Why is this brainlet ideology so popular?

Non-aggression is the basis of liberalism. Anarcho-capitalists just took it a step further

>yes goy, libertine anti-government neoliberalism is the same as libertarianism
>just give the (((state))) more power, national (((socialism))) is far more based
>just ignore the fact that Hitler's zionist socialist regime staged an exaggerated genocide so that European nationalism and any anti-zionist sentiment at all could be instantly discredited for the foreseeable future

Attached: ys079ha7gvjy.png (5000x7500, 1.81M)

The NAP takes into account human nature. If I won't take from others, but someone else will, then I know I could be targeted and will defend myself. Assholes commit crime whether laws are in place or not.

Attached: 20200401_170352.jpg (960x709, 273.04K)

Because it's accessible to anyone. Even the dumbest retard can understand "GOVERNMENT BAD" and "LEAVE ME ALONE!!!! ):"

Attached: 1475429545204.png (342x245, 99.75K)

read the whole post.
Read the part where there will be roaming warlords who violate the NAP and lead large numbers of other people who are willing to violate the NAP to obtain resources.

these assholes can't into what Capitalism actually is and if they do, they usually think that they're the "chosen people" to hoard wealth and control the government.

>the libertarian argument is no one would use unjust force to get what they want
Well, I suppose we don't have taxation since that would be an unjust use of force.

Attached: StrawMan2-600x350.jpg (600x350, 54.37K)

It's not. It died a couple years after libertarianism. They're equally retarded.

Imagine thinking that every retard can be trusted with freedom.

Attached: 1582908505515m.jpg (1022x1024, 128.47K)

the common denominator seems to be a bottled up
>STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO DO, MOM!

i've yet to meet a libertarian who isn't a sheltered pansy and actually lived next to people so they can have enough of their 'muh freedumb'

Attached: 1548722529578.png (480x294, 61.64K)

Because it’s the best choice

Attached: 544283C2-CC84-4D7B-B126-D52C4DC5673E.png (853x1025, 105.18K)

>poor trigger discipline
of course

because it's true, look at what is happening right now, big business isn't helping, it's going to swallow gov

I think 50% of the brazilian right wing is ancap, nuke this meme country already.

Attached: 1583737899504.png (464x456, 209.09K)

No.The majority are generic conservatives tiozão do zap style, right-wing liberals and neocons.

Because the number of edgy sociopaths/aspergers like (((Paulo Kogos))) has increased
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
novaresistencia.org/2017/09/05/anarcocapitalismo-e-sociopatia/

It really isnt. But thats only because nobody is smart enough to understand it.

I am -will take any and all questions

no.

No.

People who just want to be left alone have some fantasy idea of libertarianism being a land of independent, father farmers sitting in their porch with a shotgun, when in reality it is total rule by corporations with feminism and mass immigration.

Everyone is a teenager at some point. It just lasts a bit longer for some than others.

>I will defend myself from Google’s $2 trillion drone army

pressXtodoubt.png

>libertarians don't let emotions cloud their reason
>a bad thing
My rights don't care about your feelings.

Attached: 61qSTddN4UL.jpg (648x1000, 84.7K)

What’s the point in talking about moral practices when you want to remove the only entity capable of enforcing moral practices on merchants?

Because in theory it sounds perfect if everyone plays by the rules. Lolbertarians don't realize that complete deregulation and decentralization of power would just lead to some militant group seizing power, and you'd be worse than how you started out

The merchants who you want to turn into your rulers don’t care about your rights.

seizing power of what?

It's not poor trigger discipline if he's currently performing physical removal.

You operate under the assumption that a militant group seizing "power" suddenly transfers all the influence of the previous title holder, who acquired their position in a completely different way, as opposed to a huge number of smaller, and by necessity local groups. I suspect you've not actually read any history on what happens when a centralized force collapses.

You're also ignoring the fact that this would necessitate at least a sizable minority being able to restrict the current government to the degree that a militant group could even seize power, why are you under the impression everyone would suddenly perform a 180, and become pro authoritarian because someone overthrew the weakened state?

Attached: Fr7_NlLa_400x400.jpg (364x364, 22.36K)

>turn into your rulers
Why?

Attached: 1b3afc48ed50120ef5653066e5cedf1f.jpg (405x248, 28.3K)

Because nature abhors a vacuum. When the power of the state is removed, that power vacuum is naturally filled by the 2nd most powerful entity in societies: corporations. They have the most capital, the most agency, and most people rely on them for sustenance. Without state interference, they will also have armies.

wrong. The state wont dissolve itself, which is to say that will be removed by people who understand why it needs to be done. These people arent going to go back and create the state that they just finished throwing off. More over, corporations cant do shit in this environment without money, and since there would be zero limitations on entry into the market -there would be more competition than ever, depleting them of their marketshare and with that -their money. And given the fact that war costs money -like littereally more money than the top 10 corporations combined....you simply could not aggregate the funds necessary to take over a nation of anarchists. Period.

>These people arent going to go back and create the state that they just finished throwing off

Attached: 7e735a612fcf07a82d5de0a31ffc1c58daeee13f602d293cf82dac8c41ac95ab.jpg (200x197, 10.73K)

This has to be the lowest energy post ive ever seen

Do you even know what AnCaps want? What property rights and the NAP are?
>vacuum
Then I must be King of the world. But it doesn't work that way. The state can only exists if there's popular opinion that it should exists.
>power of the state
The power of the state is being a monopoly on the initiation of force and final arbitration. That another state would form is just conjecture. "Power" as anything else is just vague bullshit.

Only a moral people can live free. The rest must be purged.

>NOOOOOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO DEBUNK ME

Attached: bbbbut.png (1063x1068, 120.06K)

Because there are so many brainlets.

It doesn’t matter who removes the state- if the state is removed by a powerful group of politically united, ideological actors who hold true sovereignty and are more powerful than the state’s military, the state hasn’t been removed, it’s been replaced by a new state.

IF they then truly remove the state- purpose abdicate their power- then that vacuum will be filled by corporations

>zero limitations on entry into the market

This is retarded. Without a state, profit-driven cooperative enterprises will be the most powerful entities in society. There will be no one to enforce laws on them. They would make the rules- why the hell would they not establish barriers of entry?

>more competition than ever

Retarded. Without trust-busting and anti-monopoly measures there will be far less. Capital will rule the society- why would it choose to allow competition?

>And given the fact that war costs money -like littereally more money than the top 10 corporations combined....you simply could not aggregate the funds necessary to take over a nation of anarchists.

Retarded. They wouldn’t need to “take over” anything- just people already rely on them for their paychecks. And the anarchists wouldn’t be a united polity- if they ever became one, they would just be a state again. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has 112 billion just in cash on hand, that’s more than enough for drone armies and military contractors to put down pockets of armed resistance.

Degeneracy is a violation of the NAP.

Ok thats better -I actually keked at this one.

(You) are forgiven. Just dont let it happen again.

>Only the state can coerce

It appeals to brainlets with a lack of real world experience.

It's a brainlet ideology.

it's the immunity

How will you force corporations to honor the NAP?

Explain in detail why it doesn't work.
And your retarded ass will fail to answer.
Hence it's a superior ideology

Why dose free trade not work?

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Dues Vult!

Attached: 1585151697774.gif (400x225, 1.26M)

What do you mean by “work”? If you mean produce massive amounts of wealth for capitalists while ensuring total feminism, the destruction of traditional family units, and mass immigration from the 3rd world, then it absolutely works.

It works extremely well. Nothing is more efficient at spreading feminism and destroying tradition

What about massive amounts of wealth is bad? Are you admitting you're too retarded to know how to make money?
And you explain why allowing for free trade enables everything else you implicated however?

Explain how does selling goods and services spread feminism. I want to see your level of mental gymnastics

It's the express implication that you will be retarded and when you do you'll be brutally killed.

Where did I say massive amounts if wealth are bad?

>This is retarded

I agree.

>Without a state, profit-driven cooperative enterprises will be the most powerful entities in society.
>They would make the rules- why the hell would they not establish barriers of entry?

How? These people arent going to throw away their armaments....How -given that the yearly budget of the most powerful military in world history, is 50 times larger than all of the top corporations combined -and yet they still cant take over a third world nation using cold war era equipment- would mcdonalds take over even a restaurant, let alone a country filled with hundreds of millions of recently battle hardened veterans wielding the tools necessary to throw off the very same military just described...?

It simply couldnt be done, it defies every avenue of logic.

>Retarded

Thats what I was thinking...funny, that...

>Without trust-busting and anti-monopoly measures there will be far less. Capital will rule the society- why would it choose to allow competition?

Cause it wouldnt have a choice...ANy given corporation -firstly...wouldnt exist....as such designation is a legal thing and in a world sans government ....there would be no such legal protections. Second -a business can only gain wealth through voluntary transactions and the moment burger king tries to muscle people into his business, for the very same reasons explained above...the king will be removed...and more to the point, any business that fucks around, is going to loose market share and with that, the ability to hire the impossible numbers of mercs to....somehow....take over the nation of heavly armed, literal rambos that occupied it.

try again

>Retarded.

Its almost like youre reading my mind...wierd

>They wouldn’t need to “take over” anything-

....K.

continued...

>If you mean produce massive amounts of wealth for capitalists while ensuring total feminism
You just junctioned it with a negative implications, therefore you relate the one with the other.

Let's hear our resident anarcho-capitalist explain how his system would prevent pornographers from corrupting our women by selling their bodies for money. It's a morally agnostic system, but objective morality exists. Therefore it is unequipped to serve society and allows predatory malignant actors to accrue wealth and power at the expense of society as a whole.

Its made up bullshit by jews in the early 1900s at the austrian school of economics. Taxation has always been a thing. Its the WITHOUT REPRESENTATION part that is currently fucking us. However, lolberts wont fight for anything being that they are hyper egocentric faggots so we're doomed because the toxic ideology has infested all prominent right wing institutions and eroded all socially right wing concepts.

Go pay your camwhore, buy an oversized dragon dildo, and eat a bowl of poison-o's with some grade D malk. No rules bro!

I just dont give a shit about other people or what they do. I dont want to receive or give anything from or to anyone else. I dont want to force someone to do anything. I just want to drink whisky and watch the Mets. Why is that wrong?

>Why is this brainlet ideology so popular?
No idea but why is THIS brainlet ideology so popular on Yas Forums unironically?
I'd rather side with an ancap than a fucking natsoc.

Attached: 800px-War_Ensign_of_Germany_(1938–1945).svg.png (800x480, 35.82K)

this brainlet ideology is also popular

Attached: download.png (400x400, 7.61K)

You see freind the implication of the new set of rules is. If you're retarded enough to buy the poison milk, you probably deserve to die. Don't mistake my ideology of one that supports confort or easy living. It's made for difficulty

Man is an animal. Animals die. Accept nature.

Also, dgaf about a bum. Not my loved one, not my problem.

Jeez if you love ancap so much just go to Sicily. Government and police practically dont exist, it's just mafia families and the essential services they take their cut from. May as well be warlords which is the end state of ancapistan. In reality, the end state of ancapistan is a state. Because, you see, humans arent individuals, they are familial, tribal, groups.

When the state is removed, without any theocratic powerful religious institution, profit-driven cooperatives are the most powerful and agent entity in society. Without interference from above (and there would no longer be anything above them), merchants would never, ever, ever willingly ignore 50% of the entire population as a potential labor base and consumer base just because they’re female.

Women in many ways are desirable consumers and workers. They save less, spend more on frivolities, accept lower salaries, and are less competitive, therefor less likely to quit and start a competing company. When life rationality and profit motive rules, women will naturally be targeted as workers and consumers by the most competitive merchants (you may get an ideologically patriarchal merchant, but he’ll be outcompeted by those who don’t let any ideology interfere with profit motive). This means that women will be targeted as potential workers and consumers by the entities with the most societal influence and media control. This means that they’ll be driven to make their own money and have their own careers. This means no traditional family unit where the wife stays at home to raise the children, as all of the wife’s effort going into the home doesn’t produce any profit for the merchants (the merchants wouldn’t even need their host to society to have high fertility rates, as they can just import an unlimited number of adult workers and consumers from the entire world). It means that women will spend their most fertile years sitting either in offices or in classrooms getting degrees to allow them to sit in offices.

Libertarianism in practice is one of the most utterly, inherently, and inescapably feminist ideologies that exists.

Negative to you maybe, plenty of people like feminism. An action leading to multiple outcomes doesn’t suggest all of those outcomes are all good or all bad.

Disprove self-ownership and prove why your pet issue isn't any thing but a pet issue.

It’s just like communists. They dont take into account human nature. A state will always rise and they refuse to believe this. On a global scale the first collective society working together would kill them all off.

As I was saying...

>just people already rely on them for their paychecks.

Perfect example of your inability to think outside the box:

>No state, means no income/property tax
>No state, means no one to prevent one from homesteading unclaimed land
>No state, means no barriers to entry into the market (inb4, muh super ninja disney army is going to prevent the entire country from starting their own businesses...)
>No state means virtually no one would even need these massive corporations and frankly, they would soon die out as well without the millions of laws and taxpayer funding that empower them to this degree in the first place.

>And the anarchists wouldn’t be a united polity

No, but there would necessarily be warbonds that last far after the end of the conflict. Couple that with heavily armed and well trained militias...Walmart doesnt have a chance.

>112 billion

Great, subtract from that, what is needed to keep their businesses running, assuming that people are going to actually buy from them while they are being killed by said corp and then figure out where you can come up with the other 550 billion just to be able to reach the level of the most well funded military in world history, which cant even hold down camel fucking cave dwellers rocking 80 year old rifles and who just lost the war to the people you are tryin to subdue and you might just have a point...

Nah, I take it back (you) simply dont know what youre talking about.

Move along.

stops niggers and spics from evading the west, no handouts or gibs means no food for niggers to eat. Useful portions of the population prosper while the leaches and nigs either die off or go elsewhere.

if they are breaking moral law in a quite significant way, and there is ample evidence, ordinary citizens have the RIGHT to assemble in a posse, and arrest those who are doing wrong.

its not, at its height it was in the shadow of objectivism, a slightly less stupid but equally autistic but slightly less fringe ideology

And what happens when poison milk is the only milk because the cows have been genetically altered to deliver the most profitable poison milk known to man? What will you do when they buy out all natural milk companies and attack you for buying your own cow?

How would you know it was poison? Are you gonna break out the old chemistry set and test every jug?

Your ideology is for fags and jews like the very people that invented it.

Sure, here is your metric: most men will not marry a sex worker.
And here is your disproval of self-ownership: marriage and procreation.

Ancap is not NAP
Ancap is Life, Liberty & Property. All based in the concept of self-ownership and extended outward.

>251499174
You assume that the solely profit motivated individuals will do that. Allahu akhbar decides to fuck up your land and claim it as his own along with a shit ton of other people motivated by religion.