Ask a genuine anarcho-capitalist anything* - *ideally where a libertarian framework is relevant

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

lol the fucking language, I remember the fucking language

"unsubstantiated assertions and vibes with no content"

This is basically old shit mixed with "vibes" and "content". You remixed the playbook with Gen z garbage.

No no pal, Reddit has more of you assholes than you can imagine. You're doing the same retarded thing they do.

You're in a cult. The way out isn't bullshit Internet debates. It's finding something you're actually interested in rather than pretending to be right about something that doesn't even map to the real world.

mhm. "no ancap has ever understood history" -> "Reddit has lots of people like you" -> "you're in a cult"
I reckon if you had a real point, you'd have made it already
That said, I'm not gonna let an opportunity to go waste, it's rare to meet celebrities. Tell me, does the final boss of Reddit drop any loot?

---

Because I share essentially the same definition of "law" that you'd find in any dictionary.


Certain heuristics work most of the time. Whatever laws are on the books in your jurisdiction is a good start. But there's a lot of laws on the books that nobody enforces anymore sp it's not perfect.

... if all you mean is whatever some dictionary says, then you've reduced law to a coin flip between statute books nobody follows and habits nobody can predict. No wonder rates of mental illness keep going up, if statists are living in such a precarious situation.
Regardless, your own example is self-defeating. Written laws don't count unless enforced, unwritten habits don't count unless enforced, and "enforcement" itself is probabilistic. So the only way anyone ever "knows" the law under your view is by waiting to see if the man in the uniform hits you with a club or not. Surely you'd agree with my contention that that's just roulette?

---

@XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG What are your thoughts on Gary Johnson and other small-L libertarians?

Gary Johnson and non-anarchist libertarians are not actually libertarians in my book. Libertarianism is at its core a legal philosophy, and the state is an inherently criminal institution because it violates the ground rules of libertarianism. Accordingly, if you stop just short of abolishing the state, then what is that position even? Other than maybe shaving off the rough edges of statism and, against all of history and praxeology, praying that the small state stays small?
"Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" is a downright outrageous cope and I'm somewhat glad that the landscape and intellectual quality has changed to the extent that I haven't heard that slogan sincerely in years. That said, you have my blessing to relentlessly bully any self-declared libertarian who tries to sell you a lighter whip instead of no whip at all. Freedom is not a matter of policy tweaks, it's the recognition that aggression is illegitimate, period, no exception.
The Libertarian Party itself, and other libertarian parties in other countries, I dunno if they're completely misguided efforts, honeypots, or false flag operations. The whole point is to reject being a slave altogether, and not beg for representation inside the slave pen.
... if any true and honest libertarian is reading this, ask yourself and then let me know - how do you propose using the political means and playing under the rules of democracy make a people free?

---

That's exactly how the Russian Revolution happened. What is your ancap plan to prevent General Secretary Busmalis who promises them the world and agitates them against your system? We have the guns, the anger and desire for change.


They're not going to do a lot of good when I have an army of well-armed hungry, angry people who want what I'm promising. You'll be sent to dig gold in Magadan for the benefit of the people.

Tovarish, allow me to counter-question you. What in a free society would make your story even possible?

Angry mobs whipped up with propaganda, seizing food and guns, sending dissidents to gulags, your whole script presupposes the conditions of a state. Centralized stockpiles, disarmed civilians, a monopoly propaganda system, a bureaucracy to enforce purges. None of these things exist without a state.
In a free society, there is no lever to seize. Property owners already control their food, arms, and associations directly.
What makes you think that your revolution works without an existing state machinery that can be hijacked? Like, if you can come up with a valid explanation, I'd love to hear it

---

Actually, I'm an ancap too, I'm just consenting to the power of the US government in its ability to service me, and I pay it taxes in exchange for its services.

If you find the IRS's unsubscribe button, make sure you tell Null about it.

EDIT: Maybe religion wasn't the right word, "belief system"? Either way I've come to accept that it has no real bearing beyond personal ethics until a large enough power can cooperatively/coercively enforce it.

I would like you to seriously consider this very important point. All human action flows from belief systems. What people believe is legitimate defines what they tolerate, and what they tolerate is exactly how the state survives.
The state itself is nothing but a belief system (faith in the legitimacy of monopoly) and every government in human history has lasted exactly as long as people were willing to submit, and every one eventually collapsed when that belief was gone.
If you think that anarcho-capitalism is somehow useless or meaningless or impotent because it's grounded in philosophy, you got it backwards. Anarcho-capitalism and the state both are belief systems. And precisely one of the two is aligned with the reality of scarcity, consent, and property boundaries. The other is people coping and sneeding that theft becomes noble when enough people agree with it. Something something 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.

 

[The Last Stand]

Certain heuristics work most of the time. Whatever laws are on the books in your jurisdiction is a good start. But there's a lot of laws on the books that nobody enforces anymore sp it's not perfect.

I fully support the concept of enforcing law and order to the fullest extent if it means keeping people like them away from decent folk.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Tovarish, allow me to counter-question you. What in a free society would make your story even possible?

People want agency and to enjoy the fruits of their labor for themselves, not at the hands of some scumbag conglomerate.

Angry mobs whipped up with propaganda, seizing food and guns, sending dissidents to gulags, your whole script presupposes the conditions of a state. Centralized stockpiles, disarmed civilians, a monopoly propaganda system, a bureaucracy to enforce purges. None of these things exist without a state.

We'll create the state because people naturally desire a government to rule over them, it is the basic form of human relations in all of our history.

Stability, peace and law and order,...I sell those three and what do you offer? More exploitation, more corruption and more lawlessness and anarchy.

In a free society, there is no lever to seize. Property owners already control their food, arms, and associations directly.
What makes you think that your revolution works without an existing state machinery that can be hijacked? Like, if you can come up with a valid explanation, I'd love to hear it

So you openly admit the latifundia are the future under your system. What a wonderful world.

 

[The Last Stand]

Stability, peace and law and order,...I sell those three and what do you offer? More exploitation, more corruption and more lawlessness and anarchy.

So, basically Europe.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

So, basically Europe.

If I were in charge things would be so much better.

 

[The Last Stand]

If I were in charge things would be so much better.

That's what everybody says.

"Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" is a downright outrageous cope and I'm somewhat glad that the landscape and intellectual quality has changed to the extent that I haven't heard that slogan sincerely in years.

That's code for "whatever social engineering exists I support, but use whatever money for NGOs." I don't get it.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

There’s a lot I could say, but I’ve come to the conclusion that this just seems like a form of escapism. Your beliefs are non-starters for 99.9% of humanity. You know this, so there’s really nothing more to say. You’re just bored and enjoy arguing with people. And so do the people arguing with you.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

That's what everybody says.

Sure, but this time it's different!

I'd be really good until I die but then you'd get absolute dogshit after that.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

the hands of some scumbag conglomerate.

cool slogan, but who exactly are you talking about? A farmer who sells his crop? A factory owner who pays wages? Or just anyone who doesn't want to get robbed? ... are you perhaps being vague on purpose because, if you got concrete, it would turn out that the evil "parasite" who must be fought was just a man feeding his family all along?

people naturally desire a government to rule over them, it is the basic form of human relations in all of our history.

if that were literally human nature, is my existence a lie? Have I been some kind of superhuman mutation all along? Or could it be that the premise is false? Is history not full of entire communities of people resisting rulers because they don't want them?

Stability, peace and law and order,...I

Wasn't that also Stalin's sales pitch? I mean, what came from that were gulags, starvation, and terror.

So you openly admit the latifundia are the future under your system. What a wonderful world.

Had to look up what that is.
I don't know what kind of system you're rallying against, but under anarcho-capitalism there exists no state privilege to lock anyone into serfdom. Large landowners survive only if they trade voluntarily and run their stuff efficiently. If you can offer people better terms, you'll outcompete them.

---

There’s a lot I could say, but I’ve come to the conclusion that this just seems like a form of escapism. Your beliefs are non-starters for 99.9% of humanity. You know this, so there’s really nothing more to say. You’re just bored and enjoy arguing with people. And so do the people arguing with you.

Escapism from what exactly? From reality? When reality and the facts of existence are precisely the things I'm grounding my stance in?
And why are you appealing to popularity? It wasn't that long ago that 99.9% of humanity thought that the sun revolved around the Earth. I was hoping that we're past the notion of truth being determined by consensus.

And please don't project boredom onto me. I'd be much happier if everyone grasped the basics and I could spend my time on more enjoyable pursuits. The reality is that bad ideas dominate and tolerating them unchallenged is worse than arguing

 

[The Last Stand]

We'll create the state because people naturally desire a government to rule over them, it is the basic form of human relations in all of our history.

I don't think anybody desires to be "ruled over," rather people desire a well-regulated society that allows freedoms and rights at the return of regulation or rule that mandates long term prosperity and/or stability.

 

[clara red bottoms]

Or, they could do what the Koreans did during the LA riots

"Do what some godless orientals do"
You should be more ashamed of yourself than you are.

 

[The Last Stand]

"Do what some godless orientals do"
You should be more ashamed of yourself than you are.

Okay, here's an alternative: have a bunch of racist Black people swarm your establishment for everything that isn't nailed down, call the police with your broken English, and HOPE that one cop walks themselves in a warzone to protect your store against a city seized by rioters.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Had to look up what that is.

You don't know about the Roman latifundia? They're the future of your ancap system....massive estates worked by privately-owned slaves.

 

[clara red bottoms]

Okay, here's an alternative: have a bunch of racist Black people swarm your establishment for everything that isn't nailed down, call the police with your broken English, and HOPE that one cop walks themselves in a warzone to protect your store against a city seized by rioters.

I'd defend my store by not making it accessible to niggers. Duh. Just because you can drop a building in the middle of darkie town, USA doesn't mean you should. Same reason I'd have a thousand factories in India and not a single retail chain there.
Also, cops aren't under any obligation to protect your store or you personally. Absolute basics of American law.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

enforcement" itself is probabilistic. So the only way anyone ever "knows" the law under your view is by waiting to see if the man in the uniform hits you with a club or not. Surely you'd agree with my contention that that's just roulette?

The only way this should even remotely be a problem for you is if you're a naive skeptic who believes any P < 1.00 means you "don't know."
If someone tells you they're gonna put you in a concrete box if you do something, it's a safe bet they're going to at least attempt to do so if you do not comply. It's common sense, dude.

 

[GameratePTSD]

Wasn't every tribe basically ancap until they were muscled out by those who weren't ancap?
Do you base this on any moral oughts or is it purely a legal system you prefer for its efficiency?

 

[The Last Stand]

The only way this should even remotely be a problem for you is if you're a naive skeptic who believes any P < 1.00 means you "don't know."
If someone tells you they're gonna put you in a concrete box if you do something, it's a safe bet they're going to at least attempt to do so if you do not comply. It's common sense, dude.

Or call their bluff.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

if that were literally human nature, is my existence a lie? Have I been some kind of superhuman mutation all along? Or could it be that the premise is false? Is history not full of entire communities of people resisting rulers because they don't want them?

Yes and their record is one of utter and complete annihilation, subservience and eventual absorption into a bigger, stronger group of humans. Unless you're referring to the fine chaps of North Sentinel Island. And that's only because they don't have anything worth taking.

I reckon if you had a real point, you'd have made it already

My guy, you've had this explained to you countless times throughout the thread, but you have this mental block that won't allow you to see human nature for what it actually is. So stop being so quick to just shoot out the same responses, repackaged because you think that everyone is missing the point - and just think long and hard about the following:

You are trying to argue from a place of morality, even if you don't want to call it that. Also - to you, this is all logical and you don't understand why people can't see that. But this has nothing to do with logic, or what is right. So the entire foundation of your argument is based on a false premise.

You really need to wrap your head around this point. Repeat it enough times until it clicks. Morality and logic have NOTHING to do with this. Humans do not behave this way, as much as you would like to think or hope that they do. Some of us do. You probably do, which is why this is difficult for you to understand. But your morals and perception of what is right, is actually irrelevant.

Human groups (whether it be villages, cities, nation states or AnCap Utopias) are all a slave to human nature in aggregate. Real human nature at its core, is animalistic. If you ever want to see it up close and personal (which you clearly never have), go spend time in a war zone or a disaster zone, and then tell them all about your contracts and property rights. Might makes right, and it doesn't matter if you think that's fair or not.

You want it to be one way. But it's the other way.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I don't think anybody desires to be "ruled over," rather people desire a well-regulated society that allows freedoms and rights at the return of regulation or rule that mandates long term prosperity and/or stability.

Stability comes from predictable rules of interaction. In a free order, that's exactly what's provided by property, contract, and liability. But rule means obedience to masters, and order means respecting boundaries. If you conflate the two, you're just smuggling tyranny back in.

---

You don't know about the Roman latifundia? They're the future of your ancap system....massive estates worked by privately-owned slaves.

I wasn't familiar the Latin term.
Slavery is aggression for violating literally rule #1 of libertarian property norms. Why are you trying to shoehorn an institution that required a state to exist into a stateless system? If you can present the causal chain of events from "here is a set of rules that apply equally to everybody, no exceptions under any circumstances, also literally anybody may enforce them without needing to ask permission" to "the rulers of a megastate hand out conquered land as political favors and fill it with slaves captured in wars of aggression", do it

---

The only way this should even remotely be a problem for you is if you're a naive skeptic who believes any P < 1.00 means you "don't know."
If someone tells you they're gonna put you in a concrete box if you do something, it's a safe bet they're going to at least attempt to do so if you do not comply. It's common sense, dude.

What kind of Mickey Mouse nonsense is this? You've literally redefined law into roulette and then call me naive for pointing it out. If "the law" just means "whatever might get you hit by a club with some probability", then good job destroying the very reason the concept of law exists, namely to make human action predictable.
Under your oh-so-brilliant frame, the shopkeeper doesn't know if defending his store is lawful until the boot hits his neck. The citizen doesn't know if his contract is valid until the gang decides whether the duress of today "counts". That's not law, that's whim.

---

Wasn't every tribe basically ancap until they were muscled out by those who weren't ancap?

No, tribes were not basically ancap. Ancap isn't just "small groups without a formal state", anarcho-capitalism is the predictable social order that follows when libertarian property rights (self-ownership, voluntary exchange, exclusion, restitution etc) are consistently recognized. Historically, tribal societies had mixtures of custom, superstition, and outright domination, but they certainly weren't built on the principled recognition of property boundaries.

Do you base this on any moral oughts or is it purely a legal system you prefer for its efficiency?

It's not a matter of preference like how I might pick a flavor of ice cream. It's not just that a free society is efficient, it's also the only social system that respects ethics grounded in reality. The mere ontological fact of scarcity makes conflict possible, and thus rules for volitional rational beings are unavoidable, and literally the only universalizable non-contradictory conflict resolution rules are those of libertarian property rights. Like, it's an objective description of the only rules that can make peaceful coexistence possible.

---

Morality and logic have NOTHING to do with this. Humans do not behave this way, as much as you would like to think or hope that they do. Some of us do. You probably do, which is why this is difficult for you to understand. But your morals and perception of what is right, is actually irrelevant.

Human groups (whether it be villages, cities, nation states or AnCap Utopias) are all a slave to human nature in aggregate. Real human nature at its core, is animalistic. If you ever want to see it up close and personal (which you clearly never have), go spend time in a war zone or a disaster zone, and then tell them all about your contracts and property rights. Might makes right, and it doesn't matter if you think that's fair or not.

Do you even realize what you have just done?
You made a universal claim about human nature ("might makes right") and insisted it's true regardless of anyone's opinion. That is a logical and moral statement. You went and smuggled in the very categories you personally said were irrelevant. You refuted yourself.

If morality and logic have nothing to do with it, then your entire reply has nothing to do with it either, it's just animal noises dressed up in English. But if you actually expect your words to mean something and persuade anyone, then you've already conceded that reason is real and binding.

And your "human nature" drivel collapses under the same weight. If raw domination is all that exists, then every revolt, every resistance, every peasant who ever told a king to go fuck themselves is "against human nature" by definition, yet these things happened constantly. If existence is only absorption into the stronger, then you literally have no basis whatsoever for distinguishing a government from a gang or "law" from crime. Which means that your entire worldview does not describe reality, instead it destroys the very destinctions you rely on to even write a coherent sentence.

You're literally sawing off the branch you're sitting on, using logical arguments to deny logic, making moral judgments while denying morality, and denying resistance while citing examples of it. And you have the chutzpah of accusing me of having a mental block.
You want it to be one way, but it's not.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

That is a logical and moral statement.

It's definitely not a moral statement. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it just is.

And although you could use that as a basis for a logical argument, I haven't. Again, I'm simply pointing at humanity and the entirety of our history and telling you to see for yourself. But you can't see past your own worldview to see that others don't have the same beliefs as you, and your opinions aren't relevant because they will never play by the same rules as you. Never. Get that through your head.

If existence is only absorption into the stronger, then you literally have no basis whatsoever for distinguishing a government from a gang or "law" from crime.

Correct, I make no moral distinction between government and gangs, nor laws from crime. The fact is government is just a well organized gang, and law is whatever those with power choose it to be. A crime is only a crime if they say it is. There is no moral distinction to those in power.

You keep think we're making a moral argument. I'm not saying it's right or fair or even ideal. But is in fact the way the world works. You don't have to like it (I certainly don't), but opinions on this don't actually matter. Might makes right, and that's that. There is nothing you can do to change that, it has always been the case and always will be because it is in our nature. That's the part you're stuck on, so maybe focus your studies there for awhile because you are coming off as very naive.