Okay jew boys and altright meme makers

Okay jew boys and altright meme makers.

let's talk about the superior Political philosophy, Anarchy.


More specifically AnarchoCapitalism

Other urls found in this thread:

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
mises.org/library/government-big-business
youtube.com/watch?v=onWC8nNpIco
youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
youtu.be/fFoXyFmmGBQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

the economic knowledge of a dullard and the emotional intelligence of an infant: anarcho capitalists.

anarcho capitalism: as nonsensical and edgy as anarchists, without all the willingness to get out and do something.

Trade requires regulations for it to be fair. Without regulations, there would be tradings of illegal things everywhere, extortion and just plain unfairness. Anarcho capitalism will never work. Period.

If I had a penny for every argument you made I;d be poor as shit and on welfare.

we can all say stuff, ot sure as shit doesn't make it true

I'M TOO BLACK FOR THIS SHIT

just an observation. they simply took the try-hard 'outsider' image from the 90s, bottle throwing anarchist, and removed and replaced the action with echo-chamber intellectualism.

they are as irrelevant, socially, as any hyper polarized economic viewpoint.

eat least the anarchists of 20-30 years ago watched their peers return to organized civilization and finally realized that 'anarchy' was a personal striving that can only exist with any sort of comfort from within a highly organized and successful civilization. it is a way to live apart from the society that grants you the ability to do so comfortably.

if only you assholes were intellectually honest enough to stop trying to pretend you are parroting the blueprints for a functioning, modern society, then you could at least be taken seriously, but that would require abandoning the mental masturbation of staking the higher ground and plugging your ears.

the term 'blow it out your ass' was surely made for archlibertarians, anarcho capitalits, objectivists, "freemen", so on and so on.

So you are criticizing ancaps for not being as violent as leftist anarchists?

what exactly is this graph supposed to prove? It has no sources and it doesn't make any sense in the first place.

Anyway on the topic of anarcho capitalism: literally cannot exist. Nature abhors a vaccum. if there's capitalism there'll be agreements and coalitions and states. State-like governance is literally in human dna as a race of social apes.

Source: Fraser Institute, Economic Freedom of the World: 2014 Annual Report; World Bank,
World Development Indicators.

That graph shows that the poorest people in a country are better off in a freer economy, smashing the myth that poor people get fucked in a free market system.

...

K. Thanks for the sauce. Full anarchy is still dumb as hell though. Correlation is not causation and there's no reason to believe that the growth rate would continue or rather be anything other than a bell curve with high regulation and 0 regulation both being bad things.

not at all.

i am saying that they are as intellectually deficient as the bottle-throwers, but are simply useful-idiots of another stripe.

deflating their 'smartest guys in the room' smugness is as simple as laughing at their nonsensical 'theories' and then laughing harder as they try to shout everyone else down.

pointing out that they are parroting the same nonsense with different window dressings, jargon, and boogie men dampens the allure this type of intellectual dishonesty has on those smart enough to realize there is a problem, but naive enough to allow emotionally charged nonsense to pull your chain.

That's a nice theory but got anything to back that up?

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

>correlation != causation
>theory

>some of something is good
>more of it will always be good

is this bait?

Sure. But the data doesn't show otherwise.

this isn't an intellectual debate, it's my opinion on a subject.

you can call logical fallacies on my opinion, that's fine and well, but that sort of diminishes the purpose of casual conversation.

Sure. But the data from one study, especially in something as nebulous and philosophical as economic theory, proves nothing.

The major flaw of ancap is the tendency to monopolies, which are inherently bad for the consumer.

Without the monopoly phenomenon, ancap would be almost perfect.

Let's not deal in absolutes. The State is needed to regulate capitalism with consumer protection laws.

someone said ancap thread?

Anarchy comes after trump. Ride the tiger. You'll get there

...

Most long term monopolies are government enabled either by granting them special legal protection, or by having regulations

Got that right.

hey libertardians and anarkiddies

How would a person living in the house in pic related not starve to death?

Anarcho Capitalism is literally just Anarchy with this strange notion that there is no corruption or any sort of currently illegal activity. It makes this absurd notion that the consumers know everything that a high echelon business is doing regardless of any and all factors and somehow the huge complexity of these practices combined with near zero economic regulation will fix all the problems and somehow monopolies won't form at all ever.

No one would sell property like that...

mises.org/library/government-big-business

So I get to shoot people who smoke cigarettes around me for breaking NAP?

Sounds like fun.

read this

Nothing the government proposed caused the AT&T monopoly, the Standard Oil Monopoly, the RailRoad Monopoly or any of that

>2 questions

How will you stop the niggers/spics from rioting and looting after you cut their welfare?
>40 million Americans are on Food-stamps

How will you stop the (((Joos))) from forming cartels and forcing us into serfdom?
>they control banking, finance, the media, and an assortment of other industries

So you make 30k

You'd get nailed in court for use of excessive force

I don't know if you've ever done a scientific study but you should know that the vast majority of them mean nothing on their own and serve as data resoviors and stepping stones for future studies, and in many cases samples and testing in social sciences are tweaked to favor certain outcomes more than others. That's not to say that the study is entirely invalid but that is to say that it isn't by any means proof that anarchy would result in widespread prosperity. In fact the idea of anarchy resulting in anything other than new states being formed shortly afterwards is pretty reliably an indication of a person that has no concept of human history and biological dynamics is sociology. Anarchy is actually a joke. As it's funny that people consider it.

who /armstrong/ here?

Many monopolies are state-backed, but in the absolutely free market monopolies naturally emerge.

Let's make an example: a mineral which can be extracted from only three mines. Three corps emerge. Instead of competing on price and sustaining process innovation costs, they would probably merge each other in a big monopoly and skyrocket prices, for the gain of all three.

Another possibility is collusion and oligopoly, but in an unregulated market the monopoly outcome would be more probable.

In a regulated market this is not possible. This is a reason why we need regulation.

>More specifically AnarchoCapitalism

Well yeah, obviously, Ancap is pretty stupid, but Ancom is literally retarded.

I would say those are arguments.

They might not be flattering. But they're arguments.

Freedom is the power to do anything.

Power corrupts.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Why won't freedom corrupt?

>joining your competitors rather than lowering prices and taking the whole market for yourself

Goyim detected

>Anarchy
>Capitalism
How are you planning to regulate Capitalism if you're an anarchy?

This

The government regulation and intervention isn't somehow incentivising corporations to combine when its more likely a corporation will attempt a buy out on another's assets just to gain more profit.

Along with that a corporation is more likely to form coalitions of corporations behind doors to effectively become an oligopoly between unionized corporations that don't actively compete and don't offer superior products.

Somehow Ancaps think that shit like coalitions and alliances between corporations to not compete is simply absurd and never will happen

It makes the idiotic assumption people know what's in their best interest or that capitalism is a good thing.
Aestheticism is the only path to meaningful happiness that isn't deluded
Hence theology is the best

They'll compete because I said so
>what if they're corrupted without anyone's real knowledge?
>thats impossible the consumer always knows what best companies to choose from

because freedom grants you freedom over yourself. So if you do get corrupt over your own body by doing bad things or unhealthy things you get harmed, just you. When a politician has power he can fuck over people when he goes power mad.

It's absurd, because without government regulations to prop them up, corporations can't gain a significant enough market share for any alliance to be worthwhile

Then they wouldn't be able to compete with other business outside the country. making them either drop there prices or go bankrupt.

K, so then don't buy their shit?

I think an-caps are dumb too but you act like Walmart can just force you to buy their shit if they get a monopoly.

Free market anarchy is a better term.

>because freedom grants you freedom over yourself. So if you do get corrupt over your own body by doing bad things or unhealthy things you get harmed, just you. When a politician has power he can fuck over people when he goes power mad.

>Just you
>Forgetting my point

Freedom leads to a population being corrupted morally. As well as in other ways like disease.

Freedom is used as a balance between the people and the state. It's a way to make sure that the state does not get corrupted which in turn makes sure the people get corrupted. You have too much of one or the other and you won't have a civilization anymore.

moral corruption? So long as people don't infringe on other's people's rights then I see no problem.

Maybe Soros gave BLM enough monies to buy all the land around the house overnight. Answer my question anarkiddie.

Not necessarily, this works even with scarce resources, this isn't something that suddenly falls apart when market share is moved like that.

Companies can simply form back door contracts and deals where they artificially set prices so they stop competing. Without the competition they artificially keep the price high. Unless theres a third competitor out of no where that doesn't choose to participate its highly unlikely that corruption between companies magically won't exist

>So long as people don't infringe on other's people's rights then I see no problem.

What prevents the strong from praying on the weak?

And what grants you rights now that there is no institution to grant you any?

>they're corrupt by making back door deals and the consumer doesn't know about it thats the point. You don't magically know about shit the business are doing so you can make the conclusion "don't buy their shit"

This is literally impossible in real life.
Why would you buy that property?
Why would they buy that property? No one would buy property like that.

what makes you think that people wouldn't infringe on other people's rights? For what purpose? In what magical system do people stop bekng human beings and start being angels? Furthermore what are a person's rights? Who can agree on this? Who decides this? Rights are imaginary, just like states. There's nothing protecting them other than the importance we give to them. Why would that importance be any more sturdy and stalwart in anarchy than any other system?

SNEK THREAD

Rights are inherent not granted by anyone. They are natural rights. The right to self owner ship and by extension the right to property.

>An-craps
>Anaco-anything

Doesn't magically mean the companies will follow them

How do you know some chemical company isn't immorally dumping chemicals into the river or ruining some ecosystem?

Private Defense agencies like this one
youtube.com/watch?v=onWC8nNpIco

anarchism is a "political philosophy" in the same way atheism is a religion.

every flavour of anarcho-_________ism is simply the same tired old whore of marxism in a new party dress.

anyone who claims to ba an "anarcho-ANYTHING is a retard, an angsty tween edgelord or a marxist trying to deceive you.

No. There's no such thing as rights. They're not an immutable law of the universe. They are made up guidlines for how things should be based on what makes our lives better. Rights do not exist anywhere outside of your mind.

>just hire a PMC
>even if you can't afford one
>just get run over
>not my fault you're poor
>git gud
>no guys this is totally moral, its totally ok, and everything is perfect, there is no potential for corruption, just don't buy their shit and they'll stop existing

>Rights are inherent not granted by anyone. They are natural rights. The right to self owner ship and by extension the right to property.


There is no such thing as an inherent right.

Rights must be granted by something to be a right and guaranteed by something to be effective rights.

Only three mines. Three is a rather low number because it's only an example.
Even with 100 mines available all over the world, the monopoly outcome is very probable.

It takes only one of the 100 to innovate process, lower prices, get profits and buy the others in a span of 5 years, and then skyrocket prices alone.
Hell, it's even probable that all 100 will meet and decide to create the monopoly.

Law is needed.

...

Hey guys, wouldn't it be cool if there were no laws or rules or shit? That totally wouldn't be a bad thing and everyone would get along on the pretense of human decency.

...

>Corruption?
impossible
>bad business practices?
impossible under our ancap system
>back door deals to non-compete or conspire against markets or other entities?
just don't buy their shit!

What stops a PMC from going rogue and enslaving people?

What happens to those who can't afford one?

What happens to all the drug cartels and organized crime once the state is gone and there is no more law that they break?

>No one would

It's within the realm of possibility and could easily happen if BLM had malicious intents. Stop beating around the bush anarkiddie.

>tfw can't tell if it's sarcasm or ANCAP's being stupid anymore.

In an ancap society, nothing. It becomes something like mad max

Poor people can't come together to pool their resources? They did it for healthcare, it was affordable. I don't see why they wouldn't do it again for PDAs.
Plus they can always bear arms to protect themselves.

Their would be laws. Just no rulers.

There would be an incentive for them not to resort to violence to resolve disputes. Violence is expensive, and people wouldn't pay for it.

right, good question, but I'm going to paraphrase a genuine communist guy, it goes like this (from memory)
> anarchy == no ruling class
> this leaves a vacuum of power
> a fight breaks loose to fill that void
I can't argue with that

read a history book, goddamn.

AnCap shit will always be retarded, not matter how much you try to debate it. Just post ancap balls.

>Poor people can't come together to pool their resources?
No they can't, they have little to no power against a corporate or corporate coalition that has the means, power, arms what ever you want to use.

>they did for health care
no, that was politicians passing it at the hands in the US system which is nothing like Ancap

>bear arms to protect themselves
>against well funded, armed and run PMC's
k, this isn't mad max or some fucking Vietnam shit. Your society is completely anarchic, archaic and chaotic

>What stops a PMC from going rogue and enslaving people?
The free market

>What happens to those who can't afford one?
Then they don't have one, obviously

>What happens to all the drug cartels and organized crime once the state is gone and there is no more law that they break?
They are allowed to operate as private companies so long as they do not violate the NAP, in which case a PMC would be hired to take them out.

The ruler enforces the law.
If two entities enforcing their own laws coexist in the same country, it's called civil war and people get killed.

it took us thousands of years to create the concept of State and end everyday warlord violence on a local level just in the Western world. Ancaps would undo all this.

where the child sex slaves at

Well yeah you can't just delete government like that. It's like quitting heroin cold turkey, you'll die. You go to small government then slowly privatize government functions one by one.

>The free market
Thats not an argument you can just hide behind to answer every complex question with implications upon your fictitious society

>they don't have one obviously
this begs the question regarding the condition of those people in particular. This is effectively devolving to slavery with more intricate and nonsensical steps.

>violate the NAP
oh I see, so your anarchy society does have laws and rules regulating it.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

How law would be produced in a free market.

Ancaps assume that people are moral and respect the NAP without a ruler enforcing it.

This is communist tier bullshit optimism. Not gonna happen.

Excuse me, but it is my god given right to use my recreational mcnuke on anyone who violates my property rights.

>politicians passing it at the hands in the US system which is nothing like Ancap

youtu.be/fFoXyFmmGBQ

>tfw on the edge of being a reasonable human being

Couldn't you fuckin explain it to me instead of linking me 25 minutes Youtube videos?

Your appeal to authority fallacy is strong. Explain yourself.

ancaps might be retarded, Anarchism might be Marxist, but if there is one thing ancaps aren't - it's Marxist.

>tfw on the edge of being a reasonable human being

I blame the indoctrination

Not a single argument was made in this post

There doesn't have to be a ruler enforcing it, PMCs will enforce the NAP. People themselves can enforce the NAP.

You'll get nailed in court for excessive force.

ancaps = theists

the free market = god

don't ask how it works it just does. It's totally perfect and infallible and if it fails it was obviously because it wasn't a truly """""free""""" market.

>instead of answering the question
>just respond with a video because I couldn't be bothered to type

> Violence is expensive, and people wouldn't pay for it.

Violence is cheap.

A bullet is a few cents a gun a few hundred dollars. Some people kill each other over a dollar.

Do you really think the whole violence is bad for buisness has any connection to reality?

>There would be an incentive for them not to resort to violence to resolve disputes.

What incentive

Let's say I am a PMC in Congo. Congo is full of resources. I decide to take over Congo since it's full of poor people with no real equipment. Enslave everyone and force them to work in mining. Then because all I have to pay is food I can sell stuff like diamonds or gold and lower price and buy up anyone I drive out of business. Also since I am selling raw materials and most normal people don't need them but corporations nobody will really give a shit that I did that.

With the money I make I fund a bigger army to conquer more people.

>Not a single argument was made in this post
Yea because you don't want to answer the question is that if a corporate hires a PMC to run over people's property, take it from them and force them into shit this somehow is ok even though those people can't afford a PMC of their own.

This is literally mad max