/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

>>10587
> just replacing the state with huge corporations?

This is rather vague but if you suggest that governmental functions will be replaced by businesses (businesses in contrast to corporations have limited liability which is granted by the state). Yes, that will happen in an Ancap society.

So instead of having a police force you will subscribe to a service which replaces the police - forgot the name for it.

I think the main argument of Ancaps is that you are able to choose your individual services instead of being born into them - so to say.

Maybe there are some Ancaps who can answer you in more detail.

in an anCap society, you could choose the type of service you want and how that service conducts business. for example if you and a small number of people decide to own things in common and act like a commune, good for you guys as long as you don`t force people to join or aggress against others.

most typical way a business prospers is to provide a good product/service that provides value to the consumer and has to compete with others for the consumers money, on this basis you have a free market for all goods and services provided by governments now. corporations are legal entities that can only exist with government assistance, by giving the corporation the privilege of limited liability, increased regulation on competitors on the market, socialising losses in some form or a nother. in absence of government such behaviour would be seen as bad business practises and other firms would outperform such a business easily. use of force is an expensive thing in a market economy and it is usually punished with decline of business by consumers.

>>10685

Capitalism is globalism, it's anti-national and anti-traditional, and it has no problem violating its vaunted free market principles for the benefit of the mercantile class (looking at you incorporation and intellectual property laws).

>>10686
Capitalism doesn't do anything. Capitalism is an economic system not a political ideology.

Capitalism is actually traditional, atleast for the West, it has existed since ancient times.
Like Celtic tribes and Greek states getting loaded rich from Mediterranean trading. The Romans expanded to take control of major trade routes even, that is why the Byzantines lasted longer, they controled the main centers of trade.

Capitalism is just freedom. Don't mix it up with modern "democracy" or cronyism.

>>10687

>Capitalism doesn't do anything. Capitalism is an economic system not a political ideology.

That is an article of capitalist faith not commensurate with actual capitalist practice. In practice capitalists pursue an ideological agenda in politics and culture pushing for globalism, consumerism, and materialism' capitalists act as a powerful political bloc and limit exercise of political power and influence of the electoral processes to those of the mercantile class.

The system the Romans and the rest premodern West employed was a mercantilist one, not a capitalist one; some markets were free, but foreign trade, corporate structures, and various vital markets were controlled for furtherance of the national interest. Capitalism is internationalist in nature, its corporate structures are transnational, its policies seek to expropriate national wealth for the enrichment of transnationalist interests, and its adherents seek to do away with the very notion of nationalist economics.

>Capitalism is just freedom.

No, capitalism is globalism just as much as communism and socialism are. Just the other side of the counterfeit modernist coin.

>>10628
>as long as you don`t force people to join or aggress against others.

You can't enforce that, it's anarchy.

>>10711
You are asserting what capitilists supposedly do, but you don't even say what you define capitalist as (though your definition would not change reality, it would me understand your opinion).

If they push for shit they are lobbyists/ corporatists/cronies. If you buy and sell stuff voluntarily you are a capitalist.

Mercantilism is a semi-capitalist practice, it can only exist in a capitalist system.

And in Rome, Greece, and Celtic tribes you could trade with other peoples without needing the state as a middleman, you sometimes had to pay tarrifs and stuff though (which would make it mercantilism, which we still have then, by your standarts)

>>10727

No, I'm stating what capitalists actually do. Their theory is just as off from their practice as communists.

>If you buy and sell stuff voluntarily you are a capitalist.

Capitalist propaganda. To engage in commerce is not to be a capitalist. Capitalism is a specific economic and political ideology which favors a system benefitting the internationalist mercantile caste over all else.

Advocating free markets is advocating free markets, though capitalists ballyhoo a support of free markets, their actions when in power betray a disdain for free market practices when they are inimical to their own personal business interests; much like communists ballyhoo classless society while in practice creating far more rigid class systems than feudalism and capitalism produced.

>you sometimes had to pay tarrifs

Tariffs are intervention by government forces on commerce, which is necessary to ensure certain commerce is conducted in the national interest and doesn't undermine national economic strength.

>>10733
Hm, you are sounding a marxist shill but I'll bite. You just are asserting certain unnamed people as "capitalists" and asserting what they do.

>"system benefitting the internationalist mercantile caste over all else"
That would be corporatism, and lobbyism.

>"free markets is advocating free markets"
Capitalism = Free flow of capital.

>"disdain for free market practices when they are inimical to their own personal business interests"
Oh, so they interfere with the state, and lobby for mercantilist measures that favour them? Dude, you are refuting yourself.

>"Tariffs are intervention by government forces on commerce, which is necessary to ensure certain commerce is conducted in the national interest and doesn't undermine national economic strength."

Intervention that the mercantile class exploits, with mercantilism/lobbyism/cronyism.

>>10740

>marxist

Oh there's that Hegelian false dilemma! If you don't sing the praises of capitalism, you must be a marxist, it's not possible to oppose both ideologies and seeing them both as detrimental.

>That would be corporatism, and lobbyism.

Which have always been essential elements of capitalist economic and political structures.

>Capitalism = Free flow of capital.

No, that's a capitalist marketing ploy, just like workers revolution and classless society are communist marketing ploys.

>Oh, so they interfere with the state, and lobby for mercantilist measures that favour them? Dude, you are refuting yourself.

They lobby for their own personal financial interests at the expense of national strength and prosperity. As they are transnational interests, they have no loyalty to the nation or its citizenry, hence the various destructive capitalist practices we've all witnessed first-hand, all designed to weaken national integrity and reduce the citizenry to debt slavery. To choose capitalism is to choose globalism and transnational interests over the nation and its citizenry; economic nationalism is preferable to all but the globalist bankers and transnational corporatists and those they've duped.

The foolishness of anarchists lies in the idea that humans will ever have a stable, long term society without a strong central power. Ancaps try to fill that void with business, but that can only result in two outcomes: After some time, government is introduced again to regulate the society, or either a council of or a single corporation will take up the mantle, but in a shadier, profit instead of service format.

>>10753
>Oh there's that Hegelian false dilemma! If you don't sing the praises of capitalism, you must be a marxist, it's not possible to oppose both ideologies and seeing them both as detrimental.

It's about the way you define capitalism, it's similar to what I see on /leftypol/

>Which have always been essential elements of capitalist economic and political structures.

But in practice, corporatism is not capitalism, it's fascism. Like Mussoline said.

>No, that's a capitalist marketing ploy, just like workers revolution and classless society are communist marketing ploys.

Then source your claims of what capitalism is, you are just asserting stuff.

>"economic nationalism is preferable to all but the globalist bankers and transnational corporatists and those they've duped."

Economic nationalism is used mostly in socialist goverments, and it generally helps the small governing elite. Which in turn favour financial interests that benefit them.

>>10756
That is why a small, but effecient, goverment is best. A strong central power always leads to demise and corruption like history shows. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

>>10760

Thank you.

Anarchists, fascists, socialists, and communists require unrealistic expectations for their systems to work. A conservative, representative government is the only strong solution that doesn't sacrifice the rights of the individual.

>>10760
>But in practice, corporatism is not capitalism,

In practice capitalism is most certainly corporatism, or have you not noticed the fact that nations which employ capitalist economic and political structures are invariably dominated by corporate interests?

>Then source your claims of what capitalism is, you are just asserting stuff.

I'm stating my view on capitalism, the source of my claims are my ideological view of the world and its systems of government and economics in conjunction with observations, ideologies aren't empirically verifiable. Capitalism is an ideological worldview and a political agenda, one I disagree with as uch as I disagree with communism. I see capitalism in practice is no more about free markets and free commerce than communism is about stateless societies and workers revolution.

>Economic nationalism is used mostly in socialist goverments

Probably the only wise thing they do.

>it generally helps the small governing elite

Please tell me how much outsourcing, open borders, and free trade benefits domestic working and consuming classes in the first world and haven't demolished national economic integrity and hasn't expropriated national wealth.

>>10764
Not according to the creator of fascism, who hated capitalism.

Then you are making an irrefutable claim, based on a personal opinion, that is usually not a proper argument.

Wise? It doesn't end up well. I has worked only in China, I think.

Outsourcing and all that stuff is based on lobbyism.

>>10756

wrong. humans always have a long term, stable society because that's what we do. we as a greater social organism tend towards homeostasis. we cooperate and build communities, form projects, create food. the only thing that ever violates that stability is 'strong central powers' struggling for dominance. you make the mistake of thinking anarchists are all like these modern ancap/ancommunism types who think we still need to have a government with laws that will magically make society to their liking. i for one believe that leadership must simply be deposed once it outlives its usefulness. it could be corporatist, communist, fascist, I don't care. after a certain point leaders stop building and serving their people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership

and begin working to accumulate more power and resources for themselves and their cronies. every single time. and then they must be usurped or outright killed. every single time.



"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson

and there will, and must, always be tyrants. they serve their purpose, and then they die. and there will, and must, always be patriots. they serve their purpose, then they die.

there is no 'answer'. life is never 'over'. we just do this again and again. whether or not we figure it out is up to us. those who seek to control us are certainly building their own homeostasis of constant fear and misery. 1984-style enemy generation in the form of constant formless war. expansionism followed by economic collapse to create openings for robber barons to snatch power and opportunities to funnel public money to private interests in the form of taxes.

>>10763

you have no idea what you're talking about. anarchism is not a 'system'. it is an action or destroying a leadership, usually because they are working against their constituent's interests.

don't confuse anarchism with communism, or anything else. there never can and never will be an 'anarchist' government. anarchism is the righteous struggle to free people of corrupt leadership. the founding fathers practised it to create the fertile ground for a republic.

anarchism is the fire that clears the overgrowth and makes room for new trees. nothing more.

>>10767
Anarchism is the lack of rulers, like it's name says.

>>10765
>Not according to the creator of fascism, who hated capitalism.

So? His word isn't law. He can hate capitalism all he wants, doesn't change the fact that capitalist societies have their governments dominated by an oligarchy of insiders of the largest transnational corporate interests.

>Then you are making an irrefutable claim, based on a personal opinion,

Ideological claims are judgemental, not factual, they're necessarily opinion.

>Wise? It doesn't end up well. I has worked only in China, I think.

Work quite well in Germany and Scandanavia too. Economic nationalism is necessary for a cohesive and prosperous nation whose wealth and citizenry aren't at the mercy of globalists.

Ive argued on /pol/ in the past that even if you could achieve a perfect ancap society, is there really any functional difference between private police/courts/etc

If not, whats the point?

>>10774
But then you can't expect your claim to be taken seriously, nor to make a proper argument with it.

Scandinavia? Countries that are very socialist at the personal level, but very capitalist at the economic level?
The reason why they sustain themselves is because they are very capitalist economicly. They have low company taxes, and it's easy to start and maintain bussinesses.

>>10778

Err i meant for that spoiler to be italics

>>10779

The reason Germany and Scandanavia are the relative success stories they are in an era of economic failures all around are their high levels of protectionism and economic nationalism, their fostering of their domestic industries, their retention of their domestic manufacturing bases. The US is so economically weak because, in addition to its massive debt at all levels and various deficits, it allowed its domestic manufacturing base, traditional domestic industries, and national wealth to be expropriated by transnational interests and engages in trade policies not in its national interests and, at times, beneficial to its main economic rivals.

>>10767

Anarchism is still a system. It tries to put the responsibility of self governance to the individual, or to loose communities formed by individuals. Like I said, it is a system with unrealistic expectations. You expect people to just set aside their differences, work hard, live peacefully, and all join together and be knee bug halt family? You have the same problem as communism and fascism. The system works in theory, not in practice. People aren't perfect. I'm not even sure if they're good. Without a central government of some kind, people would have nothing to fear when perpetrating a crime. Gun the neighbors down? Why not? It's not like there is a police officer to come try to stop me. And don't try to say that people will enforce justice on their own. Unrealistic expectations once again. Mob rule is fickle, brutish, and violent. Eye for an eye is the minimum punishment that would be used.

But the biggest conviction against anarchy, is the fact that it will never last. I referenced fascism and communism earlier. I did so because, they, like anarchism, fail at the most basic levels because of human nature. Fascism puts all of the power to the government, usually headed by a single leader. This could work in theory, but in practice you will eventually get a terrible or corrupt leader, and result in either the downfall of the government, or the oppression of the people to the point where they cannot resist. Communism, in the same respects, fails because the responsibility of distributing everything evenly is held by officials which can just as easily corrupt the system to accrue wealth from the hard work of others. In addition, without competition the economy will inevitably suffer.

Anarchism shares this fate. Not only would it be an inefficient and unjust system, but it would be short lived. Any time you leave a power vacuum, something will come to fill it. People will elect leaders, follow war lords, or settle problems with war just like they always do. Human nature will not change to fit your ideal governance.

Because of this, representative government is the only viable option. Your are completely correct when you say people in power will try to consolidate it. That's the duty we face as citizens of a representative government, to vote in leaders who we believe will serve our best interests, and to design a system which prevents potential bad eggs from overstepping their boundaries. The U.S. system in specific is by no means perfect, and needs significant reform, but like it or not it's what we have to work with. I hope some day to enter politics and do my best to serve the people and reinforce the system against the potential danger of my successor.

>>10768

that's right. so if there are no leaders, that means once you depose the leaders there is a power vacuum. a new leadership is formed and rebuilds according to the modified needs of the people. eventually, or immediately, that leadership fails to perform its function in society, which is to effectively administrate organizational needs of that society. then it is necessary for anarchists, in name or no, whether by military coup, internal struggle, citizen uprising, or simple economic collapse, to remove the leadership and create a power vacuum. the vacuum is filled by a new leadership, more responsive to the new needs of society.

anarchism is not a style of government. all styles of government end up much the same anyway. anarchism is a necessary social attitude to a government which fails to fulfil its role in the social organism. it cannot by definition be a ruling force. it is a reflex of humanity, like vomiting.

>>10812

Until human nature changes to include this "reflexive anarchy", it will continue to be an artificial institution enforced by armed insurrections. If anarchy was actually reflexive, then there would have been a stable anarchistic society by now.

In fact, the opposite is true. It's natural for people to form a government, not to abstain from them. That's the reason as far back in human history that we can see, peoples formed tribal governments and councils. As soon as they were able to support it, the first kingdoms and empires arose. You may not agree, but human nature is to install leadership.

Ok, I think what you meant is that _rebellion_ is a natural reflex. You would be correct. However, anarchism is different from rebellion. Anarchism means destroying governing bodies entirely. Rebels want to change the government, oust someone from power, or institute a change of government, whether by secession or revolution.

When rebels take up arms against an oppressive government, they don't dream of never having a government again, they dream of a reformed and idealic government. Big difference.

>>10785

No, factually wrong. They are a success story because they of what I already stated here >>10779 and companies from other places who get lower taxes there. And because of lower taxes and more free market, bussinesses based there have a competitive advantage over foreign ones, who frequently move there. That is why Estonia managed to turn from a soviet shithole to the country with the healthiest budget in Europe, by following their example, without the retarded SJW/socialist BS. You are factually incorrect, and if you don't source your claims you should just be quiet.

>Embed video has all the info and graphs needed to source my claim. Please watch it. You might not agree with the guy's political views, but in this case he is factually correct, and proves it.

And Germany has the EU to release their goods to, and production quotas given to them by it.

>>10713
Actually, a militia could.

>>10816

there is no 'stable' anarchistic society. i'm not calling for one. in conservative academic political analysis the state of politics is considered inherently anarchistic. what i'm saying is people always need to, and do, overthrow leaders who threaten the functioning of society.

you're calling anarchism some kind of political party, and it isn't. the neo-left has been doing this since the 60's, trying to associate anarchism with class struggle and feminism and all this tripe. it's paradoxical. follow me:

leaders are overthrown , so then you…prevent new leadership from arising? how? you'd have to put some power in place to prevent it, either 'the people' aka communism or a parliament or republic or whatever. it makes no sense by definition. anarchism is not about creating an anarchist government. it is the act of destroying your current, shitty government, so a new one can grow.

>>10822

no realist would dream we'd ever have 'no government again', OR a reformed and idealistic government. as I stated the point is simply to destroy the existing vestigal and corrupt establishment, at any point in history. permanence is not necessary. anarchism IS the act of rebellion. there is no need for a permanent solution. such a thing is unrealistic. the human organism can be trusted to form new groups and systems to sustain and improve society.

>>10840

They have a competitive advantage because the Scandanavian countries and Germany foster their domestic industries and manufacturing bases instead of letting them be wholly expropriated by globalist interests. They have advantage because they don't let slavish adherence to the globalist agenda trump their pursuit of economic nationalism.

>>10852
You are ignoring the facts and spewing pointless rethoric, to weasel in your vague point.

Scandinavia has some of the most capitalist most free-market economies, and foster economic liberty on a business level. And companies based there, foreign and domestic profit from that. That is how they manage to sustain their personal level socialism.

Unless you have sources or proper arguments you might as well stop posting in this thread.

>>10857

You're conflating capitalism with light regulations and free market practices. As I've stated and capitalist interests have demonstrated historically, capitalism routinely violate free markets and favors heavy regulation in the benefit of the capitalist oligarchy.

>>10865
>You're conflating capitalism with light regulations and free market practices

Actually it is. It is the free-flow of capital.

>As I've stated and capitalist interests have demonstrated historically, capitalism routinely violate free markets and favors heavy regulation in the benefit of the capitalist oligarchy.

That's corporatism. Or cronyism. Or lobyism. Or an Oligarchy.

And an Oligarchy is an Oligarchy, if it has capitalist traits or not isn't the problem. It's that it is an Oligarchy.

>>10869

Capitalism is as inherently oligarhic as it is inherently globalist.

And capitalism is not the free flow of capital, capitalism is an ideology that claims to support the free flow of capital but whose adherents inhibit the flow of capital for their personal profit.

And an oligarchy isn't necessarily problematic, it all depends on what principles the oligarchs hold and for what and whom do they rule.

>>10880
No it is not. It is inherently meritocratic if the state isn't corrupt.

If you don't start answering to arguments with proper sources I'll just reply the same way as you.

You must be a shill since you only make noise, you don't actually put in any effort.

You just pull assertions out of your ass.

>>10885

Capitalism isn't inherently meritocratic, it's inherently plutocratic and oligarchic, it cannot be anything more as it has no value beyond the economic and the strictly material. Capitalism only honors and advances dubious merits like the mastery of usury and conniving and deceit.

What proper sources? Norway is strong because, while it does have free markets in trivial areas, in a vital area like petroleum and the energy sector in general, it's nationalization all the way, because it's always wise to keep nationally vital, major industries in the hands of the nation rather than to transnational conglomerates. Germany is economically strong both because it knows how to play its role as head of the EU rather well and it has protected its domestic industries and manufacturing base. China is a major beneficiary and the US a loser in our trade with one another because the US subjected its markets to predation with free trade policies and handed the keys of the kingdom over to transnational interests, while China employs protectionism and economically acts in its national interest.

Free market principles are fine in most internal markets, but the defense industry, energy sector, resource extraction, infrastructure, and banking most certainly need to be nationalized and ran in the best interest of the nation rather than handed over to transnationalists. Mercantilism and neo-mercantilism os a strongly nationalistic bent are the only sane economic policy.

Well sir, you're correct.There's a good chance it would turn into some sort of Corporatism/Oligarchy, with a every other aspect being libertarian, to an extreme degree. Basically the only place the government would be is the market.


I don't agree with it.

>>10938

Germany may have shit energy policy, but it has a robust enough manufacturing sector to keep it among the top of the EU shitheap.

>>10946
That, it has.

>>10587
A state by definition has a monopoly on the initiation of force, aggression. Businesses don't have that property.

Also, most anarcho-capitalists agree that if the government vanished tomorrow, it would be catastrophic, and the fight to fill the power vacuum would be horrible. However, if the vast majority of society accepted it, we think it would work. A comparable example could be how in Africa, the losers of elections often refuse to give up power, however this would be unthinkable in the US or the UK or France or something. The democrat government and system is accepted, and so the transfer of power happens without a hitch.

>>10587
>replacing the state with huge corporations?
Literally no. Huge corporations don't outcompete networks of small businesses.