Can we have a libertarian/ancap thread without the forced strawman meme...

Can we have a libertarian/ancap thread without the forced strawman meme? I know this is only going to evoke people to post childpornstar mchospital memes but I still think I can get a discussion going with substance.

I'm definitely leaning towards anarcho capitalism, I want everyone to be free while also respecting the freedom of others, but who exactly decides what's breaking the NAP? If you're wearing a blue shirt, and I happen to have an irrational hate for blue shirts, what's stopping me from telling you to stop wearing blue shirts because it's breaking the NAP for you? This is in the same sense that flashing your dick to other people is also a violation of the NAP, because people (most people) don't want to see your dick. So what exactly is the limit of what counts as a violation of the NAP, and who decides that? There would have to be some kind of 3rd party that differentiates actual violations of the NAP from some guy just not liking blue shirts and abusing the NAP to get rid of blue shirts.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=C7XJIioZEgQ
youtube.com/watch?v=U2RVIi6M7oM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Read this mate. The basic premise is that anarchy doesn't necessarily have to result in total chaos/ immortality. (Disclaimer: he's talking about countries rather than individuals)

>live in ancap paradise
>neighbor's son wanders onto my lawn to get his ball
>blow his brains out for violating my property rights
reminder that ancaps see nothing wrong with the above scenario

ancap is mental illness and its regressive and no better than being a caveman

That doesn't really answer my question. I can't even read half of that.

DUDE LET'S MAKE THE FALLOUT UNIVERSE REAL LMAO

why wouldnt people just exchange some of their freedoms for safety and resources?

Only universally undesirable things are considered a violation of the NAP. Its possible for someone to want to get murdered for example, because that would be assisted suicide. Thus murder is against the NAP

Because some people find freedom more valuable than safety and resources, especially if you can take care of your own relative safety and resources without the government holding your hand.

Its impossible* for someone to want to get murdered. Fuck that typo.

i dont mean the government. what i mean is companies that do everything and take care of you in exchange for some freedoms.

But why is flashing your dick at the kindergarten universally undesirable, and wearing a blue shirt isn't? How can we all agree on what is right and wrong if the whole premise of libertarism is that we don't know how other people should live their lives?

Fuck you, you dutch piece of shit. You're worse than niggers, when you go caravanning in Europe.

>libertarian/ancap

fuck off, libertarians still advocate for a state, which intrinsically violates NAP. don't lump those losers in with the ancap master race

also most of the good ancap memes are made by ancaps themselves, only the shit ones are made by alt-right & natsoc cretins who legitimately dislike ancap, because in order to parody something well you need to understand it

Then the family will just blow his brains back.
Only absolutely insane people wi do such things without regarding the consequences. And those people will die off because that's how natural selection works.

You can opt out of companies.

Can't do the same with governments.

That's basically the only difference, if you paid money into the government instead of being taxed to pay for it nobody would even care.

Can you give me an example? What kind of non-government company will take of you in exchange for freedom?

>libertarism
libertarianism*

People who assume the only thing keeping people from killing everyone else is fear of the state don't understand that most people are also controlled by a moral code and religious beliefs.

>dude lol this guy stepped on my land,better kill him lol xd

Only actual sociopaths and other mental abnormals operate like that

I dont support a stateless society,that wouldnt work in today's world or at most during most parts of human history, I want a night watchman government that secures the sovereignty of the state and enforces the law.

>the rich, isolated from and fearful of the masses, stop having children in order to consolidate their wealth into dynastic, oligarchic power
>they use this to influence the markets, media and education to benefit their own interests and kick the middle class - their only competition - off the ladder of prosperity
>meanwhile the poor, without a route to a better life, have many children to expand their political power and soak up whatever gibs the upper class provides them as political mercenaries
>looting intensifies, dept's climb, lowest common denomenatorisation of society
>systemic collapse
>what is left among the ruins is the human legacy of centuries of dysgenic
FEUDAL
BREEDING
PATTERNS
>, the once intellectually fecund land never again capable of bearing fruit to the greatness of the past
>rinse, repeat until homo sapiens brasiliensis conquers the world

So it's basically the current year only you pretend there's no government

Ancap requires:
- Zero opportunity cost of acquiring information;
- Zero opportunity cost of interacting with other people (namely negotiating);
- People having consistent preferences.

Thing is, with this, any society would be an utopia.

im just talking about the social contract. why wouldnt rich and powerful people set up their own monarchies?

I don't understand why people on Sup Forums despise Libertarianism. The basic premise of it is that people cannot have their constitutional rights violated, and that the state rather than the federal government has the right to make decisions about things like welfare, abortions, drugs, etc. Also it takes a hard stance against crony capitalism which is a great thing.

The only thing about Libertarianism and the free-market, laissez faire economy is how the people (aka the Government) would bust monopolies and reduce the power of unions, which are both terrible for economies. Saying that, unions were necessary to stop worker exploitation but have far outlived their usefulness and are now driving up prices via wage bargaining and demanding benefits for low-skilled workers.

They can do that if they want to, but nobody should be forced to obey them.

>muh NAP
Nice meme.

nother Question

is slavery okay?

or in the gray area, is the whole indentured servants thing ayokay?

>his family would blow his brains back
nope, that would be an initiation of force and thus violate the NAP
>only an insane person
not an argument, don't tell me how to defend my property, statist.

Explain to me how your brand of utopian nonsense is any different from the leftist commie version of utopian nonsense.

Every society, like yours, needs and has such legal-ethical precepts. However, these legalistic precepts rest on the power to enforce them. Ancap by nature has no such mechanism. Thus non-state actor/s will necessarily rise to take the role that the government traditionally did, being different in name alone.

You need to stop thinking about how things "should" work and start looking at how they DO work. Look at the ecology of power that exists behind the labels that you ascribe to them. Ancap is a profoundly accurate litmus test for autism, like witnessing a grown man chiding his bully to stop because "it's not nice/it's not fair".

No, because almost nobody would want to be enslaved themselves, but when you use that logic on my example of wearing a blue shirt that somebody doesn't like, how can you say that wearing a blue shirt doesn't violate his freedom when he himself says it does? In the same way that when you would flash your dick to someone, you might say it's no big deal, when it is a big deal for the other party.

Flashing your dick at a kindergartner is not universaly undesirable, so your comparison is flawed. However someone that owns a school has the right to kick someone out if they dont want people flashing dicks. Its their school, their property. They can do what they want with it

it's edgier nowadays

>Most people won't do it, so might as well give the people that will the right to do it

>actual sociopaths and mental abnormals
not an argument, statist

>Flashing your dick at a kindergartner is not universaly undesirable
So what would be an example of universally undesirable behaviour if even that isn't universally undesirable?

>However someone that owns a school has the right to kick someone out if they dont want people flashing dicks. Its their school, their property. They can do what they want with it
But he can still stand outside of their school property and jack off and everything. The point is that there are certain things like this where you're not violating anyones freedom, yet it's so degenerate that nobody wants to see it. How do we deal with those things in a free society?

You would be about as forced to follow the monarchy as you would be our current government

...

Wouldnt the dead mans family already have beenaggressed against? They wouldn't be initiating force, just responding to it. Using violence in response to violence is ok, as long as you don't start shit

The key is to have a moral society based off western/Christian values

>Can we have libertarian/ancap thread without memes?
But..user....libertarian/ancap ideologies ARE memes

So a free society is a bad idea because people could become so rich and so powerful, that there could be a chance that we will end up in a situation we're in right now already? I don't see the logic here. The government already has complete control over us by force. This is what we're trying to get out of with a free society.

And by the way, in a scenario like that, at least I would be able to defend myself from tyranny like that. In the system we live in today, we can't.

...

>strawman

The person who owns the property around the school would have them kicked off their property.

>But he can still stand outside of their school property and jack off and everything

then the property owner would have to plant trees

I used to think the same way, but then I figured out that you cannot treat the NAP as some sort of supereme cosmic rule handed down by the gods themselves. It's a general principle that, when followed, promotes (as much as is practically achievable) peace, prosperity, and liberty. It's not some explicit rule that can be applied in increasingly absurd scenarios like your blue shirt thing.

Ask yourself: in the real world, would people desiring of peace, prosperity, and freedom be likely to live in a society where shooting people if their shirt pissed you off is acceptable? Does abiding by your interpretation of the NAP cause the outcome of this scenario to result in greater peace, prosperity, and freedom? Obviously not. It's a silly exaggeration, one that can be made a thousand times over with principles taken from our current statist system of thought, so absurd hypotheticals are not a particularly valid challenge to ancap philosophy.

>Sheep doesn't own anti-wolf insurance
>Sheep doesn't own a gun

Literally

>Playing cowboys and Indians
>Shoot Indian
>Indian tells me he has magic anti bullet armor

Except the sheep would just shoot the wolves and be done with it. Anarchists do not expect the world to be a utopia.

And if you say that the wolves outgun and outnumber the sheep, then that is a tactical issue that does not invalidate the philosophy, nor does it present a problem that doesn't already exist right now.

>your pic
What made Molyneux cry ?

I think you're missing the point but alright, I'll play this game with you. Every day the children have to walk to school and back home, and everyday there's a guy flashing his dick outside of school property. How would you as a parent peacefully deal with this? Because he's not violating anyones freedom, he's just excercising his own freedom in public, and nobody is forced to look at it.

Also, I still don't have an answer to the question I asked earlier
>So what would be an example of universally undesirable behaviour if even that isn't universally undesirable?

>What made Molyneux cry ?
The redpill.

>>his family would blow his brains back
>nope, that would be an initiation of force and thus violate the NAP
him killing their son was a violation of the NAP. going on someone elses property to get a ball isnt a sign of agression. Killings someones son is

>in public

not a real ancap society, all "public" land would have been bought up in any urban or suburban area where a school would be

He means look up the title and read the actual article you fucking idiot

So basically you wouldn't be able to walk anywhere outside of your own property because everything is private property?

Also what this guy () said, you're very confused if you think that 'public' land exists in an actual ancap society.

no. a mall is private property but your still allowed in it

no, you'd pay tolls to various private road owners to get where you need to be

or pay various private airspace owners to jetpack where you need to be

or the parents would upgrade their child from bronze to gold kindergarten membership, and the school would take care of transportation

>ancapism gets demolished using even the slightest bit of logic
>ancaps cry "strawman" every time as a "defense"

are they the most autistic people on earth?

try this in an ancap society and get your atoms vaporized by a low earth orbiting photon cannon for violating NAP you simian

Long time ancap here.

I've come to realise that anarcho-capitalism only works with a small population of high IQ citizens who have shared values. The cluster-fuck of modern multi-culturalism makes this impossible.

Most ideologies can "work" with the right demographics but not if the demographics shift due to migration. Therefore, a strong border is the most important issue. How can you make sure that borders are kept and protected without collecting taxes?

We can assume protection of our own property but who can assume protection of the land from foreign influence and statists?

>no, you'd pay tolls to various private road owners to get where you need to be

Enjoy your monopoly prices, retard

>no strawmen
>implying these memes arent accurate description of end game ancap

thingken about spanking

...

...

As a parent, bring it up with the school who would in turn bring it up with their DRO to see if this perv is violating any contracts by flashing his dick at kids. If he's not violating any contracts, then the school picked a shitty place to build their facilities. Other options to pursue outside that might include getting community support in ostracizing this guy and encouraging him to move out of town to do that shit elsewhere.

>inb4 muh competition

Because they want you on their property because they can get economic value out of it. So who would own the property around a school for example? Other house owners? Why would they let people walk on their property everyday if they get no value out of it? And if you really want to go so far to ask for toll to let people cross your property, traveling to the other side of the city for example would be extremely confusing. How many people would you have to pay toll? This is never going to work. You need a certain amount of public land between properties.

/thread

you realize you're paying for all that shit anyway just now at gunpoint to a monopoly right? no, of course not.

toothpaste here just isn't getting it

in a free market, an opportunistic capitalist would buy land to make a road in order to eventually recuperate his investment and make a profit via tolls, you wouldn't be asking dozens of people if you can walk across their lawn

how would an cap deal with global warming?

There is no need to talk about anarchocapitalism. The oxymoron in the name should be a clue, but no. And since these dense assholes don't understand simple logic, what is the point of talking with them? There is none. Anarchocapitalism is a stupid, totally debunked religion, which deserves ridicule. And everyone believing in it should just do the genepool a huge favor and remove themselves from it.

You're absolutely right to have doubts about anarchocapitalism, but you should use your own brains a little more. It's such a stupid and easily debunked ideology that it doesn't deserve any more threads than Islam or feminism.

There would be strong market incentives to make it as stream-lined and usable as possible - all the road owners would benefit from people being able to easily transit from place to place - more traffic for everyone. A good comparison is ISPs - they could all have different versions of the ipv4/6 protocol - but they all benefit from standardization(which has been decided peacefully by industry groups, not government agencies, btw).

you literally said that an cap is bad but you didn't explained why. not an argument bud, I'm not an cap myself but I would like to see real arguments. (inb4 stefan memes).

the free market would produce technological advancements so great that by 2050 we'd be living on Mars and only failed capitalists, peasants, would be left on Earth to deal with the apocalypse

MOLYNEUX BTFO!!

youtube.com/watch?v=C7XJIioZEgQ

I've given them before, but there is simply no point in arguing with zealots. You can't get through with them, so why try?

No one would run to the sound of Abrams Tank fire to investigate the death of John, ergo no one would know if John ever broke the NAP, or You simply chose to splat John's squishy child trafficker/pimp skull for nothing.

There. The premise of Anarcho-Capitalism has just collapsed before you. No one can investigate the NAP unless they risk their life for a stranger.

why would anybody be investigating individual instances of NAP between two private individuals, when it's none of their business? kind of autistic

Can you explain how the community could ostracize him?

Yes ofcourse. I'm not saying our currect system of force is better, I just have some questions about how a free society would work.

Didn't think of it that way, this would be a huge gap in the market ofcourse.

>dude who cares about law and order
>NAP lmao

I rest my case.

well I agree I don't discuss to much on Sup Forums either if I have to type for it more then 300 words to make my point clear. non the less you literally just shitposted.

wishful thinking, what if are at the pinnacle of technological advancement, what if we don't make it happen?

besides we do have the solutions right now but they require the state to interfere, stuff like taxing coal emission.

More importantly, and perhaps more sadly, why does it matter that you are leaning towards ancap? I mean obviously we don't care, obviously your extreme views will never be mainstream, so why do you care? What does it mean for you to be ancap? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You will probably never impact this world or your nation in any meaningful way, and if you do, it certainly won't be as a proponent of anarcho-capitalism. So when you say "I'm definitely leaning towards anarchy-capitlaism", what does that mean? That in your free time you contemplate utopias? Fair enough. I'm sure we all do the same. Particularly the sorry lot here on Sup Forums do. But still it seems odd that you would "lean" that way. I mean there's no party in the world that is ancap, and even if you found one you will never win any sort of election.

>taxing coal emission
>meaningfully reducing carbon emissions
wew lad

>violating my property rights isn't aggression
fuck off, statist

hurrr durr hurr durr do you listen to Stefag Molyjew by any chance, little cuntboy?

If, let's say, the local utility guy doesnt like what this guy is doing to these kids, he might terminate his contract to sell him electricity/water - leaving the guy having to purchase his utilities from a more expensive provider or figure it out with none at all. The local grocery stores may decline his business - meaning he has to travel further away to stock up on his food. He may have an increasingly difficult/expensive time getting any of the things he needs, escalating to the point of him losing his job if he has one. If he works for a local bank, let's say, the people of this area may increasingly refuse to do business there as long as this perv is employed with them. There's lots of reflexive feedback in the free market and this guy - if he were at all rational - would see it's costing him much more to flash children than it's subjectively worth to him. But he may not be rational and the outcome will be him eventually ending up broke and driven out of town.

There are communist parties though. Just because something is an unreachable utopia doesn't mean there aren't idiots trying.

why does ancap aggravate edgy Sup Forums alt-righters and neo-nazis so much?

cute. Luckily you dumb fucks will never be taken seriously in any country anywhere EVER. Anarcho-capitalism is but a mildly interesting thought experiment to entertain oneself and guests over some port after supper.

(it was rhetorical you fuck I know it's retarded)

So we shouldn't even be discussing it because not enough people would support it? With that attitude nothing would ever change in the world. What's wrong with playing around with ideas? We would never make any progress without doing that. I'm not even saying that the world should be an an ancap society, because I don't even know what would be best for us. That's the point of anarcho capitalism.

probably because a lot of the alt righters here were once ancaps, like Molyjew and Ramsey "Race Traitor" Paul, and now they're so ashamed that they lash out against what they formerly believe.

why is ramzlol a race traitor?

I don't have a label, but it's the stupidity aggravating me. Especially stupidity + illusions of superiority combo. You're an idiot thinking yourself an intellectual.

Nothing prevents you from doing that right now.

and btw molyjew has been getting very redpilled lately and speaking the truth about niggers without giving fucks
youtube.com/watch?v=U2RVIi6M7oM

but in ancapistan nobody could rightfully complain about it