Why would anyone above 10 think anarcho capitalism worked?

...

Why do you hate the freedom?

Because your uniforms look like shit.

>tfw use other guys meme but not mine, when you ask me to make it

h-he was faster, me lad.
I saved both, and will spam them whenever edgy teenagers start posting fugg the pigs.

Bump

Do you have healthcare in Iceland?

Thanks. I also screenshot a couple of your arguments. You made some pretty good points my friend.

There's universal healthcare.

>statism is the only way to achieve roads, hospitals, and transport
Come on now.

Nah, its far better to have 4 competing roads literally right next to each other (assuming the person who built the first road doesn't own ALL the land around that one road preventing competition.)

With Roads on an urban-city scale, yeah. It's a lot more efficient.

Public transport is also really nice.

>competition is a bad thing
Statist philosophy at its core, folks.

Slavery is efficient too. Fortunately, there are other factors to consider when determining the correct course of action.

Thanks, man. What ideology are you, by the aay? I'm an unironic national socialist.

I have not ever seen identical private owned stores which a placed next to each other and competing with each other.

>not addressing the argument
Typical An-cap behaviour at its core folks

>Slavery is efficient too
How can you guarantee that slavery wouldn't exist in a society that values profit and personal property over everything?

I guess old thread is dead.

Long live our new Chinese overlords!

At least they can build roads

Yeah, but I'm getting a pretty good deal here. i live in a better society because I am made to pay tax. Actually, I'm not. I can go on the dole and get free money.

False equivalency.

Not an argument.

I addressed the argument. It is obviously better to have 4 roads rather than 1, which is something you would understand if you actually owned a car.

>t in a society that values profit and personal property over everything
Your right to property comes from your right to life. Slavery is an explicit violation of the right to life and self-ownership, so by definition such a society would reject it.

>I'm getting a pretty good deal here
>I can go on the dole and get free money.
First of all, TANSTAAFL. Second of all, congrats on being a nigger I guess.

Nice image macro
Really advances your argument
Keep at it

>mfw when our only chance at efficient government is gone forever

I literally made an argument.

You ancaps are the most autistic fuckers on earth I swear. You so blind to human emotion that you ironically think that anarchy is in any way good.

What rights?
There's no meaningful authority to enforce/protect them?

>First of all, TANSTAAFL.
What?

> Second of all, congrats on being a nigger I guess.

I never said I am going on the dole, you dumbass ancap whore. I was making the point that I live in a society in which I don't actually have to pay taxes.

The point, retard, is that in your example it doesn't if they HAVE to its that they CAN'T and so they find other solutions.

> Positive claims require evidence and all that.

> Toll booths are the only way to pay for toll roads, it's not like people could invent new ways ever for the whole of time.

And in all honesty I wouldn't mind finding a worthwhile way to get rid off worthless fucking pennies they are shit tier monies

How would a society without a government deal with human trafficking? Saying society would reject it is about as absurd as a communist saying society will work for the betterment of all.

>Nice image macro
Not an argument.
>You ancaps are the most autistic fuckers on earth I swear. You so blind to human emotion that you ironically think that anarchy is in any way good.
Not an argument.

Its not an argument if its the truth.

This isn't an argument either, because no arguments are present. This is an argument.

Society rejects it until it becomes profitable

>Your right to property comes from your right to life
Who is stopping Tycoon Ted from having his private security firm enslave the poor? Who's going to protect these people when they can't afford legal or physical protection? Or is everyone supposed to obey some kind non binding code of conduct which has virtually no consequence for breaking.

> addressed the argument. It is obviously better to have 4 roads rather than 1, which is something you would understand if you actually owned a car.
What if the owner of the original road owns ALL the land around it, so much so that getting to where you needed to go was impossible. You didn't really address that part did you.

Which apparently human trafficking is very profitable. I mean there are lots easier ways to make money, but apparently its a thing.

To be fair, without government property is just whoever have the most guns, so you could just take the property if you can afford a small army.

ancap does work if you'll be fine when everybody else gets fucked. You just look at other humans like a resource anyway. That's ancap. Everything was put here for you. Even other people.

>There's no meaningful authority to enforce/protect them?
You think people who support such a system of rights won't try to protect them?

>I live ina society in which I don't actually have to pay taxes
If you never purchase anything and live in the wilderness, I suppose. Otherwise, you're paying them, whether directly or indirectly.

Human trafficking in what sense? Like sex slavery? Or just illegal transport of immigrants?

In the former case, probably the same way as we do now (because recall, police and courts will still be a thing). In the latter, it wouldn't, since the idea of "illegal travel" makes no sense in the context of anarchism.

But then the Ancap ideology crashes and burns and we've reverted to feudalism.

I thought Ancaps claimed that their "utopian" system would also include some degree of stability.

>If you never purchase anything and live in the wilderness, I suppose. Otherwise, you're paying them, whether directly or indirectly.

I can work cash in hand and receive dole payments, or just receive dole payments if I don't want to pay tax. I, however, don't mind paying tax, but I have worked cash in hand in the past.

Ultimately this means I have a choice.

To anyone that isn't an autistic moral absolutionist, the Australian society isn't in need of reform. We have it really good, and ancap won't make my life, or the lives of anyone easier.

Somewhere between constitutional monarchy and fascist totalitarian dictatorship.

Main objectives:
-funding the sciences
-funding non-degenerate art
-preserving the white race
-large, powerful military
-colonization of Mars
-Space and deep sea exploration

Religion:
-Christian, by cultural means.

Law:
-Most cases, eye for an eye.

Social:
-Forced castration for repeat criminals, imbeciles, transgenders, and SJWs.
-Deportation of Blacks, Muslims, unattractive Hispanics, and annoying chinks.
-Execution for serial killers, pedophiles, child molesters, murders committed in the 1st or 2nd degree, anyone who has committed a violent crime, rapists, etc.

Foreign policy:
-Try to develop an empire
-If country that has become colony of the US is a native country to muslims/blacks/etc. then deportation law becomes inactive
Should I keep going or no

Who will pay for the police or courts without taxes?

>You think people who support such a system of rights won't try to protect them?

Yes, people will try to protect them.
But this'll just lead to a constant state of conflict/tension between those who believe in the rights and those who don't.

>(because recall, police and courts will still be a thing)
How will they be funded? Taxes? Or should I say THEFT DON'T TREAD ON ME MOTHERFUCKER

I and my friends bought an attack helicopter from the now disbanded army.
How do you stop me from robbing, raping, and pillaging all you hold dear?

See that's the thing. Humans have naturally wanted to build empires for the past 5,000 years.

Eventually someone outside the anarcho capitalist society builds up an Empire and decides they want to colonize what was the anarcho capitalists.

Given the AC's can't afford a military industrial complex because they can't figure out who will pay for it without taxes, the outside empire will win in the end.

I agree with you on most of this but what do we have to gain from deep sea exploration?

Also, I want forced sterilisation of sex offenders, but don't feel non sex related crimes should be punishable by it. A lot should be punishable by the death penalty though.

If it were me I would give every person with an IQ lower than 100 (mainly minorities) 10 years to leave the country, if they stayed they'd be sterilised, but suffer no further punishment, so in 100 years the average intelligence of our socieities would skyrocket.

>implying you aren't a teenaged faggot

This. Anarcho-Capitalism is basically a mixture of the worst of feudalism and tribalism. And in the end they all fall.

>b-but muh private armies


I agree. Ancaps are a complete joke. An Ancap society will and would never be able to exist. My society would just take it over.

...

I have to say it's the perfect argument.

Apperantly the courts and police are privately owned.

Courts and cops obviously won't show preferential treatment to their customers and owners because that would be wrong. And god forbid a corporation doing something morally wrong, gee, that would be soooo bad for business i guess.

And supposedly they will be objective or else they will have shitty reviews or some shit like that and they'll go out of business...after screwing a bunch of people over first of course. Oh and direct bribing will be commonplace because there are no laws or consequences preventing people in power from being be bribed.

>I can work cash in hand
What do you spend that cash on? If you ever go to a store, you pay some form of consumption tax, as well as indirectly paying property and income taxes of the business via prices elevated above equilibrium.

Again, the only option for not paying tax is living innawoods and being totally self-sufficient.

People who want police protection and court services. Which happens to be most people, because in functional societies, there are far more people who want to be protected from criminals, than there are criminals who want to be protected to render their criminal activity less dangerous.

Bear in mind that we are not talking about a forceful monopoly consisting of a single police agency and a single court system. There would likely be a good deal of security services and arbitration agencies, like there are today. But market forces will incentivize them to cater to the largest possible consumer base, so those services that want to help rapists and mass-murderers will have almost no funding and military power (if they even exist at all).

Why in an anarcho-capitalist would one person not essentially act as dictator because they had a monopoly on everything? Then wouldn't the worldwide corporation make slow shifts into being just like a modern day authoritarian dictatorship? Seems more like a means to an end than anything

Well I'm sure that your police force will be very well equipped by well meaning citizens who want to take down massively profitable global slavery cartels out of the goodness of their hearts.

Yes, but why would any of these independent courts respect each other's rulings at all?

>Courts and cops obviously won't show preferential treatment to their customers and owners because that would be wrong.
Of course they would, that's the point. However, the larger the organization, the less likely it is to do that, since its customer base is more diverse.

Also, are you suggesting this doesn't happen already? You think the fucking chief of police ever gets speeding tickets?

>god forbid a corporation doing something morally wrong, gee, that would be soooo bad for business i guess.
Yes

>they'll go out of business...after screwing a bunch of people over first of course
Yes. Right now, politicians go out of business for doing the same thing and end up without so much as a slap on the wrist, so you're not making a very good case for statism.

>direct bribing will be commonplace
Will you give your money to a security service that would be willing to shoot you if some asshole paid them enough, with zero consequences? Come on. And again, bribery happens all the time right now, so your argument fails to demonstrate the advantage of statism.

You have to forget the notion that anclapism aims to be a utopian paradise. If you held statism to the same standard, it would seem just as ludicrous. Anarchists merely claim that anarchism is better than statism.

Yeah, I could go self sufficient. Ultimately that is a choice. And you don't pay tax on the dole. The government is basically taxing themselves if you count the GST.

Personally I think the GST is a problem, and one of the only thigns that is a problem here.

But even if we were forced to pay tax, that doesn't mean our lives aren't better for it. And against, there is always the dole.

What's preventing security forces from making mandatory payments? I mean you might own a gun, but if there are 30 guys showing up at your house, you are going to be able to kill so many of them before they get you.

>I agree with you on most of this but what do we have to gain from deep sea exploration?
What did we have to gain about going to the moon?

We know less about the bottom of the ocean than we know about the Moon. You never know what you might found down there.

>Also, I want forced sterilisation of sex offenders, but don't feel non sex related crimes should be punishable by it. A lot should be punishable by the death penalty though.
I strongly disagree. I believe serious sex offenders should be put against the wall and pedophiles/sex offenders tortured to death in the most painful way possible by the victim and victim's family. Their bodies should then be given to the other sex offenders as their only source of food.

>If it were me I would give every person with an IQ lower than 100 (mainly minorities) 10 years to leave the country, if they stayed they'd be sterilised, but suffer no further punishment, so in 100 years the average intelligence of our socieities would skyrocket
I believed this too a few months ago, but this is not possible. IQ is relative, and by removing people with an IQ under 100, you aren't doing anything but changing the population number. If you keep following this, you will never not have anyone under 100 until you kill everyone. This idea (which seems good at first) is not actually very good. The population should be judged by both IQ level, work ethic, general intelligence, knowledge on politics, science, history,etc.; not just IQ alone.

>Roads

Fucking triggered

In a "statist" society these corruption problems can be/are rectified by other elements within gov't, because they are acting for their country and ideals instead of just for financial gain.

I'm not denying that corruption in some form won't be present in a "statist" society, but corruption in an AnCap society would be far worse.

More like:

You actually want to trust private interests to uphold the law... You are a dumb cunt, my friend.

They will only uphold the law in instances they see convenient. The rich would be even more untouchable they they are today.

And you are deluded if you think a police force run for profit won't be doing OTHER things for profit. You have a monopoly on power at that point, and if you didn't you would start wars to gain it. Hence we have yet again a feudal system. You just don't understand that society STARTED ancap. People in tribes making decisions based on might and gain.

The stability of your society rests on people being good enough to uphold a pact that won't be enforced, especially if you are the one that is in the business of supporting it and then decide that slavery is more profitable that justice.

>massively profitable global slavery cartels
This exists in your imagination, m8.

Because going to war over a petty difference is bad for business. It's far more practical to agree on a unified code of rules (at least, for all the major things worth defending with full military force, like murder, rape, theft, etc), than to send your employees into constant firefights. Plus, it's not like there will be that many laws to rule on; most Western courts will tend to rule the same way when it comes to major crimes, the only difference is sentencing. And that gets ultimately determined by what the market (ie. society) demands.

A quick phone call to any other security service offering protection from this newfound mafia. Imagine for a moment that the government and police don't exist. McDonalds starts threatening customers at gunpoint and making them buy $100 worth of burgers when they come in the restaurant. How much revenue do you think they will make after a couple weeks? Will people still keep coming there?

Besides, this is what happens right now, so I don't see why you're so concerned.

>instead of just for financial gain
Why are you under the impression that anarcho capitalists have no ideals and only act for financial gain?

>roads

>It's far more practical to agree on a unified code of rules

Enter a new proto-government.

>You have a monopoly on power at that point
What part of "competing security services" is hard to understand?

>The stability of your society rests on people being good enough to uphold a pact that won't be enforced,
Of course it would be enforced. Do you really think that the government is the only entity capable of enforcing rights?

Or an old absolute monarch

The difference being that if you don't want their protection, you don't have to pay a dime. Just don't complain if you commit a crime against someone and the hammer comes down hard.

The part of competing security forces I don't understand is the part that supposedly stops them from forming a conglomerate, or fighting to the last man standing, and then controlling the while fucking country.

The balance you propose is too fucking delicate. And even if they were competing, nothing is stopping them from holding up in a zone of control, and then extracting wealth from their surroundings by force to whatever extent they please.

>Of course it would be enforced. Do you really think that the government is the only entity capable of enforcing rights?

I'm saying that government is the only powerful entity concerned with rights. Any other body with the power to enforce rights won't be obligated to do so. Sure, you can say that they can make money of protected the people, but more can be made of enslaving them.

This is how is has been through all of history, and you are retarded if you think it would change now.

An ethnically homogeneous state works because your tribe is an extended family.

>nothing is stopping them from holding up in a zone of control, and then extracting wealth from their surroundings by force to whatever extent they please.
Other than their own consumers, that is. Stop seeing businesses and employees and robotic and evil organizations.

>Any other body with the power to enforce rights won't be obligated to do so
What obligates the government to do so?

Hitler did nothing wrong.

One. Economic motivation won't stop an Islamist army which has united the Middle East after the USA stopped having a foreign army and decides to conquer the world.

Two. What if the private army has more guns than the other? What if all the armies work together to raise taxes from its citizens as long as they stay in each others turf?

Not much would stop me from forming a union of egoists and fighting back.

And what about muh NAP?

So you are saying that in the case of crime, the NAP can be broken on behalf of the victim? Interesting.

And again, these people with the guns will simply establish power bases. They have the guns, and as a result will be able to project a zone of control. Competing organizations would need to fight them to get that control and consumer revenue.

Their will be competing "defense" organizations, only they will be cartels of power over people. There is n nothing stopping this from happening. Having control over the people is far more profitable than having them pay for your services.

I thought anarco capitalism was just commerce without government interference. This thread is just about anarchy.

It's not profitable until one or two security companies buy up or destroy other competitors, creating a monoply/duoply.

Besides, these security companies/courts will only agree to these "ground rules" when it's convieniant for them/not cutting into their profit.

Let's say doing action X is against these "ground rules", and the CEO of Y security company does action X. Is security company Y obligated to arrest him, their CEO, and wreak financial havoc on their own company?

What else did you expect?

>Because going to war over a petty difference is bad for business
Having all the business to yourself is better for business though

Don't you realize that some people with power sometimes crave more power? That disagreements can become violent?

>Why are you under the impression that anarcho capitalists have no ideals and only act for financial gain?
You mention earlier that people will act rationally when it comes to running their business but that sometimes they act for other reasons too. So you contradict yourself by saying this.

I'm sorry shill but you haven't stated a single argument.

What obligates the government to do so is it's nature of existence. Western government exists for the people, not for itself. Not only that but their is the democratic factor. It EXISTS to do so. The founding fathers cared about freedom more than anyone, and they saw government necessary.

>Other than their own consumers, that is. Stop seeing businesses and employees and robotic and evil organizations

The armed consumers would best be in leagues with the armed organization, no? Remember that conglomerates are likely to form between "security" agencies and gun/ammo manufacturers. And business isn't evil because it isn't allowed to be evil. Business decimates third world nation's and their people when it is allowed. Will be as evil as it wants to be, and if their weren't governments in the world, it would form them.

Corporations and governments are not so different. The people on top are the people with power.

So, did Rome stand the test of time?

Jesus, at least make new memes. This one is more than common.

#yolo

Once there was a man who held a political make-work job like so many here...shining brass cannon around a courthouse. He did this for years...but he was not getting ahead in the world. So one day he quit his job, drew out his savings, bought a brass cannon – and went into business for himself.

Longer than the United States so far.

Hell the eastern empire lasted until 1453 when Islamists took over.

Really, unchecked Islam will conquer the world.

Ancaps want the complete dissolution of government and services like law, fire safety, crime prevention, etc privatized because they believe it will somehow cost them less than what they would otherwise pay in taxes and that it would somehow be more efficient without any government regulation whatsoever.

You could argue that it lasted until the fall of Byzantium.

And as a continuous state, it lasted a very long time.

Is the France we have today really the same France as before, what with it's monarchy dead? Is a parliamentary lead Britain the same as a Britain lead by monarchy? The boarders have stayed the same, but they are essentially different.

This was mean't for

I deleted my Stef folder lads
post mems

>Economic motivation won't stop an Islamist army
Self-preservation is a pretty good motivator. People freely donate to starving African children, even though there is no motivation other than feeling like you're a good person (whether that money actually helps or not). People will most certainly put forward money when their very lives are on the line, are you insane?

>What if all the armies work together to raise taxes from its citizens as long as they stay in each others turf?
This is what governments do now, so they won't be any worse off. However, therein comes the cometition factor. If your security service turns rogue and decides to become a government, consumers will demand protection from THEM. Based on such high demand, competitors will stand to make a lot of money if they liberate them.

>Not much would stop me from forming a union of egoists and fighting back.
You mean, a criminal union? What would stop you is, as I explained, the fact that far more people desire protection from you than there are your kind who desire protection to commit crimes.

>in the case of crime, the NAP can be broken on behalf of the victim?
>non-aggression principle
>broken on behalf of the victim
I don't think you quite grasp what the NAP is.

>Having control over the people is far more profitable than having them pay for your services.
Until they start shooting your employees when they step outside their door to go to work. Until your executives get blown up when they turn their luxury car on. Until another security service rushes in with guns blazing because it actually caters to the consumers' demand for legitimate, above-board security services against mafia groups like yours.

>implying government bureaucracy is efficient in any way whatsoever

That goes against the non aggression principle. You wouldn't actually do it because you have internalised morality.
If you were a psychopath then get ready for someone with a PAD to take you down like the t*rks did to Russia

We are supposed to follow the societal agreement because we would be raised following universally preferable behavior and the non-agression principle.
Failure to comply would have you outnumbered society vs you which should have more funds

>until one or two security companies buy up or destroy other competitors
This is what is not profitable. Trying to buy up or battle against all competition is retarded. Firstly, it's a great way to spend all your money. Second, it's a great way to lose all your customers. Third, it's a great way to lose all prospective employees.

>only agree to these "ground rules" when it's convenient
Practically every society on the planet agrees on these ground rules. Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't rape. Don't enslave.

>Is security company Y obligated to arrest him, their CEO, and wreak financial havoc on their own company?
Yes. Particularly if it's a publicly-traded company, which it would almost certainly be. CEOs are not kings, and they cannot get away with murder.

>Having all the business to yourself is better for business though
And having 90% of your company's worth disappear in the first two days of fighting is even worse for business. Again, stop thinking private security services would operate like governments. Governments have crucial differences that allow them to do things no private firm could ever dream of doing.

>So you contradict yourself by saying this.
>respecting consumer rights, thereby increasing consumer confidence and consequently annual revenue, is irrational
Apply yourself.

OC

>Not only that but their is the democratic factor.
The democratic factor is irrelevant. The government controls the military. It has a monopoly on the use of force, just like your ancap security service bogeyman. Except somehow, your government is staffed by nice and trustworthy people, while the private security company is a cyberpunk distopia corporate dictatorship.

The level of doublethink is astounding.

noice

since it's never have been tried, so it must work. you raise your children like no other in whole human history, they will respect my property rights, there will be no aggression against others!