Ancap vs the world thread

Ancap vs the world thread
argue NOW

Other urls found in this thread:

webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Anarchy
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

kike

>inb4 strawmans: the thread
These threads are always fucking stupid and the memes are even stupider.

wop

...

someone post the olive garden one thats my favorite :^)

requesting the one of selling heroin to kinder gander prostitutes

when you pay your neighbor not to kill your family and now you dont have the money to pay the justice company for un-coercively preventing your family's death

...

>tfw you live in an anarcho-capitalist society where people buy your cars but there's no roads

nodnargument

An-cap is retarded tbqh, not as retarded as anarcho-communism but still retarded.

I'm in favor of an-cap like free markets but only if there is a peacekeeping organization keeping the streets and the borders safe.
Aka a state

NO NO NO NO
THAT'S EVIL! THEM POLICE ARE PIGS! THE MILITARY ARE EVEN WORSE! TRAINED MURDERERS! ME AND MY GUN IS THE BEST PEACEKEEPING THING IN THIS COUNTRY

>Ancap society is very dangerous meme
And? Better than being coddled by an abusive parent known as the state.

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist if that counts? AMA

Like all other flawed ideologies, if it worked, we would have done it. Completely unsustainable

>, if it worked, we would have done it.
this is such a fallacy

how much of the company that u work at do you own relative to the CEO?

we've been anarcho communist for most of human history. How do you think tribal societies work?

It's not unsustainable because its inputs are zero. It's more that the natural byproduct of anarchy is states either to protect trade, or due to bring taken over from without.

>peacekeeping organization keeping the streets and the borders safe

this meme still exists.
the police and the army are independent entities with their own infrastructure and chain of command.

the only difference is that they receive their funding from the government and that is who they have to answer to.

they are basically private fucking companies, and the implication that they dissolve with the state is absurd.

Human civilization began without any states or laws and progressed to today's governments. At some point, there was total anarchy but it was quickly replaced by tribes, cities, kings, presidents

Of course Israel would want anarchy. Let's look at a Webster's 1828 definition of anarchy, which would be the definition American founding fathers such as George Washington would had used
>Want if government
In a crisis, people always want more government. The want if government may result in too much government, resulting in tyranny. Anarchy is only a temporary way of life, that eventually phases into totalitarianship

webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Anarchy

I work for a family owned business that I get regular dividends from and will eventually own. It's a small company that does R&D work in a laboratory.

Go back to Ancapistan, kike.

neat

ancap is not anarchism. the infrastructure of ancapistan is private companies acting in their own self interest, which is profit.
so the people actually govern through demand, and deciding what gets produced, how and for who.

so then how is the government not a "private company" itself? We're all shareholders by birthright. Only ancap radicals like yourself make it some scary oppressive outside force.

i, myself do not do such things.
but i am happy to explain.
government by definition is an entity that governs you, is authorized to use violence against you and is entitled to a portion of your income.
if you do not buy a companies product, they will not break your door down, confiscate your property, convict you for tax evasion, and through legal means imprison you and strip you from your money.
you don't get to chose if you want to pay taxes, or healthcare (atleast in my country) or the retirement fund.
upwards of 40% of every paycheck goes to the government in my country.

the best is nat-cap not an-cap

Is ancap the same as Libertarianism? I'm all for a smaller government because I believe a truly based governmental system (like big H) is unable to be replicated, so for the time being, the smaller the better. Is this what Libertarians want? Ancaps?

>saving_this_picture_violates_the_non_agression_principle.jpg
kek to be honest

>tfw the rest of society builds a wall around your private property and lets you starve inside
Come on, you know that Trump is going to make Ancapistan great again.

The government owns you and all "your" land and belongings. Trying to escape from the government means infringing on their property rights.

basically more extreme.
as far as i know some founding fathers of the usa could be labeled libertarians.
but there are too many stupid people who identify as such, not to mention the left is infested with the sort of people even god would not have mercy on.

The (almost) literal only difference between the government and a private company is that a government can use force to make you buy a product or prevent from buying it or etc at risk of jail. It really doesn't actually create any value, it just uses your money in ways it decides to.

>strawman
that implies that there are no security companies.
that also implies that you don't shoot them.
that also implies that someone is willing to risk their life just to build a wall around you.

I don't understand why leafs and emus have shitposter reputation, while jews don't. I've never seen a non-shitpost from a jew. It's all a grand conspiracy.

because ashkenazi jews have the highest iq.
they are not entertained by mere shitposting like the simple folk.
they prefer subversion, manipulation and controlling the goys.
even i can see what's more fun.

Most companies "behave" because a government can apply punishment to them. I don't see how you could prevent cartels claiming the government's role.

>tfw u live in an anarcho-capitalist society making cash money selling tickets to your kitten torture farm

well, i will do my best to explain.
i will use the example of the united states army.
the us army basically buys everything from privately funded companies, like lockheed martin.
the only thing they do themselves is recruit manpower, and as we know manpower is recruitable by money alone.
if the us government magically dissolved, the us military infrastructure and their chain of command would not. they would be just out of funding, and what better way to get funding than offering services of protection for a monthly subscription.
the way that the "justice system" works is by threat of violence, aka imprisonment.
do you think the numbers would increase or decrease when the threat of violence in ancap society brings only death?

>my argument is an appeal to emotion
>and i also know i am right because my version of a moral code is the correct one

I don't want to argue
I want to be a Raven

so how do we turn our shitholes into Ancapistan?
That's the real question

Its my child and I will starve it if I want too.

>there are statists RIGHT FUCKING NOW who unironically believe these memes

i thought those were ironic memes by ancaps
oh well i guess they not so smart :(

since i'm not an avid ancapistanian, i merely play around with my thoughts on the subject, not real world application. i do realise that it will not happen in my lifetime, therefore it is of no real concern to me besides philosophical and political entertainment.
but it will probably be violent and bloody. basically a governmental collapse would be required and proper entities would have to take the initiative.
don't get me wrong, ancap is not even closely ideal system when you take the humans into consideration, but it is ideal efficiency and economy wise.
the poorest would have no social net to fall on, and would basically be reduced to middle ages tier.

>implying that children aren't subject to the NAP

is this a picture of idubbz?

I was just trying to be funny because his meme was so stupid.

The sad part is that in an anarcho-capitalist world order, you could possibly have such a parallel society, but at least the vegans could have their vegan animal lovers society, the Christians could have their Christian society and so on.

Right now all these groups are forced to pay taxes which are used to subsidize a lot things they find morally abhorrent, like chicken shredding animal fodder factories, single-mothers and the breakdown of the family or just plainly war or mass immigration.

While it's probably still up to ancaps/libertarians to convince people of their consistent philosophy, I don't see why anyone could possibly be in favor of centralized state power.

I think one of the most realistic approaches is Hoppe's. We need to promote secession. First of nation states from structures like the EU or Texas out of the USA, then regions, cities, towns until it becomes a basic right to secede personally from any government structure you don't agree with. The principle that being ruled from the outside is a bad thing fundamentally leads to the conclusion that every individual should be free from coercion.

Can anyone explain to a statist how a stateless society would NOT devolve into roving packs of rape gangs with AR-15s looting and murdering anyone who stood in their way?

Sorry to offend you my fellow sovereign free-thinking individual

read the thread please.

You forgot a "r" between "anc" and "aps"

because the people who aren't in the roving rape gangs would shoot the ones who are

>the worst thing that can happen in a stateless society is an insane person magically creating a state

So what would replace the court system in your theoretical society? Vigilantism?

>because the people who aren't in the roving rape gangs would shoot the ones who are

oh wow that sounds great. i think we tried it though.

>tfw u live in an anarcho-capatitalist society and run a baby brothel out of your shanty town to pay for your tanks of recreational nerve gas

the Old West had crime rates a fraction of what they are now anywhere in the US

>We need to promote secession.
but you are ignoring a very important issue.
one of democracy. through democracy the state still has power through legal means, and i doubt they are going to give it away.

also there are inherent flaws with the system that is currently in place, one of which is that the majority decides.
let's say a group of people organize and decide to create their own little ancap utopia, through populism, persuasion and campaign they can turn the masses against ancaps and justify violence.

i legitimately chuckled at this one, thank you little australia

If that's true I suspect it has more to with near racial homogeneity than the justice system of shooting each other in the streets.

>populated area
>under the pretense
>assumes an ancap society would have same market response to urban life that we have today

Nice try, ausfag

I don't know if these count as Molyneux threads or not

the court system is not needed. by breaching mutually admitted rights of others you are warranting the use of violence against you, the degree of which may vary according to the situation.

it was both. When the punishment for anything more than simple theft is a .357 in your chest, you're gonna make damn sure you actually need to break the law

This is the main problem in my view.

I might feel like someone needs to die for cutting me off in traffic, which is why an impartial third party arbiter is necessary. Emotions are always going to cloud what the necessary response to a slight or crime should be.

>tfw u live in an anarcho-capatalist society and you brutally murder your wife for slapping you, citing the NAP as your defence

there is
if you would refer to i hope you will see that if you actually murdered someone for a mundane reason, and he was under the protection of a such security company, that would warrant the use of violence against you.

Being an ANCAP is the same as being a turbojew without the religion.

>that is a bad thing.

So what if I'm under the protection of a security company? Do they go to war on my behalf, or kill someone to make it even?

This circle of murder and brutal retribution is not preferable to throwing faggots in a cage forever and being done with it, in my opinion

self-control + the fact that nothing stops people from ostracizing you if they think you you're being a cunt. Sure you could shoot someone for cutting you off in traffic (>implying there will be roads), but there's also nothing you can do to stop everyone who knows you from deciding you're fucked in the head and cutting off contact with you for doing it

the NAP doesn't mean there can't be consequences for how you handle being aggressed against

well, the entire history is basically eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth type of justice. hell even the us hanged, electrocuted and poisoned people.
this "just lock them up" schlick is the odd one out in the history book.

but it amounts to the same thing. you take their life away, whether that is done proactively or passively make little difference from a moral perspective.

Why would anyone have children then not sell the children?

Organs are worth so much.

These fucking retard statists are so fucking stupid I swear.

Killing something and getting $0 out of it instead of gaining hundreds of thousands of dollars is something only a dumbass emotional liberal could think up.

do i sense an appeal to emotion interwoven with sarcasm and moral high ground?

Bobby Sands looks like he could use some nice tatties.

An-caps make us look bad