Prove that anarcho-capitalism isn't the best political ideology

Prove that anarcho-capitalism isn't the best political ideology.

Pro tip: [spoiler]you might be able to point out some flaws, but proving the claim is still impossible[/spoiler]

Other urls found in this thread:

therightstuff.biz/2016/09/08/what-has-libertarianism-done/
cantwells1stirregulars.com/national-capitalism-33-precepts/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

Anarchism is Anti-Capitalism so anarcho-capitalism is not a thing.

This

Anarchism has always been an anti-capitalist movement, even market based anarchist movements like mutualism and agorism.

Not really. Anarchism in the name means the absence of government and capitalism means the unregulated market. It does exist.

You cannot have capitalism if there isn't an authority to protect property and life rights.

I know what the word means, I also know anarchists are anti-capitalist. Only An-Caps call themselves anarchists, because its a lie

anyone in 2016 who is still an ancap/libertarian is a leftwing degenerate

the movement died in 2013 and now all the white males became Alt-Right because brown people invading our countries vote against freedom

therightstuff.biz/2016/09/08/what-has-libertarianism-done/

any anarchism will go full somalia

right wing libertarians and ancaps became Alt-Right fascists

while the faggot "voluntarysts" and other pieces of shit stuck around to see the movement get taken oever by trannies, homosexuals, and egalitarian marxist fucks

Full Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

What part of this requires a government?

The capitalism in the name is to separate us from just anarchists. They are two different ideologies. That's why ancaps call themselves ancaps not anarchists.

But there are warlords in Somalia, that doesnt exactly say anarchism to me

...

Well thats fucking stupid

A free market cannot exist without anyone enforcing property or life rights, it would just be chaos. An ancap society would just turn into a bunch of small countries.

cantwells1stirregulars.com/national-capitalism-33-precepts/

1433

National Capitalism – The 33 Precepts

An ideology for the modern American Man, embracing the roots of the past and the economic ideas of the future and the Ethos which has sustained him for centuries.

National Capitalism, a unique ideology to America, arising from the spirit of the American Man (Manifest Destiny, Rugged Individualism, Civic Nationalism) yet embracing the modern world’s Technology and economic principles, is rising. It is a philosophy that sees the Nation as a buffer against internationalism, globalism and multiculturalism, and Capitalist economics as a buffer against communism and socialism. Here we will outline the 33 precepts that must be observed in order for it to function properly.

Why dress up the name S T O R M F A G?

There's no such thing as "ownership" if you can't enforce it -> only the people with guns own the means of production -> anarchism devolves into kleptocracy

Nothing is going to work until we solve the (((problem))).

>banking cartels will form
>collusion and price gouging supported by interest free loans for the (((Chosen)))

>left wing
>free market and no taxes

Hmmm... really made me think.

Things like law enforcement, schools or healthcare wouldn't disappear just because they're privatized. They would just be required to offer quality services and people would have a choice in what they participate in.

Human Beings are violent minded creature who must be subjugated by an authoritarian force who monopolizes the legitimate use of violence to force everyone to behave and conform.

I think this might be an ancap thread now, also post some fucking transhumanist memes if ya got em

> Le inaccurate black and yellow meme balls

Just Sup Forums going full retard on an ideology it can't actually argue against. It's easy to argue against liberals, but you don't have shit on libertarians.

Ancap thread?

I've been meaning to post OC

That's correct if there wouldn't be law enforcement. However, as I stated earlier, this wouldn't be the case.

because anarcho-capitalism destroys nationalism

I agree with you but the memes are pretty fuckin funny

Okay, HOW THE FUCK WOULD A COURT SYSTEM AND POLICE BE UNBIASED IN AN ANARCHIST STATE?

THE ANSWER IT FUCKING CAN'T, AND IF IT IS, THEN IT WOULD COUNT AS GOVERNMENT AND IT WOULDN'T BE FUCKING ANARCHISM.

I'm a libertarian and i think ancaps are fucking stupid. There is a major difference.

Uhm, what about the pavement?

Paris is heading that way
So we might be able to gather evidence of your claim

>What part of this requires a government

Ownership. You have to be able to protect peoples right to ownership through judicial system and a monopoly of violence. Else it will just be free for all.

"private law enforcement"
You're repeating a term that doesn't make sense
State has a monopoly on legitimate violence
You abolish the monopoly
Therefore whoever has the most guns wins
There is no difference between private, voluntary law enforcement, and thugs beating up people for whoever has the most shekels

Maybe nationalism, but if you want to live in racial utopia with only pure aryan people, nobody is stopping you. Border control would also be more efficient if people wanted it to be. You could buy a piece of land and decide yourself who gets to enter.

Most people want an unbiased court system. If a court system seems to be biased, don't use it or protest against it. A better one will take its place. The thing that seperates it from government is choice. Don't like it, don't use it.

>Kill someone while he sleeps
>Takes his stuff

Hey man! You need to go to court!

Nah man I don't want to.

Let's say there's a city in an ancap world that has a crime problem. They call a law enforcement company and pay them to enforce certain rules within the city. And before you ask who makes the rules or claim this is a government, the rules are made by whoever owns the land. Don't like them, get out.

>You could buy a piece of land and decide yourself who gets to enter.

How does one administer who gets in said piece of land and who does not if the land is large enough? One would need administration which mimics bureaucratic hierarchy. Eventually if one's private land is of substantial size then one would need more administers, this private land then becomes a state. Then you invade your neighbor and take their stuff if they are weak.

>I do not know shit about the ideologies I worship: the flag

What if the land owner prevents people from leaving? What If I commit a crime in one part of the land, then I run away to another piece of land where I am friends of the owner and I am spared from justice.

>I do not know shit about demographics: the post

Let's say there's an ancap world.
A farmer doesn't like his neighbor
He calls a law enforcement company to bully his neighbor into selling his farm to him
The city calls in their law enforcement company to prevent farmer A from causing havok and spiking food prices for no reason
The farmer's law enforcement has more guns, so they take over the "city"

I'm honestly impressed at the commitment of you ancap shitposters. Your ideology has been chronically and conclusively BTFO over 7 years and thousands of threads, yet you never stop

>proving the claim is still impossible

>law enforcement company

Just say mercenaries. That's what they are.

Already a thread

Anarcho-anything is unrealistic because of humans' tendency to create societies, which naturally leads to the formation of states.

That's the landowners problem. If you don't live in a place with law enforcement, in this case your own land, you need to figure it out yourself.

I don't understand how people are so helpless in today's society that they always want some higher power to save them.

An ancap system is based on the NAP. If a society like this is formed it's safe to assume that there is an ancap majority. It's up to them to stop people like the one you mentioned from doing this.

Wars between companies are expensive and offer too little to be profitable. A scenario like this would be very unlikely.

>Armed ancap "Police" take you to court for killing someone
>You say you don't recognize the sovereignty of the court and walk out

You agreed to the rules when you entered the land.

So your argument when another poster points out that a system based on the fundamental rights of the individual as paramount and another where the fundamental interests of the state is paramount are ideologically opposed and incompatible is literally just niggers?

That is fucking pathetic user, sort your shit out.

how is this an argument FOR statism?

If it was worth anything it would exist in the real world naturally and not require the intellectual support and belief of the plebs. Good ideas are self-evidently good. They don't need argument to support them.

That's not anarchism then. You literally said the rules of the land, which means law enforcement of an area, which means a government.

Nothing amuses me more than knowing business people have found ways to market their products to anarchists.

like some type of imaginary contract you agree to by existing in some space owned or governed by some set or regime of laws?

Really makes you think.

Give it up, man. These ancap faggots cannot comprehend that new governments can be formed after the old ones have been repealed.

>NAP

What if I don't give a shit about NAP? All your theories is based on rationalist behaviour. People aren't rational all the time, some are almost never rational.

Also I think you fail to reply to my posts because you have no real answer to them.

This finigger is literally talking about a limited government, he thinks he's an ancap lol.

>he hasn't heard of bitcoin
>dares to call others plebeians

it would so easily allow corporations to:
A) basically just make nations anyways.
B) gain even more power then they already have.

Humans are shit. we crave order of some kind, so any anarchism would quickly fade into new governments.

worse though, is the human ability to fuck anything up horribly, and for self serving greed and fear to lead one to push everyone else under the bus.

NAP will never work because everyone WILL make up excuse in an anarchy society to enact it. for it to not happen, anarchy would have to, and inevitably will, end.

where did he say taxes were owed?

really makes you think

Yeah, i think you're right, they do not understand that government is human nature, no matter if it's only a city government or a large country, there will still be a form of government, even in hunter gatherer societies.

thats your argument? that we could end up having something we're ALREADY suffering under? crab in a bucket eh?

>You could buy a piece of land and decide yourself who gets to enter.
Hmm, sounds like a country, doesn't it?

It is worse than that, he thinks that government should be limited in the precise and exact way he thinks it should be, becasue him making those types of decisions unilaterally divined from superior gentlemen principles and extreme fedora appreciation would somehow be more objectively free...

The flag does not imply they happen at the same time.

>get fashy to remove the enemy.
The homogenous society has no need for a large State.
>go libertarian

If you think we can just cut welfare tomorrow and open up the borders like the average teenage lolbertarian, you've got a BIG surprise coming.

>posts a state protected picture

It's the same thing as with your house, if someone comes in and starts destroying your shit you have the right to stop them. A bigger piece of land is much harder to control, so you hire a bunch of people to do it for you. Once again, the key word is choice. You can't escape statism at the moment, but you can just walk away from someone's land. Also, if the worst case scenario is the system we have now, what reason is there to not change the system?

not an Ancap but government doesn't mean it has to have rulers

Not "could", "will". I'm not arguing against implementing an ancap society, I'm arguing that that society will not stay ancap for very long because of human nature.

One, that's not even an argument against what I said, and two, yes, it literally does.

Nobody is forcing you to respect the NAP. That would be breaking it. The people who do however, will not feel any moral obligation to not harm you if you don't act by it.

>where did he say taxes were owed?
Where did I?

You think the social contract specifically refers to taxes?

It existed as a theoretical construct before income tax was even a thing dipshit. Rousseau predates your civil war by just under a century...

Ancaps and there dilettante understanding of actual political theory, I swear to god you faggots are insufferable.

...

Hey assholes, how about hmmmm i dunno, maybe Anarchism has been redefined for the new modern age.

You can call the cops to protect your rights, and they are expected to do it on principle. If they are doing it for a paycheck you have 30 years war tier shit going on.

Claims of ownership, aggression and justness of defense are not often clear cut. Pretending they are makes you look autistic.

There's nothing wrong with social contracts if they stay as contracts. The problem with government is that it's not a contract. I didn't accept any contract yet I am still required to respect it.

no, only one group of stupid faggots insist on that distinction.
>lets go eat at the vegan steakhouse because we are fucking retarded

You accepted the contract by being born in it. If you don't like it, you can leave.

So what will happen is you will plunge competing ideologies into war with each other over who should rule

Do you think islam will accept NAP? Do you think communism will accept NAP? Do you think natsocs will?

Your entire ideology is dependent on everyone agreeing to live in an ancap society.

In your dream world, all land would still be owned by firms eventually and they would all have rules saying what's allowed or not on their property.

>lets just have a total about face on the very guiding principles of our political collective, followed by another one, becasue some trap loving basement dweller thinks it would be a good idea.

Political momentum and the entrenchment of ideals are a real thing you blundering thundercunt.

You would be better off expecting two blacks to have an aryan baby...

And yet you did by entering into the land that was governed by said contract....

>Your entire ideology is dependent on everyone agreeing to live in an ancap society.
They know that and agree with it. I've had many ancapfags tell me that it would only be possible if the majority of people believed it would be a good idea.

Anarcho capitalist is essentially capitalism with no government

>muh contracts
>has never read Rousseau, Spinoza, Locke

>my political system would work perfectly if everyone in the world would just obey all the rules and follow my vision of society to the letter
ancaps literally think this is a point in their favor lmao

This.

No you shit swallower.

I mean what if Anarchism has a new meaning today rather than what we normally associate it with.

Traditionally Anarchism has been a left wing thing, but now since the Left wing has all the power in the Western world, shoving cultural marxism, socialism, feminism and other cancerous left wing bullshit, the right wing has risen and is now rebelling.

The Anarchists of yesterday are now todays Tyranny. The right wing of today are the new Anarchists. In a sense, we, Sup Forums are new Anarchists at heart. We hate the left wing, check. We hate feminism, check. We have marxism, check. These things control our lives and threaten our existence. We therefor rebel. We believe the government is evil and corrupt and seeks only to destroy us. This makes us Anarchists who reject pc culture, who don't believe in equality, who value family values and morality, who believe in the right to private property, and seek to violently and brutally suppress the left wing.

...

In some cases you can't. I should also mention that law enforcement firms cannot enforce arbitrary laws that don't involve aggressinng upon others. That would break the NAP. If I live in N. Korea I might not be able to leave, and if I have committed a """crime""" in Finland I cannot either.

They don't do at the moment, but that's what I'm trying to do at the moment, make people accept it. If everyone followed it the result would be an ancap society, as market regulation and government both break it.

Nobody is stopping you from buying their land yourself.

They say that in the free market of ideas, the good ones prevail and bad ones die off. They literally think their delusion is a good idea that has a chance to persuade the majority of people.

> maybe Anarchism has been redefined for the new modern age.

You mean like racism has?

Nonsensical bullshit is nonsensical bullshit.

Yeah, why don't you go buy the state of Finland, then? No one is stopping you

>North korea is an oppressive shithole
No shit, Sherlock
>criminals cannot leave the country
You had 18 years or whatever the line of adulthood is in Finistan to learn the laws of the land. It is your fault for breaking them.

Finland is stopping me. Even if I did buy all of Finland which is impossible with all the regulations, the government would still expect me to respect their rule.

>weee iz legion

This is some weapons grade cringe right here son.

No. Like, Anarchism was once left wing but now it's right wing.

Your head is up in some theoretical academical cloud come back to reality

No, anarchists are against the authoritarian left as well as other groups (fascist right) that want to rule over them.