Ancap is best

Anarchocapitalism is the most logically sound and morally right ideology. You can't prove me wrong.

Also, taxation is theft.

Other urls found in this thread:

i.imgur.com/VkmgU0D.gifv
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

in theory, in reality libertarianism with limited govt would probably work quite well

No one will prove you wrong, the state is obviously evil, but practicality will continue to reign.

Anarchocapitalism is a neckbeard ideology for the manchildren sitting in the basement and fapping to anime all day and letting your mum buy you all the shit.

In real life, anarchocapitalism means that you won't even survive a single week without bandits and burglars coming to your house and killing you and your family, and you can't call police because "taxation is theft xDD" and can't be taken to the hospital either, because "taxation is theft xDD".

Grow the fuck up and dump these trenchcoat-and-fedora ideologies like anarchism and get some real insight about how the system works and how to change it instead of watching V for Vendetta all day and jerking off to Ayn Rand.

i like the ancap memes with Metal Gear the best. MGS brings me great joy

...

don't project too hard there lad. it depends on the demographic. anarchy is the best mode of operations for any conscious race of beings, but seeing as no or few humans know about natural law (especially you, because you assume no slave owners = slaves turn bad) there would indeed be a bad outcome, but as i just said, not for the reasons you think. kys philosophical newfag.

Benevolent Dictator

You see, this is the thing about Anarcho-capitalists. It's so retarded, you can't tell if you're being shitposted or they actually mean it.

...

Oh boy, here we go.

Private roads have always existed, as well as toll roads.

Private ambulances, and private hospitals, have also existed and been successful for quite some time. Actually, the LARGEST ambulance service in the states is a private company.

The rest of your arguments are so cliche and common they are not even worth refuting. Ancap would require that we all be more intelligent, better-rounded, more community-minded people and would result in a better collection of societies and a more peaceful world, period.

Hell, even the environment might arguably be better off. Consider how much real conservation work is actually done by NGO's vs. world governments. The fact is even these things have consumer appeal and people value them. Hell, there's a timber company in my area that has turned a portion of its land in to a mountain bike park/hiking area. I'm sure it's the first of many to come because they've realized it's a profitable use for land that is still covered in young forest.

Funny you mention it, pic related is the only libertarian (and quite likely ancap) monarch in human history. He used his position to go against the parliament in order to secure the right of any municipality to secede and become a sovereign state.

He's the exception, though. Monarchy usually results in shit.

I agree. The problem is that a libertarian government would have to be completely nonviolent and be granted authority not by using force, but actually by the people. Otherwise it would violate the NAP and wouldn't be libertarian at all.

I think it's quite possible for private cities to be established in the future and once these go well, we will see more of them. The major nation states won't go anywhere anytime soon tho.

>anarchy is the best mode of operations for any conscious race of beings,

Yes, anarchy, not anarcho-fapitalism. No, relying on private entities to enforce property rights who have no reason to collude specifically with each other aside from monetary incentives is buttfucking retarded.

...

anarchy does not fucking work along with your natural law, even if the whole world was anarchist, then if even only just one area in the world would have a government, the anarchists will be cucked, because pacifist hippies and mercenaries can't compete with tanks, drones and long-distance ballistic missiles.

Putin for example is just waiting for an opportunity for some neckbeards to declare anarchy and then just claim these lands as if it was fucking nothing. Maybe in your murrica, anarchism sounds viable or cool, if there is even little bit of foreign policy issues surrounding your region, your anarchist community will be cucked hard by governments.

...

How is it that Liechtenstein and Costa Rica, who have no military, still exist? After all, their pathetic civil defense forces can't compete with tanks, drones, and long-distance ballistic missiles. Should they not be part of the Russian Federation already?

>mad as fuck statist throwing around insults and strawmen while he pretends to not care
Why do you feel so offended by an ideology that would literally leave you alone? Ancap poses absolutely no danger to you, only opportunities. Why get so mad at this?

Explain why it's retarded with an actual argument.

I think ancap would be the best system in any demographic. You will just see different levels of violence depending on the demographic, but that seems to be the case in any system. Ancap would offer the most freedom (and freedom to protect yourself) to those willing to use it, while making it a lot harder to gain influence since there would be no already established state power structure to abuse.

ancap is the result of right-wing oriented people believing in left-wing egalitarianism

>Ancap fantasy world
>Every road is a toll road
>That'll be $200 for leaving your street sir

The system works you dumb fucking cucks

>Putin for example is just waiting for an opportunity for some neckbeards to declare anarchy

yes yes well done

HOWEVER

our current state system is basically Patrimony, which is would 100% happen very soon after AnCap

every AnCap should move to Russia to test their mettle

...

This reminds me of the Free Territory, which was a sort of anarchist region in what is now Ukraine in the early 20th century. They did just fine for themselves until the Bolsheviks insisted that they needed a government. They had a loosely-organized military force but Bolshevik propaganda and force won out.

But it really only proves that Statists are the problem, not anarchists, and also that a state body is inherently coercive and violent towards its constituents (victims).

Anarchocapitalism is literally the default state of nature and human interactions.
To claim it can't work is utter nonsense because it is the very basis of our entire existence.

What's preventing an ancap society from owning tanks, drones and long range missiles?
Why would a state engage in warfare against private entities willing to trade with it?

because they have agreements with governments (neighboring countries or USA) who basically protect them, you cannot make such deals in case of anarchism because there is no legal body with whom to make such a deal with

i.imgur.com/VkmgU0D.gifv

>guy who has no knowledge of anarcho capitalism tries to make a case against it

I disagree.
Ancaps believe in natural rights, but that can hardly be described as left wing egalitarianism, which is trying to create equal outcomes and positive rights.
Those are by definition violent and coercive and thus not compatible with ancap philosophy.

Why would every road be a toll road?
Why do you assume the price would be so high?
Why didn't your dumb ass just subscribe to the special offer road flatrate Walmart offered last month?

>agreements
Why would those neighboring countries honor those agreements instead of just invading them? They're absolutely defenseless!

>you believe in capitalism and the NAP
>you should move to an authoritarian superstate worshipping Lenin

Private persons can make deals as well m8

>What's preventing an ancap society from owning tanks, drones and long range missiles?
because these assets require military academies, rigorous training, logistics, international trade deals and some very basic military industry present in the area. Mercenaries can't obtain such assets, because they can't use those assets up to their full potential because they lack the effective structure to obtain, train men to use them and launch them into warfare. Also, you need roads to transport them, which is a problem when you are a anarchist community.

>Why would a state engage in warfare against private entities willing to trade with it?
You are thinking switzerland, yeah? Switzerland has many financial institutions with long-standing, proven stability, which didn't appear over night. Otherwise, if you are talking about ancap, then keep in mind that world has spheres of interest, and unless the ancap happens on mars or moon, then on earth, establishing an ancap society means that some government has to give up land, resources, people and infrastructure to let the ancap society come into fruition, to which governments are gonna respond with "fuck no" and be willing to veto your shitty community out of existance.

FUCK how do they know.
Shut it down.

Have fun racing to the bottom.

>Why would every road be a toll road?
There are no government services strictly for public interest, everything is profit motivated.

>Why do you assume the price would be so high?
You will be taking lots of roads and changing a lot of currency, not to mention the bribes and protection money, so its better to bring too much than too little.

>Why didn't your dumb ass just subscribe to the special offer road flatrate Walmart offered last month?
I don't want their chip implants and tracking wetware installed, plus I used to subcontract for Target affiliates, so there are extra taxes and penalties because I can't join the Walmart loyalty program.

because they have a good infrastucture or stable institutions that are more useful to the country to trade with than to invade and control them. Also, there are some serious diplomatic issues to consider when you mess with the small countries. Then there is also this thing that the people of the nation might not approve of conquering that nation, especially in parlamentary democracy. Of course in monarchy, waging war is nothing.

So what you're saying is that there are quite a few situations where an ancap society could be safe from foreign invasion? Funny, that's not what you were saying earlier.

Let us also not forget that tiny irrelevant countries like Estonia can be easily invaded despite their central governments and military, so as we can see, the militaristic argument is not a very good one to use against ancapism.

Your post just triggered me and violated NAP
Tomahawk missiles en route.

Why do you presume that all these things are exclusive to a coercive government?

As usual, anti ancap arguments boil down to a lack of imagination and 'muh roads'.

And no, I wasn't thinking of Switzerland.
What would a state gain from destroying a potential trade partner? Unless the state would want to acquire natural resources that, for some reason, are only available in the ancap area and the Ancaps for some reason would be unwilling to trade them, it would always be more beneficial to both parties to just trade with each other.

There's also tons of shit written on how ancap societies could be implemented. For example, broke ass indebted governments could sell land and sovereignty rights to private entities who would then start an ancap city or community or w/e on that land. And the states wouldn't have to 'give up' anything.
It's like you really can't grasp the concept of trade.

The NAP is fucking retarded.

>everything is profit motivated
That is the case for everything the state does as well, but not every profit is monetary.
But this still doesn't explain why every road would be a toll road.
You could have tried making actual arguments but you went with dumb ass strawmen. Why?

You are fucking retarded.

Jokes on you, my Starbucks Thumb Nuke Defense System has already traced the flight path to its origin and launched appropriate countermeasures.

Explain to me why it is. If you can give good arguments FOR it then maybe I'll waste my time arguing against it. Until then I'm not going to type out the same responses I've typed out a dozen times.

Everything I have said so far makes perfect sense, because in these cases of Lichestein and Switzerland, they have established themselves over a long period of time in their area, which is not going to happen for an ancap society, because no country is going to give up land for you to practice it. Also, nobody readily trusts a new small community, especially when it has no government. Estonia has a government and is "irrelevant" in grand scheme of things, but we have been existing in our region for 10 000 years and established and fought for our right to exist.

Militaristic argument is wonderful, since sooner or later, ancap society is gonna run into problem that there needs to be a government to get some shit done, such as mobilising people for combat, to establish curfews, to establish a basic civil defense front in case of invasion. And in case you didn't know, it matters a great deal what kind of society Estonia is running, since Russia is not going to readily invade if Putin knows we have a government that has agreed with NATO and UN to protect us and to have bases here. This would be impossible if Estonia was ancap society, since governent is needed to make a deal with NATO and UN.

Initiating violence is morally wrong. This notion extends to the state, who is inherently violent and uses violence to legitimize it's existence. Even if initiating violence could be justified to mitigate something worse than the initial violence, like stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving person, the state is really inefficient at this because of the central planning problem.
A central planner can never hope to gather all the information necessary to make a truly informed decision, and the consequences are especially grave when the decision is enforced by violence on innocent people.
So the logical thing to do is to let people make their own choices, with their own lives and property, in the free market.

What do we need a government for?

I can also say the same about you, that it's you who don't understand how the world works. Yes, you can have some 3rd world country as your ancap society, but keep in mind that when they are likely to agree with your experiment, it means that the country was previously in a seriously fucked up condition. Trade needs a market, but there is no market in that fucked-up country, and certainly nothing of interest to foreign governments, besides the fact it's a peace of land that is theirs to claim.

States do find it beneficial to trade with each other, but it has to be on equal grounds, meaning that the trading partners have established to each other to be a good source of something. Just jumping out of nowhere and screaming "hey X country, let's establish some trade routes" is not likely to happen, because the trade is not going to be beneficial to the other party. Besides, countries do not often do what is most beneficial for them, there are often some old animosities brewing under the surface that have historical roots dating back long ago. Similarly, if you think everyone is going to randomly trust the ancap society, you are wrong, because in case you didn't know, most people are very distrusting of anarchism, corporatism and libertarianism, because they might favor more nationalistic societies instead of Dubai-tier commodity fetishism. It's inevitable that politics will affect the trade more than profit motive ever will.

Taxation is to uphold an infrastructure that supports the community. You're a moron if you think things like prisons and traffic control should be privatized. They would no longer have to answer for their doings to the people they provide for - which in turn would create a monopoly in different sectors of infrastructure that would lead to eventual authoritarian class-split society.

the best way to teach normies about ancap is to begin with the NAP. pretty much every one of them will agree with its' content, then whenever a state is "needed" (in their opinion) to solve an issue, call them on their values like "I wonder if anyone actually cares for the poor, who would give them gibs if they did it of their own pocket" soon the vioe nature of the state will come to light. you just have to no reveal your power level too quickly, let them come to the truth on their own, don't be telling them that only you know what is good and bad.

usually they will see contradiction within the statist mindset, but will be too scared to call tye state for what it is. and that's the moment for you to help them with the last step.

really, all you have to do is help them with being true to themselves, everyone naturally agrees with the NAP, and all of ancap is just logically derived from it

>no country is going to give up land for you to practice it

Russia sold Alaska to the US for 1 million dollars. I'm sure Greece would sell a few of their islands for a couple of billions, they really need the money after all.

Ancaps do not seek to overturn states or territory. They mostly want to create new territory for themselves in lands that are not used by anyone.
Why would these lands suddenly be invaded?

>Why do you feel so offended by an ideology that would literally leave you alone? Ancap poses absolutely no danger to you, only opportunities. Why get so mad at this?

because I used to believe this shit a year ago and I am mad that I was lied to, and I want to prevent others from falling into the same trap

>because no country is going to give up land for you to practice it.
You mean, no government is going to give up land. The land that those individuals own, and live on, and demand sovereignty over. This is supposed to be an argument FOR statism?

>nobody readily trusts a new small community, especially when it has no government
Why not? What kind of threat can a government-less community pose, exactly? Every single large-scale conflict or crisis in human history happened as a result of government action, so if we're going to throw suspicions around, they should be directed squarely at governments and proponents thereof.

>government is needed to make a deal with NATO and UN
Because individuals somehow cannot? Because it is not in NATO's best interest to protect relatively "free" states from their enemy's invasion, so that they act as a buffer zone? Because it is not in the UN's interest to protect small, peaceful regions from the war efforts of its members?

I think the main failing of anarcho-capitalism is the same failing all branches of anarchy suffer. It's in human nature to form a tribe. You will never abolish tribal aspects from humanity in general.

While I agree a large federal government is a fatal flaw, I believe a mutually agreeable organization of tribal governments into a nation, who willingly pools their resources for defense and utilities is the most equitable option for humanity.

More or less what the United States started our and sought to be. It acknowledged every flaw of humanity and created a system to mitigate the harm while bolstering the positives.

It was never intended to grow into an all powerful, unstoppable, monolithic system that the layman has no real say or influence in. The federal government wasn't supposed to affect individuals lives, only local governments. Federal government existed to prevent local governments from destroying the rights of citizens.

But since everyone can vote, people decided to vote for free money and our wonderful system collapsed.

because fucking with these ancap societies on greece is greenlighted the moment greece government claims no responsibility for the future of these ancap societies. Turkey can and will be interested into cucking that society, mostly to perform an outstanding "fuck you greece" gesture to greece people.

Let's presume that greece and turkey will be fine and trade happily with you, then there still be problems, such as thousands of rapefugees wanting to come to your islands to set up their shitty little shanty towns and bring up the crime rate. There is virtually no way to prevent this from happening, because gunning down or walling your community is going to bring huge diplomatic attention to your operations and eventually, you will be cucked into establishing some form of government, just to sign treaties that you do not torture people or plan to develop nuclear weapons or some shit like that.

"Anarchocapitalism" is an oxymoron.

>You will never abolish tribal aspects from humanity in general.
Ancapism doesn't prohibit this at all. It merely states that tribes must not incorporate individuals into them without their consent (as countries do now). In an ancap society, you may very well see something akin to Italian city-states as the largest form of "government".

The market is everywhere, it's a natural thing. It's not planned by someone or some politicians. Just like trade routes aren't.
Real life isn't some game of civilization, where you go 'hey let's make a trade route here and then conquer that city there to color the map a bit more'. Trade happens when supply and demand meet and people exchange goods. It's on equal grounds by default, until it gets usurped by a state and strangled with tariffs and regulations.

People are only distrusting of anarchism because they have been brainwashed to believe the mad max scenarios and because anarchism historically is associated with left wing philosophy.
They simply don't understand the natural concept of anarchocapitalism even tho they experience it every day.

When has the state ever answered to the people or stood up for its crimes?
Private companies are DIRECTLY responsible for their fuck ups and can immediately be punished by the people who can choose to no longer pay them. When you choose to no longe pay the state tho, it throws you into a cage or kills you.

Good point
But a lot of the time they will agree initially, but then won't accept the conclusions and instead go on endlessly about roads, monopolies, feudalism or child prostitute warlords buying all the land around someone else to throw recreational nukes at them.

If people used just 10% of the scrutiny and creativity they use to come up with arguments against ancap to think about our governments, everyone would be an ancap..

The only intellectually consistent way to have an ancap society would require open borders.
Ancap is the ideology of cuckolds who fantasise about being feudalists.

>Ancap would require that we all be more intelligent, better-rounded, more community-minded people and would result in a better collection of societies and a more peaceful world, period.
"if people were better, people would be better"
wow really?

fuck off. if we're going to imagine that people can be significantly improved instead of being selfish cunts, we might as well take on the new soviet man instead of the rational economic actor. at least he can write a song

>thousands of rapefugees wanting to come to your islands to set up their shitty little shanty towns and bring up the crime rate.
Where exactly are they going to be setting up shanty towns? In people's backyards? In stores? In the middle of roads? All property is private in ancap. A rapefugee is a trespasser unless he has permission from the property-owner.

>sign treaties that you do not
Who is "you"?

yeah but people aren't logical

>open borders
Are you in favor of someone coming onto your property and living there without your permission? No? Congrats, you believe the same thing ancaps do.

In anarcho-capitalism, every property line is a border. It is the exact opposite of open borders.

>Why do you feel so offended by an ideology that would literally leave you alone?
Because it wouldn't
>Walk on a piece of land that someone has arbitrarily declared their property because they got there first
>Causing no harm to the land with my presence, just taking a walk
>He points a shotgun and tells me to fuck off for violating the NAP, even though I've harmed nobody.

>Initiating violence is morally wrong. This notion extends to the state, who is inherently violent and uses violence to legitimize it's existence. Even if initiating violence could be justified to mitigate something worse than the initial violence, like stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving person, the state is really inefficient at this because of the central planning problem.

Initiating violence to prevent a worse instance is the moral choice. The thing about morality is that it is relative. You may not be doing the right thing, but to prevent a worse thing is to do the right thing. Such is reality.

And nobody (with a brain anyway) will argue against the market being the most efficient method of allocating resources and capital. But that is also irrelevant when measuring what the state does (in the west anyway). The state isn't trying to replace the market, only to temper it's excesses. Examples being that the market is extremely coercive in nature and favors the haves over the havenots. That's where states come in: to give the havenots at the least a reasonable share of the wealth they create.

So the logical thing to do is to let people make their own choices

But that's what we are doing. The free choice of people is to create states and regulative systems, it's not like they appeared out of a hole in the ground and imposed it's will on everybody.

>He points a shotgun and tells me to fuck off for violating the NAP, even though I've harmed nobody.
And yet in the same breath, you're promoting national borders? Which one is it, open borders or closed ones?

>morality is that it is relative
You and I both know you don't believe that.

Could you define "open borders" for me?
Does your home have "open borders"?

Borders don't exist unless they are defined and enforced by the state.

That's a nice reason to participate. I visited your country recently and thought it was very nice. Good nature and history. I'm sorry your people were effectively enslaved for so long =( I've read you have the best parental leave of pretty much anywhere, congrats on that too.

I think the main failing of anarcho-capitalism is the same failing all branches of anarchy suffer. It's in human nature to form a tribe. You will never abolish tribal aspects from humanity in general.

.While I agree a large federal government is a fatal flaw, I believe a mutually agreeable organization of tribal governments into a nation, who willingly pools their resources for defense and utilities is the most equitable option for humanity.
How have you arrived at the idea that anarchism precludes, as you put it, the forming of tribes? It's pretty much the opposite. You come close to describing free association i.e. anarchism.

Am I in favour of letting a thousand niggers onto my property to work?
Yes.
Will I fly niggers in from Africa because they'll work cheaper?
Yes
When I go bankrupt after a big chimpout, will they flood out of what was once my property and is now derelect and into everyone else's? Yes.

Which is to say nothing of how arbitrary the creation of property lines would be, and how willing others would be to harm innocent white people.

With the rest of the country it's currently located in? Yes. My property does. It doesn't need explicit borders because it's very conveniently situated far from all the Pakis the government has decided to import. In an ancap society someone could use low paid Africans to mine coal nearby, however, and when the coal runs out lord knows he's not going to pay to send the Africans home.

>You mean, no government is going to give up land. The land that those individuals own, and live on, and demand sovereignty over. This is supposed to be an argument FOR statism?
there is no legitimacy to claim that land. You have no one who would take responsibility for the people or to guarantee the manifest upon which the society is created. This equals to nobody taking you seriously and considering your society an annoyance factor that is better not to exist.

>Why not? What kind of threat can a government-less community pose, exactly? Every single large-scale conflict or crisis in human history happened as a result of government action, so if we're going to throw suspicions around, they should be directed squarely at governments and proponents thereof.
governmentless community can fuck up the trade or economy of surrounding countries by having an impact on supply/demand ratios. For example, if france has a deal with germany to import 100,000 cars into france each fiscial year, and ancap society steps in and wants to offer 10,000 cars each fiscial year, and france has a statement that they don't want more than 100,000 cars from european region, then germany can't send over 100,000 cars anymore, but 90,000 cars, from which the 10,000 will be sold to someone else. This means that trade with germany and france becomes less frequent, and relations between two countries could become colder. In this situation, france and germany could that the frequent trade relation between germany and france is more important than better-quality cars from the yet-to-establish ancap society, so it will be cut out.

>Because individuals somehow cannot? Because it is not in NATO's best interest to protect relatively "free" states from their enemy's invasion, so that they act as a buffer zone? Because it is not in the UN's interest to protect small, peaceful regions from the war efforts of its members?
your society can't contribute to NATO besides sending some mercenaries

What is the difference between a border guard telling you he will shoot you if you cross the property line he's defending, and me telling you I'll shoot you if you cross the line I'm defending?

>because of the central planning problem.
This is why there are different levels of government.

Someone in London planning the bus service in a northern town is laughably inefficient. That town's local authority, however, can do a rather good job of it.

How were you lied to?
It seems like you just didn't understand it.

And attacking a peaceful city will not bring attention to Turkey?
Not to mention ancap societies will be well armed. They might get wiped out, but it will be genocide and what will the turks gain from that?

Please explain instead of dropping worthless oneliners.

You're wrong.
Private establishments are free to discriminate in whatever way they wish. Entry or live in a private city could be conditional on a contract previously agreed upon, and people not abiding by their contract could be removed.

That's the real beauty of ancap. Freedom of association and competition of systems. You could literally make commie town and nazi city and both would have their sets of rules and values and admissions and it would be perfectly valid as long as it was all voluntary.

It is very likely that people in general will improve in a society that favors personal responsibility over dependency on a nanny state. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that ancap wants to create some sort of utopia where no problems or worries exist, as that is not the case.

Ancap simply wants to live without coercive governments so the people and the market can be free to work to the best of their abilities. Ancap utopia is freedom.

I never said there was a difference. The only difference is whether the state recognizes and enforces the given boundaries. If no state exists, then it's a simple matter of who has the most firepower. That is, in the absence of a state, if the intruders happen to have more guns, it's their "property" now.

There exist laws in the UK to let me walk on private land so long as I don't harm it.

It's national borders with the state using their monopoly on violence to provide me the freedom to roam on private property, thank you very much. Close the border to foreigners and let me roam freely within it.

>When I go bankrupt after a big chimpout, will they flood out of what was once my property and is now derelect and into everyone else's? Yes.
Wait, you're suggesting this doesn't happen already? The difference is, under your beloved statism, you're not allowed to light them the fuck up from your front porch when they rampage onto your property.

>arbitrary the creation of property lines would be
How are property lines created now and in the past? By people negotiating and making agreements. Why do you think this would be any different?

>there is no legitimacy to claim that land
What does a "legitimate" claim to land look like? One that is claimed by a government? That's a circular argument, try again.

>guarantee the manifest upon which the society is created
The people within that society guarantee it. Or are you saying that governments are particularly effective at guaranteeing this? Because human history would beg to disagree.

>so it will be cut out
And then the producers in the ancap society will have to compete in other ways. What's the problem?

>besides sending some mercenaries
This is more than some members do.

> If no state exists, then it's a simple matter of who has the most firepower.
Wrong. It's ALWAYS a simple matter of who has the most firepower, state or no state.

Imagine if Russia was visited by hyper-advanced aliens who gave them all sorts of technology and turned their nation into one of gods. What, exactly, would stop them from taking over the entire planet? The fact that there are other states?

>A rapefugee is a trespasser unless he has permission from the property-owner.
Let's assume that you are a plantation owner, you go to sleep, and wake up in the morning to one of your workers letting you know that there are 100 rapefugees living in tents on your land. What exactly can you do about it? If you tell them to go away, they tell you some sob story, bunch of excuses and won't. If you threaten them, they panic and start to damage your property. If you gun them down, you won't get good trade deals when it leaks to media where some rapefugee cries that their family member was killed by ancap property owner, therefore you are a "big bad racist" not to be traded with. At least in case of government, there will be possible to respond to the situation in a way that is consistent and OK with everyone living in the region and countries who have international trade/diplomatic deals with your country.

>Who is "you"?
Governments are gonna demand there to be a central body who can sign treaties. If cannot provide such institution, you can and will be declared a terrorist state by many countries around the world, because you don't necessarily guarantee not to torture people or develop nuclear weapons. Countries are not going to waste time going company to company to make these deals because of some unviable ancap principles against statism.

>as it was all voluntary.
The voluntarism of the entire thing is laughably dubious.

>create circumstances in which someone has two choices: work for me in poor conditions or starve
>this is a voluntary choice and not coercion at all because haha i'm not doing the coercion it's nature lol he should just take the rational choice of wage-slavery.

Furthermore markets aren't perfect, and there do exist instances where central planning is infinitely superior to letting market forces take their toll.

War is the best example of this. In war, you can generally calculate how many tanks/planes/bombs you're going to need to produce quite easily, and your end goal isn't the profit motive but to win the war. Leaving the matter to the market however, things will seek to optimise profit with the end result potentially being an avoidable defeat.

(Consider that a statist nation invades one based on ancap principles: the statist nation can immediately tell the central planners what to produce, ration food, cancel production of luxury goods, etc, whereas the ancap society will continue to decide what to do based on financial investment. through rigid control of information and propaganda in the statist society, one can reduce the impression of risk in the minds of the businessmen managing production in the ancap society and reduce their incentive to take up a war footing. Once the ancap society has been captured, the businessmen can go directly to the gulag.)

But governments are initiating violence by default, not as a last measure to prevent something wrong. Government lives off violence, violence is literally their business model. So by definition government is morally wrong even if they ocasionaly prevent something bad.

It's no different than a protection racket.


>haves and havenots
Socialist drivel. How can you agree that the market is most efficient in one sentence and then denounce it in the next? You are contradicting yourself with that claim, and the state is not responsible for wages or positively contributing to their development in any way.

How was it your or my choice to live in these states? It's not my free choice to live here and get stolen from everyday.


And the Africans cant pay for themselves why?

You project your own perceptions of ancap on everyone else and assume that's how people would react.
And you still don't understand how trade works.

Germany and France trade cars because people in France buy german cars, not because politicians agreed on some arbitrary numbers of imports and exports.
Just like wealth, trade is NOT a zero sum game.

Liechtenstein can't contribute to NATO either with your logic.


Know who would plan the bus routes even better? A private company depending on providing a good public transportation service to survive.

>Wait, you're suggesting this doesn't happen already?
Not directly. Immigrants are imported into the nation as a whole, and the whole nation gets to vote on it instead of just allowing one landowner to do it and then shirk his responsibilities or die or such.

>Why do you think this would be any different?
Because you're pointing a gun at me and don't want to move from the position that you own the entirety of England because you "called it" first.

>>And the Africans cant pay for themselves why?
I'm not actually sure what you're asking.
They can't pay for themselves to fly here or such because they're destitute and stupid and facing down starvation if they don't accept my harsh conditions. Their crops failed back in Africa.

>Know who would plan the bus routes even better? A private company depending on providing a good public transportation service to survive.
If the end goal is profit. But it isn't, it's transportation for the elderly and not particularly well off to other parts of the country.

This is what the government does right now. So how is that an argument against anarchism? The idea that there is some form of democracy behind the government's action? That's just a majority of people pointing a collective gun at you, and the issue at hand doesn't change one bit.

>That is the case for everything the state does as well, but not every profit is monetary.
Without the ability to enforce laws like a state, the only recourse is monetary profit.

Why does every grocery or private utility have a toll?

Does the current national highway system generate profits?

How did they even get on my land?


>an ancap society that is founded on the non aggression principle will be declared a terrorist state because they might torture people

Lol, what?
>Hello world, we are a peaceful community of people who believe in peace, property, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and we also subscribe to the philosophy of the non aggression principle, meaning we oppose any initiation of violence. We believe in natural rights of all people and seek to become prosperous by engaging in free trade with the rest of the world.
>clearly, we must be terrorists in disguise who can't be trusted and must be invaded immediately
>jokes on you tho, we don't have roads you could drive your tanks on, checkmate statists!

They would have the choice to leave as well.

Are you seriously trying to make an argument against ancap by saying that they could not invade other nations as effectively as strong nationstates? are you aware that one of the core principles of ancap is the NAP and that invading other countries is pretty much the one thing most opposed to ancap philosophy?

This might be the most ridiculous argument against ancap I have ever heard.

Fucking shit, stupid computer ate my post. Let's try again...

>What exactly can you do about it?
Call your protection agency and have them come and physically remove the rapefugees. Shooting them would be bad for public relations, especially when there are more civilized alternatives.

>you can and will be declared a terrorist state by many countries around the world
There's that word again. Who are they going to declare a terrorist state? A "state" with no name, no leaders, no central authority, no cohesive policy, and no money? A state that appears to be nothing more than individuals going about their daily lives? Who are they going to suspect of torture or developing nuclear weapons?

this bit was meant for you

Turkey does not care, they can develop their own version of things, such as that they were sending a "humanitary mission" to your society on agreement with some property owner and they were attacked by another property owner, and it will spark outrage in turkey and assume that you existance is harmful and annoying to turkish trade and operations.

I understood it fully, I have read about the topic, but at some point it might reach to you as well that dreaming all of this is pointless to your quality of life and lulls you into thinking that utopian scenarios are entirely possible

>What does a "legitimate" claim to land look like? One that is claimed by a government?
Yes, one claimed by the government. Who gives a flying fuck what ancap consider to be legitimate or not, what matters is that 99% of countries in the world have governments and they are going to only trust another government to back up any legitimacy claim.

>The people within that society guarantee it. Or are you saying that governments are particularly effective at guaranteeing this?
Government represents the society, so yes, governments are pretty effective at guaranteeing this, by definition. Government mostly does but not always represents what people want, but that is beside the point, because ancap society has absolutely zero alternatives to an institution (normally the job of government) saying that "yes, we are an ancap society and we want to be left alone" because individuals or companies claiming that independent from each other that would equal to one russian saying that they are going to conquer estonia soon and another russian saying that they love estonia and wish us much prosperity and peace.

>When you and all your rich buddies buy up all the land and make people pay tribute and follow a define set of rules to live there. But you're not a Government and those aren't taxes

>cut out
If you can't diversify the eonomy that is based on capitalism, then the whole society's economy will suffer, eventually the whole experiment will collapse

>This is more than some members do.
I agree, but who are the mercenaries responsible to? The property owner or the ancap society? If property owner, then they can't be really used by NATO since a company cannot be held accountable for international shitstorms they cause. United fruit fucked up latino states, but they were not accountable, the US government was. And if the mercenaries are accountable to entire ancap society, what is the exact regulatory body that they subject to? I think this calls for a little teensy-tinesy bit of a government to be established.

>Wanting to be owned by walmart
>leting the world's resources turn to shit without regulation

>They would have the choice to leave as well.
"Leave" means "Starve" in these circumstances.

Consider for hypothetical example a grid of properties exists such as the one in pic related.

At one point these properties were owned by 9 individuals. 8 of them declined to sell to me, and the 9th in the centre didn't have perfect information available and was thus unaware of what i was doing until the final sale with the 8th individual was complete (he had an agreement with the 8th individual that he could cross that property to leave the area and get to work, to town, etc. on cancellation a fine would have to be paid, but otherwise cancellation can be done immediately.)

So I cancel the contract and throw the fine money at him. I then inform him that if he doesn't immediately waive the fine and take up employment as a sex worker for my pleasure (to be paid in food, not cash) on an indefinite contract (which he can terminate if he pays me a large fine) then he's free to return home to his own land. I have it on good authority that the land around us isn't appropriate (or large enough) to grow food crops and that within a few weeks he will starve. As part of the contract I offer him, he still isn't free to transit my land except for the limited journey into and out of my office for providing sexual services.

If he refuses my ultimatum he has voluntarily signed away his own life. If he accepts, he will live the rest of his days sucking my dick "voluntarily"


>Are you seriously trying to make an argument against ancap by saying that they could not invade other nations as effectively as strong nationstates?
No, I'm saying that it couldn't DEFEND as effectively as other nation-states. The statist nation doesn't give a fuck about the NAP and has initiated violence.

The collective gun isn't pointed at me, it's pointed at the private landowners who have to allow me passage.
I'm more than content with the current arrangement. It's in my self-interest.

>which he can terminate if he pays me a large fine
Should probably have left in: I am aware he cannot pay this fine and I am refusing him the ability to obtain money from elsewhere by blocking his ability to transit my land.

You can say it's his fault because he should've written the contract with #8 better, but if you're willing to argue that's sufficient to make all of my coercion voluntary then I'm willing to laugh.

>Socialist drivel. How can you agree that the market is most efficient in one sentence and then denounce it in the next?

You are literally retarded if you think that someone cannot point out the

positives and negatives of a system/anything.

>But governments are initiating violence by default, not as a last measure to prevent something wrong. Government lives off violence, violence is literally their business model. So by definition government is morally wrong even if they ocasionaly prevent something bad.

It's no different than a protection racket.

Markets are no different and thrive on violence and coercion in order to function, how else would it be the most efficient at getting some people what they want while not for others?

>How was it your or my choice to live in these states? It's not my free choice to live here and get stolen from everyday.

By all means, Somalia is waiting for you friend. I hear it is good there this time of year. I freely choose to live in a governmental state-based system. If I didn't like it I would leave to somewhere where there isn't.

>Logical
>Morally right
>Prove me wrong or I am right by default

>secret socities, fraternities, and social clubs essentially lobby the government and control it
>ancaps think that without government, powerful business leaders won't form socities in secret to impose their will upon regular consumers

Oh, and of course the free-rider dilemma

There. Your shitty ideology is now full of holes.

>Does the current national highway system generate profits?

No, because it subsidizes the heaviest utilizes, something that a private system wouldn't do.

Then I buy the roads in green. Feel free to sell me the whole thing one $ or to never go there again.

Fucking idiot, this is an Ancap society, there are no roads.

>and they are going to only trust another government to back up any legitimacy claim.
If there is no government where there once was a government, and the ancap society doesn't appear to pose any threat, then what is there to mistrust?

>Government represents the society
Top laf. How can you say this with a straight face? Government represents the interests of the society they rule about as much as I represent your interests.

>would equal to one russian saying that they are going to conquer estonia soon and another russian saying that they love estonia
Except, of course, that unlike Russians, anarchists are not all the same. If Apple says they hate Estonia, and Microsoft says they love it, would that really confuse you? After all they're both American companies, so it's basically impossible to keep track of which people want to do what.

>If you can't diversify the eonomy that is based on capitalism, then the whole society's economy will suffer
This is not an argument against anarchism, because this applies to states just as much. Look at what's happening to Venezuela, and the fat load of good their government did to them.

>since a company cannot be held accountable for international shitstorms they cause
Why not? Recall that might solves everything, even if that solution may not be right. Let's say Neo-United Fruit goes and fucks up another central american country. They could be tried in an international court run by the UN. After all, they couldn't do anything about it, because they'd be vastly outgunned. Not to mention that if the board of directors demanded that the company violently resist being brought to trial, their employees would just quit because that's basically the end of the company at that point. Consumer and shareholder confidence would plummet, and that's that.

> It's in my self-interest.
So you're an opportunist rather than an ideologue. Not really an argument against anarchism.

>non aggression principle
who is gonna say that the non aggression principle is effective? there is nobody to back up that claim and nobody to safeguard that this principle is being followed and applied. I can say that I can fly, but that doesn't mean that I actually can.

additionally, your little joke here is debunked by the fact that north korea also believes to be peaceful and states that they believe in natural progress of mankind, but nobody actually belives that crap

>Fucking shit, stupid computer ate my post. Let's try again...
sucks when it happens, I'm sorry

>Call your protection agency and have them come and physically remove the rapefugees.
if protection agency is faulty in their performance, how can they be held accountable? They have a lot of power in this society, and with nobody to respond to, they can become crooked and do some unethical shit.

>There's that word again. Who are they going to declare a terrorist state? A "state" with no name, no leaders, no central authority, no cohesive policy, and no money? A state that appears to be nothing more than individuals going about their daily lives? Who are they going to suspect of torture or developing nuclear weapons?
KGB or CIA could start a rumor that you are actually a state but the state is in exile, or there is a shadow government that does not want public attention and governs the society in secret. I personally think ancap could even work in space (great example is colonies in Mass Effect series), but on earth, ancaps will be cucked because they are stepping on the toes of national interests of other countries and their simple existance means that they are going to start a trend by example, a trend of a societal order in which no international responsibilities are taken. Governments are afraid of that shit and act before you "really make them think" that you are peaceful.