@Background Pony #DA72  
No, that’s the most likely “positive” outcome. The most likely negative outcome is that a foreign state will annex part or all of Ancapistan. Either during the transition from a state to statelessness or once a significantly large enough percentage of the populace — probably as little as 20% — wants to go back to the way things used to be.

@Hayden Crawford
 
So in the worst case scenario everything will remain the same thing that already happens

Ancaps = politically ignorant autist guys

@Hayden Crawford 
Good job reading the rest of this thread before commenting.

Anarcho capitalism is only goimg to lead to the establishment of oligarchy in which a small group of billionaires control the nation for their benifit to the detriment of citizens.
 
Shit would be fucked up in that society. There would be things Like child Labour and a private police force. Because their would be no centralized government. That is why the USA under the articles of confederation failed.

@Tyamat  
“and you are very wrong”  
Thank you for explaining why. Because I’m pretty sure that oppression is pointing a gun at someone and threatening to fire if they fail to do what you tell them to with their life and their property.  
“Not a marxist”  
I don’t care. Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, call it what you want. They all suffer from similar failures and mean the same thing to me in principle. They are anti-individualist, anti-property, and anti-trade.  
“You forgot to say that with no state you cannot guarantee the private property.”  
It is called self defense, written letters, and private security.
 
Are you seriously dumb enough to believe that humans aren’t territorial like any other animal? Holy shit, you are a special kind of leftist. Denying basic nature of which can be inferred by how not only the people around us act but the way that we act aswell. You know as well as I do that you would rather own your own house than share it with a bunch of strangers. If you have anything against the claim that humans are territorial, be my guest and show it to me. But the truth of the matter is, humans have been territorial since before they were even humans. Apes are territorial, primates in the ice age are territorial, humans in the early post-ice age era are territorial, humans developing nations and villages and empires were territorial, and in our modern day and age, humans are territorial. I’m not going on a wild goose chase on google to state the obvious.
 
Have siblings. That’s all the citation you need and deserve.
 
“that is not what is happening in real life.”
 
The reason why that isn’t happening in real life is because of how the state’s labor and trade regulations slowing and throttling businesses. If the machinery of the market was left to the market and not the disgusting hands of the state, the market would be much healthier and prosperous than it is today.
 
The reason why I’m against minimum wage laws is simple: low skilled jobs. For children and teenagers, people living with their parents, not exactly supporting themselves, and instead growing their productivity. Walking dogs, flipping burgers, mowing neighborhood lawns, picking up sidewalk trash, basic housecleaning. Things that generally take little skill and as such warrant little price, but teach newcomers to the various workings of the labor market. Workings like how to find a job, how to appeal to employers, how to behave in a job, how to prepare themselves physically and mentally for a job, etc etc. What this does for them is increase their productivity so they can find a higher skilled and higher paying job.
 
The thing is, however, the minimum wage artificially increases the cost for these jobs to prices that usually shouldn’t be. As such, employers are either being much more selective with their jobs, or flat out not having any jobs at all and instead focuses on either dealing with the lack of a new employee or investing in automation. Say you are busy but you need to mow your lawn, would you pay a teenager a few dollars an hour of which to mow your lawn, or would you pay a teenager $15 an hour to mow your lawn? The answer is obvious, you flat out wouldn’t pay the teenager to mow your lawn. You are either going to use time you could’ve either spent working for more than what you would’ve paid the teenager without the minimum wage laws, or you are going to use time you could’ve spent resting/having fun mowing your damn lawn.
 
The person who receives the worst of it, however, is the teenager you would’ve hired. He now has less if any job experience at all, and because of that he will find getting a job in the future when he is depending on himself to be much harder. Especially considering that jobs are disappearing to begin with due to the minimum wage. Because of that he’s either going to A: be in an eternal poverty, B: become a welfare parasite, or C: turn to criminal/underground labor. It is not uncommon in capitalist circles for the minimum wage to be seen as removing the bottom rungs from the economic ladder, and it isn’t hard to see why they would say that.
 
I would go into further detail, but this comment is huge already and there are other things I want to talk about.
 
“the resources are not infinite”
 
Thing is, this would only apply when we are nearing the point where we have harnessed all resources on earth, or hell, the universe, which we aren’t and which we won’t be for a long time. What IS infinite until that point, however, is productivity to harness and improve our natural resources. Increasing labor, increasing technologies to help with labor, increasing supplies to increase other supplies, etc.  
A man once made a chicken sandwich from scratch, he grew the vegetables and wheat, milked a cow for cheese, raised and killed the chicken, got his own fucking SALT from the ocean, etc etc etc. It cost him $1,500 and 6 months of his life for a sandwich he dubbed to be “not bad”.  
Tell me, how long does it take to make a chicken sandwich if you were to buy the ingredients already improved upon from the store?  
Not very long considering that you can flat out buy a chicken sandwich from the store for what should be less than $1500.  
This is a product of growing productivity and division of labor, this happens through the means of the growing labor force of a product and the advancement of knowledge and technology. Because of this, the supply of improved/harnessed goods increases while the price of it drops.
 
Probably the best example of this would be the very machine you are typing your communist horse manure on. Or the very website that you and I are talking on which helps fill in the newfound but welcome demand for cartoon horse fetish porn.
 
This is why I have stated that the poor are only poor in comparison to the rich. If you put someone “poor” today either decades, centuries, or millennia back in time, they would have either the standards of the rich or the middle class. Just as if you put the rich today either decades centuries or millennia in the future, they would undoubtedly be in the standard of the poor or the middle class.
 
Capitalism has raised the standard of living through its own mechanisms. This is what I meant when I said that the poor are only poor in comparison to the rich, and vice versa.
 
“I don’t care if someone starve, I need to profit!”
 
If you are costing a value more than what you produce, you are a strain on any sort of economy.
 
“Also what stops the entrepreneurs to make cartels to keep the minimum wage low?”
 
How the hell would a cartel keep the minimum wage low? Are you talking about running off competition? Because a competing business could easily hire a “cartel” to defend themselves from the rival business.
 
“also stop being full of yourself, it makes hard for me to take you seriously.”
 
Never exactly asked for your approval.

>I get a very dear feeling you don’t know what “oppression” means either.  
and you are very wrong
 
>I know what you marxists  
Not a marxist
 
>I know what you marxists call personal property and private property, personal property is stuff that has no means of production private property does.  
You forgot to say that with no state you cannot guarantee the private property.
 
>In short, the reason is that humans are territorial  
[citation needed]
 
>As for wage slavery, there are times it could indeed happen but for the overwhelming vast majority of cases it won’t. Mainly for the simple fact that competition between businesses hiring will drive up the price of your wage while not exceeding the profit you make for said business.  
that is not what is happening in real life.
 
>You failed to realize something when you said that, you failed to realize that someone else has to be poor in comparison to someone else who is supposedly rich
 
the resources are not infinite, if there is someone who have more resources means that someone must have less resources. Plain and simple. But what I am talking about…. I must be talking with a professor now.  
I want to ask you why you are so against minimum wage? If there is a “minimum wage market” price that will keep the minimum wage high, why not starting with an already good salary by law at this point?  
I tell you why, the needs to have the freedom to keep it low for the cost/profit. I don’t care if someone starve, I need to profit!  
Also what stops the entrepreneurs to make cartels to keep the minimum wage low?  
you know.. the human nature! spooky voice
 
 
>but because the 1% waved a magic wand and now they are all poor  
yep the vast majority of people are stupid and unable to be productive. The 1% is not greedy noo…right?
 
>You failed to realize something when you said that,  
>I get a very dear feeling you don’t know what “oppression” means either.
 
also stop being full of yourself, it makes hard for me to take you seriously.

@Tyamat  
I get a very dear feeling you don’t know what “oppression” means either.
 
I know what you marxists call personal property and private property, personal property is stuff that has no means of production private property does. Personally I find that there is no difference between the two because ANYTHING can be used to be a means of production and for the fact that abolishing private property is anything but a good idea. In short, the reason is that humans are territorial and disagreements on what to do with private property would be almost infinitely faster and easier than what could be done with public property.
 
As for wage slavery, there are times it could indeed happen but for the overwhelming vast majority of cases it won’t. Mainly for the simple fact that competition between businesses hiring will drive up the price of your wage while not exceeding the profit you make for said business.
 
So say this, you are working for a factory and the profits you make for them are about $5 per every hour you work there. So what would your wage be? Well, it obviously can’t exceed that $5 otherwise you would be making the business flat out lose money, that’s for sure. But let’s say this, the bossman is a greedy anus who is gonna pay you for 20 cents an hour. Sounds horrible, right? Well, on the other side of the street exists a competing factory who is offering to pay you $3 an hour. We can obviously infer that you would go to work over there, leaving the original factory without your labor. As such, the original factory gets competitive, and offers $3.50 an hour. A good price for your labor without causing too big of a strain on the factory. The other factory may try to compete even harder, but that just furthers my point.  
(These currency values are not meant to be applied to the real world. It is just an example)
 
Now imagine these two factories except there are hundreds and thousands of them.  
But let’s say those hundreds of thousands of them aren’t competing with anything, and you are still getting 20 cents an hour wherever you go. If such is the case, then you can start your own business. Get some loans and build a fruit stand. Empires were built with this mindset.
 
Also not all businesses are owned by that dastardly super duper rich evil man, there are examples of successful small businesses out there.
 
“for one to be rich means that someone else have to be poor.”
 
You failed to realize something when you said that, you failed to realize that someone else has to be poor in comparison to someone else who is supposedly rich. Especially considering that the living conditions of the poor in this day and age has risen significantly because of the free market.
 
And oh yes, the vast majority of poor people are not poor because they are either disable or have failed to improve their productivity and find better jobs/create better jobs or was screwed by the state’s crony capitalism making business artificially a nightmare, but because the 1% waved a magic wand and now they are all poor. #resistcapitalism
 
Give me a break.

>Tell me how you think that individual freedom is castrated freedom. Because REAL castrated freedom lies within collectivism
 
because being free to oppress other people means that the people oppressed is not free. You are free if everyone is free.
 
>What the concept of not contradicting someone else’s freedoms mean is that you can do anything you wish with you and your property
 
first of all make a distinction between personal and private property. Noone is going to steal your toothbrush, but if own the means of produstion, your workers are just wage slaves.
 
>“HOW DARE YOU HAVE MORE WEALTH THAN ME”  
for one to be rich means that someone else have to be poor. And no sorry, not always “because I’m smarter than him” or other Social Darwinist bullshit. The vast majority of people are not poor because of their bad choice.  
Again, the individual freedom cannot be alienated by collective freedom. Because if you want to be free to buy your yacht someone else have to starve. No sorry, that’s not “freedom”.

@Tyamat  
Communism/socialism is a social and economic theory in which the working class dubbed the “proletarian” seizes the means of production from the upper-class called the “bourgeoisie” in order to create a classless, moneyless and collectivist society.
 
Thank you dearly for explaining how human nature doesn’t work with anarcho-capitalism while complaining to me about failing to explain my reasons.
 
But oh yes, your freedoms end were someone else’s freedom begins. Such an oppressive ideology, saying that you can’t threaten to kill steal assault and rape people and their property.  
What the concept of not contradicting someone else’s freedoms mean is that you can do anything you wish with you and your property, however you cannot use your freedom to harm or halt someone else’s. Stuff like force and theft do just that. The freedom to oppress people would be invalid, if oppression means the use of force against someone’s life or property. If it means “HOW DARE YOU HAVE MORE WEALTH THAN ME”, then your concept of oppression means nothing.
 
Tell me how you think that individual freedom is castrated freedom. Because REAL castrated freedom lies within collectivism.

@ShimmeringGloriously
 
@Hoploo
 
>Ignorant  
Before saying that someone is ignorant, explain your reasons.  
I really want to ask you the definition of socialism and communism, it always surprise me the imbarassing not understanding of this two concepts by ancaps. First starting by the stupid “socialists want free things” which is actually not even remotely near to be true, and second by the story of “muh human nature” when ancaps endorse the concept of NAP, which by the same “muh human nature” idiocy shouldn’t be able to work. And so on.  
Also individual freedom, by considering only the negative liberties, is a castrated freedom. Can result in the endorsement of the concept of “freedom to oppress other people”, which is by definition not freedom.  
Adult people generally accept the fact that “your freedom ends when someone else freedom starts”.

Ah, slacktivism.

@Background Pony #A52F  
Your problem is that Anarcho-Capitalism would result in feudalism, not that it would BE feudalism. But no matter,  
Imagine if you will, a billionaire does just that. They pose a threat to individual liberty, and they are using their powerful private army to do just that.  
Problem is, the potential profit has a large chance of being smaller than the cost of taking over even a poor subsection of an anarcho-capitalist community.
 
To take over, the billionaire has to worry about these things (not all things are included)  

@Hoploo  
Are you sure of that? I’d love to know what differentiates AnCap in practice from feudalism. The NAP is not enforced by the state which means it’s entirely up to the individual to either enforce it themselves or hire their own law enforcement. The richest will have the most skilled and best equipped law enforcement. The poorest won’t be able to afford justice and will depend entirely on rich fucks’ interests aligning with theirs such that their rights are enforced incidentally. The rich would be merchant princes in all but name and their employees serfs.

@Tyamat  
Oh look, an ignorant.

It is apparent that I have found an OC that I do truly like.
 
@Tyamat  
I get a very dear impression that you have no idea what one of those things mean.

This man’s saving the American way from Neo-liberals and Socialists. Can you say the same?
 

>fighting for freedom  
>ancap aka neofedudalism
 
try harder