I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, AMA

>You've deluded yourself into thinking that Capitalism is based on lofty moral principles but really everything is just a power relationship
Woudln't the same apply for statists and communists as well?

Sure...

First question. How did you get to be retarded? Were you born that way orrrrrr...

how is anarcho capitalism remotely anarchistic

How many serious political economy scientific works have you read from front to cover? Have you studied the scientific works of economic models like Keynesian liberalism or Marxism that you oppose, and have rebutted scientifically all their discoveries?

As long as it's not enforced by violence, I see no problem with the fact that some people are born into the capitalist class, because even they'll fall if they don't manage the business as well as their parents have. It's possible to become a capitalist, even though it's difficult - through having good marketable skills and ideas and forming the basis of a good business opportunity, and even if you're unable to acquire capital with your own money, you can convince someone who does that your idea is profitable and they can lend you said capital.

>Woudln't the same apply for statists and communists as well?
Yes. Liberalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, Marxism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marxists don't hide this fact, only liberals and anarchists pretend that society is anything other than power relations between classes

> I see no problem with the fact that some people are born into the capitalist class, because even they'll fall if they don't manage the business as well as their parents have

They don't have to, they can have experienced managers manage production. In fact, owners can be completely and utterly removed from the production process themselves and still earn capital

I hear many objections from left-anarchists that the "anarcho-" in anarcho-capitalism is contradictory, however this is not the case. Anarchism is opposed to all unjust hierarchies, the key difference between these philosophies is what's considered unjust. I do not view capitalism as an unjust hierarchy, however I do view the state as the worst institutional hierarchy, it's just a claim of 'acceptable violence' organized on a given territory. How could you say that an ideology which advocates statelessness is NOT anarchic in nature?

I support free capitalism, not state capitalism or crony capitalism.

Attached: Anarchist_flags_and_stars.png (600x1160, 70.76K)

What's the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia?

so what's the difference between a state, and a huge successful corporation keeping law and order in a piece of land through a private military force?

Why Does anarcho capitalism not take the global marketplace into consideration? In your unfettered system what would stop a malicious foreign body from sabotaging local resources? Or monopolizing a supply chain that compromises national security?

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, though I'm familiar with Marxist terminology - a bourgeois dictatorship is only such because it uses the *state* to enforce its rule, whereas anarcho-capitalism upholds only voluntary exchanges and a society without a state. The working class and the capitalist class can work together if there's no state apparatus for class rule, but instead a market society for class cooperation. No corporation can become as powerful as the megacorporations of today without government intervention, and if you remove them from the equation - capitalism will work as it's supposed to.

Marxists say that capitalists don't work, however, the managerial and planning aspect is itself work. Capitalists take much risk in operating a business, and manage the direction their business will go in - ultimately, it's their choice whether the business will rise or fall.The notion that they can just sit around all day and do nothing is ridiculous, business-owners are active in maintaining their business, just because they hold papers instead of a wrench doesn't make it any different to put it figuratively.

I won't go into the proven laws governing labour and how capital is the crystallization of extracted surplus value. Answer me this though, what stops a big corporation from buying up all the essential resources like water in a big swath of land, and having people work for them in order to get access to said resources? And how is the private police enforcing these laws any different than state police? And how would the megacorporations that would eventually form be any different than states?

>Marxists say that capitalists don't work, however, the managerial and planning aspect is itself work
But in megacorporations, ownership translates to buying stocks. The shareholders aren't involved in the management of the corporation, they have managerial staff that does that for them. You can own stock in 30 different corporations (which is what diversifying your portfolio means, and what most stock brokers advise you to do) and never set foot into a production facility in your life.

The difference is that corporations can't grow that big without government enforcing their monopoly in the first place. A laissez-faire market wouldn't let that happen, thus the restoration of the state wouldn't happen either. Businesses will be allowed to set rules on their land, however, if you don't like their rules then vote with your wallet! Let things go under through boycotts and ostracization rather than force. You don't like a business? Don't associate with 'em. You don't like a person? Same thing.

How do you explain hoppe's argumentative ethics in the simplest way posdible

Anarcho-capitalism can't fully exist until all states are done away with, until then I uphold minarchism as a transitional period:

>Minarchism: A night-watchman state is a model of a state that is limited and minimal, whose only functions are to act as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud and enforcing property laws. Its proponents are called minarchists.

The existing states will have to be overthrown, and we can't just replace them with anarcho-capitalism outright, or else other states will take advantage of the resulting power vacuum. I propose a bare-minimum for defense against other states, and then once all the states in the world have a minarchist character then the transition toward anarcho-capitalism can begin.

Attached: 1587418174433.gif (229x176, 987.04K)

>The difference is that corporations can't grow that big without government enforcing their monopoly in the first place. A laissez-faire market wouldn't let that happen, thus the restoration of the state wouldn't happen either
Says who exactly? What if my corporation is very successful, and can manage to buy out competitors and secure access to essential resources or technology? What if my corporation is the only one that knows how to make a vaccine for cancer? What exactly stops all competitors from selling me everything they have, securing a good chunk of profit along with access to said essential goods, and leaving the workers forced to work for me? How can someone chose with their wallet, when some vital resources are limited and I can legally own them all? What makes a corporate police that would enforce these laws any different than a state police?

> Let things go under through boycotts and ostracization rather than force. You don't like a business? Don't associate with 'em
What if a business owns all production of penicillin, and all the drinkable water in the whole continent?

>In your unfettered system what would stop a malicious foreign body from sabotaging local resources?
Presumably owners of said resources put appropriate security in place.

>Or monopolizing a supply chain that compromises national security?
I have difficulty conceptualizing what "national security" means in context of hypothetical ancapistan.
Anyway, monopolizing something is difficult if not impossible and even then there are generally substitutes.

>monopolizing something is difficult if not impossible and even then there are generally substitutes
It's not, you repeating so without arguments doesn't make it so
>substitutes for medicine, drinkable water, essential minerals for the production of electronics and fuel
there aren't

Are you a deontological anarcho-capitalism or a consequentialist anarcho-capitalism?

The government has to exist there are things a private entity wont do and or should not do. I agree that the government has expanded past what it should do but in order to maintain liberty for everyone the government must exist. anarchy will fall apart on a large scale. Would you agree that the government should exist to guarantee civil liberty and provide basic public services?

Attached: politics.png (602x599, 340.37K)

Again, you're projecting crony capitalism onto laissez-faire capitalism. Anyway, private policing and arbitration would exist in the same way - in a voluntary and competitive manner. The market, the other business-owners and general consumers wouldn't allow anything to grow that big and become a threat to their liberty - only the government allows corporations to grow to that level through preventing competition.

I recommend Tom Wood's episode on law without the state for more of an in-depth explanation:
tomwoods.com/ep-938-law-without-the-state/

You are a faggot. probably under 22 y.o. defenitely white. bisexual. and probably you still live w/ mom.