Give me one reason why an ancap society wouldn't work. Also your shitty ancap memes aren't arguments

Give me one reason why an ancap society wouldn't work. Also your shitty ancap memes aren't arguments

Uninternalized externalities pose a free rider problem. If you want a solutions for the problems statism currently has with its own free rider problem, I would suggest looking up Pragmatarianism.
Market failures are not a myth. We can only resolve these failures through a complex web of contracts or coercive centralized action.

Don't feel bad man, I used to be one as well.

Good news is that you can fund a minarchy without income taxation. Pigou taxes and land taxes have deontological justifications and do not destroy wealth.

Essential services shouldn't be motivated primarily by profit above all else.

I like knowing what's in my food and products

I like that I don't have to pay a toll on every road

I like that we have a modern military funded by everyone.

What are the default inheritance rights in an ancap world?

Without regulation, people will get up to all sorts of stupid shit, and eventually capitalism will gave way to anarchism.

>my neighbor put his oil drill on my front lawn and claims that he found oil so he has the right to mine it there

>so i shot him

Imagine if Microsoft would have kept on going, without interference from countless judges penalizing them for monopolizing the computing industry.

What's stopping a foreign state actor from just buying up land and effectively annexing huge swathes of your nation?

Capitalism without rules. What could go wrong?

fucking horrible argument. Why the hell not? Also it isn't like government does shit just because it cares. Gov is business too.
>I like knowing what's in my food and products

Private regulations agencies can be bribed, but everyone knows the government can't accept bribes cuz that would be illegal, amirite?

Speaking of which, let's just make murder illegal sometime

>I like that I don't have to pay a toll on every road

If it is inefficient to stop and pay a toll on every road, then smaller roads will be bought up to form larger stretches of roads, with toll booths only on the edges. Or even better, mutualism could occur and communities could own the roads or have the roads maintained through a municipality. If the roads aren't maintained the value of their properties will decrease.

>I like that we have a modern military funded by everyone.

Really this is your only legitimate point.

Capitalism isn't working. Why would the retarded version?

kek that would be funny... Imagine ancapistan bought up by a bunch of communists.

but honestly if ancapistan is surrounded by oppressive government regimes the value of the land will be greater simply by merit of their being no government with control over it. That is, if government has been so corrupted that it is actually more efficient to live under a form of anarchism.

That is the real place of ancapism: a temporary alternative to other regimes.

All of your solutions are less efficient and favorable alternatives to just public funding and operation of these services.

A private military is a very stupid fucking idea and arguably ruins your entire fantasy right off the bat.

...

In Rome Crassius owned a private fire fighting service. They would go around and set fire to people's house (there was no state police force on privately owned thugs) and then he would extort money out of the people who's houses he had just set on fire.
Glorious ancap fair society am I right.

anarcho-communist christian reporting in

Acts 4:32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

No money, no governments, no rich people, only people helping people

Fellow ancap here, keep up the good work Cloverbro.

Yes, that's the way heaven is. However, you can only try to contribute to that way, but most of the world isn't interested in that. The world rejects God, so we cannot have His way until His kingdom comes.

How are private inspectors who have to earn credibility worse than government inspectors, who we have to assume are trustworthy?

The inefficiency of tollbooths can be replaced either by centralized government or by a municipality. Unless you can give me a reason that government is more efficient at creating roads than a municipality, I think you are wrong again.

also
>implying that I am an ancap

I didn't say that privatized military was a good idea. Learn to read.

no way to enforce private property

i agree but its the ultimate standard of policy
it is perfection

so saying im a libertarian or this and that is a waste of time ... im gonna tell them what i really think lol

It's more about the organization of funding.

Voluntary funding is inevitably going to result in less people paying more rather than the whole group paying less for services that they will all use or benefit from.

A society is not men on isolated islands, it's a working, breathing colony of humans that will largely benefit from working together in some signficant capacity.

You know what fuck it I'm going for the throat.

If stateless societies are favorable, why are they all APOCALYPTIC FUCKING NIGHTMARES?

It's called a gun faggot.

Amen, guy.

I don't see what those pictures have to do with anything, though. She's pretty cute. She looks a bit like that 'racist' girl band member on twitter BTFO blacks.

Average prosperity currently much too low...
Ancap system heavily places power proportionate to prosperity. With the extent of current wealth disparity , severe disorder would be probable.

...

People are shitty sometimes.

>Good news is that you can fund a minarchy without income taxation. Pigou taxes and land taxes have deontological justifications and do not destroy wealth.

Can you link to something explaining this and more on minarchy in general? Literature that perhaps swayed you away from ancap?

So if you aren't good at using a gun then you can't defend shit.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".

beyond just me googling Pragmatarianism that is

Paying Taxes to Caesar
…16So they brought it, and He asked them, “Whose likeness is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they answered. 17Then Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” And they marveled at Him. 18Then some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came and questioned Him:…

Hire some else to do your shooting then.

Also how fucking hard do you think shooting a gun is?

ya pay your taxes while your temporarily stuck under tyrannical rule to prevent going to prison it doesnt mean god supports taxes or even one of these nut jobs in charge of these countries

Daniel 2:44
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

because a foregein power would abuse your liberties and form a fifth column anad take over the country in no time.

another thing is that the market can't deal wih issues that are related to limited shared resources.

these are the reasons why i consider myself libertarian and not an cap.

>Voluntary funding is inevitably going to result in less people paying more rather than the whole group paying less for services that they will all use or benefit from.

This is the objection I stated above, but that still doesn't necessarily apply to the municipality scenario, because you can't live within the bounds of the municipality if you aren't paying your road tax.

>If stateless societies are favorable, why are they all APOCALYPTIC FUCKING NIGHTMARES?

I'm not an anarchist, but you have a sampling bias towards apocalyptic societies because scenarios where the state has been removed are often scenarios where some large conflict or negative circumstance has removed the state. If a state couldn't exist under those circumstances, it isn't reasonable to expect anarchism to work under them either.

And even beyond that, we have had instances of anarcho-syndicalism functioning, at least short term.

This doesn't mean that anarchism works, just that your criticisms are kintergarten-tier.

Anarcho Capitalist doesn't correlate with Christianity at all

basically because this

1. Externalities
2. At some point a given individual will develop sufficient power that the end result of allowing him to retain his property rights unmitigated is that he holds power essentially indistinguishable from a warlord or king, begining the slow journey back to statehood.
3. Inheritance ties into the above, provided you've not got a state or some other organization that enforces a broadly equal starting point for everyone.

Furthermore like attempting communism, if you do it in a society that doesn't cover the entire earth then the evil oppressive statists next door with no respect for the NAP will just start bombing you.

>And even beyond that, we have had instances of anarcho-syndicalism functioning

Need proof

An anarcho-capitalist society is akin to the old idea of the benevolent monarch. Where it is posited that if there was such a monarch, he would be able to unilaterally make decisions, and because he is wise and kind, all would benefit. Of course in reality, this has not, and will not happen.

Ancap societies assume the same thing, only where in the monarchy you needed one person to be upstanding and intelligent, an ancap society requires every actor in the system, millions of them, to be seemingly omniscient and benevolent beings. It is inherently flawed and provides no way to enforce any law or limit coercion, in fact it only facilitates it because of the lack of neutral governance.

Because the vast majority of people wouldn´t respect the fundamental rights of their peers unless they feared the consequences of their trespassings

if people are christian they dont want the money so their power is none effect over them

theyll just be like nah were gonna stay over here and do our own thing in our christian commune

>ITS NEVER BEEN TRIED

You're as bad as fucking commies. It has been tried, it doesn't fucking work. And "it works short term" is not a design for a modern society you fucking clown.

It's inferior through and through.

The big one is the element of the unknown. There has never been a truly free society, so all we really have is speculation. It's not a very philosophical reason, but it is the one that matters to a lot of people. It is also why it is going to take a long time to get there.

What people fail to realise is that removing a state does not create a stateless society.

Burning down all the churches in a country doesn't create a country of atheists.

The people in the society are important. A libertarian society would be high trust and it doesn't hurt that most libertarians are white and have above average IQ.

Degenerate behaviour would be costly and without the state to subside it, people would quickly adapt or face ostracism.

It is true that some "libertarians" just go on about muh individualism without any mention how individuals in a society interact with each other.

Christians not liking money. Churches richer than Apple and Google combined. Sure.

Ancapistan: Only the rich will survive

But those majority of people would be extinct before any step toward an ancap society.

the love of money is a great sin in the bible , the root of all evil to be precise

if they are unwilling to accept that truth then theyre being heretics

1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

They became apocalyptic nightmares as a result of the state. I assume you are thinking about instances like Somalia. So saying that someone should move to Somalia because they are against the state is like saying someone should move to Chernobyl because they are against nuclear power. Both are examples of the most negative aspects. By the way, Somalia has had yuge economic growth year over year compared to its neighbouring countries after losing the state. Japan and Germany also flourished after losing their state.

lol you fucks wouldn't survive a day without a functioning government.

I'm not good at making chinese food or gasoline either, but I still somehow never have a shortage of either.

>smaller roads will be bought up
>competitive firms will prevent monopoly and push prices down to an acceptable level
Pick one

So the requirement for an ancap society is the culling of billions?
I can see a few issues with such an ideology.

>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
>RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS
RATIONAL SELF INTERESTED PRIVATE ACTORS

Get gud or get some insurance.
Only leftists.

No need for a culling, if we can get rid of the welfare state the average IQ will start rising again as smarter people start breeding and dumber people are no longer paid to shit out kids by the dozen. No violence or starvation needed.

>it will work if people just all think the same way

Lol good luck with that

>Ancap system heavily places power proportionate to prosperity. With the extent of current wealth disparity , severe disorder would be probable.

Actually this is one of the only good things about ancapism. It puts the power in the hands of those who are (on average) productive and smart, instead of democracy, which is biased in the opposite direction.

pragmatarianism is basically you decide how to allocate your tax dollars. You vote for politicians to create and remove programs, but you and the rest of the citizens get to decide what gets funding and to what degree.

Georgism is basically capitalism, except that you accept the Lockean proviso. This basically means that people can't hoard natural opportunities all to themselves, when they are really the common heritage of the nation. (or the world, if you are a lefty) Basically it says that land taxes are justified because men only own themselves, their labor, and their share of natural resources. Most of the injustices of capitalism come from exploitation of natural resources. Maybe read some henry george if you need this clarified.
Pigou taxation is basically taxing for harm you do to others, and then subsidizing activities that benefit others with the money. When the tax money is lower than subsidies the government goes into debt, when the subsidies are lower than taxes the government pays off its debt and stockpiles funding for later.


Fucking read my posts. I am not supporting anarchism, you idiot.
Yes it has been tried, in Catalonia.
The reason it fell apart was fascist opposition. If this flaw could be remedied, it might stand a chance in the future.
Catalonian spain, anarcho-syndicalism occurred because the people were united in opposition to fascism.

second one is the actual flaw in anarcho capitalism, so I will pick that one.
This sort of thing wouldn't be a problem though, if anarcho-capitalists accepted Locke's Proviso...

What will you pay them with?
Anything you could give them they could just take from you.

Maybe not billions, but a lot yes.

Leftists and other parasitical filth would not be able to survive without others being forced to subsidise them.

Just look at what is happening in the US.
We can see currently how they are willing to use violence to take what they think is rightfully theirs. They will burn their own cities to the ground if they aren't appeased.

Physically removing these vermin will be a prerequisite to a free society.

The average IQ is already rising fuckface.

all you have to do for georgism to work is have state run natural resource companies that the profits distribute straight to the people

having a private enterprise in your oil fields is a sin against the people

total robbery

also if you own a certain amount of land you have to pay taxes on all unused land that you currently arent using

i dont believe in the idea of having a random property tax on everybody just for living in a home

thats not effecting anyone

Can someone post the screen cap of the libertarian utopia? The one with private police investigation and stuff. It was funny as fuck and kinda relatable to this post

Roads?

>tfw no road

I don´t think renouncing any form of government is needed in order to restrict benefit for professional parasitic breeders.

Wouldn´t ancap require anyways to start on equal footing? How do you prevent "snowballing" by those who start with a headstart?
I have always held the firm belief that concepts such as the "Social Contract" and the "Monopoly of Violence" have been essential in the prosperity and hegemony of Western Civilization.
You can´t just throw everything overboard and expect that everyone will be smart or cool-headed enough not to revert into small tribal-like structures bent on raiding and hoarding ressources which nobody produces anymore due to the fabric of society no longer being a source of stability.

Not the same but perhaps similar.

Some aspects of nationalism really.
Shared identity and culture are conducive toward a high trust society.

If they have no family, all their shit becomes unowned

> What will you pay them with?
Money, bitcoins, child prostitutes, what have you.

>Anything you could give them they could just take from you.
I suppose they could. Do you think there would be no repercussions if someone would rob people all willy-nilly?

we already live in an ancap society. It's just an ancap society with a bunch of people violating NAP and extorting you using the power of the state.

>you will never have child slaves work all day in coal mines for moldy bread and a harem of women your paramilitary kidnapped

>all you have to do for georgism to work is have state run natural resource companies that the profits distribute straight to the people

Dumb idea. Better to let people compete to mine the resources most efficiently, but not give them any exceptional right to those resources. Rather have every citizen own their share of oil, and then they pay a company to mine their share.

There are cases where the responsibility to society is difficult to formalize or price accurately, but I don't think of oil as one of those cases.

>total robbery
well it could be. Imagine that someone pulls all the oil out of the ground and then sells it at very high prices. Since the oil doesn't go bad, he can keep it around for a hell of a long time, and the typical rules of the market that lead to sensible pricing don't apply.

It is sort of like that example we had above ITT where someone bought up all the roads and then charged inefficiently high prices for their usage.


>also if you own a certain amount of land you have to pay taxes on all unused land that you currently arent using

Isn't this a good thing? It doesn't seem like you should own land if you aren't doing anything with it. Also the certain amount is basically your 'fair share' of the land. Though it might be a bit more, because other natural resources that you don't use might exist.

>i dont believe in the idea of having a random property tax on everybody just for living in a home

I agree. It is best for most of the funding for public works to come from externality taxes. Land taxes should only fund a citizens dividend, so that people can live in a house of a good size without effectively paying any taxes.

>thats not effecting anyone

The idea of a georgian land tax is based largely on the idea of land externality: if you take over half the world and claim it as yours you certainly won't be harming anyone, but that still might not be a just distribution of natural resources.

It would, but nobody is willing to start building the gallows for those currently in power.

Found one!

>I like knowing what's in my food and products

You actually think you know what's in your food products?

ya the police are just regular guys who get up in the morning

they dont have to go to work every day

it would be ancap tomorrow if the police station wasnt there

and it would work because people would just be a lot more careful and have guns and band together with people they know are harmless

To clarify:

the fact that all their shit goes to the dead person's family would be "ancap common sense" (an unwritten law derived from the public consciousness)

And another one

ancap is nothing more but corporate feudalism
1 if you remove the goverment corporations take over monopolize everything and 85%of the people die the rest get replaced by robots or high skilled workers from around the nation/globe
2other nations just taking over and fucking up your shit
3 police run for profit only has interst in thorwing u in jail
4healthcare system only run for profit doesnt mater abotu lifes being saved as long as u make shit ton of cash
5 as much as a goverment can be bad at least you can run for it gud luck with trying to kick out a CEO or shareholders by voting if you are not in the corp or you are low level in it

anarchism is about a system of self governence capitalism is nothing else but a totalitarian system so yeah.....

losers on both sides of that argument don't seem to ever grasp that the word "Anarchy" means without government. NOTHING ELSE. There is not left/right polarized slant to it. But then again trendies will adopt ANY new Saturday morning fun club if it rubs their feelz. Just like ll those people out there that think they are someone from their favorite TV show. No different.

Voluntary individualism is the best philosophy. Everything else is a spook.

I think that politics can exist without a government, so it is obvious that if anarchism existed long term, which it won't, there would be large clumps of lefties and large clumps of right wingers. Obviously these different demographics would self-rule directly in different ways.

It would be dominated by the first small group who decides to band together to use force against the unorganized masses in order to create a new state with the small group in power.

They could do this through their wealth hiring the best military (in terms of both quality and quantity) or they could be more clever and charismatic amd offer a populist message advocating for democracy or dictatorship or the like.

>capitalism without rules

>doesn't know the difference between "capitalism" and "market"
>implying that giving power to the most wicked, corrupt and disgusting individuals of society, the politicians, was ever a good idea
>implying that the laws and rules these kind of people create are good
>implying they don't rig the game for their corporativist masters anyway
>implying the market NEEDS any regulation

This is why i don't waste time in these threads.
Most people who criticize anarcho-capitalism and the free market don't even understand what either of these things are and think that society can't work without everyone being a slave to corrupt leeches.

spooks are spooks

>"Hello, my name is max stirner. I am here to warn you about spooks. Spooks are concepts that don't exist in the real world, and can only be defined with reference to other abstract concepts. People use these concepts to distract you from your inherent rational self interest. They spread them only because it benefits them."

>"btw I'm telling you this because it benefits me to do so. I invented the concept of a spook and popularized it so that we could have a universal revolution of selfishness, which will ultimately benefit me. This totally isn't a spook though."
>"Don't believe those pesky 'evolutionary psychologists' and shit, they don't know anything about your psyche or how it was created. Surely natural impulses couldn't be nationalistic, tribalistic or universal, even though we have observed all of these impulses numerous times, often without a spook attached. They must be individualistic."

I don't believe that. Look up at the second post ITT for some arguments.

>implying that giving power to the most wicked, corrupt and disgusting individuals of society, the politicians, was ever a good idea

If current politicians are flawed, we need to fix the method which we use to select them.

>implying that the laws and rules these kind of people create are good

Of course not. We need to eliminate the tragedy of the commons in government. Best way to do this would be Pragmatarianism.

"Spooks" are parasitic memes that are a cancer on humans as a specie. It is within an individual's self-interest to avoid believing in these destructive abstractions.

I prefer anarcho-syndicalism.

>parasitic memes

Stirnirites unironically believe in parasitic memes.

>that are a cancer on humans as a specie.

Generally cancers destroy your health. The only spooks I have seen create wealth and reduce inefficiency.

Spooks don't turn self-interested rational actors into self-interested irrational actors, they turn them into rational actors who are interested in the well being of others as well.

>It is within an individual's self-interest to avoid believing in these destructive abstractions.

But only on an individual level. If you don't believe in cooperative spooks, you won't cooperate with others beyond your self-interest makes you. But if your entire community stops believing, cooperation will decrease overall and so wealth will be destroyed. In fact, in most game theoretic cases wealth will be destroyed the moment one of the people stops accepting the validity of cooperative spooks.

Beyond this, the natural tendency of humans is not towards pure self interest, it is towards mixed self interest and other interests.

Show me your rare ancaps

How does an ancap prove that the initiation of force is immoral?

It seems like to be an ancap you have to be a moral absolutist to say taxation is theft without involving the state to define it as such.

Taxation is inherently coercive and is therefore an act of violence.

I understand that, but to an ancap, why is violence wrong/immoral?

Let's not get stuck on the idiotic debate of determining morality. Let's instead get to the point.

By definition, it is impossible to not be against the initiation of force against a person's will. It then follows that measures should be taken to prevent it from happening and to punish the offender when it does.

> why is violence wrong/immoral?

It's not bait. You have to realize how many gaytheists inhabit this cesspit.

That is the ancap's fundamental mistake: believing in the spook of morality.

Individualism is anarchy in its purest form, however, the ancap/voluntaryist idea of social rules regarding behavior seems like a more effective tool if one believes cooperation is beneficial (good). It's not a logical conclusion but a moral axiom based on the positive value judgement of respect and non-aggression.

>why is violence wrong/immoral?

Do you want to be murdered, user?

>How does an ancap prove that the initiation of force is immoral?

does consent, as a concept, exist?