AnCaps

AnCaps

Can you refute this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>ancaps
>refute something logically
yeah, 99% of ancaps are faggots who took 3 or 4 econ courses and saw that the market usually is pretty efficient, so they think it's always gonna work. you're not gonna get any real logic out of them

true

without the NAP their entire philosophy has no substance

>econ

tfw econometrics next semester :(

dont get me wrong, I love econ. getting a masters in it. some idiots just take the principle that the market is efficient too far. their logic breaks down when they try to justify the market providing "public goods", like defense and infrastructure, because the market can almost never provide an efficient amount of them

the NAP isn't a rule that everyone magically follows in a utopia. it's a rule for _correctly_ recognizing when behavior is moral and when it is not. from that point, one is now able to do what is right.

for example, if you recognize that theft is immoral, then you don't condone taxation, and don't work to build "government" that starts out specifically by levying a tax. if you don't, nothing you say or do will ever be moral. further you cannot be christian because you are specifically denying the rule as it was given to us in the sermon on the mount.

and what's to refute? the image presupposes that a utopian argument is being made at all, when it isn't.

>billionaire buys all land around you and doesn't let you leave
>buys all water and makes you die of thirst
>"well at least he didn't infringe on my property rights and punch me in the face heh"
>billionaire demands your kids as sex slaves to let you live
>you refuse
>"at least I am free from an evil statist government"
>die

>non-aggression principle
>correct

second. embedded at the end is the idea that people have no incentive to engage in voluntary exchange for mutual benefit in order resolve all of their wants and needs -- but they do, and, this is a lesser lemma, one that you already see the evidence of very immediately, in life right now, even as we are with oppressive governments in some parts of the world, and less oppressive ones elsewhere. all the blessings of capitalism are right in front of you at all times.

the hobbesian nightmare of a mankind that is fundamentally evil, but is actually kept in check at all times by the stick, is a myth. man wakes up every day and seeks to serve others the carrot, that he may in turn serve himself. there are only a handful of psychopaths and sociopaths among us and they seek government jobs, so that they can live off of us. they are the exception that proves the rule: only by remaining true in one's heart to the golden rule -- do unto others as you would have them do unto you -- can we even begin to hope to properly identify things for what they really are.

>aggression is wrong
>let's live in a world where aggression is legal
wew lad. if aggression is wrong, let's live in a society where it's minimized. yes, that will include you paying a little bit in taxes, but on the other hand, you get to live. fair trade, i say

>impossible scenarios that aren't an argument
try intimidating someone else.

you have misread something in my post, which is clearly my fault. point to where i implied "aggression should be legal" and i will correct you.

>yes, that will include you paying a little bit in taxes
that assertion has already demonstrated to be a fiction by gustave de molinari and hans herman-hoppe. the private production of security is not only feasible, it is better.

If someone says
>"Taxation is theft!"
Ask them,
>"Have you ever heard of the Free Rider Problem?"

Aggression is necessary for a moral society to exist.

Without aggression to weed out the weak, then who become the leaders, who rises to the top?

In a word with no physical aggression, every form of leadership is occupied not by the strongest or smartest, but simply by the best liar.

Which is exactly where we find ourselves now.

Wouldn't the free rider problem provide the best argument against wellfare, and by extension, taxation?

jesus christ how embarassing.

there are no "public goods." there's just you believing this lie while someone else makes a buck off of it. again, because you cannot even agree with the NAP, you are impossibly blinded to the totality of your jewing. a minarchist conservative is someone who can see plainly that an eight inch dick is in their ass but thinks it's probably only three inches or so, and his response to this is something like "implying three inches" and "haha manlets when will they learn"

>we have to violate our core principle to uphold it
hopeless.

>ancaps opposed to jewing
>defending a system created by Jews for Jews

if there isn't anything else, stop wasting your fucking time sliding this.

a jew gave it its most recent name in the 1970s in america. however, the intellectual tradition is from austria, and before that, spain. if this is enough for you to eschew it, by all means, eschew the rest of western civilization while you're at it. just try not to use the idea "conservative" ever again to describe yourself.

That's your core principle, not mine.

yeah, by making defense a private good, aggression is perfectly fine as long as youre stronger than the man you're attacking. face it, if the world became an anarcho-capitalist utopia, the largest private armies would take over and force the lesser peoples to send them money anyway, so you get a government that doesnt even represent the people

>took 3 or 4 econ courses
you're giving them too much credit

morality doesn't exist, it is a figment of your imagination.

The problem is that a moral axiom isn't a sufficient deterrent.

If there was no monopoly of violence in a geographical area, every single sociopath with the means to cause mayhem would come out of the woodwork, and try to assume that monopoly of violence themselves; hence why there is so fucking much warlordism in Africa.

If we didn't have a monopoly of force that is constrained by laws, we would regress back to an era of blood feuds, were people killed each others sons and daughters as retaliation for wrongs done to them.

then you aren't using the word "aggression" in the an-cap sense, so you don't belong in this thread, or you aren't using the word "moral" in any meaningful sense at all, so you don't belong in the human race.

...

>implying I describe myself as conservative
I'm sure the (((banks))) would just hate a world with no regulations, fellow goy

i see that you don't want to believe it, but, yes, christ did actually walk the earth, and died for your sins.

non-aggression principle is for autists

aggression is warranted in certain situations

I'm not an ancap. I just came here to point out how childishly retarded their philosophy is.

You're welcome.

>no public goods
>externalities NEVER HAPPEN I DONT BELIEVE IT HAHA I WIN
no wonder youre an ancap. apparently biking to work instead of driving a car doesnt actually help save the earth, because pollution isnt a thing. apparently private gun ownership doesnt reduce violent crime. thanks ancap

roads?

This is why you need a minimalist government to enforce criminal laws.

that is already what happened, see you're telling me might makes right, you just don't realize it because it's framed backwards. might does not make right -- the non-aggression principle is correct. all of human history can continue on like it has, and it will never disprove that.

>expecting an an cap to believe in pollution

>rich people buying things is an impossible scenario

they still have to appeal to the masses to get votes. the masses may be morons, but we have rights. do you think annexed countries have the right to vote, bear arms, or a fair trial?

>NAP relies on a society where no one commits aggression
>NAP designed entirely to identify and defend against specific types of aggression that would exist in said society

Aggression is necessary for a moral society to exist.
>Without aggression to weed out the weak, then who become the leaders, who rises to the top?
>In a word with no physical aggression, every form of leadership is occupied not by the strongest or smartest, but simply by the best liar.
>Which is exactly where we find ourselves now.

Morality allegedly requires aggression.
Non-aggression allegedly leads to lying leaders and a not moral society.
We now have lying leaders without morality.
But...we're also a society that's supposedly moral, because it is based on aggression.
Even though said aggression that was supposedly necessary to preserve morality... destroyed said morality and put the same lying leaders in power it's allegedly necessary to prevent.

Who is driving the fucking car, exactly?

externalities are already covered by private arrangements made in advance to pay for them, and by insurance, by conflict resolution, etc.

all of which function perfectly fine without a monopoly on violence to back them up.

I would say that the market could provide an efficient amount of public service, but not always an effective amount

Aggression is not defense of oneself or ones property.

In other words, if violence is defensive, it is not aggressive, as it doesn't occur without reasonable provocation.
This is the correct answer, in other words, war made the state and the state made war.

Unless we limit violence to socially, and by extension, legally allowable forms, we are no better than bloods vs crips street gang thuggery.

>morality

NICE SPOOK YOU FUCKING KEK

>trump gets angry at someone for saying something meen
>spends a tiny fraction of his income to kill/enslave them
yeah, couldnt see that happening

>that is already what happened

Yes, but it's ordered and based on hundreds of years of political philosophy.

If you think that Western political leaders are analogous to being a 5 year old African child that sees his kids murdered by the Lord's Resistance Army and subsequently kidnapped only to be raised on a diet of violence, rape and cocaine, I don't really know what you're talking about.

I mean, do you not understand the concept of scale at all? It's only black and white for you?

Aggression is already legal. Do you pay the government voluntarily? What will happen if you don't pay? Oh yea, they take it. Not an AnCap, but you're a serious moron nonetheless.

ancaps LITERALLY cannot refute this image

>he actually thinks someone can just up and surround you and take you hostage and pretend that what he's done is lawful because it only involved deed purchases
>its just autism though

>he actually thinks someone can buy all the water
>even keynesians gave up on goods/services monopoly theory decades ago

>You get angry at Trump for saying something meen
>You make pissy posts about how he would totally murder them if he could because your feelings are hurt
Has anyone every told you you're on the spectrum?

How buying land a impossible scenario?
Anarchism is way worse than communism and socialism. You have to be literally retarded to believe in it.

Not an ancap but David Friedman has some good arguments in favor of it.

probably. if this ancap shill is representative of the whole, i doubt most of them made it to college

>America is composed 100% if devoted good innocent christians
wew

You are looking for autistically simple black and white answers in a world made up of greys...

>
>84423039

>yeah, 99% of ancaps are faggots who took 3 or 4 econ courses and saw that the market usually is pretty efficient, so they think it's always gonna work. you're not gonna get any real logic out of them
This, familia.

that sees his parents murdered*

...to get votes? votes are a good that exist in nature outside government?

the illusion of the vote is fraud. you may have heard force/fraud coupled together in reference to the NAP, and for good reason because they are one and the same. all you're doing is giving consent a new name while ignoring that its still manufactured consent. warlords took over, and you're ex post facto rationalizing it.

at this point in the discussion -- and yes we are getting exceedingly good at it -- the next question people hit me with is some angry form of, WELL FINE BUT WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT ANYWAY? so if that's where you're headed then the answer is i can correct my fucking worldview, and then tell others, which is what this thread is.

>We now have lying leaders without morality.
>But...we're also a society that's supposedly moral, because it is based on aggression.

That's because we're not aggressive ENOUGH.

I'm really not, I realize that there are grey areas. However, his point was invalid. Aggression is already legal as long as you are the one with the legal authority to carry it out.

you can't expect niggers and degenerates to do anything in civilized society
that's the only reason ancap/libertarianism/anarchism/socialism/natsoc/communism doesn't work, because honest hard-working whites have to carry fucking degenerates on their back

>buy some land
>forbid someone from crossing it for any reason as is your right
>shoot them if they try for violating the NAP
Which part of this is impossible in ancap world?

Yes, but it's ordered and based on hundreds of years of political philosophy.
And you think warlords are all operating on manuals written during the Cold war?

>If you think that Western political leaders are analogous to being a 5 year old African child that sees his kids murdered by the Lord's Resistance Army and subsequently kidnapped only to be raised on a diet of violence, rape and cocaine, I don't really know what you're talking about.
That's because you don't understand the crux of your own analogies.

You honestly think warlordism in Africa is caused by the absence of a strong/centralized government body? Each of those warlords would probably agree with you, and argue its the reason why they should be given power.

It's right there. But you refuse to see it.

Ancapism is a moral position. A person owns themselves; by mixing their labor with the land, they own the land. It's wrong to kill that person and steal his property.

Meanwhile, in a state of nature, the concepts of "legal" or "illegal" don't exist, and anyone can be aggressive against anyone without any repercussions other than the resistance of the individual who is attacked.

>anarchism

this isn't a thing. the people who tell you it is, are usually just communists. if you grill them, their idea of a system, an ism, is immediately recognizable to you (assuming you are informed) as communism even if not recognizable to them.

anarchy is what you live in. anarchy is the real, actual state of the world. there is no "The State," it is a fiction, it does not exist, and what calls itself government is really just a mafia. warlords.

until the day christ returns -- remember, christ is king, and anarchy means "without rule" or without a king -- you are in a way an anarchist whether you bear it your allegiance or offer it to some other gang idea, because that's the life you live.

the proof is not difficult to understand:

youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw

>That's because we're not aggressive ENOUGH.
>Because I should be able to physically assault someone for saying mean things!

Fucking lefty SJW scum.

Yes, it is, and that legal authority has come to be understood as stemming from the consent of those governed, to the extent that they are capable of presenting a consensus.

Hence the greys. Most people support taxation because it guarantees funds which are made available for law and order, which itself prevents more blatant or damaging forms of aggression. This is clearly understood to be an imperfect yet desirable outcome to most of the population.

If it wasn't, a party with a manifesto involving the abolition of taxation would be elected.

But by all means disregard thousands of years of political thought and keep spamming I didn't sign shit if you want.

>You honestly think warlordism in Africa is caused by the absence of a strong/centralized government body?

It is almost certainly inflamed by it. If there is no organized resistance against warlordism, then they can in reality do whatever they want.

I mean, just look at what happens when people riot in the streets in the West. They aren't going around chanting that they want less violence in the streets when they do, they smash shit and attack people, and steal things instead.

>impossible
what part of it is impossible now? all you have to do to do it is have the monopoly on force. again, did the point go right over your head? the NAP is how you correctly recognize that it isn't moral to hold someone hostage, no matter what the means. it is not utopian, it is informational.

I get the feeling that a lot of AnCaps are limp dicked little faggots who went out and bought a gun, and then got terribly upset that it's gathering dust because nobody is encroaching on their property so they can justifiably use it.

We get it, you have a small dick. No need to keep bragging about it.

Free market is finite, NAP is idealistic, Rand is a kike.

>it's not moral to hold someone hostage
Which part of the scenario violates the NAP?

>can be
this is true

>will be
>will be on a larger scale than now
>will be on a larger scale than if we have a flawless minarchist government
does not follow. at all.

and all evidence to the contrary exists before your eyes. every single day.

>owning a gun means you have a small dick
Shouldn't you be busy Correcting the Record?

>Conan the barbarian was a lefty SJW.
Are you even trying?

The point is that when a SJW gets in your face and tells you to get out of their safe space because you're a fucking white male, you should tell them to do something about it or shut the fuck up.

People aren't naturally aggressive, though. Aggressive actions normally come from, for lack of better words, brain-washing.

People normally aren't naturally aggressive, not without some kind of external factor being involved; and besides this, the incentive for following the NAP is that violating it allows for retaliation. The law /already/ works in this way, where instead of potentially fatal retaliation happening, you end up being imprisoned.

All in all, pretty low quality bait.

Since when do all ancaps have to prescribe to the idea of the NAP? I for one do not.

In what sense does a person own their body?

Thank your american public education you burger eating retarded fatass.

Ancap is just following classical liberal principles that were what was used to create the United States. Unfortunatelly you cucks adopted a constitution and with it a republican government alongside representative democracy, which is no different than socialism/communism. Enjoy your guns for the while, they won't last long.

we're already living under anarcho-capitalism and every government is just a big corrupt corporation

What do you ascribe to? Are you just trying to be different? I say that as an ancap.

the part where you coalesce the intent to buy X properties in order to imprison another one, Y.

Why you arguing for minarchism in a thread about Anclapism?

Did you fail out of logic 101?

I'm saying AnCaps have small dicks

>You don't understand basic economics!
I literally lost count of the times I've seen this in youtube comments sections from ancaps debating pretty much anyone. Yet I've never seen a single one demonstrate knowledge of basic economics.

>It is almost certainly inflamed by it.
No, it's not.

The warlordism is the actual attempt at the formation of the strong centralized state.

>If there is no organized resistance against warlordism, then they can in reality do whatever they want.
Just like the strong centralized state.

>They aren't going around chanting that they want less violence in the streets when they do, they smash shit and attack people, and steal things instead.
The vast majority of all public demonstrations and protests in the West occur peacefully.
You don't hear about the, only the ones that get violent. This arguably has been happening more often, but that doesn't make it the primary outcome.

i don't advocate minarchism or any other -ism, i advocate reading the bible. nonetheless, the statement is true.

In the same sense that a person owns the land or other objects.

He's actually not. Ancaps hate minarchists because they can't argue with them on a consequentialist basis and rely purely on philosophy when met with one.

Your post was a non sequitur

>this is what ancaps actually believe

Here you go again. The utter complete autistic inability to even glimpse nuance, or scale.

You are essentially saying that the United States gov't is exactly the same as a roving nigger band in Africa that just wants to rape and pillage.

What does that mean? Define your terms

>consent of the governed

This entire idea is bullshit because I didn't put the laws in place and disagree with many of them, however I have no real power to change them. There is no consent.

>guarantees funds which are made available for law and order,
Which I would support, if that's all that it was spent on, which it is not. I do not consent to my taxes paying for unjust foreign wars and a massive welfare state for lazy parasitical classes.

>But by all means disregard thousands of years of political thought

Volume =/= validity.

By all means, keep gracing me with more of your shallow "arguments."

I will concede that the state has a legitimate function to prevent aggression between and protect it's citizens, however it's illegitimate for the state to initiate aggression for victimless crimes like smoking a plant.

He makes better arguments against it desu.

Ancaps don't even believe in copyright protections

You may say an caps are dreamers but we aren't the only ones maybe one day you can join us and the world will be as one.

Intellectual property isn't property. Can't be owned.

...

>Your post was a non sequitur
It makes perfect sense. You just lack introspection.
Your life philosophy is a non-sequitur.

Resource allocation is a lot more efficient when every person on earth isn't turning their house into a castle.

>warlordism is the actual attempt at the formation of the strong centralized state

No one doubts this, but saying that people's will to power will evaporate becasue faggots like you chant NAP is naive to the extreme.

Look up anocracy and the role it plays in internal instability.

>Just like the strong centralized state.
The strong centralized state exists as a legitimate form to the extent it respects the rights of the governed. Other forms of political organization are understood to suffer from problems of legitimacy
[protip; this is why people oppose selling buttloads of weapons to the saudis]

The fact of the matter is that areas without strong centralized states are universally shitholes.

You people are about as bad as communists, and for similar reasons, no appreciation of the ambiguities or tensions that arise in political communities...