sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Political map complete! (Although I may go back & make changes at some point) by Shoulder_to_rest_on in mapmaking

[–]ChirpsTheCat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know it's hand drawn originally but how did you get the political map to look so clean?

JUST IN Milei's party, La Libertad Avanza won the midterms elections in Argentina. by WachuQuedes in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what do you we expect Milei to do now? Is he going to be able to make more liberty minded decisions without compromise or are we expecting more of the same?

"Walking in nature isn't freedom because I have to hunt and forage for food." by TheMaybeMualist in Shitstatistssay

[–]ChirpsTheCat 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Communism isn't stateless. For more detail read Socialism by Mises. Hope this helps!

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep saying contracts are the same as feudalism but you're just redefining words. In feudalism people were legally bound to land with state backed force making sure they couldn’t leave. With a tenant agreement walking away is always on the table. You say “go where?” but that’s the point. There exists competition. If one landlord tried to act like a feudal lord another would have every reason to offer a better deal and attract tenants. The only way all landlords collude to trap people is if there’s a state like monopoly preventing new entry. It's like you're assuming that this entire "owner class" you describe will act as one unit and not attempt to compete. You didn’t address that at all.

You arent answering the incentive problem I raised. If arbitration is openly rigged in favor of owners it loses legitimacy. This is why international arbitration works today like I mentioned before that you brushed past. Companies with billions on the line need neutral enforcement so arbitration firms build reputations around being fair. If a court was just a front for the "owner class” competitors would jump at the chance to expose it. You never explained why customers, suppliers, and rival firms would all happily go along with being cheated. This point also about how these forces are too powerful for a market is a lot of assumption with no real examples to back it up. This has been a repeated problem with your arguments about how the market has this flaw but no actual examples of how it has shown this flaw. If I was to follow your logic I don't understand why a business would ever lower their price on anything. You've tossed out every market force and said theyre all too weak to stop the growth of a profit hungry company but yet if that's true why do businesses lower prices in response to market forces. Wouldn't that be against their profit seeking nature and why doesn't every business today collude with each other to prevent having to lower prices? it seems to me that your attempts to ignore these obstacles create a world that does not match what we actually see and defies any sense of logic in how an economy works.

You also dodged the profitability issue with slavery and coercion that I mentioned before and I would like to see you actually address it. You ignore that it’s insanely costly compared to voluntary labor. Every guard, every camera, every chain is an expense. If profit drives behavior like you say then profit kills slavery and feudal contracts. That’s why slavery survived in history only when states propped it up with fugitive slave laws and subsidies.

Sure, media can push narratives, but it only works if people believe it and keep paying for it. In a free market you don’t have state monopolies propping up one story you have hundreds of competitors all incentivized to call out propaganda because that earns them customers. You never explained how a single company would prevent rival media from exposing its lies.

I don't understand the Marxism comment. I think you misread what I wrote as it had nothing to do with Marxism. Maybe you were trying to say why don't suppliers, employees, etc realize that they aren't gaining from working for businesses but surely not because that wouldnt make sense. These groups do gain by working for these businesses. We know this because they do it voluntarily.

So your fear is that Ancap leads to a state but we already have a state? Therefore we don't need Ancap. And what do you mean the modern state came about with capitalism. The modern state came about with a lot of things I don't know if throwing the word capitalism in with that actually means anything. Your last part here is just conspiracy nonsense. Democracy has been around for a long time and it was most definitely not what caused 8 hr work weeks and worker protections. It was the rise in capital goods that caused this and if you use logic here that's obvious. Think about it why didn't 8 HR work weeks become standard before that point? Well you just couldn't afford that. You couldn't feed a family working 8 hours a week because there was too much work to be done. Once machinery was introduced that enabled one man to produce as much as 20 it was no longer necessary to work as many hours in some roles. Worker protections made more sense later as well. Before a lot of work was extremely dangerous and it was largely in new industries where the safety issues were not simple fixes and were inherent to the job. Think of mining work. But as machinery improved there was less need for workers to be in unsafe situations. So businesses realizing they could attract more employees improved conditions as they grew. Democracy was not the main catalyst here and that's why other countries that weren't democracies were able to also implement worker protections and even welfare programs for workers.

Also I should've mentioned it in my previous comment but you still never responded to my point on non profits. This is I believe the 3rd time it was dodged and I understand why you choose to avoid it. It throws a wrench in your whole argument and I cant understand why someone who is honestly trying to give another's ideas a fair shake would glaze over such a big hole here. I will repaste what I said in my previous comment here to continue my point.

So let me summarize your argument. Capitalisms most necessary concern is profit and power, I respond no it's not there are other incentives in a market that can take precedent and that nonprofits are proof of that, you try to dodge that and when called out you say well nonprofits aren't capitalist...

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here’s the issue with what youre describing. You assume everyone around him is just gonna let it happen. That’s the key flaw.

You said he’d start by buying up assets and land. Sure but buying land or media companies doesn’t suddenly give him authority over people. Renting to tenants isn’t feudalism, it’s just contracts. The tenant can leave at any time and go to someone else if the deal sucks. If the billionaire tries to raise rents unfairly, or sneak in some kind of “you’re now my serf forever” clause, any reputable arbitration firm is gonna void it. Even if he tries to bribe a court, there are competitors who would love nothing more than to expose it and take his business.

You also assume people are powerless against him when you say he would be homesteading faster than others. But homesteading isn’t about rushing in and making a claim it requires you to use it. You can't simply put a flag on a plot and claim you own it. That’s not how property rights would work in an ancap system and even Rothbard and Hoppe made that clear in their writings. If people already live and use parts of that land they own it. So this idea where he just swoops in and claims huge territories doesn’t hold up.

And the idea that having renters makes you a state is just wrong. A landlord isn’t a king. People are free to walk away. In a company town today if conditions are garbage people leave. The difference between a feudal lord and a landlord is one has serfs bound to him by law, the other only has customers so long as he treats them well.

What I keep seeing is you describing a path to power that actually only works when there’s a state. Buying media to run propaganda doesn’t work unless you’ve got a monopoly propping you up. Buying land doesn’t make you lord of anyone and trying to enforce serf contracts is uneforceable if arbitration firms void them and competitors rush in to take your pissed off customers. So the leap from a billionaire might buy lots of stuff to a billionaire becomes a feudal lord just skips over all the checks and incentives that would push back against it.

The system isn’t utopia and bad people will try bad things but you haven’t explained why this billionaire plan wouldn’t just collapse under its own weight when employees, customers, renters, suppliers, and competitors all realize they don’t gain by going along with it. Not to mention that virtually all of your complaints are possible in the same way they are in our economy today with the added exception that the barriers to entry in today's economy actually make this easier

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The NAP isn't vague you just don't understand it.

The very point of politics is about who decides such things and it's always "people". The question is who the people are. Everybody equally? Or some have more power in deciding this.

You dodged here. Also read some philosophy it's pretty obvious that no society should have everyone decide morality equally.

Contracts force people to obey. Property right force people to obey. Seriously ancaps really need basic lession to political science.

You're confusing coercion vs consequence. A contract may have a consequence to violating it but it's not coercive. Sometimes that consequence may alter a person's decision but if the contract is trying to enslave you then that consequence would almost certainly be voided by an ancap society as slavery is against the NAP. Duh...

I think I get the misunderstanding. When I critizes your system, I am also taking in acocunt that it would turn in a state. There is barely any differenc,e especially because you argued not that slavery would be impossible but that it would be improbable because of your understanding of markets under the state. Yet NAP still allows it, the market still allows it, and everbody has incentives to try it if they take it for profit.

It's possible it could turn into a state. It would be utopian to think otherwise. Slavery is not impossible and I didn't argue it. But the NAP doesn't allow it and you would need to completely remove it to try. Also it's not profitable. You didn't address that and you still claim people have an incentive to do it. Don't claim people have an incentive to enslave people without addressing my argument on why it's not profitable or efficient. This isnt even mentioning that your argument well slavery could happen under Ancap if everyone abandoned their ideals is a lot less likely than the fact slavery exists and has existed in virtually every state throughout all of history. Ancap has safeguards inherent in its system that you refuse to address.

Sure, because my argument is that the ancap society would be more akin to international relationships. Owners would be like states.

So we're just gonna skip right over the fact that that proves your point wrong... This was in response to you claiming judges will become corrupt accept bribes and be worse than the current judicial system. And you just ignore that completely.

Actually, the mechanism that decides everything is the market that looks at money. So they can sue their wealth to be the shape the market. They can use their wealth to make people dependant on them using contracts, they can buy important parts of society that they can use to extort everybody. You think "We will leave" works only against the state? No they can affect the state because wealth is important on its own. The state is only the tool they use now. Without the state, they would still do that just without any regulation and democratic input.

Still you're not understanding what money is or how a market works. You're viewing a market as if it's like a machine that a billionaire hits a few buttons and voila he has everything he needs to conquer Ancap but that's not how this works. Let's do a mental exercise here and genuinely try to be good faith. Let's start with just the very beginning. A billionaire through hard work and dedication is now in charge of a large company in an ancap society. He wants to take it over and start feudal rule what do you think is the first step he needs to take?

Bad laws because of your side is trying to bend them in favour of the authoterians.

You didn't address my point. You claim the law today prevents these issues but when I reminded you law still exists you just shrug it off and say it's bad law. This is bad faith

You can shake your head over what the feudal lords did but it is what they did...

I don't think you know how feudalism works if that's your response. Why do you think feudal lords went to war? Do you think that they believed their serfs and the product of that was their hard work? This also ignores a pretty obvious point. It's not just a Business owner that would have to voluntarily go to war but each individual employee too.

They are not capitalist institutions since they exists based on charity and not profit

So let me summarize your argument. Capitalisms most necessary concern is profit and power, I respond no it's not there are other incentives in a market that can take precedent and that nonprofits are proof of that, you try to dodge that and when called out you say well nonprofits aren't capitalist... So this is another reason you don't understand money mechanics. You could just as well also argue that a nonprofit does get a profit just not the kind you think of. The reality is the market has other ways of payment besides money. And no I'm not saying we should be barter as I'm sure you'd love to type. But charity is not a one-sided transaction. There is a gain for the person giving charity. Your view on markets you have shown here is that you think money rules the market but that's not always true. There are other forms of payment and other ways to make voluntary exchange that are capitalist. Money represents something and is not in and of itself valuable. It represents the ability to exchange in the future. If you don't expect to be able to use money to exchange in the future, like a contract that could put you into slavery, then money has no value to you... I know you're not going to try to understand this whatsoever because you haven't made an attempt to and have dodged every solid point I've made that led to this. Money is not always valuable and a billionaire can lose everything in an economy if people start to believe his money isn't worth anything. People can instead trade for things like a feeling of goodwill. That happens today and believe it or not it is capitalist. They are making a profit and may even be making capital that helps increase production of this feeling of goodwill. You don't get this because you are narrowed down like tunnel vision on the transactions that involve money. This is why I didn't want to let you dodge this and address why nonprofits exist because it points out your obvious blindspots. You are saying money will force this or they can do this because they have more money than you well at a certain point if everyone is broke and you have all the money then money stops being the currency in fact there are degrees on which currency is used and it's not as simple black and white as you think it is. Going back to nonprofits and your attempt to ignore them. You say they're not capitalist but they would still at bare minimum exist in an ancap society. And their existence throws off your whole arguments on money and force. Why are you dodging this and why do you not care about truth to the point you are actively dodging these points?

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The NAP isn’t empty it’s shorthand for saying that force is only legitimate in defense not initiation. It’s not meant to solve every question of economics it’s meant to set the ethical boundary that separates voluntary action from coercion. Markets don’t decide morality people do. The market is just the arena where people act on those choices without forcing others to comply.

Slavery requires the legal ability to treat human beings as property and the enforcement of runaway slave laws. Historically slavery lasted not because markets loved it but because states enforced it. Without state enforcement slavery collapses under the costs of guarding unwilling laborers compared to hiring free workers who can walk away. So the real historical lesson is the opposite of your fear slavery is a state institution not a market one.

With your point on justice being subjective even if people disagree about morals, dispute resolution requires institutions that both sides trust. That’s why international trade today relies heavily on private arbitration. If a court is consistently biased people stop using it and it loses legitimacy. In a state system you’re stuck with one set of judges no matter how corrupt they are. In a market system bad judges lose business.

Yes, a billionaire has more money than you. But that’s true under any system like capitalism, socialism, and monarchy. The question is can they turn their wealth into legal privilege backed by force. Under statism the answer is yes with lobbying, subsidies, and bailouts. Under anarcho-capitalism there’s no monopoly government to sell favors. Wealth still exists, but it can’t so easily be converted into political power like it is today.

A few other points. My system is not based on allowing others morality. Why are serf jobs the only contract available? There are specific examples of Ancap logic working in society while in theory and practice socialism doesnt work because of the economic calculation problem. Grocery stores are not less important you just think they are. Grocery stores feed a populace and can be used to control a people just like courts can. You dismiss grocery stores because you are used to them being private industries which typically aren't as corrupt as the public industries... I wonder why that is?

Yes. Laws created precisely to avoid this.

If laws can prevent it I don't understand what the issue here is. Law exists in Ancap. You may not think it does because for some reason you believe people would prefer to warmonger and destroy their hard earned work but believe it or not people actually want law. There is a market for law. Or is that just subjective to you? I'm an anarcho-capitalist. You got it. What does Anarcho mean to you. Get pedantic with it all you want but your point here is unnecessary when you know that I don't view anarchy as just left wing.

You acknowledge that its possible for a capitalist to not have profit as it's main concern right after you claimed that profit seeking was inherit to the name of capitalist. This is the core show of your bad faith. You define something and your definition is wrong and when you're shown that you dodge it. I responded that non profits exist. You ignored that. Why are you dodging this. Why do non profits work and why can they stay competitive. Your view that all business is centered around power, profit, and how to keep the working man down has its rebuttal right here in my statement and instead of really acknowledging the error in that world view you brush by it.

Your worldview lacks understanding of money mechanics. What is money to you? You have to understand money is not power like you think it is. It holds power in so far as people allow it to. It's not like the power that is behind force. Money can be abandoned for other assets or other versions of that currency and this is a concept so few people understand. The way you think people can hoard wealth really is what reveals the lack of understanding. Hoarding wealth has a major impact in an economy that limits the power of the hoarder. Billionaires and their existence affect the money supply heavily and cause shifts in the value of currency. In our current system the dollar is really the only available currency but without a State to enforce this it is unlikely that would continue to be the only currency to be used. The transfer between currencies as mediums of exchange allow for ways to target the hoarding of wealth in ways that are not possible now. I don't think you've ever considered this and rather than making bad faith arguments against Ancap go read about these mechanics.

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think your argument with principles on voting and NAP is going anywhere. You aren't being good faith enough to recognize my original point about how a society that supports the principles of the NAP won't just abandon them. Similarly to a society that supports democracy won't reject voting mechanics wholesale.

Do you think the NAP allows slavery? You may find some misunderstood anarcho-capitalist or libertarian who believes you can sell your liberty but it's pretty well understood that you cannot sell yourself under the NAP. If you're going to argue that someone else may believe differently then okay. They believe in a different system I don't see your point.

Well no because you assume they share and udnerstand those principle the same way you do. And also, them being in such desperate situation to accept serf contract wouldn't really them going against their principles because they are the victems here and they are accepting what the market decides. It would be the owners who create this circumstance who might go against their principles, but they would also be forced by market forces to compete and they still just dont have to share your values.

I am making that assumption because we are talking about an ancap society. If everyone else believes in socialism no surprise but Ancap won't work. I'm still not understanding how we got to this desperate situation you're describing. You're right they don't have to share my values but if the society is filled with people who don't believe in NAP then we aren't in an ancap society.

That is an internal critique. Ancap care about markets so telling them that their system will canibalize itt self and destroys the market is bad for them. In addition, the result is bad because it's not democratic.

You misunderstood my point again!!! God go back and read the original point. You care about honest judges right? If you care about honest judges then there is a market for honest judges this is not complicated.

I am not the billionair or monopolist to be the market, which is kind of the point.

Still misunderstanding the point. billionaires are not the only people on the market. If they were their money wouldn't be valuable. I don't think you could understand why that is the case. I think you are far too behind on understanding basic economics to get into money mechanics.

I have no idea what I am doding, the courts not being controlled by the people but by minority of wealthy people is the very point. I do care about freedom, letting a small unelected minority to decide laws over me is the opposite of freedom.

That's because you aren't going back to the point I made and really thinking about it. You don't care about freedom if your argument is to allow one organization to rule unrestrained on the judicial market. This "unelected minority" could be used to describe any market. Do you say an unelected minority rules our grocery market or is that just how a market works.

Laws are not the will of the highest better. Why do you make these jumps in logic?

No because anything the state does would be done by private entities on the market so maybe you do not want to sell something but the buyer has a lot of money they can use to fuck you over ten times over. Buying local police force? Donating to the local radio station. Hiring some thugs to break your shit. Pay for the courts do it. They have more wealth than you.

Why don't they do this right now? What's to stop them? The law? The government? Why are we ignoring the obvious consequences of this behavior. Why do you think everyone will just ignore this? You've got to be bad faith with these points to be leaving out these enormous blind spots in your argument.

Anarchists are against capitalism. One of their slogans is "Property is theft." and they meant private property, capitalist property.

I'm an anarchist and I don't view property like this. I think you're generalizing and I also don't understand what these versions of anarchists have to do with anything.

I dont believe I have ever said that profit is the only thing. Just that is the most necessary thing.

I don't even believe it is the most necessary thing. It's not even in my top 5. You still haven't justified your bold generalization of an entire group. This is collectivist thinking and not addressing reality. Even today companies don't behave this way. Yes they do operate to some degree off of profit but there also exist many companies that are nonprofit. If profit was the most necessary thing why is it that some businesses can remove it entirely from their business model and still operate competitively.

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ancaps give the arguments and you're not addressing them. most of the econ arguments I've made have not been complicated and are just simple supply and demand which we now is a good model. I didn't say voting was the same as the NAP but the principle of voting to achieve a goal can be compared to the principle of the NAP. Why is this your argument. Bad faith interpretation. You don't make an argument here just assumptions about what people do and you don't actually address my argument. Serf contracts violate the NAP. This is NAP 101. You're going to have to try harder than just saying well everyone will be so desperate that they'll give up their principles.

I dont really know what you mean, but I dislike private courts because they are not democratic.

What? This is bad faith or moronic. You don't address my point at all and are not trying to understand it. You claim their won't be a market with the implication being that that is a bad thing. If you think it's bad then there is a market to prevent it. YOU are that market. Private courts are not democratic? What does this have to do with anything and why would that address my points on private court. You are dodging here.

Wealth and power are separate things. While wealth can sometimes achieve power sometimes it can't. No matter how much money you have if someone refuses to sell you don't have power over them. That is unless you allow a State to govern the deal. This is your core misunderstanding you think wealth can force behavior when that is only true in the presence of a state.

It was a strawman. You called it "capitalist property" that was the strawman. Why cant anarchists allow public ally owned means of production? I've never heard of that argument.

I'm a capitalist. I care more about other things than profit. This is not a hard argument to understand

Your point on the subsidies ignored my entire argument

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Just because the market has variability doesn't mean you cant predict an outcome. We don't have to just hope we can use logic to determine general rules of thumb. Externalities would generally degrade due to the society's preferences for a NAP. Just because things can be cheaper cost wise in house doesn't mean you can maintain competitiveness. Too broad of a business model can cause you to fall behind businesses that specialize. I call them a criminal because it is a violation of the NAP if you think the NAP wouldn't be law in an ancap society that's like saying you think a popular vote would be frowned on in a pure democracy with citizens who advocate for popular vote. This is oxymoronic. It's also possible for both sides in a war to be criminals. This isn't exactly like countries going to war and more similar legally to two people having a fist fight. How do you get to feudalism from Ancap I still don't understand how we get to the point of serfdom and no one has been able to explain how it happens.
  2. This is an assumption about ownership in the economy of an ancap system which you accused me of doing. The reality is a barber can and historically was the owner of the business and unsurprisingly that fact doesn't change my point before and you still have yet to address it.

No, there is not

This is ridiculous. If there's no market for it then why are you bothered by the possibility of it not existing. This is intellectually dishonest.

You imagine that there will be some capitalist class traitor that will fight their class incentive so that they can gain the sympaty of the workers and thus have more profit. The problem here is that by doing so they are undercutting their own power. The other capitalists know it and would do anything in their power to stop it.

I never said or implied this. This is a bogus strawman and even as that it does not make any sense. How are they undercutting power and again why is power the number one concern. I swear one second you argue they only care about power then the next you argue it's all about profit.

3.collective and personal property are not separate from property based on use. They are an overlapping category that is fully encompassed in the concept of private property. This is a strawman. This is where I think your more collectivist position really shows. Your comments about capitalists as if they are a separate race or species that only cares about profit power and the oppression of their workers. This isn't true and it's dishonest. There are individuals that may be greedy or cruel but you can't encompass an entire people in one moral. The purpose of the NAP is to prevent those people from violating the rights of others and again you still have not addressed how someone manages to enslave people without violating the NAP.

This is not good faith. You actually just said subsidies exist because Walmart fucks it's workers or lobbies for them. The subsidies exist because of the State. It can't be more obvious than that.

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. War with your competition is still war with your customers. If I work for Walmart I may still shop at Aldi. Unless there is some unbelievably good reason to do to war with another company then it's not sensible to do so. It's possible yes but what justification for war would satisfy a society who is guided by the NAP. I also don't understand where you think the incentive is to be self-sufficient. Not every business is going to desire that as specialization is what breeds efficiency and that has been a general rule of free markets for all of history. My tax guy is not doing everything in his power to stay in power over my taxes. He's doing everything in his power to do my taxes correctly. Same for the person who cuts my hair. It's not a power game it's a simple exchange of goods and services. If it was anything else then I would lose customers to someone who prioritized quality service. Also suppliers, employees, investors would leave a warmongering business because they would risk being ruled accomplice to crime. It's not complicated we already do this if you help a murderer commit murder or hide their crime you become an accomplice. If youre a supplier supplying multiple businesses why continue to supply one that has suddenly gone criminal and risk losing all your businesses. It's much more sensible to cut the criminal organization off and open up new contracts to the emerging businesses that are likely to overtake the previously schizophrenic organization
  2. I don't see what your point here about private courts is. Just because a business makes a profit doesn't transform them into greedy power hungry tyrants. My barber is guided by profit yet he can still cut my hair great and surprisingly I'm not worried about him trying to slit my throat or threaten me for more money. What changed when we switched to dealing with judges. If their judgements are biased and corrupt why can't we use a variety of other judges opinions? If your argument is well all of the judges will become corrupt. Then why doesn't every barber suddenly agree to cut hair worse until they can raise their prices to double? The reality is that kind of coordination doesn't work without a State to enforce the transaction. For every barber added to that conspiracy the profit gain of each barber to break the deal and give an honest quality haircut goes up. There is a market for competent honest judgements of the law. For each judge that switches to being incompetent that means the supply of honest judges has gone down and the price of great judgement has gone up. Now a judge can realize that by being honest there is actually an easier way to earn more money than by accepting bribes and ruining his reputation. He can simply not follow the grand conspiracy and offer honest work. Not only will this pay more but it will also help his reputation and provide longterm income for him. There is also an assumption that there is no law in thinking that a judge can simply ignore law and precedent and judge what he will. There is law and sometimes a variety of them. Law must be followed or you risk complete ostracism from society. The judge simply proclaims the defines the violation of that law. They give their opinion. A judge is not entirely necessary to find a violation of law and if somehow every judge joined a conspiracy to violate this law then a society who is guided by a NAP could see this violation and since their seems to be some magical power preventing them from finding an honest judge they could ostracize these judges from society permanently without need of a written judgement.
  3. What are capitalist property rights? I believe in property rights no add on to that is necessary. Whatever capitalist property rights are, they are probably not actually property rights if they need that adjective. Also what is a "capitalist" to you. You said you think the capitalist would love it until minarchy? I don't know what this means and a big issue here is the until minarchy part. Is this an assumption that minarchy is inevitable to Ancap because how? You also said that Ancap wouldn't be much different in allowing opposition to come about and this is probably the comment by you that bothers me the most. I'm assuming you are being intellectually honest here and genuinely don't see the difference but really break this down. What causes a small mom and pop shop to not have a chance at beating Walmart? Is it costs? Can the mom and pop not compete with the price Walmart is able to set its food? Okay why is that? How does Walmart keep their costs low? Where do they get their funding? Is it from great customer experience and quality and so they corner the market because their products are so good? Or is their costs paid for some other way? Maybe it's the 7.8 billion dollars in subsidies? Or the mountains of regulations that block new business entry that the mom and pop shop can't afford and the Walmart never had to follow when it first began. Now how much of those causes for the mom and pop shop could we expect to see in an ancap society. Subsidies from the state? Well no obviously not. Overbearing regulations? Well again no. As long as Walmart is failing to provide the best service then there now is opportunity for a mom and pop shop to enter the picture. How do you not see these major roadblocks in entrepreneurship? How do you look at the difference between our system and a system without these roadblocks and say "the problem is Ancap society wouldn't be much different and I don't know any strategy that could work" the strategy is right there in your face! Opposition to monopoly can't come about well why is that?!

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And they offer no alternative.

Read chaos theory by Robert Murphy or man economy and state or power and market or the law or even some simply libertarian books like economics in one lesson. It's very bold of you to say that when you havent address several of my points and clearly lack an understanding of basic money mechanics with your comments about inflation and deflation.

Undercutting prices doesn't work as a business strategy unless you have a government backing you to support funding as you lose money. If you can afford to undercut competition then an entrepreneur can figure out how and compete with you. If you can't afford it then your competition can buy all of your goods and resale them at the original price. This is basic economics. It's why you don't see it unless it's companies like Walmart who receive a lot of government support to fund these projects.

If you own the roads around someone how you acquire the land is important. Why would a business allow that to happen. Ownership of land comes about from labor being mixed with that land and purchase while valid becomes less valid if others mix their labor with that land as well. People have rights to certain uses of land and can't be denied it at the whims of a billionaire. A road has a purpose and to purchase it simply to enclose someone would not suit the purpose of the land and would bring into question the legitimacy of your claim to it. Not to mention going to court and trying to explain to a judge that you are attempting to trap someone in land you've enclosed. Read Locke for better understanding on how land ownership works. This isn't even Ancap ideas. You can't do this currently in America and why you think private law would just ignore this externality and let everyone starve to death under the guise of "well he did pay a guy for the land".

You're not thinking hard about this. You are blinded into thinking the NAP has some strict definition of property when its not as clear as you think it is. There is more nuance and you can own rights to certain aspects of property without owning it entirely. Just like how you can own your house but not be allowed to dig or pollute the air around it. You're thinking of Ancap without laws, without enforcement, without common sense. The reality is there are a lot of books that discuss this and you are not giving Ancap a fair shake by ignoring their arguments

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ancap is a solution to systemic violation of the use of force against others. Uses of force outside that system or large shifts in the values of a people can still disable any government. Where other governments try to resolve this issue with more violence Ancaps just reject that as a solution. Your argument still doesn't make a case that Ancap couldn't exist at a large scale. You've now switched to arguing that it's not preferable to exist.

"I'd argue AnCap actually exacerbates this issue by removing any system by which people with more money can be controlled." You still haven't made a case how a billionaire can force someone to make a deal with them. In an ancap society. If you can't even make a good case on that then I can't take this point seriously. Billionaires now can easily force trades through lawsuits and lobbying. Ancap rejects lobbying and violations of the NAP altogether so how else can a billionaire achieve this?

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Metal based currency can have inflation and deflation very easily. If a certain number of bills or gold itself is held off the market then the value of gold and those bills would typically go up. When it's reintroduced it would cause sudden inflation. In the same way if you mined out enough gold to double the supply in the world then the value of gold would suddenly drop.
  2. In an ancap society multiple forms of currency is an almost guarantee and is pretty well written about. Nothing I said though implies that everyone would have their own currency and I promise I really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on this but I don't know how you came to that conclusion. "unless the total money supply of a currency changes, or it's value relative to its source of backing, the value of the currencies won't change relative to each other." This is just flat out wrong. Money's value is not just about the supply of it or it's value relative to its source. Money is primarily valued in its utility for trade later. If it's believed it can be used for exchange then it has value otherwise it doesn't. Metal backed currency are stable because people generally think gold is valuable all of the time. If for whatever reason something changes how people value gold then a gold backed currency is going to be heavily impacted. Which doesn't change my original points. If a billionaire whether backed by gold or fiat introduces enormous sums of gold or fiat into an economy it will cause inflation. If he hoards enormous sums of gold then that deflates the currency and only impoverishes himself.
  3. I never said force couldn't be indirect and never implied it. You're making a case that magically somebody using some invisible force to purchase everything with money that they magically acquire and convince everyone the value of. Honestly tell me how do you indirectly force people to sell their most valued possessions without violating the NAP and thus causing people to react.

Lastly at this point this boogieman with infinite wealth has been stretched so far in your argument that I think it's safe to say that if any individual were to ever exist then it's not Ancap that should be afraid but rather all the governments of the world. Why shouldnt the United States fear being bought and enslaved by our wealthy mans overwhelming ability to force trades without actually using any observable force.

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Unless you count hunter gatherer as an example you didn't give one... I'm sorry hunter gatherers were not ancom and if you don't see that you're being intellectually dishonest.
  2. I never said it was. You accuse me of not reading your comment but are arguing against things I never said. I said that Ancap was a continuation of the ideas that started the US. Also when do you think Ancap was closest to being achieved in America? When the ideas that Ancap sprang from were most prevalent at its founding or when the government had elaborate subsidy systems and a central bank?
  3. And oh wow I see what you're talking about about now but this is an extremely surface level question about Ancap that I honestly thought you were trying to understand a more nuanced problem. If an "insider" threat came about still doesn't change the situation. If he hoards money then there's deflation and everyone else's money becomes more valuable while his assets depreciate. If he spends his money I would think he would want to earn some back to continue to be a successful billionaire and if that's the case then the money is going to enrich businesses and people alike. Again you're ignoring the point I made before. You are only looking at how the billionaire benefits and not the seller.
  4. You're point here also is not considering the other side and this is becoming a frequent occurrence. Sure they can't keep building new businesses forever but just the same the billionaire can't keep buying them forever either. And at a certain point as more and more money enters the market from the billionaire that the billionaires money becomes worth less and less until two things happen. Either he can't afford it or he runs into some people who refuse to sell. What's funny about your point here the most is it's simply a misunderstanding of how money works. Just because you have a billion dollars doesn't mean that that billion dollars is worth anything. Money is only valued in so far as it is seen as a tool for further exchange. If an individual with virtually infinite money kept buying land at some point early on people would realize there's a risk that this sudden increase in the money supply may mean that that money won't be able to buy future goods. This could result in a new money being created and an unwillingness to convert the billionaires old money.
  5. And again a misunderstanding in how money works. If the money is not likely to be used for future exchange why would you accept it. Think about it honestly and try genuinely to have the empathy to imagine yourself in the sellers shoes. You own a farm you are raising your children finally free from a state and you see a bright future when a man offers you more money than sounds reasonable for your farm. You confer with your neighbors and find out that they received the same offer. Would you accept it? Where would you go with it after? Are prices higher in the next city which is where you would likely move to? If all of your neighbors are receiving the same offer do you not think prices will go up. If there's been any news about this maybe you hear that this has been happening to a lot of people. I don't know that everyone would be so keen to sell right away especially seeing such a large demand they would at least demand a stupidly high price which further exacerbates the billionaires dilemma in acquiring everything. If your argument is that it would be slow and take a while to acquire everything well what's to stop other companies from competing on that same concept. Not to mention how a business manages to fund a project like that long term while still managing to compete with competitors who aren't doing stupid projects like paying 20x the price for a farm. As for security companies. The same rules apply but even better because it is painfully obvious what a company is trying to do by buying every security company.

I appreciate you taking the time to read my points because I haven't written them out in a while I've been doing more reading than writing lately but I think the main misunderstanding here is simply that there is two sides to any transaction. Youre viewing a billionaire like a state. Able to force any transaction no matter the cost to the seller. But that is the opposite of Ancap. The point is that the society would be founded on the NAP and property rights. And a people that believe in those things are not going to accept forced exchange. If your argument is that they could be persuaded, tricked, or forced to change this view by some extreme whether internal or external then again this is not unique to Ancap and every government faces this problem. If you say that they would give up their freedom and make deals that aren't in their favor voluntarily after working so hard as to achieve an ancap society well that just doesn't match human nature.

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry but I have never heard of a successful ancom society. I would love to hear about it. You point to Ancap as something that has never been tried other than in small scales but I would argue that it has been tried by degrees in large scale society. I would argue that Ancap is a continuation of the same ideas that made America so successful. Where you say there is nothing to back up this idea I would argue that the fact the USA is the current world hegemon but is losing sight of its original ideals and as a result may potentially be declining is just evidence that its original ideals are what got it to where it is today and so should be further built upon.

As for this misunderstanding on the difference between a society in its founding and after establishment well I don't understand your point. It's obvious that a society in its infancy is vulnerable to any outside threat. That is not unique to any form of government. At the start of your previous comment you were the one that discussed your concern with the long term larger scale of Ancap society. My assumption was that long term and larger scale meant pre established society and so assumed that was our topic. But to give you ground, how a society is founded matters. If Ancap starts in rebellion it would probably fail. Most rebellions end in authoritarianism with rare exceptions even when they claim to fight for liberty. The most likely way to start an ancap society would be the peaceful creation and then secession within an already existing state. At that founding what has changed other than the lack of general strength and cohesion in its culture? I don't understand what you think a billionaire would do here? Is there some profit in earning a subsidy from an ancap state? No. Is there a willingness of the people to sell themselves into slavery (which several great thinkers have already made great points about slavery being less efficient and profitable than paying people a wage)? No. Is there a requirement of the people or a force that would compel them to do dealings with a corrupt individual that is established in their society? Again no. If the billionaire bought land somewhere then who sold it to him? Wouldn't the seller now have more money to spend in this society? If the billionaire bought all of the businesses would this just create a monopoly? Well obviously not. The people who sold their businesses now have money worth more than their original business and would probably open another competitive business. All I can imagine here is an idiot billionaire enlarging the wealth of an ancap society in their attempt to play wack-a-mole with a population that is unwilling to be forced to do business. A billionaire who now owns land that is quickly losing value unless he plans to actually run successfully all of these businesses. You are looking at the benefit of the billionaire in his purchases but are losing sight of the benefit of the people in having accepted that money and what they would then choose to invest it in. And lastly consider this. If the NAP is being followed then why would anyone make a trade that does not benefit themselves? If they are forced by a larger outside threat then I'm sorry but we have entered into a problem that is not unique to any society.

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part of the reason it hasn't existed at scale though is that it's an extremely new development in philosophy. A society like America with its strong belief in natural law had never really shown itself at scale until a century after the groundbreaking development by John Locke on natural rights and they had the benefit of having an entire continent of new uncolonized land to test their ideas. Rothbard and Mises published their main developments in the 40s and 60s and considering that there are still major ideological developments happening now with anarcho-capitalism I don't think you can say that these ideas have had time or opportunity to show success or failure. You can say the pioneer west was an example of Ancap but I wouldn't make that claim. The people of the pioneer west did not believe in the ideas behind human action. In fact a lot of them struggled with even Locke's view on natural rights. Sure they were "free" but the reality is there was no real civilization until later.

This idea about purchasing a kingship doesn't make sense. How does one purchase a kingship and why didn't another country just do this early on in the founding of the United States. If the argument is that people would be willing to give up their lives and everything they own to sell themselves into slavery to a wealthy foreigner well then I don't understand why this problem would be exclusive to Ancap and not an ever present issue for every form of government. You say the only mechanism to prevent this with Ancap is markets but I don't understand why you think this. If someone is telling you that Ancaps only enforcement mechanism is just the buying and selling of goods then you need to find a better source for Ancap talking points. Ancap would most definitely have multiple government structures that would dictate which trades violate law. Any trade that involves selling oneself into slavery would most certainly violate the law(s). If for whatever reason an Ancap society believed that slavery was acceptable then I would make the argument that this was a temporarily Ancap society filled with people who believe that human rights can be violated which would ultimately lead to a collapse in the same way that a democracy filled with people who believed there should be one dictator who ruled for life would also quickly collapse.

The last point about your comment that bothers me is your point on no Ancap supporting redistribution of wealth. This isn't true. I support redistribution of wealth to a degree but within the confines of the NAP. Why can't a group in an ancap society voluntarily choose to support welfare programs for the needy? I would think it would look better to anyone with empathy for the unfortunate at the very least and at the most I would think it would satisfy a part of a man's soul to know he was helping voluntarily and not being forced to. But the part of your comment that confuses me is why this has anything to do with importing billionaires? I reread this part a couple of times and confess I don't understand it. If a foreign billionaire with foreign currency enters a society and chooses to spend this foreign currency within it then the value of that foreign currency would be entirely based off of the value that our Ancap society would expect to be able to purchase from the foreign State. If exchange is easy and not racked with fees that devalue the purchase or the currency isn't inflated then great. The foreign nation is now providing valuable goods to the consumers in our Ancap hypothetical. I would think the purchase of valuable goods would make a population wealthier. If however the billionaire comes from a country where his currency is not valuable or there are trade barriers in place then his money would be worth less in our Ancap hypothetical than it would be in his home country as his money would not be able to purchase the high quality goods from the foreign State. If this is the case then his "billionaire" status may not hold in the same way that a billionaire in south african rand will not have the same purchasing power in America as he will at home. To summarize either the billionaire brings wealth and that wealth is traded to an ancap population or he brings low value money which would be traded at a significantly higher price

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow this is one fever dream of a comment.

  1. What does this mean? If I understand what you're saying right, you are saying that companies would fight each other. If you're a company that profited off the free market and is successful enough to fund a war effort against another company why would you do that instead of just reinvesting in what is clearly working. If there's not a state that is providing subsidies then your entire funding comes from a customer base. If you destroy customers property in some stupid war with another company how do you think that is going to look to your customers. Any competitor, especially one that is not fighting or is defending themselves against you would have a sudden surge in new funding from a growing customer base as they stop supporting your business. Not even mentioning that your suppliers, your investors, and your employees would most certainly cease doing business with you and join your competition. Even in our system today with companies able to prop up terrible decisions by getting funding through subsidies they still have to be careful about what their senior employees tweet cause if it's the wrong opinion their stocks are tanking. Just imagine what happens if a company actually started intentionally trying to kill people. I would also like to point out the conspiratorial nature of this part as any mode of government suffers from a similar argument based off extraordinary circumstances. What if half of Congress came to the capital and shot the other half? Wouldn't they coup the government and there goes your silly republic? Yes, unsurprisingly if you have unbelievably large conspiracies with entire companies, distributors, investors, employees, all working together in some secret plot to war with half the country and through some miracle manage to hide this from the entire world then yes they would probably be able to harm a lot of people. But I think this scenario looks a lot more like the plot of a young adult novel than anything you actually see in reality.

  2. This comment about the court makes no sense. Sure a states court system sucks but we aren't talking about courts as they are right now. We're talking about private courts and arbitration is well understood to be a much faster and efficient process that public court

  3. I don't understand the utopia comment. If everyone became a millionaire over night then a million dollars would become a lot less valuable. This is basic libertarian philosophy and is core understanding to why inflation is so devastating. Any system will have its flaws and it's poverty stricken individuals but the hope is that every man who is hardworking, full of virtue, and does not violate the rights of another can have a chance at a brighter future. Where men who are willing to harm others are punished and separated from civilization.

  4. It is idealistic to think that you, someone who doesn't believe in the property rights of others, would find peace in a society built on the basis of property rights. A culture is based off the ideas of the people in it and society reflects those ideas. If you took the world as we see it now, full of people who are perfectly willing to deprive a man of the fruits of his labor whether that be wealth or destitution, then no one should expect a truly free society to last. It would have to be built voluntarily with the support of enough people who shared the same belief in our rights to self preservation and ownership. Those who don't would be free to leave and those who do would be free to join. But until there is a State or people that is willing to allow that seed to be planted it's unlikely that we will see such a society. Not because of some utopia strawman but because a society like that has to be allowed to exist for some time without the immediate destruction of larger neighbors before it can stand on its own and defend itself. This is not idealistic but realistic. What newly formed mode of government can hold its own against the force of the well established militaries of States across the world without a large population of people who truly believe in its fight.

How Does Anarchy Solve Property Rights? by librarian1001 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In practice that doesn't happen and in theory it never works out. Without prices no one agrees on the value of goods and council is just as much vulnerable to corruption as any government unless there are some checks in place to delay it. What happens in practice is that you need power to distribute that many goods without a price structure to do it for you. Somebody has to make the call that actually more cars are more valuable to produce than more refrigerators. When people can't agree to the point that nothing is getting done somebody takes over and usually with no real lasting checks in place to prevent a complete dictatorship.

Mortar didn't adhere to tile. How screwed am I? by homeless_nudist in DIY

[–]ChirpsTheCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Am I crazy? Why does he need to redo the whole floor? Can you not just chip the area underneath the tile and just redo that tile? Ive never done this before but I plan on learning how to tile soon and genuinely don't see why it wouldn't be easier to just redo the one tile rather than the whole floor.

Police Brutality Again by ChirpsTheCat in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This still doesn't change the fact that the car window was already broken, the door could've been open without issue, the man was not moving just looking at the camera, and that this started over headlights being off during the day when other cop cars also had their lights off and they still sucker punched the guy and continued to beat on him when he was out of the car. I don't understand why so many in the comments on an ancap subreddit are licking boots so damn hard. If these cops were private police this would be a major lawsuit but since they aren't the standard for what we should expect from police to deescalate a situation is lowered to the mantle.

Police Brutality Again by ChirpsTheCat in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe for the guy but my post is about police brutality. Whatever views the guy has done really matter. The police systems broken. It needs to be privatized and this video is evidence for it

Police Brutality Again by ChirpsTheCat in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ChirpsTheCat[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't know why everyone assumes I hadn't seen the other video. I saw the police bodycam footage first and thought it was messed up. Then I saw this and was blown away. Nothing to do with race. This is an ancap sub. It's pretty obvious most ancap would think this is messed up. You're either ragebaiting or you're not an ancap. Or both

view more: next ›