ANCAP BTFO

3 QUESTIONS TO ANCAPS
1. Do you realize that for an anarcho-capitalist territory to function, there should be no countries? A small land divided between private security agencies is a breakfast for a single united, big army.
2. What would the law be in (what today are called) national parks or other empty lands which could bring no possible profit?
3. What would've happened if someone had killed someone else and then flew to his property, where he would set a law that no force or authority could infringe personal freedom?

Other urls found in this thread:

viking.no/e/life/elaws.htm
lewrockwell.com/2002/06/roderick-t-long/the-vikings-were-libertarians/
anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append139.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

bump

What? No ancaps on Sup Forums?

1) "Security firms" aren't meant to be a stand in for a state. There would be multiple firms in populated areas. Defense from foreign invasion comes from the people themselves. This is largely how the American Revolution worked. We had a well armed militia that was just regular men. They were called minutemen because a whole town could rally in a matter of a couple of minutes to defend each other. America today is largely considered impossible to invade simply because we are so well armed. More guns than people, in fact. A Japanese general in wwii said they could not invade mainland America because there would be a "rifle behind every blade of grass". Decentralized defense is stronger than it appears at first glance.

2) National Parks can bring profit, or at least. All the ones in the US used to run on only usage fees. It was only after the government have them a shitload of funding that they became addicted to state money and now run in the red every year.

3) irrelevant nonsense. The fact that you might own property doesn't give you the right to murder whoever you want

FPBP

1) Yeah, but the American War for Independence was driven on patriotic motives, not profit ones. Also, they were united, not divided by competition. America seems impossible to invade not because of the 2nd amendment but because of the military, which is the best in the world - biggest and most advanced.

2) How? Don't kid me with "tickets", please. They are as profitable as the highway ones (hint - not profitable at all).

3) Please, tell me, who would impose the law in an anarcho-capitalist territory?

EDIT
Ad.1
Besides, Americans were doing this for their country. In ancap, you're only doing it for yourself, thus you would see no profit in helping your competitors - it's not your problem until the enemies get to you after all.

>What would've happened if someone had killed someone else and then flew to his property, where he would set a law that no force or authority could infringe personal freedom?
You don't have to obey individual people's laws in an ancap society just like you don't have to in our society.

Chances are, private police forces would form and the most successful ones would be the ones that follow the moral code of the majority population, simply because they would inevitably generate more revenue than less morally desirable police forces.

Not even an ancap, that point was just stupid.

> 1. Do you realize that for an anarcho-capitalist territory to function, there should be no countries?

correct, there would only be individuals owning land.

> A small land divided between private security agencies is a breakfast for a single united, big army.

I don't see how this would happen.


> 2. What would the law be in (what today are called) national parks or other empty lands which could bring no possible profit?

It would probably be lawless if noone wants to own it.

> 3. What would've happened if someone had killed someone else and then flew to his property, where he would set a law that no force or authority could infringe personal freedom?

If we are talking about murder, then he will probably be trown jail, for violating the NAP

>You don't have to obey individual people's laws in an ancap society
Yes, you do. The proprietor is the ultimate authority when it comes to his property in an ancap society.

correct. He acts as king.
just like the Vikings (We kings)

>1. correct, there would only be individuals owning land
And how would you achieve that? Considering that pretty much no one wants to live in an ancap society?
>I don't see how this would happen
Exactly the same how colonizations happened.

>2. It would probably be lawless if noone wants to own it
So I would be able to get my friends there and rape and kill them, without any consequences?

>3. he will probably be trown jail, for violating the NAP
But who would be there to impose the NAP in the first place? Especially when it happened on a property with laws which contradict the NAP?

4. Who would build the roads? It would be an investment that would never turn a profit.

1) A homogeneous culture has an incentive to defense itself. "Patriotism" still can exist in a stateless society. You still have pride in country, pride in community, pride in family, pride in oneself. People generally don't want to see the things they love destroyed by foreign forces. You don't need a profit motive to defend the things you love. I know that leftists have beat europeans silly to remove every sense of individualism and pride but it's a real thing. Americans still feel this. You can also ask the brits about it. Brexit happened because they felt a deep sense of pride in country and self. You don't need to hire military firms to defend your city. If someone is invading you a militia is going to be a better defense than any military can handle. Look how the US lost Vietnam. A bunch of well armed farmers defended their country. Their weapons were many years outdated but the US couldn't fight a war where any person might be hostile.

2) why do I have to explain how? It already happened and still happens. The first few decades of the national park system was funded entirely by tickets. The New Hampshire state park system still is. It's relatively inexpensive to run a state park system. They don't even have to make a profit. They would likely be ran by environmental groups that don't care about profits. The only reason current national parks lose so much money is because they are horribly ran government programs that are addicted to government money. If they survived on usage fees in the past, they can do it again.

3) Polycentric law, horizontal enforcement of norms. I'm not going to get into it because this is literally ancap 101 territory and you clearly haven't read up on anything. You are so smugly acting like this is some sort of gotcha but in reality you literally haven't even thought about/read about/took the time to understand the theories at play here. There are much finer points that are actually interesting critiques

bumpify

bump

No. You don't understand ancap. Sorry bud.

The foundation of the society is the non-aggression principle (NAP). Owning property doesn't mean you can "do whatever you want"

One thing I want to ask not just ancaps, but all anarchists, is how would they ensure that their ideal society would stay anarchist, i.e. how would they prevent people from forming states.

"Anarcho"-capitalism would just end up being feudalism 2.0 in reality. Those that own capital would hire police to protect it and it's obvious what would proceed from there.

>but muh contractual law

> And how would you achieve that? Considering that pretty much no one wants to live in an ancap society?

This will happen automatically, as the state becomes more and more inefficient, and people inventing their way out of nessecity.

> Exactly the same how colonizations happened.

I'm sorry I don't know what you mean still

> So I would be able to get my friends there and rape and kill them, without any consequences?

Yes probably. Just like you can now.
although there would potentially be solutions for preventing this.

> But who would be there to impose the NAP in the first place? Especially when it happened on a property with laws which contradict the NAP?

what do you mean: laws that contradict the NAP?
it wouldn't be agression then, then it would be voluntary, if the guy killed agreed to the law by contract.

> 4. Who would build the roads? It would be an investment that would never turn a profit.

individuals. sometimes it will turn profit, but you would also need to calculate that beforehand if that was your goal.
if people like roads they will build them.

By having an anarchist population. The reason we have states is because the majority of the population are statists that see government as legitimate. If people reject the legitimacy of a government then that government is over. This has happened countless times in history, it's just that they always replace the government with a new government. The anarchist hope is to replace the government with anarchy.

The handful of anarchist experiments in the past didn't collapse internally. I.e. they didn't reform themselves into states, rather they succumbed to outside state forces. To make it last we will need a large enough area, population and strength to defend ourselves from outside state forces

>By having an anarchist population
This will never happen. This is the same level of delusion that liberals have when they say whine about national borders.

>implying that feudalism is bad
>implying that all people are equals

by nature this will happen eventually. evolution wil take care of it.

>ancaps will defend this

if there is incentive people will fix it

So your solution to "what if someone exercises their freedom to dissent to my special snowflake societal system" is just "everyone will agree that my special snowflake system is the best".

Ok, but if you have an entire population that's willing to mutually agree on how to run society, you'll have a great society no matter what. If you have a 100% collectivist communist population, then communism will work great, because everyone will be down with it and be honest. If you have a 100% statist population, everything will be great, because everyone will love the state and accept state power.

If your social system depends on the population being 100% behind it and will fall apart otherwise it is complete garbage and can't possibly ever work. Hell, the entire objection to things like "left libertarianism" is literally "what if one dude exercises his freedom to dissent?".

I want to believe that nobody is this stupid, and that you're a paid slide shill, but I dunno.

This is a retarded dismissal. If we lived in an anarchist world and you were proposing that we make state I'd might ask "how will you get to willingly pay half their income to the government". The answer is by having a statist population. This is the same way countries turned communist. The population itself believed in communism. The hope of ancaps is to convince the world to believe in ancap principles. Considering that individualism is logically consistent and collectivism is not, and that ancap is the logical conclusion of individualism, and that the internet allows information to instantly spread around the world, I'd say that ancap is pretty inevitable. Especially when cryptocurrencies and encryption bypass a shit load of state power

Why don't you reply?

1.
>A homogeneous culture has an incentive to defense itself
How? In an ancap society nation or culture doesn't really matter on a macroscale. What matters on a macroscale is profit. It would simply be not profitable to help others with their "own" problems.

>"Patriotism" still can exist in a stateless society
Again, how? How can patriotism exist in a stateless society, when according to dictionary, patriotism is
> love for or devotion to one's country
>one's country
>country

>pride in community, pride in family, pride in oneself
Aside from the fact that there are no communities in anarcho-capitalism, I don't see how pride in community/family/oneself would encourage you to fight for other community which is your competitor.

>I know that leftists have beat europeans silly to remove every sense of individualism and pride
I'm libertarian, dude. Libertarianism is an ideology based on reality, anarchism is an ideology based on delusion.

>Americans still feel this
Have lived in America for 12 years and got a PhD at a major university there. Don't make false assumptions.

>militia is going to be a better defense than any military can handle
Prove it.

>Look how the US lost Vietnam
They didn't.

Summing this all up - good luck having e.g. 250,000 private soldiers against 1,500,000 soldiers of the US Army.
2.
>It's relatively inexpensive to run a state park system
Prove it.
3. Typical "muh 101" argument. Try again.

Who would impose the NAP? Owning a property means that you're the only one that has the rights to impose the law on it.

>By having an anarchist population
How would you achieve that?

So, basically, kill everyone who doesn't want anarchy?

Also, let's assume that anarchy forms worldwide, so there's no "outside influence" on our ideal non-political land. How do people live on? Thinking that they would lead their lives primarily based on their political beliefs is laughable - human nature is going to set in.

People will want to live with other people. Tribes will form. Some people will be delegated to obtaining food for their community, others will build and care for housing. Somebody will have to take care of the children, sick and elderly. Others will have to look after the tribe's safety. Humans are pack animals, division of labor comes naturally to us.

Do you think communities like this will not elect leaders? You will see people start looking up to the unofficial village chief, you know, the guy with natural authority who can organize the group's efforts. Pretty soon, chain of command will form. The more ruthless communities will start taking over their neighbors. This is where city states start to form. But it's still just local settlements with local structure of power, right?

Yeah, tell that to all the barbarian tribes that were taken over when a little community by the name of Rome started to expand. An anarchist population is a pipe dream, because it's not in the human nature.

No. You're making this out to be more complicated than it is. If a population doesn't want a state, then they won't form a state. If they do, they will. If some minority of the population wants to form a state, the rest of the anarchists will tell them to go fuck themselves. If that statist population is trying to extort taxes from people they'll just be treated as criminal extortionists.

You don't need 100% agreement on every thing. That's a fucking retarded pipe dream. Ancap isnt even meant to be internally consistent. The whole key to this is polymeric law, meaning that everywhere will having people living by differing laws and norms

I did : again you didn't see it. Implying you were the guy with the same questions in the last thread.

it is also my freedom to kill a man.

>Vikings
>We kings
I died.

>kill everyone that doesn't want anarchy

No. Convince people to live by anarchy.

And I don't give a shit if people want to live in tribes with leaders. That's their choice. That's why ancap is often called voluntartism. You voluntarily choose the legal systems to live under. Anarchists will have to defend themselves, yes. That doesn't invalidate the philosophy. The vast majority of people don't really give two shits about politics. They just follow incentives. If ancap is as economically successful as free market theories would suggest, then there will be no problem convincing people to live by it.

This is getting into pointless nitpicking, so I'm done. Just read about anarchist experiments that have already existed. Read the "Machinery of Freedom" by David Freidman.

> How? In an ancap society nation or culture doesn't really matter on a macroscale. What matters on a macroscale is profit. It would simply be not profitable to help others with their "own" problems.

I don't know how you draw your conclusions mate. what kinds of economics are you into?
It would most likely be profitable to help, as people are collaborating under natural circumstances. and the relationships are often very profitable, thus you don't want it to stop.

I agree with this guy and his 9's

...

---------^^^^^^ does this mean i win the argument?

>I don't give a shit if people want to live in tribes with leaders
My point is that a) people will want to live in tribes because it is in their nature and b) that the formation of tribes will naturally lead to the formation of government. Anarchy is, in theory, incredibly unstable and will likely not last very long. You can LARP all day about the benefits of ancap, but as a system with no inherent protection against collapse (other than "everybody will be exactly like me in every possible regard") it is not worth considering.

The original question was "how do you prevent people from forming states" to which you replied "by having an anarchist population" to which I replied "if you have a population that agrees with you then any system will work" to which you replied "some people might want a state, they can form it if they want" or "if a minority wants a state then we'll say 'fuck you'".

So, you don't stop people from forming states, if they want to voluntarily live under state power? But you stop them from imposing state power over you by saying "fuck you"?

You realize that in the real world, military force actually does determine the outcome of fights? You can't jimmy your way out of that. States work because they create large, coordinated, centralized armies that will fuck the shit out of your motley collection of ancap autists. So sure, you're polymerically living in an ancap area next to a neighboring area whose people founded a coercive state (see: """"If a population doesn't want a state, then they won't form a state. If they do, they will.""""), but then the coercive state will use money it has coerced from its citizens (who are coercively prevented from leaving) to create a better army than yours and steamroll your ancap state.

This societal philosophy seems to exist in an abstract realm of contracts and property rights that is entirely divorced from the real world, where we see that organized coercive states consistently form armies that beat the shit out of whatever less-organized societies they encounter (no, afghanistan is not a counterexample - if our goal was complete domination, enslavement, and population replacement it would be much easier than our current garbage statebuilding effort). That's exactly how a state will form in an ancap society - either a state will form in response to outside pressures from other states, since states are the best way we've seen to organize and project military power, or your society will be steamrolled and become a state.

There is more to life than profit. It's not as if when a town is invaded everyone is going to wait until the invaders are knocking at their door. You care about defending you way of life, your community, etc. This was literally the defense that the founders of America envisioned. Militia. That's part of why we have gin rights.

Country is not state. I have pride in America, not in my government. I would fight to defend American values, but not for the government.

No communities in ancap. Literally a retarded thing to say.

You are not a libertarian if you can't understand how community still exists in an individualist world.

The US did lose Vietnam you fucking retard. It's literally one of the most embarrassing and shameful moments in US history.

The entire US army has been unable to handle a few thousand terrorists the last 15 years. Militaries are good at fighting other militaries. Not random people

You came to a debate without knowing the basics. If you were asking about polymeric law and horizontal enforcement of norms, I'd gladly explain. But you are acting like you are right without even formulating a sensical question. There's fucking non ancaps in this thread calling you out for.how retarded your third point was. It's like if I said "statists what if congress votes the nuke the public then passes a law that says they can't be held accountable for it. Durrrhurrrr checkmate". It's fucking stupid and doesn't even represent the ideology in any coherent manner. You're asking me to pick apart some irrelevant bizzare scenario. Not worth my time. If I did, I wouldn't even be doing ancap any good. I'd just be picking apart some shit hypothetical that exists in a vacuum with no relevance to any theory.

Anarchist experiments in the past did not collapse internally.

Yes, because they didn't have time to do so. See >The handful of anarchist experiments in the past didn't collapse internally. I.e. they didn't reform themselves into states, rather they succumbed to outside state forces.
>succumbed to outside state forces

THOSE DIGITS SPEAK THE TRUTH

>Anarchy is, in theory, incredibly unstable and will likely not last very long.

Not true. The vikings were anarchists. and incredibly prosporous. Their trading infrastructure were amazing until the catholics came and corrupted it, and it all fell into slavery.

Anarchist are the most retarded human beings on the planet.

Yeah I know. Let the 9's be with you my friend

>The vikings were anarchists
Sure they were.
viking.no/e/life/elaws.htm

Also the people that are best at making arguments.

So having law, means that you can't be anarchist all of a sudden?
you are being sarcastic right?

>This will happen automatically, as the state becomes more and more inefficient, and people inventing their way out of nessecity
Then why don't we have anarcho-capitalism already? I mean, we have survived over 5000 years of state-run territories called... countries.

>I'm sorry I don't know what you mean still
That ancap territories would be easily conquered from the same reasons colonizators had.

>Yes probably
And you don't feel that it's... I don't know... wrong?
>Just like you can now
No? You would be easily tracked. How? Well.
1. Families start to worry.
2. They report it to the police.
3. Police asks if there were any survivors or witnesses.
4. They answer yes and they point you.
5. You're the number 1 suspect.
6. After a lawsuit you get a death sentence.
>although there would potentially be solutions for preventing this
Like?

>what do you mean
Laws that make private police officers powerless.

>individuals. sometimes it will turn profit
Huh. Where would they get the money from? I mean, 1 km of a highway costs $2-11 million. Assuming that the highway is 800 km, the total cost is $1,6-8,8 billion. Considering that the total highway ticket cost would be around $25, the annual revenue (coming from the 20,000,000 annual traffic) would be $78,000,000 ($500,000,000 - $432,000,000 maintenance). When we take all this into account, the investment would start turning profit after 20-115 years.

Why are there suddenly so many of these shitty threads?
New CTR shill tactic?

1. You underestimate how easy it is to defend a territory from an invading force. Also, if someone violates the NAP this hard, there would be repercussion for them from other nations. Also, nukes.
2. Somebody would buy them and thus they will be protected
3. He would get physically removed, because nobody would want to share a community with a person like this.
People who try to argue with ancaps always try to build this autistic strawman, like "he would set a law that no force or authority could infringe personal freedom". What is this bullshit? If you murder someone, you get physically removed.

In fantasy land. Maybe.

lewrockwell.com/2002/06/roderick-t-long/the-vikings-were-libertarians/
anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append139.html
Should I keep googling or should I just accept your word as gospel?

>It's not as if when a town is invaded everyone is going to wait until the invaders are knocking at their door
Straw man. I was talking about invaders attacking a town that is away (literally several kilometers) from you. You don't want to help it, because that would require all towns on the territory to cooperate, which would require them to waste their resources for a single town that's attacked. Inefficient.

>Country is not state. I have pride in America, not in my government
Geographically, where does your pride end?

>Literally a retarded thing to say
If by a community you mean a town, then yes, they do exist. But if by a community you mean an entity which people care for and in which they help each other, then no, such community does not exist.

>The US did lose Vietnam you fucking retard
Please, tell me, what was the primary purpose of the invasion?

>The entire US army has been unable to handle a few thousand terrorists the last 15 years
Well, no terrorists in the US since the last 15 years. I'd call that successful. Also, what would you define as a "success" in this situation?

>Your comparison just shows that you didn't handle the 3rd point correctly because it was too hard for you to handle it. The Congress comparison is unreal and stupid, my point is not. If you feel that it is, then just change the word "kill" to "rob", "mug" or "rape". In fact, any type of aggression you want.

Also, you evaded my "how would you achieve that?" question pretty good!

>You underestimate how easy it is to defend a territory from an invading force

mfw a german is telling this to a Pole

bump

> Then why don't we have anarcho-capitalism already? I mean, we have survived over 5000 years of state-run territories called... countries.

because people are not yet evolved fully to embrace the truth.

The vikings were not easily conquered as an example. Most of those germanic tribes stood against the tyranny of government for thousands of years.

> And you don't feel that it's... I don't know... wrong?

yes.

> No? You would be easily tracked. How? Well.
1. Families start to worry.
2. They report it to the police.
3. Police asks if there were any survivors or witnesses.
4. They answer yes and they point you.
5. You're the number 1 suspect.
6. After a lawsuit you get a death sentence.

like you probably would in an ancap society.

--although there would potentially be solutions for preventing this
>Like?
you could have a camera on your head that recorded everything and saved it at a secure server. then You would get very cheap insurance also.

> give an example

Huh. Where would they get the money from? I mean, 1 km of a highway costs $2-11 million. Assuming that the highway is 800 km, the total cost is $1,6-8,8 billion. Considering that the total highway ticket cost would be around $25, the annual revenue (coming from the 20,000,000 annual traffic) would be $78,000,000 ($500,000,000 - $432,000,000 maintenance). When we take all this into account, the investment would start turning profit after 20-115 years.

unless people pay it in advance of cause.
or maybe just don't build a highway and waste a shitload of resources on a project that is so risky.

Commies killed a hundred million last century, we can at least give ancapistan a try.

Come back with arguments. Otherwise, GTFO.

1.
>You underestimate how easy it is to defend a territory from an invading force
Elaborate.

>Also, if someone violates the NAP this hard, there would be repercussion for them from other nations
No nation gives a fuck about NAP. That's why something called a fucking war exists.

>Also, nukes
Ekhm, are you serious? Do you seriously think that nukes are a good medium of defense?
2.
>Somebody would buy them
Why would anyone buy them if they bring no profit? I mean, who the fuck would buy deserts?
3.
>He would get physically removed
Do you mean... killed?

>because nobody would want to share a community with a person like this
They don't have to. He might have a property in the middle of the woods.

>If you murder someone, you get physically removed
That is fucking DUMB!
First - he would have to be proven guilty to get "physically removed".
Second - if the law on his property restricted any type of force being used, I don't know how would they lead to the first point.

Top kek.

because ppl are waky waky

We have given it a try. Look at Somalia. Now imagine it as much worse.

>because people are not yet evolved fully to embrace the truth
Commies say the same.

>The vikings were not easily conquered as an example. Most of those germanic tribes stood against the tyranny of government for thousands of years
Vikings/tribes etc. weren't anarchist, LOL. They had a form of hierarchy which resembled a monarchy-like government.

>like you probably would in an ancap society
Just read all the previous posts. I said that this scenario would happen in a place where there is no law. If so, the murderer would not do anything wrong at all.

>you could have a camera on your head that recorded everything and saved it at a secure server. then You would get very cheap insurance also
Again, read the point above /\

>unless people pay it in advance of cause
??

>or maybe just don't build a highway
Yay! Dirt roads everywhere! Dream of every ancap!

ANCAPS BTFO

now i didn't read it all yet, but as far as i can tell they had a monopoly on the use of violence, in other words: a state. and this would not be anarchy. If there is no respect for the individual then you don't have anarchy.

My question to ancaps:
Suppose you're a starving worker in a small town. There's only one employer, and you agree with everything so that you'd have a source of income, even if that'd mean working 100 hrs per week for totally shit money. How is that contract voluntary if his only alternative is dying from starvation? If there are gubmint regulations, at least you're earning a minimum wage for 40hrs a week, which is better than near-serfdom working conditions.

bump

an-cap response: just start your own business goy.

What if you're a child and your parents are broke, and there is gubmint to provide free education and healthcare. Does that mean that you're doomed to stuck in miserable poverty?

> Commies say the same.
Ok, you got me on that one. but it will happen eventually.

>Vikings/tribes etc. weren't anarchist, LOL. They had a form of hierarchy which resembled a monarchy-like government.

Monarchy is much like anarchy if not the same. The king owns the land and makes the rules on his land.

> Just read all the previous posts. I said that this scenario would happen in a place where there is no law. If so, the murderer would not do anything wrong at all.

people could make contractual agreements not to kill eacother even though they go unto lawless teritory.

> Again, read the point above /\
what point?

>??
????

>Yay! Dirt roads everywhere! Dream of every ancap!
Yes, it doesn't matter when you fly around everywhere anyway.

>Monarchy is much like anarchy if not the same.
So a system with a clearly defined ruler who defines the laws is anarchy as long as we don't call the ruler government?

Yes, someone owns the land. as long as it is voluntary and under contract there is no problem.

>Geographically, where does your pride end?

You are being obtuse. To be "American" is more than geography. It's a shared history, culture, set of values, etc. that unify a people. Those things exist with or without a state. The concept of what I was talking about regarding decentralized defense stands because if this.

>If by a community you mean a town, then yes, they do exist. But if by a community you mean an entity which people care for and in which they help each other, then no, such community does not exist.

You're wrong. People have infinitely more in common with the next town over than

>Please, tell me, what was the primary purpose of the invasion?

To stop the spread of north Vietnamese communism. They failed. There is really no doubt about how much of a failure and national embarrassment Vietnam was for the US. In fact, it's pretty much the only thing in American history pretty much everyone agrees on.

>Well, no terrorists in the US since the last 15 years. I'd call that successful. Also, what would you define as a "success" in this situation?

Not even true and not even my point. You're just detracting now. I was pointing out that the US military struggles to fight a decentralized, informally organized, largely civil opposition in the mid east. They don't have a formal military but have given the US a hell of a time.

>Your comparison just shows that you didn't handle the 3rd point correctly because it was too hard for you to handle it. The Congress comparison is unreal and stupid, my point is not. If you feel that it is, then just change the word "kill" to "rob", "mug" or "rape". In fact, any type of aggression you want.

The form of aggression literally doesn't matter. It's that your question literally has no basis in ancap theory. It's a complete and total straw man. My comparison was to point out that if I said that about congress it would be equally irrelevant. Not going to answer a question about a theory that doesn't exist.

bump

>Ok you got me on that one
So? How would you achieve an anarchist society?

>Monarchy is much like anarchy if not the same
Let's come back to your posts, shall we?
>now i didn't read it all yet, but as far as i can tell they had a monopoly on the use of violence, in other words: a state. and this would not be anarchy
>monopoly on the use of violence, in other words: a state. and this would not be anarchy
>monopoly on the use of violence
>in other words: a state
>this would not be anarchy
Ekhem... A king has... a monopoly on the use of violence :D

>people could make contractual agreements not to kill eacother even though they go unto lawless teritory
The agreements would have no power on a lawless territory, because there would be no law referring to agreements and breaking them. Also, that would be funny to see.
"hey dude, do you want to go out to woods to chill"
"yeah, totally, but first, we need to make an agreement on paper, okay?"

>what point?
That this is a lawless territory, meaning you can do whatever you want.

>????
What does "unless people pay it in advance of cause" mean?

>Yes, it doesn't matter when you fly around everywhere anyway
Yeah, it's really efficient to go to a town 80 km away from you by a plane, right?

bump

>You are being obtuse. To be "American" is more than geography yadda yadda yadda set of values blah blah blah
You're talking about nationalism. I'm talking about patriotism. Patriotism is limited to love of one's country. Not people, not culture, just the country itself, the fact that you contribute to it.

>People have infinitely more in common with the next town over than
Than what? Are you ancaps illiterate or what?

>To stop the spread of north Vietnamese communism. They failed
God, how the fuck did they fail when they stopped it? The primary purpose of the Vietnam War was to prevent the possible DOMINO EFFECT that communism would cause. Did you see any new Asian communist governments developing? No? That's because of the Vietnam War. Solely because of it.

>Not even true
How? Please, enlighten me on these literal WAVES of muslim terrorist attacks swarming across the country after the 9/11, please.

>not even my point
Then fucking speak clearer.
Coming back to the discussion, your point was that the US army didn't win. I proved they did.

>You're just detracting now
How?

>I was pointing out that the US military struggles to fight a decentralized, informally organized, largely civil opposition in the mid east
Of course, every army has a problem with guerilla warfare (I think you've just learned a new word considering how much have you struggled to write what the US military struggles with). But the US Army struggles with the sandniggers not strictly because of it but because the US government skimped on the amount of soldiers. If it was a full-on military action, sandniggers would be rekt.

>It's that your question literally has no basis in ancap theory
How so?

ANCAP FUCKING BTFO

Ooh, feeling like not responding?

>So? How would you achieve an anarchist society?
I wouldn't, the current system will collapse because it has bandonned basic moral principles. it is up to people themselves who they choose to associate with. when enough of us recognize eachother on an individual level and not as acollective, then there will be anarchy.

>Ekhem... A king has... a monopoly on the use of violence :D

it is his land, so he gets to choose what the rules are.

>The agreements would have no power on a lawless territory, because there would be no law referring to agreements and breaking them. Also, that would be funny to see.

if they ever go back to their community "x" then they can be punished. or if they go to any community "y" that has agreements with x then they could be punished.

>That this is a lawless territory, meaning you can do whatever you want.
There could still be contracts.

>What does "unless people pay it in advance of cause" mean?

if the plots of land along the highway are bought or rented by gastations, supermarkets, shops, etc., then the investment could turn profit from day 1.

>Yeah, it's really efficient to go to a town 80 km away from you by a plane, right?
flying cars will be invented out of necessity I reckon.

no, just had to go afk for a sec. also I'm very slow at writing.

bump

>I wouldn't
So, there it is? End of the discussion? :D
That's why libertarianism is better than anarcho-capitalism - it's possible and real.

>when enough of us recognize eachother on an individual level and not as acollective, then there will be anarchy
What if I told you that's possible even with a state? Ekhm... libertarianism!

>it is his land, so he gets to choose what the rules are
Who the fuck cares? You just contradicted yourself! He has a monopoly on the use of violence/force = it's a state.

>if they ever go back to their community "x" then they can be punished
How could they be punished if the "crime" didn't happen on the community "x" territories? Also, communities don't work like that in ancap.

>There could still be contracts
Contracts about what?

>if the plots of land along the highway are bought or rented by gastations, supermarkets, shops, etc., then the investment could turn profit from day 1
Yeah, I mean, when you're driving on a highway the first thing you want to do is not to get to your destination as fast as you can but fucking stopping everywhere to buy a donut or tank your car.

>flying cars will be invented out of necessity I reckon
Good joke m8 ;)
No, but really - are you serious?

Americunt BTFO

...

...

...

...

...

...

I'm sure you can trust (((Rothbard's))) opinion.

you already asked those in the last thread. They were stupid questions then, they are stupid questions now.

>Do you realize that for an anarcho-capitalist territory to function, there should be no countries?
Babby's first anarchism. Yes anarchism has as an essential part that there's no state. Congrats on realizing that.

> What would the law be in (what today are called) national parks or other empty lands which could bring no possible profit?
Whatever the owner decides. Not that this has anything to do with what we call law. For example, the owner would obviosly exclude himself from the applicability of that law.

> What would've happened if someone had killed someone else and then flew to his property, where he would set a law that no force or authority could infringe personal freedom?
Someone goes there and breaks that person's law, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever anyway.

...

Your not anarchists

That's a state owned road. A private company could do better.

You didn't answer his question how would your new non country defend itself against a unified army from a nation state?

U just told them to BTFO

when did we decide to give a fuck about ancraps now? there's like a thread every day.

they really should just cross out the "anarcho-" bit.