Debate me

try and find a problem with ancapism.
pro-tip: you can't.
try me.

Attached: bye.png (259x330, 21K)

>government is bad
>corporations run the government
>corporations are good
hmm

>government is bad
no, involuntary government is bad. if it was voluntary once the consumer saw it was being run by corporatism they would withdraw their subscription or voluntary regular taxes and it would go out of business.

next question.

>when your private, incorporated buisness becomes so powerful that it becomes a monopoly because nobody can compete with it. Then it becomes powerful enough to own 1 million acres of land and charges everyone that lives on it rent that makes your company even more powerful which enables it to hire special security forces to enforce your rules,

>But you STILL don't call it a "government'

Attached: 1fpxdl.jpg (547x402, 23K)

>when your private, incorporated buisness becomes so powerful that it becomes a monopoly
monopolies don't exist without a government to lobby.

next question.

I think we're done here. Next thread.

The corporations are the ones who want it mandatory but
>corporations are good lol

>Debate me
No.

Attached: 1512021258523.jpg (348x441, 58K)

Prove that we're not under ancap right now.

>>monopolies don't exist without a government to lobby.

Monopolies are illegal here, but in Mexico,
No competition = monopoly

No roads.

i'm not sure how i'm supposed to reply to this, its not even in question format. can you please rephrase?

you have no arguments. face up to reality kiddo, you never got to rationally talk things over as a child with anyone so you need an authoritarian regime to do it for you.

what do you mean? we are currently a constitutional republic (which is actually a withering empire at the moment).

not sure what the question is.

roads would be far better off.
>pic related :^)

Attached: ROADS.png (926x1472, 953K)

You can't have pro freedom while being anti-degeneracy. Freedom allows for degeneracy as that's an individual choice.

I'll nuke you

Bet you cant find a problem with magic unicornism.

Attached: sdfghj.png (1106x933, 188K)

>that's not real capitalism! that's crooked capitalism!
oh... sweetie...

obviously not 100%, but in the large-scale point of view it would be much less than degeneracy that is the symptom's of a dying empire we have today. in true freedom chaos is always a risk, but it is a risk you must take if you are truly wanting to be a free being.

try it nigger.

bruh what

we're under 7/10 planks of communism. kill yourself normie. pic related should be enough for you.

Attached: gs.png (4672x1800, 186K)

We were a constitutional republic. Now
>Constitution is null
>Politicians are selected by the ZOG
Our country is controlled by Jewish bankers

You consider "degeneracy" anything you personally don't like So there's no freedom, because you outlaw everything you personally don't like so everyone has to live by your individually approved lifestyle. That's not freedom.

You can't prevent monopolies if their competitors fail!

>Our country is controlled by Jewish bankers
any empire is. which why i said we are in an empire. ancapism is a fucking death blow to kikes.
>You consider "degeneracy" anything you personally don't like
i never said this.
>So there's no freedom, because you outlaw everything you personally don't like
i won't have any governing power, what are you even saying.

competitors will always be nipping at the heels of the big dog until it falls or it is consciously supported by the community through way of family. would you rather shop at a bakery where your pops works down the road or some big company? pretty obvious choice.

Getting ruled by tremendous corporations with private armies is somehow better then getting ruled by statist bureucracy with state armies.

>b-but muh morality!

''NO!'' the ideology is dreadful, the ethics of liberty are terrible.

Attached: 1466458582437.png (456x442, 255K)

What I'm saying is the definition of what is degenerate is an individual opinion not a universally held ideal.

>Getting ruled by tremendous corporations
wouldn't exist.
>with private armies
wouldn't exist because any county could say, for example, to operate business within our counties no business may have or use physical enforcement.
please gain an imagination.

>''NO!'' the ideology is dreadful, the ethics of liberty are terrible.
this isn't a question, you're just spitting syllables but not leaving room for debate. this is truly the sign of a fool.

>What I'm saying is the definition of what is degenerate is an individual opinion not a universally held ideal.
it is a universally held ideal. most people can agree porn is degenerate. heroin is degenerate. on and on. there are basics that can be defined, but need not outlawed because they will evaporate for the most part when a proper family-oriented k-selective environment is required by ancapism.

For one person weed will be degenerate, for another it won't, and no not everyone universally agrees porn is degenerate either.

Getting ruled by tremendous corporations would'nt happen because of perfect competition right? what other meme explanation do ancaps have for this shit, c'mon I genuinely want to hear this.

>with private armies

The main business interests within the nation (which will tend to be tremendous corporate conglomerates and elites) will obviously permit the useage of private armies to protect their interests. Thinking that nations won't permit it when it's in the direct interest of the main economic powers to do so is naive.

>''NO!'' the ideology is dreadful, the ethics of liberty are terrible
>not realizing it's a Sup Forums meme

>would you rather shop at a bakery your pops works down the road, or some big company?

Whichever one is financially more successful

So ancap means no government and complete control by corporations. How is that different from what we have?

not everything is about money.

/thread

Attached: 1509941440732.jpg (493x957, 169K)

>Getting ruled by tremendous corporations would'nt happen because of perfect competition right?
this particular subject isn't a matter of competition. surely there would be defense services you can pay for like a guard to follow you around, but nothing like standing armies that a state can amass over generations through excuses and extortion via taxes.

the one that is financially more successfully is the one you put your money into. why wouldn't you put your money into your dad's shop? you should love and support your family and they should love and support you. what is wrong with you?

>So ancap means no government
no, there would be government, just more malleable, transparent and voluntary.
>and complete control by corporations
no government will stay have a say in what corporations do.

i agree.

kek

I think you need to review what "anarchy" means

an-without
archon-ruler

next question.

Ancap or ANCAP can mean: Anarcho-capitalism

you just said anarchy, not ancap.
why are you making a statement claiming that i don't know what anarchy is, i reply with what exactly anarchy is, then you reply with a whole other term entirely acting like your educating me on it?
lol...

Attached: 59a8724552c08020008b49d3-750-562.jpg (750x562, 66K)

...

Government is a type of ruler

If it worked it would have worked

Attached: 1513567898892.png (658x688, 214K)

anarchy: a state of society without government or law.

anarchy
2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control:

>An-Cap paradise

Attached: 1477465627495.png (1348x1243, 317K)

these are definitions of chaos, not anarchy.

look at the literal objective latin origin of the word.
an is a prefix for without.
archon is a noun for ruler.

nobody can deliver paradise.

You don't even know what anarchy is.
2. the ABSENCE or LACK of government

the ancap state would last anywhere fro ma day to a month before you have a brutal dictatorship.

>abolish the state
>no police
>privatepolice.jpeg
>no crime because of the NAP
>oh wait, human nature exists
>head of police company realises he can just ignore the NAP, pays police force to install him as dictator
>maybe war but since everyone is an individual, no organized resistance
>dictatorship.png

and that's how the ancap world ended.

>enforce ancap through government
>reduce government
>people are no longer ancap
>???

Nobody would pay attention to small buisnesses in an ancap society!

Which is why ancap is basically what we have or are working towards anyway

again, you're not looking at etymology. you're just reading generated by some kike. stop projecting and sliding the thread with meaningless conversation.

there are an infinite number of timelines reality can take and for you to be so sure this is the one it would take is re-assuring of why you have that flag you have on. you want a dictatorship so you're going to shit scenarios that make them. disregarding your memetext, ass holes and psychopaths would be genocided uniornically. nobody would employ anyone who doesn't have a healthy neo cortex scan.

>enforce ancap through government
where did i say this would happen?
>reduce government
that's up to the customer whether he wants his county or local government to be smaller or larger.
>people are no longer ancap
if you believe a local authority is not following the principle of non-aggression you are free to move.

again, you're just spitting syllables without any real evidence. the evidence shows the smaller a government the more small business flourishes.

for example in 2014 firms with fewer than 500 workers account for 99.7% of business. please learn to use a search engine.

false. we are becoming more militarist and corporatist. especially since we acquired a central bank and started devaluing our currency.

I literally copied and pasted the definition from the dictionary. Ok, so in your definition of anarchy there will be government and laws?

>some plebbit-tier bullshit about muh end the fed w/ pic that details something any idiot already knows
>"this is practically communism!"
yeah, no baha
regulations saying that transnational corporations can't work the average american 100 hours a week at a pay of .02 and spew toxic chemicals into our air and water isn't communism kid. see china.
how about you go back to organizing your McParamilitary™ force. you're not welcome here.

ancap status: rekt

Taxes are theft but paying rent isn't.

>we are becoming more militarist and corporatist. especially since we acquired a central bank and started devaluing our currency.
This is correct. We took power from our government and gave it to a corporation (the Fed, or BIS) that's ancap!

Your meme ideology is based in pedo shit. All of your thought leaders and goal is fucking kids.
Prove me wrong.

If you didn't own private property in an anarcho-capitalist society, you would barely have any individual freedom. Laws would be dictated and enforced by the rich who could afford private courts and private police. The poor individual would find himself completely subjugated by the rich

>I literally copied and pasted the definition from the dictionary.
WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT A DICTIONARY.
LOOK AT THE ETYMOLOGY.

this isn't in question format. i have no idea how to respond. you just shit out stupid bull shit from your face with no real argument or statistics. t-thanks for your bump i guess.

this is such low tier bait i don't even know what to say.

no the fed isn't ancap. its losses are public loss and its profits are private gain. you cannot legally compete with the dollar.

on the contrary, in the upper echelons in our government are occultists who rape, sacrifice, dismember, murder, and eat children - this only happens with a police force to protect them that no one can question because of their monopoly on violence because their claim to power by the magical whips and waves of a pen that says they are now god and have more rights than other men. in an ancap society pedophiles would be ass blasted into obliteration whereas today they are celebrated in the masonic lodges.

A Jew and his Jewish family wants to control all the top Corporations, the mainstream media, and push white genocide.

What do?

Ancap is for suckers. Let's say you did get your stateless utopia. The first guy who gets a group together and declares a state can easily conquer everyone.
Ancap is a dream come true for bad actors.

Attached: NAP.jpg (672x702, 37K)

"it's hebephilia" - OP.

>pro-family
That is collectivism, you retard!

Ok we're defining words by etymology now great. So would your definition of "anarchy" have government and laws. YES or NO?

The Fed prints loans and prints fiat money for profit. It's a corporation. You're free to create your own FIAT money to compete. You think you have a chance?

>shill post
>le anarchy isn't anarchy and capitalism only means what i say it means too

fuck off and die

It’s degenerate and anti family

its bad because its basically fallout:IRL . and any area with rampant ancapism just gets taken over by a neighboring state .

Roads?

Attached: C5B11A03-FD65-450C-AF92-C3EF0BA9494D.gif (400x220, 1.96M)

you didnt even ask for questions, you fucking sperg. you said "debate me". why the fuck do i have to put in in question format? or do you just not now how an argument works?

In an ancap society, people will form states and kill all the ancaps.

like i said here you would want to lobby your local county or town government to ban jews from holding any power.

>Let's say you did get your stateless utopia.
its not stateless, in fact there might be a bigger state if it would be more efficient (but very unlikely). and utopia does not exist and never will. lets be real.
>The first guy who gets a group together and declares a state can easily conquer everyone.
he would just get shot.
see last comment of

no, you or i do not define words by etymology. all words are defined by etymology or we wouldn't have language. the objective and inherent meaning to every word has an original OBJECTIVE meaning and no matter how coequally (i think thats the right word lol?) it is used it would still be the wrong definition.

>So would your definition of "anarchy" have government and laws. YES or NO?
no, anarchy, is a state of a human being, not a society. obviously an anarchist group of people would put a system of voluntary means of assocition of rules together. if you're trying to wrap your head around it, imagine disbanding the federal government, state government, and all your politics is in your local government or county government. that is clearly the most realistic approach, and if you fucking hate your county just move over to the next one. the closer we get to decentralization the closer we get to a private property society which is far superior to what we have now.

You're free to create your own FIAT money to compete. You think you have a chance?
no i do not. i would be in jail for printing money.

this isn't in question format. thanks for the bump i guess.

it is the exact opposite. it demands high k selective breeding and is VERY VERY VERY demanding for family.

g-great imagination i guess. if you want to believe that would happen good for you. i need a question.

still waiting for a question.

again, wow, with the great imagination. i'm glad your default, predisposition is destruction instead of cooperation. you need to learn to negotiate like the rest of the human populace.

...

Attached: 1518839803351.png (919x378, 342K)

hearty kek.

Why negotiate when my state can just give me all your stuff? And you can't do anything about it because you don't have a state.

individualism loses to collectivism. its over before you even start.

Ancapistan will only work AFTER we physically remove all lefties and nonwhites.

Attached: 1521508739964.jpg (640x460, 46K)

do you really think a neighboring state's looming threat wouldn't impose a need among the people of that society to arm itself? nobody is that dumb.

>d-don't even try it goyim!

they would all die anyway, if you cannot produce a valuable product or service you will starve or die from the elements, and rightfully so. parasites like niggers deserve to be wiped away.

Attached: statism.png (1156x1628, 780K)

You don't have a response because you know its true

yeah... no. you asked for a debate. perhaps, you're in the wrong place...

But, user, you have the freedom to "theoretically" buy your way out of slavery.

sorry i didn't see it mang.

>If you didn't own private property in an anarcho-capitalist society, you would barely have any individual freedom.
and that's a good thing, if you cannot produce a value or service to attain income and acquire private property you are trash that deserves to die as nature would have you perish in its natural elements if you couldn't acquire food or shelter for yourself it is nothing personal. only weeding out the weakest and worst of everyone.

>Laws would be dictated and enforced by the rich
says who? you? law would be enforced by contract you agreed to.

>The poor individual would find himself completely subjugated by the rich
the contrary imo, there would be far more efficient forms of welfare for the poor to get off their feet IF something genuinely unfortunate were to happen to them.

Also drivers lisence

Attached: 483AA8C6-5788-4A18-BDFF-75BC02180128.jpg (640x640, 93K)

I don't care what mental gymnastics you want to do anarchy means no government. What you're referring to is limited government and was the foundation of the US and the constitution. It's not illegal to make your own currency, it's illegal to call it a "federal reserve note".

OK, Capitalism and anarchism are incompatible because dissolution of monopolies is a tenet of Capitalism.

>do you really think a neighboring state's looming threat wouldn't impose a need among the people of that society to arm itself?
Sure. It would also impose the need to organize an army, elevate people to lead that army, make the rest of the population pay for the army that is now protecting them, etc.
That's how states were formed.

this is assuming you start in a condition of slavery, which is not true. you would, and more often than our society which has welfare to subsidize single motherhood (which the offspring experiences slavery arguably) would not happen as much. in a k-selective fierce environment you would have far more immediate support that would start you off in the right direction thus you don't start in a position of "slavery".

i don't do mental gymnastics. i know the objective construct of the english language just as every other language has one.

idk what you mean lol. anarchism and capitalism are the same thing. or are you referring to mixed market capitalism?

no, that's not how states are formed. because by law that standing army, once victory is achieved, would be required to dismantle. this is why rome died (along with a million other things of course) but once a standing army refuses to dismantle and assumes control over the state you have an empire not a representative republic or any form of voluntary small governance. so lets give an example: state beside ancap state is looking to invade ancap state. ancap assemble army and btfo non-ancap state. they are bound by contract to hand in their arms and return to their families or they will be barred from business, killed, etc. see what i mean?

>promote natural selection
You sound like Eric Harris.
Obviously, you would object to this idea if you were retarded and unable to sustain your own life.
>Law would be enforced by contract you agreed to
and the contracts would be voluntarily created by the rich who had the financial power of enforcing them. You need to be able to enforce contract law, that's why we have courts. If only the rich could fund courts, guess who would have the ability to control them?
>doing nothing for the biologically ill-equipped poor will help them
Lol, you were just touting natural selection, now you care about welfare for poor people? At least try to be consistent in the same fucking paragraph

Ok, so you're definition of "anarchy" is "without leader". So if we got rid of presidents and prime ministers and just had congress and parliament, that would qualify for your version of "anarchy" would it not?

> government creates, protects and props up corporations
> reduce/remove government
> waah! corporations benefit from this!
Every. Fucking. Time

>state beside ancap state is looking to invade ancap state. ancap assemble army and btfo non-ancap state.
Or, more likely, the professional army of the state wipes the floor with our rag tag band of ancaps. There's a reason modern states don't use militias to fight for them.
>they are bound by contract to hand in their arms and return to their families or they will be barred from business, killed, etc. see what i mean?
And who exactly enforces that contract without another army?
Also,
>ancap state
aren't ancaps supposed to not have a state?

>promote natural selection
you can try and throw off nature as much as you want. it is eternal and superior to you.
>and the contracts would be voluntarily created by the rich who had the financial power of enforcing them.
it would be generated and agreed to by the public or most common men, not the rich. if a rich guy is obviously controlling shit he will just get shot.
>Lol, you were just touting natural selection, now you care about welfare for poor people? At least try to be consistent in the same fucking paragraph
i am being consistent. you're mentioning two different types of poor. people who are poor because poor decisions and poor who are poor because genuine accidents that are not their fault. if you're poor because you blew your savings on hookers and heroin you deserve to be poor. if you're poor because your family died in a plane crash and that same week your identity got stolen, you genuinely have a reason to seek charity.
>Ok, so you're definition of "anarchy" is "without leader".
i don't make definitions. i wasn't around when the english language was created. i just know basic etymology..
>So if we got rid of presidents and prime ministers and just had congress and parliament, that would qualify for your version of "anarchy" would it not?
there is no "my version" of anarchy. anarchy is what anarchy is.

>Or, more likely, the professional army of the state wipes the floor with our rag tag band
very plausible, yes for sure. but i think an ancap society would be so far ahead of the neighboring ones in technology they would do the btfo'ing. if not it would be in the interest of the people before they became ancap to ensure safety by transitioning with previous military technology in the hands of competent people.
>>they are bound by contract to hand in their arms and return to their families or they will be barred from business, killed, etc. see what i mean?
that's up to the imagination. if it were up to my i would chip my soldiers with a kill command if they disobeyed my orders, but i mean this is far far out shit. most times you can evade war and use economic war to destroy your enemies.
>ancap state
no, state is completely fine if it is voluntarily cooperated with.

The Industrial Revolution basically had slave labor and their were still regulations then.

I think I see what you're getting at. You want everybody to make and obey just laws without there being laws. You want the collective to be led wisely without a leader. Yeah, capitalism doesn't work like that. Maybe the Native Americans had something like that, but in the modern world, no.

Attached: 1490673564928.jpg (640x640, 67K)

>You want everybody to make and obey just laws without there being laws.
there will most definitely be laws, unless you want to live in the woods like a fucking bum. if you wanted to live in my neighborhood nigger you better sign the business contract and follow the rules.
>You want the collective to be led wisely without a leader.
don't care about the collective. i care about the individual choosing right action over wrong action in his daily life.
>Yeah, capitalism doesn't work like that.
yea, it does. if you don't go to work you fucking die.
>Maybe the Native Americans had something like that, but in the modern world, no.
if you're referring to some sort of animist philosophy of respect for the natural world n shiet like that then yea that would be nice, a large leap from imitating nigger culture like most young whites do today.

classic.

fuck bros i want to sleep. keep shit posting in here if you feel like it. im out. good night it was a nice talk.

Explain how it is pro-family if you have no obligation to feed or care for your children.

>But ancaps would certainly agree that sex slaves are wrong and would always be charitable to their neighbors because of our unsigned contract and inherently good human nature

>nature is eternal and superior to you
Shitting is natural. That doesn't mean I rub my excrement in my face. Just because something is natural, doesn't mean its good for you or society. We have developed means of mitigating the effects of our natural tendencies, like the construction of sewage systems for the above example.
>if a rich guy is obviously controlling shit he will just get shot
Not if he has a 20,000 person private army and 4 McNukes.
>it would be generated and agreed to by the public or most common men
Again, the most common man wouldn't be able to uphold or receive damages if the other person simply decided not to abide by the contract because they would have no consistent way of enforcing contract law.
>You're mentioning two different types of poor
No, I wasn't. You just misinterpreted my argument
>Poor because genuine accidents/
What does that even mean?
If my family died in a plane crash i'd still be able to sustain myself....
Most accidents like that don't completely wipe out your savings, only your mental health.