/lit/ - Literature

>>16828393
Repeating commie talking points against their idea of capitalism is a trite, overdone and certainly unnuanced way to go about attempting to refute ancapism.
>what is polycentric law
>what are cooperatives
>what are gated communities
>what are paramilitaries and private security
I don't trust the corporations as much as the next guy in their current form but I think ancaps make a strong argument for the idea that if the nature of the law system generating corporate cronies, lobbyism and centralized banking is changed, the nature of capital and by extension corporate changes in tandem. It's not liberal capitalism, because liberal capitalism presupposes the state. You've assumed from the outset that what sets anarcho-capitalism apart from liberal capitalism isn't the case and argue backward from that point. I think that's arguing in bad faith, you could at least start with the correct presumptions and see if you could find antinomies within the ideology itself.

On the other hand, you seem to be contrasting anarcho-capitalism with some sort of hypothetical non-state. If we pretend I'm an ancap: I would contend that a ruling body is necessary in *any* case, and that the general nature of ruling bodies is the same in any case. What makes a ruling body bad is the concentration of power, which can naturally only be counteracted by either a dissemination of power, revolution, fragmenting of the ruling body's power, or choking of its necessary resources. Anarcho-capitalism is the only system that guarantees generally the possibility of these, by virtue of the real nature of the market generating both potent and just ruling bodies.

>>16815916
Yes, unless you want to admit that certain things do exist, in which case: >>16814733

>>15303486
>it has too many words for some thing and no words
this is totally false. Buy a dictionary, or better yet, a thesaurus. This is why poetry and suchlike is frequently so good in english. A vast lexicon of words for pretty much any situation. (inb4 eskimos have 50 words for snow, nobody give a shit)

>completely inconsistent
not really. The grammar is relatively consistent and there are a lot of rules that apply through all verbs for example (gerunds, etc) I'm an english teacher I should know

>some important concepts exist in computer science have no equivalent in english
true, but isn't that true for all other human languages? Not really a fault of english in particular, is it?

>why isn't there a word for "he or she"?
there is, like you explained. It's they. You can use it in in pretty much any sentence and there will very rarely be any confusion. It's much better than in french, where there simple is no neutral pronoun. Besides, you don't need to use the word "they" unless you're into woke tranny shit. You already have "he", "she" and "it"

>why doesn't english give you the
nobody will understand a fucking word you're saying retard. The grammatical rules have to be more or less rigid in order for a language to actually communicate anything and be understood by people. You are a fucking retard who cannot into basic linguistics, seriously.

You sound like a nerd btw. A human language isn't supposed to be like a computer language.

French is much more annoying than english to learn. Every other word is a homonym, and the pronounciation is often extremely subtle. Nevermind french people being exceedingly pedantic about how you speak their language.

As an english native speaker, you have to hear people raping your language everyday, because it's spoken all over the world for business etc.