Arguments against ancap BTFO

>If the army and law enforcement are privatized, the person with the biggest army rules the land.

This would happen only if people allow it. People can buy their own army or fight for themselves. Direct conflict is too expensive for a company, and will be avoided. The private armys soldiers will also most likely oppose war.

>If there are no laws, you can murder and rape as.much as you want.

In an anarcho-capitalist society law enforcement will not be removed but privatized. These firms will have different laws that they enforce. The only difference between a privatized police and a nationalized one, is that you can choose to live outside the law.

>The government doesn't steal anything, it gives you protection and other benefits for your money.

Theft is theft even if the thief gives you something in return. You cannot choose if you want to pay taxes, which means the government is taking your property without your permission.

>Border control would not exist without a government. Refugees would be everywhere.

Border control would actually be better. If you want to, you can buy a piece of land and declare that only pure aryans can enter.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

How does one enforce the NAP? Couldn't you just kill whoever you want, drag them onto your property and claim they initiated force?

It's more of a guideline

The NAP is enforced if you want to. The laws are made and enforced by private firms. If you don't want any part in it you can choose to live outside the law. This would mean that you can murder or be murdered by anyone else outside the law.

>property

Nyt vittu sinne Somaliaan :DDDDD

So you either get taxed or you are free game? This only creates a problem that our current system has solved.

What's the problem? I doubt many people would live completely outside the law. This also means that the people can choose the laws. If you feel like the laws are unfair, switch to a better law enforcement.

There's actually a ton of problems with this and yes a lot of people would choose to live outside the law.
Say I would choose to live outside the law. Say I would live pretty close to you.
Say I would cook up a thousand litres of mustard gas to gas your whole village to take it over.
This is not a problem for you now. This would be a problem for you in ANCAPISTAN.
Do you still live with your parents?

If you were able to somehow destroy an enntire village without anyone stopping you, you woukd be caught by the law enforcement of the area.

I agree that a lot pf people would choose to live outside the Law enforcements law, but would make rules of their own. There would probably be quite many anarcho-communist villages that are "outside the law"

>mercenary companies oppose war
Holy fuck. Read a history book. Human greed outweighs the desire for self-preservation meaning that whenever there's something to loot someone will try.

Fuck. Off.

So I have taken over an entire villages wealth. The popo is coming for me. Any reason why they wouldn't accept me as a new customer? This would both cut their losses and provide new income. The argument "people won't do business with bad people" falls apart every day when people buy Nestle, McDonalds, Shell products and so on.

>So I have taken over an entire villages wealth. The popo is coming for me. Any reason why they wouldn't accept me as a new customer? This would both cut their losses and provide new income. The argument "people won't do business with bad people" falls apart every day when people buy Nestle, McDonalds, Shell products and so on.
Give up. AnCaps have not enough real-world competence to even debate such things.

>Direct conflict is too expensive for a company, and will be avoided
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

>In an anarcho-capitalist society law enforcement will not be removed but privatized. These firms will have different laws that they enforce. The only difference between a privatized police and a nationalized one, is that you can choose to live outside the law.
So anyone with enough money can make up laws, and hire people to enforce them in anyway they see fit? Sounds pretty bad to me..

>You cannot choose if you want to pay taxes, which means the government is taking your property without your permission.
You might disagree with the concept of the Social Contract, but either way I can guarantee that unless you live in some igloo in the arctic you benefit from things paid for by tax payer money.

>If you want to, you can buy a piece of land and declare that only pure aryans can enter.
Yeah, and I wonder how many people are going to buy land on the border just to do this? Then I wonder about all the shitskins who'll try and buy land to let their mates in. Then I wonder about the private enterprises that will be set up to ship in refugees for a cheap price.

I hate socialism, but anarchy is just as bad.

Yeah no idea why I am doing this. They do have great arguments against our current societies but actually fail to solve any of them.

...

>the private armys soldiers would also most likely oppose war

It's shit like this that make people stare in disbelief at your childish stupidity. There have been a lot of history where you had small local rulers with private mercenary armies. Europe especially had long stints of this. It was called feudalism.

We even had some unpaid mercenary bands get pissed and take over enough areas to form nations.

You do understand these people profit off war right? Somewhere in your mind you have to realize what an incentive is.

*cringes*

>This would happen only if people allow it. People can buy their own army or fight for themselves.

there is a historical precedence with this.The Sicilian mafia clans.

an cap can't deal with issues related to shared resources, like air and global warming. you need to act quickly, an cap would only act when its too late. thats why im not full free market, fight me.

Again, if you somehow destroy a village without anyone stopping you, a situation which is highly unlikely, the company could accept you as a customer. However, the word will spread that this company did nothing to a man who destroyed an entire village. These kinds of rumors will drive customers away.

The reason the soldiers will oppose war is because they have a higher chanve to die there. Some will quit and many will demand more pay.

You doubt it because you wouldn't do it. There are less intelligent and more aggressove people than you who would like it.
I think minarchism is a more suitable system than ancap because people aren't ready for an almost utopian society.

You know, unless I pay for PolicePremium tm* and collaborate with their PR people to shill and spread completely different rumours.
Also regarding those private military peoples being some sort of pacifists, open up a history book.

They're not pacifists, but I doubt many would be ready to die for mcPolice while receiving the same pay as usual.

Not everyone can just get up and move to a different country because they don't like the laws. A huge number of people would then be subjected the laws (and taxes) of some state without their consent.

The companies would not be area specific. If there's a demand for a better law enforcement in an area, someone will do it.

So there's no more arguments against my village-gassing?
In regards to your PMC's , here is where I see you haven't yet worked a day in your life. Ofcourse I like those slow days when there' little work. But I know I have signed a contract. So has the PMC. When you get to the workforce too, you may be offered a contract type called määräaikainen. There is a set date and quitting before this may open you up to legal consequences. This is why war-opposing PMC can't just quit.

But thats just fucking naive.

>The private armys soldiers will also most likely oppose war.

Hahahaha

No. You have clearly not met many soldiers. (Soldiers=/=Conscripts)

Also if there is no threat of war why would those soldiers get paid anything more than a starvation wage?

Fuck that, a threat would be invented in no time.

These are poblems we fixed in the middle ages you lunatic feudalist

I like a lot of ancap ideas but the thought that a private army would be opposed to war is completely ridiculous. It's a fucking army man wtf do you expect thm to do. The only thing I could see happening is large companies having a private army as a defensive force against invading commies or le evil competitors. But at best that would result in a cold war like scenario because war is fucking expansive.
It greatly annoys me when ancaps "predict" what will happen but it ends up sounding like what they HOPE will happen based on their ideological preferences.

It's pretty obvious that states would just develop because of their obvious advantages. Problems of anarchy can be solved well by the market.

can't* be solved well

Yeah I got to agree with you on that one but only partially. The way I see it, private cities and gated community type living situations could provide the basic protection and infrastructure needed for civilisation. Though roads can be provided by private companies for example inside and outside these communities. But yeah state like entities would rise up but I think on a much smaller scale, in the beginning at least, and with less violence because of their business model structure.

Why would people become soldiers and then refuse to fight? Isnt that what their fucking job is? If I were the one doing the hiring I would at least make sure that I have the ability to sent you to war because that would be a REQUIREMENT for hiring you. You dont want to fight? Dont become a soldier in my army and dont sign my contract.

wtf I hate Ayn Rand now

Yeah but the freedom to not pay taxes isn't all that appealing to someone like me, who would consider the services I receive in return to be worth it, for the most part. So OP, if you're such a huge faggot, why would I want to go through the inevitable growing pains that the establishment of an ancap society would entail, if I already get a pretty good deal on the package of goods that I would then need to purchase elsewhere?

The problem is that government rule is necessarily coercive, and not everyone explicitly consents to government rule. For example, you might be born in Saudi Arabia or someplace with laws you don't agree with, and you know your tax dollars go to some king's personal bank account which doesn't help you in any way. A usual argument would be to just move from the country, but not everyone has the means for that.

However, anarcho capitalism doesnt really solve a lot of problems that it says it does. It might fix the problem of consent, and you might have more personal liberty, but then you're left with the huge problems of statelesness that would inevitably lead to the creation of states. For most people it's worth giving up personal liberty for the protections and services that a state offers--even if that state isn't a perfect one.