Why is Ancap made fun of so much on this board? It's pretty much the only system that works if you're not a nigger

It's made fun of because it deserves ridicule. In has no protections from the outside, and the NAP seems to me to be a totally unstable equilibrium. As soon as a small group realizes it can prosper more through aggression than through non aggression and acts on that realization, all the other individuals in the system have a bit of game theory to work through: either they collectivise against the offending group, or choose to align themselves with the offending group. They can't exactly defend themselves as individuals: they'll just be conquered one at a time, and if they collectivise into smaller groups: now the remaining individuals see multiple marauding aggressive groups instead of just one. In any case, all these outcomes seem to degenerate the whole system into some kind of system where a ruling group (or class) exists.

How can this be prevented under the lens of the AnCap? Would the citizens really all rally behind the NAP and fight off the aggressors? Does anything in human history suggest that this would be the universal, or even the likely, outcome?

We need a reset at this point. We're just marinating in our own technological filth.

nah

>It's pretty much the only system that works if you're not a nigger.
That's the problem.

That's, of course, a totally military example, but a simultaneous economic example could be made: what's to stop the people who control any plurality of important resources or skills from collectivism? In what sense are they different from a government if they can deprive you of the means to live if you don't submit to their whims? Libertarians and ancaps will often say that our current governments are enforced by gun barrels - which is true - but how is a corporation controlling the flow of water or oil any different, other than by name?

it would honestly work better if there were savages because the savages wouldnt be able to rationalize that they could conquer others if they consolidated power

please dont equate libertarians to an-cap

libertarians believe in the rule of law, a constitution, a judiciary and executive

Didn't mean to suggest they were equivalent, besides that small philosophical point.

ancap is the globalist end goal.

daddy soros needs souls for consumption

>absolute compliance to the NAP is necessary
Not at all. Already most people adhere to the NAP in their daily lives, with the lone exception they make for government due to not understanding how government is a violation of everyone's self ownership including their own. The only thing necessary for a functioning ancap society is for people to not see government as legitimate.

'Anarcho'-Capitalism is an oxymoron.

Oh look, another statist whose worst case scenario is government. You guys have no consistency.

Most in civil society or most worldwide? If you mean the first, okay... but how did we get to civil society? If you mean worldwide, you're obviously wrong.

>all governments are equal

Best or worst case is missing the point, it's more about 'end case' or the steady state. The criticism is, how would an AnCap society stop from evolving or degenerating into some kind of statist system?

>muh immigration is always bad

ah Germany

a cuck to the end

Civil society was formed by people standing up for values such as self ownership, and making it unprofitable for those without those values to go against them. And yes, I mean most people worldwide are not knowingly initiating violence towards one another.

I'm glad someone understands this

if the globalists ever abolish national governments and collective action we'll become their serfs/slaves.

Libertarians are just the clueless useful idiots of the collectivists.

I'm so glad that Johnson's retardation has opened a lot of eyes

>AYO
>FUCK YO NAP WHITE BOII
>MY HOMIEZ FINNA GET AT YO PROPERTAY

this kills the an-cap

This is exactly like asking "why should we stop slavery if it's possible for slavery to happen again?", and I don't think you're so stupid that I need to answer that question for you.

>Already most people adhere to the NAP in their daily lives,

Untrue. We adhere to the trust of mass government force, not the caprice of individuals who may or may not be peaceful.

>Civil society was formed by people standing up for values such as self ownership, and making it unprofitable for those without those values to go against them

By consolidating community power and creating government

libertarian is not an-cap

kill yourself you illiterate

>not using violence

ok honey now it's time for your nap time and tendies

tomorrow we'll go over world history and you can learn what "war" is

youtube.com/watch?v=ewd4l2rD2_U

>this is exactly like

wew

It's the exact same type of raging autism

>something bad happens
>ABOLISH THE GOVERNMENT REEEEEEEEEEE

post more

guys
what if under anarcho-capitalism, a rich person did something shitty that rich people already do now, but there's no government so it's magically worse for no reason?

more

libertarians dont want to abolish the gov.

libertarians believe in the constitution, limited gov, a judiciary, the rule of law and an executive

libertarians believe in a gov as originally prescribed by the constitution

Making it Unprofitable how?

If you take today as a narrow slice of humanity you might be able to show that 50.1% or more of people aren't acting aggressively towards each other (unknowingly doesn't spare them). But the whole of human history is full of tribal warfare, especially the further back you go in time, particularly in the case of North American natives who live in a much more anarchical society yet fought all the time.

Also, again on history, I'd argue that"self ownership " was the first thing to go when we started making the biggest leaps in process. Ownership to God, to king and country, and so on.

>le rich people dont go to prison meme

wew underaged

If government was the source of change prohibition would have succeeded. The source is what people will put up with, and most people are not accepting of violations of their person/property. It's why slavery is generally unacceptable, an it's why if government was revealed en mass as major violator and disruptor of civility it would be minimized or abolished.

I didn't mention non-violence, you illiterate. Violence is essential to life, but government is not the source of it, nor should it have exclusive right to it.

it's not remotely like that

slavery is not the foundation of society

It was just a perk for the wealthy

government, order, etc is the foundation of a functioning society.

>libertarians believe in a gov as originally prescribed by the constitution

I'm not sure what your point even is

Ever heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts? Thomas Jefferson buying the Louisiana Purchase without consent of Congress? Washington killing a bunch of angry drunks? Technically according to the constitution we should bring back slavery (I'm only against slavery because it means black people still live here)

The government is supposed to act in the general welfare of white men and generally that means freedom for whites

Otherwise aside from that I don't give a fuck about the constitution

Government is force, dumbass

That's literally the only way law and order can be ensured. You are basically a raving hippy like Johnson at this point

anyway go back to smoking your bong and asking deep questions like what Aleppo is.

By threatening an equal and opposite reaction to any who would violate your self ownership.

Also, joining a cause is not the same as not believing in self ownership, and most folks haven't fully grasped the fact that government is no different than a gang.

>prohibition would have succeeded

You do realize the people voted in a new government to legalize alcohol again right?

The system worked.

>slavery is generally unacceptable

Except you know the thousands of years it was acceptable you dumb fuck

you can see here how the retarded larping anime libertarian thinks one man with a katana can somehow stand up against an army of heavily armed soldiers that are threatening him because "muh libertarian ideology" demands it

>government is no different than a gang

Exactly

and it enforces order and rules i.e. it's a very successful and respected gang and you better not commit any crimes or you'll get thrown in jail.

hence why Africa is anarchy and still in the Stone Age. If you lived as a savage your whole life you wouldn't know what you were missing and would be used to the unavoidable savagery in life. In the developed world we fear it.

The foundation of society is people seeing value in behaving peacefully towards one another. There's no magical entity called government planting this in people's brains. It's just people. Governments are formed by ambitious, and opportunistic people who would take advantage of others ignorance, and they pervert the values of society to achieve power.

Ancap is a what happens when a deluded normie tries to be edgy. He's not willing to confront the real demons of society, and instead comes up with a system that works within the boundaries of acceptable thought.

You need a tribe, and you need a king, and you need an army, which is held together by a culture, which is held together by a faith. Everything after monarchy is a farce.

Because like every other retarded political 'B-but its never been tested!' ideology, it doesn't work and flies in the face of human nature.

I'm always amazed at how people are so willing to shit all over communism (and rightfully so) but will immediately fall back to some equally retarded, equally unworkable political / economic framework.

>no magical entity called government planting this in people's brains.

It's not magical

It's a threat: Don't break any laws or you get fined

If you break enough laws and piss enough people off we'll fucking kill you

That's life

too bad if you don't like it. Go live in the woods if that makes you cry.

This retard an example of how hobbes and locke ruined western society for three centuries.

>By threatening an equal and opposite reaction to any who would violate your self ownership.
Can you give historical examples of this being the case?

Joining the causes I suggested do dismiss some level of self ownership, which is why i suggested them.

Ancap with a positive outcome is as feasible as communism with one

>everything past despotism is a farce

My fucking sides. Been taking the brownpill have we?

Because it doesn't work, it's a un-achievable system that cannot exist in the current system. Basically it's a utopia like communism, however it forces us to reject our nature even more. Humans are inherently collectivist, governments WILL form, it's just simply in our nature.

Molyneux lives in a echo chamber with people who think like him, that reject collectivism. However, he doesn't realize that the world is collectivist in nature.

>it forces us to reject our nature even more
>implying anyone truly enjoys being governed

...

Why do people think the NAP means non-violence? It doesn't. It just means you don't initiate it. If someone else does, then you can totally still use violence.

In a utopian ancap society, there would be privatized security forces instead of the government. Resources would be pooled like how insurance works.

I'm not saying it would work, just saying in theory it goes further then your retarded arguments assuming that everyone in an ancap society would be defenseless.

You need to understand that the alternative is a lot scarier and uncertain then being governed.

In a pure capitalistic society it will transform into feudalism real quick. Collectivism will happen and it will turn into a governed society. It's just how it works.

Rejecting this possibility and assuming that people won't collectivize is ignorant of human nature and economics.

People will never respect the NAP, people always want to dominate others. Ancap will not make people cooperate in free market stuff, society will just dissolve in becoming ruled by mafia-like groups.

Lol.. this guy thinks states are stable institutions.

>if you're not a nigger.
Humanity is niggers.

So how do you explain the situation where one of the most effective defenders of monarchy (Hans Hoppe) also happens to be the intellectual standard bearer of ancap?

self-interest will trounce non-aggression every single fucking time

if women would just own guns all their bullshit with socialism and feminism would drain away

R A R E
A
R
E

this
it's the only conclusion that can be arrived at after enough study

People get stuck in crap. People think of Rothbard when ancap is mentioned. Hoppe is good. Mises is also good. Go for these two if you are more conservative minded.

Yes. Remove the government at let a bunch of cartels and feudal lords own us, if you are against this you are a nigger.

>live in ancap paradise
>buy a lot of guns and soldiers
>look at me
>I'm the state now

One of the fundamental realizations of capitalism once you understand the true nature of wealth is that it's not a zero-sum game. People will always benefit more from free interaction and cooperation than the use of force. The state is simply a shortcut/end run around the costliness of violence that is only made possible because the violence it wields is subsidized by the same brainwashed victims it's inflicted on.