Ancap Thread

There are people on Sup Forums RIGHT NOW who are not anarcho-capitalists. How can we fix this? Perhaps by making an argument that Sup Forums can't defeat

>Utilitarianism is the pursuit of non-moral goals, therefore ethics must be deontological
>Ethics must be consistent and generalizable. The easiest way to do this is with one rule that can be applied to all people
>What separates man from beast is his ability to use reason
>To deny his ability to act freely according to his sense of reason is to dehumanize him
>Any act of aggression or coercion violates a person's freedom
>Therefore, any act of aggression is inherently immoral. This rule is generalizable and consistent, making it fit to be used as a basis for ethics
>Any collectivist ideology which denies individual freedoms is inherently immoral
>Anarcho-capitalism is based on the non-aggression principle
>Therefore, an anarcho-capitalist society is a perfectly valid concept for an ethical society

Well, Sup Forums, it's your move.

Other urls found in this thread:

fee.org/articles/how-policing-works-in-a-privatized-city
youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>morality argument
This is how you know an ideology is shit. This is literally SocJus tier garbage.

Not an argument

Woops wrong image, sorry friend

You're arguing from a moral rather than an utilitarian perspective.

This makes you open to attacks from people who don't act on the same principles.

QED you're both losing from a moral and an utilitarian standpoint as your people suffer from foreign aggressors.

Sup Forums just doesn't know that AnCaps can be just as fascist as anyone else

>Utilitarianism is the idea of doing the most good for the most people
>According to utilitarianism, the ends obligate the means
>Therefore, if you have two or more working organs right now, you are being a complete moral degenerate for not immediately killing yourself and donating them to help save lives
Tell me again how this is a valid ideology?
Also see point (1) in the OP

>This makes you open to attacks from people who don't act on the same principles
Can you elaborate on this point? Surely you aren't suggesting that people can't defend themselves and their principles from foreign aggressors. Not trying to >strawman you but that's what it sounds like

>tfw you can't say people should or should not act in a certain way without bringing in a moral law
>tfw laws require a law giver
>tfw you can't say what people ought to do without having a foundational belief in a deity

And this is why I generally don't discuss politics with anyone in a serious manner. The only way for true freedom to last is for the people to be morally perfect, which requires perfect people. Otherwise you need govt in order to try and minimize injustice.

The nature of the problem forces us to go deeper-- to look into the hearts of man. It makes us correct ourselves before we can possibly hope for a social policy which will be a real solution.

FEAST UPON ARGUMENT TITITITITIT

>Surely you aren't suggesting that people can't defend themselves and their principles from foreign aggressors.
How do you defend yourself from China turning your place into a mercenary-run puppet state by buying up all the property and employing people to enforce their laws?

Go away degenerate scum.

Christian Nationalism is the true light you faggot.

>tfw when I never said should/should not/or ought to. Only what they can't do
>The only way for true freedom to last is for the people to be morally perfect
Why is this?
>Otherwise you need govt in order to try and minimize injustice.
How about polycentric law, which is consistent with anarcho-capitalist ideals?

Honestly that flag is so fucking ugly. I have a few ideas for a better one but I wouldn't post them here just to get ripped off.

One small thing that would help is a different yellow. Gold would look much better than neon-almost-green.

Yellow is a pretty shit color for a back ground, it's good at details but shit for anything else.

How is freedom of association fascist in any meaningful way of the term?

...

By not selling your land to a bunch of mercenaries?

I meant ""fascism"", if most of Sup Forums read some quotes by Hoppe they'd think he's a white nationalist, just that

>By not selling your land to a bunch of mercenaries?
Why wouldn't you? If you don't, what about your neighbours?

Because I own the land and want to continue living on it under my own rules. My neighbors would have the same incentives. However, if they want to sell their land to mercenaries who will order them around or kick them off, then that's up to them.

Yeah, they have those edgy quotes from time to time and lots of people pretend there's such a thing as "left-libertarianism" and "right-libertarianism", when in fact the ideology is exactly the same.

It's like they try to separate the stuff they like from the stuff they don't.

Yeah where did you get these quotes with that aesthetic?

Looks bretty good

Complete contraditction. Every time.

How do you stop immigration or punish wrongthinkers without some kind of central authority?

>>tfw when I never said should/should not/or ought to. Only what they can't do

I didn't respond to you, did I? I was laying a foundation for the non-greentext.

>Why is this?
Because without a morally perfect people, you have people all looking out for themselves as they put what they want ahead of the moral law. This leads to all injustices known to man-- from slavery to forced poverty, from theft to murder, from rape to single parenthood, etc. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

>polycentric law
And on what basis/authority should this law be founded? And how will we prevent those in office from corrupting law? And why ought we have polycentric laws instead of something else?


Everything comes back to this idea of what we ought to do. It all centers around this idea of some code of right behavior.

You use force within your property. The use of force needs not to be centralized.

And how do you make sure that everyone else will make the same decision as me?

>Complete contraditction. Every time.
You just don't get it lol.

In a free "Natural Order" society all land and scarce resources would be privately owned. This means that every street, every plot of land that is being used for anything would belong to someone or a group of people. You would have to abide by their rules, so as a matter of fact, in a free society every street would become a border. You don't want niggers in your street/business/restaurant/etc? Get them out, it's your property. Under the current context, right now, the streets are forcefully open and every undesirable can roam freely in front of your home, leaving you with nothing you can do. Such a situation would no longer be a reality under a private law society.

A good example of what a private law society would look like is Atlantic Station, the privatized city: fee.org/articles/how-policing-works-in-a-privatized-city

Atlantic Station has private police, private streets and private rules (law) enforced by private security. The streets are owned by an association of property owners and are open access, protected by private security that enforces dress codes (decency) and many other rules to keep out uncivilized people (i.e. gang niggers).

Heyo!

>And on what basis/authority should this law be founded?
youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
> And how will we prevent those in office from corrupting law?
The market punishes those with short-sighted tendencies
>And why ought we have polycentric laws instead of something else?
It's consistent with the argument in the OP. If you've got an argument for something better that's also consistent with the OP, then that "something else" should be used.

Holy shit glad to see ppl are starting to save my work

Fui eu que as fiz, queres que poste mais?

Well for one that's not a Utilitarian argument so there's that you fucking autist. You could argue it to be Kantian but using a Utilitarian approach it can just as easily be refuted.
>Utilitarianism is the moral philosophy in which the option with the most utility (happiness) as the outcome is the morally right choice
>Capitalism makes more people happy than it does sad
>Therefore, capitalism is the morally right choice

This proves that Op is wrong because man cannot reason sometimes like you.

>Holy shit glad to see ppl are starting to save my work
The problem is these quotes are out of context and if you only spread the stuff that sounds edgy people will get lots of misconceptions of what libertarianism is.

I have been thinking of doing some infographs explaining stuff, but this is something we'd probably have to work out at /liberty/.

pic related was made at /liberty/, btw

It's autistic and retarded

>so there's that you fucking autist
Oh look a serious comment
As for the content of your argument, see

...

Sounds good. I'd remove Nozick from that image because he pussied out on AnCapism after a few years.

You should definitely add Man, Economy and State to the Anarcho-Capitalism cateogory

Minarchist leaning an-cap here. That wasn't a strawman, just a natural repurcussion of no law protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

>Anarcho-capitalism is based on the non-aggression principle

As if people would follow. If that is valid basis for society... fuck even communism would work just fine as no one in position of power would abuse it.

>I will enforce law and order without a monopoly on force

like I said, ancapism is pure autism

Take the money printing advantage away from the Federal Reserve and don't give it exclusively to someone else.

That advantage is THE reason that no one "beats the house" in the long run.

It is both morally and practically superior though.

Everywhere there is more freedom has more prosperity than places of total control.

Government power isnt like a spice you put into your cooking that with the right amount makes it perfect. It's a poison. Even a tiny bit makes you worse off.

Plus Ancap is LITERALLY perfect for anyone.

>live in giant Ancap world
>you and all your Nazi buddies want to go start your own nazi area
>go buy all houses/land in a certain area
>have your own little nazi community
>keep yourself to yourself and no one will give a fuck

Still didn't answer my question.

Let's assume that you are able defend your property with 100% efficency. So what? You can't live your whole life there and have to access other people's property from time to time.
What if they allow niggers? Go to another one? Make your own? What if the others simply collide behind your back to drive everyone who doesn't allow niggers out of business?

Ancaps frown upon colletivism but unironically believe that in their wonderful utopia everyone will think alike.

that one insight is so obvious yet ancaps can't figure it out

that's why it's almost certain that they are extreme autists who can't understand even the basics of human behavior.

>>keep yourself to yourself and no one will give a fuck

and you will enforce this status quo with........nothing

great idea, autist

How is it a strawman?

If you want the slightest chance of your ideology succeeding you must be able to handle criticism and it is completely reasonable to question how you will get people to abide by AC principles due to the enormous human capacity for crime and corruption.

You don't. You fight. That doesn't mean that statism suddenly becomes moral.

Being attainable or not is another question. The point is states are imoral.

It is a strawman. What is polycentric law? What are rights enforcement agencies?
Also a strawman. The position isn't that no one will use aggression. The position is that no one is allowed to use aggression. As explained above, there would be mechanisms in place to prevent crime and punish those who commit it.

How are these people going to eat and pay for electricity and everything else? Will they go around with guns everywhere for everything?

Do you think the rest of the society wont want to stop them?

Remember AnCap will only occur in a high IQ and respectful society. You have just made up a situation that would firstly never happen and secondly even if it did happen it isnt viable.

Never said I agreed with Utilitarianism. I think it's a stupid moral philosophy. Most Sup Forums approved would be Aristotle's virtues. So if you want to convince them use that. Your argument used individual freedoms which, again, is more Kantian based. Besides your first point is a non sequitur. Just because Utilitarianism is non-moral doesn't mean ethics MUST be deontological.

To argue against property rights is a performative contradiction as pointed out in a deductive argument from a priori knowledge by Professor Hans Hermann Hoppe.

This Stirnir guy is a total hack.

>moral

society decides what is moral

In India you go to jail for eating a cow, but are allowed to shit on the street

>Will they go around with guns everywhere for everything?

Humans had no problem conquering each other before guns and electricity,

>AnCap will only occur in a high IQ and respectful society.

kek, there will always be violent or dumb people you are living in an utopian fantasy land yet again

>You have just made up a situation that would firstly never happen

Other than the entirety of human history

Property rights only exist because the state enforces them

without codified law and a legal system anyone can claims anything else is their property and murder you for it. Once they murder you it effectively becomes their's at least until someone else kills them for it

>I have never read Thomas Hobbes: the thread


Ancaps are retarded if you think an Anarchist Capitalist society would not break into violence within the first day

>society decides what is moral
That how I know you're a retard.

>Property rights only exist because the state enforces them
That's like saying slaves didn't have a right to their bodies becuase the state allowed it, you idiot. They did have their moral rights but the state infringed upon them.
Again, fuck stirnir go read argumentation ethics.

>argumentation ethics.
Aveiro bro?

>Humans had no problem conquering each other before guns and electricity,

So these guys are going to take this "house" in a modern future and happily just sit inside it with no food and no energy?

Do you think there wont be local police, local security and most of all a homogeneous culture which will have all people stick together and help each other in times of need?

>kek, there will always be violent or dumb people you are living in an utopian fantasy land yet again

wrong, people arent born violent except in extremely rare cases, they are made this way through bad childhoods.

there will be "dumb" people, as in people in the society with slightly lower than average IQ but there wont be

Yes lol

>ANCAPS

Look at him and laugh

Here AnCaps,

This is for you

fucking retards

kek I love these threads

Always bumping into you

>Minarchist leaning an-cap here.
Trans-monarchocapitalist neanderthal-kin here, you have no idea how ancapism is supposed to work.

Ancap is the theory that explains that everything that the state does is either undesirable or would be done better privately. Security services would exist, the only difference is that the state would not have the de-facto monopoly on it and it would be provided privately and probably at a fair price, as opposed to the current coercion-funded overly inefficient and expensive state apparatus. In short, you are mistaking ancapism for other forms of anarchism, which would be the ones that would reply to that picture with "lol there's no way that would happen once everyone is free". Ancap is a system in which security, police and courts are organized in a way that no state is required and none of their services are paid for forcefully.
People that thinks alike would generally tend to get closer. Without state censorship you would be free to advocate for segregation, which is perfectly compatible with libertarianism and which personally I believe lots of people would happily partake in to in order to ostracize and remove harmful elements from their society. No matter how many niggers there are, if they can't buy their groceries anywhere they will have to get out or starve. In ancapism, for example, you could form an association that promotes that business owners stop providing services to gang people, negroes, and other undesirables and convince people to boycott places who do, so in some cases the store owners would have to decide whether to serve white people (which is more often the majority and the wealthier, more spending ones) or negroes. You could also convince the other property owners of your neighborhood to enforce racial segregation in the streets surrounding your properties that you all privately own and convince others to do so.

Also remember the fact that blacks cannot survive without the white man.

Muh leviathan. Who will control leviathan? Democracy? Don't make me laugh.

Yes, that helped fend off the Washington elites, right?

>anarcho communism
youre just making shit up at this point

...

If you think ancapism is contingent on people being ""good"" you're a fucking retard

getting real tired of these threads tho, full of people who don't understand the basics

I was going to get A Spontaneous Order but the author didn't even write the book with correct page formatting. Got The Ethics of Liberty and Democracy instead

"Devolution" of Anarchy

So called """""anarcho""""" capitalism has got to be the biggest excuse for private tyranny I have ever seen.

>That's like saying slaves didn't have a right to their bodies becuase the state allowed it,

They didn't for thousands of years so effectively that is true

>So these guys are going to take this "house" in a modern future

houses existed prior to electricity and refrigeration

> local police, local security and most of all a homogeneous culture which will have all people

Since they don't have overwhelming force they will be killed as well

collective societies already wiped out all the stateless agrarian societies a long time ago because collective action is far more effective than individual action.

>people arent born violent

kek, you really think evolution programmed you to be a peaceful hippy?

>here wont be

>a book said something therefore its true

okay, so the communist manifesto mustb e 100% true too right?

>My nazi community grows more powerful
>My nazi community decides to conquer your faggot community
>Your faggot community has no military conscription required or police let alone laws
>We have complete disregard for your freedumbs and we kill you and rape your wives
>We start building roads
fucking hang yourself ancap retards, a strong imperialist country would BTFO any libertardian nation "state"

Except he's not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

See Spain 1936ish

>Also a strawman. The position isn't that no one will use aggression. The position is that no one is allowed to use aggression. As explained above, there would be mechanisms in place to prevent crime and punish those who commit it.

Enforcement is just another word for aggression... as long as it's done by state according to an-caps. There are forms of aggression that are legal and should fall under holy right of private property.

For example person A buys legally all land surrounding city B. Then blows up all roads and lets say water mains to city unless they pay him toll for everything going trough his land. Drinking water now over 9000k per gallon and toll on food 9000k per meal.

>What are rights enforcement agencies?

Violent mob, once one of rights enforcement agencies has monopoly, everyone else loses their rights. If someone tries to set up competition... he will be crushed by force.

it relies on people "acting good" and not just using force to take over a geographical area when they feel like it

Roads?

No it doesn't you're allowed to fight back, individually or with third parties

what are you 12 years old?

anarcho communists were around long before ancaps and their meme ideology

but both their ideologies are so retarded it hurts

It's not our fault that you don't know what the words do actually mean when you use them.

Communism is the ideology that promotes the abolition of private property and the state. If you're thinking of the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the word you're looking for is socialism.

Communism is the stuff hippies practice when they get in communes where all the property is commonly owned and everyone works for free. Think of a kibbutz.

Seriously, learn your terms, we aren't coming here to meme.

I prefer a republic but yes

our government is still in the people's control contrary to popular beliefs. One dedicated annoying cunt could undermine the federal government and the entire political system from the last half century. In fact its happening right now because the ideas of patriotism and a strong sense for right and wrong, gifted to said individual through our society, has driven them to do so.


>I have never read either: the post

...

if irghts enforcement agencies try to crush competition you cut their funding and give it to a better one. also, war is much more expensive and a bad decision than simply competing in the free market, agencies would not fight

>you're allowed to fight back

And history has already shown that stateless societies lose out to state societies collective action

Your ideology has been empirically refuted for the last 8000 years but you stick to it becuase you like the utopian ideas floating around in your head of everyone "being nice and respectful" as if that's possible without some threat of force.

This is true, but mostly it's just banter and pure retardation. People should at least read an introduction before spouting shit here.

(((Anarcho-Capitalist)))
(((Libertarian)))

Proper context OP.

...

>houses existed prior to electricity and refrigeration

Yeah I know. My point is that these people's living conditions are going to be far beneath the rest of AnCapWorld, so why would they bother committing this act of violence.

The point is that anyone or any group who did something like this would be completely ousted from society.

>Since they don't have overwhelming force they will be killed as well

By 4 guys?

>collective societies already wiped out all the stateless agrarian societies a long time ago because collective action is far more effective than individual action.

AnCap societies DO work collectively though, they trade and interact every day. If invaded they would also band together to fight off the enemy.

PLUS a completely free society would develop technology at an alarming rate, thus meaning we would have far superior weapons and defensive technology than any possible invaders could compete with.

>There will always be criminals

No there literally wont.

>irghts enforcement agencies try to crush competition you cut their funding

Then they just put a gun to your head and force you to pay them

you really don't understand how violence works do you?

translations for those who also needed a dictionary to understand this platform (yes I have a degree)

>>Utilitarianism is the pursuit of non-moral goals, therefore ethics must be deontological
your duty is the well being of all

>>Ethics must be consistent and generalizable. The easiest way to do this is with one rule that can be applied to all people
platitudes mean something

>>What separates man from beast is his ability to use reason
>>To deny his ability to act freely according to his sense of reason is to dehumanize him
read these together

>>Any act of aggression or coercion violates a person's freedom
>>Therefore, any act of aggression is inherently immoral. This rule is generalizable and consistent, making it fit to be used as a basis for ethics
see rule #1 re: not chimping out

>>Any collectivist ideology which denies individual freedoms is inherently immoral
"you are more than just an american"

>>Anarcho-capitalism is based on the non-aggression principle
no fite

>>Therefore, an anarcho-capitalist society is a perfectly valid concept for an ethical society
see rule #1 re: conclusion consistent with starting assumption

I like this meme. Ayn Rand is the cat lady of libertarianism.
>(((Arguments)))

ANCAP 4 lyf

...

AnarchoCaps can give me a deontological reason not to respect the Lockean Proviso, so actually ancaps are not deontologically correct. Geoanarchism is, Tolstoy Christian anarchism is, but Ancapism is not.

Remember, homesteading without reparation is theft!

OK you huge moron that doesn't refute the point that to argue against peace, and therefore ancapism, is a perfomative contradiction

if it works or is stable is another story you fag

NOT
strawman

NOT

you would pay someone else before they'd do it. you really don't know how markets work right?

in a free market no monopolies form, eg. coke vs pepsi, walmart vs target etc etc

>If invaded they would also band together to fight off the enemy.
prove it


>PLUS a completely free society would develop technology at an alarming rate, thus meaning we would have far superior weapons and defensive technology than any possible invaders could compete with.
Just like the Native Americans and Africans right? Dude they totally fucked up those European colonists

>No there literally wont.
just because you said there are no rules to break in your fairy wonderland doesnt mean that the actions deemed to be criminal in an actual functioning society would no longer happen

>going to be far beneath the rest of AnCapWorld,

Not when they steal everything from the Ancaps

>By 4 guys?

Any collective action on "enlightened snowflake individuals" results in the collective winning

life isn't like your animes where 1 guy can beat hundreds

>AnCap societies DO work collectively though, they trade and interact every day.

only in your head

in reality ever society on earth is a state society where property rights and laws are preserved through the use of force

>No there literally wont.

like I said all ancaps are autistic utopians

of course there will always be crime

anarcho communism is better
try to prove me wrong
pro-tip, you can't

...

>reject social contract to form AnCap utopia
>all the bad shit that happens as a result of no common morality or governance is justified because of the social contract

good god

Violence is ultimate form of free competition and free market. War is indeed risky and expensive, but if potential profit is greater than risks and expenses... it will happen.

Sooner or later you end up in situation where your options are either fund 'em or suffer. Something not so voluntary.

But who will care about the capital if nobody owns it?

Who will work harder if everyone does it for free?

>homesteading without reparation is theft
tribal agrarian/private militia dystopia when?