What makes you against a voluntary free society

Since this thread will get a lot of replies:
No smugies
No ancap-strawman memes.
No road meme arguments.

General rules that make you voluntarily :
> People should not be forced to do anything
> You should respect other peoples property
This is the agreement most of people arrive to by default
> If you aggress against another person property, or force another person to do something, you void that social contract and basically say this is permissible to be done to you

Couple of arguments I heard, that make no sense
> Everyone will be happier in an anarcho-communist society
If you think people will gravitate towards that, then thats is what will happen in a voluntary society. You are fighting for the same thing.
>Moral degeneracy.
Without social welfare people are forced to leave productive lives. That happens to be normal stable relationships.
>People will form their own governments slowly
That's fine key word is voluntary
As long as I can shoot them if they try to force me to do it as well, that's fine.
>How will X work/get built
I don't know, there are probably some ideas. But tribal/community policing/dispute resolution worked for a long time. I don't see why it wouldn't now.

Other urls found in this thread:

thefutureprimaeval.net/three-types-of-property/
freenortherner.com/2016/04/10/owned-markets/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Ancap ideals were great but the majority of ancaps are feel good Gary Johnson supporters. The movement is dead and I don't ever see it recovering

Massive shift left

The USA Libertarian turned into only moral libertarian party. Not free market one.
But USA is not the only country on the planet

when you raped your wife, but your subscribed to ShariaUniversal LawFirm and your wife to JohnsonMcJohnnyson (presented by Cola) and now they started shelling the houses each others clients.

Very true my friend

What do you mean when you say:

>People should not be forced to do anything

?

In order for a nation to be successful and eventually progress as a whole, there need to be people working proactively towards such goals.

In most places around the world, people are already pretty much free to do what they want (within common sense reasoning).

When certain times arise though (times of war, peril, etc.), sometimes it's necessary for people to be forced to do certain things (like a military draft for example).

It's mostly for the greater good of the nation as a whole.

I believe in the initiation of the use of force.

The general free market reasoning is:
People look out for themselves and the people they want to look out for.

Private enterprise can achieve any goals people actually want.
Meaning you don't need to vote to create X spacecraft.
You just need to donate/buy rides from a company that proposed the best plan to build it.

btw that wasn't a meme strawman thing. law enforcement. different law enforcement firms and what they do if there supposed to enforce contradicting laws on the others clients.
answer you fag

also. nukes.jpg

well checks out satan
Initiation of force against who and for what?

The left and for existing.

As long as people pay that law enforcement organisation and they can protect themselves from it agressing. Or sign up to live in that city that has Sharia-Law, there is no problem.

And countries already have nukes, and almost annihilated the planet multiple times.
Who do you think is more likely to house and use nukes - north korea or mcdonalds
How would McDonald's share holders react when they found out McDonald's is buying uranium?

You can't enforce contradicting laws on people if doing so violates the NAP. People can only voluntarily subscribe to extra laws.

do you understand that there are mean people outthere?
Witch will not follow your imaginary contract?
Some retard could just piss on public property or some shit.
Someone could polute air or water on purpose, they are doing this even today in Africa and south America.

Pedophilia... all sorts of degeneracy.

How are you guys that delusional?

Do you have a problem with someone making a leftist society on their own private property and inviting all the blacks to live for free?
They will fail, people who make money in their society will just gtfo.
It will collapse and they will be forced to sell off their land, all without bullets fired

Yes, they should be preemptively stopped.

If they piss on your property you are in right to have them pay you/clean it up.
People will dissociate from them, you can't survive as a social outcast.
And no one said there won't be prisons
People polluting air on purpose will get also fined, because that pollution will encroach on somebody elses property

Well, I completely agree with Capitalism to a point.

I think the government has every right to enact tariffs to keep "big business" in check and to keep production "booming" within its respective country (as opposed to in-sourcing everything like America specifically has gotten into the habit of doing).

Other than that, I think socialism (or whatever you want to call it) should be kept at the absolute minimum (police force/military).

I don't believe in welfare per say, I think something like that could be revised into some sort of "jobfare" program designed to help people attain jobs.

Other than the things I've listed, I think Capitalism in general has proven its usefulness and dominance over Communism/Socialism/Marxism/etc.

Free enterprise and greed do wonders for stimulating a stagnant economy.

>do you understand that there are mean people outthere?
Yeah, people are mean so we need a group of more people to stop them being mean. Because that second group is guaranteed to never have any mean people in it.

>Witch will not follow your imaginary contract?
All contracts are imaginary. This also applies to ones enforced by the state

>Some retard could just piss on public property or some shit.
>public property
You evidently don't know what you're talking about

>Someone could polute air or water on purpose, they are doing this even today in Africa and south America.
If you pollute in a way that harms others or their property you have violated the NAP and can be forced to compensate them

>Pedophilia... all sorts of degeneracy.
Fucking kids violates the NAP

ancap is literally might makes right.
If I can amass a large enough private army I have a right to rape your wife, your daughter and your wife's son if so I wish as you watch and masturbate like the helpless cuckbertarian you are.

Why?They dont bother you, they do it on their own land
The problem with ANY government is it degenerates itself, boats and gets out of touch.
Look at USA - you had a fucking set in stone rules, a constitution. A military to protect it, civil militias to protect it.

And what happened?
Almost all if not all articles in that constitution are broken now.

I have to live in the same country as them.

Historically speaking most government intervention in big business has been lobbied for by big business, so that they can create regulations in a way that makes competing with them impossible. A good example of this is how Pan Am used to be the only airline legally allowed to fly to anywhere in South America from the US, because they got the government to regulate the airspace and say that it was illegal for other companies to fly those routes.

why do you think people actually give a shit about NAP.
as i see it ancap society could only work if everyone is like a 100% hardcore radical

same shit with how to defend agains invading state:
"well everyone has weapons and whole population will defend themselves"
well people aren't actually ready to die or even risk it a tiny bit for their freedom/corporate overlords

people are actualy violent, don't really care about your ancap freedom and also prefer statist life over gurellia fighter (or genocide victime as whole village gets killed off, because of all the guerilla fighters)

fined by who? (I added that it allready happens today for a reason)
Also, is there no public property at all?
Monopoles?
superb wealth because no taxes
-> Power
-> abuse of Power by capitalist pigs.

im not even an ancap and I know that the answer is that the different law enforcement agencies will go to arbitration with a 3rd party to resolve disputes in order to avoid WW3 breaking out in the streets

but you prussians are so hell bent on destruction that it doesnt surprise me that the first thing you thought of was that

>If I can amass a large enough private army I have a right to rape your wife, your daughter and your wife's son if so I wish
No, you don't have that right. Also, see the numerous ocassions where that has not only occured, but been actively encouraged under statism.

Theres no countries in a voluntary society
Theres only private property borders.
That is theoretically true, but the same thing is true now. Thats just a extension of out animalistic world.
But I think you overestimate how easy it is to gather a army to kil people for you.
Even if you start making robots, people will not sell you aluminium to make them.
And its really impossible to have a huge monopoly without government intervention.

How do you uphold property without the state to protect it?

fined = sued

Why you not take into account that niggas gonna nig no matter what system. The most apathetic of the human species ain't gonna suddenly start respecting niggers nigging and it will eventually lead to shitty dictatorships fueled by widespread crime.

Fined by dispute resolution organisation they both pay dues for.
They dont pay dues->people dont want to buy their goods
They run out of money they cant pollute anymore

Monopolies are generally a government invention, its impossible to create a monopoly on something and keep it without copyright laws and favoring legislation.
Firms operate on a razor thin margin, a competitor has to come up with a process to make a thing 2% cheaper, and viola your company lost its monopoly

>why do you think people actually give a shit about NAP.
Why do you think people actually give a shit about government laws?

>well people aren't actually ready to die or even risk it a tiny bit for their freedom/corporate overlords
Fine, that's their perogative. You want a state to force people to fight for something that none of them actually care about?

>people are actualy violent, don't really care about your ancap freedom
Why does this make it a good idea to hand them massive amounts of power and weapons of destruction in government positions? Any criticism you can make about human nature fails, because all government is is a collection of humans.

what about fucking his own kids?
What about age of consent?
What about other degeneracy?
How do you force people to do anything for violating laws?
Legislative, Executive and Judicative?
If there is no public property, how do you even move somewehere without getting shot?

If a person or a group of people have more wealth than the rest of an anarcho-capitalist society, what would stop them from taking over it through the use of a private army(s)? Seems like if they can take control of all the land and secure a border, preventing people from leaving, and then collect taxes off everyone, you would have feudalism.
I could imagine that you would have companies that combine with others, growing into a larger single entity, so long as they remain competitive. In fact, wouldn't larger businesses have the means to be more competitive, since they have access to the resources smaller businesses wouldn't?

No welfare = no niggers
You do, and people you pay to do it do.
Your community does
Its your own responsibility to take care of your property

no you're a retard. there can't be real arbitration. the firms laws fundamentaly oppose each other. its not like both think theft is a crime and just can't agree if a guy if guilty of it or not. there can't be an agreement. one firm will always fail to fullfil its fucking job. why would they subscibe to that

It would basically be the same thing as today when like north korea jails some tourist. only on a superscale.

Has a bean ever said something not fucking retarded on this board?

tactical ancap meme incoming

These are all simple questions that anyone who knows jack shit about ancap theory can already answer. I'm not a replacement service for using your own fucking brain to do a simple google search and find readily available answers, Fritz.

you forgot the part where you make an argument FOR statism

you literally just made a very strong argument AGAINST statism!

>The problem with ANY government is it degenerates itself, boats and gets out of touch.
Look at USA - you had a fucking set in stone rules, a constitution. A military to protect it, civil militias to protect it.

And what happened?
Almost all if not all articles in that constitution are broken now.

Agreed. Lobbying had a HUGE part to play in this downfall specifically as well as political party overreach. Since the year 2001 specifically our rights have become more eroded every year under the guise of "safety", "security", and "terrorism".

We had the perfect system, then citizens stopped paying attention to politics and became distracted with TV, sports, etc. It really is a shame because I'm almost certain that our generation will be the one to finally see Americas freedom/world superpower status come to an end.

All because a bunch of rich fucks who probably won't even be here when we finally hit rock bottom were too greedy and started overreaching.

Agreed 100%.

I believe the "Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946" should be disbanded completely. A lot of Americas recent decline has been specifically due to lobbyists and their demands. I think we can both agree that where there's money within the government there's typically corruption.

what if they violated the NAP first by calling me names and leaving dog poo on my front door?

why should I NOT shell their homes with a mortar? why should I NOT detonate a nuclear warhead in their neighbourhood? why should I NOT strafe their property with my private air force? is there anyone out there, some third party that can decide whether or not I was overzealous? don't get me wrong, I wouldn't do these things myself, but this is the problem with ancap: giving absolute authority to individuals to decide what constitutes a breach of the NAP

>what about fucking his own kids?
>What about age of consent?
>What about other degeneracy?
If the kid agrees and the community doesnt ostracise him. Then theres no problem. Same with other degeneracy
>How do you force people to do anything for violating laws?
>Legislative, Executive and Judicative?
Social ostricism, people will willingly take punishment and fines. If not - they agress you are allowed to agress back.
>If there is no public property, how do you even move somewehere without getting shot?
People will build roads, parks, sidewalks and you will pay them monthly membership/they will do it just to put ads there. Or stores near a nice park will pay him for foot traffic

im saying states will always will. states that force people to do shit. it works. has been shown a million times.

ancap city can't defend itself (nor would it actually be willing to)

>people are actualy violent so we need to give ultimate power to people are actualy violent so we need to give ultimate power to people are actualy violent so we need to give ultimate power to people are actualy violent

I support you being shot

You think its welfare that makes dumb people do dumb things. As long as there are dumb people with no regard for others who band together doing dumb things cuz its the rad thing to do, nothing will change. What is required for any voluntary society to work is a commonly held morality.

dispute resolution organization
Isnt this just another tax?

Wait, there is no copyright? That means research is useless, because everyone will steal your idea anyway.

>All government is a collection of humans.
Well with the only difference that in a NatSoc state for example the leader is acctually quite well chosen and not some random retard like in democracy.

easements existed well before statism, and they will exist after

First of all that's a hypothetical scenario that would be pretty much impossible to occur in real life. Also, it's a situation that's a problem no matter what society you're in. It's like saying "What are statists going to do if China amasses a huge army and goes ham invading everywhere?".

Just because those questions are difficult to answer it doesn't mean it undermines the system because they A) Are virtually impossible and B) Are an equal problem for any political theory.

Dumb people will not survive in smart peoples zones. If they steal they get punished, they cant afford anything they move to ghettos with other dumb people and die

im not saying it should happen. im saying it will happen. no one except super radicals are willing to die instead of living in a state. the state will take over since it actually forces people to fight for it

>You should respect other peoples property
Why?

>its not like both think theft is a crime

ah, so you're retarded then. I can't wait to hear your explanation for why someone would be a customer with a firm that cant help them when they get robbed, because their firm does not think theft is a crime

this oughta be good....

no lack of copyright doesnt make research useless
Quite the opposite it incentivises more research since people create "generic" brands relatively quickly.
You dont need 17years to recoup your loses.
Also no patent trolls

Because i have a big gun if you dont

>no age of consent
you lost

I thought, this is what the thread is aboout....

why would you join that private army if you didn't pay taxes, so you could help someone force yourself to pay them tax?

you really think there are enough people to not only make up a big enough army to force everyone to pay taxes, but masochistic enough that they would help force themselves to pay taxes?

fetlife data disagrees with your retarded assumption

...

How did i lose?
If society approves what is the problem?

Lotta rules you're for an ANCAP

>what if they violated the NAP first by calling me names and leaving dog poo on my front door?
Violating the NAP only means you forfeit a your right to be free from a proportional amount of aggression, or however much aggression is necessary to rectify your wrongdoing. This is obvious and you'd know it already if you had a clue about the subject.

A state only needs to use force to achieve something that people don't want enough to do of their own free will. If that's the case, whatever it is shouldn't be done. The state conscripting masses of people to fight a war they don't believe in is the state conscriping people to fight a war that shouldn't be fought.

Who choses the leader? Other humans. What makes these other humans perfect? Your logic is circular.

>water comes through the tap
>pollutant detector goes off
>water cartel goes bankrupt from paying out all the arbitration
>you go bankrupt for paying out all the arbitration

GG

Why are polish people so fucking stupid? I've never seen a pole ever make a half intelligent post on this website.

You are calling me stupid and being able to even refute my points

go back to tumblr

so your best argument against ancap is that it would morph into what we have now

excuse me for laughing at you

>if they steal they get punished

Hmm, that is too naive of an argument against drug pushers and other organized crime assholes.

>A lot of Americas recent decline has been specifically due to lobbyists and their demands
Very true. And I'm definitely not going to argue with the idea that minority interests piling money into politics is disaster-bound.

Pedophilia is pure degeneration, a society where kinds are fucked on a regular basis will colapse in less then 5 years unless everyone is a slave to the kikes.
Also that is sick.

>If society approves
how does that matter? I thought everyone is free?
If you want to solve that problem with that police organization thingy, I just stop seeing the difference between ancap and oligarchy.

Obvious troll, but the whole premise violates the NAP.

Like any goverment ever?
Theres no such a thing as public property
If they try to peddle drugs in a park that owner doesnt want drugs in. He can tell them to go away
If they dont comply he can force them out

Because their property is a mixture of natural resources and their labor. To disrespect their property rights is to disrespect their right to own their own labor, and by extension their right to own themselves.

The same reason Murray Rothbard advocated for paleoconservatism and Pat Buchanan in the last years of his life. You can't have a voluntary and free society if you fail to respect the pillars of Western civilization that allowed us to respect such things as private property, self-determination, and freedom from an oppressive state.

Libertarianism and, even more so, AnCap are far too secular. They neglect to realize that such political ideologies could have only come from the mouths of white, Anglo-European males. In failing to make this attribution, their talk about open borders and unrestricted, free trade is foolish and suicidal.

In a society where intelligent, white, male property owners were those with suffrage, as the Framers intended, we would be 90% of the way to AnCap to begin with, but with better respect for our own culture, traditions, and institutions.

The simple truth is that the electorate is more important than the political system they are technically a part of, be it libertarian or otherwise. By definition, they have the ability to change this. However, with a shitty mongrelized voter base of mixed up, conflicting cultural values and expectations, it really doesn't matter what political system you claim could fix it. It will always end up looking like a shit-colored, favela strewn cesspit.

>circular logic
NO
The leader is chosen by meritocracy.
If people understand that, a nation prospers.

Everyone is free
Meaning everyone has freedom of association
Meaning if 5year old kid is okay with it.
But the neighbor is not
He can say - fuck you, you degenerate piece of shit, im not selling you potatoes
And starting a movement to cut off your electricity and sidewalk access. you stop the behaviour or you will be unable to associate with us.

What ancaps fail to do is a proper analysis of the property, ignoring some of them.
Have a look to these links:
thefutureprimaeval.net/three-types-of-property/ (This one seems to be down know, check in some Internet archive)
freenortherner.com/2016/04/10/owned-markets/
Sovereignty is just another type of property. We used to have what you call "a voluntary free society" but not as you thought it was. Forget about that spontaneous order meme, it arose from organic hierarchy.

I'm thinking ancap society could work if we had say voluntary city states for lack of a better word, like a mix between a mall and an apartment complex x10 size that offered services like roads and protection for family units and businesses to set up shop. This way you'd have a system where "public city works" would have to increase the quality of the land and community or they risk lowering the property/stock value and lose out to competing city-states.
Also deporting ass hats would be as easy as evicting a tenant

In fairness there's not necessarily a reason to stop a group of private property owners from banding together and enforcing the sort of moralism you're talking about on their own land, a la Hoppe. So long as no-one is being forced onto that land.

I 100% agree with that.
But - you saw what happened with the American experiment.
It ended, it always will. Government will always collapse.
How do you think it could have been saved?
What should have been written in the constitution? That officials that aggress against it are to be shot on sight?

For me, it looks like parents have some kind of property over their kids and its seems to work well. We could also have that for some adult humans.

>you stop the behaviour or you will be unable to associate with us.
sounds like some sort oligarchy again.
The money decides what is right and what is not.

>The leader is chosen by meritocracy.
What does that mean? Does it mean that some magical meritocratic force descends from the sky and names Angela Merkel as eternal chancellor?

No. What it means is that a group of people determine what is and is not of merit, and then select a candidate according to that. You can't remove people from the equation. Your logic is circular.

Who will enforce property rights in a ancap society?

>First of all that's a hypothetical scenario that would be pretty much impossible to occur in real life.
Why is it?

>Also, it's a situation that's a problem no matter what society you're in.
When the government has the monopoly on force, I don't see that specific scenario I listed happening internally in a society.

>It's like saying "What are statists going to do if China amasses a huge army and goes ham invading everywhere?".
Besides the fact that's a problem from the outside rather than internally, I would think that a society with a military funded through taxes has the better chance at defending itself. It would always be on standby ready to defend with full force, rather than private companies needing to amass more money first before reacting.

Believe me, when i say I am from the anarchist school of thought and would ideally like to live in a voluntary free society.

I just don't think it is a better alternative than the current system for the masses to opt into. A lot of normies prefer the false sense of security and happiness that the current system provides, realistically ANCAP is not happening unless a major apocalyptic event comes into play.

Voluntary organisations. Who will fairly enforce property rights in a statist society?

At the end of the day property rights can only be enforced by groups of people. Dressing people up with magical government powers doesn't change anything. Government is nothing more than a group of people.

And money is obtained through pleasing our fellow human needs in the market

Only the productive have power, so we have an incentive to not be degenerate

>Modern market is not for the average man
Who cares about the average man thats dysgenics. Above average people should have more resources and therefore more kids
People owning the property
yes and no it's just normal human behavior

Ancap: Beans & Cheese edition

Sure. But also think that the NAP is also a pretty spineless justification for countering threats sure to emerge from that. If some roadwarrior-esque bandit tries to rape your wife and you kill him, that is clearly a justifiable action under the NAP.

What about migrants crossing into what you and your neighbord consider to be your homeland? Is that also a violation of the NAP? is it a violation of the NAP when you have to hear a language spoken that is not your own?

Trying to pin down the definition of aggression leads to and endless number of tautological fallacies. There is nothing precisely and propositionally rational about aggressing against others who encroach on your culture and way of life, other than the imperative for basic self-preservation.

The NAP attempts to sterilize and rationalize such feelings in a way that just seems like hand wringing.

Please read it entirely and the other one, too.

>why would you join that private army if you didn't pay taxes, so you could help someone force yourself to pay them tax?
How do you know that you wouldn't be exempted from taxes so long as you're a member of it? And I'm sure there are people who would join that job for its pay/other benefits, as long as it's a step up from their current situation.
>you really think there are enough people to not only make up a big enough army to force everyone to pay taxes, but masochistic enough that they would help force themselves to pay taxes?
See above.

It is not a perfect system
Its the system that makes most sense and is natural to us.
If a property owner doesnt want to hear another language, he closes his property down with 20foot high walls that let no sound through

Ok just an example.
Person A works well and achieves a lot.
Person B does not.
Person above A and B realises that and rank up A.

You obviously can tell if someone is wokring well or not.

I dont even agree completly with that system myself, I am a tribalist.

In a tribe its a lot easier, if a leader is shitty he will be replaced quickly because everyone knows eachother and everyone is aware of leadership qualitys of others.
The leader just takes the place and if people accept him he stays.

Its really a huge difference if the best businessman has power or the best leader.

I dont see how this argument makes sense.
Lets say he produces drugs.

>Who will fairly enforce property rights in a statist society?
states are somewhat reasonable at it.

So property rights are dependent on the ability of the owner to pay for reasonable protection?

>No road meme arguments.
they are not meme arguments. Public goods are a major problem with this ancap shit. The fact that you tried to dismiss it as a "meme" shows that you have no counterarguments to support it.

>I don't see that specific scenario I listed happening internally in a society.
Under statism a group in society can amass arms legally before suddenly turning around and trying to overthrow the state. In fact, it's something that's happened multiple times throughout history. History is absolutely riddled with examples of groups in society overthrowing the societal order by force.