/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2879973
>As an ancap, i feel like we dont act as radical as our ideology says we are
Nobody says you're radical. Everyone says you are just status quo capitalism enjoyers that want to fuck kids.

that's because your ideology isn't radical and it's not really an original ideology at all, it's just neoliberalism with a more edgy radical sounding name

Your philosophy is so bad that it got owned completely and forever BY A VIDEO GAME, NOT EVEN A BOOK

>>2879980
Its not liberalism because I don't belive in the right of the state for police, boarders, and courts

And even if it was liberalism, I wouldn't care. The truth does not care about originality

>>2879988
Then you won’t be able to enforce private property rights

>>2879978
The age of consent would be determined, most likely, by private law and covenant communities

But the reason I became an ancap is just because it made the most sense to me

>>2879991

we'll just have private police forces and private militaries and private prisons, it will be totally different from neoliberalism

>>2879991
I, myself, could enforce my property rights of my house with my own armaments. Be it an ar15, a laser gun, mines, traps, and any other kind of weaponry you can think of

I could even hire someone to do it for me, at much more efficiency than a corrupt incompetent state protection agency

>>2879993
Your experiment has literally been tried with municipalities in New Hampshire and it led to the town being taken over by bears

>>2879998
A bunker is nothing more than loot in wait, groups of raiders will win even if it’s just by waiting you out

>>2879999
that was deboonked

>>2880000
Dude this is not fallout

Other people would also band together and hire private protection. Even unscrupulous individuals would be barred from living near me. The homeless? deported to the wilderness. Drug addicts? Forced to live with fellow degenerates

Just like god intended

>>2880003
>just like god intended
Ayn Rand is weeping

>>2880004
Erm actually, I am a rationalist deist

>>2880006
You're probably talking about capitalism (2) or capitalism (3)

in witch case, you are correct

https://marketsnotcapitalism.com/pdf

chapter 9 for reference

>>2880008
why did bro deleat his post?

for reference, he said you need state power in order to enforce capitalism

i could try to explain to you why capitalism is fundamentally dependent on the state and cannot exist without it, but i don't really need to. just watch what happens to the us over the next few years and you'll see for yourself.

Ancap is just neoliberalism given a faux-radical aesthetic. Ideology for dumb teenagers

>>2879973
>Capitalism requires property rights
>Rights must be enshrined in a constitution
>Maintaining these rights requires a collective bureaucracy
>Enforcing infringement against these rights requires a penal system
>This penal system requires a sovereign entity with a monopoly on violence
>You now have a state

Capitalism requires a state, government, hierarchy, oppression of non-ownership class (working class) in order to maintain property. Ancapism is a fundamental paradox, and a completely unemperical "ideology"

>>2880010
The US state isn’t going away, it’s just a public/private clusterfuck

Barely anyone is an ancap so there really isn't an opportunity for much radicalism

>>2880013
oh boy, where do I start

Rights don't need to be enshrined in a constitution
Enforcing your rights only requires force

A penal system does not require a monopoly on violence. Anyone can use violence to defend themself but once you violate anothers right, you forfit your rights (simplification)

>>2880003
>People would band together to hire private protection

And then they would form a council to handle disputes between parties, which would create a court system, and then to enforce those decisions for mutually agreed upon standards, that would form a government. And then you have a State… Again…

>>2880021
Each company would band together to define what the "rights" are, and then when there are disagreements or outright contractual violations, there will be collectively agreed upon consequences. They will lose their "rights" by being arrested… By a police force… In the state that you just created…

Your solution to the government is a government

>>2880022
That would require killing the other agencys that dont agree to form a government
>>2880019
I guess
Since I think I have the superior philosophy, it is only a matter of time before significant change happens

>>2880027
>That would require killing other agencies that don't agree
Yes. Which is what happens.

>>2880025
That would assume that capitalism naturally creates monopolies

>>2880029
Killing people is quite expensive, and is a tenant of states, not markets

>>2880030
Capitalism requires wage workers. A capitalist owns a factory, and the workers don't own anything. Each worker creates more value than what they get paid.

Each individual company in capitalism is a monopoly on their own means of production. Then they grow. Then they monopolize more equipment/capital/buildings/property. Which they have dictatorial control over, enshrined by property rights.

>>2880030
The tendency of capital to centralize tends to also monopolize it, yes.

>>2880034
not true. I love capitalism

Why would you be radical when literally the entire world is already the way you want it to be? This is the result of business anarchy, almost every global problem is the result of states being too weak to stop businesses from doing their thing, at worst the states are bribed by the business to do their evil deeds for them.

>>2880021
>Enforcing your rights only requires force
i.e. a monopoly on violence
i.e. a state

"Anarcho-Capitalism" isn't a thing. It's a contradiction in terms.
Abolishing existing states and replacing their functions with corporations just makes those corporations the new governments.
You're destroying existing states to allow billionaires to create new ones.
In other words, you're going to go around creating a bunch of corpo-kingdoms. A kingdom of Palantir, a kingdom of Amazon, city states of McDonalds and Lockheed-Martin.
All of which will of course be ruled over by their CEOs and the super rich, while you simultaneously abolish workers rights and protections.
Oh and of course, nobody is going to maintain the roads to working class neighborhoods anymore, LOL.

In other words, what "Anarcho-Capitalism" refers to could be more accurate described as just Corporate Fascism and CEO-Monarchies with legalised slavery, paedophilia, child porn, personal nukes, and heroin.

>>2880030
Capitalism means competition, competition means winners and losers

>>2880027
>Since I think I have the superior philosophy, it is only a matter of time before significant change happens

The majority of people think your ideology is a joke lol (and it is). Do you really think you're going to be the big cheese with all the shekels in ancrapistan? Probably not, because you're more likely to be slaving away and mining ores for some techbro fag. So much for "anarchy" huh?

>>2880050
and thats a good thing

>>2880054
It doesnt matter what my position in society is, only that I am logically consistent
>>2880045
You don't need a monopoly on force. Just force to end aggression. For example, millions of americans own guns. Who has the monopoly of force?

>>2880008
You seem to recognise that markets ≠ capitalism, yet you write: >>2880030
The difference between pre and post-capitalist markets is that a mass of wage slaves are now on the market due to the dispossession of their land and means of production. Capitalism then begins by state aggression against private property, and continues by the concentration of wealth into fewer hands.

>>2880070
> You don't need a monopoly on force. Just force to end aggression.
he who gets to use aggression to end aggression has the monopoly on violence

>>2880070
> For example, millions of americans own guns. Who has the monopoly of force?
the military will drone strike you and your gay little AR 15 if it so deigns

Question for AnCaps:
Under Anarcho-Capitalism do the child sex slaves have a right to organise and fight for their liberation?
Or does the methamphetamine factory CEO who owns them have the right to hire a PMC to end their rebellion?

>>2880070
>It doesnt matter what my position in society is, only that I am logically consistent

And judging by looking at this thread, you are not logically consistent. You have come to this website only to make yourself look like a fool and be laughed at. Imagine being an anarchist who thinks being ruled by high powers is a good thing. such buffoonery.

let me just nuke your entire existence OP. after reading this you must either become a communist or kill yourself in 10 years. dont even bother responding because it wouldnt matter. what i will say shall haunt you for the rest of your miserable life

the truth of the matter is that the people who hate capitalism the most are the most successful capitalists. do you think musk cares about the "free market"? bezos? zuckerberg? when china releases an open source model, you have open ai begging the federal government for their ai to be banned. did all of the bankers who got themselves a bailout in the 2008 financial crisis care about small or no government? do you understand that spacex had been unprofitable for most of its existence and subsisted purely on government spending? what do you think trade protectionism is as a general phenomenon? it is a means for the capitalist class to protect themselves. and then you have thiel, who literally wrote an article titled 'Competition is for Losers' praising monopolies and explaining why securing one is just good business sense. and do you know what? he is completely correct. competition IS for losers. libertarianism, "anarcho-capitalism", these are the ideologies of petite-bourgeois "small business owner" cattle that deserve to and shall have their throat stomped on my larger corporations. anyone that is an actual WINNER in this economic system hates the free market, the most successful capitalists already hate capitalism the most. that is what you people do not understand.

the truth of the matter is that the united states, as is every bourgeois state, is already an anti-competitive joint stock corporation with expected long-term dividends to massive backers. and let us zoom out to see the larger globe. which country has industry developing the fastest? china
>c-china is capitalist
they directly control 60% of their national industry and all of their capitalists are kept on the leash. but you might still call china capitalist since it does extract surplus value in order to compete on global markets. it is state capitalism, and chinese companies existing within such a framework outcompete not only petite-pourgeoise swines but also american corporations unless these corporations work together in order to secure a monopoly through protectionism and neo-colonialism

that is the fundamental problem that lies at the root of your pathetic cattle ideology. you are small-minded. because at the end of the day, the bigger thing always fucking wins and corporations forming a greater federation in order to crush everyone else are the ones that are destined to rise at the top. and they will conglomerate, squashing smaller companies through stagflation and private equity, absorb absorb, until their is only one global supercorpoation. and when that corporation no longer has any competitors, when it becomes the one sovereign corporation above all, capitalism would have abolished itself

capitalism always leads to state capitalism and state capitalism leads to socialism loser. it is a basic law of fucking nature. it is either we get there through everyone that is not a billionaire being crushed into fine powder, or on the common man's own terms. there is no alternative

the absurd idea that capitalism could be fundamentally compatible with anarchism is the delusional byproduct of the classic neoliberal revisionist narrative that industry is a natural autonomous organism that develops by itself from the bottom-up, but no modern industry formed that way. every nation's industrial sector, including the united states, was built from the top down by extensive state intervention. if you look at the history of the united states, every time the so-called "free market" was left to its own devices and entrusted with the development of american industry, it resulted in hyperconcentration and stagnation, and the state was eventually forced to step in.

the civil war was the first notable instance of this - settlement of the western american frontier stalled because the wealthy slave-owning land barons and financiers in the east dominated the market and controlled all the wealth and destroyed the small family homestead farmers, so the state intervened by abolishing slavery. then there was the great depression, where american industrial development stalled because the wealthy oil/steel/manufacturing barons and financiers in the east dominated the market and controlled all the wealth and wiped out all competition and ultimately destroyed the us economy with excessive reckless speculation, forcing the state to intervene by breaking up the monopolies and transitioning to a state-controlled planned industrial economy.

the fundamental purpose of a market is to transport things from where they are least needed to where they are most needed, to even out the non-uniform natural distribution of resources. therefore, a healthy functional market is a stable and balanced market where everything is flowing to where it needs to go and everything is in low-pressure equilibrium, like blood in a circulatory system. proponents of neoliberalism argue that humans are all driven by greed and self-interest, therefore if the market is unregulated and left to its own devices everything will naturally even out because every participant is equally exploiting it for their own personal gain, but that's all bullshit. the vast majority of human beings are not greedy self-centered antisocial parasites, most people are decent humble human beings who just want to live a quiet and simple life. most people are sheep and not wolves, and while you could theoretically have a society of nothing but sheep peacefully eating the grass and living off the land indefinitely, you cannot have a society of nothing but wolves who, lacking any sheep to prey on, will starve and turn against each other and destroy themselves.