Anarcho-Capitalism

What does Sup Forums think about Anarcho-Capitalism? Good? Bad? Unrealistic? Shittier too far version of Libertarianism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sn4mVDtqi7g
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Anarcho-
It's edgy garbage.

youngster bullshit like harry potter

>What does Sup Forums think about Anarcho-Capitalism? Good? Bad? Unrealistic? Shittier too far version of Libertarianism?
Monarchy in more words.

Why
Why

Voluntarism is the most moral state of affairs period.

Powerful people seize power.

Anarcho-Capitalism ends, whatever the powerful people want begins.

It's like communism. It will never work outside of being an ideological absolute. The only absolutes that can work are the far authoritarian right, and the far libertarian left, but that's just because they each r edifice what they mean by a successful society.

Anarcho capItalism will fail simply because you just need someone powerful enough with enough influence to take control and remove everyone's "liberty".

Anarcho capitalism will only result in rule by corporatocracy or plutarchy

Anarcho-Anything is absolute cancer. No exceptions.

>that flag
>talks about sociological ideals as being cancer.

There's no such thing as power. You can do whatever you want, and you can be killed by the most absurd and mundane circumstances at any moment.
just kys senpai desu baka

But muh roads

You can't do whatever you want.

Freedom only works in high-trust societies, i.e. homogeneous white societies.

The only thing that seems to stop you from doing something is the natural laws of the universe. You can do whatever you want within those bounds.

Shittier, unicorns and fairy-dust, too-far version of the objectively best ideology.

Libertarianism?

...

Only would work if they were all high iq white people

Impossible to be a purist. But very good ideology.

>Impossible to be a purist
Demonstrate that, in premise-conclusion form please.

So what exactly prevents companies from buying each other out, until you have a single or a group of large corporations that have more wealth than the remainder of the population combined?
Seems like at that point it/they could afford the most powerful army and take control of the land.

Until someone voluntarily fucks your shit up and you have no recourse other than shooting them.

You have plenty of options other than shooting them. Among which is dying.

Corporate law allows corporations to act aggressively. Without the laws supporting them, they can't exert control.

>"Yes Goy, dont believe in anarchism"

Corporate law as in regards to the state?

Yes. Corporations are entities of the state.

Once again though, I don't see what would actually prevent companies from combining in a society without a state. As long as they remain competitive, seems like people would still buy from them despite their overall size, like Walmart for example.
Once a group/single entity has enough wealth saved it, I don't see why it couldn't attempt to take control and implement a feudalist system.

>Once a group/single entity has enough wealth saved it, I don't see why it couldn't attempt to take control
Massive corporations flourish with the help of the state. Without the help of the state, they would be subject to market forces. Right now, companies get boycotted when their spokesperson says something remotely racist. How do you think people will react to Walmart buying a private army?

Lol Wal Mart effectively uses slave labor, people know and they still go there.

Also, it's possible to keep hiring an army secret. It's done all the time.

The problem is that it obviously wouldn't act until it had enough money saved up to attack. Once the word got out an army was purchased, chances are the take over operation would have already started.

Rockefeller did something like that. Eventually he discovered that the competition would use the money they got from selling to him to re-enter the market to re-compete against him.

>Wal Mart effectively uses slave labor
The state enforces the system that allows them to, and takes its money to keep doing it.
>The problem is that it obviously wouldn't act until it had enough money saved up to attack.
I'm not denying the possibility of hostile oppression without government; it's likely to be attempted. That being said, I'd rather remove the state and its long record of violence and corruption and risk some company taking over my town than just placate myself with the growing cancer of the state.

Bump

Fuck that shit

youtube.com/watch?v=sn4mVDtqi7g

Better than most other shit, but still woefully insufficient.

Interesting. If Rockefeller had implemented a feudalist society though, he would no longer have a need to be involved in the market. He could just force a tax from people through a military.

Obviously while the government is far from perfect, I think the system we have now is far more preferable compared to a potential society that has no form of democracy whatsoever.