/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3496520]

Daily reminder that the burden of proof is always on the authority figure, and that Anarchism
(aka anarcho-capitalism) is the only logically consistent political system.

[Anonymous No.3496525]

>Anarchism (aka anarcho-capitalism)

[Anonymous No.3496537]

>burden of proof is always on the authority figure

Where's your evidence?

[Anonymous No.3496538]

You owe me money.

[Anonymous No.3496541]

>>3496520
you know the burden of proof is not an actual thing that exists, right?

[Anonymous No.3496545]

>burden of proof is always on the authority figure

Nice claim. Now where's your proof?

[Anonymous No.3496548]

>>3496541

[Anonymous No.3496549]

>Anarchism (aka anarcho-capitalism)

[Anonymous No.3496553]

>>3496548
>Implying that's how posters in /sci/ conduct themselves.

[Anonymous No.3496557]

>>3496545
>>3496537
The same way the burden of proof is on the person making them claim, if you are posturing yourself as an authority figure with the right to tell others what to do, you need to justify your position over me.

[Anonymous No.3496563]

>>3496557
That's circular reasoning, idiot.
You are telling us this is a fact, so you are the figure of authority. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the burden of proof is on you. Do it now.

[Anonymous No.3496569]

>>3496563
>using logic to derive logical conclusions is circular logic

You're one of those people?

[Anonymous No.3496571]

>>3496569
No, you are.

[Anonymous No.3496577]

>>3496571
To PROVE that logic is necessary implies the necessity of logic.

[Anonymous No.3496585]

>>3496557
I'm not sure what you mean by "need."
The state can exercise power all over everyones ass whenever they want to.
The "justification" exists in your inability to do very much about it.

[Anonymous No.3496589]

>>3496577
I don't believe you. Prove it, then.

[Anonymous No.3496596]

>>3496585
So might makes right?

[Anonymous No.3496599]

>>3496520
>Anarchism (aka anarcho-capitalism) is the only logically consistent political system

Why?

[Anonymous No.3496601]

>>3496596
Not really.
It's just that saying the state has to justify itself is essentially pointless, because the state doesn't feel it has to justify itself, and the state is more powerful than you, thus the state won't justify itself.
What I'm trying to say here is that sure, the state is perhaps obligated to justify itself. But empirically, the state breaks obligations all the damn time.

[Anonymous No.3496605]

>>3496599
Cuz, like, authority is bad? So like fuck the system and we get anarchy. But lefty commies are bad, right? so we need, like, capitalism? So like anarcho-capitalism/objectivism, right? I don't understand economics, but I think I'm right.

[Anonymous No.3496611]

>>3496599
What gives you the right to tell me what to do, besides "I have more guns"?

>>3496601
By "need" I was talking about their need to justify their authority in a logically consistent way, not that it was an actual physical necessity.

>>3496605
Right-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists consistently score the highest on IQ tests and have much more in-depth economic knowledge. Leftism is antithetical to economics.

[Anonymous No.3496612]

This guy.

If there's any kind of anarchism you should adhere to, it's the kind this guy advocated.

Seriously, anarcho-capitalism? Are you fucking retarded? At least you're half-right, with anarchism. Just don't go full retard with capitalism and we're cool.

[Anonymous No.3496625]

>>3496612
can you elaborate on his position or at least give us his name?

[Anonymous No.3496628]

>>3496611
>Right-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists consistently score the highest on IQ tests and have much more in-depth economic knowledge. Leftism is antithetical to economics.
citation needed brohan

[Anonymous No.3496632]

>>3496612
Every strain of alleged Anarchism revolves around everyone adhering to a specific morality, and the suppression of people they deem to be oppressors.

Ancaps are perfectly fine with communists starting their own voluntary commune, while Ancoms are not fine with the reverse.

>>3496625
Kropotkin.

[Anonymous No.3496646]

>>3496611
I'm still not seeing what makes this "need" a need.
Need is defined as to require, due to necessity. It is absolutely unnecessary in the state's eyes that the state should justify itself.
So, the state doesn't need to justify itself, you need the state to justify itself.

[Anonymous No.3496648]

>>3496611
[citations needed]
[citations needed]
[citations needed]
[citations needed]
[citations needed]

[Anonymous No.3496663]

>>3496632
>In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics.

This is precisely what anarchism is NOT. It's disgusting that this is even called "anarcho-capitalism." It's just pure capitalism, and it's retarded.

>>3496625

It's Peter Kropotkin. The most humane fucker you'll ever meet. Look at that fucking beard. You and I both wish he was our grandfather.

Mutual aid, sympathy, solidarity, individual liberty through free cooperation as the basis of all social life - these are the positive ideas of Peter. Abolition of the state, of authority in all its forms, of monopoly and class rule are their negative forms.

[Anonymous No.3496671]

>>3496632
Where is the justification for the suppressing of the oppressors?
If you say moral forfeiture I might vomit.

[Anonymous No.3496672]

>>3496646
From a logical perspective, is what I'm referring to. The state could claim the sky is purple and force everyone else to acknowledge the sky is purple. The sky still isn't purple.

>>3496663
Anarcho-capitalism is a completely voluntary society, thus the only society where people are truly free.

[Anonymous No.3496677]

>>3496671
Anarcho-communists believe it is necessary to suppress people they deem to be oppressive, not Ancaps.

[Anonymous No.3496680]

>>3496672
You forgot the citation

[Anonymous No.3496686]

>>3496663
Thank you, kind sir.

[Reggie Kray !YFAV8ElgIU No.3496688]

>>3496646
I think, in his mind, 'anarcho-capitalism' is some kind of default base position and any other ideology is infringing upon it. He seems to be making the assumption that anyone wanting to change the structure needs 'burden of proof' to do so, as if any ideology (including anarcho-capitalism) isn't just a subjective interpretation of the most beneficial way to have a social structure.

Unfortunately he has no grounding for his assumption. Presumably he's working from some badly conceived axiomatic base like "any state intrusion is wrong", not realising that he's holding one ideology up as a starting point and worshipping it as an objectively correct view.

[Anonymous No.3496690]

>born a Prince
>denounce my own title at 12 in order to be closer to the working people
>spend the rest of my life fighting for the rights of the oppressed

GOML, other anarchists.

[Anonymous No.3496697]

>>3496672
Would you, please, stop posting statements and pseudo-facts without backing them and ignore all the users who ask for citations for nearly all of your posts.

[Anonymous No.3496698]

>>3496688
I'm working from the assumption that people are free to do what they want, and if you say I can't do something, the burden of proof is on you as to why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

[Anonymous No.3496704]

>>3496672
Ok, so the state is illogical in that it doesn't justify its own existence, and can contradict observable reality via its power.
>>3496688
What about what this guy said? Isn't the anarchist overthrow also supposed to justify its existence?
And what if the sky in the really real world is fucking purple?
Logic isn't sacred, and its relation to the real is often tenuous at best.

[Anonymous No.3496711]

>Russian government wants to use my "The Great French Revolution, 1789-1793" as a school textbook
>they'll pay me quite well for it
>say "nope, that's filthy government money and I don't want it"

A true anarchist.

[Anonymous No.3496712]

>>3496690
So a self-loathing bourgeois like every Marxist ever?

[Anonymous No.3496719]

>>3496698
Why isn't the burden, say, on you, as the person being oppressed?

[Anonymous No.3496729]

>>3496719
If someone says "You're not allowed to do X", they're making a claim, and therefore they must provide evidence.

[Anonymous No.3496741]

>this fucking thread

Is this the proper way to employ a burden of proof argument? or defense? It seems like everyone is just running around in circles demanding the same thing of each other.

[Anonymous No.3496742]

>>3496712

He despised Marxism and Marx was one of the people he quite frankly disliked strongy, and he took a boyish joy whenever he one-upped him.

[Reggie Kray !YFAV8ElgIU No.3496746]

>>3496698
>I'm working from the assumption that people are free to do what they want...
Why are you working from a faulty assumption?

Even within your wonky system, people who are 'free to what they want' would be free to transform the entire country into a socialist one.

You seem to believe that 'total freedom' is the default state, therefore a morally correct one that people have to honour. You need to prove this. We all perceive reality in different ways, especially abstract systems like morality and political ideology. No particular system (inc. anarcho-capitalism) is correct by default. They exist as structures that we use to play with reality for different purposes, based on different reasons. If you believe that 'total freedom' is a good starting point, then you have to prove it to the guy who's saying 'economic equality' is the best starting point. No ideology is objectively correct by default.

[Anonymous No.3496758]

>>3496729
The state doesn't just sit around telling people to do shit though.
The state enforces action.
The "evidence" is their power, as is the way with all actions.
The truth of state oppression of people's is that the people can bitch and whine about how unfair the state is being, or they can fucking do something about.
Arm chair anarchism disgusts me. You're ignoring the entire reality of state oppression.
But even on the ideological level, you're going about it all wrong.
Please, please try to think this out a bit more than you have.

[Anonymous No.3496782]

>>3496729
>Someone tells OP that he must stop at red lights and that you're not allowed to run them.
>"Wheres your evidence lol anarchococapitalism 4Lyfe"
>T-boned by air-conditioner repair van, dies.

In practice the burden doesn't always fall on the entity making the claim.

[Anonymous No.3496789]

>>3496741
Statists are just bottomhurt because they are irrational.

>>3496746
>people who are 'free to what they want' would be free to transform the entire country into a socialist one.

Laws would be sold on the free market like every other good, and determined by the demand in each respective community. If socialists want to form a socialist community, great! But that doesn't mean that the whole country has to abide by their ideology.

>You seem to believe that 'total freedom' is the default state, therefore a morally correct one that people have to honour. You need to prove this.

If I'm about to eat an apple, and someone tells me I can't, it's up to them to provide the reason.

>>3496758
All I've stated is that the state's authority over me is logically unjustified.

>>3496782
Strawman. In an anarcho-capitalist society the roads would be private, so because I'm voluntarily driving on his private property, I would have to follow his rules.

[Anonymous No.3496830]

hey guys
i'm trying this whole "being OP" thing
how's it working out

[Anonymous No.3496861]

>>3496548
So true.

[Anonymous No.3496909]

>>3496789
To keep my dear friend example, if I follow your logic, someone could privatize like an entire state's roads? What if he decides to make people pay for using them? Following your logic, you'd pay for driving or you'd not drive at all. You'd be literally struggled by arbitrary and unfair private laws. That's the true liberty you're talking about?

[Anonymous No.3496920]

Having more guns doesn't justify having more power, but having more money does.
-Anarcho-Capitalists

[Anonymous No.3496927]

>>3496920

[Anonymous No.3496928]

A test once told me that I was an anarchist collectivist. My edge is sharper than your's op, do not presume to joust me or you shall find yourself severely outmatched.

[Anonymous No.3496932]

>>3496927
It does come down to that though.

[Anonymous No.3496946]

>>3496932
Those who provide the best good.service make the most money. Why would I seek the services offered by a company who did things I deemed immoral?

[Anonymous No.3496951]

>>3496946
>good.service

good/service*

[Anonymous No.3496954]

>>3496928
link to test

[Anonymous No.3496959]

>>3496946
People don't all get born at the same time with the same starting capital. This isn't a video game. So when a person gets born into this world and others are already people of wealth and power who own the land and resources, he is forced to sell himself into slavery to survive. There's nothing fair or reasonable about this.

[Anonymous No.3496964]

>>3496954
http://www.politicaltest.net/

[Anonymous No.3496972]

>>3496959
He isn't forced to do anything, unless you're referring to his biological need for food. Just because he's hungry doesn't give him the right to steal from others. He is free to provide a good or service to other people in return for something he deems desirable, be it money or food.

As his skills surpass other available workers on the market, his salary will rise.

[Anonymous No.3496988]

>>3496972
and until then he can just starve to death?

[Anonymous No.3496997]

>>3496928
>thinking you can out-edge a traditional racist sexist conservative patriotic national communist

I'm like a Hitler Stalin.

[Anonymous No.3497001]

>>3496972
And due to his biological need for food/shelter/water/etc., he is forced to obtain food. In order to obtain necesities (which are needed and not simply deemed "desirable"), he must provide a good or service. He isn't free to choose not to work, because then he would die. As such, he's forced into playing by the rules of the society: working for those who own the resources that he needs to survive.

Incidentally:
>He isn't forced to do anything, unless you're referring to his biological need for food.
So, if this hypothetical person doesn't need to do anything other than eat, why does the state need to justify its position of authority?

[Anonymous No.3497005]

>>3496997
yeah yeah, talk shit when you are 110% invested in something. then we'll see. I'll be waiting, collectivising my anarchy.

[Anonymous No.3497023]

>>3496972
So the other guy gets the resources just because he's older and therefore gets the right to exploit others but they don't have the right to take what they need? Anarcho-capitalism is less justified than Hobbe's state of nature.

[Anonymous No.3497029]

>>3497001
>He isn't free to choose not to work, because then he would die.

You're just being silly. That's just a fact of life, if you don't eat you die.

>In order to obtain necesities (which are needed and not simply deemed "desirable"), he must provide a good or service.

If he wants something, he must offer a good or service to someone else that they consider valuable. The only alternative is violence.

>As such, he's forced into playing by the rules of the society: working for those who own the resources that he needs to survive.

Laws are determined on the free market. If he does not like the service provided by the rights enforcement agencies nearby, he is free to relocate to a community that thinks stealing in the force of redistribution is justified.

>So, if this hypothetical person doesn't need to do anything other than eat, why does the state need to justify its position of authority?

Because the state gets money by forcibly seizing it from individuals or putting them in cages.

>>3497023
> right to exploit

He doesn't have the right to do anything. All he can do is offer a wage to people who need it in return for a specific task he needs accomplished.

[Anonymous No.3497030]

>>3497005
lelelele stay sipping your atheist cosmopolitan to induce visions you passive little faggot

[Anonymous No.3497045]

>>3497029
>You're just being silly. That's just a fact of life, if you don't eat you die.
According to your logic, people should just willingly starve if they can't get a job. You talk about fact of life but you refuse the main one.

>If he wants something, he must offer a good or service to someone else that they consider valuable. The only alternative is violence.
Violence is better than radical market economy. Putting commerce at the core of everything is disgusting and only attractive to spiritually bankrupt merchants. Luckily it will never happen because a quick jolt of violence would shuffle the cards again before you could say oy vey.

[Anonymous No.3497056]

>>3497029
>That's just a fact of life, if you don't eat you die.

That's not the same as "choosing not to work".

Someone in an AnCap society can't just go out and start sawing down trees somewhere to build themselves a house, because with the existence of private property someone probably owns that forest and won't allow it.

How can a society in which natural resources are owned by individuals ever truly be "free"?

[Anonymous No.3497060]

>>3497029
Do we just let everyone who cannot sustain themselves die of starvation then? this includes everyone at birth, by the way.

[Anonymous No.3497063]

>>3497060
Anarcho-capitalists confirmed for anti-natalist scum.

[Anonymous No.3497077]

>>3496520
The majority of beliefs that most people have are based only on authority. A reputable news source says something? Accepted. Scientists announce something? Accepted. You don't actually know why they say these things, presumably they have evidence as it is their area of expertise and their job to know. They do all thinking, leaving you to question only where social discourse allows.

tl;dr your rebellion is small time

[Anonymous No.3497078]

>>3497045
>According to your logic, people should just willingly starve if they can't get a job. You talk about fact of life but you refuse the main one.

They don't have to be hired by someone else, they just need to offer a good or service to others. He could dance in the streets, or make balloon animals, anything he has a talent for. If people deemed that talent desirable, he could charge money and make a living.

>Violence is better than radical market economy. Putting commerce at the core of everything is disgusting and only attractive to spiritually bankrupt merchants.

Emotional argument.

>Luckily it will never happen because a quick jolt of violence would shuffle the cards again before you could say oy vey.

Not a chance. Private security, private courts, and the whole nine yards.

>>3497056
>How can a society in which natural resources are owned by individuals ever truly be "free"?

As opposed to be owned by individuals with government badges employed to an abstract concept referred to as "society"?

>>3497060
>Do we just let everyone who cannot sustain themselves die of starvation then?

The only alternative is stealing from innocent people via taxation to give to those who have directly contributed nothing.

>this includes everyone at birth, by the way.

In libertarian and by extension anarcho-capitalist theory, a parent is not legally obligated to care for their child. That would be more or less enslaving the parent to the child's needs. Just as a parent can void the unspoken contract and refuse to care for the child, the child may leave if he/she feels their parents are not providing a satisfactory service.

[Anonymous No.3497085]

>>3496520
>Anarchism (aka anarcho-capitalism)

[Anonymous No.3497084]

>>3496964
i'm not an angry guy

[Anonymous No.3497086]

>>3497078
>As opposed to be owned by individuals with government badges employed to an abstract concept referred to as "society"?

Or, you know, as opposed to a society in which natural resources are owned by everyone and the concept of "private property" does not exist, such as in socialist forms of anarchism.

[Anonymous No.3497092]

>>3497086
Also known as mob rules? Where individuals subjugate themselves to the needs of the herd?

[Anonymous No.3497093]

>>3497078
>Emotional argument.
Protip: All arguments are irrational in this sense since all preferences are irrational. There's no such thing as a logical preference.

Also freedom doesn't exists, there's just differing power relations and those who come out on top in their particular preferred system call that system the most free. There's nothing free about working for me. I'd rather collect benefits. Therefore I am most free in the welfare state. Free to do as I please.

[Anonymous No.3497096]

Daily reminder that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism, and 99% of an-caps have no awareness of anarchist theory more recent than Bakunin.

[Anonymous No.3497101]

>>3497078
>Not a chance. Private security, private courts, and the whole nine yards.
Lelelelele. Also known as feudalism. You should retire from politics.

[Anonymous No.3497111]

>>3497092
More like quasi-horizontal workplace cooperatives governed by varying degrees of direct/representative democracy depending on the size of the organization, controlling the means of production and distributing their goods to the public in exchange for mutual aid from other cooperatives.

[Anonymous No.3497112]

>>3497093
That freedom relies on the use of force upon other in the form of taxation. So you are free in the way a master is free in relation to his slave. Anarcho-capitalism extends freedom to all citizens, and none of permitted to use force or subjugate others unless voluntarily agreed to.

>>3497101
Is that your way of admitting defeat?

[Anonymous No.3497113]

>Freedom means turning the entire planet into a mass of privately-owned territories and resources.

[Anonymous No.3497123]

>>3497113
Also known as a completely voluntary society. It's the ideal ideology unless you hate freedom.

[Anonymous No.3497125]

Why don't anarchists just buy land and go about their business there? They can get way closer to their ideals that way, maybe almost completely, but they rather discuss political theory on the internet.

[Anonymous No.3497126]

>>3497125
Because you would still have to obey the laws of the country where the land is located?

[Anonymous No.3497127]

>>3496520
>not anarcho communism

[Anonymous No.3497132]

>>3497126
so if you buy an island, you still have to follow someone's law? are there any islands for which this doesn't apply?

[Anonymous No.3497133]

>>3497112
>So you are free in the way a master is free in relation to his slave.
Best freedom. I'll take it. Individualist anarchism is best anarchism.

[Anonymous No.3497135]

>>3497123
Every an-cap I've ever spoken to has used the term "voluntary" to refer to economic hierarchies, as though anyone would ever willingly place themselves beneath another person on a hierarchy.

Define "freedom" and define "voluntary".

Or don't bother, because your ideas are garbage and you are garbage.

[Anonymous No.3497139]

>>3497126
Sure, in theory, but in reality you can go a very long way towards implementing your ideals.

[Anonymous No.3497141]

Instead of this over complex test, I would just like to say I am a social democrat and always vote for social democratic parties (you know, in a political system which isn't actually flawed by the tyranny of mere two parties)

[Anonymous No.3497142]

>>3497123
>society in which an individual can not use natural resources in order to sustain themselves and their family without being threatened with violence by an angry property owner or corporation
>voluntary

[Anonymous No.3497149]

>>3497141
Of course forgot pic

[Anonymous No.3497150]

>>3497133
>Individualist anarchism is best anarchism.
"Anarcho"-capitalism isn't even individualist anarchism. Capitalism is incompatible with individual autonomy.

If you want real individualists, read some Renzo Novatore, Max Stirner, Fredy Perlman, modern insurrectionist and egoist and nihilist authors, and so on.

[Anonymous No.3497155]

>>3497139
Actually, no, you can't, because the only way is all the way. This is why anarchists are not liberals. There is no reform, no half-way point.

[Anonymous No.3497158]

>>3497135
I understand that you're frustrate at your inability to best me in an argument. You'll get over it though.

>>3497133
Anarcho-capitalism is the only form individualist anarchism. If you're alright with using violence to enslave others, you are just a statist.

[Anonymous No.3497164]

>>3497141
the two party system doesn't just come out of thin air because america hates itself and wants to die
it's result of single member districts

[Anonymous No.3497165]

>>3497158
Define freedom and define voluntary and see if you can get over the massive contradictions present at every corner of your ideology.

Oh, wait, you can't.

Capitalism is incompatible with individualism.

[Anonymous No.3497174]

>>3497158
>If you're alright with using violence to enslave others, you are just a statist.

That's exactly what Anarcho-Capitalism is though, only instead of a state having monopoly on violence it's corporations.

[Anonymous No.3497179]

>>3497165
A voluntary decision is one made absent of violent coercion. The argument you will bring up, undoubtedly as every statist does, is "b-but they need food and thus it isn't voluntary because they have to work to get it!!!". But that reveals a very narrow understanding of the world. All of your actions are determined by biological and social influences, "free will" is a myth. As long as you're human you will need things, and if you define those needs as coercive forces you are a slave to yourself and reality.

>>3497174
I've already stated that corporations are a state-created entity and wouldn't exist. Individuals would compete with each other in order to offer the best service to the most people, and that individual's business would prosper.

[Anonymous No.3497181]

>>3497150
I think you're mistaken. I'm not the anarcho-capitalist guy, I'm the one enjoying himself on welfare. I'm the free rider of the anarcho-capitalists nightmares. I've already read Novatore and Stirner, I'll check out the other guy.

[Anonymous No.3497182]

>>3496525
"Anarcho"-capitalists aren't even actual anarchists. I thought we've been over this.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Collective__An_Anarchist_FAQ__07_17_.html
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Collective__An_Anarchist_FAQ__04_17_.html

[Anonymous No.3497185]

>>3497155
So are you an insurrectionist or just full of shit?

[Anonymous No.3497186]

>>3497182
>source: this communist internet website xD

[PlatformistFag !!JuB1MCnwvsO No.3497188]

>>3497179
>All of your actions are determined by biological and social influences, "free will" is a myth

Funnily enough, most ancaps assign free will a huge importance, to the extent that their moral philosophy is based entirely on it.

>Individuals would compete with each other in order to offer the best service to the most people, and that individual's business would prosper.

And that individual would also subordinate others to his will through his wielding of economic power. Your system supposes involuntary subordination of the masses of producers to the few who own capital.

[Anonymous No.3497190]

"Anarcho"-capitalism officially voted Most Boring Ideology after it being revealed that its adherents' only activities are posting lengthy essays using ill-defined concepts of "violence" and "freedom", calling literally everyone else in the world "statists", and clicking the Like button on Youtube videos of Stefan Molyneux.

[Anonymous No.3497192]

Only in America would Objectivists have the nerve to call themselves anarchists.

[Anonymous No.3497196]

>>3497186
Source: Iain McKay, an actual anarchist.

Theanarchistlibrary hosts shit tons of text from a wide variety of anarchist tendencies. Of course, ancaps are excluded, but ancaps aren't anarchists.

[Anonymous No.3497197]

>>3497185
The former.

[Anonymous No.3497194]

>>3497179
>corporations are a state-created entity and wouldn't exist

How exactly? And what's to stop things like vertical integration and the formation of monopolies and truck systems in a capitalist society without government intervention?

[Anonymous No.3497198]

Question to anarcho-capitalists present: What do you do to realise your ideals besides talking about them online? Also, how should your ideals be realised anyway? What's the game plan?

[Anonymous No.3497199]

>>3497197
Please elaborate.

[Anonymous No.3497203]

>>3497179
>"b-but they need food and thus it isn't voluntary because they have to work to get it!!!"
Yeah, see, there's this slight difference between "I physically need to collect food and put it into my mouth because I need it in order to continue existing" and "I need to sell my body and mind into wage labor in order to be paid a fixed amount bearing no correlation to the amount of wealth I created".

Is it voluntary to sneak onto a farmer's land and take a bunch of his food without him noticing? Violent coercion plays no part in that action.

[Anonymous No.3497212]

>>3497199
You asked me whether I am an insurrectionist and I said "yes". Insurrectionism is a tendency within contemporary anarchism (and throughout history, although it hasn't always gone by that name).

If you want to know the ideas and concepts within the insurrectionist tendency, I'd suggest looking into it - try, for example, The Coming Insurrection.

[Anonymous No.3497218]

>>3497179
In an anarcho-capitalist system, everyone will be a slave to property owners.

It's already taken for granted that people "need things" to survive; any given social system will have a method for people to acquire those things. The very reason that people work in modern society is that, if they didn't, they would not be provided with the means to survive. So how the fuck is an anarcho-capitalist society more voluntary than the present one?

It's not.

[Anonymous No.3497227]

>>3497188
>Funnily enough, most ancaps assign free will a huge importance, to the extent that their moral philosophy is based entirely on it.

Free will insofar as the freedom to choose.

>And that individual would also subordinate others to his will through his wielding of economic power.

If you consider offering a wage to workers in exchange for a service the boss deems desirable, then sure.

>Your system supposes involuntary subordination of the masses of producers to the few who own capital.

"Owners of capital" is a communist buzzphrase. The market decides what traits or talents are desirable. You could make duck noises for a living if people were willing to pay. The choice to work for someone else for a wage is yours alone, the only alternative is theft.

>>3497198
Most of us aren't edgy teenagers like anarcho-communists who think pipe bombing people is a good political strategy. We generally don't seek violent revolution, as violence only begets more violence. It will be possible when large groups of people start practicing a form a civil disobedience upon realizing the reality of their slavery. When or if that time will come, is unknown.

Seasteading is one alternative that becomes more feasible as technology progresses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading


P.S. - My response was delayed because the janidork on /jp/ suspended me for 15 minutes for funposting.

[Anonymous No.3497232]

>>3497227
>/jp/

Worst board on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.3497230]

so how many times have you been banned?

[Anonymous No.3497252]

>>3497227
>Free will insofar as the freedom to choose.
People already have the "freedom to chose" in modern society. They are bound to the limitations of the existing social order, but they are free to choose within those limitations, just as they would be under anarcho-capitalism. This is a completely useless idea.

>If you consider offering a wage to workers in exchange for a service the boss deems desirable, then sure.
The workers have no choice but to work for the boss in exchange for the necessities they need to survive. The idea that they can "just find another boss or something else that they can do for money" is only as true as it is in modern society. Another completely fucking useless point.

>The market decides what traits or talents are desirable. You could make duck noises for a living if people were willing to pay. The choice to work for someone else for a wage is yours alone, the only alternative is theft.
And here you fail to recognize that "desire" is something that is socially constructed, for all your talk that free will doesn't exist.

And of course, yet again, you claim that people are totally free to "choose their boss", which is, yet again, only as true as it is today. Complete horseshit.

>Most of us aren't edgy teenagers like anarcho-communists who think pipe bombing people is a good political strategy.
More evidence that you have not actually encountered anarchists outside of the caricatures offered by Murray Rothbard.

>We generally don't seek violent revolution, as violence only begets more violence.
Next up is your utterly clueless ignorance of history, considering there has never been a legitimate revolutionary movement that has not involved violence. (If you say the words "Gandhi" or "Martin Luther King", you are going to prove your own stupidity.)

>It will be possible when large groups of people start practicing a form a civil disobedience upon realizing the reality of their slavery.
So, practicing a form of coercion?

[Anonymous No.3497264]

>>3497227
>claims to be anarchist
>just some petty reformist ideology

[Anonymous No.3497275]

>>3497227
>Most of us aren't edgy teenagers like anarcho-communists who think pipe bombing people is a good political strategy. We generally don't seek violent revolution, as violence only begets more violence. It will be possible when large groups of people start practicing a form a civil disobedience upon realizing the reality of their slavery. When or if that time will come, is unknown.
So instead of practising 'edgy' direct action you just sit around waiting and talk shit on the internet? I'd make a great anarcho-capitalist.

[Anonymous No.3497283]

>>3497252
>People already have the "freedom to chose" in modern society. They are bound to the limitations of the existing social order, but they are free to choose within those limitations, just as they would be under anarcho-capitalism.

They are limited by the laws decided on in each community via the free market, like any other good or service.

>The workers have no choice but to work for the boss in exchange for the necessities they need to survive.

Wrong. They can perform any task deemed desirable by others in exchange for compensation, including professional animal noises.

>And here you fail to recognize that "desire" is something that is socially constructed, for all your talk that free will doesn't exist.

That matters not. For all your talk on so-called "useless points".

>More evidence that you have not actually encountered anarchists outside of the caricatures offered by Murray Rothbard.

Every insult is a point added to my side. I'm already winning by around 20 so don't push your look if you aim to come out ahead.

>Next up is your utterly clueless ignorance of history, considering there has never been a legitimate revolutionary movement that has not involved violence. (If you say the words "Gandhi" or "Martin Luther King", you are going to prove your own stupidity.)

At one point democracy was just a theory, and detractors said it wasn't possible. Another completely useless point.

>So, practicing a form of coercion?

No, they are currently enslaved by the government. Me refusing to give a thug my wallet is no different from refusing to pay taxes or refusing to follow the laws forced upon me by government agents.

>>3497264
>unless you violently overthrow the government and pipebomb people who you disagree with, you aren't an anarchist xD

I haven't been tallying victories, but I'm surely winning.

[Anonymous No.3497285]

>>3497283
>guys we can abolish the state through voting :)

[Anonymous No.3497288]

>>3497283
>unless you violently overthrow the government and pipebomb people who you disagree with, you aren't an anarchist xD

No one said that, read more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_power

[Anonymous No.3497290]

>>3497283
>At one point democracy was just a theory, and detractors said it wasn't possible. Another completely useless point.
It wasn't possible until it was violently enforced. though. If you want to be strict about it democracy is still just a theory, but that's another issue.

[Anonymous No.3497296]

>>3497285
>I'll strawman because I've lost the argument

Nowhere have I mentioned voting. When people refuse to acknowledge the state's authority, it will cease to exist.

>>3497288
>Lenin

/＼＿＿_/＼
/ / ヽ :: ＼
| (●), 、(●)、 |
| ,,ノ(、_, )ヽ、,, |
| ,;‐=‐ヽ .:::: |
＼ ｀ニニ´ .:::/ N-NO THANK YOU
/｀ー‐--‐‐—´´＼
.n:n nn
nf||| | | |^!n
f|.| | ∩ ∩|..| |..|
|: :: ! } {! ::: : |
ヽ ,イ ヽ :イ..

>>3497290
Democracy in it's purest form is mob rule, so naturally I'm not using it as an non-violent model.

[Anonymous No.3497302]

>>3497283
>They are limited by the laws decided on in each community via the free market, like any other good or service.
And so how is this different compared to society as it stands?

>Wrong. They can perform any task deemed desirable by others in exchange for compensation, including professional animal noises.
Yeah, that's great in theory, but how does it play out in reality? That's what I'm saying. Take your head out of your theoretical ass for literally one minute and consider the likelihood that someone could make a living doing professional animal noises. Were you one of those children that got told by their parents that you could "be whatever you want to be as long as you try hard enough"? It's "theoretically" possible for someone to be a professional animal noisemaker in modern society, but why do you think people work at McDonald's instead? Because they are coerced by the machinations of capitalism to sell themselves to whoever will pay them.

>That matters not.
Okay, I'm going to highlight this just to point out that you said "That matters not", you pretentious garbage.

>Every insult is a point added to my side. I'm already winning by around 20 so don't push your look if you aim to come out ahead.
This is going worse and worse for you.

>At one point democracy was just a theory, and detractors said it wasn't possible.
Once again relying on the sheer falsity that "anything is theoretically possible" without any regard for reality or whether it would even be desirable for these things to happen.

>No, they are currently enslaved by the government. Me refusing to give a thug my wallet is no different from refusing to pay taxes or refusing to follow the laws forced upon me by government agents.
So, if I were enslaved by an anarcho-capitalist society (i.e. coerced to pay money into a system that forces me into a life of wage labor that I have no desire to participate in), I can just steal peoples' shit, right?

[Anonymous No.3497303]

>>3497296
>claims someone else is strawmanning
>"lol lenin no thank u, commie XD"

[Anonymous No.3497309]

>>3497296
>When people refuse to acknowledge the state's authority, it will cease to exist.
Seriously, elaborate on that point at all, why don't you?

Lay out a theoretical progression of events in which everyone simultaneously agrees that the dominant social order (i.e. liberal-democratic capitalism) has no legitimacy, and then somehow actually causes the collapse of said social order by sheer power of belief?

[Anonymous No.3497310]

>>3497296
>guys if we just ignore this ulcer it will go away :)

[Anonymous No.3497323]

>>3497296
>Lenin
Wow, it's like you literally did not read past the first line of the article onto the part where it explicitly states that libertarian socialists developed a theory completely distinct from Lenin's, but occasionally using the same name.

Is this why you don't know anything about anarchism?

[Anonymous No.3497336]

>>3497302
>And so how is this different compared to society as it stands?

Laws are centralized and universal.

>Yeah, that's great in theory, but how does it play out in reality?

You cannot make money within a capitalist framework with providing a service to someone else in some form. That's how you survive, by helping others. Those that refuse to offer goods and services to others should not expect anything to be thrown their way.

>Okay, I'm going to highlight this just to point out that you said "That matters not", you pretentious garbage.

Whine more.

>So, if I were enslaved by an anarcho-capitalist society (i.e. coerced to pay money into a system that forces me into a life of wage labor that I have no desire to participate in), I can just steal peoples' shit, right?

If someone initiated force upon you made you do work that wasn't mutually and voluntarily agreed upon, then absolutely! But you don't get to make up your own definitions.

>>3497310
>>3497309
Government is a cancer that can only live when acknowledged by its host.

>>3497323
Libertarian socialists are statists who want to oppress groups of people they disagree with. They claim that all forms of hierarchy are evil, even voluntary hierarchy, which I guess makes BDSM also illegal because it involves voluntarily submitting to someone else.

[Anonymous No.3497341]

>>3497336
>hierarchy
>voluntary
so that's how you justify it

[Anonymous No.3497342]

>>3497336
How is AnCap hierarchy any more voluntary than the current system?

[Anonymous No.3497347]

>>3497336
>If someone initiated force upon you made you do work that wasn't mutually and voluntarily agreed upon, then absolutely!

I asked this before in this thread and now I'm asking it again, what's to stop companies from creating truck systems in an unregulated capitalist society?

[Anonymous No.3497352]

>anarcho-capitalism

Basically you want Objectivism, no?

It's more hardcore than libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.3497364]

>>3497336
>Laws are centralized and universal.
Actually completely untrue, laws change depending on nation-state and local jurisdiction.

>You cannot make money within a capitalist framework with[out] providing a service to someone else in some form. That's how you survive, by helping others.
Actually, you can do a ton of things within a capitalist framework without doing anything for anyone, or in fact causing negative effects for other people.

>Whine more.
Are you describing your revolutionary praxis?

>If someone initiated force upon you made you do work that wasn't mutually and voluntarily agreed upon, then absolutely! But you don't get to make up your own definitions.
>you don't get to make up your own definitions
cannotcontainlaughter.gif

You're describing systematic coercion in terms of individual coercion. I'm not saying "someone" put a gun to my head and said "work for me or else", I'm saying that the entire socioeconomic system prevents me from surviving unless I sell myself into wage labor, which I do not want to do, and therefore must be coercive.

>Government is a cancer that can only live when acknowledged by its host.
You have no idea how revolutions take place because anarcho-capitalism is an ideology described entirely by economists and academics.

>Libertarian socialists are statists
Oh, how could I have guessed.

>voluntary hierarchy
Doesn't exist within the context of a social order.

>which I guess makes BDSM also illegal because it involves voluntarily submitting to someone else
Sexual roleplay is not a systematic social relation.

You are still failing on all of these points.

[Anonymous No.3497367]

>logic

i don't think anyone here know what that word means

[Anonymous No.3497372]

Forgot to sage.

>voluntary hierarchy
>statists
>taxation = theft
>choose your boss
>freedom of choice
>as defined by the market

[Anonymous No.3497377]

>>3497341
Would BDSM be illegal? It's voluntary hierarchy.

>>3497342
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

>>3497347
The free market is the best guarantee against monopolies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

>>3497352
I agree with personal philosophy of selfish self-interest but her justifications are philosophically unsound, like all attempts to universalize morality.

>>3497364
>Actually completely untrue, laws change depending on nation-state and local jurisdiction.

They aren't decentralized and government exists only by stealing from everyone else 20% or more of their wages, which is theft.

>Actually, you can do a ton of things within a capitalist framework without doing anything for anyone, or in fact causing negative effects for other people.

Name a way to make money without providing a good or service to someone else.

>
You're describing systematic coercion in terms of individual coercion. I'm not saying "someone" put a gun to my head and said "work for me or else", I'm saying that the entire socioeconomic system prevents me from surviving unless I sell myself into wage labor, which I do not want to do, and therefore must be coercive.

Reality puts a gun to your head and says that you need food to survive.

>You have no idea how revolutions take place because anarcho-capitalism is an ideology described entirely by economists and academics.

And marxists who openly fellate "proletarians" are mainly all bourgeois themselves.

>Sexual roleplay is not a systematic social relation.

But it's a hierarchy, which isn't evil even if voluntary. At least try to be logically consistent if you want me to take you seriously, aniki.

[Anonymous No.3497378]

Reminder that anarcho-capitalists define freedom as "whatever is most convenient to back up our arguments".

[Anonymous No.3497382]

>>3497377
>Would BDSM be illegal?
why should it be?
and why are the mods so fucking slow

[Anonymous No.3497385]

>ancap

nop

[Anonymous No.3497389]

>>3497378
Reminder that Ancoms approve of violence if it's used to silence people that the masses deem a villain.

[Anonymous No.3497395]

>>3497378
eventually you can corner them into admitting their philosophy works only on a "non-aggression principle" or something stupid and magical

it's like getting MRAs to admit they are misogynist

[Anonymous No.3497403]

>>3497395
>it's like getting MRAs to admit they are misogynist

So you're saying that men have no legitimate concerns, and if they think they do it's because they hate women?

[Anonymous No.3497422]

>>3497403
nop

[Anonymous No.3497424]

>>3497377
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Completely meaningless garbage in theory, completely meaningless garbage in practice. Absolutely no more voluntary than the current system.

>They aren't decentralized and government exists only by stealing from everyone else 20% or more of their wages, which is theft.
At what level of centralization does it become decentralization? How do you define a decentralized community compared to a centralized community? And how is wage labor not already theft, since property-owners get to steal the product of peoples' labor and pay them a fixed wage?

>Name a way to make money without providing a good or service to someone else.
Buying and selling derivatives on the housing market. Owning (not managing, not creating, not sustaining, but simply owning) property. The entire construct of consumerism that relies upon creating a desire for something and then selling that thing.

>Reality puts a gun to your head and says that you need food to survive.
And so I take the food that I need, without holding a gun to anyone's head. I just find it on someone's property and I take it. Where is the coercion?

>And marxists who openly fellate "proletarians" are mainly all bourgeois themselves.
Are you going to keep complaining that people are throwing around "ad hominems" while simultaneously painting absurd caricatures of anyone you disagree with?

It's easy to point to hundreds of anarchists who were not property owners, did not come from wealth, and were not members of the academia. It is literally impossible to do the same for anarcho-capitalists.

>But it's a hierarchy, which isn't evil even if voluntary.
Did you mean to say "is evil"?

It's debatable whether a BDSM relationship is a "hierarchy" since neither participant holds genuine power over the other. It's a facsimile of domination and subjugation.

A person who owns property and resources has genuine power over someone who does not own property and resources.

[Anonymous No.3497431]

>the only logically consistent political system
Why is logical consistency a necessity for a political system? Where does this assumption come from?

[Anonymous No.3497435]

in an ancap society, smaller societies are free to develop in whichever way they please and create their own rules i.e. form the current world we live in now

[Anonymous No.3497439]

>>3497431
yeah seriously

kids can't challenge themselves

[Anonymous No.3497444]

>>3496677

[Anonymous No.3497449]

>>3497435
I don't even know whether it's accurate to say that an an-cap society would revert back to liberal-democratic capitalism over a given time period, but really neither of those options are desirable to me.

It's not even a matter of proving one ideology or another as being "right" or "logical"; I can say with 100% certainty that I would never accept either of those societal paradigms and would do everything possible to sabotage both.

[Anonymouse No.3497452]

>>3497431
Sounds like someone didn't read their Greeks

[Anonymous No.3497456]

>>3497452
Diogenes of Sinope is the only Greek philosopher worth paying attention to.

[Anonymous No.3497460]

>>3497452
Why would I do that?

[Anonymous No.3497462]

>>3497377
>The free market is the best guarantee against monopolies.

I didn't say anything about monopolies in that post, I specifically asked what stops companies from creating truck systems.

[Anonymous No.3497467]

>>3497424
>Completely meaningless garbage in theory, completely meaningless garbage in practice.
>my opinions are le fact xD

All attempts at universal morality are invalid, the NAP is just one theory as to how a stateless society could be organized, not and ends.

>At what level of centralization does it become decentralization? How do you define a decentralized community compared to a centralized community?

When other people can elect representatives on the other side of the country to steal from me it's centralized.

>And how is wage labor not already theft, since property-owners get to steal the product of peoples' labor and pay them a fixed wage?

If you voluntarily agree to work for a wage, how is that theft? I suspect some double-think is at work here.

>Buying and selling derivatives on the housing market.

No different that buying lemons and then selling them.

>Owning (not managing, not creating, not sustaining, but simply owning) property.

Elaborate.

>I just find it on someone's property and I take it.

You're forcefully seizing someone's private property.

>Are you going to keep complaining that people are throwing around "ad hominems" while simultaneously painting absurd caricatures of anyone you disagree with?

All I did was respond to an obnoxious caricature with one of my own. Don't be a crybaby.

>It's debatable whether a BDSM relationship is a "hierarchy" since neither participant holds genuine power over the other.

The line you're drawing is arbitrary. Suppose BDSM participants got off on forcing the other to do clean his house. That's voluntary but it's still hierarchy.

>A person who owns property and resources has genuine power over someone who does not own property and resources.

He will not have any workers if he doesn't provide a great service to his customers and also provide wages that are comparatively superior to his competitors.

I look forward to more semantic arguing over definitions.

[Anonymous No.3497468]

>>3497462
they argue from pamphlets dude they don't know how to answer actual questions

[Anonymous No.3497469]

>>3497456
Diogenes would disagree.

[Anonymous No.3497473]

>>3497467
>taxation is theft

i love this. you can explain again and again that no, by no definition of 'theft' can taxation be called theft. then they tell you "ARE YOU SAYING IT'S OK TO THEFT?"

jesus christ no learn to read and stop making shit up about society

[Anonymous No.3497477]

>>3497467
This is embarrassing. How long have you been an AnCap? I don't think you've read into any of the theory.

[Anonymous No.3497485]

>>3497473
The government is forcefully seizing my hard-earned money just because I live in some lines they arbitrarily drew on a map. How is this different from the mafia collecting large sums of cash from business owners for "protection", and kicking the shit out of them if they don't fork it over?

>>3497477
You've got to be careful, junior, you've already ceded like 10 points, and now 11. I'm very close to the 50 point threshold that would crown me the victor of this thread, while you're still stuck at 0.

[Anonymous No.3497489]

>>3496909

thats the fatal flaw that ancaps (and their slightly less retarded libertarian cousins) dont realise, it is a synthetic ideology like marxism that is useful to the aims of an exploitative elite because they both condition people to see their exploitation as righteous, as long as its the 'right kind' of things doing the exploiting.

[Anonymous No.3497490]

>>3496520

Sanae a slut

[Anonymous No.3497491]

>tfw an-caps don't even know how to into economics
How do you deal with unemployment in an an-cap society? Because unemployment is an inherent part of capitalist economy. There will always be periods of excess labor force.

Also loving how the argument of "you need to work for a boss because that's how you contribute to society". Because an-caps totally care about what's best for "society".

I really don't give a shit about contributing to society, I want individual autonomy and agency and control over my environment, and that does not involve capitalism at any point or in any form.

[Anonymous No.3497492]

>>3497485
hey what a surprise, you missed the point of my post

>by no definition of 'theft'
>by no definition of 'theft'
>by no definition of 'theft'

you're changing the definition of theft

>taxation is theft*
>*if theft means what i want it to mean

[Anonymous No.3497493]

>>3497485
What the fuck are you talking about? That was the first post I made in the thread. Now answer my question.

[Anonymous No.3497495]

>>3496520

thats some trolltastic logical gymnastics.

protip, burden of proof was agreeded upon by academics as a tool to expedite journalship and research, not as a fundamental rule for arriving at truth

ockhams razor is the same way

[Anonymous No.3497499]

>>3497493
I think OP is a paranoid schizophrenic or something.

[DICKS No.3497500]

DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS DONGS NIGGER BONER UP THE BUTT

[Anonymous No.3497501]

>>3497485

>The government is forcefully seizing my hard-earned money

Your hard-earned money that the government maintains and circulates, which you earned in a system maintained by the government...?

The mafia, by contrast, generally has little involvement in your earnings and then demands a cut for staying out of your way.

[Anonymous No.3497503]

>>3497485
the government ensures you receive that money for hard work. do you think money magically appears when you work? it's not a universal concept.

[Anonymous No.3497508]

>>3497485
>The government is forcefully seizing my hard-earned money just because I live in some lines they arbitrarily drew on a map. How is this different from the mafia collecting large sums of cash from business owners for "protection", and kicking the shit out of them if they don't fork it over?

Do you use paved roads? Do you drink city water? Do you have your garbage collected regularly? Do you benefit from the efforts of, just for an example, Coast Guard ice cutters operating up in the northern parts of the Atlantic Ocean to improve the efficiency and lower the cost of international trade?

The answer to all of these questions is probably "yes", I'm sure.

[Anonymous No.3497512]

>>3497500
Holy shit, I haven't played Graal Online in ages, is it still any good?

[Anonymous No.3497513]

>>3497462
OP seriously I've asked this question three times now and you haven't answered it.

[Anonymous No.3497514]

>>3497492
> theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

I don't wan't the government to steal my paycheck, but they still do. If I refuse, they steal even more of my money and throw me in a cage.

>>3497501
Money wasn't created by government. Currently we have a fiat currency which only has value because the government says so. The federal(don't be fooled by the name) reserve is a private bank that has a monopoly on the creation of US dollars and alternative currencies are banned.

>>3497508
If I rob you and then give some back later while taking most of it to pay my (government) cronies and fund other projects that will never benefit you at all, is that not theft?

All of those services could be provided by the private sector, and like all things it will be better quality and cheaper.

[Anonymous No.3497517]

>>3497514
> theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

you're just making this definition up. find me a real definition and link me to it

[Anonymous No.3497518]

>>3497514
see
>>3497503

[Anonymous No.3497521]

>>3497514
>he says this as he refuses to move off stolen land

[Anonymous No.3497520]

>>3497503
The government takes 20% of my paycheck, they are stealing from me, not ensuring I get my money's worth. I can voluntarily form a contract with my boss, where I will perform a specific task he needs in exchange for a mutually agreed upon wage.

[Anonymous No.3497525]

>>3497514
>All of those services could be provided by the private sector, and like all things it will be better quality and cheaper.

Totally dude.

That's why meat was mixed in with rat feces until Teddy Roosevelt got freaked out by The Jungle. That's why the Roman's privately owned fire departments used to let houses burn and refused to put out the fires until the owners sold it to them for ridiculously low prices.

Better quality and cheaper.

[Anonymous No.3497527]

>>3497520
you're not addressing the point

work resulting in pay is not a universal concept

it is a system ensured by the government

quit reading from your pamphlet

[Anonymous No.3497529]

An-caps confirmed for never going outside or interacting with people outside of libertarian capitalist forums on the internet.

[Anonymous No.3497530]

>>3497520
Dude seriously, respond to this fucking post >>3497462

[Anonymous No.3497531]

I'd hate to make a thread in /pol/ thinking I was intellectually superior to the board and then get shat on by literally everyone who chose to engage with me.

[Anonymous No.3497535]

>>3497525
The government reacts to problems only after the public has become aware of them. Once the public is aware of a company using a product they don't approve of, they will not purchase any goods or services from said company. Simple.

>>3497527
[citation needed]

>>3497531
I would hate that too, considering /pol/ is so dumb. But luckily /lit/ is pretty dumb as well so I've bested all of you easily.

[Anonymous No.3497537]

>>3497531
Yeah, it's kind of incredible how many people are destroying these arguments simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.3497538]

>>3497520
>a contract

You mean that thing that is only given validity due to the protection of the courts and the legal system created by the government?

[Anonymous No.3497539]

>>3497514
>All of those services could be provided by the private sector, and like all things it will be better quality and cheaper.

I'd like to refer to my Coast Guard example again. Please tell me how the services performed by the United States Coast Guard could be performed better by the private sector, while still turning a profit.

[Anonymous No.3497540]

>>3497535
>Once the public is aware of a company using a product they don't approve of, they will not purchase any goods or services from said company.

in your fantasy land where everyone is a biological calculating machine

[Anonymous No.3497543]

>>3497535
sorry friend; the burden of proof (remember that thing?) is on you to prove it is a universal system. i can't prove a negative.

>I've bested all of you easily.

[citation needed]

you're slipping, son

[Anonymous No.3497544]

>>3497535
> Once the public is aware of a company using a product they don't approve of, they will not purchase any goods or services from said company.

What if there all no alternatives because without regulation all those companies have no reason to raise their expenses with stuff like "sanitary conditions".

[Anonymous No.3497546]

>>3497544
*are no

[Anonymous No.3497549]

>>3497535
>Once the public is aware of a company using a product they don't approve of, they will not purchase any goods or services from said company. Simple.
You keep responding to all of these points with the assumption that people will always have the option of choice (within the limitations you've defined).

So far you haven't managed to convince a single person here that anarcho-capitalism would ever be a desirable form of society, so I don't see how you're going to set about convincing the whole planet and achieving a non-violent critical mass or whatever.

[Anonymous No.3497552]

>>3497535
No one here is convinced by you talking yourself up since everyone can see you're struggling to make a coherent point. You leave inconvenient points unaddressed and you reply to other points with irrelevant parroting.

[Anonymous No.3497556]

>>3497538
Private courts.

>>3497539
People transporting goods by boat would have private security, it's no different from private security on the land.

>>3497540
I don't follow. If I know a company is doing something I don't like, why would I buy from them?

>>3497544
I support the free market precisely because it is the most effective tool at decentralizing the economy and providing multiple options and competition.

>>3497549
When your ego is on the line, you'll never be convinced. I guess it's partially my fault for giving you such a verbal thrashing. But I've countered every argument in this thread.

[Anonymous No.3497557]

>OP will never answer my question about truck systems

[Anonymous No.3497558]

Why is anyone even bothering responding to this garbage? It's not like an-caps even need to be refuted, they don't exist outside of the internet and their ideas have practically zero influence; literally orders of magnitude less so than anarchists or communists.

[Anonymous No.3497559]

>>3497558
Concur.

[Anonymous No.3497560]

>>3497535

>/pol/ is so dumb

translation, they shat on you at some point in the past, so like hayek, you decided to pedle your ideas as a demagogue somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.3497562]

>>3497556
>I support the free market precisely because it is the most effective tool at decentralizing the economy and providing multiple options and competition.


Yeah bruh but that's not what happens, like with my meat industry example. There simply were no alternatives to the rat feces-infested meat until Teddy Roosevelt started regulating sanitation conditions at meat packing plants.

The Jungle wouldn't have been so controversial if the solution was just "lol buy ur meat from sumwhere else XD"

[Anonymous No.3497565]

>>3497556
>But I've countered every argument in this thread.
If you had countered any - literally any - argument, you might find that people would admit that you have some valid points. But you have absolutely none. Your ideology is incompatible with both individual autonomy and social co-operation. Even if your theories had any basis in reality, they would still be completely undesirable.

[Anonymous No.3497566]

>>3497560
wahh fuck niggers and kikes and women

me white man

[Anonymous No.3497567]

>>3497556
that's you. you are not everyone. there are a myriad of reasons why people would buy from a company. maybe the image? you're making huge assumptions as to how people operate. they're false and it's clear you don't interact with people socially a lot

[Anonymous No.3497570]

>>3497567
how do people operate?

[Anonymous No.3497571]

>>3497566

dont forget, real americans fight for israel.

[Anonymous No.3497572]

>>3497556

>Private courts.

Private courts require violent coercive power to enforce any agreement. Furthermore, I didn't sign a contract with you agreeing that you have sovereignty over your home. Therefore it must be my right to use your home and its contents as I please while you're at work... again, since I've signed no contract with you in any private court, none of them have jurisdiction.

[Anonymous No.3497573]

>>3497557
I'm sure the OP's answer will be "just work for someone else!!!!!"

Because that's how we solved the problem of truck systems in the first place, right?

[Anonymous No.3497574]

>>3497571
>doesn't understand international politics
>implying israel isn't basically the US's bitch

muh stormfront
muh ultra-bias

[Anonymous No.3497578]

>>3497560
I'm Jewish so I tend to avoid places like that.

>>3497562
>There simply were no alternatives to the rat feces-infested meat until Teddy Roosevelt started regulating sanitation conditions at meat packing plants.

Wrong, Teddy Roosevelt regulated the meat industry precisely because it was exposed and on the public's mind.

>>3497567
If people still buy from a company that does things you don't like, who are you to stop them? Obviously they consider the benefit of the good/service provided to bear more weight than the perceived negatives.

>>3497572
5:12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

[Anonymous No.3497575]

>>3497556
>But I've countered every argument in this thread.

>>3497543
>>3497521
>>3497517
>>3497557

[Anonymous No.3497577]

>>3497570
a lot differently to each other

[Anonymous No.3497580]

I was considering posting a response in this thread but then I figured I'd just leave a quick sage and go distribute some literature about why capitalism is fucking terrible, thereby negating the efforts of literally dozens of unread an-cap internet postings about how the free market will fix everything.

[Anonymous No.3497582]

>>3497578
>I'm Jewish

[Anonymous No.3497586]

>>3497578
>If people still buy from a company that does things you don't like, who are you to stop them? Obviously they consider the benefit of the good/service provided to bear more weight than the perceived negatives.

lolin

[Anonymous No.3497589]

>>3497556
How could a private court ever be as unbiased and consistent as the current legal system? If your boss wanted to deny you the wages set out in your contract, he'd just have to find a judge that would rule in his favor. For instance, there could be so many different definitions of what a valid contract is that nobody would sign a contract. If you can't be sure that it'll be upheld, then the contract loses its weight entirely.

There's a reason why larger bodies (i.e., the state and federal governments) provide legal definitions: It actually makes capitalism easier.

[Anonymous No.3497587]

>>3497578

>im jewish

that explains alot.

[Anonymous No.3497591]

>>3497556
>People transporting goods by boat would have private security, it's no different from private security on the land.

That's not really what the Coast Guard does at all for the most part bro. They're pretty much the single most important factor in maintaining efficient international trade, as well as saving shitloads of lives when people get caught in storms and stuff.

However the services they perform, while immeasurably beneficial to the well being of society and the economy in general, would simply not be profitable for any private organization.

Don't underestimate the Coast Guard's importance either. I can say with complete confidence that if they didn't exist it would be impossible for the United States' economy to, pardon my pun, stay afloat.


>But I've countered every argument in this thread.

Oh my gosh no you haven't you still haven't answered my truck system question.

[Anonymous No.3497594]

>>3497556
>People transporting goods by boat would have private security, it's no different from private security on the land.

That's not really what the Coast Guard does at all for the most part bro. They're pretty much the single most important factor in maintaining efficient international trade, as well as saving shitloads of lives when people get caught in storms and stuff.

However the services they perform, while immeasurably beneficial to the well being of society and the economy in general, would simply not be profitable for any private organization.


>But I've countered every argument in this thread.

Oh my gosh no you haven't you still haven't answered my truck system question.

[Anonymous No.3497596]

>>3497574

>talks about internation politics.
>likely doesnt actually follow events or even get news outside mainstream tv.

typical low information prole, thanks for briging up this irrelevant aside by the way.

[Anonymous No.3497598]

>>3497578
>Teddy Roosevelt regulated the meat industry precisely because it was exposed and on the public's mind.

He was grossed out that he'd been eating that shit for so many years because, up until he started regulating things, nobody had any idea how nasty meat packing plants were except for the people who worked in them.

[Anonymous No.3497600]

>>3497578
>wants a society in which one's position is solely based on ones skill at commerce
>turns out to be a jew

You're like a black person suggesting all disputes should be settled in basketball.

[Anonymous No.3497601]

>>3497589
>How could a private court ever be as unbiased and consistent as the current legal system?
>current legal system
>unbiased

Judges provide a service like any other industry. If he made ruling the majority considered just and honorable, he would make money and have loyal customers. If he took bribes and make decisions perceived to be bad, nobody would seek him out.

See video posted here. >>3497578

>>3497587
>>3497582
Please don't bully.

>>3497586
So you have no argument?

[Anonymous No.3497604]

>arguing with capitalists instead of killing them and abolishing capital

[Anonymous No.3497605]

>>3497604
>resorting to violence because you cannot form a coherent argument

[Anonymous No.3497606]

>>3497601
i did but you changed the argument again.

>using a product
>using a product
>using a product

also
>>3497575

[Anonymous No.3497609]

>>3497605
>Implying capitalism hasn't been discredited since before Marx
>Implying that wasn't my first post in this thread
>Implying your sage matters

[Anonymous No.3497610]

>>3497605
>implying violence is not a coherent argument

[Anonymous No.3497612]

>>3497605
>thinking you can talk people in submission
>not knowing political power grows out of the barrel of a gun

[Anonymous No.3497616]

>>3497610
This. Ad baculum is only a fallacy as long as you're not the one getting your shit slapped.

[Anonymous No.3497618]

>>3497612
>>3497610
>Look mom, I'm being edgy and rebellious online! Hahahaha, it's revolution time!.. After I finish my hotpockets.

[Anonymous No.3497621]

>>3497578

>i tend to avoid places like that

translation, youre a beta whos afraid of having his views challenged, and likely has serious insecurities and ego based delusions.

>ive countered every argument in this thread.

indeed

[Anonymous No.3497623]

>>3497618
>"Anarcho-capitalist"
>Calls others edgy

[Anonymous No.3497625]

>>3497621
>indeed

oh man i lost it

[Anonymous No.3497620]

>>3497618
>implying i'm not an impartial observer of the argument calling you out on your shit

[Anonymous No.3497629]

>>3497618
>implying I pretend being part of the revolutionary left
I'm comfy as fuck with the status quo and smile languidly any time cops in riot gear revive Roman field tactics against a bunch of disorderly hippies or minorities. Just saying that violence is a force to be reckoned with.

[Anonymous No.3497630]

>>3497621
>translation, youre a beta whos afraid of having his views challenged, and likely has serious insecurities and ego based delusions.

More like I don't find "it's da jews!" very intellectually stimulating.

>>3497623
I don't know if he's an Ancap or not, but it's not me. He's misusing the quoting feature and posting with a 3D image.

I'm going to officially declare myself the winner of this thread if there are no further arguments that can be presented. Seeing as how I've demolished all that attempted to do so, I can understand if I seem intimidating, but I don't bite!

[Anonymous No.3497631]

>>3497596
Holy shit, that image.

[Anonymous No.3497634]

>>3497630
>I'm going to officially declare myself the winner of this thread if there are no further arguments that can be presented.

OH MY FUCKING GOD ANSWER MY TRUCK SYSTEM QUESTION I'VE ASKED LIKE TEN TIMES I AM SO MAD RIGHT NOW BRO

[Anonymous No.3497635]

>>3497630
blah blah bleepy bloo blah a habba a habballah whippy wap wap a bing bang balloon a loo

[Anonymous No.3497636]

>>3497630

but my friend, what if it actually was da jewz?

[Anonymous No.3497638]

>>3497630
> Seeing as how I've demolished all that attempted to do so, I can understand if I seem intimidating, but I don't bite!

Is there a mental disorder that can describe this level of delusion?

[Anonymous No.3497640]

>>3497638
He's from /jp/ apparently, delusion is a prerequisite for posting there.

[Anonymous No.3497641]

>>3497638
chronic lack of stimulation

[Anonymous No.3497646]

>>3497630

translation, youre an adhd babby unable to sift through shit to get gold, or an autist who cant handle environments with large amounts of conflicting opinion.

[OFFICIAL /LIT/ POLICE No.3497648]

A NOTE FROM THE OFFICIAL /LIT/ POLICE:

THIS THREAD IS OFFICIALLY CLOSED. OFFICIALLY THE OP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN DEFEATED, SO OFFICIALLY THERE IS NO FURTHER PURPOSE FOR THIS THREAD.

OFFICIALLY YOURS,
OFFICER O. F. FICIALLY OF THE OFFICIAL /LIT/ POLICE

[Anonymous No.3497651]

3..

2..

1..

And that's a wrap, folks! I am the official winner of this thread, like every one of my threads that I create. I'll likely create another one in a couple of days, I hope you'll all show up! Thanks.

>>3497648
Please ignore this imposter.

[Anonymous No.3497653]

>>3497630

>declaring victory and leaving

yeah, definitly an insecure beta.

if any other ancaps are in the thread, this is the kind of people who find your ideals agreeable, pls reflect.

[Anonymous No.3497654]

>>3497630

[OFFICIAL /LIT/ POLICE No.3497655]

>>3497651
can't you read what the officer said dude?

[OFFICIAL /LIT/ POLICE No.3497656]

>>3497655
i swear i'm not samefagging

[Anonymous No.3497657]

>>3497655
>OFFICIAL /LIT/ POLICE

Nice try.

[Anonymous No.3497661]

>>3497651
Answer my question about truck systems first please.

[Anonymous No.3497664]

>>3497661
the public will just not buy trucks then you can't have a truck system

I WIN.

BYE

[Anonymous No.3497667]

>>3497664
NO THAT'S NOT EVEN WHAT A TRUCK SYSTEM IS

I SWEAR TO GOD IF YOU DO NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION PROPERLY I'M JUST GOING TO TURN THIS INTO A JOJO THREAD

[Anonymous No.3497670]

>>3497667
Too late, it's already happening.

[Anonymous No.3497672]

>this thread
Gold star

[Anonymous No.3497674]

>>3497670
So which joey jojo is your favorite /lit/?

[Anonymous No.3497677]

>>3497674
I'm partial to Johnny myself.

[Anonymous No.3497680]

>>3497677
Got a bit of a soft spot for Joseph too though.

[Anonymous No.3497683]

>>3497680
But Dio's got that sexy bad boy vibe, better than any of the Jojo's in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.3497701]

State Socialism is best.

[Anonymous No.3497703]

>>3497701
Why are you discussing politics in a Jojo thread?