- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
Update: AMA is concluded.
This private information is unavailable to guests due to policies enforced by third-parties.
Last edited:
Ask a genuine anarcho-capitalist anything* - *ideally where a libertarian framework is relevant
- Thread starter XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG
- Start date
-
⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2022
How many times a day do you shit in your adult diaper?
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
How do you discourage faggotry under your system?
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2019
How can you have a free market if there's no central or collective authority to break up monopolies and cartels?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
Can you state the keypoints in your ideology in regards to this in a summarized way, but still with its reasoning?
Suggested template:
- My idea and what is it about.
- What are its core points that I defend?
- How is it better than the alternatives?
- Does it have any weaknesses or aspects to consider as a potential problem?
- State real life examples of it working.
Suggested template:
- My idea and what is it about.
- What are its core points that I defend?
- How is it better than the alternatives?
- Does it have any weaknesses or aspects to consider as a potential problem?
- State real life examples of it working.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
How many days a week do your mom gives you an allowance?
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2022
Are you actually German and if so, have you been visited by the polizei?
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
"Faggotry" is a bit vague, I can probably give a better answer if you're more specific. If you mean behavior that polite people find obnoxious or degenerate, then under a libertarian system it's handled the same way as any other not-inherently-violent behavior, namely by property owners deciding what they allow or exclude.
If you own the venue, you set the rules. If you don't, you live with the rules of whoever does. That's how peaceful order emerges without a central mafia.
What can't happen under anarcho-capitalism is the state forcing everyone to subsidize or tolerate whatever government officials decide is "good", whether that's corporate pride parades on public streets or religious censorship in your own house. Property boundaries are the only objective line
Strictly speaking, a monopoly in the meaningful sense is a state grant of exclusive privilege, and therefore not something that can even exist in a free market. Without government protection, the only way to "dominate" a market is by offering better prices or products, which is not exploitation, but rather success.
It's the same thing with cartels. Without the state to enforce them, they fall apart. Each member has every incentive to undercut the others to get more customers. That's why cartels only endure when they're backed by law (tariffs, licenses, subsidies, patents etc.)
So the "central" you're asking for is creating monopoly rather than solving it. In a genuinely free market, monopolies cannot appear and cartels don't last.
Sure thing, I'll use your template
Core points I defend:
#1: Self-ownership, each person has the right to exclude others from their own body.
#2: Property acquisition, first use and embordering of unowned resources establishes ownership.
#3: Voluntary exchange, all interactions beyond that must be by consent and not by coercion.
#4: No exceptions under any circumstances; because taxation, conscription, and regulation are all violations of the above, the state is impermissible
Why it's better than the alternatives:
Democracy, socialism, authoritarianism etc. all institutionalize conflict by allowing for legalized theft or coercion. That makes people poorer, more violent, and less free. Under anarcho-capitalism, there is no special exemption for the state or anyone else, and the same rules are applied to everyone.
Weaknesses/aspects to consider:
The system is not a magic spell that can abolish scarcity or conflict, these things are built into reality. But what the system does is provide the only non-contradictory rules for resolving these things. Some people see "no central authority" as a weakness, but the real weakness is the delusion that a central authority can exist without becoming the biggest aggressor.
Real life examples:
There are countless cases where order emerges from property and contract without state involvement. Think of every single situation where people respect the rights of others. Or if you need glimpses, there was medieval Iceland's decentralized legal order, the Merchant Law among traders, private arbitration in modern commerce, private security in gated communities..
Peaceful, stateless order is possible and often works better than state provision.
One thing you ought to be aware is that the state has around 8000 years of a headstart, whereas anarcho-capitalism did not even exist conceptually 100 years ago. In the history of ideas, it really is a brand new concept.
Yes; prefer not to say.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2020
What happens five seconds after Lolbert Anarchism is achieved, and a gorillion Somalis & Squatemalans are flown in to vote away every individual right and limitation on government you established?
(As an enjoyer of individual rights and limited government, I've come to realize that laws on paper are not magic, and Constitutional limitations are just a speed bump if the people fit to live under it are outnumbered by hordes who are not)
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
What you're describing is democracy with a constitution. Aka "rights are whatever the majority says today, and they can be voted away". And you've already spotted the problem. Laws on paper don't bind rulers, they only bind those who are willing to be bound. Any "limitations" can be overridden at the ballot box. And that's why constitutions are speed bumps at best.
See, in anarcho-capitalism, there is no such thing as a voting bloc that can override property rights. Anarcho-capitalism is not built on voting. You don't get "outvoted" on your house, your business, or your body. There is no mechanism for a horde to repeal your ownership by majority will, regardless of whether the horde is native or imported, because majority will simply has no jurisdiction.
And there is no such thing as flying in gorillions of subhumans by decree. Every piece of land has an owner and entry is by invitation or contract. Movement of people is resolved at the level of property and property owners, not by politicians making decisions for everyone.
The whole nightmare you describe is exactly why right-leaning anarchists reject democracy, because it institutionalizes plunder by numbers. And they realize that the cure is not "better paperwork" or "better demographics", but putting an end to the delusion that anyone has authority to rule others without their consent in the first place
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2022
Roads?
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
Roads are just scarce goods like other physical objects, they are land that is improved for travel. There is nothing metaphysically special about roads. Roads can be privately owned and the owner can charge for use, sell access, or make it free as he sees fit.
This already happens in practice with private toll roads, gated communities, shopping mall parking lots, and even long-haul trucking depots. These road systems are managed privately and they're often safer and better maintained than government roads because the owner has actual skin in the game.
The only reason people assume that the state is "needed" for roads is because the state monopolized them early and used taxation to crowd out alternatives. As soon as that privilege is gone, roads are handled the same way as every other piece of infrastructure, namely by owners with incentives to keep them useful
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2020
My name is Omar Tyrone Mohammed D'j'b'j'd'bde and I don't understand none of dat, but the eleventeen gorillion rapefugees that a helpful NGO has filled your town with have decided I'm the Mayor-Governor, and your property rights are Huwite Supremist.
We don't know what "jurisdiction" is either but it sounds like something a Huwite Supremist Terrist would deny to minorities (who are now a majority thanks to your lack of border). You may not see demographics, but our demographic sees you.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
Again you're roleplaying democracy with different costumes. Anarcho-capitalism is not democracy.
Property rights don't vanish just because a crowd of people declares otherwise. Property rights can be violated, by one person or a thousand people, but that is merely aggression and not somehow a repeal of property rights. Calling it majority will does not change the nature of the act.
There simply is no thing as a NGO with the authority to fly people in and dump them on unwilling hosts. Every piece of land has an owner, and legitimate entry is only by invitation or contract. There is no such thing as "public property" for mobs to overrun and no "voting mechanism" that they can invoke.
You're basically just re-enacting the democracy that I reject. Democracy is majority rule imposed on everyone. Anarcho-capitalism instead is a social order based on property. There simply exists no political lever that can be pulled by demographics.
... or are you insinuating that I or other anarcho-capitalists intend to "achieve Lolbert Anarchism" by means of majority vote? Because that is definitely not my stance.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2017
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2020
In the time you wuz typing this, the HIAS flew another gorillion Haitians to your town, and they are now assembled at your gate.
I've been elected Civil Rights Hero, and you've been convicted of Disrespecting Black Kwaynes While Unmasked. You can surrender your home, or the crowd can rape your family to death and deny it happened.
Your "property rights" will of course still exist in principle (whew!). But in reality the Third World hordes living in your decaying house will be told you were a Counter-Revolutionary who got what he deserved.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
Do you even understand what kind of point you're trying to make?
Getting attacked doesn't mean that you didn't have any rights. It means that your rights were violated.
If violence erased rights, then murder is proof that the victim had no right to life. Theft would be proof that the victim owned nothing. That's clearly nonsense, even in your delusional frame.
The point of objective ethics is to determine what is legitimate and what isn't, and not to promise that nobody will ever try to break laws. Under anarcho-capitalism, just like under literally any situation where there is more than one human on the planet, aggression can still happen. The difference is whether there's a coherent rule to judge it by, and that's decidedly not "whoever holds power decides"
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
Congratulations, you described what already happens today. NGOs funded and protected by governments import migrants, mobs use politics as a cover for violence, victims are censored or blamed. That's not an argument against anarcho-capitalism, it's a perfect description of statism.
The fact that a right can be violated does not mean that the right does not exist. cf:
The difference is that, in anarcho-capitalism, aggression is recognized for what it is, and no institution has any legitimacy or excuse for committing it. In statism, the largest gang of thugs declares itself the government, writes exemptions for itself, and calls aggression "law"
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2021
I'm not sure I buy the idea of monoplys being unable to exist under these conditions. If anything, without any higher authority willing to impose limits upon a company that has become too successful, I think companys would effectively end up emulating countries, but with citizens/workers loyal to the company rather than a nation. What's to stop any company that reaches the heights of Google or Amazon from continuing to buy out everyone underneath them and becoming a monopoly? Even expanding beyond that and controlling multiple industries and infrastructure? It's typically when they start threatening a nations interests that they finally get slapped down and restricted, but if a country itself can't do that, who can?