Opinions on it?

Opinions on it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=W0q71ypkU6c
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Roads?

Monsanto.

Needs more red, white, and blue.

Incredibly shitty flag.

test

>Paying to build roads so refugees can move in.
You had a good run but your country is over Fabio

there are literally no flaws or arguments against this system that arent nitpicking or memes.

who got it

A load of absolute SHIT

I'd be fine with it, but most of us are going to have to be killed to ever achieve it, which kind of fucks it all up.

bitch, please

...

the ultimate red pill. It's really just taking the philosophy of the enlightenment era and bringing it to it's logical conclusion.

...

What if children were treated as humans?

...

It's still impossible to properly treat the parent-child relationship within the context of the NAP. Trying to autistically apply an arbitrary logical principle that someone just made up to everything under the sun will cause problems like this.

Statists force children into an indoctrination camp for 10k+ hours, so I wouldnt really argue about children if I were you.

>arbitrary logical principle that someone just made up to everything under the sun will cause problems like this
not an argument, and you are wrong anyways, and you have never read a) Rothbard: Ethics of Liberty, b) Molyneux: Universally Preferable Behavior, c) Hoppe: Economics and Ethics of Private Property, which would obviously refute your argument. You are a dumb fuck who is arguing about evoulution without ever having read any literature on the subject with evolutionary biologists.

>Rothbard: Ethics of Liberty
I have read this and he refutes nothing.

>force
Why is force bad? What precedent in nature are you taking this from?

Any reasonable legal system has people carry responsibility of their actions or inactions that cause harm to other humans. And parents are legally responsible for their children.

>Why is force bad? What precedent in nature are you taking this from?
Because you cannot universalize the initation of force as a moral norm nor you can argue for it without performative contradiction.

eh. He fucked up some of the implications of ancap, but that doesn't automatically refute the core principles of voluntaryism. Rothbard took individualism to it's logical conclusion, but it's still up to other people to figure out how that philosophy applies to real life. Molyneux, an anarcho capitalist, has some pretty comprehensive theories regarding children that IMO could be seen as an alternative to Rothbards theory on children.

Doesn't seem very plausible. In theory, it sounds nice, but I assume it would eventually amount to gang dominance. They're very big on the individual, but I don't think, in practice, the individual would retain as much autonomy as he or she has now.

I can relate to wanting less government power, but it would open up the nation and the individual to more centralized opponents. Being one with your nation, while still having respect for individual property, with some societal control to protect said property seems the more plausible and preferable alternative.

yes please replace the government with companies who'll be at least as shitty as the state

Societal force retains the shape of the society we enjoy. Returning to a state of complete decentralization would lead to the nation in question being very vulnerable in the global contest.

>le Defoo man

Not really. Rothbard and other ancaps go to great lengths to claim that externalities don't exist or should be ignored. If raising children is to make sense in a libertarian context then some special rules have to be made for that relationship that are outside of the NAP. It's impossible using only that idea a priori but they try anyway, which is why we call them autistic.

Autism and not anarchism

Anarchism has always been associated with collectivism and socialism. only dumb burgers care about "anarcho" capitalism

Not an argument.

Exactly, monopolies would become de facto rulers. It would be akin to feudalism.

No doubt big government and business hold too much power currently, but one isn't that much preferable to the other

>le Defoo man
>I have a shit family and I am to much of a pussy to admit it: the non-argument

Why does this "contradiction" matter? Who cares? If I want to initiate force against you then I will.

Well memed

Did you Defoo from your family yet? Frankly they all deserve to die for spanking you.

...

...

Not quite as retarded as an-com, gets way more flak than an-com, mostly gets flak from an-commies.

>Exactly, monopolies would become de facto rulers
Uhm, government is a monopoly on law and arbitration

>why does 2+2=4 matters, if I want to write 2+2=5 then I will
Yes but you will still be an idiot and wrong, also you have no place in a philosophical discussion if you do not respect the basic rules of logic.

That's all types of capitalism

Reminder that capitalism causes immigration and refugees

Not saying government is the answer. Government has to be limited. The disagreement is on the level of control it should have.

Argumentation ethics is nonsensical babble. How can such a retard come from such a based country?

reminder that it is not an argument and somehow the immigrants went to places with welfare, which is not capitalism

Free market monopolies do not exist, they never did, and if they ever would, the only way they could is to offer the best and the cheapest goods for customers.

To your next answer: youtube.com/watch?v=W0q71ypkU6c

>government is a monopoly on law and arbitration
"ah yes hello this is coolpolice inc plz follow our laws instead of that guys laws or one of the other thousand lawbooks ok"

>societal force

You mean violence?

>violence = structure
Violence is antithetical to structure

Which is why we need a nationalistic libertarianism.
Capitalism isn't the issue. Government welfare causes unhindered immigration. Capitalism only causes immigration of those who have utility to that nation.

WTF I hate Hoppe now

no

Not true at all, by violent shaping of stone I create a statue.

As if violence can't be moral. A limited government uses force when an individual trespasses on others property. It's your beloved NAP but with an actual way to implement it.

>reminder that it is not an argument and somehow the immigrants went to places with welfare, which is not capitalism
Welfare is an intrinsic part of capitalism, it stops people revolting

Utopia

What counts as force? Is too loud of a noise force?

If I take a laser pointed at you and arbitrarily increase its power from laser pointer level to vaporize you level, at what point does it become a violation of your rights?

No it is not, it is the institutionalized violation of property rights, while capitalism is by definition the institutionalized respect of property rights.

The uninvited invasion of the physical integrity of another person's property.

If you removed all regulation, feudalistic business (unlike we have seen) could easily rise. It would go beyond the boundaries of regular corps like we see today. Free Market means anyone with access to economies of scale would dominate all competitors.

I would be curious of the proof of this assertion.

there is literally nothing wrong with that statement.

Brother, you are not an island. Your life would be ten times worse in an Ancap society. If you can succeed enough to be happy now, you certainly couldn't once the crutches were removed.

jesus christ you fucking pierogi, you need to tell us what else would happen than just what 9u6DrUZG said

okay dude, care to make an acutal argument at some point instead of asserting that freedom is bad? I mean, it is fine, but after a while repeating the same thing without actually proving anything gets a bit boring.

No I really dont.

what do you want to do that the ebil gubbiment doesn't allow you to

Not sure what does it has to do with the fact that the initiation of force is evil.

What would stop them. I agree that Ancap has a fascinating argument. Rothbards Libertarian Manifesto is a great piece of literature, but it purely theoretical.

Besides if you want proof, Ancap will provide none. The Austrians get bent over all the time because they claim you can't have proof of economic realities (with mathematics like the Chicago school) and instead try to use only logical thought.

What would stop a multi national corporation who have access to resources and distribution far above all starups from undrselling all competitors until they are hegemonic in their industry.

Do they have access to infinite resources or what?

Okay, friend. Tell me, how are laws supposed to be upheld without the initiation of force?

Here's an argument.
Unrestrained businesses will do nothing but exploit the common man more than government does now.
Large corporations could do the equivalent of the company store, just on a wider basis. You would live in their communities under their rules, which while you are free to do would be equivalent to govermnet regulated communities with less common man input.

Why would they need the initiation of force in the first place?

I listened to an Oxford University podcast on ethics. The lecturer introduced Robert Nozick, and briefly discussed libertarianism. None of the students were happy with libertarian philosophy; they were concerned about roads and poor people. These complaints were brought up by some of the smartest children in the world, they can immediately see through your bullshit. I think it's time for libertarians to start thinking deeply about what they believe in, and admit that there are serious problems with their philosophy.

Not infinite resources but definitely an ability to provide products at a much lower price than any startup, especially given Ancaps lack of monopoly control. Plus, all producers in Ancap nations would be demolished by subsidized companies in less anarchic nations.

Because in order to enforce laws, you occasionally need to make arrests and deliver punishments to offenders.

Where is there a thread for this stupid ideology every day?

We would still need roads, retard

Least cucked political position
I don't wanna collect tomatoes and potatoes for no goddamn collective

Libertarians are fine in a lot of cases. Limited government is something I relate too. The argument is really at what level do we want government intervention. Schools, police, infrastructure, welfare, ect.

In america private companies had build a railways, didn't they?

Right here, duh.

>implying they weren't concerned about not getting gibs and people being able to say things about left online
he who trades liberty for blah blah

A literal meme ideology

Well it is still not an argument to be very fair.
>Premise 1
>Premise 2
>Conclusions
And then for it to be a sound argument the premises should be true, which requires some sort of evidence.

And even if you would do that, it would still not adress anarcho-capitalism, which is the argument that the initiation of force is evil.

>Appeal to the authority of children.

Okay and then why is it a problem if all they do is provide product cheaper? Last I checked that is the definition of economic growth.

That still does not require initiation of force, see pic related.

Ha right?
Apparently everyone is gonna read Rothbard and there will no longer be organized crime which the common man is ill equipped to deal with.
Plus, his privatized police force and judicial system makes fuck all sense

What constitutes this invasion? A laser pointer is an invasion, no?

not anarchism

yet just as delusional

the roads is a general analogy for public resources which don't yield immediate short term profits retard and it's a pretty damning criticism of the whole idea

if it is not profitable then by definition other people do not want it

Cheaper is not better. Besides, the marketplace is still going to be dominated by subsidized businesses outside of the Ancap nation which shows where the strength truly lies.

If it is not better people will not buy it and no monopoly will exist. Subsidized businesses produce shit, thats why they are subsidized.

I wholeheartedly agree with Anarc-Capitalism.

The trick is having national strength with it. I guess if we uncovered the black ops technology and used it we could maintain our power.

And have half of the religious zealots on the planet kill themselves from future-shock.

>And have half of the religious zealots on the planet kill themselves from future-shock.
Ancaps, everyone.

the DRO in your pic is just beating around the bushes, the rapist really doesn't have a choice. not having a choice = forcing

they had massive gov support tho

>not having a choice = forcing
He does and it is not =

As if a multi national Corp with access to economies of scale and distribution channels created by government infastructure subsidized by their respective government isn't going to dominate a startup in an Ancap society.

Do you even realize the magnitude of some businesses, and do you dismiss the exploitation that some businesses can accomplish even with regulation.

If rousseau was right, it's the perfect system. However, seeing as hobbes appears to be right instead, it is not, and classical liberalism/libertarianism/minarchism is the best system

he gets to choose between suffering and suffering under someone else's command

Pure self-contradicting shit made up as propaganda for plebs by american corporations in the middle of 20th century. Both capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin, not to mention that both are not stable without someone punishing people for not having the correct attitude. Capitalism is shit, because it glorifies wealth instead of virtue. Anarchy in society of codependent people is unachievable.

Yup, limited government is the real UPB

We currently live in the inevitable outcome of an ancap society.

Probably not, either way, I agree with your sentiment but you're only gonna convince leftists who get their ideas from bumper stickers with that one.

literally flawless
you commie nat-socs could try democracy: the god that failed, it's the ultimate redpill