Last thread is clogging up. Let's continue our discussion here

Last thread is clogging up. Let's continue our discussion here

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condottieri
raikoth.net/libertarian.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>They didn't even believe in owning land either.
That's just a leftist talking point and entirely untrue.

The reason they didn't have very strict property rights over land is because America was very unpopulated back then and therefore land wasn't really a scarce resource, so no property rights were needed to determine who will get to use X spot to build their home and so. It also contributes to this the fact that most of them didn't even build permanent structures and used to be semi-nomadic, so they changed places between 2-3 settlements and had to build and rebuild their camps every time they moved from one to another.

Native Americans though did actually have property rights where they actually were needed: they set different hunting zones that were owned by every different tribe and that gave them an incentive not to overhunt so their lands became empty the next season.

TLDR: Under the primitive conditions they lived private property rights weren't as extremely necessary as they are now because they lived in very sparsely populated areas. They, though, did apply private property rights in a collective, per tribe, basis in order to preserve natural resources.

The myth of primitive communism has been over and over disproven by simple economic knowledge.

'Anarcho'-capitalism isn't anarchism. Anarchists are against all forms of corrosive hierarchy, especially those derived from capitalism and private property.

...

How would an "anarcho-capitalist" society defend itself from organized military assault?

...

They would pay a private army to defend them; they would defend their property with weapons; their private state would have a private military do it.

Private property would be abolished in the same way syndalists did it during anarchist spain.

The land itself would be remodeled in the form of a free association.

...

Are these supposed to contain arguments? I see none.

>Be communist
>Live in a commune
>We're like 400 people
>Everything is a chaos
>Decide we need to choose an administrator who will set up the tasks so everyone gets to work their fair share
>But that's a hierarchy, so it goes against our ideology.
>Die of starvation because everyone slacks off at the littlest chance because they're anyways working for free.

Such is life in the commune.

Have you thought of the possibility that it is impossible to find a mercenary force large enough to successfully defend against a militarized nation?

An ancap state (by virtue of how it works) will never be large enough to fight off a large military assault.

On the right side there'd be multiple iterations in competition with each other without the benefits of taxation.

Until I employ more people and pay my private military more beating yours and creating a facist state.

>They would pay a private army to defend them
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condottieri

> they would defend their property with weapons
>he would defend his house from airplanes with a rifle

> their private state would have a private military do it.
>private state

I don't think i have ever seen so much autism in one post. Please do tell me what is the difference betwenn a private state and what we have today

Getting rid of the government in one fell swoop isn't what we want. In fact it probably just cause mass death. Educate children, thus raising IQ's over time and phase out as much unnecessary government in the mean time.

>Are these supposed to contain arguments?
no

>>But that's a hierarchy, so it goes against our ideology.
Not necessarily

>what is immigration

Here is your state competition, retard

No they're just strawman used by close minded idealogues

Capitalism needs the state to function. Private property and absentee ownership can only be protected a state.

>but private defence agencies can protect muh property

And fit every ancap definition of the state whilst doing so. Ayncraps don't want to abolish the state, only privatise it.

>Getting rid of the government in one fell swoop isn't what we want. In fact it probably just cause mass death. Educate children, thus raising IQ's over time and phase out as much unnecessary government in the mean time.
>this is literally the same that communists say.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Except that's utter bullshit because people would either elect through direct democracy someone to to be the administrator who could be kicked out if they treated people unfairly.
Or people could take it in turns to be the administrator

>by close minded idealogues
>says the ancap whose ideology is jsut that, a ideology witout anything to nsupport it in real life´

pic related is a argument

You know that this invading army would also be receiving funds from private donors right? I don't think it's safe to assume people would pay to have an army destroying capital senselessly or killing potential customers.

I'm not convinced this other Portuguese guy is an ancap.
I think he's trolling us. Even I disagree with this.
Or maybe he is just autistic.

Would private states private military be based on voluntaritry participation and funding?

...

Immigration is the argument that supports exiting the property of a tyrannical owner depriving them of human capital and hastening their failure.

>You know that this invading army would also be receiving funds from private donors right?

Not true. A hostile foreign nation is attacking your "nation" for whatever gain it sees fit.

Stefan, stop using proxies.

No, because communists then go on to say "fuck the individual and property rights."
Big difference.

Getting paid by others isn't in my self interest hur-dur

I messed the question yesterday so I'll ask it again, WHY is there a thread for this asinine ideology everyday?

It's funny that you mention this. The fact is that macroeconomics is a pseudoscience. It's impossible to test any of the claims made in the field of macroeconomics on a scientific level of efficiency, so it is that conclusions derived from empirical evidence in macroeconomics are usually falsehoods. Even Karl Popper, the man most famous for his theories of empirical falsification was an Ex-marxist who was associates with Mises, Hayek and Friedman.

Market demand for top keks

Yes.

Then the citizens of the nation under attack better have insurance against it.

Ancap gives good arguments to combat statism whether you agree society should be absolutely stateless or not.

>Then the citizens of the nation under attack better have insurance against it.


My argument relies on pointing out that anarchist "states" cannot exist for long.

Soon enough someone will be interested enough in something in the geographic container used to store you nutjobs to invade and take it for themselves.

Actually it's not that there is a problem with state provided military if everyone voluntary agreed to pay a share into a certain company which would then act as the 'state'.

The issue is that if the state is the police, millitary, fire service etc. then can no other person or people provide one of these services too? If they cant then will they be fined or thrown in jail for doing so? This violates the NAP.

If you say other people and groups can also make police, army etc. then there is no difference between these and the "state".

>Examples of what I mean by a priori theory are: No material thing can be at two places at once. No two objects can occupy the same place. A straight line is the shortest line between two pOints. No two straight lines can enclose a space. Whatever object is red all over cannot be green (blue, yellow, etc.) all over. Whatever object is colored is also extended. Whatever object has shape has also size. If A is a part of Band B is a part of C, then A is a part of C. 4 = 3 +1. 6 = 2 (33-30). Implausibly, empiricists must denigrate such propositions as mere linguistic-syntactic conventions without any empirical content, i.e., "empty" tautologies. In contrast to this view and in accordance with common sense, I understand the same propositions as asserting some simple but fundamental truths about the structure of reality. And in accordance with common sense, too, I would regard someone who wanted to "test" these propositions, or who reported "facts" contradicting or deviating from them, as confused. A priori theory trumps and corrects experience (and logic overrules observation), and not vice-versa.

>More importantly, examples of a priori theory also abound in the social sciences, in particular in the fields of political economy and philosophy: Human action is an actor's purposeful pursuit of valued ends with scarce means. No one can purposefully not act. Every action is aimed at improving the actor's subjective well-being above what it otherwise would have been. A larger quantity of a good is valued more highly than a smaller quantity of the same good. Satisfaction earlier is preferred over satisfaction later. Production must precede consumption. What is consumed now cannot be consumed again in the future. If the price of a good is lowered, either the same quantity or more will be bought than otherwise. Prices fixed below market clearing prices will lead to lasting shortages. Without private property in factors of production there can be no factor prices, and without factor prices cost-accounting is impossible. Taxes are an imposition on producers and/ or wealth owners and reduce production and/ or wealth below what it otherwise would have been. Interpersonal conflict is possible only if and insofar as things are scarce. No thing or part of a thing can be owned exclusively by more than one person at a time. Democracy (majority rule) is incompatible with private property (individual ownership and rule). No form of taxation can be uniform (equal), but every taxation involves the creation of two distinct and unequal classes of taxpayers versus taxreceiver-consumers. Property and property titles are distinct entities, and an increase of the latter without a corresponding increase of the former does not raise social wealth but leads to a redistribution of existing wealth.

>t. Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

tldr? Since data can be interpreted in many ways, pure logic overrules any compilation of data. Off with your empiricist bullshit.

That would not happen in a free market.

I am Ancap. Pic related and I have more books already.

Of course sometimes I can't help but answer meme answers to meme questions, but my defense of restricted immigration and child property rights in the other thread was serious.

>Ancap gives good arguments to combat statism
No, they don't, their whole ideology is a joke and is easily shutdown with a few counter-signal memes.

Good cop bad cop

> Shut down by counter-signal memes
>Shut down by memes
>Memes

Memes, not arguments mind. Those things are fucking scary, rite?

If the private army is more powerful than all known adversaries why wouldn't they just invade the lolbretarians themselves?

This whole "how would you stop an invasion" meme. Is retarded as fuck.

Why is some other nation just going to invade AnCap society?

inb4 because they can

So why? Why doesnt the USA just conquer the entire world?

Why are tiny countries with little to no army able to exist still today, yet if they were AnCap they would suddenly be invaded?

Those memes do more to demonstrate a mind polluted by a statist or collectivist worldview.

Because it's fun.

Join us in mocking this faggots

Where is the economic benefit in that? Where is the economic benefit in destroying capital and other people's property? If a private army were preparing to invade another "country," then surely the latter would know beforehand that a genocidal army was being formed by a number of people with capital. Remember: no such thing as slander or libel in AnCapistan; no IP laws; no anti-free speech laws (unless privately and voluntarily agreed by the individuals living under the private property contractor). This would mean news of an invading army would spread out and people would have time to prepare themselves. Not to mention the fact that an army would require a tremendous amount of capital to form and people investing money usually want it to pay off in the end with more money; not less, which would result in the destruction of another society.

taking turns to be a administrator

Like, what we have in the present....... ? (president ellections)
I'm sure it's working

>It's funny that you mention this. The fact is that macroeconomics is a pseudoscience.
true

>Or maybe he is just autistic.
>calls himslef ancap
>"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((maybe""""""""""""""""""""""""""""))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) he is autistic

top kek

>Where is the economic benefit in that?
>where is the economic benefits in slaves

Gee, i don't know, ask the southerners who fought a war so that they could keep the slaves in the 19th century

>Like, what we have in the present....... ? (president ellections)
>president is the administrator

lelelelelelelellel, jesus christ kid, get your shit together.

to all remaining lolbertarians and their even more retarded ancaps
raikoth.net/libertarian.html

Your ideology is so moronic the arguments against can easily be condensed into memes.

W H I T E G E N O C I D E
H
I
T
E

G
E
N
O
C
I
D
E

The economic benefit is taking property forcibly, not destroying it. This is not 18th century attrition warfare with a kill everything mentality. Modern warfare allows the private army to decapitate the state's organisation and take their property and wealth for themselves. Cool story x private army will lose 2 billion preparing to take DC but they will gain 2 trillion when they plant their flag on it. A modern military doesn't need to wade through the pawns to get to the King, they can go all the way to the top overnight.

Yes, it's called strawmanning.

adress this

What do you do if you don't care about poor people? I don't care about anybody but me

>company a offers shitty working conditions
>company b offers good ones
>everyone works for company b
>company a goes out of business

this is basic economics, not even related to AnCap

I was literally an Ancap until I got a girlfriend.

It is truly the autismos ideology

Reminder that ancapistan supports unions as long as they are voluntary.

Simple arguments aren't necessarily when the thing being argued against is dumb as hell.

I am an alpha male and am also AnCap. It is actually an alpha ideology.

And tell me, what stops a real country doing that right now that would not apply in an AnCap society?

What's humane. A devout muslim could use whatever's being implied there to say that they don't believe working alongside women uncovered is humane and demand change.

>>company a offers shitty working conditions
>>company b offers good ones
Everyone offers shitty conditions. What now?

Unions are basically useless if there is not law protecting them, i.e. for example, if there is no law that protects striking workers, or a law that prevents bosses from firing people on the ground that they unionized. or law that prevents cheaper labour force to be imported.

>we dont need to provide proper arguments cause its dumb!!
>well why is it dumb?
>*meme argument*
>dont you have any real arguments though?
>they arent needed cause its dumb as hell!
>repeat

subhumans

*necessary
> mommy, mommy that thing is dumb as hell
> well done jimmy
Arguments are always necessary you fucking degenerate.

>Everyone offers shitty conditions. What now?

Someone else starts a new company and makes loads of money.

Are you really this economically inept or just trolling here?

Statist and big government types are stupid, no doubt. But do you really think people are brainwashed into this or do you think society as a whole is too weak to resort to more primitive means. I'd say the latter
Huh. Really makes you cruzmissile...

Memes are a proper enough arguments against an ideology such as anarcho-capitalism.

If everyone conditions are shitty everywhere, and consumers desire non-shitty conditions. Demand will shift to those offering non-shitty conditions.

>Muh legal protection
Go start your own country you commie crazy son of a bitch

Start your own company.

Why would there be no law in ancapistan?

>Someone else starts a new company and makes loads of money.
And what if nobody maes a new company? What if the existent companies sabotage the revolutionary company?

This is just wishfull thinking.

How would they sabotage it, if everyone else offers shitty working conditions people would trip over themselves to join this new company that doesn't. This is what humans do, not wishful thinking.

That's where you CAPITALIZE on the oppurtunity and make your own company. Fucking third worlders don't ever leave south america I hope you get revolutioned next

this

>and consumers desire non-shitty conditions
Consumers desire cheap things

>If everyone conditions are shitty everywhere
>if everyone is poor, then everyone is rich

Ebin

epic argument

>Start your own company.
Cause everyone can start a sucessfull companie...

>Why would there be no law in ancapistan?

Cause there would not be any organ to enforece it. A law is as good as it can be enforced

>muh private courts

If you guys can't see what is wrong with this, then i simply can't...

It's not wishful thinking. You are just using the cartel meme which is a completely baseless claim.

Even if momentarily all of the existing companies banded together to make things shitty for workers (because lol evil?) one of them would improve conditions and out compete everyone.

The profit motive is stronger than anything and this is why the free market works.

Sanctions, litigation and The Hague famalam

Consumers are willing to pay for quality.

Not everyone would need to start the company. Even a single one would suffice.

And no I don't see what's wrong with private courts and legal arbitrators that both sides can agree with.

>How would they sabotage it
PMC, buying up the roads to the company and forbiding the new companie employes to move around, legal ways, marketing...

>That's where you CAPITALIZE on the oppurtunity and make your own company.

Or not. You could just evade competition and join the clique of companies who offer shitty working conditions

>Portuagl
>South america

kek

>i was just pretending

Cheap isn't shitty, shitty is inefficient. You'll uncover inefficiencies under capitalism through competition. You're not arguing against ancapitalism btw, you're just misunderstanding supply and demand.

I haven't read much about it, so pardon my ignorance. But wouldn't it allow slavery back?

>It's not wishful thinking.
Yes it is. You are saying that companies wouldn't offer shitty working conditions on the basis that people would be moral.

>completely baseless claim.
>What is ancap if not a colection of baseless claims
check this image

Not an argument

No. Its NOT about morality you retard. It's about MONEY.

All the best workers will go to the place offering the best condition, this will result in this company being the best and out competing the others and making more MONEY.

Morality has nothing to do with this.

And an AcCap society (or several of them) couldn't apply these sanctions to the invading army's private contractor as well?

>The profit motive is stronger than anything
And higher wages make for higher profits?

>And no I don't see what's wrong with private courts and legal arbitrators that both sides can agree with.
>literally paying for a veredict

What if a part doesn't aggre?

>Cheap isn't shitty, shitty is inefficient.
I know, i was just saying that the majority consumers don't care how products are made. They care about how much they cost

yes

If you join the shitty companies they win. This is Leaf 101 get it together

>All the best workers will go to the place offering the best condition
And if no company offers good conditions?

> this will result in this company being the best and out competing the others
Does macdonald have the best cooks? Does coca-cola make the best beverages?

No, becasue there is no central authority

>If you join the shitty companies they win.
People have to pay bills. They have to work. I know that for kids mooching off mom and dad it's hard to understand, but most people can't be picky about jobs. They will take what they can find.

Anarcho Capitalism is meant to make this guy rich.

>And if no company offers good conditions?

Why cant you understand that this will never happen? Seriously you must be a troll.

I have already explained why it WOULD happen.

>Does macdonald have the best cooks? Does coca-cola make the best beverages?

That is a matter of opinion and not economic/philosophical debate. They must be doing something right to be as successful as they are though.

> working conditions and wages are the same thing
Hahahaha

> both parties agree to an independent arbitrator
> but what if they DON'T agree
Then they find someone they can agree on, learn to read faggot.

People care about how much things cost but they also care about daft little fair trade labels companies slap on products. People absolutely do care how things are made.

...

>Thinking the lowest quality worker will deliver the best quality work

Not how it works