Give me one reason to believe that ancap isn't the best ideology

Give me one reason to believe that ancap isn't the best ideology.

Protip: you can't.

>Inb4 underage

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/library/nations-consent-decomposing-nation-state-0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Fuck you.

This is now an Ancap meme thread.

Romans 13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Well, you've got this little quote for starters

This works only if christian god is real, which we cannot prove.

hahahaha XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Yes! lol!
There's nothing more boner-inducing (lolzorz) than the same 10 shitty images posted again and again. This week has been epic for the win 'coz everyday I get to see the same images of really makes you think man shooped with the ancap flag over and over.
Ancap: What has the government ever done for us?
Intelligent people: Roads
toppus kekkus

>Anarchist Capitalism
>No system in place to enforce laws and contracts yet expects trade and commerce to flourish

desu lads when you combine a contractual covenant society (Hoppe based an-cap) with ultra ethno-nationalism you have a undefeatable (in argumentation and logic) ideology that literally saves the white race.

As soon as European get wind of this I can see 4th reich desu lads, inb4 this thread is shut down :')

it doesent let me genocide people i dont like

Fresh off the meme presses

consider arbitration

You won't stop the workers militia seizing your beloved private property.

How the fuck would you even enforce the NAP?

Guns and majorities
Also child slaves will diminish any aggression with cuteness and lewdness

...

In an anarcho-capitalist society, how do you prevent people from forming nations themselves and how do you make sure people stick to the ancap ideology?

>anarchism is about controlling others
You're getting it wrong.

Also the concept of "nations by consent" is one of the key traits of libertarian anarchism. If you want to live in a commune where all property is commonly owned or a conservative community or a mormon farm you're free to do so so long you don't impose it on others by the means of violence, threat of it or any other coercive means. The whole point of libertarian anarchism is that all communities and kinds of society are voluntary.

If you have a few minutes to devote to this I'd recommend you a very short paper (10 pgs.) by Murray N. Rothbard himself on the topic of nations by consent: mises.org/library/nations-consent-decomposing-nation-state-0

Libertarianism does not force any style of living upon anybody, and this is something statist peoples have a hard time to understand.

>Private security doesn't exist
>PMCs don't exist
>Private arbitration doesn't exist

I'm not even an ancap anymore, but this is just lazy.

How do you prevent people from forming authoritarian states?

You know, "voluntary" authoritarian states.

...

Voluntary authoritarian state is an oxymoron, but I get what you mean.

Rothbard said that one of the principles of libertarianism is that violence should only be used in a retaliatory manner. He supported revolutionary militias (aka private armies) and believed that the best strategy for libertarianism to be achieved was a constant push for secession and the reduction of the size of the jurisdictions, something that was to be achieved by force if necessary but in the context of a functional democracy it was preferable to achieve by vote.

There are many ways to undermine the power of the state. Rothbard devoted much time to analyze what the state relies on to exist and another important libertarian strategy is "alienation" of society from the state. The state to exist needs people to use its monopoly currency (dollar, euro, etc), to consume its (indirectly) controlled media, to use their public "education", to believe that all civilization in the history of mankind was due to some sort of strong central government and not the other way round.

The way to make others turn against the state is 1) to expose it for what it is, an institution of legalized theft with the monopoly to exercise violence with little incentive to restrain itself, and 2) to tell people ways to undermine the power of the state: using alternative currencies to the state-imposed one, creation and participation in the underground (aka non-taxed) economy, homeschooling their children or taking them to the appropriate private schools where they will not be indoctrinated in the mythology of the state as they are in public schooling and of course to invite everyone else to do the same and spread the arguments for doing so.

There are many strategies for libertarianism to come and they're already in action. Year after year the elites are losing their grip on society.

...

...

Because human nature is tribalistic. There always has to be some degree of nationalism.

>>No ideology is the best ideology you nerd. Ancaps are illiterate dilletantes (and very rarely are they in any way a "capitalist"--see capitalism isn't an ideology it is a function, an economic technology which emerged during the industrial period with other technologies-it will eventually be deemphasized when it is no longer useful; not to be overridden by communism though, Marx was a tit)

...

If we live in an ararchist society, what prevent people who make today's military war machines from becoming the new defacto government?

>without a slavemaster, who will protect me from the other slavemasters?
>im so sowwa massa!

ancapistan isn't possible in a society filled with people utterly disconnected from nature and creation. only a lowest level of human thinking even debates internally dominating others to personal gain. you, being the prime example.

Nonsense. The purpose of the bible was to keep people in line

Prove to me that "governing authorities" refer to the governments of man. Since humans suck, and governments constantly change hands by way of sinful violence it is not consistent with the nature of God that he would appoint the winner of every coup and revolution that succeeds or fails.

LMAO

How fucking sheltered can you be? I'm thoroughly convinced all you ancap fags are 14 year olds. I refuse to believe adults are this fucking retarded.

People will revert back to the Stone Age of we were to have no governments.

...

...

...

They are. Ancaps are nothing more then deluded children following a meme ideology.

...

But how do you prevent a very rich person from buying all private security companies and then ordering them to steal money from people under the guise of "taxation"?

Because there are enemies of humanity that would be free to organize, rally, and gain enough strength to Conquer everybody.

While the freedom of AnCap is desirable the fact remains that without vastly superior technology to what we have now (star trek shit) an Individual or their family/enclave are not able to defend themselves and their resources adequately.

Until that time we need National Socialism, because its the only socialism that cares about its people.

NS is more or less AnCap except it treats the entire country as a single family unit or enclave.

>all you have to do is open a history textbook
Yea, because feudalism was so popular

because human are a social form of life, we want culture.
A lot of people want to have an authority.
Most people cant live without one.

Lets say my antropological assumptions are wrong.
One will be the best capitalist anyway and make a authoriterian state using his wealth.

A lot of these kids grew up taking civil society for granted. They cannot imagine why tribes would invade each other's territory. They grew up with the illusion that there is always enough for everybody. They can't comprehend that on a planet with limited resources, it's impossible for people to just "leave each other alone" and to "mind one's own business". The scarcity of land and resources draws people into contact with eac other, destroys almost all area for individual maneuver, and forces people to elbow each other in order to move forward. Furthermore, they're so used to the economic system they grew up in that they perceive it as something "natural". Just listen to their inane analogies of "animals acting like capitalists". So they think this system can be maintained even without a government.

...

>pre-status to feudalism
>best in anything

>Rothbard said that one of the principles of libertarianism is that violence should only be used in a retaliatory manner

And this is where the confusion begins. Suppose I come on to some piece of ground that you call your land. Suppose I don’t believe people can own land since nobody makes land. So obviously I don’t recognize your claim that this is yous. You then violently attack me and push me off. What just happened? I say that you just used aggressive violence against me. You say that actually you just used defensive violence against me. So how do we know which kind of violence it is? You say it is defensive violence because under your theory of entitlement, the land belongs to you. I say it is aggressive violence because under my theory of entitlement, the land does not belong to you. So which is it?

The word "aggression" is just defined as violence used contrary to some theory of entitlement. The word "defense" is just defined as violence used consistent with some theory of entitlement. If there is an underlying dispute about entitlement, talking about aggression versus defense literally tells you nothing.

That's why the NAP is a completely unnecessary principle. Every political philosophy, save for extreme forms of pacificm, says that what it defines as "aggressive" is wrong and that "defensive" force is ok.

At the end of the day, the actual dispute is not about whether aggressive force is legitimate, but which entitlements people should have.

>legalized theft

That's an oxymoron. Theft is the crime of taking something illegally. Taking something legally is just that: taking it. According to the laws, people aren't entitled to the taxes they have to pay. So taking them is not theft.

>he WANTS other people to control his life

t. bootlicker

Why not put your money where your mouth is and go live in some anarchist hellhole? Oh right, because you know that you will get raped by a warlord.

: ( No fun...

I encourage all of you to move to Somalia if you want anarchy.

...

>;__;

With a gun. If someone trie to steal from you, you shoot them

Any appointed authority fits the verse according to my understanding.

You aren't actual anarchist in the first place

Any ideology you cant apply in real life is nothing but pointless fantasy, akin to "elves who live in perfect harmony and all is well"

AnCap demands utter lack of any nations in its surroundings, or that Ancap-land is massively more developed in tech than any of its surroundings, akin to japan in the middle of africa.

These.

Ancap relies to much on a supra-legal notion about NAP and general principles that would be adopted by private courts.
That's just wishfull thinking to me

By creating another private security company yourself and offering a better service to his badly treated customers.
Anarchism is the notion that all government is undesirable and should be abolished.
Anarchism is not exclusive to the left just because anarchism has been historically worked almost only by them.

People organize themselves in a voluntary way to prevent it. See attached picture.
>People will revert back to the Stone Age of we were to have no governments.
Government is not the source of civilization. Government is a parasitic institution that lives off stolen wealth, since production must precede production government is a product of civilization, not its cause.

Ideias Radicais underages, please kys

>By creating another private security company yourself and offering a better service to his badly treated customers.

In other words: wage war. And everybody can organize an army and tons of weapons for that, right?

>Anarchism is the notion that all government is undesirable and should be abolished. Anarchism is not exclusive to the left just because anarchism has been historically worked almost only by them.

True.

Theft is taking away someone else's property without their consent, and private property exists prior the existance of the state. Whether "theft" is recognized by the state or not that is irrelevant. Theft is still theft irrelevant of who does it and whether the person or institution who does it considers it legitimate or not.

Defense. You need nation as a base for protecting your freedoms. Defense need hierarchy, generals, colonels, majors...

Defend yourself, organise private militias

>You need someone to control you to protect your "freedom"

Wew lad.

ragtag of retards against an actual army with airforce and navy, I wonder who wins

All the people who works in the state providing "defense" did sign a contract before starting to do so. The only difference would be that these contracts would be signed between the person and a private business.

This would rule out military conscription because it is not voluntary but rather a form of legalized slavery.
>In other words: wage war. And everybody can organize an army and tons of weapons for that, right?
Not quite right. In first place, if the people are living in a stateless society is because they have learned how to remove their support for non voluntary institutions in order to make them go bankrupt as sooner as possible. The main course of action proposed for libertarian anarchism to come is "starve the beast" so people would have learned how not to support institutions that want to force themselves as monopolists of violence and taxation in a certain area in the very same way we learn today that, allegedly, voting is the way we are supposed to live in a fair society.

Secondly, war is something mostly only nation states can afford because their revenue does come from stolen wealth they do not own instead from voluntary customers. A "war" among private security organizations is highly unlikely because, unlike The State, they have to fully bear the costs of war. i.e. sending people to protect others from petty theft and private crime does not force you to pay them a very high wage because the possibility of your employees to die is quite low, as opposed to sending them to some trenches to get maimed by some other organization. Private "wars" would be highly unlikely and would tend to immediately bankrupt the security agencies that even tried them, since not many people would consider patronizing a belligerent organization as their provider of "security".

For reference, compare how much are paid today private bodyguards and private security (aka mall cops) as compared to what mercenaries working in war zones are paid.

capitalism can't and doesn't exist without a strong state able to enforce contracts

Capitalism can and has existed for most of human history without a strong state able to enforce contracts.

two words: mecius moldbug

commerce isn't the same thing as capitalism

capitalism means property rights and contract law which requires a central authority with to defend property and enforce contracts through violence. whether you want to call that a state or a private arbitration militia or whatever is up to you, but it's functionally the same thing.

...

>implying there's anything wrong with this

you just made an argument AGAINST statism

but of course you don't understand how

or stay right here and do all I can to starve the beast

more fun 2

woah

Private property is not some sort of god-given right brought to you by some warlord that will shoot anyone who steals it from you under some conditions he will set in an unilateral "contract". Private property is an extension of the ownership of one's self that is acquired by mixing your labor with elements that are present in nature or by means of trade of things previously owned. Private property is independent of enforcement, which is what it makes it naturally feasible instead of arbitrary (I own this because the warlord says it!).

Contracts are enforced by violence but no central non-voluntary authority (State) is required for that. Two people can come to terms that X property will become owned by the other provided some conditions are fulfilled and have a third party (a private enforcement agency) to temporarily take hold of the property and transfer it to the new owner if conditions are fulfilled (and charge a fee for that service). That's one of the many ways private contract enforcement has worked throughout history.

If by "violating the NAP" it means launching a bunch of missiles to you I believe using an Abrams tank would be a proportionate response, indeed. Would saving your memes violate the NAP

Yes, but I'll look the other way.

Tell me how ancap does not require:
- Negligible cost of acquiring information (which implies full information and no information asymmetries);
- Negligible cost of negotiation;
- People with consistent preferences.

These will imply both complete contracts and complete markets. If any of these fail, your little ancap utopia will collapse.

>HAHA YEAH DUDE FUCK BORDERS AND SHIT XD

>when you constantly impregnate your debt slave that signed a contract and make mad cash money from selling the children as slaves because they're your property as well

Feels libertarian man.

Does aggressive shitposting violate the NAP? Am I being detained?

...

>Hey Paul, we'll publish those letters you wrote you just gotta add this little thing to them.

Every fucking time

If that's the case I don't understand why the fuck you stormderps don't support it. Under the current context you only have A border and once they have crossed it they can roam the entire country freely unless they are caught by some randomly patrolling policeman that may care or not about doing his job well, while in a stateless private property society every street is a border and is susceptible to have private police ready to kick your spic/moor/anglo ass out to protect your epick aryan blood from miscegenation.
>The king is sent by God and you must submit.
We already got through this phase, it was called feudalism. If you like it so much you can sell yourself as a slave to some ISIS mercenary to fuck your ass routinely, as it seems you expect exactly that from government.

Until said group or should I say Nation sends in their army and wipes your free territory off the map. Do you seriously think Europe for example would stand a chance of defeating China and Russia if they Europe got rid of their standing army

Loss of synergy benefits within certain fields e.g. epidemic control, border security, education and road maintenance. Apart from those ancap is a fairly good model. However those cons make it inferior to moderate minarchism.

Libertarian anarchism does not mean renunciation to government services such as defense, arbitration and law enforcement, it merely means that these services would be provided privately.

There is nothing wrong of getting rid of a standing army if it is replaced by a better one that will provide their defense service either in a competitive manner or in some sort of voluntary cooperation through a private organization.

There is a long history of arguments in favor of the private production defense.

Who do you think it is that benefits from cheap 3rd world migration it isn't the white working class that's for sure. Corporations favour mass cheap labour and always have and will continue to under your uterrly retarded system.

What makes you think that a unified military will just suddenly come about look at South Africa where private contractors are rampant it would essentially be that with no standing army.

That does seem to require an extraordinary amount of cooperation and accountability. How can you possibly get this without a negligible cost of acquiring information and a negligible cost of negotiation?

If what you're looking for is to create a monoracial society within an enormous land mass defined by some arbitrary borders most of which are empty land you do not own and which is already greatly populated with all kinds of different races sorry, I agree that libertarian anarchism cannot possibly enforce that, neither can even the worst of totalitarianisms and it's pretty much a pipe dream.

On the other hand, if what you're looking for lots of prosperous all white societies that are openly against miscegenation and exercise their freedom of association to prevent to ave to associate with different races I can tell you that in a voluntary society there would exist lots of these and I adventure myself to say that if given the chance not many white people would choose to live near a Paki/Nigger hive nor allow their children interact with such peoples. Anarchism does not magically make people lose common sense, quite the contrary.

Government enforced borders, combined with government ownership of most land and all streets, and intrusive laws that thwart the exercise of freedom of association are exactly what convert countries in miscegenation melting pots.

So your just going to ignore my comment made on both migration and the threat of a unified army. You have provided no answers to both how about you actually provide me with an actual example of a functioning ancap society, for fuck sake even ancoms had revolutions unlike you lot.

...

Private contractors work for the government, not the direct "customers" for the service of protection. Since taxpayers cannot withdraw their economic support from one specific contractor and, as you suggested, that creates very wasteful spending, you yourself have made a strong case for the privatization of armies so they are patronized directly by its customers instead of through the inefficient and non voluntary method of taxation and public spending.

Congrats brudder, you're now a private property anarchist.

>Haha let's replace a functioning society with one where you have to sell yourself to sex slavery if your wallet gets stolen on a private road and you can't afford to pay the toll
And that's hoping the road owner won't just shoot you for trespassing.
I have never heard a good argument FOR ancap, but I have heard lots of good arguments against it.
No, lack of taxation is not an good argument if I have to fucking pay everytime I walk on a road.
Give me ONE good argument.

What I asked was how could small deregulated private groups defend themselves against a unified goernmental force?
You also seemed to ignore the comment made about the Corporations favouring mass cheap labour from abroad.
What also makes you think that these private armies won't end up fighting each other and then essentially having the winner who's left with the largest private army set up their own state.

tldr

is this post in short "gib muh clay back"?

Hi, just a friendly reminder that you are on a peruvian llama cloth sewing forum trying to reason with an anarchist.
He is just gonna go on again about muh militias and pmc's.

>ideology

If you see the world through an ideology you've already lost

Language is just an illusion.