land and if a politician deems that I shouldn't have land, they can just get my land that I worked to pay for? Nice logic there.
>In the old days taxation without representation led to literal violent revolution.
I don't agree with violence other then the times when it is necessary to protect ourselves. I believe it would be better if everybody just agreed to stop paying taxes, the government would fail and politicians wouldn't be able to pay the police and the army to arrest the citizens (also, wouldn't be able to incarcerate them all).
>Except they do
Not for long and as I said, nobody would accept working for under the minimum wage necessary for living conditions. They would flee and go to better paid companies and the ones accepting to work for them (if any) for that low wage would probably just die if they don't go somewhere else. Their decision to remain poor.

>You just said it
>Implying that by banning protectionism, people will just buy only chinesse sh*t and not something made in their country, by a more competitive company.
Protectionism removes the motivation of companies to be competitive, because they know they have the privilege offered by the state.

This

>Health and safety Regulations keep you from living in a deadly Chinese shithole where every food product is caked in lead
People don't buy products that kills them and companies don't kill their customers, where their money come from.

That's why I'm against the welfare state. If we are to live under a statist society (hopefully minarchism), people shouldn't be forced to pay taxes and have a way to opt-out or better, an opt-in.
Then nobody would pay taxes, or actually opt in for anything as nobody voluntarily chooses to pay for shit. People would just most likely take their chances. This would cause the poor to suffer hugely, as without the health system being propped up by making people pay for it they simply would not be able to afford it, irrelevant of how "competitive" it was. People also wouldnt fund schools and much infrastructure unless it directly benefited them, so they would go underfunded. Basically "opt in" taxation doesnt fucking work as people will always choose not to opt in

health and safety regulations are more for avoiding long term damage, by prohibiting chemicals whose poisoning symptoms may take years to properly develop but is just as fatal and so can go on completely unnoticed until the damage is done. These regulations also mean that you do not have to spend all of your days carefully examining all of your food and cross referencing chemicals and MSDS sheets. Instead you can be sure that if its on the shelf it is perfectly safe to eat

>If they don't use collective action to keep wages higher they lose all bargaining power.
Teachers have been fighting for higher wages for a decade by using "collective action". Students have lost months of school days because of this and yet they have achieved nothing, they're still trying to get higher wages to this day. Syndicates have been going on strikes, picketing, blocking roads and destroying public (and private) property for years, and they never reach a real solution with any government.

By the way, one of the leading figures of the teacher's syndicate has never worked as a teacher himself, his "job" is being a syndicalist.

or you could actually give them what they want instead of making the students suffer. You have the money, the teachers dont but they actually do the teaching, so maybe you should give them the money

that's why it says socialist
instead of capitalist

you surely can't be this retarded can you?

People will need some services in the end, but why should you pay for schools if you don't have kids? And why should people pay for roads if they are self-sustaining in a farm and don't leave their property? Or for the rich, if they have a helicopter and don't use the roads to transport goods?

With the opt-in option, people will opt-in at a time to get something, like a medical insurance, or pay a private school to teach their kids, or a home tutor. Why should we pay for somebody's kids to study and why should we help other people live? We don't own them anything, they should start working and stop being lazy.

If it would be a minarchist state, it would tax people for infrastructure and police directly and not through stupid taxes like property tax or income tax? If it would be an AnCap society, people would make everything for their own self interest.

>People will need some services in the end, but why should you pay for schools if you don't have kids?
Because all of your services are reliant on people being educated, and thus rely on schools
>And why should people pay for roads if they are self-sustaining in a farm and don't leave their property?
Because unless you literally grow and produce all material goods you consume (including clothes and computers and the things that make your clothes and computers etc) then you will have to rely on things that come from outside and therefore are reliant on roads.

>With the opt-in option, people will opt-in at a time to get something, like a medical insurance
That merely punishes the poor, who ultimately can only afford healthcare if it is subsidised
>or pay a private school to teach their kids
This punishes the poor and middle class kids whose family cant afford to outright sustain a school with modern equipment and resources. In turn causing an incredible squeeze in the system as people flock to wealthier schools and the other schools suffer and have to close.

>grow and produce all material goods you consume
Do you know what self-sustainment is?
>That merely punishes the poor, who ultimately can only afford healthcare if it is subsidised
Why should we care for the poor? If they don't work, they don't get to live. Sure, there will be some charities for them, but why should the state larp as robin-hood?
>This punishes the poor and middle class kids whose family cant afford to outright sustain a school with modern equipment and resources. In turn causing an incredible squeeze in the system as people flock to wealthier schools and the other schools suffer and have to close.
There will be people who will offer tutoring for lower prices - also, in a free market, schools will get to be competitive with each other: there will be schools for the less wealthy that teaches through simple methods, like screen projecting, but there will also be prestige school that will teach kids live experiments and laboratories.

Also, about the healthcare for the less wealthy, the same things as with the schools applies to hospitals: they get competitive and if they can afford to pay more, they get better treatments. Also keep in mind in a free market, the big pharma won't have a monopoly on prices and there will be competition in the pharmaceutical industry as well, giving drugs for cheaper prices.

I like it.

Check out national liberalism and ordoliberalism.

Great flag OP

>Do you know what self-sustainment is?
Im going to assume that you wear clothes and I know you either are using a phone or a computer, and I also know that you dont have a computer chip factory and a computer factory in general on your property, and certainly not along with a clothes factory and the raw materials needed for all of these products. Therefore you are always reliant on the outside world for things and are therefore reliant on the road network and public infrastructure.
>Why should we care for the poor? If they don't work, they don't get to live
But they do work, they just cant afford to pay for healthcare.

>There will be people who will offer tutoring for lower prices - also, in a free market, schools will get to be competitive with each other: there will be schools for the less wealthy that teaches through simple methods, like screen projecting, but there will also be prestige school that will teach kids live experiments and laboratories.
In which case the wealthy kids receive a phenomenally better education than the poor ones as they have access to better resources. This only entrenches the inequalities and makes your society just so much dumber and less educated, as they cant afford to educate themselves to the same standards that they could before.
>Also, about the healthcare for the less wealthy, the same things as with the schools applies to hospitals: they get competitive and if they can afford to pay more, they get better treatments
In which case you create an entrenched class of elites that live long lives of leisure whilst the poor live short miserable lives working.

> Also keep in mind in a free market, the big pharma won't have a monopoly on prices and there will be competition in the pharmaceutical industry as well, giving drugs for cheaper prices.
No they can maintain monopolies quite easily, as recently "non competition clauses" are often a part of a contract, in which you cant work for a competitor after you leave until a certain number of years are up. Also without government corporation have no need to actually share their secrets, and so can maintain monopolies even without patents, they just dont tell people what the drug is, only that is works.
Also "pay more = better treatment" creates a dystopian aristocracy where the long lived decadent rich profit off of the short lived miserable poor

I own things made outside of my house and I would gladly pay for roads and for other goods. I said that
>why should people pay for roads if they are self-sustaining in a farm and don't leave their property?
Learn to understand what you read.

>they just cant afford to pay for healthcare
They can't under the current system, where they are also taxed, although lower, they still have to pay taxes. Look how much the economy grew after Trump decreased taxes to 20%. Think about how much it will rise if there will be 0% taxes. All companies would flock to USA to not pay taxes and jobs opportunities would increase. Wages would increase since the net salary would be = to gross salary.

>they cant afford to educate themselves to the same standards that they could before
I managed to learn more things from Youtube than in both school and high school. The internet would still be functioning the same. There are tons of information there that people just give away for free. By the way, in the IT industry, a certificate like CCNA or MTA certificates are better than college degrees and it takes way less time to complete the courses and you get more concentrated knowledge from only 1 domain, instead of doing all kinds of domains that don't have anything to do with what you want to do.

>I own things made outside of my house and I would gladly pay for roads and for other goods. I said that
But others may not, and ultimately there is no way that you can guarentee that everyone will do it, (some people may just freeload) and that people will pay enough.
>They can't under the current system, where they are also taxed, although lower, they still have to pay taxes
They can in like every other country, its just america thats fucked with everything being essentially "opt in".
> Look how much the economy grew after Trump decreased taxes to 20%. Think about how much it will rise if there will be 0% taxes. All companies would flock to USA to not pay taxes and jobs opportunities would increase. Wages would increase since the net salary would be = to gross salary.
The economy didnt grow, the stock market grew. The two do not have any correlation anymore, there is vastly more wealth in stocks and bonds and derivatives than actual wealth and value.
>I managed to learn more things from Youtube than in both school and high school. The internet would still be functioning the same.
Except kids and people can slack off or not get the help that they need. So you end up with a much poorer education as there is no face to face organised contact.
>There are tons of information there that people just give away for free. By the way, in the IT industry, a certificate like CCNA or MTA certificates are better than college degrees and it takes way less time to complete the courses and you get more concentrated knowledge from only 1 domain, instead of doing all kinds of domains that don't have anything to do with what you want to do.
btw in all other fields online certificates are worth literal shit. If you want to be a scientist, a public servant, a philosopher, literally anyone other than an IT dude, you require a proper degree. The Uni name has both a lot of prestige and resources behind it that can guarantee decent qualifications, so people much prefer them

Ghost, please, fuck off.

Not to mention fields like chemistry and medicine, which not only work better face to face, but can ONLY be done face to face as they require apparatus and chemicals and body parts and stuff

>businesses arent allowed to be started or expanded without state approval
Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

>All companies would flock to USA to not pay taxes and jobs opportunities would increase.
Because making business with the types of people that would eagerly give up their native countries to save a few bucks is a good long-term strategy and certainly they wouldn't run off to China or India the moment things seem better for business there, right?

Non-compete and copyright are against the NAP. If I make a CPU, I don't have to release the scheme, but if the schemes are out, everybody can do them. So companies just have to protect their blueprints themselves. Also, other companies can sell imitations of a product, so there's your competition in which you must stay ahead of the market through better and cheaper products. Also, look at the music industry with all the copyright, it failed to make money from selling cds, so musicians and their record houses started making money from concerts and evenst. The market would just evolve if it was free. And without a state, who would be able to keep the non-compete a thing? You have to realize that monopolies and anti-competitive tactics are a product of the state. If you get into what really happened with muh evil StandardOil, you would see how the US government abused power to increase its power ( ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/capitalism/Vindicating-Capitalism-The-Real-History-of-the-Standard-Oil-Company )
>a dystopian aristocracy
Aristocracy is only a thing where people with power govern over people without it. In an ancap or minarchist society, everybody is equal under the law and everybody has a level playing field - if they f*ck somebody over, they will also get f*cked over in retaliation, not only from 1 person, but from many people.
>there is no way that you can guarentee that everyone will do it
Of course there is, they won't be allowed to use the goods. Roads will have security measures against people that don't contribute to them and walking on them means walking on somebody else's property. First times, people will just give a warning, but failing to comply multiple times, they will get punished. Dearly.
>its just america thats fucked with everything being essentially "opt in".
No, it's all the world that it's f*cked up with forcing people to pay for things that they don't benefit from.
Part1

>The economy didnt grow, the stock market grew. The two do not have any correlation anymore, there is vastly more wealth in stocks and bonds and derivatives than actual wealth and value.
And how do you explain that companies are coming (or coming back) to USA and job opportunities grew?
>Except kids and people can slack off or not get the help that they need. So you end up with a much poorer education as there is no face to face organised contact.
They deserve it. You want to get something in life, you have to earn it. So you just want to help slackers live from other people's money.
>in all other fields online certificates are worth literal shit
At the moment. When people will start not going to school and make online academies, things will change, within the same system or other system.

Companies won't go somewhere else, where they have to pay taxes. They will look for the best place to maintain their business and a free market is the best place for any company.
Part2

>if they f*ck somebody over, they will also get f*cked over in retaliation, not only from 1 person, but from many people
Why would people risk fucking someone over who is influential and possibly more powerful than them individually over ideology? Wouldn't it be more likely that they let them get away with it in order to gain favours?

I'm pretty sure the Italian fascists already tried this, it didn't work out so well for them.

NatCap is jewish psyop