What's wrong with it?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/sites/default/files/longanarchism.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's a shitty color scheme.

It's libertarian

Corporation's main goal is maximizing profit above all else and that's a bad approach to many essential services.

Also, name me one place on the world full of millions of people that has existed, stayed peaceful and prosperous for decades without a state holding it together.

You can't, it doesn't exist because it doesn't happen.

its 50% black and 50% yellow

shit wrong image

Misunderstood.

Well, people who believe in ancap ideals can form a community based on such ideals, and if they don't agree with them anymore, they leave it. Same for ancoms. As long as they respect voluntaryism, it could work, I guess.

>As long as they respect voluntaryism, it could work, I guess.

Yeah, but what if they don't?

Other than this it's perfect.

chaos followed by feudalism

In that case The Police™ can shoot them

Money commands social power. A state apparatus will inevitably arise in one form or the other (by state I mean the entity through which the capitalist class legislate their interests into existence). "Ethical consumption" is a fucking dream, given that hundreds of companies are involved in the production of a single pencil and it is impossible for the less wealthy to even opt for more expensive ethical products, let alone know which companies are ethical and which aren't and what companies are involved in the production of what commodity.

Hell, welfare is a tool of the capitalist class to suck out money from the middle class to pay the poor so the bourgeoisie can pay their workers less than living wages. If ancaps wanted to eliminate welfare they would be getting rid of this essential tool.

Anarchists have always been opposed to capitalism anyway. Anarcho-capitalism is an anachronism and a retarded one at that.

Pents wasted on a retard.
What stops the world's armies from teaming up now and taking control of everything?

No, just fucking inane.

Because then they wouldn't be armies and tools of the warmongering imperialist bourgeoisie. They'd just be armed proletarians mostly. And it's probably global revolution that's motivating that.

we need government handouts to prevent monopolies

>corporation's main goal is maximizing profit
>you can't make money or enjoy spending it if you don't do business in a way that maintains a peaceful, prosperous society where you have a good reputation

>corporation is theft

Actually like the color scheme - it's BVB senpai

basic geopolitics

>Corporation's main goal is maximizing profit above all else and that's a bad approach to many essential services.
No because maximizing profit (monetary, societal power, whatever) is the main goal for people of all stripes it has always been. People just believe the state is exempt from this because they just believe shitty age-old rhetoric.
The state is a political tool which people use to control the profit-maximizing of other people, therefore maximizing their own.
The selfishness of people is the most reliable way of making people work together. It has held modern states, non-modern states etc, all the way to hunter gatherer tribes together.
Now because of socio-technologial change people grew out of being hunter gatherers a mere 10000 years ago. What makes you think socio-technological forces (basically manifested human brain power) can't make us abandon the state apparatus, as it has had us abandon many many forms of government before.
Give me an argument not just a reply.

too minimalist

>basic geopolitics
Which disappear magically as states do, right?

No it's ancap. Libertarian has government just not very much.

Private property is theft from everyone.

And how's that really working for us in the modern world?
mainstream media, entertainment industries, military industrial and massive drug companies spring to mind...

I'll bite. Why?

Shit I forgot the food industry and probably many more.

>people are flawed
>I know! lets have flawed people rule over us!

They get expelled from society. In other words no one trades anything with them, because they wouldn't be trusted if they won't play by the same rules. Then they could make their own culture of not respecting property rights, somewhere else, and watch it burn.

Nothing, why do you ask?

Private property is tools and other forms of capital which the bourgeoisie excludes from usage by others. Private property holds the means of production which naturally must exploit the workers for profit to be turned.

...

So they should become the private property of everyone?
I mean, should everyone have some rights over them? For example in a village of fifty would I own 1/50 of everything in that village? So that if I wanted to do anything I had to ask the permission of 49 people?

>exploit

Did the evil capitalist put a gun to the workers head and said "I'll force you to work for me, in exchange for a wage"? Or did it come from a voluntary transaction?

>muh "freedoms" to: pollute the environment, sell meth to kids, sell babies, driving down wages to shit, eliminate competition through cartels, depriving a population of water and then have them pay for it, pretty much do whatever the fuck i want using the masses for my own amusement and if they try to rise put them down with my private army

ayy

Tools and other forms of capital that they legally purchased thus it is there's to do whatever they wish with. They could destroy it right after they purchase it if they'd like. They are under no obligation to relinquish their property to someone else.

Belka is fine. Long live Belka.
Yuktobania is scum.

So.. that's what you would do if would think someone wouldn't put you down for it. That tells so much about you and nothing about a situation where no one, who would think those things immoral, would engage in trade with you, and would rather trade only with the 98% or so of people who respect themselves and others.

see
Have fun finding out who is really the evil guy when he has a 100 front companies each with 100 front companies each with 100 front companies and so on

This simply creates an important incentive to produce and manage good and honest reputation.

How? If dick mc dickerson can just put a million front companies who is going to tell you "hey, the guy that is dumping cancer into the ground water is this guy"? The government? Oh right it doesn't exist in the "libertarian utopia" or it will be so stripped of powers that it would be fucking useless anyway at helping

Yeah, for some reason accepting a low wage is exploiting them when the other alternatives are to get a better job or be unemployed.

Okey try this.
People have practiced:
-civilization: 10000 years old, here you can make the argument that "the entity through which the capitalist class legislate their interests into existence" existed
-hunting and gathering: as homo sapiens at least 200000 years. Here the supposed capitalist class did and could not exist.
Now are you actually claiming that, even though the socio-technological forces (culture and technology) can change human societies this radically, we are stuck with the "capitalist class" forever barring the possibility of a communist utopia?

Or by your argument what prevents that "A state apparatus will inevitably arise in one form or the other" in your proposed communist utopia?

...

>how?
Do you trust the few monopolistic (achieved through government legislature by preventing free entry into the marketplace btw) companies say in the medical, food, military industry, entertainment and media spheres?
In other words, would you use an alternative to these if you could?

"No roads, no cops, no problem!"

Not

There is a government keeping them in check.
If you want the "liberal utopia" look no further than mainland china were literal nobodies build shitty escalators/lifts out of scrap taken from a nearby junk heap without the slightest hint of safety checks. Result: maiming and death by people falling into the gears or by the elevator not having a functioning door obstructed sensor.

Also gutter oil, MMMMMMMMMMM! Taste like "free market"

They seem to forget that even poor people can be "evil capitalists". Enterpreneurship is the force that moves mankind forward.

>There is a government keeping them in check.
Yeeeah. no.
>what is lobbying?
The state apparatus (concentration of power and a monopoly of jurisdiction, violence and courts) is precisely the way companies can prevent healthy competition in the marketplace.
By having much greater leverage (lobbying) than the small businessmen, they push laws which stop small businesses from competing in a legally level market.
See pic related. Also consider for just a second why the "big business" does not lobby for small government if it would benefit them.. While it is true that some laws stop big businesses from fucking people over more than they do, mostly they are content with fucking with the competition through even more draconian legislature. Ever wonder why?

Doing those things would be against the NAP.

And how are you going to enforce the "NAP"? You and... What private army again?

It couldn't survive. Saying force is immoral doesn't vanquish it from existence.

...

>a fucking excuse for a propaganda "infographic" that is neither "info" nor "graphic"

What was that thing again with "you really convinced me with those hot opinions"?

I don't know, I guess society would expell them. It would be in the interest of everybody.

Again, how are you going to enforce that?

And you still haven't answered on how will the perpetrator be identified at all when he has front companies up the ass and can throw a bunch of red tape to make any investigation take up 1000000000 years

dude feudalism lmao

Private Police™

That's why you have the Private Police™

Paradise

>Again, how are you going to enforce that?
It's the interest of everybody to expel them

Well, what's stopping him from doing the same thing now?

For example my family and neighborhood with guns, if a private company is out of the question for some reason. No need for armies, unless you are faced by one. And if you are, then you just need other people interested in national (national as in scale) defence. If you don't think people wouldn't invest in self-defence, care to argument for it?

Thing is these tired "but won't warlords take over" scenarios are refuted in a daily basis:
mises.org/sites/default/files/longanarchism.pdf

If it truly is fear of warfare you are concerned about, I would point you to look at every war in history and think very hard.

>not answering the post
Nice going there. But if you are only concerned about the infographic, Feel free to refute it.

>private police
>oops i (read: a nth front for dick mc dickerson) accidentally a bunch of thousand dollar bills to the chief, case closed

>Well, what's stopping him from doing the same thing now?
Dunno, a government? You know, the things that have a lot of power and make the laws and enforce them.

Not force, but the initiation of force. pls read on what you are arguing against here, before spouting nonsense.

>buy properties around small town
>build wall on my property trapping them in
>hire guards
>if they try to escape they open fire on them
Literally what can stop me from doing this?

It's fucking slavery: corporations edition.

Sure, the company could buy off that private security force, but what about competing private security forces?

Don't you see the amount of money one could make by winning a lawsuit against the company?

>doesn't matter, the xbox hueg company will be able to buy everyone
This company must be doing really good to bear such an extreme cost. Nah, totally impractical in a free market.

>implying the first case from your post can't be applied to your second case
>implying you can't have watchdogs

Government's main goal is to maximize power above all else

They both have ill motivations, but at least the corporation has to obtain their ends through voluntary means.

Power commands power. Your argument only supports anti-statism by emphasizing that the real issue is the emergence of statism and coercion.

The state is a coercive monopoly which is a tool used by massive corporations to create more monopolies.

>Nah, totally impractical in a free market

>someone tries to compete with corporation in ie:food distribution
>corporation run food distribution at a loss for some time borrowing money from other sources of revenue (ie: car manufacturing)
>guy is out of a job and has no money, possibly ends up working for corporation because competition is stifled
>other people are scared to try to challenge corporation because the guy now is reduced to blow dicks in order to scrape enough to eat
>rinse and repeat with any other potential competition

Wowsohard.jpg

If a guy in your neighborhood opens the trashbags and kicks the trash all over the street, do you need an army or police? No, it's just one guy.
Likewise, there's not many people who would make defective lifts or use gutter oil for cooking, so you wouldn't need an army.
And you can videotape the lift making process and hold everyone responsible with their personal names, not the name of the company.

Sufficiently advanced anarcho-capitalism is indistinguishable from fascism. You need to physically remove democrats, communists, and cultural marxists to prevent the subversion of the society from reverting into a state.

>implying there would be a kindergarten

lmao

Gee I dunno, the people and their guards both inside and outside maybe.
But on a more serious note, why would you do that? to extort the people inside maybe? All you would create is a massive backlash of action.
The better course of action would be to negotiate a deal with the people inside that you would use your wall to defend them, if people agreed you would not only gain some money without a potentially violent backlash but a customer base and trust.
But even this ridiculous scenario is only valid if people would actually need walls outside their towns etc.
So there, co-operation is actually more profitable for everyone on a simple economic basis of risk-management. The state handicaps this principle since it warps markets for most things using violence as it's MO.

Roads.

So you're giving me an example of a very efficient corporation that can drive potential competitors away, not through state intervention, but through consumer satisfaction (lower prices, better products). Exactly what is the problem here?

>Likewise, there's not many people who would make defective lifts or use gutter oil for cooking, so you wouldn't need an army.
If you look around there are .gifs of people being killed by faulty escalators or lifts in china. It is commonplace.

>And you can videotape the lift making process and hold everyone responsible with their personal names, not the name of the company.
You step into private property to film->NAP violation->ded. GREAT PLAN!

see

>It's the interest of everybody to expel them

But if the collective isn't organised, who is going to look out for them if the individuals that make up the collective only tend to their individual needs? You could also rephrase this question as: Who'd make sure the roads were built?

That you have what is effectively a government providing everything and dictating market law.

>Exactly what is the problem here?

Monopolism and deadweight loss.

Does anything in a fascist society use initiation of force to prevent voluntary association of any kind?

Really doubt a single corporation will be able to provide every single good and service. But even if such a corporation was able to do so in a free market, it was because of consumer satisfaction.

The only bad monopoly are the state-enforced ones. Monopolies that arise in a free market do so because they were the most efficient at consumer satisfaction. As a consumer, I can't complain, because by definition I'm satisfied. If I were not satisfied, I would "vote with my money" and choose the competition that satisfies me the most.

That's the free market in a nutshell.

It's infantile and babyish to think the state is totally unnecessary.

Normal lolbertarianism for me, please.

>But if the collective isn't organised
The big if. It would be if there is incentive to, wouldn't it? Since people are free to associate with and trade as you wish.
>Who'd make sure the roads were built?
Everyone who has an interest in roads existing. Supply will meet demand.

And when the corporation start cutting corners and reduce quality while employing thugs to intimidate small business? Remember that at this stage the corporation is almost all powerful. The only thing that could stop it would be a government but OOOOOPS! There are no governments in the libertarian paradise

>It's infantile and babyish to think the state is totally unnecessary.

>Normal lolbertarianism for me, please.
That's nice, but you do know that's not an argument right?

Are you saying you want me... shot?

Of course there are people who make them, but it's few people who make them. So it wouldn't take an army to expel them, that's my point.
And the making of a product that can kill you needs to have inspectors making sure the lift is made properly, so by not allowing the safety inspection of the lift making process he is going against the NAP. So in this case, filming private property wouldn't be against the NAP.
By the way, I'm not an ancap, I'm assuming the role of one for the sake of argument.

It's very difficult or impossible for a society to produce and distribute public goods without enforcement.

That's the problem.

>And when the corporation starts cutting corners and reduce quality while employing thugs to intimidate small business

That's when the competition enters.

If you think you can do better, you compete. You could even take a gamble and use the financial markets to finance your enterprise. That's the role of the enterpreneur.

I believe the frogposter was referring to kindergarten aged children

Explain china then. The faulty escalator gets installed anyway, someone dies and nothing is done.

>And when the corporation start cutting corners and reduce quality
Competition wins, unless there is demand for lower quality goods.

>while employing thugs to intimidate small business
Small businesses can employ their own. Or at least protect what's theirs by their own hand, so there would be a whole lot to intimidate for a single company.
If they use violence though, they have to raise wages for their thugs to compensate for increased risk of wounding or dying. This leads to economic inefficiency which drives the competitiveness to the ground.
Also people not wanting to associate with a violent, coercive business.

>The big if. It would be if there is incentive to, wouldn't it? Since people are free to associate with and trade as you wish.

800 years ago people in this country started so called 'waterschappen' to make sure we didn't drown.. Those are the oldest governmental institutions of our country. I doubt the free market would have fixed it, or will fix it. It's better to have no profit margins involved in not drowning.

>Supply will meet demand

It doesn't though. To a local degree, maybe.. But if you want to drive from Amsterdam to Helsinki, it's probably nice that there are some state-made arrangements like bridges, roads and maybe a ferry or two.

Why yes of course.