Why the fuck can't statist's wrap their head around the NAP?

Why the fuck can't statist's wrap their head around the NAP?

Are statist's essentially braindead?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because not all of us get to live in a comfortable upper middle class style, and have never seen a serious crime in our lives.

There is a reason the first thing humanity did was form tribes. Nature is an enemy, but mankind is a greater enemy.

My neighbor is playing extremely loud music every night that keeps me from sleeping. I asked him to turn it down, but he said fuck you. What can I do about it within the NAP?

>He still doesn't get it

The NAP is subjective.
"Don't initiate force."
"Why not?"
"Because the NAP says so."

UPB is objective.
"Don't initiate force."
"Why not?"
"Because it is not a universally preferable behaviour, the initiation of force can never be morally right."

You can of course physically initiate force, but you will always be morally wrong.
Which implies someone would be morally right in demanding reperations for any damages caused by the initiation of force.

Oh my god you really have no fucking clue

Acting within the NAP he wouldn't ever initiate force against you in the first place

let the sleep deprivation accumulate, have some sort of accident at work or something. Sue neighbor for damages.

His noise is polluting your property. If you have asked him to turn it down he is intentionally violating your property rights.

>Which implies someone would be morally right in demanding reperations for any damages caused by the initiation of force.

How the fuck did you get to there?

And how do you purpose we make the billionaire and savage alike follow this principle?

If you break my window, aren't you responsible?
I'd be in the right to demand you pay me enough to repair the damages, and possibly a small amount for the inconvinience.

Tell my why they would not first

Yeah sure we'd settle it in a court

Because I would have more to gain by killing you and taking your money than just letting you walk down the street.

This is a terrible point - if people would automatically subscribe to this ideology, we would have it already. It's as bad as those communists who say that communism is human nature.

If we all act in such a manner though you have everything to lose though. You wouldn't act in such a way because everything would fall to shit if everyone behaved like that.

>Incentive to initiate force

In a free society, if you murder me and mug me, I will go missing, someone will look and let's say they find you.
While I was alive, I made a contract with a Dispute Resolution Organisation, essentially a insurance compay, that if I was to be murdered this DRO would be contractually bound to find you and make you pay. Maybe the DRO pays some too, because it's their job to make sure no one murders me. That's why I paid them every month.
Now that I'm dead, they have less income, bad press, and a huge sum of money to pay to my remaining family.

A free society would set incentives straight.

...

>not an argument

>Why the fuck can't statist's wrap their head around the NAP?

Because it's a completely unrealistic ideal that goes against human nature. Any society that could embrace an ideal as inhuman as the NAP would be better off using their cultural capital to adopt an similarly impossible paradigm like utopian communism.

...

>Comparing capitalism to communism

You'll learn kiddo

>Excuse me McDonald's private military forces, you are violating the NAP by forcefully converting my home into a restaurant.
>Please leave or I will shoot one of you before being gunned down. I might even call the police force which you own.

Anarchists of all kinds are the highest form of retarded.

Also you would have a DRO. Something like the concept of a DRO would probably be the norm, but it's just speculation because I can't predict the future.

Since you also had a DRO, they would probably have the policy of "we do not do business with murderers". Because most of society is not murderers, and if they affiliate with murderers like you they will lose money. So since you had a written contract with the DRO saying "I will not kill, and if I do this contract is meaningless". So now you have no DRO. You try to buy a house. Seller sees you have no DRO, he wonders why you don't have DRO? Are you a criminal?

You try to get a job, they ask which DRO you're with. You say you don't have one... I tihnk you're seeing the pattern.

Incentives are everything. Humans are not rational. A lot of humans are stupid and need economic cues as to what to do next.

As you say, if there is no negative effect of murdering me and mugging me, why not?

Just look at our governments and states today. All they do is steal, murder, hide pedophelia, push migration policies that increase crime and reduce economic wealth, lying, wars... Is that what you are defending?

Anarchism is so fucking cringe. Not even 12 year old kids are anarchists anymore

>against human nature
If you want to read my posts that argue the exact opposite, that would be great.

>Anarchists of all kinds are the highest form of retarded.

Not an argument

>Anarchism is so fucking cringe. Not even 12 year old kids are anarchists anymore

Not an argument

If we all did what was best Communism would be our ideology. But we're human, and we don't live in some Utopia.

The difference between you and the Marxists is that the Marxists have some plan to make this Utopia.

So it's like a Government except the people who do stuff can just leave at any moment? They might just take your money and leave, investigations would be damn near impossible with no form of warrant or search being allowed.

I could literally hide in a friend's house and that company would be at fault for coming into the building.

but whos stopping him?

if someone forces him to stop they are going to be breaking the NAP

>When you're killed, your DRO who you've paid tens of thousands in your life pays a PI firm a few hundred dollars to stage evidence of a murder you committed, voiding your contract with them so they don't have to pay your descendants

Anarchism will never last since people with similar ideas will congregate, for small states, wage warfare, conquer others and form bigger states

NAP is human nature dickweeds

>Bobby begins to purchase all water sources in nearby area
>I notice this and purchase a fraction of what Bobby did, but I'm still producing a little bit of fresh drinking water
>Bobby wants a monopoly to increase the price of water
>I'm his competition, selling my water just under his price all the time, giving me the entire market until Bobby the retard goes out of business

>doesn't answer the question
>makes a baseless claim instead

thats what I thought

>NAP is human nature dickweeds

not an argument
So why has it never existed in human history?

>inb4 some small group in south america made an an-cap society of 12 people, and that's your citation

Ignoring the fact this is clearly against the NAP I would probably still prefer this to the system we have now

why are you treating the NAP as if its some sort of unbreakable rule of nature?

what the fuck, are libertarians all retarded?

If you can get your society to completely stop stealing, raping, fighting, murdering and waging war based on ideology rather than the threat of punishment, you may as well also get them to enjoy working solely for the benefit of society rather than personal gain. Both are similarly realistic goals (i.e. not realistic in the slightest).

>If you want to read my posts that argue the exact opposite, that would be great.

UPB is a ignorant pipedream that is only considered plausible by people who lack an understanding of history and human nature.

Using force to achieve your goals is a highly preferable behaviour, which is why it has been the most consistent political and social behaviour throughout history, including in societies that lack a concept of government.
Might makes right, always has, always will.

See

>Bobby notices a decrease in his market share because of you
>Bobby uses his incredible supply of water sources to undercut you enormously
>Thanks to his enormous turnover Bobby lowers prices until you can't afford to stay in business and sell your water source to him
>Bobby achieves a monopoly

I really want anarcho-capitalism to work but
How are you supposed to get out of this? Saying "well the free market prevents monopolies" only works if the person trying to get a monopoly never actually tries to

How many times do I have to say it NAP IS HUMAN NATURE

oh I get it, you're Australian and you're trolling.

ha ha

>this is clearly against the NAP
Who enforces the NAP? PMCs? What if my PMC is better than yours and overwhelms you? Should I care about the NAP at that point?
> I would probably still prefer this to the system we have now
You would prefer to have new states compared to the ones we have now? May I ask why?

>How do we get people to all just follow their natural instincts?????

Gee you stumped me there

>DRO's are like the government
No they are voluntary, and that is why they are better. If the government sucks, you have to physically move to another location which probably hurts you economically.

If my DRO scams me, I will make sure people know and that DRO now has worse reputation. In a free society reputation is everything since there are no state licences.

>I could literally hide in a friend's house, the DRO would initiate force if they search for me
Your friend would have a DRO too, because if he didn't he'd look shady and not be able to do anything in this free society. So my DRO calls up your friends DRO, explains the situation, your friends DRO calls him and says "let those people in, you signed this contract that says you have to if you are suspected of hiding a criminal".

not an argument

This ignores my statements such as lack of ability to conduct a proper investigation.

Or that fact that it's supposedly human nature, but has never been implemented.

It's way past your bedtime.

>NAP IS HUMAN NATURE
No it's not. And even if it was, it would only be relevant until I want your private property and you aren't willing to part with it or I'm unable to pay for it. Then I stop giving a shit about the NAP

None of these are even close to arguments

>people actually believe in something this impractical

What happens if one local DRO goes and shoots all the people at the other ones and gets a monopoly?

It's just a Government that's coerced its citizens to sign away its rights.

We actually have more rights under the current government than under your system.

You have a self-interest in upholding the NAP

Because being part of society means sacrifice and not indulging in behavior that is detrimental and thus immoral to society.

Might makes right. Might and the will to power are thus moral.

You are just a troll and I wasted my time. Sage

Stefbot explains 4 myths in 4 minutes, first one is monopolies.

youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4

As Bobby buys up the competition, I'm still here and my company is increasing in value for every company Bobby swallows. His overhead is bigger than mine, he's in debt I'm not. He needs me to finish his monopoly, I have the advantage in that situation, not Bobby.

because muh missiles

...

How so? If I need food, you have it and are not willing to give it to me, I will try to get it anyway, even it means beating the shit out of you and violating the NAP

Monopolies are an affect of the states initiation of force. In a truly free market, monopolies cannot occure.

Unless you are the only restaurant in a 100 pop village, but that's not the issue here I assume.

youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4

...

see

>In a truly free market, monopolies cannot occure.
It sure is a good thing that there has never been a TRULY free market, because that means your ideology is infallible.

Skärp dig din fedoratippande ungjävel. Allt detta land gjort för dig (även om det gått åt helvete de senaste årtiondena) och ändå ska du gå på någon jävla jude"ideologi" från Amerika. Hoppas verkligen att du är en tonåring. Skamligt.

>Skärp dig din fedoratippande ungjävel. Allt detta land gjort för dig (även om det gått åt helvete de senaste årtiondena) och ändå ska du gå på någon jävla jude"ideologi" från Amerika. Hoppas verkligen att du är en tonåring. Skamligt.

Why did you break out into Arabic?

...

The real question is why should I or anybody else give a fuck about NAP?

Call the police or sue him.

A free market means property rights are respected.

Taxation, laws, regulation, currency monopolies, inflation, interest rates fiddled like a little girl in Bills lap... This is why we have economic booms and busts. We need to ALWAYS respect property rights, and stop being hypocrites.

>förolämpningar
Not an argument

I love my country. Sweden has stood for many great values, the blood and sweat of my ancestors is the reason I'm here. I'm not oblivious to this. Muslim immigration is not the free movement of people, it's a gorvernment program. A fence around your house is not initiating force, it is completely in line with a free market. I'm not an ancom.

I do understand the NAP.
I also understand why it's beneficial for me and my lads to violate the shit out of the NAP.

Because if you don't we're all going to die!!!

>Dude, just like... stop, y'know? Just... don't.

The practitioners of NAP are more likely to be dominated.

>Giving a shit about the work of an autistic hugbox Canadian neckbeard
I was born at night but it wasn't last night, user

I know a few (otherwise) smart Christians who think that evolution is a scam. It's kinda the same thing. People will believe what they want to believe.

Most people don't adhere to abstract principles, you thick fuck. First sign of trouble and the NAP will be thrown unde4 the bus. But a bunch of libertarians and anarcho capitalists on a secluded island and watch them resort to cannibalism within a month.

Strength, power, and force rules. Grow up man babies

Put *

The way I take the NAP argument: You may physically or legally get away with something that violates the NAP, but you cannot rationally make the case that an NAP violation was "good," "fair," "correct," or "justified." ie: Might does not necessarily make right. Right?

>As Bobby buys up the competition, I'm still here and my company is increasing in value for every company Bobby swallows
Assumption 1- That Bobby intends to buy your company at full value instead of lowering prices and increasing market share (because of his enormous production capability) reducing his profit margins in order to make your product unbuyable because he provides a cheaper alternative, withering down your production to nothing and forcing you to sell your business to him at the rate he prefers
>His overhead is bigger than mine
Assumption 2- That Bobby's larger overheads matter because he does not have an appropriately lrage market share and income overall
>he's in debt I'm not
Assumption 3- Bobby's product and business practices were not superior to his competitors, and he had to take on vast debt to buy them out instead of acquiring corporate capital through profit from shrewd business practices
>He needs me to finish his monopoly
Assumption 4- There is no circumstance in which Bobby can simply make your business incapable of surviving by lowering prices due to owning almost all production and market share, forcing you out of the market and letting him set the price he wants

I think saying "there is no way in which a monopoly can occur in a truly free market" is a step too far.
The best argument against monopolies would just be saying
>"When bobby jacks up his prices, you start your own company and undercut him enormously and make a fortune"
But unfortunately that won't deal with monopolisation of finite natural resources such as oil or water.

What are your thoughts?

You are a fucking terrible troll OP.

(sage)

Might does make right. There are no objective values. Some cunt can put a gun to your head and make you his bitch.

Objective values do not and cannot exist, all we can do is adopt and enforce values that are beneficial to us as a civilization. Basically, a noble lie, for the greater good, enforced on everyone by a powerful sovereign.

You can possibly achieve a monopoly. but in order to do so, you will have to beat all competition by making the best product possible at the lowest price possible.
as soon as your quality declines, other people will enter the market.
who cares if there is a monopoly in the free market?
it just means that noone can make a better product.

Okay, Mr. Nihilist...

>Might does make right.

Tell me why, then, it's okay for me, for example, to rape your mom.

>There are no objective values.

And then you use adjectives as "noble" and "greater good." Without objective values such concepts cannot exist.

Also, seeing as I just watched the rest of the video (lel) let me jump in on the others too

>Collusion won't work because in a truly free market someone will always try to undercut the other conspirators fixing prices
Surely you must see how not-an-argument-tier this is? This isn't a final reason why collusion can never happen, this is one reason why collusion might not happen- there's a HUGE difference
>Undercutting can't work because a company has to incur debt to lower prices!
Like I said previously, there's no need whatsoever to incur debt in an attempt to lower prices. A sufficiently profitable company with a large market share could use previously acquired corporate capital as a buffer or just simply reduce profit expectations and shareholder returns for a longer-term strategy.

>who cares if there is a monopoly in the free market? it just means that noone can make a better product.
The problem with a monopoly on the free market is that the company with the monopoly could jack up prices as high as they wanted to to fuck consumers because there is no competition to undercut them.

Fortunately, in a free market, the idea is that as soon as this happens, a citizen could just create a rival company which would cause prices to drop instantly anyway unless the monopoly wants to lose market share and have their competition make a fortune.

However, this becomes a problem when it's a monopoly on finite natural resources...

Name one non-state-supported monopoly that was bad for the general populace. Can anyone give me just one?

>The problem with a monopoly on the free market is that the company with the monopoly could jack up prices as high as they wanted to to fuck consumers because there is no competition to undercut them.

You see, then other people will go into that market and make big bucks because there is high demand.

>Fortunately, in a free market, the idea is that as soon as this happens, a citizen could just create a rival company which would cause prices to drop instantly anyway unless the monopoly wants to lose market share and have their competition make a fortune.
ecxactly!
>However, this becomes a problem when it's a monopoly on finite natural resources.
well, then we have to look into how you could possibly buy all that resouce without the price jacking up on that recource like crazy.

>atheist morality

definitely not an argument

that would be impossible

American Tobacco

>American Tobacco
Why was that monopoly bad for the consumer?

I count five corps with more than 1% of the tobacco market. Try again.

when statists has to reply to real arguments they always fail. either they bail, call you names or make fun of you.

>Rich fagot dies without leaving an heir
Who gets all his property in an ancap society? First of kin? Equal distribution? Whoever calls dibs on it? Whoever grabs it first?

>I count five corps with more than 1% of the tobacco market. Try again.

Because American Tobacco was broken up by Sherman Anti-Trust laws for being a price-fixing monopoly 90 years before this image was made Holy KEK

...

It would be up for grabs. but obviously that would probably not happen, as there would be reqiered binding contracts by the comunity he deals in, for him to leave a heir. in order that no conflict would arise.

NPA for faggots who can't compete

Touche.

YET... cigarettes are a non-essential product. I don't see how society was damaged.

That's like saying each and every legal patent enforces a monopoly. Like, the guy who invented segways hurt consumers with his oppressive price-fixing segway monopoly.

If it's human nature, then how the fuck did states and the like form in the first place?

Because the NAP is a form of statism.
There's not always going to be a time where aggression is a bad thing. I trespass all the time, and I stole something before; in some situations, it's going to be required at the behest of society. Society itself is the foundation which we build our morals on. Saying "As long as we don't aggress" will never hold up always, because in one form of another, you can always commit some immoral act without the need to aggress. NAP is a concept, like the golden rule, existing for no other reason than to serve a self-perpetuating system of governance and statehood (the very thing you hate).

>Bobby's goons show up to your house and threaten to amputate your leg unless you sell him all your sources for $0.01

bobby can do that, but then bobby goes to jail

>communism is good in theory meme

No, communism in theory is literally a description of feels-based ideology. Capitalism is nothing other than a description of natural incentive structures that would develop if people only used violence for self defense.

t. statist