Anacho capitalist thread

I've really triggered them

youtube.com/watch?v=f6E4aC8lc5A

Post memes

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
mises.org/library/children-and-rights
youtube.com/watch?v=0EyoKB3ZHSc
youtube.com/watch?v=vrbjgBwCPDA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>child sex slaves

why does ancap scenarios always have the very worst and most repulsive posibilities?

They don't even seem to think how this could happen. You can literally form a country in anarcho-capitalism by buying land in a circle around an area and restrict imports until people are forced to sell you their land so they can eat.

...

>2016
>not being neo fudelist

disgusting

>supporting nobles
>In the current year

>it's okay when the government does it

t. statist lackey

>not being a noble
>year one of the holy neo-feudal calendar
pleb

>being pure of birth
>needing the state to prop you up

Nobles can carve their own path if they're so great.

>it's ok when private companies do it though!

GTFO

Can somebody be a bro and paste a textless ancap face on white background for us creative but lazy few?

...

...

i tried

...

kek

...

These are hilarious, but rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of fundamental ancap principles.

...

...

...

When are you building the roads to get to my job ?

>These are hilarious, but rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of fundamental ancap principles

"No one but me understands anarcho-capitalism" another meme, faggot.

Okay, now you're overdoing it. I don't know guys, these last two aren't as funny.

You gotta actually make them somewhat plausible I think.

When we get 7883 different landowning fiefdoms to agree on the terms required to grant access rights to build a road that doesn't violate the NAP.

So never.

These are fun to make but I feel like im not funny enough, anyone know that twitter that has a bunch of these?

...

youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

Anarcho-Capitalism IS TYRANNY

ANCAPS
BTFO
T
F
O

It's a pretty obvious misunderstanding though. The nap doesn't let you escalate to lethal force over minor issues. In that situation, you actually become the aggressor.

They were never funny. Stop fuelling these retards by saying "tee hee. I'm ancap but I giggled".
For the past few months (((they've))) been shutting down any libertarian/ancap discussion by posting these asinine images. If you encourage these people to continue posting then you're basically a race/ideology-traitor.

>In a world, where the entire legal system is based on after the fact lawsuits settled in voluntary legal tribunals.

"I don't agree to meet in the private arbitration body, as I do not voluntarily recognize it's legitimacy."

Now what?

Lol, pretending Ancap isn't the most jewish ideology outside of Zionism.

Extreme individualism is dangerous, because it requires people give up the protection of tribal associations based on blood relations so that they may be plundered by foreign merchants.

Nobody does business with you and you starve.

...

reductio ad absurdum

CTR shill detected

Pretending you can start a boycott of an indivudal when there's money to be made off my monopoly on heroin and child sex slaves.

>my voluntary non-state state has laws that ban anarchism and rephrase NAPs to whatever the non-state state claims

This is irrelevant anyway because it would take like two weeks before the formation of the iMcGoogle™ empire.

...

Kek m8, my living sex toddler dolls can't be found anywhere this side of town, now pay or bust nigger.

The fundamental issue with the NAP is that it's a retarded circular logic meme that implies humans can be organized without the threat of force. Force that pretty much always morphs into a state.

Literally what is even going to hold le ancap paradise together and prevent a violent state?

"Everybody agrees on NAP bro"

That's fucking retarded because just like every other ideology ever, if everyone agreed with it and acted accordingly we wouldn't have any goddamn problems in the world in the first place. Violent niggers rioting in Charlotte aren't going to give a fuck about NAP, lower middle class basic ass white girls bussing at TGIF waiting to blow all their tips on the iPhone2309482348924 don't give a fuck about the NAP, your grandmother doesn't even give a fuck about NAP. These people need to be jackbooted into line otherwise they will act 200 proof retarded and ruin everything, that is why the state will always exist if you want to organize humans.

This would be a kindergarten tier refutation of any other idea but it actually works against ancaps.

Fucking this, anarcho-capitalists are like children because they don't understand this.

>Tfw he actually said this

mises.org/library/children-and-rights

why do people even like this dude? he has a cult-like following

He just mumbles and then says stupid shit like: "At least with state control the people get some kind of say in the matter"

HURR DURR consumers have no power over private businesses

That was pretty good!

Not only that but it assumes that winners at the capital accumulation game wouldn't rig the rules in their favor.

As in the example of rejecting a voluntary court because they have enough market leverage that no one is going to stop buying and selling their McHeroin.

Basically once someone wins big enough at the swindling game, they become a feudal lord with complete Pater Familias powers over life and death of the serfs that sell their labor for food on the new nobility's manors.

Oh there's also lots and lots of child fucking.

in An Anarcho-Syndicate formed society, the means of production are controlled directly by those who produce it. There is only the barter and trade of goods and service for other goods and services. This abolishes wage-laborer or wage-slaves that an AnCap society needs to bring back feudalism.

Anarcho anything is fucking retarded

Trying to use capitalism or any economic system is also retarded.

Libertarians read a little econ, fail to realize it is a value-neutral discipline, and then immediately set out to jump the Is-Ought Gap like Evel Knievel trying to jump the a Grand Canyon on a tricycle. All with predictable results.

Anarcho-capitalism is thus doubly retarded.

Trying to use any economic system as a basis for a values system...

Top kek

>It's OK when private property owners do it
t. Bootlicker

Because the predictable outcome of unregulated human depravity.

Memes of other anarchy forms pls

Do you guys make these memes by yourselves? there must be one OG comedian that creates the context for you faggots to save them.

Fucking A+ bantz non the less

...

Naturally you don't pull the lever as NAP is what this great nation is founded upon

My personal favorite

I've been churning out anti-ancap OC for awhile now, and saving other people's top bantz.

Fuck their degenerate jewish anti-goy solidarity propaganda.

Because these people have no idea what they are talking about.

Untrue. They have already homesteaded a path in and out of the property. If you wall them off you are initiating force.

...

What if you purchase the path? I thought in anarcho-capitalism you had the right to do with your property as you willed?

Good luck enforcing your rights over that road/path.

this one slays me

It's a good one, it underlies the basic fact that libertarians can never escape.

Which is that property ownership is a creation of the state, and does not exist in a state of nature.

>They have already homesteaded a path in and out of the property.

It's not tresspassing, it's homesteading!

Libertarians have wierd polymorphic definitions of words that always seem to benefit their own arguments.

Funny how that works.

Thats the joke

Because this already happens even with laws against it and even though people have been taught it's wrong.

They literally have a nigger tier solution for the problems of child exploitation.

1. Stop recording it as criminal (parents own their children and not the state so they can fuck/sell them.)
2. The man is repressin' me an sheeit
2. ?????
3. Child sex slaves!

You can build on your property but you cannot completely surround someone else. They have homesteaded the right walk into/off of their property.

You need to understand what homesteading is before you start to argue. Back when England, Ireland, Iceland, ect used a common law system they never ran into issues of people being entrapped on their property because it violates the homestead principle.

Parents do not own their children. Rothbard made that argument in some contexts but it is rejected by most libertarians.

Yes, but from what I can tell the homestead principle still allows you to sell the resource you have appropriated to somebody else.

Doesn't that mean that you can still buy that land and encircle other land?

Sick. Yep, many people would still cater to the wealthy in an anarco-capitalist state even if a wealthy guy did have child sex slaves.

Really you just need to think of ancapism as common law instead of civil law. Any obvious violation of rights like that, even if it seems compliant with the NAP, would never be upheld in common law.

why not? who would stop those two parties making that mutual exchange?

Nothing will stop two people from selling their own property. If you imprison a third party though they are not a voluntary participant

Agreed.

Left-wing cartoons with the Elephant and the Donkey serving the "fat cat" can be recontextualised as an ancap being served by his genetically engineered property.

You're not going to get anywhere with this. These people are too stupid to reason with.

If you think I am just making things up you can look how common law handled this situation for hundreds of years in England, Ireland, Iceland, ect. It is all very consistent.

So, basically, you're saying that these two people cannot complete a voluntary transaction because somebody that neither owns the property nor is buying the property will be affected?

Who would enforce this that is more powerful than the person building a sodding great wall around a large amount of land?

That's totally incorrect.
Ancap is properly a full and rigid doctrine.
Just saying "NAP doesn't matter if "muh rights" are violated" isn't Ancap, it's SJW. The whole point of Ancap is that mutually agreed contracts, when given absolute free reign, do things better than any forced intervention when there's no "NAP" violation. It's different than minarchism because they view the state as not being excepted from NAP.

"Common law" isn't ancap, idiot.

...

where is the part where you argue in favor of the state? because from where I sit people go to jail for murdering pedohiles and child slave traffickers

thats pretty nigger tier

but you know whats really stupid? libertarians and nazis arguing on Cred Forums before the election is over. we will have all the time in the world dummies someone go make a stonetear or google thread

look at what libertarians and nazis uniting has done to her

youtube.com/watch?v=0EyoKB3ZHSc

shes fucking unhinged

>So, basically, you're saying that these two people cannot complete a voluntary transaction
They can complete the transaction. I have stated that many times. Once the property is sold though, you can't use your property to imprison someone else without their consent.

>Who would enforce this that is more powerful than the person building a sodding great wall around a large amount of land?
The courts/DROs

>"Common law" isn't ancap, idiot.
That is pretty much all it is. Law formed without through the courts without government. Obviously there is the focus on private property rights but that has been a mainstay in every major common law system in history. NAP isn't even a rule that a lot of ancaps agree on.

you really think we need a state to enforce easements?

lol brits are too far gone I swear

So then, somebody isn't completely free to do with their land as they please? Doesn't sound very liberal to me.

If somebody is even attempting to surround something like a large city I think they will probably have the might to defy private courts.

We are talking about a case with an extremely powerful landowner who probably has the capital to resist a private court.

...

>So then, somebody isn't completely free to do with their land as they please? Doesn't sound very liberal to me.
Not entirely, no. You have misunderstood ancapism if that is what you think. Stop listening to the memes so much.

>If somebody is even attempting to surround something like a large city I think they will probably have the might to defy private courts.
What happens if someone is more powerful than a government? Maybe government x violates government y. Every problem with power/corruption still exists even with governments. It is usually more disastrous though because it leads to full blown wars between countries, whereas in ancapistan it would be a much more minor conflict.

Alright then.

Yes, I can see there being much more low level conflict though, somewhat like occurred during the middle ages.

You will have a lot more entities capable of waging wars in ancapistan since all those millionaires and billionaires can hire their own armies.

>We are talking about a case with an extremely powerful landowner who probably has the capital to resist a private court.

then you aren't making an argument FOR statism (switch "private" for "supreme"), which is what an ancap cares about. why do you think they are ancaps!

I don't see how being ancap prevents this, it would still exist.

...

ancap doesn't jail people for "social contract violation"

statism does

so you not only have NO argument from statism, you're asking everyone to just accept that, and oh yeah pay 35% of all your economic activity in taxes

and thats why people become ancaps. all the arguments against just add to the fact that neither does a taxing entity

Well, if you go on somebody's land and you violate their rules (a social contract?) then they can punish you for breach of contract, can't they?

>Not being in a Lich-based republic/monarchy

There are fairly cheap ways to take out people like that though. Any DRO or court could just put a bounty on his head and essentially the whole world would be against him. This includes any "mercenary" type soldiers without a lot of loyalty, or anyone he comes into contact with.

The landowner could offer to pay those same soldiers double to deal with the DRO.

Great start to the video, he obviously identifies with the bullied kid because he's the typical frail pencil necked libertaritron posting on reason.com from behind a cloud of pot smoke.

ikr lol

Another thing is that currently we billionaires who could afford to conquer smaller countries if they wanted to. It generally doesn't happen for a few reasons though. First it is really not profitable, but second a lot of people would refuse to do business with a warlord/dictator and they would lose money that way.

That would require a lot of money though. They have to pay each soldier more than what they would get from the bounty. And since the DRO can include assets that they seize from the millionaire/billionaire towards the bounty, it is essentially impossible to do. This is also ignoring the fact that most people would see the guy as evil or as a threat and would generally side with the courts anyway, bounty or not.

I'll add to that while they do not conquer countries, it is much, much easier and more profitable to simply control the governments. That is what is happening now in a lot of places.

>You need to understand what homesteading is before you start to argue. Back when England, Ireland, Iceland, ect used a common law system they never ran into issues of people being entrapped on their property because it violates the homestead principle.

I am making the argument that libertarianism is essentially a political system that can only exist in a state of nature, which is not what we were talking about.

Their entire ideology is just exegerated thought experiments

>because from where I sit people go to jail for murdering pedohiles and child slave traffickers

As well they should. Murder is murder and justice is justice and if you don't understand the difference then you are too morally retarded to consider a serious discussion with.

True believer libertarians are not particularly interested in society. The end of libertarianism--totally free markets with open borders--insists upon a stateless society. The results are remarkably similar to communism, as are the adherents' dedication to the idea that "true libertarianism" has never been tried. Though that may be true, it has not been tried because it is impossible to implement. Libertarianism is an ideology of spherical cows: supposing that we have a free market and supposing that everyone respects everyone else's property rights and supposing that everyone is John Galt, this society would work.

But we can never have a totally free market, and people don't respect property rights, and most people aren't Aryan capitalist ubermenschen who are working on their newest railroad alloy.

Holy shit, people actually believe in this ancap shit?

I thought it was just some leftists trying to make capitalism look bad

I think it's both their policies to bash the rich at any given opportunity. No one gives a shit what are they going to do vote for a 3rd party in a 2 party system? Democracy lmao bro

I'd rather just go and murder a motherfucker and socialize his property.

People still push 9/11 truther shit long past it's original point of delegitimizing George W. Bush.

People will still be pushing birtherism long after Obama is gone.

fuck off bootlicker statecuck
youtube.com/watch?v=vrbjgBwCPDA

>Implying it's not

t. Rothschild

...

>TM
confirmed for knowing fuck all about anarcho capitalism

...

I really really like this image, +1

well played