Anarcho-capitalism

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/anarcho-capitalism

Can someone explain to me how this is a good idea? Sounds like another one of those edgy 4chan political ideologies that will never become mainstream (cuz it is lol)

Someone redpill me on this dank meme concept, I thought libertarianism was already a bit much, but ancap is a whole new level of crazy.

Also I know this thread belongs on /pol/, but my mom won't let me go on 4chan (she says its bad and i should stick to reddit)

"

Krappakreepo wrote:

Sounds like another one of those edgy 4chan political ideologies that will never become mainstream (cuz it is lol)

I think you already know the answer to this.

"

Krappakreepo wrote:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/anarcho-capitalism

Can someone explain to me how this is a good idea? Sounds like another one of those edgy 4chan political ideologies that will never become mainstream (cuz it is lol)

Someone redpill me on this dank meme concept, I thought libertarianism was already a bit much, but ancap is a whole new level of crazy.

Also I know this thread belongs on /pol/, but my mom won't let me go on 4chan (she says its bad and i should stick to reddit)

It makes perfect sense to white people with money and power and guns. What you can take and protect is yours. Fuck everyone else. It is the perfection of greed and narcissism.

Anarcho-capitalism is the belief in private property rights minus the belief in the enforcement of rights. To any reasonable advocate of capitalism, it is a contradiction in terms - and most likely a euphemism for a slave-based economy.

So... pretty much a description of present-day America. Or at least where it's going.

The appeal of any form of anarchy is real. So many of our laws suppress freedom without preventing any form of harm. Business licensing, real estate tax, the war on drugs, prostitution, traffic laws at 3 AM when no other cars or pedestrians are in view, tariffs, and so so many more. But moreso, the greatest danger to man is... man. Warfare threatens to end all life on the planet, and for what? Some political or financial gain? Without government, we dont have large groups of soldiers blowing up the earth with superpowerful weapons.

But alas, we have already passed the point of no return. Nuclear/ bio/ chem weapons already exist. Even if the governments were dissolved , they would continue to threaten us.

But even if we werent, there is still so much to be gained from; the organized construction and maintenance of infrastructure, food subsidies, financial grants for scientific endeavors, education, so many more, and most especially the police (despite how despicable some laws/officers currently are).

As for capitalism, in its current form it is an atrocity. It pushes the majority of resources into the hands of those whom already have it, regardless of if they are actually benefiting society. As ive said before; the generation of capital NEEDs to be immutably linked to and proportional to the amount of benefit that service provides to society. The concept of budgetary balance is antiquated, the value you produce through labor (which should be generated into your account immediately) does not NEED to correspond to how much someone pays for the service. We need to place the monetary incentives on engineering and invention so our best and brightest who want to succeed are guided to fields where they can do the most good. Buying low and selling high is detrimental to society: it pushes up prices for the consumer and adds no additional value. I could go on and on with such examples but ill just leave it at that. Another huge detriment from capitalism is that we cannot rely on business to prepare for things in the future, there is no money to be made in amassing emergency equipment and personnel for disaster relief until after it comes. We need some organizations to be free of the shackles of 'making money'.

We NEED organizations like governments (preferably a single government so that there isnt violent competition). But they should really provide more freedom for their citizens. Perhaps global government should be restricted from limiting all but the most grievous of crimes, that way there can be diversity within different states/cities so that you can find a place whose law you agree with.

"

SpanishMonarch wrote:

It makes perfect sense to white people with money and power and guns. What you can take and protect is yours. Fuck everyone else. It is the perfection of greed and narcissism.

Why only white people? You could describe large parts of Africa as AnCap to some degree.

"

SkyCore wrote:

So many of our laws suppress freedom without preventing any form of harm. Business licensing, real estate tax, the war on drugs, prostitution, traffic laws at 3 AM when no other cars or pedestrians are in view, tariffs, and so so many more.

I just wanted to point out that traffic accidents almost always involve a collision with an object which wasn't in view - at least not until stopping distance proves insufficient. It is precisely the assumption of "nothing there, it's safe" which punishes unsafe driving.

"

SkyCore wrote:

Buying low and selling high is detrimental to society: it pushes up prices for the consumer and adds no additional value.

Adds no value, eh? Then go get it yourself. Go on, travel to the producer, pay him more than he normally gets, then travel back. If that process has no value, it should be no skin off your nose.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

So many of our laws suppress freedom without preventing any form of harm. Business licensing, real estate tax, the war on drugs, prostitution, traffic laws at 3 AM when no other cars or pedestrians are in view, tariffs, and so so many more.

I just wanted to point out that traffic accidents almost always involve a collision with an object which wasn't in view - at least not until stopping distance proves insufficient. It is precisely the assumption of "nothing there, it's safe" which punishes unsafe driving.

You are talking about unsafe driving. I was referring to traffic law. They are not the same thing. I fully agree everyone should drive safely, but using your blinker when theres not another conscious being in sight is just a waste.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

Buying low and selling high is detrimental to society: it pushes up prices for the consumer and adds no additional value.

Adds no value, eh? Then go get it yourself. Go on, travel to the producer, pay him more than he normally gets, then travel back. If that process has no value, it should be no skin off your nose.

You are referring to transportation and or distribution of goods, there is utility in that. Which isnt precisely the same as the what i was referring to. We have the technology now that can trivialize buying or selling things, look at ebay. We dont need gigantic malls and shopping centers anymore. It is a waste of resources to place a middleman in a position that a simple computer program could complete. Take a peek at http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/budgeting/5-retail-markups.htm. Retail markup is absurd. I can imagine in the not to distant future robotic package delivery drastically reducing the cost of shipping as well, all it will take is a willingness to automate.

The world is changing. https://youtu.be/t4kyRyKyOpo?t=17m8s We need a new economic system BEFORE the current one completely collapses, because if we wait until afterwards... billions would likely pay the price in poverty and through war.

We need incentives for innovation, not repetition and influence. We need to place value on long term sustainability and benefits toward all of mankind, not short term profits for oneself alone. When jobs become scarce we need a system that wont have millions starve (despite having more total wealth than at any other time in history). We need a society dedicated to automation in order to free us, taking us into a post-scarcity society.

No system better provides incentive for innovation, or punishes outdated repetition, than laissez-faire capitalism. And although it's vulnerable to corruption via government influence, so is every other system, and while most other so-called political systems accept influence as a core tenet, capitalism at least attempts to safeguard against it - hence the laissez-faire part.

Influence is a two-way street. When government has the power to influence affairs among its people, then the powerful among the people have mitigation to influence their government.

The difference between laissez-faire and anarcho-capitalism is that the former expects a limited government, while the latter expects none to exist. The government of laissez-faire is one dedicated to individual rights and civil liberties. Government needs to exist (and be strong, as I'll explain later), because human nature abhors a power vacuum - there will always be rulers, always be a government, and if the system tries to prevent good people from being part of that government then it will instead consist of the nearest warlord with the requisite thugs and guns. Laissez-faire attempts to stop this almost unstoppable human tendancy by enforcing a system of rights to prevent the coercion of citizens by other citizens - the rule of law, not the rule of man - and by otherwise limiting government influence by declaring separation of church and state, separation of press and state, separation of trade and state, etc.

I call myself a libertarian - not an anarchist - because I believe government's sacred function is to ensure my liberty. Not keep me from doing dumb shit I'll regret later, not to provide for me economically, not to educate me. Just keep the thugs, thieves, vandals and slave-owners off my back. Prevent the rule of men by maintaining the rule of law.

Virtually everything you associate negatively with capitalism is not true laissez-faire capitalism's fault. When the rich have bought influence over the government and use that power to control the people, that is coercion, the system of rights is not being enforced, the government is defeated, and the separations, the rights protecting you from the government, are the next to fall. But a defeated government isn't laissez-faire, it's "anarcho-capitalism." It is vital that a government be strong enough to fight any who would use force on their fellow man, to defend against such coercion... yet have power narrow enough in scope that it does not become a tool of coercion in and of itself.

This is the core concept which those on the political left fail to understand. The man who says you have not just a right to seek medical care, but a right to actual medical care, either intends to enslave the providers of medical care, or unintentionally enables those who do. The man who says the customer who offends your religion has not just a right to seek a wedding cake, but an actual wedding cake, either intends to compel action the people find distasteful, or unintentionally enable those who will. When you give government absolute power, unrestrained by principles held in conviction, you inevitably corrupt it, as it now becomes a weapon to be held to your head by the first group of thugs who manage to burrow within it.

Because that's what government is at its core, and always will be - a weapon, used to compel action. Which action is compelled is the choice of those wielding it. It is vital that we choose to use this weapon ethically, for one job and one job only - self-defense.

As I said earlier though, we're well past the laissez-faire stage of America's history at this point. Perhaps it never existed, and it's always just been a story to appease the masses as the corrupt seize the reins of power. Still, if liberty is ever to once again take hold on Earth, it will be in the form of a strong government dedicated to the prevention of the use of force and fraud on others, yet strictly limited in scope by restrictions which forbid the government from interfering with other forms of human affairs altogether.

If we're going to talk about ancap seriously (Really, we shouldn't. It's far beyond naivety to think it's viable...), then someone explain to me how monopoly wouldn't occur within weeks?

Unless you're willing to burn WalMart* to the ground before you implement this insanity, you're going to shop in one place and one place only.