Why do you all reject anarcho-capitalism? What are its main flaws?

Why do you all reject anarcho-capitalism? What are its main flaws?

...

Austrianism is dumb as rocks, but no one has ever refuted Michael Huemer in his Problem of Political Authority

Really made me think
I'm sorry I don't know what that means

Don't you ever, EVER respond to my thread again unless you're going to say something constructive. I have had it up to here with you jackasses ruining this board because of what you think are 'smart' or 'funny' comments, when really you're just trying to hid your insecurities by belittling someone on the internet. Why? What do you gain from it? Don't you realise that the posts you respond to have REAL people behind them? Real people that don't deserve the bullshit you think is acceptable to throw in their faces? Did your parents not teach you any decency or basic manners? Whatever the case, it ends NOW. It's time you little brats learned a thing or two about respect. If I catch you pulling this sort of shit again, believe me, there will be hell to pay.

inb4 cancerball memes

(you)

It means Rothbard and his followers are largely mistaken, however through Huemers ethical intuitionism AnCap is the only consistently and fully defended political system.

It doesn't protect against degeneracy, foreign invaders, and crime. The whole premise is pretty leftist also too since it is all anti-hierarchical but instead abolishing economic classes like Marxism, it's about abolishing classes that separate the state and government. Hierarchy is good and should be encouraged.

>heh no regulations AND you're letting me and my (((friends))) stay?!
>This is excellent news goyim, truly the best economic system
>Remember your rent is due tomorrow, and oy vey interest on that loan just tripled!

>degeneracy
I see your point there
>foreign invaders
Wouldn't they be violating the NAP if they invaded? Although most likely there would still be unowned parts on a landmass they could reside
>crime
How does it not protect against crime? Or am I buying into the "kill someone for stepping on your lawn" meme?

...

...

last meme

>Wouldn't they be violating the NAP if they invaded?
wat
>How does it not protect against crime? Or am I buying into the "kill someone for stepping on your lawn" meme?
You are not more effective with a gun than a career criminal.

...

>You are not more effective with a gun than a career criminal.

neither are cops, nigger

You just don't understand. Oppression by private entities is way better than government oppression.

Because it can not exist when darkies and jews are around.

I think the real struggle with most anarcho capitalists is this: why can't more than one person sign onto a contract?
That's what a community is, many people signing a contract for mutual defense, community standards, regulations....etc.

Even most private companies are owned by many shareholders. Why is this such a forbidden idea?
They reject "violence", but even in their mythical free market utopia, violence will be necessary to enforce contracts

... Your government is owned by the military industrial complex which is owned by individual interests meaning you are already oppressed by private entities, just by proxy.

Not an an-cap but the Austrian school is better than both the Keynesian and Chicago schools.

I'm NEET

even if that is the case the government still operates by a given set of rules which restrict it from certain actions.

a private entity does not have this. instead you would be subjected to the whim of the few individuals in charge of this entity.

...

"violence" is the *initiation* of force - you can defend yourself with a gun if someone comes after you with a knife.

By the by, there is no free market "utopia" - just a more economically superior geographical location.

...

...

Hitler build the Autobahn.

...

No protection again fraud is literally the biggest flaw of any form of anarchism.

That's the fiction they sell.

In reality, we cede all manner of power and privilege to the government we would never dream of granting a private actor... then it's promptly co-opted by the elites to enrich themselves at the cost of the citizenry.

The most obscene part of it is that their malfeasance is exponentially empowered via taxation.

If there were no state and an ultra-rich evildoer wanted to carry out some coercion or oppression, he'd have to pay for it wholly out of his own pocket.

With the state, all he has to do is bribe a politician to do his bidding at a fraction of the real cost, and the taxpayers foot the bill for their own suffering.

So someone breaking a contract = violence?
Tresspassing = violence?

Almost all libertarians consider fraud a breach of the NAP.

And who enforces the NAP?

Libertarians don't reject violence.

Nat-soc people here are retarded roleplayer bootlickers
>muh 3rd stage red pill

Hitler was literally a retard that lied to his people, he was a socialist (and no national socialism is not different )

He wanted to central plan everything, confiscate businesses that "don't work for the people well"
It's a height of autism or stupidity to think you can central plan something better than the free market.
Not mentioning that he was literally contacting oracles about war strategy

quite pathetic desu

You can though to a certain extent if you have smart people in charge

The Nazi leadership were all literal geniuses

you should add social darwinists shoving shit into the mind of the wacky libertarian.

I have a lot more respect for social darwinists for they at least try to analyze the implications of what they are advocating for.

though what they fail to understand about darwinism is that it creates more specialized systems that are inherently more volatile. and a free market environment is a lot less static than say nature and thus that volatility would be rather dangerous.

All it means when I say the NAP is breached, is that you open yourself up to countermeasures and sanctions. (e.g. in the case of attempted murder, lethal self-defense; in the case of theft, reparations; etc.)

As for how, that would be up to whatever the immediate community decided to do. A simple example would be blacklisting.

People who get fucked have no safety net or insurance they won't literally starve. Companies with no regulations will do horrible things in the name of profit. No government means no diplomacy, laws,etc. Anarcho-capitalism is pretty shitty.

Read what ((Rothbard)) said about childrens rights

>we all gunna be geniuses
First not all whites are geniuses , shocker
Second any form of socialism is disgenic
You know this, stop

>be in perfect anarcho-capitalist society
>all of sudden a pot hole appears
>nobody fixes it because nobody wants to pay for it

Wat do

And what stops a person from say, packing up, moving elsewhere and doing the same thing all over again.

For example in China, companies commit all sorts of fraud and as soon as legal action is levied, they shut down and open a new company not liable for any damages previously incurred.

>he'd have to pay for it wholly out of his own pocket.

or he could act like the mafia and extort money out of a given population. there is literally nothing a state could do that a private entity cannot and vise versa.

but the fact that a government operates by a given state of rules, brings stability and growth.

The NAP is a total joke, a social contract that relies on outside forces to enforce it, one that anyone with half a brain and enough money can get around with no problem. You'd be replacing our current system with one that can be abused in the same ways, but much easier.

Not all whites are geniuses, but the Nazi leaders were.

socialism is not dysgenic when you have eugenics measures in place, which they certainly did

See in your response, you clearly admit that even a pretty totalitarian state can't deal with this shit either.

We're not selling a utopia. Of course, there will always be bad apples... murderers, thieves, fraudsters. People will figure it out, and it'll be a more innovative and effective solution than we have currently, because the state is a monopoly provider of law and order. With an absolute monopoly, the quality will always go down and the price will always go up.

...

Try to think of the NAP this way...

The NAP is a general framework for what the law (rules backable by force) should be and should ONLY be. Every law that does not fall under the NAP is illegitimate in the view of libertarians. Those would be social norms or subjective preferences and could be promoted via freedom of association and assorting of like-minded individuals into natural communities.

>but the fact that a government operates by a given state of rules, brings stability and growth.

Ah, yes, the rules that they decide.

You have to realize that most governments are slowly killing their currency and thus future stability for short term gains.

Meanwhile if a corporation is trying to harvest your money, you can just hire another to fight it.

...

>national socialist
>communist

...

...

Congrats on admitting that taxation is functionally no different than extortion and that the state is essentially a mafia on an unbelievable scale. Now, imagine if the mafia ran schools that indoctrinated your children for years and years while their minds are undeveloped and vulnerable on the goodness and integrity of mafiosos... hung framed paintings of mob bosses in the hallways.

He wasn't even trying to be funny
ancap blows and is for cowardly kike lovers

...

The entire legal system would be based on after the fact litigation

...

> Wouldn't they be violating the NAP if they invaded?
Do you daff cunt thing they care about your NAP in an invasion?
> How does it not protect against crime?
There are no rules or an enforcer in anarchism. Anybody could hire a bodyguard and tell him to shoot you due to their contract. If the guy doesn't want to, they guarded will find a person who will do the job

The anarchist element turns the whole ideology into complete edgy Sup Forums-tier meme

>Ah, yes, the rules that they decide
and yet they are rules that the population could influence via indirect means.

it appears that this type of intervention by the populace is sufficient for societies that operate with this type of system are generally the wealthiest and most stable.

inflation is a good thing for it encourages consumerism, which if we are living in a capitalistic society is a good thing.

it also allows for systems like the US social security system to exist which is essentially borrowing money from the future that will devalue when the government has to pay it back.

so 1% inflation is a good thing.

>you can just hire another to fight it.

is this a fucking joke? do you know how expensive it would be to fund a military operation? where on gods green earth would you as an individual acquire enough funds to fight a mafia? plus you would have to provide profit to the company that is conducting the operation.

this is literally the most retarded thing I have read all day.

no state to commision RWDS to physically remove all the undesirables

>Walk around neighborhood to collect donations to fix potholes
>Get legs blown off by home defense landmine
>Stuff legs into pothole

It was my fault for trespassing.

>and yet they are rules that the population could influence via indirect means.
You are so naive. Well, maybe politics are better in Ukraine (or you're fucking retarded), but depending on your political system, governments are often completely immune to any sort of repercussions from their actions. They only do slight evils. They feel things out. The parties are not loyal to the people, they are only out for self-gain. And they are not limited to the efficiency of the merchants, they can do things that hurt the economy to benefit themselves, since they are not necessarily a huge part of the market, instead, thriving off taxes, the antithesis of the market.

>inflation is a good thing for it encourages consumerism, which if we are living in a capitalistic society is a good thing.
No, inflation isn't a good thing. Seriously, take a look at places with low-value currency, they're fucking awful third world hell-holes.

>is this a fucking joke? do you know how expensive it would be to fund a military operation? where on gods green earth would you as an individual acquire enough funds to fight a mafia? plus you would have to provide profit to the company that is conducting the operation.

Have you heard of competing mafias? You aren't funding an entire army, you're just paying protection money you retard.

>he thinks "paying protection" means the mob will protect you

>he thinks mafia would let competing mafias run all of your "protectorates" out of business

It's in their best interest to provide at least some asset protection, whether it be passive (guarding your place) or active (taking the fight to the people trying to rob you).

I feel as though I am communicating with a fucking retard. do you know that a politician has to adhere to the whims of his electorate lest he not be reelected, the politician also has to make sure that he has good statistics like "creating jobs" or "raising wages", lest his opponents acquire ammunition to use against him.

>No, inflation isn't a good thing. Seriously, take a look at places with low-value currency, they're fucking awful third world hell-holes.

inflation and hyperinflation are 2 different things.

>Have you heard of competing mafias? You aren't funding an entire army, you're just paying protection money you retard.

if that is the case you will most likely become the victim of a turf war for that is how such organisations conduct war.

it is like knights in dark age europe: if a knight was at war with another knight he would first target his peasantry slaughtering everyone from man, woman to child. I wonder how it would feel being ruthlessly gunned down.

The NAP is pretty spooky

>do you know that a politician has to adhere to the whims of his electorate lest he not be reelected, the politician also has to make sure that he has good statistics like "creating jobs" or "raising wages", lest his opponents acquire ammunition to use against him.

P O L I T I C A L P A R T I E S
People vote with what they know. Even if all that they know is a political party that fucks them in the ass, they'll still vote for them or not vote at all. And if they have control over media, most will learn to love getting fucked in the ass.

You are imagining a perfect democracy, of a great assortment of political parties, with a perfectly informed voter base. This never happens.

Seriously, you must be brainwashed to think this idealistically about things. If a politician fails to do well, the party props them up somewhere else and gets their next actor to come to stage and do the same thing over again.

Inflation of any kind is unsustainable.

Concerning the turf wars, it's a better end than being sucked dry and controlled by a bloated establishment. And also, they wouldn't be that frequent eventually, as they would settle down into very well defined lines with the occasional flare-up.

>If a politician fails to do well, the party props them up somewhere else and gets their next actor to come to stage and do the same thing over again.

and yet policies that people support generally pass.

trust me I know democratic republics are not perfect, but regardless they seem to be the most stable system we have.

>Inflation of any kind is unsustainable.

no inflation is usually a product of growth and has been sustained for the longest periods of time. especially in countries like the US, where for example at its founding you could live on an income of a few pennies.

>they wouldn't be that frequent

no they would for the organizations are small and thus power imbalances would cause new wars to spark often. see you assume these organizations would be stable and if they were you would be right but they wont which is why the struggles would arise.