Explain why this isn't the best system of all

explain why this isn't the best system of all

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#List_of_tax_havens_and_countries_of_financial_secrecy
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It's just feudalism

>Implies a coercive monopoly is a free market.

the NAP seems pretty legit

Someone is going to overpower you and just take all of your shit. You literally don't think another country is just going to say "Hey we can get some resources over in Ancap land, let's fucking invade" or some gang "sheet lets gonna rob some dem out der, aint no cops dawg".
I'd rather just give 20% of it away so that the state can have a military and police while living a comfortable life.

Because Anarchy is fucking stupid. It doesnt work and its for people mad that they are poor.

the people who tend to want anarchy tend to be the first kinds of people who would die should such a system take effect.

This.
Same as the faggots who want the zombie apocalypse or some shit.

Move to south Africa. Sorry, no offence to the white south africans, you tried.

Try playing rust without dying first.

Not an argument.

It most certainly is.

>anarcho capitalism

well meme'd, fellow fallout 4 fan, well meme'd!

*tips fedora*
*checks pip boy*
*inhales vape pen*
*masturbates to cartoons*
*cries loudly*

Anarchy is for niggers

Ok, then explain how an ANCAP society would defend itself against large invaders and crime syndicates?

Somalia is doing great, right?

Flag thread?

child prostitution
vulnerable to foreign invaders

>guys, why are you forming a militia? We agreed to be anarcho-capitalist! I don't want to be part of your theocracy! That goes against the agreement we had to be anarcho-capitalist! Why would you kill me and think you can get away with it you darned militia?!

Why would a nation invade a place that cannot be ruled? No tax system, no invasion. There would be no way to break even financially.

you impose a tax system
you coerce them to be apart of your government

You ever hear of subjugation ?

Why not? A more organized nation could just easily take the land and convert all of its inhabitants simply because of a well organized military.

Same reason I would not due business with a religious cult. Every incentive is in place to stop business.

>Cant be ruled
>Wont be invaded
Fuck you for being this stupid, how many goddamn times have countries invaded one another and occupied even when total control was not possible. Go fuck yourself.

same reason as what? that post makes no sense.

How would one ever implement such a system. Keep in mind that everyone is against you and is in violation of every rule.

army rolls in
knocks on peoples door
"pay taxes or we kill your family"
"b-but, I can't be governed!"
kills you

goes to the next house

Acap is a great idea in theory but the execution of it could be dangerous and have devastating consequences today.

Do you even history?

Bomb houses, totally siege towns, and other basic scorched earth tactics.


You do this, people will submit to an invading force real quick.

Uh oh, another Butt-hurt socialist. Always so emotional.
Yeah I'm certain their won't be any resistance up to that point.
Because of all of those capitalist societies in collapse.

A war of attrition cannot be won without depriving others ruled by that state of essentially everything. The ancapistan would just have to outlast that army. Shouldn't be too hard when their standard of living is falling constantly.

Pic always related

Not an argument

Lmao at all socialists ITT
Their only argument is monopoly and it is mathematically proofed that monopoly is impossible without government intervention

I really can't help you

If it is voluntary, what is the problem? Also who would send their kids to school where people sell heroine to the children? Seems unprofitable.

How is this different from any modern country?

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

No m8. Free markets, private property and wage labour are a cornerstone of Capitalism. Read Marx, even if he spouts bullshit most of the time, he is good at defining Capitalism.

...

>Commie gun

>Anarcho capitalism
>anarchy
>capitalism
This is... what.

It would be easy because "Ancapistan" wouldn't have a fucking standard army.

All these government bootlickers that hate freedom and having money.


BAKA

Why would a country attack/occupy Ancapistan?

If it depends on where this Ancapistan is, and/or how big it is, we can think about a few scenarios:

>one Ancapistan in the middle of Congo
>New York becomes Ancapistan
>Antarctica has several Ancapistans in it
>random German village becomes Ancapistan
>entire Canadian territory can be described as Ancapistan
>one island in Micronesia becomes Ancapistan
>a couple Ancapistans in the Amazon Rainforest, but you don't know where exactly they are

Feel free to come up with more scenarios. Just make sure to answer the main question: why would a country attack or occupy an Ancapistan?

Not even a socialist you stupid faggot. Try harder to either make an argument or fuck off ya cunt.

>Why would you invade
I want your resources and land.

Resources and better geographical position? The same reason anyone invades.

Foreign invasion is actually the second concern. The honest truth is that mafia-like organizations are going to practically run this country anyway, even if they would luck out and manage to not be invaded.

What if Ancapistan is so small their territory isn't worth annexing and its economy is entirely service-based?

You gonna demolish the buildings and take the scrap metal back to your capital?

Idk the soviet union scrapped entire areas of countries after WW2 to repair and add onto their industrial sectors.

>You gonna demolish the buildings and take the scrap metal back to your capital?
You somehow imply this is weird.

>governments aren't mafia-like organizations
lmao

What if striking a deal with the locals and building a military base/seaport are cheaper than a full-blown invasion and occupation?

So you're saying acting like the Soviet Union is good or even remotely acceptable?

>So you're saying acting like the Soviet Union is good or even remotely acceptable?
>acceptable
Do you have brain damage?

Probably, but the free market will fix it.

So were basically talking about a society that's would have to be the size of a village?

Ok, they are. But I'd rather have a modern government than fucking John Gotti controlling my town. Not every leader bases decisions factoring in cost.

Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Did we say it was good or acceptable? So you're resorting to trying to put words in other peoples mouth because you can't think of something to continue your stupid rant?
The problem with anarchy is you think everyone is just going to work together, that isn't going to happen. It will be either like this, or a possible invasion.
>Why would they invade muh anarcho country
Idk probably the same reason people have for fucking centuries. The strongest will take control, it always happens and will continue to happen. It isn't this fucking hard to understand.

>My mafia style government is alright since he mafia style governments today do it
Alright.

>So were basically talking about a society that's would have to be the size of a village?
It would grow up to its optimum size.
If it grows into a big city and no neighboring country has invaded it yet, it's probably because it's better for the neighboring countries to have a free-market zone next to it.

>Not every leader bases decisions factoring in cost.
Because in a statist society they don't have to, since all expenses are covered by the taxpayers.

>Power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Hopefully not the same guns you used when trying to beat sandniggers into submission.

>Did we say it was good or acceptable?
So you agree that invading Ancapistan should not be tolerated?

>The strongest will take control, it always happens and will continue to happen. It isn't this fucking hard to understand.
Fun fact: Ancapistan would essentially be a tax heaven for politicians and big bankers and businessmen. I wonder what would happen if someone wanted to take their little paradise away...

Your mafia wants to take guns away because muh children.
My mafia will gladly sell me any piece I need.

Your mafia charges you for security, but has no obligation to provide you any.
My mafia charges me for security, and will look weak if it doesn't, making competing mafias salivate.

In your mafia-controlled society, people don't know they're ruled by a mafia.
In my mafia-controlled society, everyone knows damn well we're ruled by a mafia. They wouldn't even try to hide it.

>Afghanastan
Yeah we should have stayed out.
>Muh paradise, what will they do
A war just like every time. We have established this like 4 fucking times.
>Your mafia and my mafia
Same thing, the strong don't require the weak to give them what they want or need their permission to do what they want to. Literally just as delusional as the Nazi and soviet fags who think their system is the right one. Same shit different name. Oh yeah your paradise will rock, OH it will be perfect. Yeah just like all the commie fags say about their utopia. Grow the fuck up.

these threads are the most autistic on Sup Forums outside of /r9k/ 2bh

You basically admitted that the best outcome of your system that it will revert into a similar order that we currently have.

No one did so

because it's not National Socialism

go watch TGSNT kiddo

It is literally socialism and socialism never worked

sick-ass logo I'm in

He did.

>A war just like every time.
Wars are politically and economically expensive.

Besides, why aren't countries invading each other all the time? Why is it that in school we study the periods of war, conflict and crisis, and not the periods of peace?

Why isn't anyone invading Somalia right now? Or Congo? Fuck, Congo has a bunch of mineral reserves that could turn that shithole into a local superpower. I doubt the United States would have a problem seizing Congo. Yet, they don't. Why?

>the strong don't require the weak to give them what they want or need their permission to do what they want to.
Uh, oh. We have a badass over here.

Don't complain when a nigger breaks into your house, gets shot, and you get arrested for racism. After all, the government is stronger than you.
Shit, sorry. The government doesn't allow you to have firearms. I guess you will just have to beat him up with a broom or something.

The main difference is that the citizens of Ancapistan do not recognize the existence of a state, and will immediately defend themselves against anyone trying to steal their production. Meanwhile, the citizens of America gladly pay up, believing "that's the cost of living in a civilized society".

It's hard to build a state when everyone shoots back, or when nobody buys your statist bullshit.

>Fun fact: Ancapistan would essentially be a tax heaven for politicians and big bankers and businessmen. I wonder what would happen if someone wanted to take their little paradise away...

>implying they wouldn't get a new one
>implying better ones don't already exist

The need for non-ancap countries isn't a mark in ancapistan's favor. At least the Soviets could build their own computers.

>Brazilian monkey telling other people about what would make a good state.

You don't ask a drunk how to get sober.

Where?
>implying they wouldn't get a new one
How they would get a new one?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#List_of_tax_havens_and_countries_of_financial_secrecy
Did you skip that day in Yeshiva?

>and will immediately defend themselves against anyone trying to steal their production

> I see a successful restaurant in ancapistan
> Hmm, I could take all of their money
>Wait they have a shotgun, oh shit
>Wait I can get my friends and 10 aks, no way some shlub with a shotgun is going to beat that
> Do this to five more business.
> Everyone leaves because the fucking economy is shit and everyone is stealing

But hey at least we don't have no gobement

Corporatism. And point of national socialism was never maximizing hedonism. It was focused on preserving and strengthening race while guaranteeing its wellbeing (not by welfare handouts, mind you),

Different goals. Libertarian policies and values are murderous to nation. Look up birth rates of S-Korea and Singapore.

I guess it could work in society like Ferengis where women are property.

Good thing anarcho-capitalism makes a moral argument, not a technical or utilitarian one.

Not an argument.

>NatSoc ever being close to marxism
Are you retarded?

ancaps have no defence from outside forces ie an opposing states military or asemtric terrorism

>Good thing anarcho-capitalism makes a moral argument, not a technical or utilitarian one.

That's largely because it can't. You simply will never appeal to pragmatic adults, deal with it :^)
Maybe you can hand out flyers at commie colleges.

>Not an argument.
It is nonetheless true. Not a counter-argument.

>someone will overpower you and take your shit

Like the government? The irony is so thick lad

>I see a successful restaurant in ancapistan
>Hmm, I could take all of their money
>Wait they have a shotgun, oh shit
>Wait I can get my friends and 10 aks, no way some shlub with a shotgun is going to beat that
>Realize that the restaurant has bought insurance against raiders
>Alarm goes off
>Insurance company dispatches as many guards as needed
>Private sector is more efficient than the public sector
>They arrive faster than the police from developed countries
>Get shot and die
>Next day business as usual

>throws morals in the garbage can
>calls himself an adult

The government likes people like you.

Iceland has no standing army.

We should invade it for its resources and geographical position.

>>Alarm goes off
>>Insurance company dispatches as many guards as needed

I take it you've never heard the pro-gun argument about this.
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"

>The government likes people like you.
That's because I'm not a low-IQ monkey so I'm productive enough to steal a higher percentage of taxes from :^)

>National Socialism
>Socialism
Are you retarded?
It funny that you mentioned those two countries as they are nazi-like countries. Corporatism is the same as central-planning
Do you even read links that you post?

...

Open a history book you freedom nigger. Hitler absolutely hated marxism.

army rolls in
"Pay taxes or we kill family."
"B-but I cant be governed"
Resist with a gun
Army kills the sole rebel because they dont want to make a group large enough to resist successfully.
Each lone fighter who dies contributes to killing off all the able bodied men.

they only have fish but it could be done fairly easily

Unless your guards are literally monitoring the site you're most likely dead.

And before you bring up this point, hypothetically this can happen in a society with a government, but the fear of prison would probably discourage a hell of a lot more people.

>freedom nigger
I'm stealing that.

Universal armament as a precaution against tyranny is not a theory or an experiment, it kept England's Glorious Revolution bloodless.

Anarchy is no government, no police no taxes that kind of stuff.
Capitilism is trading one thing for another.
Anarchism is inherently capitilist

TL;DR You dont need a government to barter.

Open a history book you cuck. Nazi Germany was not any different from USSR.

>Nazi Germany was not any different from USSR
It's okay user.

Anarchy has no means of enforcing people trade instead of marauding or collectivizing.

TL;DR you should claim English citizenship because your granddad's sentence expired.

Name me 3 differencies

Glorious Aryan race
Magical Teutonic Krupp steel
Bavarian beer

nazis weren't all starving

>Yeah I'm certain their won't be any resistance up to that point.
yea there will be, in graveyards

I was just explaining the pure definitions, I acknowledge it would never happen. I just dont like """"""anarchists""""""" who have no idea what the idea of anarchy is.