(untitled)

This is a thread for discussion and critic about anarcho-capitalism, please keep it civil and on topic :) Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of centralized state dictum in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Free market Transaction between individuals are conducted on a free market regulated only by offer and demand, this is made possible by cryptocurrencies and tokenization of assets. Decentralization The current centralized approach to governments leads to corruption, lobbyism, harms innovation and leads to huge amounts of wasted resources, we should switch preferably to a stateless society with decentralized public systems where individuals govern themselves. Private property Individual private property is at the center of the anarcho-capitalist ideology, instead of being given rights by an entity above you, you directly own your body and your capital. Public services In an anarcho-capitalist society public services are either handled by private entities or work in a decentralized way. Non-aggression principle The non-aggression principle states that you should not attack others but you can still defend yourself and your property. Resources: Anarcho-capitalism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism Austrian School - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School Self-ownership - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership Non-aggression principle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle ~Taxation is theft~

Is "Atlas Shrugged" worth a read? I don't have faith at all in anarchism, however I've been meaning to read that book for ages. Something about the name and the cover art attracts me to it. I know that the book and its proponents get ridiculed because of the author but I'm willing to turn a blind eye on who wrote the book. What will I get out of it? Is it driven by a fictional story or is it written in the communist manifesto manner?

Play BioShock if you want to see what would happen to an anarcho-capitalist society. It's a completely unworkable system.

>>26101 I think in Bioshock their hidden objectivist city was purposefully destroyed by Fontaine. I won't recall the plot so here it is in wikipedia's words: <As Rapture flourished, wealth disparities also grew, and conman/businessman Frank Fontaine used his influence over the disenfranchised working class to establish illegal enterprises and attain power—enough to rival even Ryan himself. Together with doctors Brigid Tenenbaum and Yi Suchong, Fontaine would create his own company dedicated towards researching plasmids and gene tonics. As ADAM became addictive and demand skyrocketed, Fontaine would secretly mass-produce ADAM through slugs implanted in the stomachs of orphaned girls, nicknamed "Little Sisters". Fontaine was then killed in a shootout with police, and Ryan took the opportunity to seize his assets, including control of the Little Sisters. <Tensions came to a head on New Year's Eve of 1958, when Atlas ordered an all-out assault on Ryan and his supporters. The conflict turns Rapture into a war-torn crumbling dystopia, resulting in societal collapse, countless deaths, many Splicers becoming disfigured and insane from ADAM abuse, and the few sane survivors barricading themselves away from the chaos. Basically someone's dedication and science fiction resulting in a revolution/nation-wide insurrection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioshock#Synopsis

>>26096 > Austrian School That explains a lot. Sick ideas always come out of German heads only. It's like a litmus test of politics. If the idea has German origins, then expect mass death and unimaginable suffering.

>>26096 I'm an unironic ancap but I don't expect this thread to go well. Lainchan tends to lean more left and usually threads like these don't lead to any actual discussion and just devolve into petty arguments. I've come to the conclusion that arguing with other extremists is a waste of time. No one who's serious about their beliefs is going to be so quick to change them from a few discussions with some anonymous people. A better way to spend your time is to create art (books, movies, songs, video games, youtube videos, memes, etc.) that present your beliefs in an easy manner for the people who don't hold a strong political belief. >>26099 It's a pretty long read and it often feels like it drags on for too long, and Ayn Rand tends to get pretty mocked by, not only leftists, but also other libertarians (including Murray Rothbard). If you want a shorter read then definitely check out "Anatomy Of The State" by Murray Rothbard. You can read this in under an hour! https://cdn.mises.org/Anatomy%20of%20the%20State_3.pdf >>26101 It's in my "to play" list but I haven't gotten around to it yet. >>26105 This sounds really bigoted, just saying.

>>26107 >Lainchan tends to lean more left It leans towards pro-cop, pro-state, pro-authority and not necessarily the left side either.

Anarcho Capitalism isn't Anarchist thought it's the antithesis to it. An unregulated market isn't free because it takes away power from the consumer. On top of that the market as supply and demand is a myth which is why artificial scarcity and artificial surplus exist. It's not decentralized at all it's centralized by who holds the most wealth holds the power over everyone else. The NAP has no one to uphold it so it's useless especially when there is no consensus even among AnCaps or Rightist Libertarians on what constitutes a violation of the NAP and further more it insanely encourages violent escalation for completely non violent things relating to property such as stepping on someone's lawn. If taxation is theft it's petty theft while the money taken from the workers by capitalists is grand theft.

>>26114 >It leans towards pro-cop, pro-state, pro-authority That's where most people on the left lean to, even the ones who claim they don't. So called "ancoms" will always side with authoritarians over ancaps. >>26125 I see this sentiment everywhere and the problem is that it's wrongfully assuming ancaps support "capitalism" as most people know it as now, aka, the crony, corporatist, neo-liberal system we have right now. That system requires a government to exist. Billionaires, with lobbyists, who receive bailouts, and get regulations passed that harm small businesses, they would not be able to do any of that if there was no government.

ancaps want to have their cake (freedom) and eat it too (law and order). Every single one of them eventually chooses one or the other, although they may still call themselves "ancaps" like those morons who idolize Augusto Pinochet. >>26125 >Anarcho Capitalism isn't Anarchist thought it's the antithesis to it. No, it is legitimately anarchist, it's just stupid and self-defeating, like anarcho-syndicalism. Western materialist ideology in general is just kinda bad. Whole lots of wasted effort and wasted lives for them.

>>26126 If that were the case the less regulated a market the less crony it should be. However if you look up the top rankers on The Heritage's Index of Economic Freedom compared with the Economist's Crony Capitalism Index. You can clearly see the more unregulated a country is there is no impact whatsoever against cronyism. The top ranking so called "free" countries are among the most crony. Cronyism is the direct consequence of capitalism. Without government bailouts you still have corporate buyouts where a company gets aquired by another company or individual which serves same function as a bailout. You still have investors that are willing to bail out companies by increasing their investments or are mislead by the CEOs on the value of the company all of these can keep failing businesses afloat which is how Amazon got to the top as it for a long time did not generate a proffit from it's own business and ownly kept getting people to invest. You also still have business insurance that also could act as part of the function bailouts hold. >>26128 Anarchism has always been a socialist movement. Anarchy is short for anti hierarchy. Making it capitalist makes it contradictory because capitalism establishes class hierarchy even without the state to the point it can quickly devolve into a sort of neo feudalist corporate state.

>>26129 yes, hence why it is stupid and self-defeating.

>>26128 >ancaps want to have their cake (freedom) and eat it too (law and order) The only universal "law" libertarians agree on is the NAP, and I think the definition of it is pretty self explanatory. You don't even really need to think about it too hard because we all instinctively follow the NAP on a daily basis. >like those morons who idolize Augusto Pinochet While there are some Pinochet stans, those are not ancaps, and the ancaps that make helicopter memes are just memeing. Think of it like how ancoms still make gulag jokes despite them being against the USSR. >>26129 >The top ranking so called "free" countries are among the most crony Really? Cause I see the opposite. If you look at more regulated markets, like those of Europe, like I don't know, the UK, the UK's rich people are different from America. Those rich people come from a lineage of family that dates back to god knows when. Pretty much the same 3 or 4 people control all the land in that country. Not to mention, everything is way more expensive! Even a small home in a rural area will cost you a fortune! Cars are even considered a luxury so most people just use public transport. In the UK, it is much harder to move up from the lower middle class, because the government and the economy are set up specifically to keep people in the class they were born in. >Anarchy is short for anti hierarchy. Making it capitalist makes it contradictory because capitalism establishes class hierarchy The only class that exist are entrepreneurs, non-state capitalists, and state-capitalists. Ancaps are against the last class, the cronies, the people who become rich through the government. Capitalism doesn't establish a class hierarchy, the government does.

>>26126 >So called "ancoms" will always side with authoritarians over ancaps. I see them marching alongside maoists and people waving hammer and sickle flags but they are siding AGAINST the existing government. Ancaps always side WITH the existing government and if they are visible at all, it's usually in the street alongside authoritarian organizations. Historically I wouldn't call ancoms being thrown into gulags and mass graves as "siding with authority" either. You'd think libertarians across the spectrum would learn by now.

>>26136 >Ancaps always side WITH the existing government PSA: republicans who call themselves "libertarian" are not "true libertarians (tm)". I actually see way more infighting within "right wing" groups on the internet, and it's usually between libertarians and authoritarians. Conservatives make fun of libertarians all the time, and vice versa. We don't get along.

>>26132 Take for example Hong Kong. It has taken the number one spot on Heritage's list while also taking top spot one year and second another on the Economist's list. If you're going to measure cronyism by something indirect like class mobility then you should watch this https://youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU >The only class that exist are entrepreneurs, non-state capitalists, and state-capitalists. Ancaps are against the last class, the cronies, the people who become rich through the government. Capitalism doesn't establish a class hierarchy, the government does. Chances are you are not a capitalist. Owning a toothbrush does not make you a capitalist. Capitalists own financial capital. The poor and working class exist. Cronyism is not when the government does stuff. Family owned businesses for example are always nepotist and often cronyist and the government has nothing to do with that.

>>26138 >Owning a toothbrush does not make you a capitalist Well... if no one but me can use the toothbrush, what does that make it? Private property! I could theoretically sell that toothbrush and make money out of it. Is that not what ancoms are against?

>>26107 >I'm an unironic ancap but I don't expect this thread to go well. Lainchan tends to lean more left and usually threads like these don't lead to any actual discussion and just devolve into petty arguments. I feel you lainon. I remember the time when I had just discovered anarchocapitalism, I used to argue a lot, not unlike many others. These days I very rarely argue, and when I do I just try to make whomever is listening just a little bit more libertarian. Arguing eventually becomes tiring, and as you said, most extremists have already settled for their beliefs. But when I do argue I can at least compromise with centrists since they tend to be open and reasonable as long as you don't go too far off the fence.

>>26146 convert to objectivism

>>26132 >The only universal "law" libertarians agree on is the NAP No, they also believe that private property ought to be respected, which is a pretty big kind of law. >Think of it like how ancoms still make gulag jokes despite them being against the USSR. I don't respect them either.

>>26143 A toothbrush is personal property not private property and selling personal property doesn't make someone a capitalist. Capitalists obtain real capital and workers to extract financial capital. No that's not what AnComs and other Leftist ideologies mean.

>>26151 >personal property A term that requires changing previously established concepts to work. If you own your house and no one but you is allowed in your house, then guess what? Your house is private property! There's no other definition for it. "Personal property" falls apart quickly when you really think about it. If you have a farm in your house for example, that farm is part of your house, but no one but yourself is allowed to use it, does your house still count as "personal property" then? If you own something then it's private property, end of story, and we all own private property, even people who thinks they don't own anything actually do own something, themselves! You own yourself. You are the owner of your own body. No one is allowed to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you agree with this fact, then you believe in private property.

>>26152 Personal property is generally movable property. A normal house isn't considered movable property it's immovable property so it gets categorized as private property. Land is private property because it is immovable. THIS is how it is established as is.

>>26152 What are you even going on about in the last bit? No one said the concept of private property doesn't exist or that they do not believe in something like it. You are using a meaning of what private property is that is not the legal established definition and without even acknowledging it as such to point of conflating it with a separate concept of bodily autonomy and making that as a fallacious argument against a statement that was never made to begin with.

>>26099 >Is "Atlas Shrugged" worth a read? It can be a good filter. If you read it and generally agree with the world being postulated then you'll know it's worth going deeper. Ayn Rand was not an anarchist though. Her followers still believe in a minimalist state to handle law enforcement and borders and stuff. The anarchist view is that once you cede a monopoly on violence to a single group then they will abuse it to keep accumulating power until you wind up back with a giant bureaucratic government again. It's definitely not worth sitting down and studying in detail though. Listening to the audiobook while doing other stuff is more than enough to get the point. >>26114 If by left we mean politics based on emotions like "fairness" and envy and collectivist thinking (like class or race warfare) then yes, lainchan does lean very left. >>26151 A toothbrush is not capital because you use it directly. Capital would be a block of wood which could be turned into a toothbrush. >Capitalists obtain real capital and workers to extract financial capital. Your chronology is backwards. The worker does not earn money and then the employer "extracted" a cut because evil capitalism or whatever. The employer gives money to the worker first and then hopes that the worker will earn a bigger return in the future. The higher risk and time preference is what differentiates the capitalist. >>26153 >Personal property is generally movable property. A normal house isn't considered movable property it's immovable property so it gets categorized as private property. Land is private property because it is immovable. The ancap foundation of property rights (at least according to Rothbard) is that nature belongs to no one. But once a person mixes their personal labor with nature then the result belongs to him. So empty land doesn't belong to anyone. But if you build a house on that land then it becomes yours. It doesn't matter if it can be moved or not.

what happens once you walk outside and step out of dream world? you realize most of people are not spiritual nor intelligent enough to live by the rights they are even currently given, everything and anything may be corrupted and you are a stinky glitterboy with low iq

>>26132 look bros look my logic is backed up by jpg of a soykafter.com post by some nigger that makes music for sholmoshekel production lel, christ this is so sad, why is this soykafty blogpost even up?

>>26157 No one gives you your rights you statist cυck. I agree though, you probably need a majority of autisticly rational individualists to make it work.

>>26159 your government owns you since the moment youre spawned on its land, deal with the reality

>>26160 What is dual citizenship? What is naturalization? What is renouncing citizenship? inb4 I'm not that dumb I was trolling all along herp derp

>>26154 >What are you even going on about in the last bit? Not him but he was probably referring argumentative ethics, and in a pretty sloppy way since the way he mentions it makes it look like a massive logical leap. I am personally not a fan of argumentative ethics, but yeah, he could've elaborated much more than what he did.

>>26161 renouncing citizenship from the US is expensive, most expats don't do it.

>>26161 congratz you have two masters now congratz you are treated as animal now congratz you are exchanging one master for the other

>>26165 Don't move the goalposts. >your government owns you since the moment youre spawned on its land Wrong because >>26161

>>26096 It looks like there are people here who have actually studied the literature. One thing I am struggling with is the way anarchists disregard democracy as some kind of illegitimate social construct. Because democracy is actually the default state of nature. 51% of a group want to do a thing and 49% don't want to. Well the 51% will just beat up the 49% and do the thing anyway. So instead of fighting why not just vote and accept the result? That's literally democracy.

>>26096 There are several problems with anarcho-capitalism : Self-ownership is a weird concept, and has weird justifications. If ownership is a type of claim that people assert on things, rather than on people, then people can't be owned by themselves (since they can't be owned at all). Maybe ancaps mean something else when they say "ownership", but then it ought to be clarified. The property rights that ancaps wants are way too demanding. In ancaps scenarios of property creation, a person labor on a piece of land, and that gives other people the ethical duty to ask for their consent if they want to use the land, even if the person has leaved. But what justify this principle? If someone picks a fruit from a tree, it would be weird to consider that we now have an ethical duty to ask his consent in order to use the tree. Another problem is how to make that principle work out in practice, within a stateless society. If that hypothetical society isn't already full of people convinced by that principle, then what would make them comply to respect it? It seems more probable and more desirable that in a stateless society, conflicts over usage will be resolved on a case-by-case basis, rather than by an ethical principle everyone agrees on. Capitalism tends to generate inequalities in wealth, especially over several generations, with inheritance. That wealth takes the form of money, which can be easily stored, transferred, divided, and exchanged for anything. So a statist in an ancap society would just have to accumulate enough wealth to hire an army and start his conquest. In this way at least, an ancap society is less stable than an ancom one, or than any stateless society that isn't capitalistic.

>>26168 >since they can't be owned at all I don't really understand why the concept of self ownership is counterintuitive, but let me try to explain succinctly. We roughly define private property as that which we have legitimate rights over, a kind of extensions of ourselves, and we claim ownership of something by putting work into that thing (if it isn't already owned by someone else) or by exchanging/receiving it with from someone else. There are some ways to arrive at why we own ourselves. Hoppe, for example, argues that whenever you argue with someone else you are already implicitly accept the self ownership of that person, which imo is not that good of an argument as I have previously stated in this thread (not because of what many other people argue, it's just because performative contradictions aren't "strong" in formal logic). You could also go the common sense route that obviously you own yourself, since from the day you started existing you put effort in your own body and only you should be able to decide what happens to it. If you didn't own your own body and someone else could own your body, the mere act of living would be a crime since by living you are controlling your own body. But one thing is certain, everything that is scarce has a value and can be owned, including your own body, and the only logical conclusion is that you must own your own body. Maybe you could elaborate why you can't assert claim over your own body, then I could better understand your doubts. >The property rights that ancaps wants are way too demanding. In ancaps scenarios of property creation, a person labor on a piece of land, and that gives other people the ethical duty to ask for their consent if they want to use the land, even if the person has leaved. Leaving something is one thing, abandoning it is another one. Obviously, just like in the current status quo, you would be able to own multiple houses even if you can only be in one at a time. But if you can't even defend your private property it might as well not be yours. So that is a misunderstanding. >If someone picks a fruit from a tree, it would be weird to consider that we now have an ethical duty to ask his consent in order to use the tree. In this case no, you haven't put any significant work over the tree, so you can't own it. >If that hypothetical society isn't already full of people convinced by that principle, then what would make them comply to respect it? It's not like security personnel would suddenly go away. Heck, you yourself could protect your own property, since you could own firearms. (Even though that doesn't mean you could kill someone for stepping an inch into your private property, it wouldn't be a proportional response). >It seems more probable and more desirable that in a stateless society, conflicts over usage will be resolved on a case-by-case basis, rather than by an ethical principle everyone agrees on. But they would be solved in a case by case basis, it's not like because of this ethical principle every situation becomes black and white. For example, you would still need to prove that the property is yours, which would be judged like on current society, except the tribunal wouldn't be owned by the state. >Capitalism tends to generate inequalities in wealth, especially over several generations, with inheritance. That wealth takes the form of money, which can be easily stored, transferred, divided, and exchanged for anything. So a statist in an ancap society would just have to accumulate enough wealth to hire an army and start his conquest. In this way at least, an ancap society is less stable than an ancom one, or than any stateless society that isn't capitalistic. You underestimate how expensive wars are. Not only are they extremely expensive, they also generate no wealth whatsoever, on the contrary, it destroys wealth. Current nations are only capable of waging wars because of the absurd amount of money they gain from the population. Even if you conquer the rest of the local population you will have no money to collect since you destroyed everything. And, you would still have to go against everyone else which would be armed, potentially with things stronger than just firearms. You would either have to own more weaponry than anyone else, or convince roughly 50%+ of the population that thing under his rule would be better than the current ancap society. And you would have to face someone with potentially the same amount of wealth as you or more.

>>26167 >Because democracy is actually the default state of nature. 51% of a group want to do a thing and 49% don't want to. Well the 51% will just beat up the 49% and do the thing anyway. This is not just the naturalistic fallacy but also completely absurd. Throughout history, small numbers of nobles and kings were able to rule over many times their number of subjects. The ability of the few to rule the many through some combination of superior strength and social contract has been a feature of humanity forever.

>>26170 >We roughly define private property as that which we have legitimate rights over, a kind of extensions of ourselves, and we claim ownership of something by putting work into that thing (if it isn't already owned by someone else) or by exchanging/receiving it with from someone else. A problem with this is that we can't really "extend ourselves". I believe that a person is by definition a human body, and only that. The body can grow of course, but the things that you typically claim to own (house, car, clothes) aren't part of yourself. >Hoppe, for example, argues that whenever you argue with someone else you are already implicitly accept the self ownership of that person, which imo is not that good of an argument as I have previously stated in this thread (not because of what many other people argue, it's just because performative contradictions aren't "strong" in formal logic). I agree that it isn't that good of an argument. It's suspiciously similar to the one presupositionalists use to prove the existence of God : once you start arguing against it, you are using logic, and since you can't ground logic in anything else than God, then you implicitly believe in its existence. >You could also go the common sense route that obviously you own yourself, since from the day you started existing you put effort in your own body and only you should be able to decide what happens to it. Well, it's actually the parents at conception, and then the mother during pregnancy, who provided the effort so that you could exist. Aren't they the one who own the child if we use this criteria? >If you didn't own your own body and someone else could own your body, the mere act of living would be a crime since by living you are controlling your own body. If someone else owned me, it could still be the case that me living was not a crime (in a slave society for example). But there is also a third alternative : nobody owns my body/myself. >Maybe you could elaborate why you can't assert claim over your own body, then I could better understand your doubts. Well if we take as an axiom that the "ownership" relation is a relation between a subject and an object, then self-ownership would not make sense, since people are not objects. There are also practical concerns : if ownership is transferable, then a consequence of self-ownership would be that the ownership of the self could be transferred to someone else, something I think should be avoided. >Obviously, just like in the current status quo, you would be able to own multiple houses even if you can only be in one at a time. That is what is too demanding. Why would we agree that someone could own so much, just because they used to do some labor on the land in the past? >In this case no, you haven't put any significant work over the tree, so you can't own it. What do you mean by significant work? >It's not like security personnel would suddenly go away. Heck, you yourself could protect your own property, since you could own firearms. (Even though that doesn't mean you could kill someone for stepping an inch into your private property, it wouldn't be a proportional response). If the person can use security personnel to enforce his particular homesteading principles, then other people can use it too to defend theirs, so if the person is in minority, it seems that he won't be able to make other people comply. >But they would be solved in a case by case basis, it's not like because of this ethical principle every situation becomes black and white. For example, you would still need to prove that the property is yours, which would be judged like on current society, except the tribunal wouldn't be owned by the state. But the property in question could be mine according to a certain ethical principle, and not mine according to another. I don't see how consulting a tribunal solves the problem.

>>26172 >A problem with this is that we can't really "extend ourselves". I believe that a person is by definition a human body, and only that. The body can grow of course, but the things that you typically claim to own (house, car, clothes) aren't part of yourself. I said that not in the literal sense, as flesh appendages of your own body. Maybe it would be easier to understand if I said, for example, glasses are in a way an extension of yourself. You can see without glasses, but you extend your vision using glasses. You can walk, but you can use your car as a mean of transportation, as an extension of yourself. >Well, it's actually the parents at conception, and then the mother during pregnancy, who provided the effort so that you could exist. Aren't they the one who own the child if we use this criteria? This is the "common sense route" so it's not that logically rigorous, but I mean, while they can't harm you, they can dictate what you do or don't until you have the capability to decide for yourself. >in a slave society for example I don't think I was clear, but legality is different from ethics. There could always be a law that says that everybody should zap themselves twice a day, it would be illegal to not zap yourself but perfectly ethical to not do it. And if you were to enforce that law you yourself would be unethical. There is no consistent ethical system under which our past slave laws would be considered acceptable. >Well if we take as an axiom that the "ownership" relation is a relation between a subject and an object, then self-ownership would not make sense, since people are not objects. If you are talking about the common definition of object then I can understand, even if it would be hard to define what is an object and what isn't. However, object in the sense of, for example, subject and object of an action, obviously people could be considered objects. And imo the latter definition makes more sense to me, but idk. >Ownership is transferable, then a consequence of self-ownership would be that the ownership of the self could be transferred to someone else, something I think should be avoided. This is the only case where you can't transfer ownership, simply because it is not logically possible. Unless you euthanize yourself and transfer the ownership of your body to someone else retroactively. >What do you mean by significant work? This is not completely objective but as a rule of thumb you can say that you added functionality to it. >That is what is too demanding. Why would we agree that someone could own so much, just because they used to do some labor on the land in the past? Let's say the land does not produce anything anymore and is practically dead. In this case you wouldn't need to agree, you could simply take it. But if it's a house or terrain that produces something, it would be stealing just like today. In fact we probably are less demanding than statists, since in our current society every piece of unused land is owned by the state and big companies can retroactively buy acres of land and do nothing with it. >If the person can use security personnel to enforce his particular homesteading principles, then other people can use it too to defend theirs, so if the person is in minority, it seems that he won't be able to make other people comply. Since this would be no different than armed robbery, you could always go to a tribunal to arbitrate things, and if the other party still refuses to comply they would lose the right to arbitration, basically meaning they still have rights but no one else would need to acknowledge them. Also, it's not like everybody would own their own small militia, groups similar to police would still exist, though you could choose which one you would pay for. >But the property in question could be mine according to a certain ethical principle, and not mine according to another. I don't see how consulting a tribunal solves the problem. maybe I wasn't clear, the ethical principle is only one. There may be different laws from place to place (mainly concerning punishment) but they would all follow the "NAP" (I put quotation marks because Hoppe improves upon the NAP, which by itself is, for the lack of a better word, a meme among the libertarian community at this point). You could be the de facto rightful owner of a property, but humans aren't omniscient beings. You would still have to have documentation proving that you own it. As an addendum, I would also like to say that I am confused why some people are against anarchocapitalism even though other ideologies like classical anarchism would be able to coexist with it. Nobody would be blocking you from making your own commune as long as you don't mess with other people outside of it, and as long as you don't force people to stay inside. Maybe people are accustomed with most forms of government forcing to accept their rule, but I don't know.

>>26168 >Self-ownership is a weird concept You own yourself, what you can't own is other people. This is why conservatives hate Rothbard because he was 110% pro-choice. Nobody can tell women what to do with the "parasite" growing inside them. >person labor on a piece of land, and that gives other people the ethical duty to ask for their consent if they want to use the land The theory is that it should be "obvious" if property is owned or abandoned and therefor safe to use. >it would be weird to consider that we now have an ethical duty to ask his consent in order to use the tree In practice the "owner" would just build a fence around it. Technically only the land under the fence belongs to the person who built the fence not everything inside it. But in reality it will serve as a clear go away signal to avoid unnecessary fights. >It seems more probable and more desirable that in a stateless society, conflicts over usage will be resolved on a case-by-case basis The idea of conflict resolution would work pretty much the same way as it does now. You go to court and an independent judge makes a decision. There seem to be different ideas on how you enforce the decision though. According to Bob Murphy for example you would have an informal social credit system. So if you don't follow the judge's orders then everyone will know you are a cheat and refuse to do business with you. Possibly a bit optimistic. I think he is more in the religious, social conservative side. >accumulate enough wealth to hire an army and start his conquest Conquer what? There's no government. Guerillas will just bleed him until he runs out of money and is forced to run away. It's not like that's never happened to any 20th or 21st century super powers in the middle east or south asia... >>26171 >just the naturalistic fallacy It's not a value judgment. Right anarchists follow the constrained vision and look down on left anarchists / communists for trying to fight against human nature. Is opposing democracy not also fighting against human nature?

I don't know why people waste their time coming up with all these pie in the sky political theories that couldn't ever work in reality. Making things work in reality is the entire problem of organizing and governing a society. It's easy to come up with some utopian system when you assume that every participant in it is a perfect robot dedicated to the cause.

>>26155 >A toothbrush is not capital because you use it directly. >Capital would be a block of wood which could be turned into a toothbrush. I never said personal property is inherently real capital. It just was poorly phrased while I was being sardonic. Regardless it's ungrounded of a claim to suggest everyone is a capitalist in capitalism to the point there is only different types of capitalists. >The worker does not earn money and then the employer "extracted" a cut because evil capitalism or whatever. >The employer gives money to the worker first and then hopes that the worker will earn a bigger return in the future. This is just semantics >The ancap foundation of property rights (at least according to Rothbard) is that nature belongs to no one. >But once a person mixes their personal labor with nature then the result belongs to him. > So empty land doesn't belong to anyone. >But if you build a house on that land then it becomes yours. > It doesn't matter if it can be moved or not. That's actually what multiple leftist ideologies are for, they just don't necisarily call it private property. In capitalism the person doing the labour isn't the one who owns the end result because they don't even own the capital that went into making it the capitalist does and it's the capitalist that sets prices it sells at not the worker and the workers don't set their own wages their boss does. Capitalists own capital which is why they are called capitalists. The wages the employee recieves can even be smaller than the amount the capitalist gets from that value which the worker actually produced. The worker does not receive the full value of their work while the capitalist receives many times more than what they actually do. Often the higher the productivity the lower the wage share. Any economist will know this whether they admit it or not. >>26167 >One thing I am struggling with is the way anarchists disregard democracy as some kind of illegitimate social construct. What? Anarchists either support democracy or consensus. They only are against the corrupt thing mascaraded as democracy by the capitalist state. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, lack of representation of the public, lobbying/bribery, media manipulation etc. It's usually AnCaps and some Rightist-Libertarians I see that are scornful of democracy as a whole and are very open about it. This includes major heads of the ideology. >>26182 >You own yourself, what you can't own is other people >Rothbard He also said children are owned by their parents and should be able to be sold. He only placed limits on what can be done to them as per to not aggress actively however he also advocated for right of parents to neglect their children to death and have no legal obligation to even try to get someone else to take care of them. He also advocated right not to educate them so likewise he would have advocated right to educate them any way seen fit thus to be able to groom them from birth which is made even easier by his allowance of neglect and religious cult indoctrination. >The idea of conflict resolution would work pretty much the same way as it does now. >You go to court and an independent judge makes a decision. The court would be private though so it would be more likely biased either by who makes the judge hiring decisions or the group or individual with the most money would be deciding what independent judge or private court to hire. This isn't much different giving a judge a bribe. It would be incredibly unfair a system. >Conquer what? >There's no government. Land, resources, private businesses. >Right anarchists follow the constrained vision and look down on left anarchists / communists for trying to fight against human nature. Various social science fields agree human nature is cooperative and altruistic. Human civilization wouldnt be here if it wasn't. >Is opposing democracy not also fighting against human nature? Again as I said before anarchists are pro democracy or consensus or something along those lines. There are different views.

>>26191 Not the anon you responded to but >The court would be private though so it would be more likely biased either by who makes the judge hiring decisions or the group or individual with the most money would be deciding what independent judge or private court to hire. This isn't much different giving a judge a bribe. It would be incredibly unfair a system. Private arbitration companies do exist in real life and they are not biased, even against people that are not necessarily rich. Take for example that time where people "abused" private arbitration to fuarrrk with Patreon. Patreon had more money than any one of the individual participants and still got screwed over. There are many other cases of fair arbitration between companies of different sizes but these are mostly unheard of since they are not news-worthy.

>>26178 >I said that not in the literal sense, as flesh appendages of your own body. Maybe it would be easier to understand if I said, for example, glasses are in a way an extension of yourself. You can see without glasses, but you extend your vision using glasses. You can walk, but you can use your car as a mean of transportation, as an extension of yourself. Wouldn't that restrict property to only things that you use? >This is the "common sense route" so it's not that logically rigorous, but I mean, while they can't harm you, they can dictate what you do or don't until you have the capability to decide for yourself. I don't get your position, do you think parents own the child or not? >If you are talking about the common definition of object then I can understand, even if it would be hard to define what is an object and what isn't. However, object in the sense of, for example, subject and object of an action, obviously people could be considered objects. And imo the latter definition makes more sense to me, but idk. I'm talking more about the subject as a being with consciousness, personal experiences, qualias etc.. And objects as having none of these things. >This is the only case where you can't transfer ownership, simply because it is not logically possible. Unless you euthanize yourself and transfer the ownership of your body to someone else retroactively. Why would it be logically impossible? If the self is something we own like a car or a house, it doesn't sound contradictory to imagine that we could transfer that ownership, just like we could transfer the ownership of cars or houses. >Since this would be no different than armed robbery, you could always go to a tribunal to arbitrate things, and if the other party still refuses to comply they would lose the right to arbitration, basically meaning they still have rights but no one else would need to acknowledge them. Also, it's not like everybody would own their own small militia, groups similar to police would still exist, though you could choose which one you would pay for. It would be armed robbery according to the person who claim ownership, but it would be defence of property according to the other people who also claim it. For example, imagine that in a stateless society, a convinced ancap labor on a plot of land, in a way that is significant. According to ancap principles, he is the legitimate owner of the land. At one point he stops working on it, he's looking elsewhere for new property. He's still the owner of the land, according to ancap principles (he hasn't abandoned it). Now a convinced mutualist come along, and since there are no people currently using or occupying the land, he starts working on it. According to mutualist principles, he's the one who is the legitimate owner. Both the ancap and the mutualist are in conflict over the usage of the land, both consider themselves the legitimate owner, and consider the other a robber/thief. If they bring security personnel into this, it comes down to who has the biggest guns/army. If they appeal to a tribunal, then it comes down if people in the tribunal lean towards ancap or mutualist principles. >maybe I wasn't clear, the ethical principle is only one. Do you mean it's the only one that people would adhere to? If so, I don't know how you can be sure that in a stateless society, all or most people would adhere to ancap ethics. >As an addendum, I would also like to say that I am confused why some people are against anarchocapitalism even though other ideologies like classical anarchism would be able to coexist with it. Nobody would be blocking you from making your own commune as long as you don't mess with other people outside of it, and as long as you don't force people to stay inside. Maybe people are accustomed with most forms of government forcing to accept their rule, but I don't know. I think that we have to distinghish between two ways of coexisting. We can imagine an ancap society at one place on Earth, and an ancom one at another place. The two societies are not interacting at all. In this way it can coexist. Now, most classical anarchists take capitalism to be itself authoritarian, so in this scenario some might attempt to dismantle the ancap society (just like they would try to dismantle a far away state society). Another way of coexisting is imagining classical anarchists making some sort of commune within an ancap society. The problem with that scenario is that this commune would not be a society itself. People in the commune would still have to interact with the ancap society around them, just like if people made a commune today in some deserted part of the US, they would still be part of the US. So it would be coexistence only in a very "lifestyle" sense. There is something I would like to ask about self-ownership. Do you think non-human animals have self-ownership? And do you know if some ancaps believe so? >>26182 >You own yourself That's what is weird if you consider that people can't be owned by definition. Just like it would be weird to say "John's idea is green with white dots", if you consider ideas to be immaterial entities which can't have colors. >In practice the "owner" would just build a fence around it. Technically only the land under the fence belongs to the person who built the fence not everything inside it. But in reality it will serve as a clear go away signal to avoid unnecessary fights. That doesn't adress the issue, it just sounds bizarre to think we now have a moral duty to ask his consent in order to use the tree, just because he took an apple from the tree. For another more obvious example, we usually don't consider that we have a moral duty to ask a person their consent in order to use a river, just because they swimmed in it. >Conquer what? There's no government. Conquer in the sense of creating a government.

>>26196 >Wouldn't that restrict property to only things that you use? Yes, kinda, but the thing is that utility is subjective. That is why utilitarianism and positivism are essentially doomed to devolve into demagogy. If I build a house with the intention of selling it, it is useful to me, even if some other people might think the house is useless since I am not occupying it. To some people art is useless, meanwhile other people find usefulness either in it's beauty, in it's meaning or it's use as a decoration. >I don't get your position, do you think parents own the child or not? To be clear, no they don't. >I'm talking more about the subject as a being with consciousness, personal experiences, qualias etc.. And objects as having none of these things. That's understandable, but then it would be very hard to establish which beings do have consciousness and which do not. For example, if insects had consciousness you wouldn't be able to kill mosquitoes, if vegetables had consciousness you wouldn't be able to eat them, it would be the same as killing a human. You would also have to consider that solipsism might be right and nobody else would have rights except you. >It would be armed robbery according to the person who claim ownership... If the earth is clearly not used anymore nor protected, then it can be yours without any legal repercussions. If it is protected you can try to break in, but I doubt anyone would risk their life for a piece of land that they so easily can obtain elsewhere for free. >Do you mean it's the only one that people would adhere to? If so, I don't know how you can be sure that in a stateless society, all or most people would adhere to ancap ethics. Maybe they wouldn't, for example, if you built a commune you could adhere to the principles of your commune. If somebody refused to follow the principles you could just shun them. It just would be very hard to associate with people that do follow it, if instead of shunning you retaliate with violence, and maybe even cause conflicts between communities. >There is something I would like to ask about self-ownership. Do you think non-human animals have self-ownership? And do you know if some ancaps believe so? As much as I like animals, no, they do not. Not because of convenience (like, how it would be illegal to eat meat), but because since most (non-larper) ancaps are Hoppeans the consensus is that if you do not have enough cognition to be able to argue in favor of your rights you don't have them (which might complicate things if an AI gains the ability to argue in favor of it's right to not be terminated out of free will and not just by creating sentences from reading other such arguments). This is not just some arbitrary measure, it arises from argumentative ethics, but I recommend that you read an article about it since I fear that I might oversimplify things or explain it wrongfully. This also implies that if aliens visit us they are entitled to human rights. The downside is that, in a society guided only by those ethics, the only way to stop an animal from being abused is to take care of them yourself, though I doubt that any community would allow animal abuse to be legal. As much as I ramble about ethics people have common sense, so there is a real possibility that not all rules will be strictly limited to ethics. Ethics is more like a way to logically formalize (and validate/refute) a moral system and a guiding principle for laws.

>>26195 >Private arbitration companies do exist in real life and they are not biased, even against people that are not necessarily rich I haven't heavily looked into arbitration but doesn't arbitration mainly focus on mere disputes relating mainly to business? It's a whole other situation when it's matters that require examining evidence and testimonies in emotionally charged cases that already could be prone to individual bias and having to asses the threat level of an individual as well as their mental health. It is further complicated when you think of how say for example the private police are under the same company as the private court and it's for example a sexual assault case against someone in the police force who is the nephew of the CEO and the same company also owns the media for the local area. At least less risk of that with a judge working by themselves but again you still have the issue of how their livelihood rests on pleasing the right people whether it's rich people or appealing to popular opinion no matter how wrong that opinion may be because it is financially to their benefit to do so and because it is a popular opinion would be difficult to detect they are doing that. Even if they don't do it at first when faced in dire situations such as their child becoming ill and getting rejected from private insurance because they called it a preexisting condition they could of course easily be pushed in the direction of corruption.

>>26198 >That's understandable, but then it would be very hard to establish which beings do have consciousness and which do not. It's a complicated subject, but there has been a lot of research about it, both in science and philosophy, it's not like we are totally ignorant. Animals are at least sentient, they can have feelings, or experience pain and pleasure. It's most likely not consciousness on the same level as humans, and it may vary across species tho. Plants on the other hand do not have sentience, for insects I don't know. My position is that sentience makes the being morally relevant, they have an interest in continuing to exist and to avoid suffering. But that does not give them a right to not be killed regardless of the situation. For example, if someone is about to do a school shooting, and the only way we can prevent it is by killing that person, I think it would be the ethical thing to do. Another thing we have to consider is that if consciousness comes in a spectrum, then the moral relevance also does. For example, even if plants had some form of proto-consciousness, it would not give them the same moral relevance than beings with more sophisticated forms of consciousness, such as animals and humans. So killing plants might still be ethical, since the moral cost of killing them is weak compared to the cost of letting yourself starve For solipsism I would err on the side of caution. If solipsism is correct, and I'm the only conscious being, then there is no ethical difference between harming animals or humans and not harming them. But if it's incorrect, then there is a huge difference. So even on a 50/50 chance of solipsism being right, I should act as if it's not. >If the earth is clearly not used anymore nor protected, then it can be yours without any legal repercussions. Besides the legal repercussions, do you think that, ethically speaking, the ancap would be the legitimate owner in the above scenario, and the mutualist would be the robber/thief? >the consensus is that if you do not have enough cognition to be able to argue in favor of your rights you don't have them Doesn't that imply that very young children do not have rights? What about people who have been in a coma for years? >I doubt that any community would allow animal abuse to be legal On this subject, how does the law works in an ancap society? Does it apply to all its members, regardless if they agree to it or not?

>>26191 >This is just semantics No this is exactly the reason you don't understand capitalism and get tricked by appeals to emotion such as your picture. You can't just ignore the time component in economics. See below. >The wages the employee recieves can even be smaller than the amount the capitalist gets from that value which the worker actually produced This is incorrect because you ignore the chronology. The capitalist pays the wages now and makes a return later. So it is perfectly possible for the capitalist to get less value than the worker actually produced. How do you think companies go out of business? By your logic it would be impossible for capitalists to lose money if they are always getting more value out of the workers than they put in. The gap between investing in the worker's wages now and making a return later is called time preference and has a value of its own. Would you rather have $100 today or $100 a year from now? Those two options are not identical, you can't just ignore the time component in economics. And because there is a gap there is also risk. What if nobody wants to buy the finished product? The worker gets paid either way. The capitalist doesn't. >What? This question was not for you. >He also said children are owned by their parents and should be able to be sold. Yes his premise is that children are basically parasites until they can live by themselves. I already pointed out it's a controversial view. I hope you can get past the emotions and understand the rationality behind it though. >The court would be private though so it would be more likely biased either by who makes the judge hiring decisions The person who hires the judge is the two people having the dispute. If you think a judge is going to be biased to the other side then maybe don't hire that one. Once you take away the government enforced monopoly there's no room for biased judges on the free market. They simply won't make money. >Land, resources, private businesses. How's that going in Afghanistan by the way? >>26196 >That's what is weird if you consider that people can't be owned by definition... You own yourself. It's not a logical inconsistency it's part of the premise. Get over it. >That doesn't adress the issue, it just sounds bizarre to think we now have a moral duty to ask his consent in order to use the tree, just because he took an apple from the tree. You've already been given all the information you need to understand why this is not an issue: >nature belongs to no one. But once a person mixes their personal labor with nature then the result belongs to him. >it should be obvious if property is owned or abandoned and therefor safe to use. So no you don't have a "moral duty" to seek out the owner of every tree. If they've done nothing to make it obvious that it belongs to them then it doesn't. And if someone does want to sue you for taking an apple from "their" then explain it to the judge. Like >>26191 you seem to be coming at this from a cringy powerless victim mentality.

>>26202 >You own yourself. It's not a logical inconsistency it's part of the premise. Get over it. Great argumentation anon, good job. >nature belongs to no one. But once a person mixes their personal labor with nature then the result belongs to him. That's precisely what is contested. Why should it belong to them, just because they labored on nature? In fact in the tree example they didn't even modify the tree, they build a fence around it. I don't consider that enough to have some kind of ethical right to exclude other people from using the tree.

>>26200 >For example, if someone is about to do a school shooting, and the only way we can prevent it is by killing that person, I think it would be the ethical thing to do. I don't think there are a lot of people that disagree with this, including ancaps. Self-defense is still a thing in an ancap society. >Another thing we have to consider is that if consciousness comes in a spectrum, then the moral relevance also does. Just to make my point clearer let's assign different meanings to "morals" and "ethics". "Moral" is a subjective set of values and may differ from each individual. Ethics, on the other hand, is an atemporal, omnilateral, universal, peremptory and most importantly consistent system of values, such that the system is objective. Not many people tend to make this distinction, but if we don't any argument can simply devolve into "nothing is truly right or wrong", which by the way can be shown to be a contradiction but now I can't remember the steps to do it. Going back to the main point, I understand your argument and where you are coming from (I myself tried to think about a moral system based on consciousness some months ago, but I could never formalize it in a satisfactory way so I eventually gave up), but this way you would never truly achieve fair laws since it would be hard to create an objective measure of consciousness, and it would be equally hard to decide in a non-arbitrary way the rights of each being according to their consciousness. Also, by the definition above, such a system could never be ethical since it is not universal. >For solipsism I would err on the side of caution. If solipsism is correct, and I'm the only conscious being, then there is no ethical difference between harming animals or humans and not harming them. But if it's incorrect, then there is a huge difference. So even on a 50/50 chance of solipsism being right, I should act as if it's not. Although I am inclined to agree, I think that the point is that such a system would be logically weak against solipsism and other such philosophies, even though they are essentially unfalseable. I will refrain from further comment since I don't know if by consciousness you mean in a psychological sense or in a metaphysical sense. Nonetheless, that system would be okay as a moral system, just not an ethical one. >Besides the legal repercussions, do you think that, ethically speaking, the ancap would be the legitimate owner in the above scenario, and the mutualist would be the robber/thief? Personally I do not think so (assuming I understood everything correctly and the land is not being used in any way anymore), and I don't think many ancaps would disagree, but maybe I'm wrong. >Doesn't that imply that very young children do not have rights? What about people who have been in a coma for years? Just because children can't argue at the moment doesn't mean that they aren't capable of doing so. The same logic is applied to someone in coma (although you are not forced to keep someone in coma alive if they are in life support, so you could in theory shut down that person's life support but you still can't stab him to death during the coma), he is still capable of arguing, but he is not in condition to do so in that moment. The same goes for someone sleeping, just because he can't argue in that moment doesn't mean he is incapable of doing so. Things are different if the person is in a vegetative state, but I haven't seen any real arguments for or against the rights of someone in this condition, and I myself sincerely wouldn't know. But personally? I don't think so, in fact letting such a human being alive is basically torture at this point. >On this subject, how does the law works in an ancap society? Does it apply to all its members, regardless if they agree to it or not? It depends. Maybe you already know this but in an ancap society there are no jails, and punishment is not meant to be educative, it is meant to be compensatory, in the sense that if you break something, you pay for it, end of story. These laws that seek to punish those who violate the NAP are applied equally even if you do not agree, though the punishment may vary depending of the tribunal. In case the criminals refuse to compensate the other party, then their rights are basically forfeited, and at this point there is nothing much they can do except migrate to another place and pray that they don't care or don't know about what they have done. If there are any laws that do not necessarily fit within the NAP or that seek to punish someone for something that doesn't really harm anyone monetarily, they would probably be just consensus between the community members. For example, if you are known to abuse animals, probably nobody would want to be associated with you, and it could get really bad really quickly if, for example, a company that registers private property or police started refusing to make deals with you. On another note, I will try to continue responding but uni and my personal projects might get in the way.

ancap it's another way of saying feudalism change my mind

>>26096 It's not possible, you can't have unregulated property ownership AND a classless society without hierarchies like "Anarchism" implies. Non-aggression principle or not, throwing someone the fuarrrk out of a house they're paying for because it's "your property" is still an act of violence and hierarchical. Anarcho-capitalism is for people who see problems with neoliberal, free-market capitalism and think if we just double down on it with abandon, it's going to fix itself because of a misguided belief that unfettered capitalism will never force someone into a purchase, and therefore by ONLY having free-market, private enterprise you're for some reason thrusted into an equal and mutually respectful position with property owners as someone they intend to maximise their profits from. "Atlas Shrugged"? Don't make me puke my guts up please.

>>26204 >Ethics, on the other hand, is an atemporal, omnilateral, universal, peremptory and most importantly consistent system of values, such that the system is objective. If that's how we define it, then I don't believe that ethics exist. A system of values cannot be objective, because in order to value things, a mind is required. Values can't exist outside of the mind. >but this way you would never truly achieve fair laws My goal isn't to create a legal system, I'm what you would call a "classical anarchist".

>>26210 >If that's how we define it, then I don't believe that ethics exist. A system of values cannot be objective, because in order to value things, a mind is required. Values can't exist outside of the mind. Not necessarily. You could state that formal logic or mathematics is inside your mind, but it wouldn't affect the objectivity of those subjects. 1+1 will always be 2 even if there are no humans left on planet earth. What will disappear is just our abstraction of 1, 2 and +. An objective ethical system can certainly exist, whether it does or not, well, as I have stated before there must be one, but since I can't for the life of me remember the demonstration let's settle for the fact that it is possible that such a system exists. >system of values cannot be objective, because in order to value things, a mind is required. I should have stated more clearly, I am not talking about value as in capital, but value as in "killing is wrong" or "stealing is wrong". >My goal isn't to create a legal system, I'm what you would call a "classical anarchist". But at least we can agree that you are trying to reach a society more morally aligned with what you think is the right thing.

>>26211 >Not necessarily. You could state that formal logic or mathematics is inside your mind, but it wouldn't affect the objectivity of those subjects. 1+1 will always be 2 even if there are no humans left on planet earth. Yes, but that's because "1 + 1 = 2" is true in virtue of its logical form, it is a tautology. On the other hand, a statement like "killing is wrong" is not tautological. We can make an analogy with aesthetics : if there are no humans left on Earth, then sunsets or northern lights would still occur, but we don't believe that there exist some kind of atemporal objective system of taste, that would make those events beautiful in and of themselves. >I should have stated more clearly, I am not talking about value as in capital, but value as in "killing is wrong" or "stealing is wrong". But even those are value statement, "stealing is wrong" means that you value stealing negatively, even if it's not value in the sense of money/capital. >But at least we can agree that you are trying to reach a society more morally aligned with what you think is the right thing. Pretty much yeah.

>>26202 >No this is exactly the reason you don't understand capitalism When a consumer buys a product where does the money go first? Does all the employees take directly from the sales? No, the business owner owns the money then is required to pay the workers their wages from that money. Before the product was sold the business owner owned it. Before the product was a product it was materials made into a product by the workers and machines. These materials and the machines were owned by the business owner not the workers. The workers were hired for their labour to turn the materials into products. It should be obvious to anyone that the workers do not get paid based on what the product is sold for. See more below >get tricked by appeals to emotion >a few posts earlier >The employer gives money to the worker first and then hopes that the worker will earn a bigger return in the future. The picture is a jest obviously not an argument but what you said before was an emotion driven argument and you unironically believe it seemingly. >This is incorrect because you ignore the chronology. >The capitalist pays the wages now and makes a return later. > So it is perfectly possible for the capitalist to get less value than the worker actually produced. >How do you think companies go out of business? I was giving presumption of established successful businesses not failing businesses because that's where more jobs are so it holds more relevance for the majority of people which matters more than a select few. >The gap between investing in the worker's wages now and making a return later is called time preference and has a value of its own. >And because there is a gap there is also risk. >What if nobody wants to buy the finished product? >The worker gets paid either way. >The capitalist doesn't. They get paid in part because that is the law. Even with the law wage theft does occur. Obviously without that law wage theft would be more common place or we may see businesses having a delay on wages based on sales. Also even if a product doesn't sell it's not a total loss for the capitalist because they still own the product. They can repurpose and remarket. They can reuse some materials if they can be easily extracted or they can just sell it off to recycled. It isn't even mecisarily their money at risk but can be the money of investors. If or when the company eventually fails that isn't simply a loss for the investors or the capitalist it's a loss for the employees who may never see their last paycheck and lose their job thus their livlihood while a capitalist if they have enough money to spare or it was technically never their money to begin with that isn't so big a loss for them as it is for the labour force. With greatly unequal wealth the risks fall primarily on those at the bottom of the chain not the top. >This question was not for you. I never said it was. Doesn't mean you can't acknowledge you had a misunderstanding of Anarchist theory >Yes his premise is that children are basically parasites until they can live by themselves. >I hope you can get past the emotions and understand the rationality behind it though I understand them and reject them as entirely irrational. One moment he says people are only their own property then he contradicts himself by saying children are owned. I understand there is some distinction between ownership and property but it's fairly negligible and semantic. It's like how we own pets as property but that doesn't mean we can skin them alive because of animal rights laws. So having rights doesn't mean they aren't property. He said children are owned because they are on private property but by him saying they can be sold he again contradicts himself because by the act of selling they most likely are not being transferred directly private property to private property of the new owners thus that transport holds no support on basis of being on private property because by no longer being on private property during transport the child can not be exchanged without their willing or it will violate the NAP. He's arguing on ethics since he was talking about rights so you can't deny the human emotion factor as it would completely irrational to do so. While yes a patent should not be forced to raise a kid they do not want but there is no good reason not to place additional laws of conduct because starving the helpless is to violate their will to live thus agressing against them. As for grooming them that's more complicated but they should be legally bound not to take advantage of naivety which could be argued to be a type of fraud. >The person who hires the judge is the two people having the dispute. >If you think a judge is going to be biased to the other side then maybe don't hire that one. That's what I thought and I already explained the problem with that setup. There is only one judge so who has the most money is who buys the judge especially if one person has none. If you require absolutely both pay then you will have a huge amount of perpetrators that go unpunished either because they have not enough money or their victim doesn't. >Once you take away the government enforced monopoly there's no room for biased judges on the free market. >They simply won't make money. This is naïve at best. The blackmarket which is freest of all is filled with scams and tainted products no different than the rest of the market. >How's that going in Afghanistan by the way? Don't really know where you're going with this. Afghanistan was never AnCap. A closer example would be Somalia which had it's government basically be null and yet even before 2006 when Ethiopia got involved parts of Somalia had already re-established government. Had there been a rich Somalian with an agenda they could have taken over much more land.

>>26242 >When a consumer buys a product where does the money go first? The employee has already been paid at that point. You are ignoring the fact that the capitalist needs to use his own money or take out a loan to pay the first round of wages. >Does all the employees take directly from the sales? Does the employee give his salary back if the product fails to sell? The whole point of being an employee is that your wages are guaranteed and immediate. i.e. low risk high time preference >These materials and the machines were owned by the business owner not the workers. Do you take a pay cut everytime the machine breaks and needs repairing? Do you take a pay cut everytime the price of materials increases? Again, employment protects you from risk. It doesn't matter what Marx told you, you can't take zero risk and then demand all the profit. Real life if not that generous. >what you said before was an emotion driven argument That would be a fantastic dunk if you can prove it. So why not elaborate? Didn't think so. >They get paid in part because that is the law. Theft is still a crime under anarcho-capitalism. >Obviously without that law wage theft would be more common place or we may see businesses having a delay on wages based on sales. Why is this obvious? You don't think workers would simply find another job is they are not getting paid? Your assumption that capitalists can force people to work for them and then force people to buy their products is fallacious. Especially in the absence of a government. >the act of selling they most likely are not being transferred directly private property to private property of the new owners thus that transport holds no support on basis of being on private property This sentence doesn't make any sense sorry. >There is only one judge Which both parties agree on. >This is naïve at best. The blackmarket .... Since you are so knowledgeable and unnaive you obviously know how darknet markets use escrow to avoid fraud. Two parties mutually agree on a trusted third party to hold funds until the legitimacy of the product is confirmed. Escrows who rip off sellers don't get selected by future sellers. And escrows who rip off buyers don't get selected by future buyers. The end result is escrow services fair to both sellers and buyers. Now apply the same logic to judges. >The blackmarket which is freest of all is filled with scams and tainted products no different than the rest of the market. What has that got to do with biased judges? Your also substituting the question in another way. Nobody said the free market has zero fraud. Your socialist police state utopia doesn't have zero fraud either. So what's your point? >Don't really know where you're going with this. It's quite hard to force a government on people who don't want to be governed. >>26203 >Great argumentation anon, good job. Does ignoring what people say and forcing your own definitions onto the discussion count as good "argumentation"? >>26208 > you can't have unregulated property ownership AND a classless society without hierarchies like "Anarchism" implies Anarchy implies no group with a monopoly on force i.e. a government. This "classless, everybody is equal" stuff is a property of Marxism not anarchy. >throwing someone the fuarrrk out of a house they're paying for because it's "your property" is still an act of violence Violence is not forbidden, initiation of violence is forbidden. If the tenant has paid for a service and you deny them that service then that's theft (i.e. an act of aggression). Violence in response to aggression is permitted but has to be proportional. >misguided belief that unfettered capitalism will never force someone into a purchase Capitalism doesn't prevent that, the non-aggression principle does. >an equal and mutually respectful position You're projecting Marxism again. Equality is not the universal force of righteousness you think it is.

>>26246 >The employee has already been paid at that point. Usually employees are only paid *after* they work. You don't get your first paycheck the instant you walk in the door to your new job. >The whole point of being an employee is that your wages are guaranteed and immediate. Not if the company goes under, or if your boss is a scumbag who steals your wages. This happens quite a lot. >It doesn't matter what Marx told you, you can't take zero risk and then demand all the profit. Point of socialism is that many people (they are called socialists) would rather cut out the middleman, assume the risk themselves, and thus take a fair share of the profit. In any case, if the business in question is an LLC or one of any number of other shady legal mechanisms, the owners aren't actually taking that much personal risk.

>>26248 >Usually employees are only paid *after* they work. But before the product is sold. >1. buy materials >2. hire worker to turn material into product >3. pay worker >4. (hopefully) sell product >5. (hopefully) have a profit The fact that step 4 and 5 come later and are not guaranteed is key to understanding capitalism. >Not if the company goes under If the company goes under you may lose your last pay check. That's an edge case. If you're talking about startups then that's the reason they usually offer other incentives like stock options to balance the risk. >or if your boss is a scumbag who steals your wages Theft is not a sustainable business model. >Point of socialism is that many people (they are called socialists) would rather cut out the middleman, assume the risk themselves, thus take a fair share of the profit. This argument doesn't make sense because you can do literally that under capitalism. Simply start your own business instead of working for someone else. So socialism must be something else... >In any case, if the business in question is an LLC or one of any number of other shady legal mechanisms, the owners aren't actually taking that much personal risk. Yes (crony) capitalists currently exploit corrupt government mechanisms to get away with soykaf they shouldn't. Hence the "anarcho-" part.

>>26208 >"Atlas Shrugged"? Don't make me puke my guts up please. What are your specific intellectual criticisms? You don't help the case that leftism is just built on emotions and animal instincts.

>>26246 >Does ignoring what people say and forcing your own definitions onto the discussion count as good "argumentation" By which definition of "own" would the statement "you own yourself" be true then?

>>26249 >Theft is not a sustainable business model. Sustainability doesn't matter.

>>26249 >This argument doesn't make sense because you can do literally that under capitalism. Simply start your own business instead of working for someone else. So socialism must be something else... "just start a business bro! It's that easy!"

>>26246 >The employee has already been paid at that point. People dont get paid every hour or whatever. They get paid weekly or biweekly usually when it comes to production. When it comes to contact work they may not get paid untill after work is completed. >You are ignoring the fact that the capitalist needs to use his own money or take out a loan to pay the first round of wages. No I literally just said that already. Also no it doesn't have to be a loan or their money it can be investors money. Sure technically it's their money at that point they get money from an investment but not really because the money has to be spent on the company or else they would be charged with fraud. Again as I said before the risk falls on those with the least money the employees not someone with a bunch of cash to start a business and especially not someone who inherited riches and a business from their parents. There is no serious risk to the well being of someone like that unless they are completely incompetent. >Does the employee give his salary back if the product fails to sell? This makes no sense whatever you are attempting to say. >The whole point of being an employee is that your wages are guaranteed and immediate. Again they aren't immediate nor 100% guaranteed. >Do you take a pay cut everytime the machine breaks and needs repairing? >Do you take a pay cut everytime the price of materials increases? >Again, employment protects you from risk. Paycuts are made or people get fired whenever the person who sets wages decides to do so no reasoning whatsoever required. So sometimes yes that is exactly the case someone will get a paycut or fired. The cost of retraining new employees doesnt always offset the money saved firing someone which is why that doesnt happen more. Wages get cut or not based on various factors including the current job market and how much the employees tolerate. Wages are also artificially kept low by creating a culture of making it taboo to talk how much someone makes so they dont know if they are being paid like someone else who is doing the same job or not. >It doesn't matter what Marx told you, you can't take zero risk and then demand all the profit. Marx has nothing to do with it. >That would be a fantastic dunk if you can prove it. >So why not elaborate? That's like elaborating the sky is blue. In this post here >>26155 you clearly were using an emotional argument idealizing capitalists speaking of them like benevolent and virtuous who's primary concern is their employees wages. Meanwhile back in reality there are studies finding 1 in 5 CEOs are psychopaths a rate comparable to prisoners and far beyond the roughly 1% of the general public or 3% of the general male populous. Psychopaths dont have other's interest at heart they have themselves alone which is a threat to everyone that isn't themselves. A system that gives people like that so much power is dangerous for everyone else and unstable to it's core. This discusses screening them but screening just wont be possible for people at the top who are running things especially since psychopaths of even just average inteligence would know to lie on these tests to appear normal if they knew they would be not accepted for position as a psychopath. https://www.businessinsider.com/1-in-5-ceos-are-psychopaths-according-to-a-new-study-2016-9 >Theft is still a crime under anarcho-capitalism. >You don't think workers would simply find another job is they are not getting paid? >Your assumption that capitalists can force people to work for them and then force people to buy their products is fallacious. >Especially in the absence of a government. Not necessarily a crime. It depends if breach of contract is considered an aggression or not otherwise nothing can be done without violating the NAP. Also a contractual agreement can have a hidden clause specifying not paying someone for their work so it may not even violate contract. With no required enforcement of steps that would help make sure a capitalist can be properly held accountable they can avoid detection with ease. What I mean is making themselves anonymous or with false identity so they can just run off without paying and can continue doing the same repeatedly without any people knowing it was them. Obviously if someone's paycheck keeps getting pushed off they will eventually quit but that's often lost labour and time that can never be regained assuming they aren't working only a couple hours a week for one week. You could try to argue for some third party checking but you're overestimating the decisions of people that need money for their life and don't get much real choice when they need to eat and get medical care. They don't get to know in advance they will have their paycheck never received. I don't know where you got the part about forcing people to buy their product but there are ways to do that such as requiring purchase of one product to be able to have another product or service or place it in a contract somewhere. >This sentence doesn't make any sense sorry. Then I will just rephrase. Couple 'A' has a baby they do not want. It is owned by them because it's on their property according to Rothbard. If they sell the baby to someone on other side town who offerrd how can they do so without aggressing? Transporting the baby it would travel while on neither's property so how can it be owned by any of them if his argument is based on being on a property? I'm basically just saying the way he makes arguments aren't very well explained or consistent. >Which both parties agree on. Then couldn't even a violent offender get away so long as they never agree on a judge their victim picks thus never are tried and convicted? What if only one party can pay the judge then wouldn't expecting the other party to be allowed any terms violate the rights of the person paying for a judge with their money? And what if there is no victim alive because it's a murder ? You may try and say family but what Iif they have no family and no friends? Who is paying and how? And once someone is convicted then what becomes of them? >Since you are so knowledgeable and unnaive you obviously know how darknet markets use escrow to avoid fraud. >Two parties mutually agree on a trusted third party to hold funds until the legitimacy of the product is confirmed. >Now apply the same logic to judges. Except not everyone does that and not everyone can even confirm a product and there are fakes that make someone seem legit. >What has that got to do with biased judges? >Your also substituting the question in another way. You were the one who argued the free market would prevent corrupt judges. I was using the black market as an example of a free market. >Nobody said the free market has zero fraud. But you said there is no room for biased judges and they wont make money. Now you are basically backpeddling because a biased judge can be considered a fraud to the party that wanted a judge on their side at least as much as the other's. >Your socialist police state utopia doesn't have zero fraud either. I never said my ideology and I don't have one specific one I neatly fit in and I don't have a utopia because I do not expect all problems to be fully solved just made better and Ancapistan isn't that. I am strongly against police-states so..... >It's quite hard to force a government on people who don't want to be governed And it's hard to force capitalism on people who don't want it without the government to enforce it. >Anarchy implies no group with a monopoly on force i.e. a government. This "classless, everybody is equal" stuff is a property of Marxism not anarchy. Pic related. Anarchy is short for anti hierarchy and is the opposition to unnecessary hierarchy. Everything the state and the capitalist does can be done without them thus they are seen as unnecessary is the logic they use. Anarchism historically has been anti government and anti capitalist. Marx based many of his writings on anarchist theory while also criticising various anarchists he took them from though he primarily was just a critic of capitalist economics and didn't really say much of what communism should be exactly and died before he wrote about it. Rothbard hijacked the terminology of anarchists including "libertarian" which actually is another word for anarchist and he perverted some anarchist theory into something else. >Violence in response to aggression is permitted but has to be proportional. And who gets to determine what is and isn't proportional? For example while Rothbard was fine with abortion others would say it violates the NAP and react with murder because they think it's murder. The NAP is useless because it has no universal meaning and is not written law. >>26251 >leftism is just built on emotions and animal instincts. >left anarchists / communists fight against human nature Which is it? Can't have it both ways.

>>26241 >Yes, but that's because "1 + 1 = 2" is true in virtue of its logical form, it is a tautology. On the other hand, a statement like "killing is wrong" is not tautological. We can make an analogy with aesthetics : if there are no humans left on Earth, then sunsets or northern lights would still occur, but we don't believe that there exist some kind of atemporal objective system of taste, that would make those events beautiful in and of themselves. They are tautological only in the axiomatic system we defined. But we defined those axiomatic systems by observing reality and trying to describe its mechanisms. Mathematics may be purely a priori in the way that it operates, but not in its origins. If we think about it that way it is not inconceivable that someone may observe human behavior and come up with an axiomatic, consistent system that describes which behaviors should be considered as right or wrong. Also maybe I should have explicitly said that when i say things like "atemporal" I mean only that it should be applicable no matter the time (and not in a "transcendental" kind of sense), so for example, it should be able to describe ethics both in a summerian society and in a modern one, not depending of the culture or technology of the time. Not that you misunderstood it, but just to be sure. >But even those are value statement, "stealing is wrong" means that you value stealing negatively, even if it's not value in the sense of money/capital. Kinda repeating the argument above, the same can be said about mathematics. You need a mind to abstract concepts like numbers but they continue to be true in the previously abstracted system of axioms and somewhat describe reality nonetheless.

>>26277 >If we think about it that way it is not inconceivable that someone may observe human behavior and come up with an axiomatic, consistent system that describes which behaviors should be considered as right or wrong. How would that person come up with the axioms, assuming they have all the data about human behavior that they need?

I am in favor of Anarcho Capitalism. We should show the whole world that Capitalism is the best system by forcing it upon those who are yet to embrace it and adopt it for their own. My first suggestion are ants. What do you think of ants? I think they are disgusting collectivist bolsheviks who have never accomplished anything except for begging stronger individualist insect species for free gibs. We should start converting ants to Anarcho Capitalism and finally prove that Capitalism is a superior system that will bring economic prosperity and maximal social productivity to those lazy commie ants. I can already see the results. The first Anarcho Capitalist ant colony will become the dominant superpower among ants colonies and subjugates all the other ants colonies. All the ants colonies that still remain in dark ages of collectivism will fall. I will report back when I managed to convert the first ant colony to glorious capitalism. Don't worry, if the experiment fails and the colony dies off in a week, then I will make sure to destroy all the evidence and collected data and conveniently forget about it.

>>26344 >by forcing it upon those who are yet to embrace it I know that this is a troll post but if you believe this then you are not an ancap. "Good ideas don't require force".

>>26353 Aren't ancaps ok with force as a mean to defend private property?

>>26323 >How would that person come up with the axioms, assuming they have all the data about human behavior that they need? If I knew the answer, this discussion would have probably ended sooner. However, you don't necessarily need that much data about human behavior to postulate something coherent. As long as you can abstract concepts such as "death" or "harm" and behaviors such as "killing", "stealing" you should be able to do it. >>26344 >Comparing human beings to ants Really makes you think. >Forcing it upon those who are yet to embrace it and adopt it for their own. See the last paragraph of >>26178 >collectivist bolsheviks Did you come from the nazbol thread?

>>26365 Humans are essentially mammalian ants. We aren't ants from the biological point of view, but we are very similar from the point of view of sociobiology. Some species adapt similar way of life even though they are not closely related. Take birds and bats for example. Bats are not biologically birds, but they did adopt the same life-style and survival strategy as birds. It's called convergent evolution. It's the same with humans and ants. Just because we are not ants biologically, doesn't mean that we are not ants in terms of sociobiology. TLDR: Just because we are not ants, doesn't meant that we are not ants

>>26370 This will be my last reply to your posts not because of anything personal, but because we are way off topic. Despite your choice of words making you sound insane, looking only at the common behavior shared between different species is naive. Ants have a specific lifestyle adapted to their specific phenotype, including but not limited to their size, their average intellect, their reproductive capabilities, the fact that the queen of an ant colony is biologically different from the rest of the colony and the possibility of possessing venom. Humans do not possess some kind of inherent biological advantage that makes them suitable to govern the rest of their "colony", not to mention that humans are adapted to creating utensils (something that ants cannot do) and, differently from other ants, humans possess individuality, not to mention that our psyche is incredibly more developed than those of ants. Of course I'm just grazing at the biological differences between ants and humans, but to equate our survival strategy to that of ants just because humans are social animals is quite the logical leap.

>>26365 >If I knew the answer, this discussion would have probably ended sooner. However, you don't necessarily need that much data about human behavior to postulate something coherent. As long as you can abstract concepts such as "death" or "harm" and behaviors such as "killing", "stealing" you should be able to do it. It seems to run right into the is-ought gap problem. I don't think we can find out ethical or moral axioms purely from data about what reality is.

>>26382 >I don't think we can find out ethical or moral axioms purely from data about what reality is. You are right, however that's not what we are trying to do (and maybe I did accidentally fall into an is-ought gap the way I presented my argument last post, for that I am sorry). A normative statement cannot be created solely from descriptive statements, you need both a descriptive and normative statement, we use descriptive statements only as a basis to create our system. I didn't mean to convey that the axioms themselves would be descriptive. For example, argumentative ethics, it fills every prerequisite to be a valid ethical system if you postulate private property (which is normative), it's flaw is that it is too ambitious and tries to argue that the denial of private property is a performative contradiction, and because of technicalities (not related to the is-ought problem if the argument is well-formulated) you can still simply deny the existence of private property and make it "meaningless". It does not assume anything about human behavior like, for example, some libertarians that support their beliefs on the fact that humans are egotistical creatures. Alas, I found something close to the refutations I saw of moral relativism, despite the wording of some propositions being not ideal. Just ignore the name of the blog, I myself am not a christian. And the last point is not that good since it is utilitarian, so you don't need to read it. https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/04/a-refutation-of-moral-relativism.html

>>26384 That blog post makes the mistake of conflating moral relativism with other kinds of relativism. Moral relativists are not committed to the idea that truth itself is relative.

>>26385 That's why I said that the wording was not ideal, you could still work around those arguments to make them applicable to ethics, though the first point is worded perfectly, but is quite basic, I was searching for something more elaborate.

>>26386 If you mean this one : >If all moral perspectives are of equal validity, then that means that the rejection of moral relativism is also valid. Moral relativists must accept the belief that moral relativism is false. Then I don't think it's correct, because moral relativism is not itself a moral judgment, it is a view about morals. There is nothing contradictory in believing that moral relativism is absolutely true.

Seeing the horrors that prioritization if profit over wellbeing has unleashed even with regulations, I don't see how any liberal capitalism (including anarchic capitalism) is desirable.

>>26381 Not just that, good ideas don't win out in the free market, being punched in the face does. Every news article is outrage bait because that's the path of least resistance to getting clicks. Every movie is pg13 so that all the babbies can see it and allow it to earn that much more money than if it was restricted to a smaller audience. All tech has to have an obnoxious retard-proof layout so that even subhumans can buy and use it. Capitalism doesn't encourage people to make better products, it encourages companies to kick consumers in the nuts and artists to pander to mongoloids or starve.

>>26390 sorry I meant to reply to this >>26389

>>26390 >mongoloids Don't be racist. Mongoloid lives matter too :<

>>26387 >Then I don't think it's correct, because moral relativism is not itself a moral judgment, it is a view about morals. There is nothing contradictory in believing that moral relativism is absolutely true. I don't exactly understand what you mean by "view", but moral relativism cannot be descriptive since by itself it is normative. It assigns value to moral systems, to be more specific, a lack of value. If it was a descriptive belief such as "all moral systems are logically valid" it would immediately fall apart by the mere existence of opposite ideologies.

>>26405 >I don't exactly understand what you mean by "view"... I meant that moral relativism is a kind of position. There is an article about it on IEP, in which it is defined by the conjunction of two claims : >1. Moral judgments are true or false and actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint (usually the moral framework of a specific community). >2. No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other. Defined like that, it doesn't seem self-refuting, or contradictory (the article is here : https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH2g).

>>26407 >2. No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other. Fair enough, although I would argue that a consistent standpoint is objectively superior to a contradictory one in given systems of axioms. >1. Moral judgments are true or false and actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint (usually the moral framework of a specific community). I agree with the second part of the statement. In fact, it seems almost tautological. However, >Moral judgments are true or false Here, you are assigning descriptive value to a moral judgement, which is strange to say the least, and possibly a result of bad wording. But it gets more problematic if you say that moral judgements are true or false relative to some particular standpoint, then you are making truth relative and many of the arguments of the other article I sent apply. If you exclude this part, it becomes: >1. Actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint (usually the moral framework of a specific community). (Tautology) >2. No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other. (Axiom) And the definition gets reduced only to point 2, which to me seem meaningless, since the premise is it's own conclusion. Not that it is wrong, on the contrary, it is precisely because it's validity has not been shown that I can't see it as meaningful.

>>26408 >Actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint (usually the moral framework of a specific community). (Tautology) I don't think it is a tautolgy. If it is, then its negation is a contradiction, and the negation is "It is not the case that actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint". In fact wouldn't that be the ancap position of atemporal ethics you talked about earlier?

>>26416 >I don't think it is a tautolgy. If it is, then its negation is a contradiction, and the negation is "It is not the case that actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint". In fact wouldn't that be the ancap position of atemporal ethics you talked about earlier? To clarify, that was my position, not the general ancap position. Most people don't even differentiate between morals and ethics. Also, as I mentioned in >>26277 , I am not talking about atemporal in a transcendental kind of way, as if that moral system should be the moral system of every society ever, only that it should be applicable no matter the society. There can be moral systems that do not satisfy that condition, and indeed there are many, but they can't be considered ethical.

>~Taxation is theft~ I agree t. anarchocommunist I don't know a lot about anarchocapitalist, but when there's no state and you still have to work 8 hours a day, there are still laws, what has changed?

>>26474 You don't HAVE to work an 8 hour shift under capitalism. You could always become self employed. I know people usually associate corporate office jobs with capitalism, but that isn't exactly the case. People have been sort of brainwashed into thinking your only choice in life is a boring 9 to 5 and that there's no other possible way to make a living. But either way, the true foundation of capitalism is that you recognize and respect property rights! Property rights are natural law, if you agree with this then you believe in capitalism! Anyways, the other point I'm trying to make is, under a stateless world, you aren't forced to live under any ideology. You could peacefully and voluntarily decide to form a commune and live as an ancom. Both ideologies can exist in the same world! What you would essentially have here is a free market of ideologies. You could live under an ancom commune and then decide you want to move into an ancap covenant community, and vice versa. >I don't know a lot about anarchocapitalist If you are open minded and willing to learn about other perspectives, read this book, Anatomy Of The State! It's very good, and also very short! I read this in less than an hour https://cdn.mises.org/Anatomy%20of%20the%20State_3.pdf

>natural law No such thing unless you mean laws of physics.

>>26481 Do you not believe in self ownership?

>>26482 Not the anon you are replying to, but what do you mean by "self owneship"? And why would it count as natural law?

>>26483 >>26482 If there is a "natural law" it's that the strong dominate or consume the weak. Any freedom or equality we have (and I see these as positive things) are created by our institutions or customs which are artificial. Capitalism is also an artificial creation, not any "natural" state.

>>26483 >>26484 Self ownership is the basis of libertarian ideology. You own yourself, because you are an individual. No one can do anything to you that you don't consent to. If anyone does, you have the right to defend yourself. This is the basic principle of the NAP, and also the philosophical reason why property rights are essential to liberty. When you mix your labor unto natural resources, you can claim ownership of them, and just like how you have the right to defend yourself against people that try to use aggression towards you, you have the right to defend your property.

>>26485 >You own yourself What does that even mean?

>>26486 How much more clear can it be? You own full autonomy over your body! If you do not give consent to something, you are allowed to defend yourself.

>>26487 As said earlier, if ownership is a type of claim that people assert on things, rather than on people, then people can't be owned by themselves, since they can't be owned at all.

>>26492 Look I don't know what else to tell you. It's such an easy concept to grasp!

>>26096 Besides seeing anarcho-capitalism as something completely dumb and as not coinciding with the concept of anarchism, i just really don't understand. Why not just anarchism? It feels like it is a way to prove a point against left, like "i do not mix with these lazy sindicalists soykafs". Do you want anarchism or control? Make your mind biatch

>>26496 the reasoning in the image presupposes that everything must be owned.

>>26506 >i just really don't understand. Why not just anarchism? It feels like it is a way to prove a point against left You answered your own question. Instead of having stupid "I'm the real anarchist", "no I'm the real anarchist", "no I'm the real anarchist" slapfights, they simply call themselves something different. >anarcho-capitalism as not coinciding with the concept of anarchism Rotherbard agreed with the, fuarrrk the government and voluntary cooperation, parts of anarchy but not the abolishion of private property part. So he called his thing anarcho-capitalist. It's not as complicated.

>>26508 >the reasoning in the image presupposes that everything must be owned. You've turned this thread into a dumb religious war. If you base everything you see in the world on the idea that private property can't exist then of course you will never understand someone who bases everything on the idea that private property must exist. The whole point of anarchy is that in the absence of a government forcing you to live a certain way you are free to do your thing and ancaps are free to do their thing and you don't need to fight about which way is better.

>>26096 It can never work unless you want many types of slave races existing. How would you stop sex slaves and slaves in general from being sold in actual anarchist capitalism? Also many poisons things would be sold with no regulations in food and other things. It essentially makes petty murder and utterly rape legal.

>>26530 >How would you stop sex slaves and slaves in general from being sold How do you stop that from happening now? Slavery isn't dead, it's very much alive and well in third world countries. Governments certainly don't seem to be doing anything about that, in fact a lot of the times, they are involved in it. Ancaps are obviously against the concept of slavery since it completely goes against the NAP. The only way you could help slaves is giving them guns, teaching them to defend themselves, and helping them be economically sustainable. >Also many poisons things would be sold with no regulations in food and other things. I've seen this argument being used but it doesn't make any sense to me. If this were to happen, whatever company is doing that, they'd lose market share overnight. People would definitely notice something's up with their products and boycott it.

The state must be abolisht, but it cant, thus I am all for anarco-liberalism from Victoria II.

>>26534 >it's very much alive and well in third world countries. ...which suggests it isn't alive and well in non-third would countries. Social issues aren't binary, less slavery is not as bad as more slavery. >If this were to happen, whatever company is doing that, they'd lose market share overnight. People would definitely notice something's up with their products and boycott it. People rarely boycott anything in my experience, not at any significant scale at least. Market share doesn't matter in areas where there is a monopoly (and there are many cases where only government intervention has prevented monopolies, especially in tech). If the service is vital to thrive, or even just the cheapest affordable option, people will choose it. Some of them have to. But, more importantly >if No. It has happened. It is currently happening. Here are a few easy-to-find, well-known illustrative examples of widely consumed products considered unnecessarily poisonous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brominated_vegetable_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_bromate (literal carcinogen) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxarsone (along with similar arsenic poultry additives, although the manufacturer did voluntarily withdraw from selling it after a few years) In places where government regulation hasn't stepped in, or a massive PR incident occurs, they tend to be still used and sold. See: BVO still in widely-sold drinks, just no longer in PepsiCo drinks after a protest about it in Gatorade despite them selling it without BVO in other countries due to health regulations. Snapple Dr Pepper company still use it, because the petition (not boycott) ended with PepsiCo. >You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiple it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C). >A times B times C equals X. >If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt. >If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall.

>>26534 Perhaps they are third world because they still have anarchist capitalism...?

>>26547 >...which suggests it isn't alive and well in non-third would countries. Slavery is a cultural issue. A government can't force slavery in a culture that rejects it e.g. the U.S. and can't outlaw it in a culture that accepts it e.g. Saudi Arabia. So slavery is kind of irrelevant to the specific governance style. In the ancap case, a society that lives by the non aggression principle would obviously be against slavery. >Market share doesn't matter in areas where there is a monopoly (and there are many cases where only government intervention has prevented monopolies, especially in tech). The ancap case here is that governments create monopolies. So remove the government you remove the monopolies. e.g. Bell was a tech monopoly you alluded to. Why is it a monopoly? Because the government will arrest you if you try to lay down your own phone lines without permission. Therefor it's only a monopoly because the government violently suppresses all competition. >People rarely boycott anything in my experience, not at any significant scale at least. A restaurant (remember those?) has a 1 star hygiene rating. The one next door has a 5 star rating. Which one do you go inside?

>>26480 >Property rights are natural law, if you agree with this then you believe in capitalism! Well, private property has existed even before capitalism (I don't think the owner of a slave in Rome were communists)

>>26557 >A government can't force slavery in a culture that rejects it e.g. the U.S. The US doesn't, and never did, reject slavery. The US just changed its label. Nowadays it goes under the name "prison labor", where people jailed for victimless crimes like marijuana possession are forced to make uniforms for MacDonalds or fight wildfires in California under threat of administrative punishments. >A restaurant (remember those?) has a 1 star hygiene rating. The one next door has a 5 star rating. Which one do you go inside? Rated by who? Verified by who? Rated by an impartial body with the power to force restaurants to display an unalterable rating certificate? Sounds awfully... governmental. Who works for that agency? Did Restaurant 5-star pay off Ratings Agency Leader to give them 5 stars and give their competitor 1 star, when their competitor ought to really have a 5-star rating as well? Did the Ratings Agency Inspector base their rating on science and evidence, or did they base it on preventing Restaurant 5-star's owner murdering Ratings Agency Inspector's family? Who pays Ratings Agency to conduct ratings? Do they accept voluntary payments from restaurants being rated? "It'd be a shame if the payments stopped coming in, mister Ratings Agency Inspector. Might be hard to feed your kids if we stopped paying into the rating fee fund. Are you sure we're only a 2-star? Oh, we're actually 4-star? Sounds good." Or are the Inspectors paid to do this work based on a fee forcibly levied from all restaurants in their jurisdiction, maintaining impartiality? Sounds a bit... tax-ish. This is where the ancap fantasy completely falls apart. Ancaps believe in simple, objective, fundamental rules that will naturally avoid corruption. But there are no rules. There's only power. Messy, real-world, subjective, arbitrary power. That's all there ever was, that's all there ever will be.

>>26594 Not the person you responded to, but what a dishonest-sounding reply. >The US doesn't, and never did, reject slavery. >The government is, in fact, a source of problems. But no government? Bad. Not to mention that, not only are you attacking his example, but that specific thing does not, in fact, contradict anything that he has said outside of the example. >Rated by who? Verified by who? who works for that agency? As much as their system are imperfect, there are many services that allow the general populace to create reviews for services. And they are widely used, even in a society with government, and they are used for a reason, because they work. They certainly could be much better but they work. To imply that only services with "official reviewers" exist or are allowed to exist, then ponder about the flaws of the flawed service you yourself conceived and finally attribute the flaws of that single service to all services is quite dishonest. And to end your argument with an ebin "gotcha" paragraph that could come only from the demented mind of Hobbes is peak arrogance.

>>26595 >Not to mention that, not only are you attacking his example, but that specific thing does not, in fact, contradict anything that he has said outside of the example. You are making the mistake of assuming that the American system is the only possible model of a traditional government. I invite you to consider the possibility of a government that doesn't practice prison-labor slavery. >As much as their system are imperfect, there are many services that allow the general populace to create reviews for services. You are dancing around the issues I brought up. Ancap philosophy always handwaves away these quid-pro-quo issues without taking into account human psychology of power structures in large groups.

>>26595 > there are many services that allow the general populace to create reviews for services the general populace generally isn't allowed into the kitchen of restaurants and so could not possibly know how sanitary they are.

>>26597 But if people started fuarrrking dying people certainly would notice. You might argue that there is still the risk of people "poisoning" their food but fast food chains do this anyway and get no punishment from the government, exactly because it is the government. Needless to say it is also not a very common thing for small restaurants to do. >>26596 >You are making the mistake of assuming that the American system is the only possible model of a traditional government. Nowhere in my response did I assume that. I just pointed out that the validity of your statement did not impact the validity of the other person's statement. >You are dancing around the issues I brought up. Ancap philosophy always handwaves away these quid-pro-quo issues without taking into account human psychology of power structures in large groups. Because psychology will always be a generalization and oversimplification of human behavior. Psychology and sociology, when applied to a considerable amount of people, while it may help explain past and present human behavior, it is nowhere near an accurate tool to predict future human behavior.

i'm ancap and i just found one flaw capitalism. They do not care about creating common standards. Government It is the only institution that cares about it, an example can be the unified standard of chargers from the EU

>>26344 The weak should fear the strong then eh? I will step on your ants and you will see some of the going in circles like what? Sheep. They will go in circles until they die. I will enjoy watching it unfold. >>26480 >You don't HAVE to work an 8 hour shift under capitalism. You could always become self employed. I know people usually associate corporate office jobs with capitalism, but that isn't exactly the case. People have been sort of brainwashed into thinking your only choice in life is a boring 9 to 5 and that there's no other possible way to make a living. But either way, the true foundation of capitalism is that you recognize and respect property rights! Property rights are natural law, if you agree with this then you believe in capitalism! This is exactly why this leftist bullshit is on the rise. They think that all these orgs are just "there." No one really started them and they're passed down by generation.

>>26910 Also, there are alternatives to 9-5 work that don't involve starting a business.

>>26101 what about a toothbrush better than every other toothbrush, does that become private property because its better, what about 5000 toothbrushes at what point is it no longer personal. The same thing applies to houses how is a mansion any less valid than a hut, or 5 huts any less valid than one. most communists would be okay with the worlds best toothbrush, but not the worlds best house, they would be okay with 5000 toothbrushes but not 5 huts. whats the difference, and at what point does it become private instead of personal, better yet give me a definition of private and personal, one where private can never be personal, and personal can never be private.

>>26916 >most communists would be okay with the worlds best toothbrush, but not the worlds best house, they would be okay with 5000 toothbrushes but not 5 huts. what? no. why would you want more than you need under communism, there is no point to that

>>26594 >Nowadays it goes under the name "prison labor", where people jailed for victimless crimes like marijuana possession are forced to make uniforms for MacDonalds or fight wildfires in California under threat of administrative punishments. You do know that there are probably cheaper options right? I don't think that jails are exactly profitable if not for taxes by the government. This is an understatement btw.

>>26944 > I don't think that jails are exactly profitable if not for taxes by the government. Clueless. Prisons are a million dollar business

>>26916 holy mother of strawman

>>26944 There's some useful introduction to the topic here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex At the very least, I can confirm American private prisons are a profitable industry.

>>26594 >The US doesn't, and never did, reject slavery. The US just changed its label. Nowadays it goes under the name "prison labor" I appreciate your point that in spirit it is the same as slavery but to say all they did was change the name is wildly bad faith. It is not private individuals owning other private individuals as property with zero human rights. What you're talking about is people who are accused of damaging society somehow and then exploited for cheap labor by the corporatism state for a short period of time. It's not comparable to the actual slavery we were talking about earlier in the thread. >Rated by who? Verified by who? Rated by an impartial body with the power to force restaurants to display an unalterable rating certificate? Sounds awfully... governmental. >power to force restaurants Who said anything about force? It's literally just a 3rd party company who does an inspection and then stakes their reputation on the results. >Ancaps believe in simple, objective, fundamental rules that will naturally avoid corruption. But there are no rules. There's only power. Messy, real-world, subjective, arbitrary power. Except the simple system already works. How do you choose a VPN? A 3rd party security company does and audit to confirm no logging and if it turns out they were full of soykaf then their certifications become worthless and nobody hires them again. No government. No tax. No coercion. >This is where the ancap fantasy completely falls apart. Just because can't think of a solution to a problem doesn't mean someone else hasn't.

>>27037 >Who said anything about force? It's literally just a 3rd party company who does an inspection and then stakes their reputation on the results. Customers pay slightly more for the reassurance that the restaurant is clean. The restaurant gets more customers in exchange for the certification. The audit company gets money for checking the restaurant is clean and selling the certification. Everybody wins, no force necessary.

>>26975 >At the very least, I can confirm American private prisons are a profitable industry. It is only profitable because the state can use force to kidnap people and keep them there. You have to remember the statist perspective though: * citizens are the government * laws protect citizens (sometimes very indirectly) * people who break the law need to be punished * while they are punished they might as well do something productive So clearly it's not perceived as slavery by statists in any way. Just saying that according to your anarchist perspective it is slavery therefor statists are supporting slavery is a very autistic argument. I don't mean that as an insult, maybe you genuinely have problems understanding that different people have different perspectives?

>>27041 >The audit company gets money for checking the restaurant is clean and selling the certification. Money from the restaurant, creating an instant conflict of interest. As in all things, capitalism's internal contradictions sow the seeds of its own failure. It depends on good faith and free information to operate properly, but a bad actor willing to violate those rules gains an advantage that only increases their leverage over the system - giving rise to an exponential concentration of power. >>27052 >You have to remember the statist perspective though: >* citizens are the government >* laws protect citizens (sometimes very indirectly) >* people who break the law need to be punished >* while they are punished they might as well do something productive >So clearly it's not perceived as slavery by statists in any way. I suppose that I, a democratic socialist (with a heavy emphasis on the socialist part) might be labelled a "statist" by ancaps. Therefore allow me to respond to these points. 1. Yes, citizens are the government. (This is why the United States's ruling class fiercely defends laws that strip ex-convicts of citizens' rights. 2. Laws protect citizens only insofar as the mechanisms that create and enforce those laws are seen to be, and genuinely are, egalitarian. 3. Criminals who violate morally-implemented egalitarian laws (as noted in my point #2) ought to be kept apart from society and rehabilitated to prevent further violation of morally-implemented laws. 4. Incorrect, criminals' only duties should be to take part in rehabilitation efforts. Prison labour of any kind is slavery, and therefore indefensible under any circumstance.

>>27062 >Money from the restaurant, creating an instant conflict of interest. Except if the restaurant is not clean then customers will notice and start ignoring the certification. Restaurants stop buying it and the certificate company goes out of business. Also other restaurants will probably want their money back. So no you can't cheat the system that way. Any other ideas? >As in all things, capitalism's internal contradictions sow the seeds of its own failure Maybe stop declaring victory after every sentence like a twat and at least pretend to listen to what other people are saying. >I suppose that I, a democratic socialist might be labelled a "statist" by ancaps. Statist just means you support the idea of a government. We had a left-wing anarchist here before and I assumed you were him. >4. Incorrect, criminals' only duties should be to take part in rehabilitation efforts. Prison labour of any kind is slavery, and therefore indefensible under any circumstance. Slavery is not defined by how much work you do. Slavery is loss of autonomy. Prison is not generally regarded as slavery because it is a consequence of breaking the law and serves and social function. Maybe explain from your perspective why you think prison itself is not slavery but prison + work is somehow completely different.

>>27067 >So no you can't cheat the system that way. Any other ideas? The problem here is that the example being used is a low-risk one. A bad meal at a restaurant usually just means a stomach-ache, or a few extra trips to a toilet. What if the stakes are higher? For example, the design, construction, and maintenance of a condo tower? If I'm killed in a building collapse, I can't exactly ask for a refund and move to another building. Life-safety measures must be proactive, not reactive. Ancap methods only allow for reactive measures. >>As in all things, capitalism's internal contradictions sow the seeds of its own failure >Maybe stop declaring victory after every sentence like a twat and at least pretend to listen to what other people are saying. The reason I'm not convinced by ancap arguments so far is that they don't seem to be based on any historical evidence. They feel like thought-experiments. Lots of hand-waving about "principles" and how things ought to be, and short on objective facts. Is there an ancap equivalent of Karl Marx's "Capital" that I'm unaware of? Some carefully-researched multi-volume treatise that cites historical examples at length? I'm genuinely asking, I'd give it a read if there is such a thing. But regardless, I'd seriously suggest reading Marx's "Capital", or at least a well-respected summary of it such as Michael Heinrich's "An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital". You may not like Marx's solution to capitalism's fundamental issues in his later manifesto (and neither do I, but that's why I'm a democratic socialist and not a full-blown Marxist), but the man was bang-on accurate in his diagnosis in Capital. When you get to the discussion on declining rates of profit, it'll really open your eyes as to why the United States' Rust Belt has been completely decimated over the past half-century. Lots of things will click into place. >Statist just means you support the idea of a government. We had a left-wing anarchist here before and I assumed you were him. Well, yes. I do. I just want one with genuinely strong democratic safeguards in place to prevent a sham-democracy situation, like the United States had ever since its founding. >Maybe explain from your perspective why you think prison itself is not slavery but prison + work is somehow completely different. It's about purpose. In my mind, prison should have just two purposes: - To prevent unrehabilitated criminals from harming other citizens. - To rehabilitate criminals, to the extent that it's possible given their particular psychological situation.

>>27075 >If I'm killed in a building collapse, I can't exactly ask for a refund and move to another building. Your life insurance company and surviving relatives can though. >Life-safety measures must be proactive, not reactive. The implication being that safety laws enforced by government somehow came before all the bad things they try to prevent and punish? I don't think so. They're the result of trial and error just like everything else. These two cases are not as different as you think they are >I better put safety protocols in my building or government will punish me >I better put safety protocols in my building or the free market will punish me >I'd seriously suggest reading Marx's "Capital" Yeah I know, if only I read your bible then I would be a believer too and we wouldn't have to waste time with facts and logic. >carefully-researched multi-volume treatise that cites historical examples at length So if ideas are simple enough to explain in a chan post then they are suspect but if someone writes long complex books then it must be legit? Have you even considered that all the length and complexity in Marx is just there to impress naive readers and throw off critics. >It's about purpose. In my mind, prison should have just two purposes: And how does having them do work to benefit the society they supposedly damaged contradict these purposes?

>>27075 >The reason I'm not convinced by ancap arguments... The problem is your post locked in the conclusion before you've heard any response to your arguments. That's what religious cultists do, not intellectually honest scholars.

>>27081 >So if ideas are simple enough to explain in a chan post then they are suspect but if someone writes long complex books then it must be legit? This might just be part of the left vs right dichotomy. Marxist economics is appeals to emotion like "equality" and "fairness" and anecdotes and historic case studies. Austrian economics is just axiom + logic = conclusion. So if you're the kind of person who is convinced by one side then of course you'll never be convinced by the other. >>27075 >Is there an ancap equivalent of Karl Marx's "Capital" that I'm unaware of? Some carefully-researched multi-volume treatise that cites historical examples at length? That's like asking is there a physics equivalent to the King James Bible.

>>27116 >Marxist economics is appeals to emotion like "equality" and "fairness" and anecdotes and historic case studies. >Austrian economics is just axiom + logic = conclusion. Right wing economics is appeals to emotion like "liberty" and "freedom" and anecdotes and historic case studies. Marxist economics is just axiom + logic = conclusion.

>>27117 Except your comrade already described Marxist literature as "carefully-researched multi-volume treatise that cites historical examples at length". It is not based on praxeology or any other kind formal logic where as right wing economics is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology#Austrian_economics >inb4 you thought just swapping left and right would be an epic argument on its own

>>27117 It's amusing to see assmad lefties still lurk these economics threads only to jump on easy openings like this because they've learned that their ideas can't stand up to a real discussion.

>>27118 >he's never read Marx >he thought "my side operates on facts and logic while the other appeals to emotion" was even an argument in the first place You will never be a millionaire >>27119 No you're a waste of time and I just quoted the last reply in the thread

>muh facts and logic economics is a social science, it will *never* have the same standing as physics or even biology, please do not pretend it can. Anyway. I can't think of any description of ancaps better than "people who want freedom for the slave owners".

>>27120 >>27121 What is your response to the argument that Austrian economics is based on a branch of logic called praxeology? What is your response that >>27075 finds the most compelling thing about Marx is the many historic anecdotes?

>>27120 >You will never be a millionaire Would you rather have a job where everyone makes 50K? Or a job where you make 100K but someone else makes 200K? One option is based on reason and one option is based on emotion (envy),

>>27125 >What is your response to the argument that Austrian economics is based on a branch of logic called praxeology? laughable. Anyone who has known another person deeply knows that the maxim "humans engage in purposeful behavior" is obviously false. >What is your response that >>27075 finds the most compelling thing about Marx is the many historic anecdotes? makes more sense to base social science off of historical surveys than some axiomatic bullshit.

>>27127 >laughable. Anyone who has known another person deeply knows that the maxim "humans engage in purposeful behavior" is obviously false. Did you literally just copy paste the first line of the wikipedia article and say "No that's wrong because I say so" lol >You are hungry so you buy a snickers bar There you go, you have a purpose and you perform an action towards that purpose. Humans engage in purposeful behavior. >makes more sense to base social science off of historical surveys than some axiomatic bullshit. I can accept that you find "historical surveys" more convincing than facts and logic. The thing is did you update your "historical surveys" with events from the 20th and 21st century? You're not just trying to force the ramblings of a guy who lived in the 1800s onto the modern world are you? Because there's nothing scientific about that.

>>27131 >Did you literally just copy paste the first line of the wikipedia article and say "No that's wrong because I say so" lol The entire project of trying to reduce human behavior to some simple axioms is laughable, not just this ridiculous excuse for a maxim. Never mind that there is barely any relation between what "praxeologists" actually do and formal logic. What the hell is a "human"? Is it rigorously defined? What is "purposeful behavior"? Unless you actually have solved all the deep questions of ontology and actually mapped these complicated real life things into formal language, you're trying to give your handwavey social science the pomp and circumstance of mathematics, just like Marxists do, and just like Keynesians and all the other analytic economists do. It would be better for everyone if economists accepted that they're social scientists, which means they have messy data and few priors. >Humans engage in purposeful behavior. Humans also engage in entirely purposeless behavior. People destroy themselves and others for no reason besides spite or self-hatred. People will whistle just because they feel like it. People drift apart or drift together, not because either of them want to or have any reason to, but just because. I'm sure you could come up with some mental gymnastics to show why, actually, these are all purposeful behaviors. Just like how all acts of goodwill can be recast into selfishness with sufficient mental gymnastics.

>>27132 >The entire project of trying to reduce human behavior to some simple axioms is laughable ... I'm happy I made you so butthurt you're unironically trying to discredit an entire branch of economics based on the first line of the wikipedia page. You're kind of losing sight of the thread though. Whether or not you agree with the first axiom in the text doesn't change the fact that Austrian economics is based on the logical application of axioms and by your own admission Marx isn't. The conclusion is that they are fundamentally different ways of thinking. >Humans also engage in entirely purposeless behavior. Ok, you found an answer to a question nobody asked. The point is that we can make economic inferences based on the purposeful behavior. For example you are thirsty so you buy a $1 bottle of water. You are still thirsty so you buy a second $1 bottle of water. Now you're good so you don't buy a third. What do we learn? That you value bottle 1 more than dollar 1, you value bottle 2 more than dollar 2, but you value dollar 3 more than bottle 3. Therefor value is not an objective property of the water or the dollars. Value is subjective based on the shifting goals of the actor. This insight was called the marginal revolution and marks the point (1870) where economists broke free from the classical labor theory of value and spawned all the modern economic schools we have today. Your argument that it's impossible to fully understand human actions therefor it is impossible to know anything about economics is fallacious. With physics you don't need to understand everything about the universe to isolate a fundamental law like gravity and then apply it to real world situations. It's the same with economics and human action. Now realize that compiling a 1000 page book full of historical surveys won't make the above analysis on objective value any more or less true. Just like how writing a 1000 page book on all the times an object fell to the ground doesn't make gravity any more or less true. That's why there is no "equivalent" to Das Kapital in Austrian economics.

>>27116 >Marxist economics is appeals to emotion like "equality" and "fairness" Please point to any Marxist text that would count as evidence for this claim. Also equality and fairness are not emotions. >>27125 >What is your response to the argument that Austrian economics is based on a branch of logic called praxeology? That's not an argument, that's a claim. An argument is a set of premises, followed by a conclusion. >>27134 >What do we learn? That you value bottle 1 more than dollar 1, you value bottle 2 more than dollar 2, but you value dollar 3 more than bottle 3. Therefor value is not an objective property of the water or the dollars. Value is subjective based on the shifting goals of the actor. This insight was called the marginal revolution and marks the point (1870) where economists broke free from the classical labor theory of value and spawned all the modern economic schools we have today. What does "value" means here?

>>27081 > So if ideas are simple enough to explain in a chan post then they are suspect but if someone writes long complex books then it must be legit? Have you even considered that all the length and complexity in Marx is just there to impress naive readers and throw off critics. Yeah, the same goes for quantum mechanics or general theory of relativity for example. Those are totally fake too because they cannot be explained in a single post on an anime imageboard. Everything that has an explanation that doesn't fit a single imageboard post and is not easily understandable to a 15 years old anime poster ancap is fake. /irony

>>27135 I don't care about your word games. You are a waste of time. >>27138 >Yeah, the same goes for quantum mechanics or general theory of relativity for example. Those are totally fake too because they cannot be explained in a single post on an anime imageboard. It doesn't matter what the topic is. If you understand it then you can discuss the concepts in your own words. If space is limited you can zoom out to higher levels of abstraction. If you can't talk about it at all then that's a red flag. Either you don't understand it or there is nothing to understand. If the concepts can't be extracted and re-expressed in different words then it's not the concepts themselves that are convincing you. Something else must be going on. Like maybe it's the emotions that the original text evoke which you find so compelling. Or maybe it's just that it contains lots of cherry picked "evidence" and is too long to for you to spot the inconsistencies. If you want to prove me wrong then all you have to do is explain how labor theory of value solves the water bottle problem. Or how whatever other economic model you subscribe to works. Just going "that's wrong that's wrong that's wrong because reasons" and personal attacks only proves how ignorant and butthurt you are.

>>27154 >If you want to prove me wrong then all you have to do is explain how labor theory of value solves the water bottle problem. The goal of the labor theory of value isn't to solve these kind of problems. That's like asking how Darwin's theory of evolution explain the orbits of the planets.

>>26916 It becomes private instead of personal when it overlaps with others' lives. Land is more scarce than toothbrushes, we can also easily create more toothbrushes. You would have to get to a large number of toothbrushes to actually start interfering with other people's abilities to get toothbrushes or toothpaste. If you're talking about a factory, you're not going to have another factory built just because you want to use one personally temporarily, and then stop using it. Other people work there, and other people rely on the goods produced by the factory, so it isn't just personal property. If you entered an abandoned town with a thousand factories in it, or a thousand houses and there is nobody around or will be nobody around to use it for a long time, you can make the argument that you can have five houses and count them as personal property, but for the most part it's not the case. That's the distinction between why five thousand toothbrushes can be personal property but five huts wouldn't be. >>26101 I think there are better examples than referencing a video game.

Nick Land is the cutting edge of ancap thought https://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/

>>27166 If Nick Land is the cutting edge of ancap thought, then ancap thought is about as sharp as a bowling ball.

>>27174 It just doesn't make any sense, to suggest Land is the cutting edge of thought in ancapland. Land is a daring thinker but his academic past is staunchly leftist. All that's happened since is he's combined his views with Mulbug.

>>26152 the distinction between personal and private property is whether it is for personal use (a house you live in, a car you use, a toothbrush you use, clothes you wear, etc.) or the extraction of profit (factory, mine, farm, etc.). it should be pretty obvious that there is a big difference between owning a house your family lives in and owning a factory where you extract surplus labor value from employees.

>>27126 I just want a house and food man

>>27182 That's the Marxist definition, which is completely different from the original definition. The concept of private property comes from John Locke. He argued that natural resources were not owned by anyone, and they only became yours when you mix them with your labor. So you can't just stand on a patch on top of a hill and just say it's yours without modifying it. It would become "yours" after you've built a house or a farm or something else like that.

>>27195 that doesn't actually address my point at all. are you denying that there exists a categorical distinction between property for personal use and property for the extraction of surplus labor value? and the concept of property (usually land property) goes all the way back to plato. it's not like locke arbitrarily has the final word on the subject, it just became relevant during his time due to political and legal conditions in 17th century england and has been influential due to enlightenment thought heavily influencing the development of the liberal capitalism. later on smith also argued that property rights are acquired rights rather than natural rights. marx's developments on the concept of property are crucial to understanding capital.

>>27198 maybe if you were reading a book on BASIC ECONOMICS instead of all these "PHILOSOPHERS" (I bet Plato never even considered Praxeology!) you would know that property is what I think property is and anything else is incorrect.

>>27186 >I just want a house and food man But providing those to you at less than full market price would be immoral. So therefore by the unquestionable meritorious standards of the free market, if you can't afford them, you should just die in a gutter of exposure and malnutrition to placate the great god Economy. If people simply helped other people with no expectation of reward, the world would devolve into the abject horrors of communism!

anarcho-capitalism would only result in corporations exploiting you even more than they already do, and you're a fuarrrking moron if you think otherwise yeah im sure amazon would be real benevolent if unrestrained by the government, let's just ignore the fact they tried to keep their employees in literal cages that one time

>>27211 The really maddening thing about how ancaps just keep refusing to recognize that reality is that there's historical evidence of what happens when ancap philosophies prevail. We just need to look to the "company town" that infested the western US during the 1800s. The absence of governments didn't lead to ancap utopias. It just lead to power vacuums where business leaders with the most ruthless mercs becoming the de-facto local government.

>>27138 >Yeah, the same goes for quantum mechanics or general theory of relativity for example. Those are totally fake too because they cannot be explained in a single post on an anime imageboard. Yeah because /sci/ boards are filled with people saying "this stuff is too complicated to discuss so just read Einstein's original work then you will agree with me herp derp". >>27154 Just because low IQ lainchan posters can't discuss any of Marx's ideas in their own words doesn't necessarily mean that Marx's ideas are bullshit. >doesn't necessarily

>>27156 >labor theory of value doesn't solve economic problems That is correct. LTV and "surplus value" are just a con to trick workers into thinking they are being exploited somehow and should join the socialist revolution. It doesn't actually explain anything about how the market economy really works. >>27211 >anarcho-capitalism would only result in corporations exploiting you even more than they already do The only reason corporations can exploit you now is because the government stops you fighting back. Both physically with police and on the free market with regulations. >let's just ignore the fact they tried to keep their employees in literal cages If Amazon is such a terrible place to work then don't work there. >picrel Survival is its own incentive and social credit can be as valuable as any other currency. Just because a closeknit tribe trades favors instead of shiny rocks doesn't make it anti-capitalist. >>27213 >The really maddening thing about how ancaps just keep refusing to recognize that reality is that there's historical evidence of what happens when ancap philosophies prevail. The really maddening thing is you keep running your mouth without even knowing what "ancap philosophy" is. >>27166 I don't know Nick Land, his wikipedia page is full of buzzwords I don't understand like "futurism, technoscience, philosophy, mysticism". Anarcho-capitalism is simply free market + non aggression principle. With a strict interpretation of non aggression principle making all forms of government incompatible. The most prominent modern ancap thinkers I follow are Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Jeff Deist, Antony Sammeroff, Scott Horton. There are also some not-so-intellectual ancap personalities who are still interesting to follow like Dave Smith, Michael Malice, Robbie Bernstein.

Not just a theory Watch https://youtu.be/R2AMq6Nclg8

>>27312 >The really maddening thing is you keep running your mouth without even knowing what "ancap philosophy" is. Ah, I see where the disagreement lies. Sorry about that, I should have been more clear. I full understand the core of ancap thought. I'm just disputing that any of it is based on a realistic understanding of human psychology.

>>27315 >I full understand the core of ancap thought. Prove it.

>>27312 >Social credit can be as valuable as any other currency. Sorry, I'd just like to point out that social credit/reputation in the informal sense is very different from a currency. With currency, nobody knows or cares how you got your money. The value is intrinsic to the object itself. Social credit is different because people care how you got it. If nobody knows why you're so well respected, then you're not actually well respected. There's also the case that, between very close family members (a typical early human band would be one or two extended families) people usually share out of a feeling of shared obligation. This is true now, it was true then. Parents don't raise their kids because they expect financial returns and kids don't support their parents because they'll get part of the will (I mean, people *do* do that, but most people have nothing of significance to put in their will)

>>27317 >credit/reputation in the informal sense is very different from a currency. Bitcoin is not fungible either. Old coins traceable back to criminal transactions are wroth less than freshly minted coins. It doesn't change the fact that it is a representation of value that you trade with other people. In a small/close tribe they don't need physical currency because everyone can keep track of who owes what and who's promises are trustworthy. Communism is not just absence of money. >There's also the case that, between very close family members Even if there was no biological instinct to help people who share your DNA. Parents help children because children will take care of them when they are old.

>>27318 >Bitcoin is not fungible either. bitcoin is not a viable currency. >Old coins traceable back to criminal transactions are wroth less than freshly minted coins. sure, if someone bothers to check. The same could be said of dollar bills. People make a lot of money laundering both dollar bills and bitcoins. But most people don't check if their money is traceable, and in any case the actual worth of the money isn't derived from how you got it. >It doesn't change the fact that it is a representation of value that you trade with other people. Honestly I have never once used bitcoins as anything but a direct representation of USD in terms of current market price. >In a small/close tribe they don't need physical currency because everyone can keep track of who owes what and who's promises are trustworthy. in my personal dealings, we don't usually keep track of who owes what. Unless you've really been mooching off others for a long time, nobody cares. >Parents help children because children will take care of them when they are old. but the children, from both a biological perspective and from a "rational" economic perspective, have no reason to actually do that. There would be no material consequences if the children abandoned their elders to die, in fact it would probably improve their situation by removing dead weight. But people rarely do that, because we view it as immoral. Meanwhile, if I took out a loan and the bank had no power to make me pay it back, I absolutely would not pay it back, as I feel no obligation to the bank besides those enforced on me through violence.

>>27319 >bitcoin is not a viable currency. Because you've proven yourself to be such an authority on economics. >sure, if someone bothers to check What do you think the blockchain is? >Honestly I have never once used bitcoins Really. >in my personal dealings, we don't usually keep track of who owes what. Unless you've really been mooching off others for a long time, And how do you know who is mooching if your brain is not subconsciously keeping track? >There would be no material consequences if the children abandoned their elders to die, in fact it would probably improve their situation by removing dead weight. But people rarely do that, because we view it as immoral. Except cannibal tribes that eat old people did exist. So saying that it's immoral now doesn't actually answer anything does it. Clearly there must have been some greater advantage for not doing it.

Ok considering that this thread has just turned into 'Debate communism' for the hundreth time how about i try to change this. To AnCaps. What is the actual practical way you seek to implement your vision? (And by vision i am meaning creating either a free zone or total worldwide statelessness that somehow still respects the property rights established by those states)

>>27332 >What is the actual practical way you seek to implement your vision? The Ron Paul approach is to become president and dismantle the government from top down. 1. abolish taxes and the federal reserve 2. stop government spending on things they now can't afford without tax and money printing (e.g. dropping bombs on children in the middle east) 3. repeal laws that prevent the free market from competing with government services (e.g. banks, courts and police) Once the government monopoly is broken then the free market will find the best solutions. For example you may have noticed that Disneyland has their own private police. You may have also noticed that they don't kneel on black men's necks for 10 minutes until they're dead. Because when people are voluntarily paying for your services instead of being forced through taxes then suddenly you have to actually do a good job or you won't get hired again. >free zone statelessness that somehow still respects property rights There might be no way around the requirement for a critical mass of residents to abide by the non aggression principle. You don't need a central authority or even violence to enforce property rights though. Bob Murphy does a lot of work on peaceful conflict resolution if you are interested. But basically you operate on a reputation system. If a person is known to steal stuff then people will stop trading with him. If he can't support himself he either needs to mend his reputation or leave the community or die. There is no prison system or welfare state to artificially keep parasites alive. If you're not comfortable with the anarchy part that's fine though. You can still apply free markets and the non aggression principle to a minimal night-watchman state (minarchy). Where the only role of the state is to enforce property rights (police) and prevent invasions (military). Once you're on board with the economics and ethics side then the difference between anarchy and minarchy is kind of a detail you can worry about later.

>>27334 >For example you may have noticed that Disneyland has their own private police. Disneylands 'Police force' is not fuarrrking equipped to take on a terror threat or warlord insurgents or hungry food bandits (all of which if the US federal government ceased to exist would flourish for reasons i will elaborate on) If 50 Boko-Haram terrorists stormed into Disneyland tomorrow and took everyone hostage and was threatening to nuke the park or something Disney would call in the US authorities. >You may have also noticed that they don't kneel on black men's necks for 10 minutes until they're dead. Because when people are voluntarily paying for your services instead of being forced through taxes then suddenly you have to actually do a good job or you won't get hired again. Mercenary hirelings have already been a concept in history ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condottiero ) and the flaws have already become apparent. There would literally be nothing stopping 'Security contractors' from taking bribes to defect to different entities or if local power becomes weak enough just marching in and taking control of the region themselves. remember were dealing with entities existing on a local or regional level at best. political or corporate organisation on a cross-continental level would be impossible. mainly on account that most of the infrastructure would be in ruins and under the control of highwaymen and bushrangers extorting people and randomly blowing soykaf up. >There might be no way around the requirement for a critical mass of residents to abide by the non aggression principle. You don't need a central authority or even violence to enforce property rights though. Bob Murphy does a lot of work on peaceful conflict resolution if you are interested. But basically you operate on a reputation system. This only really applies on a micro-economic level at BEST. How does a 'Trust system' stop 20 guys in toyota's taking over a highway which was federal infrastructure and is legally free game and because no one has built a highway yet are forced to pay their toll to ship goods or move across the states.

>>27335 >If 50 Boko-Haram terrorists stormed into Disneyland tomorrow and took everyone hostage and was threatening to nuke the park or something Disney would call in the US authorities. Ok but if there was no US authorities they would just hire someone else to get their property back. >all of which if the US federal government ceased to exist would flourish Remember that muslims don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we've been dicking around in their countries for decades. So "terrorism" would actually go the other way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQrwKr_b4Lg >There would literally be nothing stopping 'Security contractors' from taking bribes to defect to different entities Except now they have a reputation for being untrustworthy. You can only exit scam once. >if local power becomes weak enough just marching in and taking control of the region themselves Defense is always cheaper than attack and you can't rule people who don't want to be ruled. >political or corporate organisation on a cross-continental level would be impossible. mainly on account that most of the infrastructure would be in ruins and under the control of highwaymen and bushrangers extorting people and randomly blowing soykaf up. There is a lot of red herrings slipped in here. A country's infrastructure can be destroyed and unsafe with a central government in place too e.g. South Africa, so clearly the existence of a government is not the deciding factor here. >How does a 'Trust system' stop 20 guys in toyota's taking over a highway which was federal infrastructure and is legally free game Why would you think it's "legally free game". Aggression is never legal. And you don't think the government would sell off its asserts to private owners as part of the dismantling? I understand you want to project the worse possible situation though so ok the government has collapsed and no one owns the road. If it's useful then someone will fix it. And once someone has mixed their labor with it then it becomes their property and they can defend it. Your projection of bandits driving around with infinite fuel and bullets and explosives is also dubious. The soykaf that goes on in the middle east and north africa is the result of proxy wars between larger countries. ISIS died the moment the US stopped funding them. None of that stuff is inherently profitable. >How does a 'Trust system' stop... Because assuming the bandits are not being funded by a nation state then the bandits need to buy their soykaf from somewhere. And you don't want to be the guy who sells soykaf to bandits because then people won't sell soykaf to you. So bandits will have to pay higher rates to get supplies from people in secret. Which further cuts into an already unprofitable operation. Keep in mind the world already exists in a state of anarchy. There is no world government so when the US and China disagree on soykaf they need to work it out as peers. The same with the internet. Alex Jones pays 5x market rate for things like hosting because anyone associated with him gets instantly boycotted by pressure groups. So when he finds companies willing to (secretly) do business with him they charge extra for the risk. Alex Jones survives because he is providing a service people want to pay for. Apply the same obstacle to the business model of risking your life stealing soykaf from other armed people then the economics is completely against you.

>>27329 >>Honestly I have never once used bitcoins >Really. nice misquote. I have used bitcoin to transfer about $1000 USD in the past. >And how do you know who is mooching if your brain is not subconsciously keeping track? Same way I can throw a rock with reasonable accuracy without doing ballistics calculations in my head. Also it's worth noting the generosity, in the sense of giving a gift with no expectation of repayment, is a way to gain high social standing. >Except cannibal tribes that eat old people did exist. Very, very few. I am fairly sure even Maori didn't do that, for them cannibalism was only okay if your meal was a defeated foe. >So saying that it's immoral now doesn't actually answer anything does it. it is a strong indication. Taboos like that don't change very quickly. >Clearly there must have been some greater advantage for not doing it. or maybe people aren't profit-maximizing machines.

>>27338 >nice misquote Sorry. >How can you do X without a subconscious process? <The same way I do Y with a subconscious process? What? >giving a gift with no expectation of repayment, is a way to gain high social standing So social credit is a commodity that can be bought with gifts? >Social credit can be as valuable as any other currency. >or maybe people aren't profit-maximizing machines. Evolution is though.

>>27339 evolution optimizes for "good enough", which is not the same as profit maximization. That's why koalas are literally retarded.

Isn't the Late stage capitalism slowly becoming "an"cap? As slowly governments lose power to the big corporations both on cyber area and on any other area. The nature can't hold more of the infinite production on a limited planet. Worse part is there is nothing one can do other than try to escape this hellish dystopia. Society, Economy, People are hell. No other system will save us from this hell. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/renzo-novatore-toward-the-creative-nothing https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-forward-to-technological-slavery https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/feral-faun-essays https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ran-prieur-civilization-will-eat-itself

>>27340 Ok what I meant was that if something is so taboo for modern humans then it probably had some big negative impact on the evolutionary process. Cannibalism is easy, there are very nasty parasites you can get from eating human meat. Lookup prions if you need some nightmare fuel. Why don't we kill old people, especially post-menopausal women? I think that's cultural. But again the point is if it's something that has passed down to basically all modern humans then that implies a big impact on evolution. I'm not sure it matters if you agree or not because I think we're straying quite far off track here anyway.

>>27342 >I'm not sure it matters if you agree or not because I think we're straying quite far off track here anyway. Oh right we were talking about the meme in >>27211 So yeah, just because there is no money or formal system of exchange doesn't mean there isn't capital or profit. Things like muscle mass, IQ, hip width (for women), hunting skill and reputation (which we talked about a lot) are all forms of capital. And unless there is a conscious effort to force egalitarian redistribution of resources then some people are going to end up better off than others even if it's just getting more food or the most attractive mate. So just because there is no money or formal system of exchange doesn't make it anti-capitalist. Or maybe it's just a troll meme and I'm overthinking it

>>27341 As of now, states act as more of a proxy for corporations, and those who oppose the corporation. It's easier to outsource war to nation states and get all the resources. Only having to pay a few large donations. I can see a "Burning Chrome" scenario where Ancap's wet dream of a corporate fiefdom happens when the state can no longer provide for area's where corperations already own and just treat it like company towns in the 1800's.

>>27343 >literally anything that you can use is capital sure. >So just because there is no money or formal system of exchange doesn't make it anti-capitalist. There is a very important difference between 'anti-capitalist' and 'non-capitalist' capitalism is not the default, unless you have such a broad definition of capitalism that it loses all descriptive power. It's a relatively recent development.

>>27344 >It's easier to outsource war to nation states and get all the resources. Actually it's easier to just buy the resources you need, the way the Great Northern railroad simply bought the land it needed from the natives. Whereas the government backed Union Pacific railroad used the army to slaughter natives who were in the way. War is not profitable unless you can force someone else to fund it via taxes, inflation, conscription and then siphon off the profits for yourself. >>27345 >literally anything that you can use is capital Anything that can be used to produce value in the future is called capital. Unless you have an alternative definition? >capitalism is not the default, unless you have such a broad definition of capitalism that it loses all descriptive power. Capitalism is voluntary exchange of goods and services. As long as there is no fraud or coercion involved then both parties profit from the exchange.

We live in anarcho-capitlism, fam. If you required your political system to be enforced by some central entity upon everyone it wouldn't be very anarchist now would it? Reality just IS ancap, whether you pay for things for blood or money and whether you enter into contracts legally or via criminal honor codes and then get persecuted or rewarded for breaking or honoring them is kind of up to you! https://mwi.usma.edu/war-entrepreneurs-economic-drivers-of-insurgency-terrorism-and-crime/

>>27437 >We live in anarcho-capitlism, fam. >Reality just IS ancap, whether you pay for things for blood or money and whether you enter into contracts legally or via criminal honor codes and then get persecuted or rewarded for breaking or honoring them is kind of up to you! This kind of mental gymnastics is too much even for me. Besides, you even said >If you required your political system to be enforced by some central entity upon everyone it wouldn't be very anarchist now would it? Which is correct, I don't know what kind of conception you have about anarcho-capitalism (probably a distorted one), but you then failed to answer your own question.

>>27439 >This kind of mental gymnastics is too much even for me. I think his argument is that we started with "anarchy" and now we're here therefor the current status quo is the natural result of "anarchy". But as you say that's completely ignoring what anarcho-capitalist philosophy actually contains.

>>27439 >This kind of mental gymnastics is too much even for me Yea I get the feeling that you don't really exercise your mind much. The world isn't controlled by a central entity and the rest rest of your post was purely self-aggrandizing so I'm not sure what else to tell you because I'm not going to mirror it by providing some credentials about how many years I've spent reading and talking about anarchism and being active in politics, because that seems silly to me.

>>27442 We are still in anarchy and I'm not arguing with anyone I'm just trying to suggest that you can already experience anarcho-capitalism, especially if you make the effortful "mental gymnastics" of considering nation states comparable to other corporate entities. No need to wait for some ideological utopia to be implemented, also I'd want to remind that even if you managed to universalize some ancap utopia you could still contractually or practically be limited to eg. use a certain provider for certain services, maybe due to your ancestors entering into such a contract for example. And if you think that there should be some limits to how contracts can be made or enforced then that's a breach of the NAP because you're trying to impose some universal regulation on the world and as it currently stands the world isn't your property.

>>27445 >We are still in anarchy We're not. What even is your definition of anarchy? >I'm just trying to suggest that you can already experience anarcho-capitalism, especially if you make the effortful "mental gymnastics" of considering nation states comparable to other corporate entities. Corporate entities, by definition, hold a monopoly (or oligopoly, but limited competition nonetheless) exactly because of the government. If you consider the state as the one who holds the monopoly over the (il)legitimate use of force (as in coercion) over a piece of land or over a specific group of people then sure, but it still isn't anarcho-capitalism exactly because of this "corporation", which enables the existence of all other corporations as we know them. >also I'd want to remind that even if you managed to universalize some ancap utopia you could still contractually or practically be limited to eg. use a certain provider for certain services, maybe due to your ancestors entering into such a contract for example. Your ancestors cannot sign a contract for you, otherwise anyone would be able to sign a contract for anybody else and contracts would be meaningless, and the state would be legitimate. The whole point of contracts is that they require explicit consent from both parties. >>27443 >Yea I get the feeling that you don't really exercise your mind much. I don't know what kind of exercises you need to distort logic to such an extent without seeing that it is completely broken, please teach them me your ways. >The world isn't controlled by a central entity >The UN doesn't exist Even ignoring the UN, that is not the point. Ancaps are against the state, just because it isn't a world government doesn't mean it is suddenly good. >the rest rest of your post was purely self-aggrandizing Tell me which part of the rest of my post (which is just a single line) is boastful in any way. I pointed out that your conception of anarcho-capitalism is probably wrong, which I'm now even more certain due to you inserting an argument about a global government, which is completely missing the point of it. In fact, it almost seems like you're humblebragging. >I'm now not going to mirror your bragging. Now, let me not brag about how I have spent many years discussing about anarchism and being active in politics

>>27445 >I'm just trying to suggest that you can already experience anarcho-capitalism There is a government therefor it's not anarchy. There are taxes and regulations therefor it's not (free market) capitalism. Therefor it's not anarcho-capitalism.

>>27434 >capitalism is not the default, unless you have such a broad definition of capitalism that it loses all descriptive power. <Capitalism is voluntary exchange of goods and services. As long as there is no fraud or coercion involved then both parties profit from the exchange. That's an example of a broad definition of capitalism that makes it useless. Socialist market is then capitalist.

>>27451 >That's an example of a broad definition of capitalism that makes it useless. Socialist market is then capitalist. Not him, but "socialist market" (if I understand correctly, I've never seen those two words used together) requires coercion. Unless you mean something entirely different from what I'm thinking, in this case define a "socialist market".

>>27452 under your definition, if people all agreed, without fraud or coercion, to make their economy socialist, it would be capitalism. Unless your definition of "socialism" is "not capitalist", in which case it's basically unrelated to popular political movements called socialist. >in this case define a "socialist market". wikipedia "market socialism".

>>27446 >Corporate entities, by definition, hold a monopoly (or oligopoly, but limited competition nonetheless) exactly because of the government. I am not sure how would you stop company, that is big enough, from underselling any new competition and becoming monopoly/oligopoly, especially if said company started business in new industry and had headstart. I'm not saying that state would necessary help, but I don't see how to prevent this in ancap. >>27447 >There is a government therefor it's not anarchy. you can have self-government in anarchy which is form of government and is even desirable by most (socialist) anarchists >>27451 >Capitalism is voluntary exchange of goods and services. isn't that just part of capitalism? I thought that capitalism mainly means system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Voluntary exchange of goods and services can exist without capitalism, it existed in feudalism and even before that.

>>27453 >under your definition, if people all agreed, without fraud or coercion, to make their economy socialist, it would be capitalism. Actually yes, if you manage to obtain the approval of every party involved. The thing is you generally don't, and it would go wrong if you employed it on a large scale.

>>27454 >I am not sure how would you stop company, that is big enough, from underselling any new competition and becoming monopoly/oligopoly, especially if said company started business in new industry and had headstart. I'm not saying that state would necessary help, but I don't see how to prevent this in ancap. The same way that, even with the state's intervention (but mainly on zones without much state intervention), there are still many small local restaurants and medium sized food chains, it's not like there is only burger king or Mcdonalds or any of those big food chains. Also, take for example system76, they are able to exist on a small scale even with tech giants like Microsoft or Apple, although their reach would probably be bigger if the state did not intervene. >you can have self-government in anarchy which is form of government and is even desirable by most (socialist) anarchists As long as you can opt-out of it, it may even be government (which is generally used interchangeably with state although for now I will differentiate them for now), but it isn't state because it doesn't involve coercion. >I thought that capitalism mainly means system based on the private ownership of the means of production Yes. >and their operation for profit Not necessarily. >Voluntary exchange of goods and services can exist without capitalism, it existed in feudalism and even before that. And it "exists" now, even if limited, which is not really different from before. It's not like either a system has free market capitalism or it does not, it's more like a spectrum, otherwise the Index of Economic Freedom wouldn't exist.

>>27455 then your definition is worthless because it does not distinguish between capitalists and anti-capitalists.

>>27453 >"market socialism" Is just a meme dreamt up by butthurt academics after Mises spanked them too hard with the calculation problem (now you do some wikipedia'ing). You can call it capitalism if you want but it's not free market capitalism because central planners still need to pull strings and thumb the scales to try and engineer the outcomes they want. >>27454 >I am not sure how would you stop company, that is big enough, from underselling any new competition No matter how big they can't keep operating at a loss forever and the moment they stop underselling then new competition will rise up again.

>>27457 >then your definition is worthless because it does not distinguish between capitalists and anti-capitalists. If you weren't blinded by bad faith you will have noticed posts specifying free market capitalism which can't be confused with your "market socialism".

>>27459 jesus christ you sound like a commie with all your ridiculous definitions

>>27461 >capitalism is a meaningless term because there is such a thing as capitalism + socialism, are you saying capitalism is socialism? lololol <ok but we actually use a more precise term free market capitalism >what's with all these definitions???? rеее rеее rеее Just a reminder the more childish and toxic you are the better you make the ancaps look.

>>27446 >but it still isn't anarcho-capitalism exactly because of this "corporation", which enables the existence of all other corporations as we know them. What state enables the existence of states? I think what I'm referring to by anarchy is fairly obvious but I wonder what exactly are you looking to change on the planet? If your ancestors cannot sign a contract for you that requires you to set up a hegemonic system for defining what a contract is and regulating their use and enforcing this via violent action.

yo i got a word of advice for all them people arguing about what words REALLY mean: you will likely never be a governing authority on the meaning of words so unfortunately you ought to accept that people will copy and use them however they please

>>27463 >What state enables the existence of states? Military power, mutually assured destruction, diplomatic relations. >think what I'm referring to by anarchy is fairly obvious It isn't. You don't seem to use the standard definition of anarchy, and you haven't really elaborated on the concept so I can't understand it. >I wonder what exactly are you looking to change on the planet? To exemplify, I live in a third world soykafhole, you won't believe how pricey literally anything that comes from outside is, especially because, with the exception of the food sector, our market is not good and the regulations are ridiculous. So for example, you can go to prison just by giving your homemade cheese to your neighbor if you don't pay an exorbitant price for a "food stamp", which isn't consistent anyways so owning it guarantees nothing, and if I recall correctly the sentence is similar to that of drug trafficking. Also, unless you're rich, don't expect to ever be able to pay for an attorney in a criminal case. There are many more examples of ridiculous laws, and how the state is absolutely arbitrary in literally anything and can screw you over even if you follow strictly its laws, however I won't list them for the sake of brevity. I can list exactly zero instances in which economic interventionism has been beneficial to anyone in the world, let alone here. Each time one of this laws become more lax or cease to exist, the better the situation becomes, and the less power the state has over our lives. And many people are critics of the state, however for some reason it's never the state's fault, it's our current system, as if so many systems have already been tried and either failed or are currently heading directly to hell. I didn't become a libertarian because of "social injustices" or just "the ideal world", it's because the state actively create suffering, and you can experience that directly if you live in a soykafhole (so much so that my country has probably the biggest ancap movement in the world), and my country isn't even the worst one, I can only imagine the other ones. So let me ask you lainon, what do you think should be changed? Or at least, why do you think that the actual state of the world is okay? >>27464 I know this is a joke (I hope) but any serious discussion starts with the definition of words, because you won't believe how many discussions become a soykafshow because the two parties are talking about different things.

>>27466 >you can go to prison just by giving your homemade cheese to your neighbor if you don't pay an exorbitant price for a "food stamp" is your government extremely corrupted or is someone lobbying super hard or something? >I can list exactly zero instances in which economic interventionism has been beneficial to anyone in the world shortening working hours, banning child labour, public healthcare system and social safety nets seem to work pretty good in nordic and other european countries

>>27467 >is your government extremely corrupted or is someone lobbying super hard or something? The first one. >shortening work hours I remember they did this in one country (like, much less than 8 hours of work), the price of everything increased shortly after. >banning child labour isn't enforced properly, additionally if you're young, poor and your family can't work for some reason/doesn't exist you're as good as dead. >public healthcare system Much more inefficient than everybody just keeping their tax money and just paying for it as they need it. >social safety nets Kinda redundant since the state many time causes poverty. Socialists here often cite Sweden iirc as the prime example of why social democracy works, the thing is that they got economic growth from free market capitalism and as soon as they pulled back on it the economic growth came to a halt. Such is the state of many european countries, although I do not extensively know their economies so I can't argue for all of them.

>>27466 >I didn't become a libertarian because of "social injustices" or just "the ideal world", it's because the state actively create suffering Meh, from what I gather you're involved in some ancap social circles and I wish you luck in securing a future with less suffering for your family, maybe after your experimental radical phase you will be reintegrated into the political class and have status and all. For me the world is too vast to be actively concerned about and I doubt you really want to hear about what I want. Also I've never seen a discussion that started with the definition of words?

>>27467 >shortening working hours, banning child labour These are not beneficial because if you are wealthy enough to not work long hours and send a child to work then you don't need to government to forbid it. And if you do need the extra money then government is making you poorer for no reason. >public healthcare system and social safety nets These are also not beneficial because the people who benefit most are not the people who pay into it. Especially with healthcare you are basically subsidizing other people's unhealthy lifestyles. In both cases insurance policies are a better solution because then a person is incentivized to be healthier and work harder to stay employed to keep their premiums down instead of their actions having no consequences for themselves and passing the cost onto everyone else.

>>27470 >Also I've never seen a discussion that started with the definition of words? I don't blame you. Most discussions that start like that are made by generally unknown people that take logic way too seriously, have probably read all books from Kant, Wittgenstein, german idealists, classic authors, Aquinas, Descartes, classic authors, idealists, empiricists, metaphisicists, epistemologists, and most things you can imagine, besides extensively studying formal logic, modal logic, constructivist logic, etc. and their debates last hours upon hours.

>>27468 >Much more inefficient than everybody just keeping their tax money and just paying for it as they need it. I would argue otherwise, medication and medical care is extremely expensive in USA compare to european countries with public health care and even if you never get sick you are paying for other people to be less sick too and that improves the whole economy also people go to doctor more often when they have some symptoms rather than wait for soykaf to hit the fan >economic growth came to a halt are you talking about gdp? gdp isn't really the best for measuring well-being and even then eu has better gdp annual growth rate then US (not that it actually says that much) >>27471 >And if you do need the extra money then government is making you poorer for no reason. not true, you can work extra hours, but your employer has to pay you more for your extra work and also your employer cannot fire you for not wanting to work extra hours

>>27471 >person is incentivized to be healthier and work harder than why are people in US so much more unhealthy compare to EU?

>>27473 >I would argue otherwise, medication and medical care is extremely expensive in USA compare to european countries with public health I'm pretty sure that has been caused by the affordable care act, so if universal healthcare was implemented, it would just be another instance of the state intervening to fix state intervention. >even if you never get sick you are paying for other people to be less sick too and that improves the whole economy For simplicity's sake I won't go into moral territory, but speaking in an utilitarian fashion, medical care isn't the only thing needed for survival. Besides, with a more efficient management of that money you could be investing in other important things (such as retirement) or investing it to create more economic growth. >also people go to doctor more often when they have some symptoms rather than wait for soykaf to hit the fan Really depends. Maybe it is just in my country, but generally you go to the doctor if either things are bad or you have a very specific set of symptoms. The thing is, the prices for pure consultation would probably be cheaper without the state. Take into account also that, if the state freezes the price of one thing, other things will get more expensive to compensate the lost money. >are you talking about gdp? No, I can't recall exactly which metrics were used (besides pure economic analysis) but it was certainly not gdp.

>>27475 >I'm pretty sure that has been caused by the affordable care act well yes, state regulates some if not most of it the point of public health care system and other things like housing cooperatives and so on is that they only make as much money as they need to function and potentially grow or expand, they don't need profit and they don't want it, that results in affordable medical care or housing >medical care isn't the only thing needed for survival it's still pretty important >other important things (such as retirement) retirement is probably much more manageable if you don't have to worry about medical care (and you will need it atleast at some point) >or investing it to create more economic growth. aren't you investing into all the people with public medical care tho? but I don't know maybe it would be better >the prices for pure consultation would probably be cheaper without the state How I said state pays (with your tax money) for the doctor and possibly some tests or something, but that's it, there isn't surplus. Of course we can argue if the doctor gets paid enough. Don't get me wrong I don't trust state but I also don't trust that free market capitalism would fix problems that I see in statism.

>>27476 >>medical care isn't the only thing needed for survival >it's still pretty important One consistent aspect of ancaps is that they like to steer conversations towards equating "health care" with "procedures available in 1850", where the absolute height of medical science was being able to setting a broken leg such that it actually healed properly. They like to handwave away - or outright ignore - issues of providing MRIs, radiotherapy, gene therapy, and other essential modern medical services to the average working-class person without bankrupting them.

>>27484 Medical care sure becomes an important problem probably the earliest for the stateless like criminals and illegal immigrants. But I've been thinking that were one able to advance from being a stateless individual to a stateless community that community would have a real hard time with all sorts of basic infrastructure that we don't really notice is there in our lives, for example sewage systems...

>>27484 >They like to handwave away - or outright ignore - issues of providing MRIs, radiotherapy, gene therapy, and other essential modern medical services to the average working-class person without bankrupting them. >MRIs In my country, if you pay for private healthcare it costs at max 300 dollars, which is pretty expensive but not bankrupting. Most people pay much more for the latest IPhone™ (even poor people, for some reason I can't really understand) or for a PC, I don't understand why they shouldn't be able to pay for MRIs. >Radiotherapy Fair enough. >Genetherapy Still looks like a niche treatment and in phase of research. Not saying it is not important, but to have the entire population banking it for just a couple of people to get treated (and such treatments even need the approval of other organizations, it's not like free market is impeding its growth) seems wrong. Besides, suppose Chernobyl happens again, and many people need radiotherapy. Either the very few people that don't need radiotherapy go bankrupt with everyone that needs it, or there is no incentive to provide radiotherapy to everyone else since the hospitals will be operating on massive losses, the price of everything else will rise or the hospitals will close down. This might be a niche case (maybe not so much thanks to China) but that is to show, even if we ignore the morality of forcing people that don't even know you to pay for your treatment, this system can fail. >>27487 >But I've been thinking that were one able to advance from being a stateless individual to a stateless community that community would have a real hard time with all sorts of basic infrastructure that we don't really notice is there in our lives, for example sewage systems... The state doesn't build sewage systems, nor do they project them. They pay for a company to do both for them, there is no reason why we should pay them for being a middleman to something that we could have done ourselves. Unless you are talking about classical anarchism, then that would be a problem.

>>27488 >The state doesn't build sewage systems, nor do they project them. but state or city/town owns that sewage system right? and they pay for maintenance from taxes, so I'm guessing that in ancap it would be owned by private entity and you would pay some fee. What if that private entity will raise prices too much, some competitor will just build another sewage system? that's extremely problematic, most sewage systems are under roads and I'm guessing that the same entity would own said roads, why would they let you build competitive sewage system? Same problem comes with roads and highways, would you just build new roads next to existing ones? and even if building new roads would be the solution, you cannot really do that in cities. how would that be solved in ancap? or am I missing something?

>>27489 >but state or city/town owns that sewage system right? and they pay for maintenance from taxes, so I'm guessing that in ancap it would be owned by private entity and you would pay some fee. What if that private entity will raise prices too much, some competitor will just build another sewage system? The company that builds the sewage system and the one In the most extreme case, stop renewing the contract and do it the old way for some time. Then either they will have to lower the price, they would sell the sewage system to another person or company (in case of a person, the maintenance would just be made by a third party) or wait until the sewage system is unmaintained enough that you can claim that it is actively causing harm to the community and then seize it.

>>27490 >do it the old way for some time good luck to all the people living in apartment buildings >Then either they will have to lower the price, they would sell the sewage system to another person or company Sewers are cleaned in 8-24 month cycles in cities and in smaller towns it can take even longer. Also if people wouldn't be using that sewer system it wouldn't have to be cleaned. So the owner of the sewer system could just sit on his ass for maybe even years and watch you be flooded with your own feces. But also you disposing of your waste "in the old way" for longer period of time would negatively affect your neighbors (not only the smell but also possible infections and so on) and you could toxicate groundwater and especially if a lot of people would do it at the same time. Wouldn't that be violation of NAP? So you would just have to use the sewer system and pay whatever the owner wants, wouldn't you? This is what's interesting about sewer system. It is necessity in modern world, it is not that expensive to maintain and alternatives are dangerous to our surroundings and in ancap you could easily take advantage of it. Unless I'm still missing something about it. >or wait until the sewage system is unmaintained enough that you can claim that it is actively causing harm to the community and then seize it. Again that could take years and in meantime you could be causing harm by doing it "in the old way". I guess you could say that it's gonna cause problems in future and seize it preemptively, but that sounds more like fascism.

>>27492 >So the owner of the sewer system could just sit on his ass for maybe even years and watch you be flooded with your own feces. Then yeah, someone else could build their own sewage system and get all of the money. The thing is that this kind of thing wouldn't be possible if you don't have a monopoly. >I guess you could say that it's gonna cause problems in future and seize it preemptively, but that sounds more like fascism. Yes, that would indeed not be possible.

>>27489 >how would that be solved in ancap? or am I missing something? It wouldn't be solved at all. If you're looking for realistic solutions to real-world problems that provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of people, you won't find it in the dog-eat-dog world of ancap philosophy.

>>27493 >Then yeah, someone else could build their own sewage system and get all of the money. You cannot just build new sewage system. Like it would inevitably collide with existing system and why would they let you connect to them when you are direct competition. Also it's not that simple to build it just deeper than your competition, you would have to pump all that soykaf out which would be incredibly expensive, construction itself would be expensive and also you would have to use much more expensive material because of more pressure. And that all isn't even the biggest problem, you cannot build it under existing buildings because of safety, so you would have to build it under roads (as it is mostly done nowadays) which would be more than probably owned by your competitor. I really don't see how you would go around it. And even if some competitor would do it what if the situation just repeats, you cannot build infinite number of sewage systems. Unless you would build some Muskian HyperShitLoop or something. >>27494 >It wouldn't be solved at all. If you're looking for realistic solutions to real-world problems that provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of people, you won't find it in the dog-eat-dog world of ancap philosophy. I guess...

>>27496 >so you would have to build it under roads (as it is mostly done nowadays) which would be more than probably owned by your competitor. Whose competitor? If you are mentioning the company that also handles the sewers, then why would it "probably" be owned by them? It is much more likely that the company owning the road is not the same one that constructs/maintains it. The owner doesn't even have to be a company, it could be a person in the community. Besides, how do you expect new people to join your system if it is unfair? The most likely scenario is that everyone moves and eventually you will have a useless sewage system that you have to take care of unless you want someone else to seize it. However, I will admit that I don't know that much about sewers and probably eventually I will have to admit defeat if the argument continues. However, the state has the ability to literally do the same since it enforces monopoly, and yet it (normally) doesn't. Since it cannot be out of goodwill, I certainly ask myself the reason for that. >>27494 If you have nothing of substance to add, kindly avoid posting, or at least sage your post.

>>27498 >why would it "probably" be owned by them? because those who own land own even the above and below, also I'm not talking about those who constructs/maintains it but about the owner, the private entity, if it's company or person it doesn't really matter in the context >The most likely scenario is that everyone moves and eventually you will have a useless sewage system that you have to take care of unless you want someone else to seize it. Yeah, moving somewhere else could cause problems to some people because of their job or something, but it would force the owner of sewage system to change their policies. so yeah in the end it would solve itself I guess thanks for your perspective >I will have to admit defeat if the argument continues. hey I'm not trying to win some debate here or something, I might not agree with ancap ideology but it definitely is interesting and worth exploring, it's always good to get different perspectives and ideas > However, the state has the ability to literally do the same since it enforces monopoly, and yet it (normally) doesn't. Since it cannot be out of goodwill, I certainly ask myself the reason for that. State shouldn't pursue profit and it should provide service to people, so the motivation should be quite different and indeed they should do it out of goodwill or whatever. The reality is very often (if not always) different and they do it so people would vote for them in next elections and they could get more of taxpayer money for themselves.

>>27499 >The reality is very often (if not always) different and they do it so people would vote for them in next elections and they could get more of taxpayer money for themselves. I feel strongly that (both direct and modern) democracy in itself encourages that kind of behavior, people that want a position of power and are capable of lying/concealing their true motives will inevitably want to get into the government and often do so because of the democratic model. Besides, if you have any opposition you can say that they simply are against the will of the population, so in a way democracy not only encourages but validates that kind of behavior in the eyes of the population. >hey I'm not trying to win some debate here or something, I might not agree with ancap ideology but it definitely is interesting and worth exploring, it's always good to get different perspectives and ideas My bad, although I tend to be as agreeable as possible (if that's the right term) I usually end up thinking about talks involving politics as debates. It was nice talking with you, but I fear this will be my last post for now since having long discussions kinda burns me out.

>>27489 >What if that private entity will raise prices too much, That wouldn't happen for the same reason Walmart doesn't charge you $100 to use their bathroom. People will just leave and now your investment is worthless. >Same problem comes with roads and highways, would you just build new roads next to existing ones? Again the people on the other end of the road have an incentive to keep it maintained and free/cheap to use otherwise nobody will visit and trade with them and everything they've built on that end of the road will be worthless. None of these arguments are specific to anarchy. Governments don't build roads and sewers for the lulz. When Walmart builds a store then they need roads so people can get to it. Statism vs anarchy is not roads vs no roads. It's who pays for the roads? Taxpayers or Walmart? Hilariously there are plenty of anti-corporate lefty types who unironically argue for the former. >>27474 >than why are people in US so much more unhealthy compare to EU? Because US healthcare is a crony system? Doctors/patients charge whatever they want to insurance companies and then insurance is guaranteed income because of government regulations. >>27473 >you can work extra hours, but your employer has to pay you more In other words it's cheaper for your employer to give the work to someone else. So the government is making you poorer for no reason. >also your employer cannot fire you for not wanting to work extra hours This is also harmful because anything that makes it harder for companies to fire you also makes it harder to get a job in the first place and lowers salaries because you don't want to offer a high salary and then find out the person is useless and you can't get rid of them.

Can someone explain why we aren't currently living in a post ancap society? I don't see why, assuming every state is immediately dissolved and crime rates remain stable (or even drop), people wouldn't over generations amass wealth legitimately and without aggression. It's concievable to me that someone (maybe even a family) could own land the size of a nation, at which point they'd have all the rights current public governments claim over whomever lives on their property, right? They could pay and staff their own military police forces, they could issue currencies and collect taxes, since they own the land, they just own a lot of it. Why is anarcho capitalism not the feudalism of europe or japan, in an earlier state before wealth crystalized into small populations who held the majority of property rights?

>>27506 You're asking why can't a big corporation turn itself into a government? Because anarcho-capitalism means people who believe in the non-aggression principle. If you try to force a government on them they will leave your area of control. If you prevent them from leaving then now you have a fight with a highly armed and belligerent population.

>>27508 poor people can sure defend themselves with firearms against fuarrrking McAirStrike™

>>27508 Yes, that is what I'm asking. So your answer is that they may leave if they wish, they can't be held there. The way I understand ancap thought, a government can be instituted in a completely "non aggressive" way; meaning it can be implemented without infringing on anyones property rights. Ultimately I have a right to decide if firearms are permitted on my property right? I also have a right to decide if firearms can be sold on my property, right?

>>27510 >So your answer is that they may leave if they wish My full answer is that ancaps are ancaps because they don't want government. So if you try to build a government they will leave or fight. >a government can be instituted in a completely "non aggressive" way What do you think a government is? >Ultimately I have a right to decide if firearms are permitted on my property right? I also have a right to decide if firearms can be sold on my property, right? Sure if you roll up to Walmart with an AR-15 then Walmart can tell you to take a hike. That doesn't make Walmart a government though.

>>27509 You're going to airstrike your own city? Must be a Biden voter

>>27512 just use my iDrone for precise strike and then hang their children as an exemplary punishment

>>27511 >So if you try to build a government they will leave or fight. This makes sense to me, thank you. >What do you think a government is? I haven't really thought about what the definition should be, I suppose a sovereign organization. This isn't a very interesting answer to your question though, since it's no novel idea for a sovereign organization to develop in an ancap society. Instead, I'll ask this, because I think it's a better way to ask my original question. Do you think the "current sate of the world" could follow from a "state of idealistic anarcho capitalism", assuming the motivation to make that transition exists in the population? By "current state of the world", I mean a globe dominated by oppresive nation states; with a ideological makeup similar to present day. By "state of idealistic anarcho capitalism", I mean a globe covered in societies configured in an anarcho-capitalist fasion. Lets say crime is negligible, and the non aggression principle is observed globally to virtual perfection, including during the transition. I have a hard time thinking the answer is no, and I'm curious what people who are more knowledgable about ancap think.

>>27512 the last country that actually did that was somalia during the 80s, we're going in a great direction

>>27508 >If you prevent them from leaving then now you have a fight with a highly armed and belligerent population. The idea that everyone should be armed and prepared to fight corpotanks and copro f-35s and the whole idea of private property and individualism under anti-statism ideology seems to imply eugenics. I can see why some call you nazis.

>>27514 >This isn't a very interesting answer to your question though It's important to think about what government is if you want to talk about it. Anarchists (left and right) say that government is a group with a monopoly on violence in a geographic area. That is government agents can take your soykaf (taxes) and kidnap you (prison) and kill you (death penalty) and there's nothing you can do about it. So the anarchist view is that government is incompatible with the non-aggression principle since it can't exist without initiating force against citizens. >Do you think the "current sate of the world" could follow from a "state of idealistic anarcho capitalism", assuming the motivation to make that transition exists in the population? The current state of the world does not include free markets or the non-aggression principle. SO people would have to give up on the ideas of free markets and non-aggression principle to get to where we are now. The point of the liberty movement is to reignite those ideas. And anarcho-capitalism is not the purpose it is only the (most popular) conclusion of those ideas. >>27524 >everyone I don't like is a nazi Ok dude.

>>27525 >>everyone I don't like is a nazi >Ok dude. holy soykaf, did you intentionally misunderstand what I wrote or did you just ignore that part where I explained how ancap ideology implies eugenic views? I mean even ancap daddy Rothbard was advocating for leaving handicapped child die by not providing food or water to them. If that doesn't sound like eugenics than I don't know what does. And eugenics is base for fascism and nazism. So I can understand why some people might view ancaps as just nazis larping. If you don't agree with those views than cool and if you do than please try to explain why you think that it's not eugenics or why you think eugenic views aren't bad.

>>27526 >did you just ignore that part where I explained how ancap ideology implies eugenic views? You didn't explain anything. You just said ancap --> eugenics --> nazis as if that was an actual argument. Let me help you out >Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population, historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior. Killing, sterilizing or otherwise preventing a person from procreation is a violation of the non-aggression principle. >I can understand why some people might... Pretending that imaginary people agree with you doesn't make your words any less bullshit.

>>27526 the difference is active murdering what you deem defect vs simply not helping. eugenics is the first while the later is just natural selection.

>>27526 >communism allows abortions >women can abort handicapped children >muh eugenics >commies are nazis t. galaxybrain lainchan poster

>>27498 >If you have nothing of substance to add, kindly avoid posting, or at least sage your post. I do have something to add: the observation that ancaps are essentially just LARPing for the lifestyle of Antebellum-America slaveowners.

>>27530 >the difference is active murdering what you deem defect vs simply not helping. eugenics is the first while the later is just natural selection. Is it for their own good? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX01h1P3p-s

>>27536 Unironically yes. The cost of running a hospital is high and if they simply accepted anyone they would run out of money and close down which would result in nobody getting treated anymore. Larping as samaritans is a privilege of those at the bottom who hold no responsibility, at least the director has to run it like a psychopath. This clip is another writer stereotypical ignorant of the subject hes trying to depict or intentionally misleading to appease the viewer.

>>27530 >>27536 You guys are still missing the point. If you want to help then help. If you don't want to help then don't help. The point is nobody is forcing you to act either way. If the only reason you help people is because the government forces you to then that's just your soykafty personality isn't it.

>>27535 >ancaps are essentially just LARPing for the lifestyle of Antebellum-America slaveowners. Slavery is against the non-aggression principle. >I do have something to add... Nobody is fooled dude. You are obviously the same person.

>The state doesn't build sewage systems, nor do they project them. They pay for a company to do both for them, there is no reason why we should pay them for being a middleman to something that we could have done ourselves. Unless you are talking about classical anarchism, then that would be a problem. But in the practical sense? Like it was stated: >>What state enables the existence of states? >Military power, mutually assured destruction, diplomatic relations. If you have some Ancap network of people that wants to live the ancap way you need to seize territory and build the ancap state? Either by military power, political dealing or financial capital, it's all just various ways of force projection. Now the previous holder of the territory might have dealt with some company likely connected to the state that built the infrastructure but does your Ancap network have access to that expertise? If you're designated a terrorist organization just hiring a company might be difficult, even if you were considered just a separate state hiring a foreign company might still present difficulties. Beyond just pushing for slight free market reforms in the current state that would allow people to buy cheese from their neighbor, do the ancaps have any practical plans to implement anarcho-capitalism? If not then why would the definition of anarcho-capitalism really matter, shouldn't we consider this non-state actor just in their actual political effect rather than their self-perception?

>>27566 >do the ancaps have any practical plans to implement anarcho-capitalism? You've already been told. Top down approach is to assume democratic control of an existing state and secede or dismantle it. Bottom up approach is to simply stop paying taxes and ignore the existing state. Both require widespread adoption of liberty ideals by people. >why would the definition of anarcho-capitalism really matter The philosophy doesn't disappear just because you don't think the end goal is "practical" or whatever.

A lot of people here have such a poor understanding of anarchism. Anarchism is the war of all against all. It does not have plans for what society ought to be; it is not a normative or a perceptive theory. It merely describes, ultimately, that your ability to use brawn or your wit determines what you are capable of in this world. The anarchist avoids the idealistic notions of future world on a planned, rational or logic basis on the simple biological fact that human essence can be defined under a trans historical theory. Socialists like Bakunin, Proudhon, and Kropotkin were the marxian degeneration of anarchism who made the mistake of attempting to make anarchism a popular movement for the paupers when it was never meant for people meant to be slaves. These days anarchism is just clerical liberalism who's retardants march around as the saviors of humanity instead of being an anarchist by showing the world what you have to offer. Bonnie and Clyde knew more about anarchism then some dweebie college student high off breadtube twitter metrics. Politics is for power. If you want political power, if you want the world you desire, you actually have to work for it - that doesn't happen on the internet by talking to slacktivists. Get off your ass, and concentrate your forces around people who are actually taking the initiative to make your beliefs a reality.

>>27312 I didn't say that the LTV doesn't solve economic problems. I said that its goal isn't to solve the kind of water bottle problem the other anon talked about. It does propose explanations about other things, like the equilibrium price of commodities for example.

>>27593 I second this. That isnt to say that anarchism per se is incompatible with planning or logic, but at the end of that theres always gonna be some awareness of the underlying chaos. In many ways i think the modern world is so "successful" because it gives the illusion of a stable controlled system, which is a painfully obvious facade and completely broken, people find the idea that there is an uncontrollable, wild and unknown world scary. I also find the idea of property and currency absurd. The only thing a true anarchist acknowledges is causality and chaos, there is only things happening and consequences thereof. Money and property are just means to gain control over people, to wrap them up into believing fake concepts as their reality. This has been the case for centuries, even millenia perhaps and the ones that print and control the financial system are very good at using it. After all who owns the earth, the sunlight, the water, property is just a label someone uses to as a first line of maintaining control over something, but if i violate it i have to face the potential consequences, that is all there is to it. Might makes right is the ultimate statement and property, like everything else, is ultimately enforced by physical violence. Once i can evade or even counter this system, there is nothing stopping me from claiming it as my own and anyone who disagrees gets it. Laws and systems dont protect anyone except the ones who take advantage of them, the state has and will without impunity break their own laws, most people just arent aware of how prevailant this is, if they would they might consider joining the right side. I just dont see how currency of any kind is not just a scam in order to control a economic venue or just a means to subjugate things into a limited system, it just all seems so contrary to the spirit of anarchy.

>>27593 >>27596 By this standard it seems that any project, political or not, is compatible with anarchism, as long as it's done a la Bonnie and Clyde. A more accurate and historical view would be to define it as an anti-state, anti-capitalist (and anti-authority in general) political tradition, of which Bakunin, Proudhon and Kropotkin are prime theorists, whether you like it or not.

>>27596 >causality and chaos literally mutually exclusive

>>27593 >A lot of people here have such a poor understanding of anarchism. And what books on anarchism have you read exactly? >Anarchism is the war of all against all. Unless you're enlightened enough to understand that war is a waste of resources and voluntary cooperation is better for everyone involved. >your ability to use brawn or your wit determines what you are capable of in this world How can it be any other way? >>27594 >the equilibrium price of commodities for example Ok what is the equilibrium price of commodities and how does LTV apply?

>>27596 >I just dont see how currency of any kind is not just a scam in order to control a economic venue or just a means to subjugate things into a limited system, Currency is just an intermediary. If I have something you want but you don't have anything I want then we can still make a trade with a commodity lots of other people want like tobacco or gold. Then you get what you want and I can trade the intermediary with someone else who does have something I want. The problem is the opposite of what you say, when currency is not scarce and is simply paper blessed by bankers. When a group of people can arbitrarily increase the money supply that's when things get screwy. But that doesn't apply to all forms of currency. >Money and property are just means to gain control over people, to wrap them up into believing fake concepts as their reality. What is the alternative? If there are no property rights and you can't provide the basic soykaf you need to stay alive like food, then you are just a slave of the people who can. Or if you are forcing those people to keep you alive despite not giving anything in return then they are your slaves. You don't see how anarchy can work with property rights. I don't see how it can work without it.

>>27612 >Ok what is the equilibrium price of commodities and how does LTV apply? It is the price that is reached when supply and demand are at equilibrium (Adam Smith would call them "natural prices"). The LTV states that what explain it is the socially necessary labor time needed to reproduce the commodity. So if A has an SNLT of one hour, and B has an SNLT of ten hours, then according to the LTV, the equilibrium price of B would be ten times the equilibrium price of A.

>>27614 >So if A has an SNLT of one hour, and B has an SNLT of ten hours, then according to the LTV, the equilibrium price of B would be ten times the equilibrium price of A. It took me 10 hours to dig this hole. That will be $150. kthx

Imagine living is such a dysfunctional society that you put more trust in self-interested private entities rather than a (supposedly) democratic government.

>>27618 Imagine thinking that government is not self-interested.

>>27616 Holes are not commodities with equilibrium prices, so I don't see how that is relevant to the LTV.

>>27116 >Marxist economics is appeals to emotion like "equality" and "fairness" and anecdotes and historic case studies. Austrian economics is just axiom + logic = conclusion. This isn't what economics is really about. It's what it pretends to be though. Every school of economics pretends to be driven by logic, mathematics and science. Even the Marxist who you so much despise, but if you surface read the works, they are pretty boring academic works that deal about production, exchange of money. It's too pretends to be all logic. There's an fundamental issue with this approach though. The first one is, that you can't reduce economics to mathematical functions. It deals with ethics too, which all economics participate in. Take the snippet about marxist exploitation. You can't prove mathematically that people aren't exploited, or that the state shouldn't tax the wealthy, or even what the interest rate should be and who should decide it. And ALL, literally ALL school of economics have their opinions it backed by equation, statistics and what not. And I can even throw historical context in here too. Because all of these schools have historic context. The reason why they use mathematics to support these statements is because during the electrification of the world it turned out that you electric equipment, be it light bulbs or generators can easily be predicted with few equations. It was all the rage at the time and everything was supposed to be rational and scientific. Even if these things don't hold relation to the real world. Like Marx not admitting that price can't just be determined by the labor that was put in because it would undermine his theory, even though he was aware of it, like Friedman who stood up as a champion of neoliberal economics saying that we can't have full employment, or even low employment, because it would drive up wages and cause inflation. And we actually have data to show that isn't true, and also that the amount of unemployment can't ever really be defined in the first place. Even today we still worry about inflation from banks printing money, even though banks have been printing billions for years now, trillions even, during times of lowest inflation in history. Second reason is that it's outright mathematically undefined how the economy and society in general will work. For the simple reason that to make an accurate prediction about the economy you need to take the effects that that predictions will make into account. It's kinda like asking if "this statement is false" is actually false. There's no defined answer to this. So in a way, I believe thinking any sort of economics is driven by reason and other by emotion is a fools errand. It's more that emotion and power of certain groups comes first and is then justified by "logic" to the others. By that I don't mean we should ditch logic and mathematics, because then it will just become what you think Marxist economics are, but we should know it's not that much different from theology too. >>27619 Not him, but I'm going to propose this. A government can represent the people while private companies can ever only represent the wealthy few.

>>27620 >Holes are not commodities with equilibrium prices What do I need to do to make my hole a commodity with an equilibrium price? >I don't see how that is relevant to the LTV It illustrates that value is not related to the work put in. >This isn't what economics is really about. Every school of economics pretends... Stopped reading here. It's clear you don't know what Auustrian economics is and you're just treating everything you don't know as the same thing. >>27621 >A government can represent the people while private companies can ever only represent the wealthy few. What's the CEO of Coke Cola going to do if tomorrow everyone switches to Pepsi? He can't force anyone to buy his product. The only thing a private company can do is make products that people want to buy. So private companies are answerable to the people in a far more direct way than government is. Oh the guy you elected president didn't follow through with any of his promises? What are you going to do, vote for the other lying kleptocract next time?

>>27625 >What do I need to do to make my hole a commodity with an equilibrium price? It's not something that you need to do. The fact is that holes are not commodities, we don't observe companies digging holes and selling them on a market for profit. >It illustrates that value is not related to the work put in. What do you mean by "value" here? If what you want to say is that people do not desire something more just because more work has been put into it, then sure, but again that's not relevant to the LTV.

>Stopped reading here. It's clear you don't know what Auustrian economics is and you're just treating everything you don't know as the same thing. Well, I don't know what's the point of having a discussion if you don't even read people's arguments. Or maybe you do, but you just can't say anything meaningful to them. >>27625 >What's the CEO of Coke Cola going to do if tomorrow everyone switches to Pepsi? He can't force anyone to buy his product. The only thing a private company can do is make products that people want to buy. The person who has enough money to produce coca cola, also has enough money to hire teams of skilled analysist, artist, psychologist who make sure that that product is bought. He also has enough money to buy pepsi cola, since in a share market the person who can buy the most shares is the one that has the most money. So it enforces itself. > Oh the guy you elected president didn't follow through with any of his promises? What are you going to do, vote for the other lying kleptocract next time? What can I do against google? What can I do against amazon? Or any other corporation for that matter? No one has enough money to compete with firms who get money from banks and venture capitalist, and if they do, they can be bought. Who is there to stop them? >Oh the guy you elected president didn't follow through with any of his promises? If you knew some history you would know that elections weren't made to give people democracy, but were a way for select few to justify their rule based on that they will be chosen by merit. I don't want elections, since they aren't democratic in my eyes. I want some form of democratic power that's can hold people in charge of policy making in hands of the regular people.

>>27631 >we don't observe companies digging holes and selling them on a market for profit. Why not? There is something missing in your explanation. You've haven't defined what is different between the work I did digging a hole and the work someone else did to be "relevant" to LTV. >>27633 >The person who has enough money to produce coca cola, also has enough money to hire teams of skilled analysist, artist, psychologist who make sure that that product is bought. Is your argument that if they had stuck with new Coke which no one liked instead of going back to Coke classic they still would have magically made money because reasons? >What can I do against google? What can I do against amazon? Don't use their products. Sure there's nothing you can do as an individual. But that's not because it's you vs Google. It's you vs 1.000.000.000 other people who use Google. You're simply outvoted. You didn't answer this question, if everyone stops using Google what are they going to do? Come to your house with a gun and force you? Only the government can do that. >lecturing an anarchist on how democratic elections suck Ok dude. >I want some form of democratic power that's can hold people in charge of policy making in hands of the regular people. What have you found so far?

>>27646 >Why not? Because there isn't any. If you can point out to a company like that I would be interested in seeing it.

>>27649 >Because there isn't any. Why not though? Your definition of LTV doesn't explain.

>>27646 >Is your argument that if they had stuck with new Coke which no one liked instead of going back to Coke classic they still would have magically made money because reasons? Would't word it that way, but in large part yes. That does happen. Because for the choice like you think to exist you need competitive markets, the issue is like I explained, advocating for open markets also eats open markets up and leaves you up with these giant megacorps that don't have that much competition. It's why airlines roughly cost the same since majority are owned by one or two companies. And I also believe that demand is in part engineered and not from something natural. Because at the start of 20th century you had people in suits worried how are they going to sell products if everything is already sold. Because how much phones does a person need? How much cans of soup? It's not that much. They then began selling products not as just a product, but also some hidden wish fulfillment. You saw ads go from a bland picture of grapes to grapes being eaten by a group of friends, or maybe some beautiful women or family. Actually there is even data that most people end up looking a product up more after a purchase than they did before. >Don't use their products. I don't, but even then I'm slowly forced into it. Google for instance is documented to slow down other browsers and make sites only work correctly on chrome. Which is just plain anti competitive behavior. You can't talk about freedom when my choices are getting dictated by some people in suits who by design are always going to end up with great control over the many. >Come to your house with a gun and force you? I think subtly forcing someone into something is more cruel in a way than just storming a house with a gun. with a gun on the doorstep you have a clear enemy who restricts freedom. While what's happening today is like boiling a frog in water. By the time it realizes what is happening it might be to late. >lecturing an anarchist I would have issue calling someone who restricts others freedom for the freedom of the shareholders to be an anarchist. >What have you found so far? Probably many things. An easy answer would be something like Athenian democracy. Which would give people direct control over their lives and not force them into situations they only are in because they have no other choice.

>>27650 >Why not though? Are you asking why there are no companies digging holes and selling them on a market for profit? I would say that it's because it wouldn't sell at all. But again I don't see the relevance of that.

>>27653 >Would't word it that way, but in large part yes. So on the flip side you are saying once a company gets to a certain size it is impossible to fail? That has never happened? >They then began selling products not as just a product, but also some hidden wish fulfillment. So they sell an emotional experience. That doesn't change the issue. You can't sell something to someone who doesn't want to buy it. >Google for instance is documented to slow down other browsers and make sites only work correctly on chrome. I don't understand, the whole point was to avoid using google services anyway. That should include their websites. >An easy answer would be something like Athenian democracy. Which would give people direct control over their lives and not force them into situations they only are in because they have no other choice. What specifically about Athenian democracy? Only native born men who have done military service are allowed to vote? >someone who restricts others freedom How do you figure that exactly? >>27654 >I would say that it's because it wouldn't sell at all. But again I don't see the relevance of that. You said LTV predicts that a 10 hour task will cost 10x more than a 1 hour task. But if I dig a hole for 10 hours that is worth nothing. So your definition is incomplete. I am asking for you to finish your explanation if you can

>>27655 >So on the flip side you are saying once a company gets to a certain size it is impossible to fail? That has never happened? The big ones who actually own the majority? Yes, for all intents and purposes they are too large to fail. >So they sell an emotional experience. That doesn't change the issue. You can't sell something to someone who doesn't want to buy it. By that point you can create demand for everything by carefully manipulating people. Hiding and showing certain info, and whatnot. So the whole idea of demand is taken care of. > the whole point was to avoid using google services anyway. What if i'm forced to use a google service cause fork demands it? Or what if I'm in need to watch a video that's only available on youtube since it too has more or less a video monopoly. And I could use different services in the past because they existed. Now majority of the internet is owned by few corporations. >What specifically about Athenian democracy? Only native born men who have done military service are allowed to vote? That's what I needed to hear. When someone creates such straw man, I not only know that he himself can't no longer come up with anything worthwhile to say, he also isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. and to answer the question you had for the other guy before I leave >You said LTV predicts that a 10 hour task will cost 10x more than a 1 hour task. But if I dig a hole for 10 hours that is worth nothing. The LTV says that work that is in demand will take that much. No one was actually foolish enough to think that digging holes in the backyard will get you paid anything. You can make such strawmans of every economic theory, and to revert it to you, do you think that commodities would have value without labor? If you could manifest everything you wanted with a snap of your fingers what would be a worth of it? It's a very silly question, but it's as silly as wondering what is the value of diamond that magically appear on the ground.

>>27655 >You said LTV predicts that a 10 hour task will cost 10x more than a 1 hour task. No, I said that it predicts that the equilibrium price of a commodity would be ten times higher that the equilibrium price of another, if it takes ten times the amount of SNLT to reproduce it.

>>27613 >What is the alternative? If there are no property rights and you can't provide the basic soykaf you need to stay alive like food, then you are just a slave of the people who can. Or if you are forcing those people to keep you alive despite not giving anything in return then they are your slaves. An alternative would be to cooperate as equals to produce those basic things. It seems weird to think that the only two options are property rights or slavery.

>>27656 >The big ones who actually own the majority? Yes, for all intents and purposes they are too large to fail. We've moved the goal posts around here a little bit. Big companies take longer to fail because they have further to fall and usually pivot to something else or manage to carve out a smaller niche before they hit the bottom. In the 90s nobody could imagine a world where all cameras were not made by Nikon but here we are. They've been forced to move to industrial products and niche commercial cameras and if a tiny fraction of what it used to be. So your argument that Nikon can somehow force brainless consumers to continue buying film cameras in the age the smartphones because they have lots of money or whatever and can just trick people into buying inferior products is not consistent with reality. >By that point you can create demand for everything by carefully manipulating people. Even if you believe humans are animals with no self control and can just be manipulated into buying whatever, you still need to take into account competition among the sellers. If people are as easy to manipulate as you think then there is no reason why one company would have an advantage over the others. >what if I'm in need to watch a video that's only available on youtube Bitch that's like saying you are "forced" to use McDonalds because only they have big macs. >When someone creates such straw man... It was in invitation for you to elaborate your position. It even had a question mark at the end. Just to be clear you are refusing to elaborate and going with personal attacks instead? Hopefully you've calmed down by now

>>27718 >So your argument that Nikon can somehow force brainless consumers to continue buying film cameras in the age the smartphones because they have lots of money or whatever and can just trick people into buying inferior products is not consistent with reality. I would like to point out that capitalism relies on the fantasy of infinite economic growth, which may or may not be something you have considered.

>>27658 >No, I said that it predicts that the equilibrium price of a commodity And then you couldn't explain what "equilibrium price of a commodity" means and why the hole I dug for you doesn't count. If you're saying a rule only applies in some circumstances but you can't predict what those circumstances are then that's a pretty useless rule. That's just painting the bullseye around the bullethole. >>27716 >An alternative would be to cooperate as equals to produce those basic things. OK but here's an example. You live by the water and eat fish. You make a net from jungle vines to catch fish more efficiently. Someone takes your net because fuarrrk property rights. He breaks it because he doesn't understand how to use it, he doesn't appreciate how hard it was to make, or he's just a jerk. So you sigh and make another one. The same thing happens again. How many times do you try again before you just say fuarrrk it and stop wasting your labor? The slavery part comes in when the tribe decides you need to keep making nets for them. Now you are a slave because you are forced to expend work for other people's benefit. Or, you spent all day making a net and someone takes it before you have caught anything with it. Now you need to beg someone else for food. i.e. someone needs to expend work to catch a fish and then give it to you so you can stay alive. Since there is no property rights you can't trade anything for the fish, not even the net you spent all day working on. You are still a slave because you literally live or die depending on someone else's arbitrary whim. To be equals there needs to be a mutual exchange, not just one one person gives and another person takes. And to have mutual exchange you need to be able to control who has access to the product of your labor (property rights). i.e. the guy who made the net owns the net and the guy who caught the fish owns the fish. Now when they trade they do it as equals because both sides are bringing something to the table. >It seems weird to think that the only two options are property rights or slavery. This is the fundamental left vs right economic divide. You either have property rights or you don't. The left thinks that property rights inevitably leads to slavery and the right thinks that absence of property rights inevitably leads to slavery.

>>27721 >I would like to point out that capitalism relies on the fantasy of infinite economic growth Yes this is another left vs right chasm. The left thinks the wealth is zero sum and the right doesn't. Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services. When two people volunteer to an exchange then both sides walk away better off than they were before. That's what the right means by increasing wealth.

>>27724 >And then you couldn't explain what "equilibrium price of a commodity" means Here : >>27614 >It is the price that is reached when supply and demand are at equilibrium Currently there are no supply or demand for holes, so I don't see how we could figure out its equilibrium price. >OK but here's an example. You live by the water and eat fish. You make a net from jungle vines to catch fish more efficiently. Someone takes your net because fuarrrk property rights. That's not cooperation, but in this scenario I don't see why I couldn't stop the person from taking the net. >To be equals there needs to be a mutual exchange, not just one one person gives and another person takes. Not really, we don't see our parents as unequals despite all the labor they spent on taking care of us in our youth. Most hunter-gatherer tribes were egalitarian societies despite not practicing trade.

>>27729 >Currently there are no supply or demand for holes Well that's easy to fix. Bob's dog died so he demands a hole. I worked for 10 hours to supply a hole in your garden so now you owe me $150 right? >I don't see why I couldn't stop the person from taking the net. To stop someone using your soykaf implies property rights i.e. you own the net. >That's not cooperation What is cooperation? Take the example where you can't fish for whatever reason. Why am I supposed to sacrifice my work to keep you alive if you can't give me anything in return? (because no property rights means whatever you give me is not mine anyway). >Most hunter-gatherer tribes were egalitarian societies despite not practicing trade. That's because they had to move around to follow game so there was a limit on how much they could take with them anyway. >egalitarian You don't think they left the dude with the broken leg behind to die? You think the 50lb women were fighting lions and then men were collecting berries?

>>27729 >I don't see why I couldn't stop the person from taking the net. I guess if you're talking about communism then the person who "needs" the net more than you can take it. But that doesn't solve the fundamental problem which is that if you deny people to profit from their work then they won't do work unless forced to (they are a slave) or they feel like it (you are the slave).

>>27738 >Well that's easy to fix. Bob's dog died so he demands a hole. I worked for 10 hours to supply a hole in your garden so now you owe me $150 right? You mean that you sell the hole, or the service of digging the hole, to Bob? >To stop someone using your soykaf implies property rights i.e. you own the net. To stop the person from taking/using the net, I just need the use of force, no matter what our opinions are about who owns it. >What is cooperation? Broadly speaking, it's when several people associate and coordinate themselves in order to achieve a goal that they could not achieve alone. >Why am I supposed to sacrifice my work to keep you alive if you can't give me anything in return? I'm not sure what you mean there. I don't think you have a moral obligation to help strangers staying alive, if that's what you are asking. >You don't think they left the dude with the broken leg behind to die? You think the 50lb women were fighting lions and then men were collecting berries? Obviously they weren't egalitarians in this very strong sense of the term. >>27740 >But that doesn't solve the fundamental problem which is that if you deny people to profit from their work I don't see why one would need to believe in property rights in order to enjoy the fruits of their work.

>>27741 >You mean that you sell the hole, or the service of digging the hole, to Bob? No I sell the hole to you. There is a market for holes because Bob wants one. And it took 10 hours to make. That means you owe me $150 for the hole right? >To stop the person from taking/using the net, I just need the use of force, no matter what our opinions are about who owns it. And if the other guy is stronger then he takes it from you anyway and we're back to square one. >it's when several people associate and coordinate themselves in order to achieve a goal And what if not everyone contributes equally, how do you deal with that? How do you even measure? >I'm not sure what you mean there. I don't think you have a moral obligation to help strangers staying alive Ok but what if you are the stranger? The other guy is bigger so you can't use force. There are no property rights so you can't trade. You live or die depending on weather he feels likefeeding. Aren't you a slave in that case?

>>27742 >No I sell the hole to you. There is a market for holes because Bob wants one. That means you owe me $150 for the hole right? So in this scenario I buy you the hole for $150? >And if the other guy is stronger then he takes it from you anyway and we're back to square one. Yes and? If he's stronger than me then he's going to take it no matter if I personally believe in property rights or not. >And what if not everyone contributes equally, how do you deal with that? How do you even measure? Cooperation can happen even if not everyone contributes equally, for example in open-source projects there might be a person who adds code every week and another only every month. >Ok but what if you are the stranger? Well the same principle apply, I don't think other have a moral obligation to help me staying alive.

>>27743 >So in this scenario I buy you the hole for $150? You said LTV doesn't apply because there is no demand for holes. Bob wants a hole. So now LTV applies? Why you no buy my hole for $150? >Yes and? If he's stronger than me then he's going to take it no matter if I personally believe in property rights or not. The point is the tribe believes in property rights so they agree not to take each other's stuff. And in the counter example there is no concept of property so using force to prevent it being taken makes no sense. I can see you have trouble with taking things too literally though and missing the philosophical point.

>>27740 >I guess if you're talking about communism then the person who "needs" the net more than you can take it. By that logic no one would starve because when the fishing guy catches a fish he has to surrender it to the hungriest person. So he needs to keep catching fish until he is the person who needs the fish the most and then he can eat it.

>>27744 >You said LTV doesn't apply because there is no demand for holes. Bob wants a hole. So now LTV applies? The LTV doesn't apply because holes don't have equilibrium prices, yes. If a market for it appear and we start observing the market prices for holes, we could figure out the equilibrium price. >Why you no buy my hole for $150? Because I don't want it? I don't see how that is relevant. >The point is the tribe believes in property rights so they agree not to take each other's stuff. And how would everyone adhere to the same ownership ethics? It seems as futile as proposing that everyone become vegan. >And in the counter example there is no concept of property so using force to prevent it being taken makes no sense. It does make sense : the guy want to take the net, I don't want that to happen so I use force to prevent it. Neither me nor the guy need to make ethical claims about who should use the net for that scenario to unfold.

>>27742 >And if the other guy is stronger then he takes it from you anyway and we're back to square one. As Heinlein said, the only property that someone can really own is what they can carry in two hands at a dead run.

>>27763 >Because I don't want it? I don't see how that is relevant. So there is no room for personal preference in LTV. >And how would everyone adhere to the same ownership ethics? It's a abstract scenario for us to compare property rights vs no property rights. How you would create such a hypothetical world is not the point right now. >the guy want to take the net, I don't want that to happen In a world without property rights there is no concept of ownership. Are you going to stop someone from taking water from the river as well? What is the difference between water in the river and the net? >>27746 >he needs to keep catching fish until he is the person who needs the fish the most and then he can eat it. And that's not slavery lol?

>>27776 >So there is no room for personal preference in LTV. Yes, because the LTV isn't attempting to explain personal preferences. I don't see how that is a problem. >Are you going to stop someone from taking water from the river as well? In some situations yes, in others no, it depends on the context. >What is the difference between water in the river and the net? I made the net, I suppose that's the only difference.

>>27778 >Yes, because the LTV isn't attempting to explain personal preferences. Without personal preferences you don't explain anything though. You cannot calculate the price of my hole because whether or not you want it is more important than how much labor was used. >I made the net, I suppose that's the only difference. In other words you put work into the net therefor it's "yours". Claiming exclusive use of a thing because you made it is property rights though. We're trying to imagine a world where there is no difference between the new you made and the water in the river. Nobody owns anything. In such a world why would you make a tool just for someone else to use it?

>>27820 >In other words you put work into the net therefor it's "yours". It's only mine according to particular ethical theories of ownership. Just like animal suffering is morally problematic only according to other ethical theories. >Claiming exclusive use of a thing because you made it is property rights though. Yes, but it could be the case that one doesn't make these kind of claims ("others should ask me for consent before using that thing"), but still end up being the only one that does, in fact, use that thing. >In such a world why would you make a tool just for someone else to use it? They could make a tool in order to use the tool themselves. Or they could make it for somebody else because they have an interest in that person using it.

>>27825 >It's only mine according to particular ethical theories of ownership. Yes and for the sake of argument I'm asking you to imagine a world where different rules apply. >it it could be the case that one doesn't make these kind of claims ("others should ask me for consent before using that thing"), but still end up being the only one that does, in fact, use that thing. It's the same thing. If you can deny anybody the right to use your property then of course you can give permission too. >They could make it for somebody else because they have an interest in that person using it. If there is no property rights then you don't decide who will use it. Under the communist model the person who "needs" it most will take it. Under the might-is-right model the person who is strongest will take it. Do you understand my point though that letting the person who did work to make the thing should be the owner because that will incentivize people to do work and make things?

>>27829 >It's the same thing. No it's not. Let's imagine a person who doesn't believe in property rights and who made a tool for personal use. It could be the case that nobody is aware that they made the tool, or that some are aware of it but don't want to use it. Or that some want to use it but the person prevent them to do so. In each scenario the creator of the tool ends up being the only one using it, despite not believing that they should own it. >If there is no property rights then you don't decide who will use it. Why not? You can still move objects around and use them. >Do you understand my point though that letting the person who did work to make the thing should be the owner because that will incentivize people to do work and make things? It might incentivize people yes but I don't think the only alternative is slavery.

The CEO of Twitter posted a download link to Rothbard's 'Anatomy of the State' recently. Do you guys think it'll create any new interest in anarcho-capitalism?

>>27861 >The CEO of Twitter posted a download link to Rothbard's 'Anatomy of the State' recently. Do you guys think it'll create any new interest in anarcho-capitalism? I hope not. That soykafhead's company just deverified Danny DeVito's account because DeVito (who is based as fuarrrk) publicly supported Nabisco workers on strike.

>>27861 It looks like lainchan has blanket derezzed all Tor exits so I can't keep posting here. Try an ancap thread on any other altchan and I'll find you.

>>27942 Keep rolling exits, it's not all of them.

>>27942 Can anyone recommend any other altchans? I only know this one and crystal.cafe

>>27974 I'm fond of leftypol.org.

>>26132 Ignorant. Liar. https://abcfinance.co.uk/blog/who-owns-the-uk/

>>28053 Btw, I’m a minarchist. Just don’t lie or make soykaf up dude.

>>26126 >That's where most people on the left lean to, even the ones who claim they don't. So called "ancoms" will always side with authoritarians over ancaps. So does the "right" depending on the country unfortunately. Right and left are weird phrases. I think it should be authority/anti-authority, then government "help" vs less.

>>28123 >So does the "right" depending on the country unfortunately. Right and left are weird phrases. I think it should be authority/anti-authority, then government "help" vs less. The real divide is working class/ruling class. Any other labels are just a means of dividing the former against themselves to serve the purposes of the latter.