Anarcho Capitalism

Post arguments against Anarcho-Capitalism and I will refute them.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard
lmgtfy.com/?q=define argument
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

its proponents are solely made up of faggots

What's stopping me from murdering you and taking all your shit for myself like a nigger?

That's not an argument, it's a question.

That's not an argument against anarcho capitalism.

A refutation of your central point: I know multiple people who aren't "faggots" who are proponents of anarcho capitalism.

It actually is an argument because I can murder your dumbass and there wont be an evil alt-right government to care about your pathetic life. Might as well do this country a favor and twist your neck far back until everything goes black.

yes it is. you can decry islam by pointing out that its followers are all barbaric savages, and so you can decry anarcho capitalism by pointing out that all its followers love a good cocking

that's repudiation. you said refute. to refute requires one to provide evidence

This thread is dumb because any point brought up by "statists" will be refuted by simply saying that that is exactly the point

Might doesn't make right. Remember the Dark Ages?

>It actually is an argument
No, it still is a question.

>I can murder your dumbass and there wont be an evil alt-right government to care about your pathetic life
This isn't an argument against Anarcho Capitalism.

Even if I was to turn it into an argument, say, "Anarcho Capitalism can't protect you from murder."

Refutation: My protection agency would prevent me from being harmed.

Murray Rothbard isn't gay. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

Refuted.

corporations and individuals would just dump their toxic waste anywhere instead of paying a lot of money to have it handled professionally. within a short time, humans would have destroyed the ecosystem

>Might doesn't make right.
That's a statement

>Remember the Dark Ages?
That's a question

Neither are arguments.

>This thread is dumb because any point brought up by "statists" will be refuted by simply saying that that is exactly the point
Not an argument.

that article mentions nothing of his sexuality. in fact, there's an explicit lack of anything regarding his sexuality. the inference there is that he eschewed the traditional heteronormative life, and one could draw the conclusion that he was a massive raging faggot.
anyway, not proven, and one can't refute without proving.

Read the article, he had a wife. No mention of homosexuality. That's enough evidence to suggest that he's not gay.

It's an oxi-moron.

Have a good day OP.

In Nozik's Anarchy, State, and Utopia the main argument presented regarding pollution and other forms of negative externalities is that they are actually issues of private property rights being violated and would potentially be enforced even more vigorously under anarcho capitalism / minarchism than other systems such as state capitalism or liberal democracy.

suggest, not prove.

i, on the other hand, can prove that he was gay:
>wore a bow tie
>supported anarcho capitalism
the two points above are admissible evidence that he sucked a mean cock

Not an argument.

lmgtfy.com/?q=define argument

>a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

Ancap is wrong because might does not make right.

It is a statement. It is also an argument, although it may be an incredibly weak one.

enjoy wrongness

What do you say about the disastrous banking deregulations in the USA, that led to the biggest government intervention in modern history being necessary, to safe the international finance systems from total collapse?

Whoops sorry, still not an argument!

Unless someone paid them more to cease protecting you.

The problem with Anarcho Capitalism is that money is no motivation to do the best work but to the one that earns the most money.
For example without any regulations it would be incredibly easy in any sector of the market to form cartels which always fucks the consumer over.
An-Cap is a nice scenario until its tried in the real world, just like Communism was

yes it is. he supported anarcho capitalism, therefore by definition he was a twink

Muslims will move into your community, outbreed your society of free entrepreneurs, and then you will have sharia.

I don't have anything to say other than those are two questions and not arguments.

Because the only laws in the world are physical laws, at the end of the day, in terms of human social interaction might makes right. Meaning, might determines the outcome of social events because might is firmly based on physical laws.

Any moral argument is based on other laws, ethical, moral, etc., aren't as solidly grounded as might.

>its proponents are solely made up of faggots
>he supported anarcho capitalism, therefore by definition he was a twink

I'm going to ignore you because you are illogical. Please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

you haven't refuted a single thing i've said. i get it, you're just a troll shoving the "not an argument" meme, but goddamn i hate ancaps and libertarians

Sounds more like an argument against Sharia law than Anarcho Capitalism. But, because of the federated nature of protective agencies, ancap seems less susceptible to co-option by factions than liberal democracy.

State governments are no better at protecting us from murder than a protective agency. Somebody can still pay a state police officer money to off somebody and if that amount is high enough they would.

I would not trust a government police officer to not kill me if there was a $5,000,000 USD bounty on my head.

How can you have competing infrastructure when there is obviously limited space, more so when it is an already established city?

An ancap society would never work because everyone would be sucking Tyrone cock because they are raging ancap faggots

>money is no motivation to do the best work
Money is a very good motivation to do work. What work is highest paid is determined by the market.

Also not everybody is motivated by money and ancap doesn't rely on everybody being motivated by money.

> Expecting an argument from straya.
Thanks for the bantz though.

Proof on homosexuality in ANCAP?

Most of its supporters are either rich jews, or poor idiots who think they will one day be rich. Also automation will ensure capitalism has no future.

That's a question and not an argument. I can't answer every question but I can take a shot at every argument.

Just remember, capitalism brought us to that point.

DAE That's not an argument?

how do you make sure your air doesnt end up china tier

>Most of its supporters are either rich jews, or poor idiots who think they will one day be rich.
Neither of these points explain why ancap is bad.

>Also automation will ensure capitalism has no future.

I don't agree. I think that full robotic automation, when it comes (not anytime soon), will push society closer to unadulterated ancap. More concentrated wealth and power leads to less desire for states' monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

Not an argument. But I think I've already addressed the potential argument to be made here:

how would you enforce that

if the air on your property gets fucked up does the violate the nap or what

In a protective agency it would be determined who is to be protected by the one paying the agency.

>Money is a very good motivation to do work. What work is highest paid is determined by the market.
I never questioned that money motivates to work. It just doesnt motivate to produce the best product but the one that makes the customer pay the most. In some cases this is the same but not always.
Youre right concerning the market determining value eventhough you havent mentioned that the market is not fair, it is easily influenced by single people and even easier so without any regulations.
MOreover you have yet to address the danger of cartels.

NAP should probably be thought of as a relative and not absolute principle. There's a continuum problem with NAP.

See

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

and

daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html

hey I know where that is

>david friedman

Enforced by who?

The lord of the oceans?

The owner of the atmosphere?

Which body would guarantee payment to these aggrieved parties?

Your philosophy has some serious problems, but you'll ignore me and pretend you can ignore me because questions aren't arguments.

Why would you ever sign up to a protective agency (PA) that would not protect you if somebody paid more? The answer is that you wouldn't.

The only way that a PA would not protect you is if the cost of lost reputation, i.e. all of the discounted cash flows of their business < the bounty paid, in which case the person really, really wants to kill you and clearly has the means to do so. So how could you stop them anyways with or without a state? Answer: you couldn't.

Do you know what that is? Greentext. Do you know what that isn't? An argument.

Post pics

Isn't it funny that the retard ANCAP is making a his argument for us?

In ANCAP world, you can advertise that you will answer questions, but you'll actually use technicalities to get out of the hard ones., cozy no gubbermint can stop me!!!

>(((David Friedman)))

classic ancap

the state is weaker, capitalist and bankers control the prices
lassie faire is the worst possibe system
t. Weimar Republic

What's stopping a company who can muster the biggest army and use force to achieve a monopoly like Pablo Escobar did with the Colombian drug trade?

You know what is convincing? Honest answers. You know what isn't convincing? You.

Either engage or fuck off.

...

...

Not an argument. You simply cannot refute anarcho-capitalism, as every good argument against is not an argument.

>the first three replies

Its just easier for me to hold a debate when the main form of argumentation isn't leading questions. I can try to rephrase your questions into arguments:

>Enforced by who?
>Lord of the oceans?
>The owner of the atmosphere?
"Anarcho capitalism doesn't provide for a large enough / efficient enough system of enforcement for minor property rights infractions such as pollution."

>Which body would guarantee payment to these aggrieved parties?

"There isn't an efficient enough system of payment to deal with these micro-infractions."

Crypto currencies combined with profit driven class action litigation seem like a promising mechanism for these types of negative externalities.

>Your philosophy has some serious problems, but you'll ignore me and pretend you can ignore me because questions aren't arguments.

Hey, I agree that ancap and nearly all political philosophies have major holes and gaps. But let's just be intellectually honest as we uncover the truth and find the gaps.

I am engaged, was just typing that long reply to you.

How do you prevent monopolies forming via force if no one has a monopoly on legal initiation of force like a government would? I don't see how this wouldn't end up like the underworld, where whoever has the most soldiers and the most guns can simply murder their competitors instead of providing a better product.

>Not an argument.
>Not an argument.
>Not an argument.
>Not an argument.
yeah fuck off ancaps, you are like gommunists

Ancap cannot be enforced, That's why it can't work. Governments will eventually form from companies and private militias.

Nothing, and that's what's predicted from the state of nature analysis done in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. That a dominant Protective Agency would arise in specific geographic locations..

They are. In the sense that "true anarcho capitalism has never been tried".

It has been tried. And that led to the Great Depression and also contributed towards the war machine of German national socialism.

Why would you assume it would a be protective agency and not enforce its own self interests? How can new competitors enter the market if the established companies will just kill them?

>the state is weaker
Yes, how is this bad?

>capitalist and bankers control the prices
Supply & demand control prices, not people.

>lassie faire is the worst possibe system
What arguments do you have to support that assertion?

Who is going to stop me from killing someone and buying/forming an army to oppress large amounts of people by forcing them to pay taxes?

>Implying the world isn't anarchist by default
>Implying the world isn't capitalist by default
AnCap are too stupid to understand they are living in their ideal world by default and the only thing hindering them to do whatever the fuck they want to do is the memory of their mother cucking them when they walked over a red light.

No, you can make arguments against it, but a picture isn't an argument.

See above. Also, checked.

...

Early 1900s America wasn't anything like ancap. Esp. after Teddy Roosevelt (very socialist) and Woodrow Wilson (federal reserve).

That meme demonstrates a misunderstanding of the non agression principle. It's not an absolute.

>Supply & demand control prices, not people.
Oh really, so bread prices skyrocketed becouse peope werent buying it in the Weimar Republic?
Or are you gonna say that the 1% extra taxation caused it?
Lassie faire comes with its fare share of anomalies
It symply cant work, unless you already start out with a big capital
Kinda ironic thinking that all ancap fags are hippie shits

>Why would you assume it would a be protective agency and not enforce its own self interests?

They will. They will try to maximize profit.

>How can new competitors enter the market if the established companies will just kill them?

Competition can innovate by being more efficient and costing less, things like having better weapons, tactics, etc. Just like national militaries and PMCs.

Crypto currencies? Are you for real?

Let's say you have a culdesac economy, with one rich house and many average and poor houses. Your rich neighbor is rich because they own an asset that is important to everyone, such as the access road. Other houses provide differing services - you specialise in mining bitcoins cause of your leet Cheeto Fingers.

When you rich neighbor decides to stop paying Bitcoin, and now only pays meowcoin, which they have conveniently 100% premined for you, your economy will be ruined. You can't go anywhere else, there is only one culdesac.

He can then demand whatever he wants. As it happens, he wants a more civil society, and will pay you a small stipend if you enforce his disputes for him.

GREAT! Problem solved.

You are now the local enforcer for culdesac guy, beating up those who don't pay enough for use of the culdesac, those who do donuts, l leave Cheeto packets around.

You are now the enforcer in a feudal society.

The problem with your retarded delusions is that they all end in feudalism. You are just to young and naive to see it.

Automation is an urgent problem in post-industrial societies, as it replaces more jobs than it creates. This holds true even for white collar jobs, as one computer scientist can solve whole patterns of normalized problems that, for example, office clerks and lower managers, solve day for day. Machines can work 24 hours a day, without breaks or holidays.

Without a public social safety nets and re-training, ensured through taxes on automated production, large masses of people would be doomed, even though they are looking for jobs. Because the productivity of humans is restricted by their biology.

>Oh really, so bread prices skyrocketed becouse peope werent buying it in the Weimar Republic?

No, if skyrocketed because of hyperinflation caused by the government:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

>Or are you gonna say that the 1% extra taxation caused it?
No, see above

>Lassie faire comes with its fare share of anomalies

Such as?

>It symply cant work, unless you already start out with a big capital
>Kinda ironic thinking that all ancap fags are hippie shits

What do you mean? Could you clarify?

Also, despite your "long" reply, you literally added nothing to refute the obvious problems raised.

>He can then demand whatever he wants.
Everybody can just leave. If cost of staying somewhere > value of items that are there, then you leave

Solving hyperinflation in the Wiemar republic would not have solved the fundamental problem of the treaty of Versailles, which was causing extreme economic problems. Printing money was just a ham-handed attempt to fix this.

I added something, so by definition not literally nothing.

Specifically, what part of the argument was not convincing?

Is the profit to be had from the class action lawsuits not enough to motivate the lawyer? Is the crypto currency method of distributing micropayments not efficient enough? Please point out what wasn't convincing for you.

So anarcho capitalism is even less functional on island states and in densely populated nations than anywhere else.

what's stopping you now?

>The only way that a PA would not protect you is if the cost of lost reputation, i.e. all of the discounted cash flows of their business < the bounty paid

No the bounty just has to be bigger than the salary of one protective agent who is close enough to get me. In other words: everyone who i hired to protect me.
You might argue that one could pay a policeman aswell but the difference is that the police is bound to a obligatory moral instance, the law.
An agency is just bound to money.

Can you leave Earth?

What happens if you rich neighbor is America?

>Unless someone paid them more to cease protecting you.
yes, like paying off cops or some other group of people in today's world

Unsure of how this relates to ancap but...

>large masses of people would be doomed, even though they are looking for jobs. Because the productivity of humans is restricted by their biology.

Automation would drastically reduce the cost of goods for everybody and thus lead to a cornucopia of wealth and massive increase in people's abilities to live their lives, eat and be sheltered?

>corporations and individuals would just dump their toxic waste anywhere

>something we already solve and enforce today

you wat, nigga?

>disastrous banking deregulations in the USA
you mean the CRA, the GSEs and the federal reserve?
structurally, everything was set up for failure by the government.

What are public goods?

Say you win the lawsuit, how do you collect on your well armed and resourced adversary? If I had the money and the guns, I would tell you to fuck off, much like China and America does already.

Who runs the court that decides the outcome? Where do you get the money for an independent institution? Who appoints judges? The answer to all these questions is whoever has guns and money.

An ANCAP society would be oppression on a scale never seen before.

>What happens if you rich neighbor is America?
They would be overthrown when F(X) was satisfied for whatever % of the population is needed to overthrow the government where F(X) = cost of forced citizenship + cost of being a revolutionary > value of being a citizen.

>They will. They will try to maximize profit.
And this will most likely go against your interests as their customer.
You also won't be able to switch because they won't allow any other protective agency to move in by force.
>Competition can innovate by being more efficient and costing less, things like having better weapons, tactics, etc. Just like national militaries and PMCs.
And to consistently achieve better weapons, tactics, etc. you need to have more money than the protective agency that just monopolized your whole region.
Any competition would be crushed.

>For example without any regulations
there are laws and regulations
they just aren't created and enforced by government agents

>someone hasn't read hoppe

Yes, but the price skyrocketing was still due to the market. Supply & Demand of German Papiermark.