/ancap/ - Anarcho-Capitalism

Hey it's a great pod episode breh, I hope this gets spread around a lot. It can serve to improve a lot of ancap arguments.

>>496

>ancap has conspiracy theories

>ancap is utopian

Broad generalizations do not really contribute towards deconstructing the validity of a criticism. Ergo, a collection of beliefs can have conspiracies and still retain integrity. Utopian philosophies do not necessary imply impossibility of acomplishment, only a favorable and drastic series of concepts. Neither of these two accusations are valid in themselves and are but empty fluff the author tries to pass as legitimate.

>ancapism supports leftist fascism via "social justice".

>ancapitalism is therefore crypto-leftism. (lol)

>ancaps permit sophistry of fascism of every variety

>ancap is the best friend of leftist sites as click-bait [the irony is so thick here]

Nothing to say here, except that correlating all of capitalism with crypto-anarchism is a baseless and empty fallacy.

>ancap originated with Rothbard, who started off as a Lockean libertarian, made an association with David Duke and white nationalists; he went from reddit to tumblr to stormfront. This is an ancap hero?

Appeal to authorities do not count as valid criticisms of an ideology. Simply because a person had X thought does not hold correlation with "therefore all ancaps support fascists". This is simply bad logic.

A) All bachelors are men

B) All men are bachelors.

A) and B) do not follow. While A) is correct, B) forsakes all relevance towards those who are married. The same dynamic is available in guilt-by-association disclaimers:

A) Ancapitalism begins with Rothbard

B) All Ancapitalism is Rothbardian.

>anarchism is an endless grey town where the houses get further apart as the souls get more determined to avoid each other.

-implying that anarchism is explicitly anti-social.

>solitary confinement doesn't work in a world with limited space

-implying that technology wouldn't go further with an open market

>since people have to encroach upon other people's lands

-implying that establishing treaties or unions or simple diplomacy is impossible in anarchotopia

>some sort of dispute resolution has to arise, whether violent or system of justice; even family has the concept of authority

-implying that anarchism can't exist because rules must exist

-implying that the existence of natural hierarchy disputes opposition to fabricated restraint

>if anarcho-capitalism simply means "every family a kingdom, with their own homestead and weapons"

Where does he come up with this?

>then ancapitalism is just extreme minarchism

-implying that unions of interest cannot create principles which they agree with without becoming a kingdom

>>496

>for some people, having a gun pointed at their head might be preferable to having their Twitter besieged by hashtag activists.

I just became more stupid. This guy has literately no real life experience. A gun to the head over being shamed on twitter?

>in a world of people with diverse preferences and interests, force/coercion/whatever can include pretty much any form of suasion on the face of the earth.

This is an interesting argument and is pretty much the only substantially thoughtful portion of the entire article. It is also a huge truism, which rather than dismisses anarcho-capitalism, only actually provides a stronger case for anarchism's necessary plurality.

>the hole in anarcho-capitalist thought through which you can drive a Phoenix Durango car full of asphyxiated sociologists is the concept of force

Actually, the concept of force only shows that anarcho-capitalism would be radically various and differ from each group of interests to another group. It is no more of a dismissal than the idea of natural hierarchy is to anarchism: the concepts of birth, youth, middle, aged, death does not invalidate embracing individual interest via contractural and propertarian concepts.

>You don’t even have to talk about the utopian idea that everyone could be induced to agree with the non-aggression principle

-implying that every individualist that welcomes capitalism believes in the same thing

-implying that anarcho-capitalism can only have moralism if everyone believes in the NAP to the same degree

>people have to agree on aggression is before they can agree not to do it and that's just as hard of a concept to sell everyone on

-implying that people are incapable of rational discussion or of finding ways to manage individual interests.

> In an anarchist world (especially an anarcho-capitalist one), they [the police] could’ve been bribed not to show up. And an actual bomb could’ve been planted and exploded. And there would have been no legal recourse for anyone in attendance. At all.

-a bomb can be planted and nobody can press charges!

…except easily be able to initiate multiple individual investigations which won't be bogged down by beaucracy and corrupt politicians.

>Twitter is one of the closest things to anarchism that we have in real life.

This guy is a faggot. I have no words, just much laughter on my end.

My favorite part, of all his fallacies and aimless correlations, was how he never managed to properly demonstrate how anarcho-capitalism furthers social justice warrior nonsense.

also, podcast didn't work for me