Cred Forums is now an anarcho-capitalist board. Try to stop me

Cred Forums is now an anarcho-capitalist board. Try to stop me.

Pro tip: [spoiler] you can't [/spoiler]

What to talk about the joys of Post Keynesianism?

No such thing as anarcho-capitalism.

What do you mean? You remove the government and it's regulations and you have AnCapism.

==No text format here m8==

Yeah, just noticed that. The free market would fix this.

Fuck yes, that's the spirit !

you've broke the NAP

so are you a blood or a crip in our beautiful ancap paradise?

>blood or a crip

What did he mean by this?

You won't even have capitalism. Capitalism, property rights, markets and corporations are all overnment creations.

Libertards are either idiots (you) or people or rich people wanting to destroy regulations that check their power.

You do realize the regulations protect the rich (apary from taxes of course). The government will never regulate the rich too much because of corruption.

Enforcing property rights can be privatized. The only change is that it's voluntary. Something is yours only as long as you can keep it.

Hell yeah, Ancap for life.

who would enforce contracts, private property rights, build basic infrastructure which is good for the overall economy but expensive and hard to make a private profit off, or print the money which capitalists use?

fucking autism cunt, sage peasent

>Something is yours only as long as you can keep it
wtf does that mean, i can steal shit legally?

ANCAP MEMES THREAD

Depends pn what you mean legally. If you live with law enforcement company then they will most likely punish you and return the items you stole. If you decide to live in a place without laws, then you can stea "legally". If someone takes something from you and you can't get it bsck it's not really yours anymore. Property rights are a completely abstract invention that doesn't need an outside force to "enforce".

forcefully claiming this board and threatening people violates NAP

...

...

I truly hope you idiots get into power, then the communist revolution will be easier.

Don't violate my NAP. I operate on a policy of MAD via the power of shitposting children slaves working for a wage of dust.

...

This is now a squat for anarchist memes of all flavours.

Dumping;

yes, they are government creations.
that's not saying it could not be so in ancapistan.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Kek I love ancaps, so blissfully retarded.

Their threads are meme gold mines too

...

...

...

>who would enforce contracts?
those who got violated.
>who would enforce private property rights?
there are no "rights" there are only agreements made among men.
>who would build basic infrastructure?
those who wnat it or need it.
>who will print the money?
banks obviously.

...

>those who get violated

That right there is why anarcho-capitalism is a joke. You kids who want it would end up someone else's slave overnight.

Cred Forums is an ethnonationalist board. Here we all agree on some level.

explain why..

Literally nothing wrong with that

pol has always been a national socialist & libertarian board

Because someone bigger than you and with more friends than you would take your shit and reduce you to being their slave. Theres no reason not to, other than "muh feelings".

You would obviously pay someone to protect you in a situation like that.. You know, like an insurance company.

Anarcho Capitalism does nothing to prevent any form of degeneracy, it even makes it profitable.
it doesn't stop muds from flooding into white lands

wait, there's two of us???

And if I pay them more to look the other way,where does that leave you? Its not illegal and since there are only agreements between men, anyone who makes a better agreement than yours invalidates your agreement with the insurance company. Assuming if I didn't slaughter you and your family fast enough and loot the place before they arrive. Then they have the choice of potentially loosing assets in a clonflict or keeping your money. Insurance companies fuck their customers all the time in any way they can get away with and thats your answer for no police and no government?

>Anarcho Capitalism does nothing to prevent any form of degeneracy, it even makes it profitable.
Explain how you came to that conclusion.
>it doesn't stop muds from flooding into white lands
Yes it does. It is the only way to keep a community pure. What we have right now is what makes those floods inevitable.

Based NZ

Thanks m8

Munaa poikapilluun ah-ah :-DDD

>And if I pay them more to look the other way,where does that leave you?
nowhere. They would loose all business.
people would obviously create measures in the contracts to prevent that from happening.
>Then they have the choice of potentially loosing assets in a clonflict or keeping your money.
yes, but they would have to make that sacrifice. else they would loose their customers.
>Insurance companies fuck their customers all the time in any way they can get away with and thats your answer for no police and no government?
that is because they can only offer shit contracts for their customers because of government regulations and rules and such.

love you too mexico

>[spoiler][/spoiler]
>[spoiler][/spoiler]
>[spoiler][/spoiler]

What's up Cred Forums?

Your violating the NAP. Tough luck pal.
*Unsheaths recreational nuke.

What you describe is a violation of the NAP. Even if you managed to gather a large enough force to attack others, eventually you would have to fight everyone around you. Or are you going to bribe them as well? How many are you going to bribe? Do you think that is profitable? And also who would want to associate themselves with a criminal?

>Explain how you came to that conclusion.
self explanatory. Capitalism rewards immoral behavior

>Yes it does. It is the only way to keep a community pure. What we have right now is what makes those floods inevitable.

restricting freedom of movement is the only way to keep a community pure, not open it up to whoever can buy a house.

...

> spoiler
Kys 2ch proxy scum

xD le recreational nukes le loli sex slaves le xd everyone is a violent psychopath xD xD

calm down faggot

>self explanatory. Capitalism rewards immoral behavior
It's not self explanatory. Explain why. Argue for your points if you want to debate.

>restricting freedom of movement is the only way to keep a community pure, not open it up to whoever can buy a house.
I agree 100%
You missed the point.
Today the state allows those floods to happen and you can do nothing about it. It would only be possible to prevent that in a voluntary society with binding contracts.

>Capitalism rewards immoral behavior
This idea that you can eliminate greed and corruption in humans is naive. The point of society is to utilize human greed to the benefit of everyone, and free market capitalism does just that until government gets involved.

Reminder that capitalism rewards globalists for importing shitskins into your country for cheap labor.

Reminder that capitalism rewards companies for destroying your country, culture, and planet for profits.

Reminder that capitalism rewards companies for making dumbed down degenerate mass media, then spend billions of dollars advertising it, further lowering national standards for quality.

Reminder that capitalism rewards companies for shipping your jobs and culture overseas.

Reminder that capitalism rewards companies for making you die in wars for oil and profits.

Capitalism cares about one thing: capital. It doesn't care about national boundaries, cultural identity and preservation, quality, or the well-being of anyone.

Most people wouldn't agree to an NAP in the first place. You ancap memes don't seem to get this. Bu- But it violates muh NAP.

exactly!

All of what you just described is a product of state intervention.
What we are discussing here is "free market capitalism"

Impossible.. Anarchism implies lack of state authority.

Let's look at a feudal society in its infancy:
1 man plants crops in a field and grows some wheat and barley for his family. The property doesn't belong to anyone really; it's just there. When another man shows up, the farmer will defend the farm because he is associated with the farm; there's no measurable square inch that he claims; he simply claims the idea of the farm. So the farmer defends himself against the raider to protect HIS farm. The raider runs off, and the guy realizes he can't keep defending the land for too long just by himself. The man strikes a deal with a guy, service in exchange for protection. They are not bound in some kind of contract; it's just a natural (You scratch my back, I scratch yours) type of deal.
The Lord protects the Vassal's land; and so they've reached an accordance, that the vassal owns the land, and this right is in protection by the lord; it's called a "Feudal agency", as it has established a mutual idea of property rights, claims, or territory. A feudal agency grows when more and more people respect the property rights of the individual (as protected by the same person). The king protects the lords, the lords protect the serfs; theoretically, additional classes could be added at either end.

The problem with anarcho capitalism is that this idea of "mutually respected ownership" is about as theoretical and batshit insane as anarcho communism, and would lead to a state where force is necessary to prevent abuses.

I would argue that feudalism is the way to go.
but is that not also anarcho capitalism? at least anarcho capitalism naturally leads to feudalism.
Is the stance of anarcho capitalism not that he who owns the land makes the rules on it?

All of what you described sounds good. The problem starts when the contract between the protector and the farmer becomes non-voluntary. Simple contracts like I protect you in exchamge for food are just fine when they stay as contracts, not as orders as the government does now.

Most people would agree with the NAP. Right now when I go outside I don't immediately get shot because most people don't attack each other. It's not to their benefit. Sure there would be some criminals but far fewer than how many there are now since they're a product of the government, socialism and welfare.

You are right.
But how would it become involuntary? what is the process?
and if it became involuntary, wouldn't the people be allowed by contract to kill the king?

Can you explain Anarcho-capitalism to someone too lazy to google it?

It sounds gay, but we've all done a few gay things in our lives.

I'm not saying an anCap society would devolve into an involubtary one, but it could. The protector is more powerful than a few farmers alone. If the farmers don't stand up for themselves the protector can become a ruler.

Brutal takeovers are against the NAP m9

>I'm not saying an anCap society would devolve into an involubtary one, but it could. The protector is more powerful than a few farmers alone.
I agree
> If the farmers don't stand up for themselves the protector can become a ruler.
Yes. so the question remains if that often happened in the past(that the protector becomes the ruler), and if it did, then for how long. As I see it, it wouldn't be easy to maintain as a ruler. it would collapse in and of it self at some point.
the farmers would become inefficient, tired and sick. and at some point if it didn't collapse of itself, the farmers would become so angry that they would band together and kill the ruler.

A system with no government based on free-market economy and property rights.
All things that were previously the domain of government (especially courts, police and national defence) would be done through voluntary contracts.
The idea is that without state control people would be more free\ and prosperous. If you want to read more I recommend "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman or For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard

We have a ruler in practically every country now. The government's control is getting more limited slowly, but the system is still functioning.

So basically if the town council tries to enforce regulations I can tell them to go fuck themselves?

Well there wouldn't be a town council as that would be an arm of government. I could envisage situations where someone could impose regulations on you (say you live in a gated community that wants to uphold certain standards of behavior in their little group). The difference is that, unlike with a government, you would be able to tell them to go fuck themselves and leave

well as I would argue, we are on the verge of collapse, the mistrust in the government is rising exponetially, they are completely losing control of the shit they build up, and people are becoming increasingly fucked over by the system.
This confirms what I said.

And that would only be if you didn't own the land in the gated community. If it was your property they wouldn't be able to do shit

Sweet. Yeah I can live with that.

The strong should impose their will on the weak, and even the weak should have the option to die with their middle finger raised against oppressors.

I use my agency as an anarchist to make this a National Socialist board. Feels good, man.

>markets are all overnment creations.
The things I have to read sometimes on this site.

Me havin gobject A. You having object B. Me and you exchanging thing A against thing B. Now me having thing B, you having thing A.

Is that simple enough now?

But without government who would realise the mutual benefit of exchange?

Nobody. I see it now. Free market btfo.
How will lolbertarians ever recover?

>people are becoming increasingly fucked over by the system.

The solution isn't to completely destroy the system, and replace it with a completely unregulated system that fucks over people even more. It's to make the system better.

You would just have the same corporate oligarchy that would be even worse for the people, except there would be no government to keep them in check.

yep the good ol libertarian dream....

genetically engineered super man plutocrats, each commanding their own robot army, building vast space towers, colonizing space, smoking weed whenever i want....

will you accept kek as your lord and god ?

It's not unregulated. how did you derive to that conclusion?

But the only reason you now have a corporate oligarchy is because of the government. The state protects these corporations while it fucks over everybody else.

>All of what you described sounds good.
That's good
> The problem starts when the contract between the protector and the farmer becomes non-voluntary
Exactly.. This is how the merchant class came to own the entire banking system in Britain. At the time, regardless, the king was more or less a dictator anyway, and the magna carta and other legal documents basically protected the merchant class, and they duped an entire people into banking, interest, loans, etc. Nobody could stop it, and nobody wanted to stop it, because they just wanted to get rich. In Feudal Japan, the merchant class was always placed at the bottom where it should be, because they acted as free-agents, traveling often from one town to the next, or sometimes just staying put to fuck the local people out of their savings. I don't think any government should have business in protecting trade deals. If someone literally steals an asset, that's another thing.

>is the stance of anarcho capitalism not that he who owns the land makes the rules on it?
I think to an extent, yes. Anarcho capitalism, or at least many of its adherents, imply an essence of individual responsibility, that your assets are in your care and you are responsible for them.
I think feudalism has the potential to become anarcho capitalism, and anarcho capitalism can become feudalism, but historically one is mutually exclusive.

And we don't want to destroy the system. It's doing a good job at that all by itself.
What we want to do is to defend, and never attack.

guys, this is 18-2381 stuff. Got it?

In an anarcho-capitalist society, there is no state to implement any regulation. Everything is in the hands of private institutions, the same private institutions that are part of this corporate oligarchy. Their already massive amount of power and wealth would mean they're the ones who dictate everything, even law enforcement.

They would completely remove any regulations that hinder their dominance, and add more regulations that fuck over their competitors and the little guy so they can stay at the top and increase their dominance.

They already do that right now, but there are some rules set by the government that prevent them from going all out. They can't go out and murder their competitors because they would go to jail. In an anarcho-capitalist society, the same people who own corporations would also own the law enforcers, the military, and you would be replacing state authoritarianism, by corporate authoritarianism, even worse than what we already have.

>But the only reason you now have a corporate oligarchy is because of the government.

Wrong, a corporate oligarchy would be created regardless of state intervention.

>The state protects these corporations while it fucks over everybody else
Which is why you should change the state, reform the system to stop money in politics, get the Jews out of power, and make it work in the people's and the nation's interests. Not completely remove it.

>In an anarcho-capitalist society, there is no state to implement any regulation
Not true. That can be obtained by contractual agreements. How do you not see this?
>In an anarcho-capitalist society, the same people who own corporations
There are no corporations in anarchocapistan. Those are government creations.

Try again.

>but historically one is mutually exclusive.
I would say that feudalism in its pure form, can only exist as a system within anarcho capitalism.

>Wrong, a corporate oligarchy would be created regardless of state intervention.
With the free market you would have more companies popping up everywhere. But you can't have that now because governments use so many regulations, laws and taxes that it simply screws with small companies, thus letting these big corporations get even bigger. Also these corporations work together with governments to further their interests. Of course you might try to install less corrupt governments but it will always end the same.

In a free market monopolies wouldn't exist or at the very least would be very rare.

>Which is why you should change the state, reform the system to stop money in politics
As I told you it never works. Governments that started small eventually moved towards becoming bigger and bigger.

>get the Jews out of power
nice meme

Can someone photoshop the sunglasses and thumbs up on Obama's face? Want to make an image that says
>When all drone strikes require approval of the president but nobody knows that and the media isn't going to look into it so you drone strike random civilians to make people hate the military

Unironically, yes
When you look at shit like the Stanford prison experiment, and stuff like that, I think if you actually forced a completely anarchic society, people would eventually lose their sense of morality, and be willing to trade of morality, for capital gain

inb4 all of the posts here go to mexico and other shithole countries and you institute protectionist policies to prop up american posts.

i can stop you by doing pic related

>It's not self explanatory. Explain why. Argue for your points if you want to debate.
Not wanting a debate, just giving an example since that user never responded. There is an active, untapped markets for products that could be objectively viewed as degenerate. The only way those markets could be legally tapped into is through Anarcho Capitalism.