df380a No.5129
I gave up since /pol/ couldn't come up with a solid set of policies back in February.
Can our local Nazis (National Socialists) and Fascists come up with a strict set of policies that don't involve meta-physical nonesense and "just read X and you'll understand!" Bullshit?
Can I get a solid explanation on how the following would work from a political and economic aspect without vague interpretations based on "the will of the people...?"
Economy- Where should the government intervene in it and how
Nationalization- Which industries should be nationalized, why, and would you prevent competition from private companies? Pruvate contracting is not the same as Nationalization if industry.
Banking- You want interest-free loaning directly tied to the government. How do you plan to get this started for non-government workers? How will you pay for government services (what sort of taxes?) How will you determine conversion rates for other currencies? How do you keep from becoming the federal reserve and all of its bullshit?
Education- How will you handle it? How will you prevent your own equivalent of common core (assuming each town isn't responsible for their own standards) from turning intelligent citizens into indoctrinated pro-Nazi zombies?
Democracy- Will it exist? If so, how do you prevent the exact same shit happening right now?
Immigration- How will you handle your citizens moving elsewhere, learning different ways/cultures, and spreading them back home?
Military and Public Works- How will you fund them? Will you just print more money? Will you somehow tax businesses with the money you yourself printed?
Social Safety nets- It's been proven repeatedly that it works better to just give welfare recipients lump sum cash, but Nazis always call for "in kind" welfare via food and housing which creates more beuracracy. How will you prevent homelessness? How will you handle welfare? What will happen to NEETs? Cripples? Drug abusers?
Most importantly- Have you ever taken a course on microeconomics economcis at all or actually tried to understand how your policies might affect people en masse?
c47982 No.5135
>>5129
You do realize this vague, underpants-gnomes-esque equation which ignores human nature also applies to anarcho-capitalism in spades.
Anarcho-capitalism in a nutshell:
1 - get rid of government
2 - ???
3 - Utopia.
Except power vacuums are always filled by amoral psychopaths at best and insane genocidal theocrats at worst, so if you attempted to create an ANCAP utopia you'd, end up with, at best, corporate-feudalism in which "competition" happens the way it did in prohibition-era chicago, or, at worst, a theocracy/communist when the dingbat-crazies from one side or the other sensed the power vacuum and took over.
6bceb1 No.5141
Anarcho-Capitalism is Jewish Feudalism
df380a No.5142
>>5135
>Implying that's our actual arguement
That's meme magic. We do have actual plans that don't involve just removing gubment. They tend to involve implementation of alternative systems that run parallel to government in order to show people that our systems are more efficient. "Remove gubment" is the blanket statement for when they interfere with our plans because they realize that it works. We just don't explain those fine details because they make statists' brains go fuzzy, causing them to resort to insults, vague arguments that make no sense, and accusations of autism instead of figuring out what we're saying/why it makes sense economically and scientifically.
Your assumptions are unfounded as they work on the basis of a violent hierarchy being necessary. When you consider the amount of people in a country, and try to pretend that a dozen thugs are somehow able to control the individual actions and morality of millions through vague policies on a day-to-day basis, you begin to look retarded.
Now answer the fucking question instead of just attacking other ideologies like a /leftypol/ snake (if you actually have solutions to problems and not just vague metaphysical populist promises).
df380a No.5144
>>5141
Answer the fucking question, kike.
c47982 No.5148
>>5142
I've watched enough Stefan Molyneux to understand exactly what ANCAPs are about, and then they call leftists "starry-eyed".
Any "market" which the government has made illegal is an exercise in ancap, and frankly, every single time it arises it's barbaric as all fuck.
df380a No.5153
>>5148
>Uses Stefan "meme magic" Molyneux as a strawman
>Doesn't realize most AnCaps are split between the Rothbardian "centrist" camp, Hoppe "right wing" camp, and agorist "third position" camp
>Continues to ignore the OP, and bitch about other ideologies instead
>Refuses to explain the policies of NatSoc in non-vague terms
I bet next you'll post a list of infographics and claim they show everything I need to know, right?
I was a "NatSoc" for years before realizing how much better and precise/ground in reality liberty is.
6bceb1 No.5157
>>5144
Nah you can just lurk moar, your ideology does not answer the question of who fills the power vacuum, but mine does, it says Jews.
6bceb1 No.5158
c47982 No.5164
>>5153
>Thinks complete absence of law is "liberty" rather than "mad max" or "gangster's paradise"
df380a No.5167
>>5157
I originally wrote out a nice post, but you still haven't addressed the OP, so instead...
>Doesn't understand the history of decentralized societies
>Thinks there needs to be a leader
Kek.
>>5164
>Associates the word rulers with law
>Doesn't even understand the root words for anarchy ("no rulers")
Try again. How about you stop attacking other ideologies and actually explain your own by answering questions in the OP? That's right, you don't even understand your own ideology, how could I expect you to even begin to comprehend other ideologies?
60c2c0 No.5172
>>5129
>/pol/
>NatSoc
Pick one and only one. The board is a bunch of "former" progressives who converted to christianity and decided its cool to say nigger.
c47982 No.5174
>>5167
>doesn't understand how the concept of a "power vacuum" works and what inevitably follows.
Please god-emperor, never let this person anywhere near the halls of power.
8d5886 No.5177
>>5172
Christians make up less than 50% of /pol/. Many polls showed this.
60c2c0 No.5179
>>5177
I guess they're just an extremely loud minority then, or maybe the Atheists feel the need to suck up to them to be more "right wing".
The original NatSocs were critical of capitalism and heavily influenced by Germanic Paganism, both of which will get you shat on on /pol/.
6bceb1 No.5183
>>5177
Christian-minded people which includes moral deists and agnostics make up %51 of /pol/ retard
>le pagan man face
6bceb1 No.5184
>>5179
>>5179
>The original NatSocs were critical of capitalism and heavily influenced by Germanic Paganism
Source: Hitlers Table talk where he sips a beer and talks about how he loves killing 5 gorillian jewish babies a day
top kek m8
8d5886 No.5185
>>5179
they are extremely loud and they always dogpile
>>5183
not sure if you are retarded or attempting to be funny, either way consider suicide
df380a No.5187
>>5174
Your "power vacuum" never existed in Zomia, took the Chinese a thousand years to conquer them.
Never existed in ancient Ireland, took the Brits thousands of years to conquer 'em.
Never existed in the Apache indian tribes, took the Spaniards 200 years to conquer 'em after they had existed for god only knows how long. Never had real leaders to form a power vacuum.
Never existed in Cospaia, they were perfectly fine without a leader in the firat place/just listening to what the old folks said. Took two major nations coming to an agreement after 300 years to conquer 'em.
Took the Danes hundreds of years.
Took Iceland about 300 years for a power vacuum to even become a concept.
Took Somalia over a thousand years to be conquered by a socialist because they had no real leaders using violence to form a power vacuum (and guess what? They're returning to Xeer and getting better).
Took about a hundred years after Carolingian law was enacted.
Huh, seems to me like decentralization works pretty well, doesn't result in "power vacuums" because without that power there in the first place there was no need for violence to steal it, and decentralization is actually based in reality. Care to answer the OP now, faggot?
c47982 No.5188
>>5187
>b b but muh cherry-picked reality denial!
nope... "power vacuum" is a very well-known poli-sci concept. The only time they don't get filled is when an area becomes so depopulated and civilization so collapsed that logistics of maintaining dominion become too difficult.
df380a No.5191
>>5188
>poli-sci
Well there's your problem right there. The basic assumptions that Political Science works off of are flawed in the first place.At the risk of sounding like a cucumberist like in the OP, I'll suggest you learn Public Choice Theory.
Also,
>Complains about cherry picking
>Only has one example to refer back to of a functioning NatSoc society
>Doesn't even have a 100 year record
>it was on the brink of economic collapse before engaging in a war
4713cf No.5192
>>5184
>>The original NatSocs were critical of capitalism
Well they were but in a slightly different way. They saw the banking capital as the main culprit.
Source: Gottfried Feder's Manifesto.
df380a No.5193
>>5189
>>5191
Appologies for the double post. Exodus has been wonky recently.
4713cf No.5194
>>5187
There was no power vacuum in those places because they were tribal in the sense that clans were the authority.
A clan-based hierarchy is still a hierarchy.
c47982 No.5195
>>5191
who said I was defending natsoc? no I was calling out ancap as unrealistic.
>muh calling out poli-sci while claiming an ECONOMIC theory explains a sociopolitical system better..
The concept of a "power vacuum" in poli-sci is borrowed from military doctrine.
c47982 No.5197
>>5194
This and more organized civilizations didn't have the logistical capacity to project power into those areas at the time.
A good analogy would be the Alaskan Bush:
Do you honestly think the federal government has the capacity to properly enforce drug laws or the violence against women act in remote areas like this?
The short answer is no, and these outlying regions are not there because the federal government is able to exert authority, but because the people voluntarily choose to associate with that government.
df380a No.5201
>>5195
You're just digging yourself a deeper hole by showing you can't even comprehend decentralization. Relying on a central authority position to prove the "nonexistence" of decentralization is laughable, and you've continued to attack the implications of an ideology mentioned in an image rather than the actual subject of the thread. This is like me trying to talk to a deaf person via a cellphone, and at this point I'm only responding to banter in order to bump the thread so other posters might take notice.
The fact that you replied to this thread in the first place (and not only didn't read the OP, but immediately attacked the Op image instead) rats you out as either a NatSoc, Fascist, or reactionary.
c47982 No.5204
>>5201
>muh condescension and unsubstantiated ad-hominem attacks
Look: de-centralized social structures will fall before more organized ones unless those organized ones consider them "not worth the cost or trouble"
This is a basic law of geopolitical military doctrine.
df380a No.5205
>>5204
Look at the Apache I mentioned earlier. They were a pain in the ass for the Spaniards and are in direct conflict with your statement.
Now answer the fucking OP.
c47982 No.5206
>>5205
>muh apache
The spaniards were operating at the end of a complicated and very tenuous supply chain half a world away from their bases of power.
They didn't bother pursuing and genociding the apache because doing so was too costly and not worth the trouble, hence: >>5204
df380a No.5207
>>5204
Here's a better way to look at it paraphrasing what you just said.
Red Dot (statist): "Those blues can't win! We're better than them! They could only win if we didn't care, therefore we will assume we will always win against blue dots!"
Meanwhile, blue dot (anarchist) is sitting over here going "kek, red+blue makes purple, the fuck are you going on about red dot?"
c47982 No.5209
>>5207
ancap and statist are diametrically opposed positions.
"purple dot" is no longer ancap.
df380a No.5210
>>5209
Purple dot is systems running parallel.
E.G. red dot going "look! We won! See, we were right! Take that!" While blue dot and all of blue dot land is still busy on their tablets ordering drugs and raw milk on their prefered peer-to-peer website while calling themselves "prefer blue" (agorists) instead of "blue" (anarchist).
Just because red dot thinks they went in and took over doesn't mean anyone there actually gives a shit or listens to their rules.
That gets into those fuzzy concepts statists have a hard time understanding though, because "parallel societies" confuse them to no end.
df380a No.5211
>>5210
Or perhaps a more "real world" example for you would be the Germans in response to the Romans. Rome came in and said "pay attention to meeeeeeee!" The Fermans shrugged, paid taxes once or twice while ignoring the Romans, then proceeded to destroy Roman infrastructure and shit on coblestone roads when they didn't suit their needs.
c47982 No.5212
>>5210
You don't get it, without the "rule of law" established by the statist, ancap cannot and will not exist... that's what "anarchy" means, absence of the rule of law.
>>5211
>muh germany:
this is once again an example of >>5204 . It has nothing to do with the relative superiority of the governmental system, but with the capacity to project force and impose rule diminishing further you get from places of power.
This diminishing capacity is reduced the further technology advances, for instance the countryside was relatively lawless outside major urban areas in the 1800's, now you have to be thousands of miles removed and in inclement climates to witness the same level of lawlessness.
df380a No.5213
>>5212
Anarchy; An- No Archy-Rulers
Law and morality do not reauire enforcers.
It obviously wasn't superior in the first place when anarchists are forming within their own territories and even in their own major cities.
c47982 No.5215
>>5213
>Law and morality do not reauire enforcers.
Ok, you head off to the Congo or Somalia and tell me how that "morality without enforcers" works out for you.
>>5213
>anarchists are forming within their own territories
Again, see >>5204
df380a No.5217
>>5215
>Whines about me "cherrypicking" examples
>Proceeds to cherrypick examples
You didn't even pick good examples. Anarchist (northern) Somalia has actually seen a huge increase in life expectancy and standard of living since the fall of their dictator.
You seem to be under the assumption that decentralized = disorganized as well. Two different words lol.
You're pretty much saying "statism is great! Except sometimes I don't feel like being a statist because statism is hard, and I have to actually enforce my policies, but it's great when I don't bother enforcing my policies but have them anyways, because I said so!"
If the statist can't even enforce their policies in the first place, then they're obviously not superior. Especially when people are breaking the law in their major hubs where they're supposed to be the strongest.
c47982 No.5218
>>5217
You're once again advancing the false dichotomy whereby me attacking one camp puts me in the other.
I can give you other examples of Anarchy:
Any illegal drug market is by its nature anarchist. Because the government attacks rather than protects participants in this market, it's considered another risk of doing business.
Please tell me how peaceful and civil the drug trade is.
df380a No.5219
>>5218
Extremely civil, you've obviously never used Silk Road or the services that followed, and instead relied on Mexican cartels.
The drug trade is awesome thanks to peer-to-peer technology and bitcoin. In fact, the main conplaint among drug users is that the government made it less safe when they attacked solk road.
I'll trust a cocaine dealer to protect my house over a police officer every day of the week.
df380a No.5220
>>5219
I should point out that anarchy found a better solution and government made them use the shitty alternatives even in your "anarchist" example.
c47982 No.5221
>>5217
>You seem to be under the assumption that decentralized = disorganized as well.
Before the industrial revolution, all production was decentralized. The centralization and organization of production and division of labor has introduced so much efficiency the concept of the artisan is dead.
A well disciplined army or police force given equal technology will inexorably route a rampaging mob once given the order.
The list goes on and on:
Organized groups are better than disperate mobs.
>>5220
>Anarchy produced better solutions than state control
Anarchy did nothing of the sort.
The state government established corporate charters, a predictable and objective legal system, and a set of common rules all players in a market must obide by.
The government is the entity which enforces contracts. Without the government a business entity could just fail to deliver and then what will you do, clash with their well-armed mercenaries?
4c2b1c No.5234
>>5221
Your understanding of anarchism is based on false assumptions. It's not uncommon to imagine it at the most basic level, like a bunch of farmers armed to the teeth, and not understand how society can exist without coercion. You imagine that everything in an ancap society exists at the barrel of a gun but somehow a society with a state doesn't. All the structures of society can exist voluntarily.
I imagine the experience for most people would be just like any other nation. You still have giant property developers developing whole neighborhoods, granting them the ability to homogenize the protections we enjoy in the confines of a state. The freedom of anarchism is traded in for comfort but this transaction can be reversed at any time.
A family, when they buy a house, signs off a couple things when they move in. They consent to the neighborhood's choice of emergency services and utilities and other services, still safe as they would be without a state. If the services act up or they want too much money, the neighborhood comes together to decide upon a competing service. Maybe the developer stipulates in the property contract that they have sole discretion in picking these services. The market will decide which is more profitable.
When you look at it from that angle, not a whole lot changes. But you get one important protection against tyranny - you get to choose. You want to live off the grid and rely upon only yourself? You can. You want to make a small sustainable community? You can. You want serenity and all the choices to be made for you? You can. And nobody can tell you otherwise.
657ebd No.5239
No self respecting natsoc calls themselves a nazi.
Posting in this thread validates OP.
No.
c47982 No.5240
>>5234
>Your understanding of anarchism is based on false assumptions
>an·ar·chy
>ˈanərkē/
>absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
In the absence of government nobody is there to enforce contracts, the strong choose to prey upon the weak by refusing to deliver upon their agreed obligations (because they CAN, no authorities are there to STOP THEM), commerce breaks down, feudalism sets in.
657ebd No.5241
>>5240
You know this is false because individualism is not a synonym to antisocialism. Good attempt at killing this board in its infancy but it won't work.
c47982 No.5243
>>5241
>muh human nature does not exist
In the absence of governmental authority, society descends into the law of the jungle until someone else organizes a new "government" to re-impose order.
That's the definition of what government is you idiot.
>muh trying to kill the board
Nice appeal to emotion, let me know when you're going to apply logic.
657ebd No.5247
>>5243
Government isn't imbued with godly power to overcome the negatives of any human nature.
Nice definition of human nature, wait you didn't give one.
f04da2 No.5248
>>5239
why is that?
Is it because Nazism refers only to Hitlers brand of National Socialism?
c47982 No.5254
>>5247
>Government isn't imbued with godly power to overcome the negatives of any human nature.
No, it's just imbued with the earthly power of "pinnacle of the heirarchy" with all the authority and capacity to impose that authority through force of law enforcement.
>Nice definition of human nature, wait you didn't give one.
You're claiming that if the cops go away everyone will just behave as normally instead of looting and rioting as seen in New Orleans during Katrina.
You're more starry-eyed than a full-blooded communist!
4c2b1c No.5255
>>5240
An anarchist society is based on a web of trust. So a trustworthy company or individual breaks a contract. Report them to the private justice system they are contracted with and sue them. What? They aren't a part of any of these systems? Oh well, you gambled and lost. You could attempt retributive justice, but it's possible the justice system you signed up for could forbid retribution, so I think it's better to not let anyone else fall for their bullshit. It's the price you pay for freedom. Could be worse.
And anyone that thinks anarchism leads to feudalism is a fucking idiot with no knowledge of history. Serfs were confined to properties, essentially becoming slaves paid a meager wage. And you know what was about to save them? Europe's growing wealth and a shortage in the labor market due to the plague. Market forces were pushing serfs out of these systems and into higher wages. The nobles, who had a good thing going waving their birthright in people's faces, legally mandated their delusions of superiority over the working class by forcing them to work via government coercion.
6f752b No.5260
>>5243
You claim centralization works until you decide it's not worth the effort any more and then decentralization works because you just don't have the time to deal with it, but then you turn around and claim that in a decentralized society, someone will suddenly centralize it (despite this not being the case).
Are you mentally retarded, brah?
6f752b No.5261
>>5254
>I can't make sound and rational decisions to grant me peace of mind, and neither can anyone else
>Therefore, lets elevate one of us into a position of power to do it for everyone!
c47982 No.5263
>>5255
>An anarchist society is based on a web of trust. So a trustworthy company or individual breaks a contract. Report them to the private justice system
The naivete is so cute it makes puppies look threatening!
Here's what ACTUALLY happens: The "untrustworthy company" buys out the "private justice system" and sends their "private police" to plunder you for daring to bad-mouth them. And thus the "new nobility" for that geographic area is born. That's how it worked after the fall of rome, that's how it worked in 1930's chicago, and that's how it works with the mexican cartels.
>>5260
>deliberately straw-manning
Are you mentally retarded, brah?
>>5261
>without law and order everyone will simply be kind to one another out of custom, they wan't slit one another's throats over a pair of nikes because "reasons"
>pic related
6f752b No.5266
>>5254
>You're claiming that if the cops go away
Cops don't go away. Stop comparing no rulers to no rules. Cops are now privately hired and you can switch them out when they're dicks/not doing their job.
>B-but muh private security is bad!
https://archive.is/3kAkT
>B-but muh private security is gubment!
Against who? The likely armed civilians who are hiring them and keeping them well fed/paid so long as they do their jobs? The civvies giving them no incentive to try and make unnecessary demands because it will either get them shot or replaced?
>will just behave as normally instead of looting and rioting
>Cops stop ticketing after one of their own was shot in New York
>Suddenly everyone is happier/less big crimes are being committed
>Anarchists take over part of Greece recently
>Crime goes down as they set up Syndicalist communes (and I don't even like Syndicalists)
>Parts of major cities all over the world where police don't go
>Some of the safest places in the world so long as you don't chimp out because people will shoot you if you do
>Parts of Texas where everyone conceal carries
>Cops don't even get involved unless someone is shot because most people are too afraid to commit crimes
>New Orleans during Katrina
You mean a natural disaster in a region full of niggers? And you didn't expect this? God you're not the brightest bulb, are you? How about the dozen other natural disasters around the USA where this didn't happen? You accused anon of cherry picking, but you're turning around and cherry picking. It's almost as if you ignore any and all evidence contrary to your narrative!
>You're more starry-eyed than a full-blooded communist!
>Proceeds to get pissy about others calling you a retard
29e2db No.5269
I've seen this happen before, a sequence of long posts with anime pics. It must mean someone got anally destroyed.
c47982 No.5270
>>5266
>Cops don't go away. Stop comparing no rulers to no rules. Cops are now privately hired and you can switch them out when they're dicks/not doing their job.
1 ) no government to enforce the contract, you could pay them then they walk the hell away or sack you then walk the hell away
2 ) assuming they don't sack you or walk the hell away, the people or firms who make the most money because they're amoral psychopaths will buy them out or outfit their own guys with superior weapons and armor and WTFkill them.
>https://archive.is/3kAkT
Their contract is still enforced by the government with state police, the fbi, and ultimately the national guard to turn to if they go rogue.
>Anarchists take over part of Greece recently
Anarchists can't "take over" a government, or they BECOME GOVERNMENT!
Anarchist Government is an oxymoron
>You mean a natural disaster in a region full of niggers?
How about the NY blackout where zero physical damage was done to a majority white city (this was the 80's and fucking looting broke out IMMEDIATELY
6f752b No.5272
>>5263
>The "untrustworthy company" buys out the "private justice system"
And everyone moves over to a new justice system because the private justice system loses all credibility.
What keeps them from doing this now? Oh wait...
>and sends their "private police" to plunder you for daring to bad-mouth them.
And public outcry makes them switch to a new private police system.
Also, you realize this is exactly what happens right now with government, right? You aren't so mentally deranged that you don't realize that this happens today all the time, right?
>And thus the "new nobility" for that geographic area is born.
And are promptly put down when they try and enforce their bullshit on other people's property.
Because there's this thing called mass communication that makes it really easy to convene on an asshole abusing others.
>That's how it worked after the fall of rome
There was no fall of Rome. There was the fall of the city, but all that actually happened was the native populations the Romans tried to subjugate just went back to fucking sheep and doing their thing, now knowing what a Roman is.
>that's how it worked in 1930's chicago
>government bans something
>something is no longer selled legitimately in a storefront and has to be bought in back alleys
>gangs rise up
I live in Colorado, so perhaps I'm used to our pot shops that look like iphone stores on the inside, but your argument is bullshit. Weed doesn't have nice shops because the government makes them. It has nice shops because drug users like going into nice shops. Similarly, I find it hilarious that you keep blaming the problems of prohibition on anarchy when said problems, previously a legitimate business, were created by prohibition.
>and that's how it works with the mexican cartels.
Which is why people en masse switched over to systems like silk road and began to buy pot legally in states where it was made legal, right? Do you even hear yourself? If you legalized drugs/stopped throwing people in prison for victimless crimes, something the government does, maybe these cartels which are created by government policy wouldn't exist??? Ever thought of that, jackass? Anarchists, via market solutions, came up with better solutions to your crime problem created by government, as I think I have to bludgeon into your thick skull, and your government interventionism is just making the problem worse. Do you even have the brain cells to comprehend what you're saying right now?
c47982 No.5273
>>5272
>And public outcry makes them switch to a new private police system
HAHAHA... every time they try to organize a new private police system their recruits get killed by the existing private police system.
At best you end up with continuous seething guerilla warfare, kinda like the narco wars in the interiors of mexico where the federales have lost their grip.
4c2b1c No.5274
>>5270
>Anarchist Government is an oxymoron
All societal structures that resemble government in an anarchist society are voluntary. Unless you signed a contract with someone then they can't do shit to you without violating your rights. At this point you can seek justice, whether it is according to contract (private police/justice system) or retributive.
c47982 No.5275
>>5274
>All societal structures that resemble government in an anarchist society are voluntary.
Under that argument our current government is also voluntary.
It was established by private citizens appointing representatives to draft a constitution, and its component representatives are elected at regular intervals.
6f752b No.5277
>>5269
Ayy, lmao
>>5270
>1 ) no government to enforce the contract, you could pay them then they walk the hell away or sack you then walk the hell away
You then get on your phone, inform the next town over, and suddenly those cops can't find services. If you think people suddenly don't have guns, you're retarded. Not to mention it was your fault in the first place for not hiring a legitimate security force. You're starting to just pull shit out of your ass as damage control now, aren't you? There's nothing preventing the police from doing that right now if they wanted to (it happens all the time in gubment law-holes like Saint Louis Missouri), and the feds would probably defend them.
>who make the most money because they're amoral psychopaths will buy them out or outfit their own guys with superior weapons and armor and WTFkill them
And wage a costly war that will likely result in little if any profit compared to doing their job correctly in the first place?
Because all rich people are psychopaths. Despite rich people throughout US history (who worked on market forces instead of political clout like their predecessor gubment-friendly merchants had) being some of the most altruistic people in the history of the world. Makes total sense. Rockefeller was a psychopath who wanted to take over the world because he was concerned with getting oil as cheap as possible to the poor while donating half of his total savings to charity. Carnegie was also some horrible, violent sociopath who took over the entire east coast with his steel mills and didn't create libraries across the USA for fellow autodidacts to learn from. Bill Gates, right now, is secretly plotting to use his wealth and psychopathic tendencies to destroy freedom for everyone and install himself as the leader of the world. Gabe over at steam is totally insane and is gonna brainwash gamers into legions to use for his own dastardly deeds.
Yep, that makes perfect sense.
Pst. You sound like a progressive idiot.
Your entire argument boils down to "THIS POLICE FORCE IS THE ONLY ONE! STOP SAYING IT ISN'T! I CAN CREATE MONOPOLIES OF FORCE BECAUSE I SAID SO! STOP BEING MEAN, WAAAAAAAH" and isn't even worth reading at this point.
>1980s New York
You mean statist hellhole that's a shitty place to live and has always been the home of state corruption since the early 1900s?
6f752b No.5278
>>5275
>Under that argument our current government is also voluntary.
Last time I checked, I'll be thrown in jail if I don't pay the IRS.
I didn't sign a contract to be part of this government, and I did not give my consent to be ruled by this government. I have no method of entering into another contract with a different government because this government won't allow me to do so and will stop me at every turn.
This excuse only works if you are not of a legal age to consent.
4c2b1c No.5279
>>5275
I never signed a contract to consent to the US government's laws. What they do is cocercion and is not voluntary.
6f752b No.5280
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>5273
>Gets blasted to high hell and back because drug cartels are solely a government created problem that never existed prior to the drug war
>Continues to use them as an example of how things would work without government
>Fails to realize people prefer to buy things in legitimate storefronts rather than off the street corner from shady individuals
ayy lmao
c47982 No.5281
>>5278
>Last time I checked, I'll be thrown in jail if I don't pay the IRS.
Last time I checked, if you don't pay protection money the "private security" burn down your house.
AYYLMAO
6f752b No.5282
>>5281
I'd rather have the security companies I can choose between and who don't have an incentive to fuck me up the ass.
Have fun with your police when they flashbang your child because they got the wrong house, and no one will hold them accountable. At least my private security force will go out of business/be chased out of towns when the flashbang video goes viral.
You realize that a ship captain out at sea can do virtually all the things you're mentioning, and miraculously rarely if ever do, right?
https://archive.is/WYO46
https://archive.is/agLqM
Security is expensive. If you're going to go full warlord, you're not going to disguise yourself as a security force, and you're still going to have to get A) people willing to kill other people (which is a surprisingly small minority of the population when you don't have military brainwashing), B) Large amounts of money to fund your mercenary horde (which no one will provide when they realize you're building a mercenary horde), and C) Public support (which is absolutely ludicrous when they realize you're killing people.
There's a reason that hundreds of thousands of veterans commit suicide. It's because humans are, surprisingly enough, NOT sociopaths as a majority nor criminals. They don't like to kill people. (holy shit! I know, major revelation there, isn't it faggot?)
c47982 No.5283
>>5282
>I'd rather have the security companies I can choose between and who don't have an incentive to fuck me up the ass.
1 - They have more guns and armor than you (or you wouldn't hire them)
2 - There is no government to prevent them from pillaging you.
Thus:
They have every incentive and zero disincentive to strip you bear, kick you from your property, and take it completely over.
c47982 No.5284
>>5282
>You realize that a ship captain out at sea can do virtually all the things you're mentioning, and miraculously rarely if ever do, right?
Because every port has a fucking government you dumbass.
6f752b No.5285
>>5283
>1 - They have more guns and armor than you (or you wouldn't hire them)
Or maybe, the more likely scenario, is that I can't be assed to patrol my property all day long because I have more important shit to do, and it's cheaper to just hire someone who specializes in that because not everyone is a psychopath.
>2 - There is no government to prevent them from pillaging you.
There's nothing preventing the state from doing this right now. This is not an argument, even if I have to state such a dozen times. go re-read >>5234
>They have every incentive and zero disincentive to X
Yes, they have every incentive and zero disincentive to do so because you said so, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Tell me, oh wise one, what incentives and disincentives does government have to keep them from doing the exact same fucking thing?
>>5284
>Because every port has a fucking government you dumbass.
>"muh gubment!"
Pic related, it seems to be the flawed sort of logic you believe in.
c47982 No.5286
>>5285
Thanks for posting a pic that thoroughly debunks your own argument.
You can call it flawed logic all you like, but that "charging horde" they mention is the "private police force" that was bought out by the richer ancap over the hill who is now using them to take your stuff and induct your wife and daughter into his harem.
6f752b No.5294
>>5286
Thanks for not answering my question and proving my point.
You're like an asatrufag trying to prove the existence of Odin because storms happen to exist.
6f752b No.5295
>>5294
Not to mention we already went over rich people not being psychopaths. You're literally repeating the exact same list of items already debunked and claiming them as fact like a filthy kike.
19dc6f No.5297
>>5129
nazis are no different from niggers tbh. they all want to censure the internet and restrict freedoms
c47982 No.5299
>>5295
>Not to mention we already went over rich people not being psychopaths.
Oh did we? I don't remember that.
I remember you making an empty assertion which is disproven by the existence of oppressive measures like the TPP.
6f752b No.5301
File: 1446613961497.jpg (78.71 KB, 411x960, 137:320, 11217681_1687738434788515_….jpg)
>>5297
Well I'd usually agree, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I figured I'd make a thread to let them take the b8 and at least try to explain their thoughts, but instead, the handful that responded just acted like niggers and insulted every other ideology like always.
>>5299
Yes, we did, and I won't spoonfeed you. It's your fault for not reading the arguments being tossed at you and responding with shitty banter repeating the same three or four remarks without a brain cell's thought put into them.. Go back and find it yourself, faggot.
Once again, you're throwing a government-created issue on market forces (I bet you're also the type of faggot who thinks the 2008 collapse was caused by "unregulated markets") without a single thought about what you're really saying. Just like a progressive.
c47982 No.5305
>>5301
>Yes, we did, and I won't spoonfeed you.
No, you didn't, and I'm tired of talking to Dunning-kruger incarnate.
6bceb1 No.5308
>>5301
>Once again, you're throwing a government-created issue
HAHA FAGGOT IT WAS WRITTEN BY CORPORATIONS AND OUR POLITICIANS AREN'T ALLOWED TO READ IT JUST VOTE YES OR NO
b1b608 No.5309
>>5308
Look out anon, he might post another laughing anime girl while denying reality!
745dd0 No.5353
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>5129
Here's a relevant Stef video, in which explains his view on the relationship between morality and philosophy.
745dd0 No.5354
>>5308
Well it was the politicians that ultimately voted yes, was it not?
745dd0 No.5355
>>5234
ayyy someone used my snek
Also, nice post.
745dd0 No.5359
>>5275
When did you consent? Where's the written agreement that I signed, or the exit clause that allows me to keep my property?
745dd0 No.5360
>>5135
>power vacuums
>removing government
>utopia
>What is agorism?
>What is voluntaryism?
>What is individual preference?
Wow, it's almost as if you've never done any sort of meaningful research into the basics of Anarcho-Capitalism.
745dd0 No.5361
>>5164
no rulers =/= no law
6bceb1 No.5373
>>5354
The politicians are nothing but an inconvenience to them, in an ANCAP Utopia they would just implement this without asking.
6bceb1 No.5375
>>5354
>>5354
The politicians are nothing but an inconvenience to them, in an ANCAP Utopia they would just implement this without asking.
c47982 No.5396
>>5361
no rules == no law enforcment == no law
Logic, do you use it? Do you understand it?