Why haven't you gone full AnCap yet?

Why haven't you gone full AnCap yet?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=c3BRTlHFpBU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Highway
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Road
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

who /libertarianfascist/ in here?

I prefer the term "Nationalist"
Fascist precludes a command economy, to some extent. Using it next to libertarian is contradictory

Because I'm a moderate liberal.

Libertarian fascist is a straight up oxymoron.

Time to dump my ancap meme collection. Your ideology is a literal joke. It's laughable at how moronic ancaps are.

...

...

who /libertarianconservativewithastrongsenseofnationalism/ here

This. Even libertarians laugh at you morons.

...

Where the fuck do you get the idea nobody can't trespass your territory when you are starving your children? That is an direct aggression.

...

...

>Says the user getting his information from literal memes
Great argument. Maybe if you picked up a book instead of using shitty MS paint comics you could convince me.

...

...

Socialism directly taxex whites more than others and blows it on other cultures and nations. It effectively is always engaged to take away the wealth of upstanding people, including whites.

...

Because I'm white

Coz i'm not a retarded faggot that would let his entire country get bought by China
Fucking mug

...

...

I can't think of a system that benifits Jewish elites more than Libertarianism/Ancap.

Democracy: The God That Failed is truly the ultimate red pill

What is the point of of that line? Why should they be defenseless?

You could literally do that now.

its a nice fantasy

...

Somalia was a socialist run country. It now has a central government and is not an anarchist country.

But did you know it developed much quicker than comparable countries with intact governments?

>choosing to fight conventional militaries with only asymetric warfare on purpose

Grow up.

> Wanting to live in a country where niggers can just walk in coz you have no borders and rape / pillage your land coz you have no laws and no army

Oh wait....
I can see why a GermCuck would like that

Just read it a couple of weeks ago
>tfw you will never live in a world of independent city states.

Did you know there was a New York ferry service that let it's passengers ride for free? The government put it out of business because it considered it a monopoly.

Hoarding the water violates the NAP.

I'm sorry, what?
The Chinese can buy property in the US right now. People don't want to sell to them. Why would AnCap change that?

Everyone would be bound by the same law in AnCap society.
In socialist/statist society, the government can act in enormously more powerful capacity than those they preside over.
How can you tell me, in good conscious, that the former would benefit Jews more than the latter?

At last a funny one.

i don't qualify to be an ancap/libertarian, i've a three digit IQ

Libertarianism is an individual based ideology, whereas ideologies such as national socialism and communism are group based. Groups are stronger than individuals, which is why humans have always grouped up for survival. Anyone who didn't died. A nationalist state will easily dominate Ancaps.

>>Says the user getting his information from literal memes
Actually, all you really need is some common sense and understanding of human sociology to realize how fucking stupid Anarcho Capitalism is. If memes can disprove your ideology, it's probably not a very good one.

>Great argument. Maybe if you picked up a book instead of using shitty MS paint comics you could convince me.
Maybe if you had a good relationship with your parents you wouldn't feel the need to adopt a rebellious attitude which lured you to being an ancap. Your ideology's main fanbase is 15 year olds who are trying to be edgy and have little to no friends. (Even though I have) I don't even have to read any books to know that Anarcho Capitalism would never work. All it takes is some critical thinking and a basic understanding of human behavior to realize that it would never work.

Ethno kin-centered covenants are perfect for Sup Forums. Too bad most people here will dismiss HHH with "lol ancaps r dumb".

Bureaucrats didn't build anything. Roads were build by settlers and trackers, it always has been this way. But as soon as the government funded railways you got companies building tracks extra long so they could scam the government.

Right because the socialist governments in Europe right now are defending us so well. Oh wait...

AnCap society precludes private property ownership and free association taken to the nth degree.
If you don't want someone on your land, you can keep them off.
Tell me, can you say the same for your nation? You can't even criticize the shitskins without criminal charges.

Collectivism assumes we all have the same goals, which is a total farce.
People with the same ambitions can still collaborate in an AnCap society, but it wouldn't be forceful and it wouldn't be overseen by incompetent bureaucrats.

>kindergarten prostitutes

The jokes works once, maybe twice, but this is in now way a representations of anarchism.

Who forces you to pay child workers? Farm children can't demand money from their parents and they have been allowed to work for their family for centuries.

I didn't post what you did greentext. Answer my question: Why should they be defenseless?

And what does it have to do with anarchism?

Because I'm not a fascist like Hoppe

Wow you're right. I will shirk my ideology because that string of Pepe images debunked the entirety of the ideology.
Please return when you have a semblance of substance to your arguments.
As of yet you've only flung shit while (ironically) calling others 15

Because Ancaps are mentally disabled and don't understand shit about capitalism and it's undying need for regulation so that the whole thing doesn't collapse constantly.
>pic related

You did not read my post. Somalia was in the condition because it was a socialist run country. The fact it is now developed faster than any other nation in the region is not due to central government that was then implemented again. The free market saved those nations.

Just read posts first before you hit your head on the keyboard.

>Collectivism assumes we all have the same goals, which is a total farce.
Generally all people want to survive, which is why getting everyone to cooperate for defense will beat your shitty militia.

>People with the same ambitions can still collaborate
Yeah, but if people can opt out of dying for society they will. Again, any nationalist state would kick an ancap society's ass, that's why you don't see any successful ancapistans around. If your society can't survive it's not worth discussing anything about it.

Hello C4SS

Because it doesn't matter what your ideology is when your leaders resent you and want to destroy your country, as long as globalists and jews exist none of it matters.

This
Capitalism is cause for social policy such as welfare and mass immigration, welfare redistributed wealth to people who spend quickly instead of conserving money, and immigration drives down labor costs which hurts the working class

>Again, any nationalist state would kick an ancap society's ass, that's why you don't see any successful ancapistans around.

You just don't get it. AnCapas are not running around looking for war - they are looking for defense. If the fight costs too much, nobody will fight you. It's a basic cost evaluation you'll do before any war and now tell me... who has attacked Switzerland in the last two hundred years?

A nationalist state is about to attack a village. They say the villagers can either fight and die, or join our nationalist state. There is nothing forcing you to fight. As a self-interested individual, what should you do?

>Generally all people want to survive
Gee, thanks. I was referring to the complexities that make up our society. If we were working solely toward survival, we would be without many luxuries.

>which is why getting everyone to cooperate for defense will beat your shitty militia.
If everyone wants to survive, and they do, the militias will be plenty.

>if people can opt out of dying for society they will
So we should be forcing people? How effective would that army be? How ethical is this course of action?

>any nationalist state would kick an ancap society's ass
Bullshit. There's no capital, no center of administration for AnCap. The only way to conquer it would be inch by inch.
Considering it would be pacifistic (purely defensive) this would be a terrible incident internationally. Not to mention incredibly resource intensive, and ultimately counterintuitive in terms of welfare of global markets.
There would be potentially dozens of private defense firms to contend with. These factors would likely be enough to deter invasion, and certainly repel one.

>that's why you don't see any successful ancapistans around
That's the argument you're boiling down to?
Tell me, how many nationalist states are there?
How many western governments work to the will of their people?

Inform the aggressors of the NAP and point out how their attack violates it.

Go on Duolingo.com and learn English. You type like a chink

>Socialism directly taxex whites more than others and blows it on other cultures and nations. It effectively is always engaged to take away the wealth of upstanding people, including whites.
Yeah; leftist, anti-white communists jews do that, it's not a result of socialism. This could very well be reversed and the oppoiste would be put into play.

>Why should they be defenseless?
Oh, I don't know, maybe because you would effectively dissolve the military and there would be no cohesion or unity in order to effectively fight off an invading force? Or maybe how all missile systems, government research programs in military technologies, and other critical programs essential to defending the nation would cease to exist?

>Somalia was a socialist run country. It now has a central government and is not an anarchist country.
>now has a central government
Somalia's central "government" is a bunch of toothpick looking niggers in $30 suits conversing around a plastic fold up table.

>But did you know it developed much quicker than comparable countries with intact governments?
Maybe that's because they were at the bottom and the slightest economic upturn would make them the fatest developing country in the world? The "comparable countries with intact governments" are at the top. If they wanted to surpass or even meet Somalia's growth rate they would have to pump out trillions of dollars worth in a month.

>Hoarding the water violates the NAP.
Who's going to force me to follow the NAP?

>Bureaucrats didn't build anything. Roads were build by settlers and trackers, it always has been this way. But as soon as the government funded railways you got companies building tracks extra long so they could scam the government.
Yeah, except for highways, local roads, etc.

>who has attacked Switzerland in the last two hundred years?
Yet another important consideration

>There is nothing forcing you to fight
The village in question may well be on private property, or have contracted a private defense firm.
The people would be armed at the very least. There are a number of ways to defend oneself beyond government means. Think outside the box a bit.

topkek :^)

I direct you to

Not it isn't. It's corporate fascism disguised as freedom.

The response you directed me to is just a deflection, it doesn't address any of the questions posed.
But I already addressed it, anyway.

>Who forces you to pay child workers?
Good point, I wouldn't have to pay them at all.

>Farm children can't demand money from their parents and they have been allowed to work for their family for centuries.
The "work" those far children do is nothing more than taking the eggs out of the roosters nest or milking some cows. That is what they have been regulated to because of the government. In an ancap society, their employer could force them to work to do anything without any regulations to stop them.

>it's not a result of socialism. This could very well be reversed and the oppoiste would be put into play.
First, it most definitely is a product of socialism. It wouldn't be possible without the massive bureaucracy and the different set of law and authority they get.
Second, looking to government to solve a problem created by government is fucking retarded and it's bewildering how you can't see that.

>maybe because you would effectively dissolve the military
Government military, perhaps. See>Somalia's central "government" is a bunch of toothpick looking niggers in $30 suits conversing around a plastic fold up table.
They were literally a Marxist communist state supported by the USSR and China. You don't know what you're talking about.

>Who's going to force me to follow the NAP?
Law enforcement

>except for highways, local roads, etc.
Saying markets can't provide roads is like saying markets can't provide shoes.

In conclusion, my initial charge that you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about stands.
I've also deduced that your claim of having read into AnCap is bullshit, since you clearly don't know the first thing about it.

Yeah, because everything you said doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether it's ethical, people will choose to survive if you give them the choice, at which point people leave your society. You're talking about philosophical and ethical implications of forcing people to do things they don't want to do.
People will do what they are forced to do if the alternative is death. A nationalist state, hell a well-motivated tribe, will nip any ancap society in the bud.

>I wouldn't have to pay them at all.
They also wouldn't have to work for you

>In an ancap society, their employer could force them to work to do anything without any regulations to stop them.
And when someone else offers better conditions, they flock there and you're put out of business.
Welcome to Economics 101, dumbass

>Wow you're right. I will shirk my ideology because that string of Pepe images debunked the entirety of the ideology.
Good.

>Please return when you have a semblance of substance to your arguments.
see
Also, the need to provide evidence that Anarcho Capitalism is retarded is like the need to prove that murdering an innocent person is immoral. I don't need "proof" or an argument of any kind, it simply is.

>As of yet you've only flung shit while (ironically) calling others 15
Was this part a joke or something? The memes I posted presented an argument, you din't even care to debate them. If anyone is "flinging shit" it would be you.

What about the point regarding Switzerland not having been invaded since declaring neutrality? Certainly that's of great consideration.
I addressed every point you made, you simply parroted them a second time. You're just repeating yourself without considering the refutations. You're being willfully ignorant.

Your memes presented silly illogical scenarios that exemplified your lack of understanding of basic economics and political theory, much less as it applies to AnCap.

Having a free market is different to having no fucking government. NS Germany had private businesses where it needed them.
Fml you people are annoying.
Where do you even get this shit from?

Yeah, Switzerland is ancap. >.<

There's nothing more to say. Your society is militarily inferior because people can choose not to fight, which any self-interested individual will choose to do. Individuals within your society will recognize this and choose to survive, leaving your society.

The state will prevent any ancap society from arising within its borders. The only instance when such a society could arise is in a societal collapse, and those who create state-like entities which have mandatory military service will beat those that are voluntary. Crying out, "You're violating the NAP!" will not deter a gang, a state, or a tribe. Your society just can't compete militarily. Grow up.

The point is they haven't been invaded.

People volunteer for the military now. Why would they suddenly be reluctant to when it isn't the government hiring them?
If there's a pressing matter of national security, the thought process would be nearly identical.
>Do I want to be destroyed?
No
>Should I defend myself and my homeland?
Yes

It's literally that simple. You're making the state out to be some anomalous force which generates survival instinct.
News flash: It isn't. People would still fight against foreign aggression.

>be me
>establish ancapistan to abolish taxes and oppressive government
>feelsgoodman.png
>1 year later
>a supermonopoly controls all services and Banking
>supermonopoly institutes 30% interest rates and jacks up the price of medicine
>sell my kids into slavery to pay for my electric bill
>private army shoots anyone who disobeys the supermonopolies version of order or forgets to pay a bill
>Mfw traded democratically elected government and taxes for an oligarchy that exists only to fuck over poor people and make money

>Everyone would be bound by the same law in AnCap society.
>law
>Anarchy
Pick one

>First, it most definitely is a product of socialism
*a product of anti-white, communist jews who use socialism against the white race.

>It wouldn't be possible without the massive bureaucracy and the different set of law and authority they get.
Okay, then how were they able to do it to Germans after WW1 during the Weimar republic, when they were nonexistent in the government? It's not a product of the government's organization, it's a product of WHO is in the government what WHAT their policies against whit people are.

>Second, looking to government to solve a problem created by government is fucking retarded and it's bewildering how you can't see that.
Again, it's not a problem with the government, it's a problem with who is in the government. If everyone in the gov. was pro white, anti refugee, etc. but was still socialist, the exact same policies that occur now would happen but the roles would be reversed. Minorities would become disenfranchised and whites would prosper.

>Government military, perhaps
>implying the American civilian population could defend itself from Chinese, Russian, Iranian, etc. fighter jets, tanks, aircraft carriers, rocket launchers, etc. all with some AR-15s
This isn't Vietnam.

>They were literally a Marxist communist state supported by the USSR and China
And then when their government dissolved that regressed to barbarity and anarchism.

>Law enforcement
What happened to the abolishment of the state?
Also, in an ancap society, you can't force me to follow something I don't agree with. If you forced me to follow the NAP (something I don't agree with) then YOU would be violating the NAP.

>Saying markets can't provide roads is like saying markets can't provide shoes.
I never said that. Stop strawmanning.

>In conclusion, my initial charge that you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about stands.
Funny to hear this out of someone who says they are an Anarcho Capitalist.

>I've also deduced that your claim of having read into AnCap is bullshit, since you clearly don't know the first thing about it.
I myself have also deduced that you have no concept on human behavior and how moronic barbaric humans can be without having something in place to control them. Clearly you are one of the moronic humans who requires some control.

People volunteer, but if enough didn't there would be a draft/mandatory service.

>>Do I want to be destroyed?
>No
>>Should I defend myself and my homeland?
>Yes
The question should be
>Should I defend myself and my homeland if there's a high probability of death by saying yes and zero risk of death if I say no?
Your society assumes individuals are self-interested. They will not place their lives on the line if they don't have to. Only the irrational people will fight against foreign aggression. That's why your society cannot exist. All the smart people surrender, and you're left with retards defending your society.

Here's an AnCap case study:

youtube.com/watch?v=c3BRTlHFpBU

Based Alexander just closed the /Thread

Amazing how many socialist Hellholes are attributed to capitalism

>Your memes presented silly illogical scenarios
Then you should be a pro at debunking them, right? Wrong, you weren't.

>exemplified your lack of understanding of basic economics and political theory
It's funny, because your smug attitude and longing to be applauded for your edginess has clouded your mind so much that you have forgotten how disastrous unregulated capitalism and the industrial revolution were to the individual. You claiming that I "lack understanding or basic economics and political theory" is like a flat worlder telling an astrophysicist he knows nothing about how the Earth is formed/performs.

>They also wouldn't have to work for you
Good point, I'll pay them as little possible but just enough so that they stay, which is probably something around $0.30

>And when someone else offers better conditions, they flock there and you're put out of business.
And who's to say that anyone else would be willing to offer better conditions?

>how were they able to do it to Germans after WW1 during the Weimar republic, when they were nonexistent in the government?
They ran every central bank in Europe, what are you talking about?

>Again, it's not a problem with the government, it's a problem with who is in the government
You have to be a fool to believe this. The problems with socialism are far more numerous than the demographic crisis, and the former leads to the latter.

>This isn't Vietnam.
How can you use such a sterling example of guerilla warfare making a war too costly to fight and try to twist it into a refutation? You just gave me a point

>And then when their government dissolved that regressed to barbarity and anarchism.
Naturally, as all communist states do. However, I find it absurd that a socialist failure is being attributed to capitalism. You're just being ignorant.

>What happened to the abolishment of the state?
Who said anything about the state? Private entities can enforce the law. The state may presently have a monopoly, but nothing says it's outside the realm of possibility that someone else does it. Say, the owner of the property.

>I never said that. Stop strawmanning.
So you don't believe the road meme? Excellent.

Pretty weak rebuttal, I must say.

>They will not place their lives on the line if they don't have to
I don't understand, why is it outside of self-interest to preserve your way of life?
People have fought for and won self-governance countless times, you make it seem as though the government is the only entity that can arouse such a will to fight.
It's very illogical.

>Then you should be a pro at debunking them, right?
Waste of time. I've dealt with nitpickers before, and no amount of logic can satisfy it. If you were open to having them debunked, you would have done the research and figured it out yourself.

>you have forgotten how disastrous unregulated capitalism and the industrial revolution were to the individual
You're a fool. It was the time of fastest growing quality of life in American history, before or since. That's a demonstrable fact.
You're only proving my claim further.

>Yeah, except for highways, local roads, etc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Highway

le "ideas that threaten my property are violence" meme

Given the choice between defending their ideology with a probability of death and giving up their ideology with no probability of death most people will give up their ideology. People really like to live for some reason.

Collectivism =/= Cooperation

Ideas, not so much. It's when people add oh those ideas that it becomes violent

Because I hate anarchists, libertarians, and capitalists. They're hedonists and the sole cause of cultural marxism.

By that logic, every conflict would end in surrender.
Moreover, there would be no invading force, since they wouldn't want to risk their lives.
The fact that people are willing to fight at all is enough to refute this. People volunteer for the military very commonly.
It takes a few seconds of critical thinking too deduce this.

>They ran every central bank in Europe, what are you talking about?
That's my point. Once big government came along, (((they))) weren't a problem to them. But once big govrnment was taken away after WW2, (((they))) came back.

>You have to be a fool to believe this. The problems with socialism are far more numerous than the demographic crisis, and the former leads to the latter.
If socialism leads to the demographic crisis, then why did the (((demographic crisis))) dwindle once once the Nazis (a socialist party) were put into power. With the right form of socialism, the demographic crisis was ended. How do you not fucking realize this?

>How can you use such a sterling example of guerilla warfare making a war too costly to fight and try to twist it into a refutation? You just gave me a point
I don't think you quite understood the context of my argument.

>Naturally, as all communist states do. However, I find it absurd that a socialist failure is being attributed to capitalism. You're just being ignorant.
Socialism failed because of capitalism. When the country was communist, there was order, once it became capitalist, it lost all order.

>Private entities can enforce the law
They can also be bought out and become biased towards whoever pays them the most money.

>So you don't believe the road meme? Excellent.
Again, I never said that either. I simply said that I never said that "markets can't provide roads".

>Pretty weak rebuttal, I must say.
I'm mentally fried from work today. I'll admit it's not my best.

You completely instrumentalize cooperation. You are the ones who cooperate with me whilst thinking in the back of their heads how to take advantage of me the first second I show weakness or what I should do to reward you for your help.

>Waste of time
More like "i can't debunk a simple meme"

>I've dealt with nitpickers before, and no amount of logic can satisfy it
Says the ancap

>If you were open to having them debunked, you would have done the research and figured it out yourself
>"I'm too lazy to debunk your arguments so I'm going to tell you to debunk your arguments"

>It was the time of fastest growing quality of life in American history, before or since.
>time of fastest growing quality of life
I too believe that the time period where living in tenements, working 16 hours a day, and fasting for days because your employer wouldn't pay you enough so you could buy food was the norm was the "time of fastest growing quality of life in American history"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Road

You don't understand. The state is forcing people to serve in the military, they punish people who don't serve. Thus, there is a penalty for not participating in defense which coerces people to serve.
It takes a few seconds of critical thinking to deduce this.

Why are you implying that the only two types of economy are ancap and socialist?

>But once big govrnment was taken away after WW2, (((they))) came back.
What the fuck? Government is bigger right now than it's ever been. It was bigger than it had ever been after WWII with the communist administration as well

>With the right form of socialism, the demographic crisis was ended. How do you not fucking realize this?
You have to pray for the right leaders in perpetuity forever. One bad one and the nation is fucked.
AnCap is decentralized by its nature, so failures would be relatively contained and impact those who made the mistakes directly.
A centralized system means everyone pays.

>When the country was communist, there was order, once it became capitalist, it lost all order.
Hahaha holy shit you can't believe this.
First off, an orderly nation would not result in what we see.today under any circumstances.
The degree of chaos is indicative of systematic failures prior to collapse, it couldn't have been spontaneous.
Secondly, how orderly are other commie nations? Venezuela? The USSR? Maoist China? Are these the orderly nations you seek to emulate?

>They can also be bought out and become biased towards whoever pays them the most money.
And government is immune to this, of course.
Seriously, and more pertinently, there would be no monopoly. Thereby, firms would be held accountable and they would be replaceable.

>Again, I never said that either. I simply said that I never said that "markets can't provide roads".
You're sending me mixed messages

You're really floundering now. Not as easy of an argument as you suspected, huh?
I implore you to engage the material before you draw conclusions from here on out