Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Have the FunnyJunk newsletter e-mailed to you
Rank #3968 on Comments
Level 253 Comments: Contaminated Win
Send mail to kjoni
Invite kjoni to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress:
Level 253 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 254 Comments: Contaminated Win
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
What people say about kjoni
latest user's comments
- Whas that you said bout murder?
- It's funny because it's true? As if some guys frittering aroun…
I.. I kinda lost you halfways...
are you an ancap or against ancaps?
Only a sith deals in absolutes. Also I don't see the contradiction. I wouldn't, though. But tell me anyways. Who knows, maybe I'll get it eventually.
well.. I'll assume you're not shitposting so well..
thing about ancaps is that once you form an 'organization' that takes care of infrastructure, you've already formed a government.
doesn't matter if it's local, or composed of ancaps who help eachother, that's literally what a government is.
and about the murder: say there's a murder in the ancap town.. who investigates it?
say, there is a person who starts to investigate it on his own or he pays a private team of investigators how can you know the person who's investigating it ISN'T the murderer looking to save face or cover his tracks?
and how would he be punished?
also if there's no governments, how would the laws be?
who controls the laws? who makes sure there aren't killing sprees or stealing sprees, who punishes the lawbreakers?
anarcho capitalism isn't even good in theory.
all it takes is mentioning crime or infrastructure for it to fall apart completely.
how anyone in their right mind can follow something like this is.. it's completely beyond me, man
but then again there's people for everything, there's people who have a fetish for being murdered and cannibalized, so I unno..
The difference between such an organization and a government is the relationship to the customer/citizen. A government is a coercive territorial monopoly. In Ancapistan, there are no state borders or mandatory taxation, only private contracts. The agencies would work internally the same as they do now, what makes the structural difference is that they compete in the free market for customers ("citizens") and employees ("ministers").
Any agency or government that claims to be on your side can be fraudulent. In Ancapistan, you can more easily pressurize them to respect their promises to you reserving your right to switch over to their competitor. If we're talking about individual people, there's job recommendations, so if they're trying to pose as a reputable private investigator, teams can look for warning signs like no history or criminal background. As for what comes to whole agencies, reputation is enough. You would probably never agree to becoming a citizen of the Islamic State or North Korea if you had any other choice. You can think of the non-agression principle and the awareness of it as an analouge of the concept of the informed electorate, and Anarcho-Capitalism adopts it as one of its central ethical tenets, so a criminal justice market would probably naturally select for punishments in line with it. I have personally thought about a form of punishment where you have to compensate the victims the amount of money it costs in the free market to fix the damaged property to its former state. If you think the purpose of compensation is deterrence, you could make a distinction between accidental and purposeful crimes, and could alleviate the punishment if the perpetrator makes a promise (private contract) to not repeat it, for example. In the case of murder, you need to determine the value of human life. Yay. Death penalty for purposefuls and negotiated contracts with the victims for accidentals? It's not set in stone, but I think the majority of people appreciate the value of each other's lives, so I think the market can take it.
Thing is, who makes the laws now? I guess the reason there's war and poverty is because we don't have a single world government to punish the terrorists or to take the money from those who have more of it aka thieves, so problem solved. All hail mother Earth. What could go wrong?
Taxation is theft. Central banking is a fraud. We need each other, and we all want to own ourselves. The US constitution is called a declaration for a reason. We don't have rights because of government, we have them despite of it.
You make the laws that benefit you and your friends. You already know that communication, connection and cooperation is better than fighting, so there's no internal problem.
I already addressed the infrastructure stuff earlier, but I guess it was so atrocious that you thought I was a troll, so that's why I hate myself.
And yes, I have a fetish for freedom. Tax me! (I'm sorry, I didn't come to this meaning to pontificate, but you really not-funnied my Jacksfilms with your pooh-poohing)
oh and just in case you try to pull a "telephone, electricity, warmth and central heating systems are owned by private companies!!"
that's true but you know what your government also does?
hint: regulate them so that they won't be able to fuck you over.
here's what the government gives you: a right to live comfortably; a right to press charges against anyone who breaks a law that affects you; a right to have readily available
- clean water
- basic schooling
- food on the table for you and your family
- warmth where you live so you don't freeze to death
- non-privatized law enforcement that are able to help you and your family
- safety nets
- non-privatized emergency services such as firefighters and medical aid
- non-privatized, readily available infrastructure
and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
also note that non-privatized means you're getting taxed for it, so tell me again how taxation is theft when not only do you profit greatly from it, but it makes it so that you won't have to worry about, say, designing, building, and mantaining a working sewer system.
not everyone in the world is rich, and the only people who would be able to afford living comfortably in an ancap society would be the top 1% richest in the world.
wake up and smell the ashes, you've drank waaay too much /pol/-aid.
(I ran out of space)
And also pol hates ancaps: if I remember correctly, they were the ones that popularized the ancap ball meme, at least here on funnyjunk.
And also, what's wrong with the NAP?
And also, your behavior is exactly what I predicted in my first comment. I guess science doesn't have all the answers, am I right? I've been typing and tapping my fingers off out here tryna justify human liberty to yo indoctrinated and/or slaver ass, how ya feel? (although I do respect your demand for evidence, if you count tantalizing hypotheses in as some) Why is the assumption that no option other than a coercive territorial monopoly is capable of providing basic utilities that everyone uses, and that without one everyone would just either kill themselves or each other? The basic justification for the state is that without it people couldn't cooperate, but that is said with a) the realization that people indeed ought to work together and are better off so and b) the seeming ignorance that the people that comprise the state and international bodies already are people who work together, so there should be a system of states "all the way down".
The moral of the story is that I want to live in ancap town so McChildSoldiers can come and murder me because I'm too much of a pussy to get it over with myself.
also if you're looking for McChildSoldiers then I guess ancapistan would work.
don't have to spend money on it though, all you have to do is drop a leaf on your neighbors' property
here's why I assume everything would be chaos: because corporations love profit and hate rivals.
do you realize just how profitful a monopoly on a certain item is?
if it's something like clean water.
look up Nestle's attempt at monopolizing it in countries such as USA, during the california drought.
they don't give a shit about what the consumer wants, Richface McMoneygrubber the Monopolian III doesn't really care what's best for the consumer as long as they're able to fill their pockets.
also please, for the love of all that's holy pllllleeeeeease answer my questions for once, please don't pull a redpanels here:
what do you do if there's a murder, how do you investigate it in an unbiased manner if there's no public police or detective force?
and what if, say, there was a massive fire that wiped away your business, how do you rebuild?
and what the hell would you do if a rival corporation began killing off its opponents, how is the NAP going to stop that shit if there's no government to step in and sort it out?
and here's what I think about the NAP:
it doesn't work without some organization watching over it and stepping in, AKA a government.
if you expect a large wad of paper that has "NAP" written on it to drop down from the heavens and crush anyone who breaks it, you're kind of mistaken.
Now the NAP. I've already discussed how a market justice system would and could differ from our own, so that's why I left that out. Also private and third sector firefighters and insurance are real things, so don't think I'm trying to ignore that part of your comment. Also, someone's buying that Nestle water. That's a remark that I left out because of the character limit, but think is still a point to be made.
Okay, NOW the NAP.
I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how rights work in general. A right is a demand. They are your prime directive. If you believe you have a right to your property, you will undertake any conscious act to retrieve recompense for damages, whether it's trusting a government to protect it for you, subscribing to a protection agency to have them on dial, hiring a guard, or just good old fashioned first hand self-defense. Non-aggression and self-ownership work because any complex human behavior requires them, whether it's a voluntary association working fully in accordance with them, or a group of individuals working together to steal from and defraud everyone else in their society. If the latter sounds evil, it's because they're not respecting your rights. One thing that such a lovely gathering of human beings would do, if they're powerful enough by then, would be to manipulate you and your impressionable children to believe that your morality and security shines forth from them, and not from you. You own your life. I own my life. You are legitimate in protecting yourself and the things you work for. That is what there is, not because of government, but in spite of it. That's how the informed electorate of Ancapistan thinks and acts.
And thanks for the tip about my neighbors property, I'll get that taken care of.
ok let me start from the top.
I hate to break it to you too, but monopolies
in free markets because once a company is big enough, all they can do is knock out every other company by suing them into oblivion or doing more sinister things.
the only way to grow large is to serve better...
once you have kicked off a project, expansions and more expensive services that are kept up to date can be formed, all of this without a regulation from.. ding ding ding: a Government.
and what happens when a project is kicked off the market? well, their customers will have to switch over. it's been documented time and time again, especially if you consider copyright laws, see, ANCAP societies assume the corporations play fairly 100% of the time, and that corruption, assassination and all that is nonexistent.
I'm accusing the courts of recieving bribes from Nestle, because that is a
and the criticism is precisely that..
with a privatized court system, it's much, much easier for corruption to take place and the judge taking the side of well.. who's got enough dosh to spend.
the threat of nukes is bigger with decentralization, tf you talking about, all it takes is a frenzied person with nothing to lose to cause a nuclear holocaust, I'm not even going to get into that because that's just... Idk man, you had me flabbergasted at that one.
same thing when you say that a privatized society would be less corrupt, I don't even understand that thought process.. and the example you gave me really isn't enough, people bribe from their own bank all the time, if it does damage control.
people bribe with anything, and when you have a society that's based on bribing such as the ANCAP society.. what do you expect.
as for the corporations fighting eachother? see the first example.
first thing they'll do once a competitor starts fresh is knock them out immediately, why do you think there's so many companies that sue eachother in the US, especially smaller companies being sued by the big, fat corporations?
the USA has a much freer capitalistic market than europe.
also, USA is an example of a mini-ANCAP society, except that they still have government and laws they need to abide, but the free market there is massive, and if you think they play fairly you'd be surprised.
as for subscribing to a protection agency.. as if that + being a slave to numerous insurance agencies won't be more costly than just facking paying a simple tax, getting over with it and get the full package..
I said it before, in an ANCAP society, only the 1% would survive.
not the man down the street, not the homeless person near the mall, not that rich neighbor who you sometimes envy, not you, not your childhood friends, you know who would survive and thrive?
people such as George Soros.
people such as David Rockefeller and Mark Zuckerberg.
and saying that the NAP works because "any complex human behaviour requires them" is like saying "IT JUST WERKS!"
it's the very same principle when communists say that there'd be no corruption in a communistic state "because everyone has to work together to survive"
it doesn't work.
and you can portray the government as manipulative, greedy, needy and dehumanizing all you want, but all it takes for you and your impressionable children to believe that morality and security doesn't shine from you as a person is simply a big guy, a big bully, say a Nestle to come forth, play some shit-dirty tricks and use loopholes, then grind whatever you have into dust in front of your eyes.
you can try to sue them
you can try to protest
try to come with a better product, but it'll only happen again, and again.. and again.
all because there's nothing that stops them from doing it. no government that steps in and ensures you have a safety net.
What a quick google search tells me is that a lot of the instances that bigger companies sue smaller ones into oblivion are about patent cases. There is a current, one that I endorse, in the libertarian movement, that does not consider IP to be a legitimate form of property. When you write a book, you have appropriated the amount of paper in front of you, but not the ideas encoded in your writing. If you blame someone of "stealing your idea", you're really indicting them of stealing your future profits, which is a confused notion. Other cases of big business screwing over the little man worth mentioning are influence over regulation, and we're specifically talking about an unhampered market without government regulation.
The economic concept that you're referring to is called an economy of scale, and it is true that fixed costs can present a barrier to entry, but you're not considering the fact that you don't have to start your career as an entrepreneur in a market like that. And if you're afraid of that advantage, then consider that, especially in the absence of intellectual property laws, innovations spread faster than you can say "do I hear profits?!" so most of the time you'll end up with a decent amount of competing providers. END UP, mind you (check my previous points about monopolies).
The Nestle case was about collusion with a representative of the Forest Service, a government agency. What was my opinion of the government again? And are you trying to say that legislation against corruption never works? And also it was during a drought. (even though the license expired all the way back in the 80's). That's why you can't point to Somalia and say that it shows why you need a government when it's standard business for the poor countries in Africa (in addition to the fact that there was a civil war against a tyrannical government, from since conditions actually got comparatively better for a while excluding factions battling each other trying to be the new government until their place as the belligerents was taken up by Islamist factions).
A frenzied nukesperson with nothing to lose will cause nothing more or less than the biggest headhunting, feuding police raid on the face of the fuckin planet is what you meant to say.
I couldn't find anything about what you said about banks, but what I do know is that in a system of free banking there are no bailouts, so how's that for corruption in banking.
The USA is everything but a free market. Trust me.
I don't understand your point about only the rich being able to live in the society. Market competition lowers prices and people would have more money to give to charity. Since a lot of people are already happy paying the welfare money of the worse off, they'd probably choose to do so in Ancapistan as well. Combine that with the fact that the richest a) pay the most in taxes and b) already give the most to voluntary charity, so I don't know what you're going on about.
If you don't wanna pay attention to your choices of protection services, your funeral, but don't impose a coercive government on everyone else because of your laziness.
And while we may be using similar arguments with the commies, we use it to justify the exact opposite things, so no dice there.
What d'ya think is your safety net against big government, huh?
And plz clarify the places where I lost you in my previous comment.
oh and another thing
answer this question for the love. of. god. and. odin. and. belzebub.
what do you do if there's a murder, how do you investigate it in an unbiased manner if there's no public police or detective force?
Are you implying there'd be no patent cases in an ANCAP society?
and whant did I tell you about monopolies, why is it so hard to understad that once a company has a monopoly
over an unregulated market where they're free to knock off any and all competitors, regardless if they're new or not.
Why do you keep ignoring that??
my point about Nestle and the drought stands, they had
free access to do everything they wanted, they had more of a free market advantage
again, why do you think that in an ANCAP society, where the only law is the non aggression policy, why do you think they'd care to redo their licenses. They're not obligated to.
and a frenzied nukeperson, no I'm sorry dude I lost you there again..
how the fuck do they know a frenzied nukesperson before he launches his nukes??
are you implying the police can read minds?
oh and about the police, there's no police in an ANCAP society, as for the bank well I GUESS it's
because it's not counted as corruption, is it? if there's no laws against it.
as for the USA being everything but a free market.. come on dude... USA is 100x the freer market than any european country, as noted by the amount of privatization.
maybe that's why USA is a shithole for the lower and middle class.
and of course you don't understand my point
because you've ignored everything I said about monopolies and how easy it is for a big corporation to knock out any competitors, ESPECIALLY in a society where the only law that exists is a non-aggression policy
and most riches only give to charity for a public image.
because giving to the poor in an ANCAP society would be
the equivalent of giving to a future competitor or a future rival.
and again with the "guberment are for the lazy" now you're just hurling personal attacks, I'm baffled that I need to repeat to you again, and again
what the government does
because you've only heard what you wanted to hear.
also my safety net against big government? I don't want to live in a fucked up shit society where I'd have to pay €100k to remove a splinter on my finger: and THERE'S a fine-ass example of a free market.
the american healthcare system, that's exactly what would have happened in an ANCAP society.
Poorer people are also your customers in this society. Extending your logic would mean that no one would do any business with someone poorer than them because of fear of rivalry. Most customers of big corporations are not billionares and the rich STILL give a lot to charity. And you dismissed my point about normal folks. Most people are already essentially (whether they want or not) doing charity work through tax financed welfare payments, and one of the most common excuses for government is that you have to help the poor, so go figure. Unless you believe the rich don’t deserve their money and that they’re the ones who’re supposed to finance the poor. If that’s the case, then please clarify your conception of merit to me, and we can go forth from that.
You can keep repeating the services that governments are traditionally and currently entrusted with. Do go on. I in my own turn shall repeat how the entire point all along was to consider privatized versions of them and the strengths of those. I’m not sure how long I’ll go on with that, though.
Americans spend more tax money on healthcare than many of the countries with it being ”free”. Also drug patents shoot up prices and so big pharma makes it less profitable to negotiate prices, plus if you’re already paying higher taxes for public healthcare, getting private insurance is going to be an additional burden on that, and a lot of poorer people have to get those too to survive… In Britain, they have a system where the National Health Service essentially auctions contracts for healthcare firms, so it has the added advantage of competition, although I’m not exactly sure how that relates to the system in America. A really big portion of the government deficit goes to medicare for old people who in the olden days were handled by their communities until they were hoovered up by the welfare state like many other things such as the fraternal societies, the institution of marriage, immigration and so on and so forth. Those are all general reasons to why it sucks, so don’t think it’s because of too much free market capitalism…
If you want to compare the USA to Canada, while America’s system is more expensive, but Canada has exrtremely long waiting periods and lines because of the inefficiency of government.
Okay, is every god listening? Okay.
The same signs that give legitimacy to a government give legitimacy to a private entity, and a private entity functions internally analogously to a government, the entire crux of my side of the argument is to change the relationships of a) the agencies to the citizens and b) the different agencies to each other. Why do you assume that a private entity is automatically more biased than an entity with coercive monopoly power over a geographical area? That’s some straight-out non-sequitur shit right there. Isn’t the logical conclusion exactly the opposite one?
It might have some inital credibility in your own head at the start, but how do you maintain a trustworthy police and detective force in your society if the one with the coercive monopoly turns out to be corrupt? In an extreme case you’d overthrow it, but I can assume that the average person would try to emigrate. Look at Syria! You can imagine yourself in ant unfortunate scenario like that, oh if only fully switching protection providers wouldn’t necessitate navigating through a warzone or the Berlin wall. Or even physical relocation, at peaceful times.
That is all.
Also apparently US insurance companies can't sell across state lines, so that reduces competition. Alright, praise freedom. The end!
If the society doesn't believe in IP as a form of property then a court that uses it as a talking point will probably be seen as dysfunctional, so do you think the market would choose for intellectual property laws?
What exactly do you mean by a company "knocking off" their competitors? Nigga, I just knocked off two biggest examples of big business unfairness in court cases.
The bigger the public outrage and the bigger the market demand, the quicker the license renewal in Ancapistan. The Nestle example is a bad one because of a couple of factors. It's unclear how much and how Nestle's spring contributed to the drought if by any margin, and the spring is inside an indian reservation, on which that tribe rents the land getting revenue from Nestle and as the tribe itself says: (the company) "is providing meaningful jobs in the area and ... the spring is sustaining current surface water flows" (This is up on Wikipedia) So you could say there's some pros as well as cons? Also, the pumps were for bottled water, so you'd think people would want more of that stuff during a drought. The US seems to have residental water supplying 90% on the back of public governmental agencies, so your point is somewhat moot when I'm out here trying to make the case that polycentric law would be more effective. Also, most of the protestors seem to be environmentalists, so some better examples would be ones where a giant company directly affects the every day lives of people. If you want an example that involved Nestle in at least some parts of it, you can look at the succesful "Do not buy Russian goods!" boycott campaign, at least as in worsening Russian business in Ukraine, even if it didn't really affect the Russian economy that much. Hey, maybe if we didn't have giant monopolistic imperialist governments breathing down our necks all the time, economice sactions would have a much higher effect. Also I'm not a fucking economic historian, I'm just some kid on the internet, geez. Look up a list on notable boycotts on Wikipedia or something, I don't fucken know. My theoretical points still stand, though! (I also want to say that I only looked into this Nestle stuff to this extent after my first reply to you about it so that's why I said what I said in my first reply to it)
The reprecussions for flailing around with nukes are so high that you'd be wiped off the face of the earth the damn second you pressed the launch button, and not because of launch failure. Ever heard of the cold war? Now think of the balance of nuclear power as one person against the rest of the world (without the one person being the dictator of a nuclear power). Yeah. Fuck you.
I'm sorry I love u
There are private security guards in Ancapland. We've been through this. And you'll have to clarify about that bank stuff. If it's a widely recognized form of corruption, then why isn't it widely recognized to be unfair? Is it because big banking has a stranglehold of government regulations? I'm unfamiliar with it.
If you're talking about the privatized prisons, I'll have you know somethin'. The owners are paid by the state according to a quota of prisoners. That's why they have to have bullshit reasons to incarcerate you, like the drug war. And the US is in a recession right now, along with all of the other reasons for poverty I listed earlier. Also the financialized economy all connected to the federal reserve system and that most low skilled jobs are in developing countries. If you want to compare it with the nordic countries mind you that our economies started out as some of the most liberal and the giant welfare states were only ever latched on top of it all later. Similar to the industrial revolution with its respective regulations. And political ideologies. Ech!
(to be continued)
No, no, no..
here's the thing, I don't know why you keep assuming that once a company has foothold in a place, that they won't form a monopoly or form sister-companies, and I sure as hell don't get why you keep holding on to the belief that the companies want the best for consumers rather than earning money, won't play dirty and won't knock off new competitors.
you know who owns most, if not all of the food sources in the west, not counting small time farmers?
Mondelez international, Nestle and Monsanto.
so now tell me why there haven't been any newer companies? shiiiit I don't know, maybe because they've either been bought up by these giants or knocked off the markets?
and YES we've been through the private security guards, yes we've been through private police force, private judges, private health care, and wanna know how to mantain a trustworthy police force?
have it so that a big, giant baron can't just purchase his way out of it.
a privatized police force is a fucking terrible idea, you're insinuating that these things would work neutrally rather than complying to whoever has bought Police Force(TM) PLATINUM ACCOUNT
and what if someone simply
doesn't have the facking money for all of that??
do the police just ignore them when they need help?
"Hello Sir, welcome to ANCAPistan Private Police Force (TM)-- what is that? your child is being buttfucked and cannibalized by-- calm down sir-- by your neighbors?
Alright we'll send a squadron right over, just tell us your address and your PoliceForce(TM) GOLD&PLATINUM account number and you're ready to g-
You're saying you don't have a paid account? Sorry sir, free users have to wait a penalty of 15 minutes for every use. Thank you for choosing our Private Police Force(TM).
here's the reason police shouldn't be privatized:
because it's in human nature to trade and be biased if there's something you can earn from it.
do this experiment yourself, get 2 friends, walk up to someone, slap them and then pay someone else to investigate the slap.
Fund it, tell them to bring justice and find out who slapped who, chances are they'll think you're innocent because you're the one who's trying to get to the bottom of this and that you've been willing to pay money for it.
And that's not considering the fact that you can bribe them.
I'm tired of this discussion man, it's just what I've been saying over and over again.
Ancaps don't take in consideration:
2. What in our society is considered corruption
4. Why we have taxes, and why believing some bullshit that pol made up about how most taxes "go to the poor" is not just wrong, it's retarded
5. That the lower and middle class would be so fucked in an ancap society, by the big fat cats.
also no, I don't believe it's the riches' job to sustain the poor, but if you, as a millionaire/billionaire, you're not willing to contribute to the safety net, which might actually facking save you or your family, or someone you like, then you're really a waste, even if you get tax returns at the end of the year.
a few extra hundred/thousand bucks doesn't dent a personal economy that's up in hundreds of millions.
What's best for others is not mutually exclusive with earning money. In a peaceful free market they're actually two sides of the same coin.
If you're talking about knocking off competitors in the sense of sabotage, then if you have evidence of it, you have a tort case against the saboteur. This point spreads out to the wider question of protection against entities stronger than you. When people are wisely invested in their own survival and have freedoms and multiple centers of power can coexist, then the system self-regulates. A monopoly on violence is precisely the thing that's the hardest to defend yourself against. My last point about monopolies is that if you're scared of em so much, then why do you propose to solve them as a problem
by supporting a monopoly on violence
? If it's about voting, then refer back to my point about consumer co-ops.
If those three companies hold most of the crops in the west, and the west is a prosperous land without famine, then, as for what comes to that mission alone, they're doing a good job. And they're not even one monopoly! They have to uphold their quality so as to not lose market share to each other or to the smaller portions of agribusiness that you mentioned. And anyways, Monsanto nowadays mostly only bullies other companies with patents, and what governments and government funded international banks have done in Africa is far worse than what Nestle has done there (I don't claim Ancapistan would be utopia, just better than what is now, along with the dirt about false advertising).
I don't think you've got full concept of private policing. There's more choices than just having to subscribe or pay on the spot. You can have insurance, you can rely on the security guard personnel of the facility you're at, you can just defend yourself, or voluntary associations such as neighborhood watches. The last one is an example of what could correspond to our society's generous welfare programs, that is, generous charity markets.
You can say that humans have selfish instincts, but don't ignore that we have ones AND PRACTICAL NECESSITIES which are cooperative (manifested as negative rights).
If I'm a billionaire and my family member or friend has medical worries, I'll fucking bail them out. Why would I need a government middleman?
To everything else in your reply I've already given answers to you, so go play a game of hide and seek and see if you can spot them out. And if I lost you on my thought process with any of them, I urge you to explain them to me. I remember you not understanding my point about corruption, so I prompt you to explain to me what confuses you about it. Hope you're not too tired, this is clearly life and death we're talking about here
I'm sorry we don't agree already. Are you sorry?
Maybe we'll agree that this is futile, but I'll hold that out as long as possible
I was wrong about Monsanto, Nestle and Mondelez international: Monsanto practically owns them, so there you have it, a monopoly.
And the point behind a "monopoly of violence" as you put it is that it's actually safer in theory and practice rather than have a constant war against economical rivals within the border itself, I was about to call it anarchism but that's exactly what it.. well.. literally is.
and again, consumer co-ops, you're hitting your head in the wall again and again because you assume that rival companies won't just try to knock eachother out, when that's exactly what happens even today in non-ancap societies, 'cept that usually they try to buy eachother out of the market because if they publically played dirty, there'd be punishment from the governments which is the one thing that's keeping them from doing it.
and yes I know there's more choices than just having to subscribe or pay on the spot, and that it requires insurance but
what about the people who can't afford a hundred fucking insurances just to keep themselves from dying or going under
and these "neighborhood watches" rely so heavily on the assumption that they'd be willing to do it, it's a game of chance, and the security guard personnell of the facility I'm at ????
as I said, only the 1% of the richest would survive an ANCAP society and you're just proving it further and further
unless you're implying that the lower-to-middle class live in self-made huts without sewers, without electricity, infrastructure, heating, whatever the fuck else, I unno.. running clean water because according to you it'd be much better if every person would pay for it themselves rather than pooling in money via taxes so that 99.9% - 100% of the population have it, just how self-centered can someone be.
and the billionaire example was meant in a case of it happening, say you lose your billions of € and your mother falls sick to a treatable illness but that'll kill her if not treated, do you just shrug and go
"Oh it's fine, there's virtually nothing I can do now I'm just gonna have ta let you rot, sorry mama, the hospitals charge €60 000 per pill"
I don't know man, I won't bother going through where I lost you, it's too big of a text wall already, and if you want a look at the closest you come to ancapistan, just take a look at the US' healthcare system, which is extremely privatized unlike what you stated before, where a splinter in the finger costs both your kidneys without insurance, and those who can't afford insurance are fucked.
how old are you, by the way? have you had any experience with jobs, owning property or paying for the installation of things?
I think you have confused ownership with others using their patents, which is what a Google and Wikipedia seem to suggest. And if you think that makes for a kind of ownership, then welcome to the camp of anti-IP.
Do you think that if the people fighting each other are from different nation states, it's somehow better?
Think of governments in terms of economic self interest for a minute. A government gets more money by extracting more taxes from more people, so according to your doctrine of constant war between economic rivals what the world should look like is ubiquitous slavery, with non-stop, universal war of warlords battling for dominance over the tax base of the entire planet. But for some mysterious reason, governments partly suck up to their people and have periods of peace. My hypothesis for that is that war is massively expensive on capital, human and otherwise, and the peoples of the Earth, to an extent, won't allow government to extort money from them so that it could kill them. Let's hear yours.
Consolidation is bad? You're literally making a case against centralization. It's true that things such as cartels exist in free markets, but they never last. Ever. It's the perfect real life analogy of the prisoner's dilemma.
If you got thugs willing to commit heinous acts of violence under the pressure of law enforcement and other people defending themselves, I'm sure you'll also have plenty of people willing to do the same for their own communities from crime and vandalism minus the threat of detainment. Why do you think it's a phenomenon now? It can also involve voluntary donations as part of some wider organization.
Security guards are employees of a private establishment and are there to convenience the, say customer if it's a store. Think of night watches too. It's part of the stuff offered to visitors to make the place more attractive, just like lights, bathrooms, parking lots, etc. You don't have to pay for a lot of those in a lot of places. Can you believe it?
Your talk with poverty and the 1% here is basically just a baseless argumentum ad nauseam at this point. Quit it or I'm telling mom.. Also it's nice calling it just "pooling money" cause you can leave out the part that the money you're pooling is not yours.
And why would I just drop dead and go bankrupt like that? If it's because I lost fair trials, then I probably deserved it, as did my sick mom for not snitching me to the nurses.
Do I look like I can't handle walls of text?
I know that the US system has privatization, but the other bullshit on top of it that I have politely written down for you completely negates it in effect.
I don't want to brag or anything, but I've hit puberty, my mum gives me tendies for folding clothes, and I paid my pep pep by paying attention in school so he doesn't lock up our smart TV in the living room after bedtime. So I think I can say I have the credentials to NOT BE AS PROPAGANDIZED TO THE POINT OF BRAIN DEATH TO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND BASIC A PRIORI ECONOMIC REASONING AND ALSO to not succumb to ad hominem red herrings with any dignity whatsoever. I know what a job is, I know what property and self-defense and contracting are, and you, Undertale looking ass Norwegian ass mr. "my username literally means skunk as in opportunistic and/or treacherous person in Finnish", can cordially eat. A. Giant. Dialectic letter of counter-arguments written by a random sperg on the internet with no life who insists on wishing for respect of voluntary association and communication despite of current reliance on a dysfunctional institution.
the question abour property wasn't an insult or questioning your intelligence but you took it that way, ok
and since you're old enough to have graduated a school and owned a property, why don't you move to somewhere like USA or some other country where you won't have to sit and face the so-called "dysfunctional institution" which so happens to have reached milestones past any other institutions have.
your country + the rest of scandinavia has a 99.999% literacy rate, has practically 0% significant poverty, virtually nobody has died of hunger for 40-50 or so years which, suffice to say is quite the goal, considering that lesser socialized countries, say, in southern europe and the USA still experience death by famine, though not widespread it's still there and I can confirm it because I've lived in portugal for over 10 years of my life.
firstly, let me address the people fighting eachother from different nations because apparently for you, there's no difference between whole nations 'fighting' sometimes and a myriad of smaller communities/individuals waging war on eachother.
ANCAP society would be one plagued by mercenaries hired by the dreadful 1% that you're trying to make me shut up about, because you can't argue it.
you know what's a baseless argumentum ad naueseam, which is even more braindead than me bringing up the 1%?
Assuming that companies only want what's best for the customer and that everyone will be able to afford living although every. single. thing. is privatized
and you've not focused on my argument regarding the safety net, you've pulled a
and focused instead on how you'd lose that money, say you never had it in the first place is it still your fault?
and about the US tax on healthcare, they do indeed pay a lot but where that money goes I have no frickin idea, because you pay a lot less in european + oceanic countreis and shit works over there, and my guess is that they're paying the privatized hospitals which just love to succ out the money out of everyone.
privatized healthcare is expensive, insurance for it is expensive, and you can sit there and scream about how taxes = stealing while ignoring the fact that having insurance companies is way more costy than just having a universal goddamn system, now imagine that shit.
now you tell me how I don't have basic understanding of economy when there's no regulation on the mint, what kind of currency would you even use? euro? dollar? goats?
and say the currency is monetary, who produces it? how do you stop others from making their own private currency? can you imagine just how big of a clusterfuck it would be if, say, there were multiple banks and every single one had their own currency?
what about inflation? deflation? scamming and production of false currency?
oh but you can say "have an universal currency" well what defines the universal currency??
are you going to have.. non-government private elections sponsored by Goldberg Banks(TM)? what happens if they rig it, how do you prevent rigging?
(I'm sorry if that last one was just a little too gay. bro. my sweet goat.)
I meant 80% on that point about millionaires, whoopsie doodles. And if the reply button doesn't show up to you like it's doing on my mobile right now, feel free to reply to my profile. It wouldn't be a surprise if we've hit some kind of a comment chain length limit. Not that I'm complaining. You're my companion.
Also, it is true that a Nordic welfare state maintains a very high standard of living, but at the terrible price of low fertility rate. When people rely on themselves, each other and their progeny for survival, the population is maintained, but not so much so when people rely on the state (so we're consuming prosperity from the future, kinda like what currency printed by government thugs for themselves does to the value we work to give to the currency). This stuff is evidenced by extremely high fertility rates as a leftover of the past system in developing countries. People strengthened local workforce and hedged against childhood mortality with multitudes of kiddos. Society was highly traditionalist. If you think it's bad that those people then come here, vilify welfare states, but as for how they usually come because of wars, blame states still.
I'm happy that you still wish to talk about this with me.
You know why those milestones have been reached? It's because the power of the people and economic necessities have forced governments to admit freedoms to people and to not completely ruin and tempt them for the sake of the state gravy train immune from market discipline.
Portugal is poor because of the European debt crisis, which is being treated with false neoliberal IMF austerity which isn't used to strengthen the market economy, but rather to pay off government debt and bail out banks at the expense of those social programs that you and your buddies might be dependent of.
We ain't talking about some freaking Amazonian tribe clusterfuck with constant genocidal feuds over accusations of witchcraft. Superstition is a separate issue from political philosophy (except in the cases where it isn't. I can add an additional criterion of "no theocracy" since philosophy matters. If you have a stateless society populated by radical Islamists, chances are you'll end up with a caliphate rather than a peaceful market anarchy).
Government already is a mercenary hired by the 1%, comrade. And let me tell you a couple more things about the 1%. Their wealth has merely increased faster than that of the poor because of the financialization of our economies - which really kicked off in the 70's conveniently in conjunction with the suspension of the gold standard in the American federal reserve system which has private stock holders with concealed identities - which culminated with the recession and bailouts of the mortgage crisis. As for what comes to the rest of the rich, economic mobility is still pretty fine even despite of economic downturn and manufacturing which has flocked to developing countries with lower costs (an issue that raising the minimum wage is NOT going to help you with) because of low economic development of the job market, usually. 90% of millionaires in America are of the first generation in their families to be rich. (I'm concentrating on America because you did)
In a free society, to live, you have to either serve someone else first, or you have to be a good enough person to have people want to give you money for free (or just be a hermit in the wilderness since homesteading makes for a property claim). You can bet most charity is given to people the donors have never even met before, so it really shouldn't be hard for voluntary charity to take up the niche of our current welfare programs. Friendly societies used to fill that niche before the advent of the modern welfare state and insurance, similar to how the church, what with their collection bags and characteristic mother Teresas and all(she sucked), has often been the center of the community in rural areas.
My guess to that would be that it goes to the bloated military industrial complex, prison industrial complex and the general inefficiency of government and economic protectionism one which I mentioned earlier in this context, plus paying interest on the banknotes being flipped back and forth between the treasury, fed and bankers addicted on corporate welfare.
Commodity money existed for thousands and thousands of years all over the world before the appearance of the first banks around Italy. We only ever stopped using gold as base money in favor of fed paper after America locked up everyone's gold in reaction to an oil crisis in the 70's when other governments tried to retrieve it from it's vaults in panic.
In a system of free banking, no one would use banknotes as currency since it wouldn't necessarily apply even the next town over, and in truth, would only work in the limited cases of nearby establishments patronizing the respective bank, accepting them for payments since you can just go to your bank a few blocks over to retrieve it for the dominant gold and silver.
Fraud violates the NAP so go from there.
And those non-government private elections are called market competition, thank you very much.
I might've exaggerated on the USA free market thing a little bit, but there is still the point that it's pretty much on par with European countries instead of some sort of paragon of free market capitalism, as it was supposed to be compared to Europe according to the claims I was responding to. I don't fuckin know dude.
Let's start with the monopoly one, because that seems to be a big one. Hate to break it, but the stereotypical tyrannical monopolies don't exist in a peaceful free market. Two reasons.
1. Assuming there is effective enforcement of property rights, the only way for them to grow larger than all their competitors is to literally serve you better. If they loosen up, they will be undercut. If they outcompete all of the concurrently existing rivals then they will STILL have to reckon with prospecting entrepreneurs looking for good investments, and the shittier the monopolist's service the higher the potential profits of buying up some new property to compete with the big dogs.
2. If they have all of the market share and also have vertically integrated most of the resource mines and they loosen up (for the how tos, check 1.) customers will switch over to alternative markets which most closely satisfy their needs. If the monopolized market is really shitty then the alternative ones will become highly profitable so the monopolists will have a harder time buying them off. That effect intensifies proportionally to how tyrannical the monopoly is.
Nestle has already been sued for what they've done. Are you saying no one would sue them in Ancapistan? Are you accusing the courts for receiving bribes from Nestle? What's the criticism here? I'll address corruption further down.
Now a couple of smaller ones.
The threat of nukes is smaller with decentralization, free association and mutually assured destruction.
As to what comes to being paralyzed by a bus, you can compare it to what would happen if it were to happen in our world. If the bus driver bails, some bystander might come to check for information of your particular hospital service and call their ambulance, and blah blah blah life insurance blah blah blah the same as now but in a free market. If it's some homeless guy, then you might research for his family or for a charity that donates insurance to the poor.
If you're speaking of bias in terms of bribery, I'll just have you know that a monopolistic government is actually vastly more vulnerable to corruption than a private court or arbitration agency. If a briber wants to influence a G-man, all he has to do is to give $1000 for the minister to direct $1000000 of unconditional tax money to a desired special interest, but he want to influence an officer of a private security agency, all of that money has to either come from the briber's pocket or from capital consumption of the agency such as layoffs, raising prices or from selling infrastructure or stocks, which will likely decrease their personal influence within the company and all of which spells death for business. Also, in this system, people will be much more incentivized to look up the backgrounds of different agencies, so the bad press and PR of corruption and the failure of the promise to punish frauds and promote morality will likely bankrupt them.
Now the biggest ones, the chaos and the NAP.
If you're afraid of greedy corporations using your voluntary patronage to finance their wars, consider a competitive market, which is what we're discussing. If your area hosts a monopoly that has amassed its power through homesteading and/or voluntary trade, and it turns against you, then in that vanishingly unlikely scenario you have no choice but to flee or die fighting. But consider businesses A, B, and C. Both A and B, being the bigger ones, do the same thing of declaring that thenceforth, all revenue will be directed at destroying the other company and all employees will be decreed to die trying to kill the other guys, A against B and B against A, defying all contracts ever made including them. To the all-encompassing, flattening surprise of local man Liero, say the papers the next day, by the next 24 hours virtually every customer had switched over to C, as had every single worker. The bankrupted owners of A and B fight to the death in the street.
I ran outta space so wait a sec
Don't you "come on, dude" me, muhfugga. I'm SPLAINING this shit right now are you listenin? Okay.
If you think that an any agency that carries out the actually useful jobs of the government, then a) read again the beginning of my previous comment, and b) if you still think it's a government then consider that we can't know beforehand whether it's more efficient to provide every service in house or to outsource. Maybe every single service is better as a stand-alone or maybe it has to play out for a while so that the market can find out about it. But that's a nitpick because see a).
If enough people perceive something to be a threat, they can form a coalition. If they feel they need military leaders, they can choose one from among their ranks, but maybe all you need is a couple of informants and a giant zerg rush. Or just reinforcements to the protection of the private property of individuals. Like a couple o' nukes. Since there's no nation-states to commit their atrocities, the bands of offenders and defenders will work more individually, and outsiders would require evidence of aggression to join in.
If we take the example of clean water, the ones competing with each other would be different water purification plants, and since they can't sabotage each other or force you to buy their water, they have to try their hardest to please you to win your favor. In some parts of the world there's little access to clean water, and they're known for that, so if some particular plant tried to swindle their customers with sub par water, the news would very quickly catch up with that. Does that not make sense? And if you truly and vehemently can't trust market competition and rating and watchdog organizations to guide your consumer choices, look into a form of business called a 'consumer cooperative'. There you tell your subscription of choice how to handle their literal business instead of a greedy board of directors dinging their wine glasses while twirling their moustaches.
It absolutely is true that sometimes governments do stuff that you like. But at the 50% proportion of your money that they don't, they only way to affect it, theoretically no less, is voting, which is inefficient. Plus, sometimes a lot of people favor what is brain-gnawingly called "redistribution of wealth", which is blatant thievery propagandized to be morally good. If we presume that a particular person accrued some money or property through voluntary trade, they've literally already done their share of helping others in regards to the portion of their wealth in question. And people dependant on their survival on handouts is absolutely not a desirable aspect of society, especially if those handouts are financed from people without their consent. So tough it the fuck up or drop dead. That's what I say to the poor people that remain after there's no more welfare addiction, no more drug war, no more crushing taxes, factory jobs superior to subsistence agriculture, and charity volunteer homeless shelters that have to compete for donations (which would be no problem since the rich give the most to charity and people would be richer without taxes) in their effectiveness of getting people on their feet.
And what the leftism is that stuff about designing your own sewer system? At what part of your though process did the division of labor and the accumulation of knowledge drop out of existence?
And your last point is wrong. A competitive market forces enterprises to provide better quality for a lower price. And if that alludes to the criminal justice system, what you can do is to sell your tort case to someone more capable of bringing it to court at the price of a part of the compensation, if literally everyone you have friendly relations with is also poor. If the government hires a private company to provide people with "free" healthcare or insurance, then that company basically gets a monopoly because you already have to pay them with taxes so just compete with that.
yes I'll "come on, dude" you because...
1. How the FUCK are you going to form a 'zerg rush' when the rich corporations are able to hire whole armies to protect themselves.
and since you've brought up the use of nukes
I assume you must be completely ignorant. I can't imagine you'd feel safe if one person had control over nukes with virtually no punishment if they decide to use them dude come on.....
2. Let me talk some realistic business here: M O N O P O L Y
and what the fuck inhibits organizations to sabotage for eachother in an ANCAP society
where there's no government to punish them
when it happens more than enough in the real world ??!
3. What the taxes go to is
more than just 50% of the things you would want them to.
I want you to go outside and look around you, virtually everything you see that has to do with infrastructure, electricity, clean water, sewers, road safeties, schools, kindergartens, hospitals, emergency services, many types of housings, city/town planning, frickin'.. bus routes, snow shoveling the roads, keeping the enviroment clean and untarnished, it's all handled by the government, even the smallest of shits you barely even notice until you need them, it's all handled by the government.
4. It's so easy to just write off the poor as "lazy" and tell them to "tough up".
say, you're run over by a bus and you're paralyzed, can no longer work, what the fuck do you do then??
if you contact the government for help cause your treatment is draining your funds completely and they'd tell you to "suck it up bitch" you'd throw a hissy fit, I know you would, so why is it so hard for you to put yourself in other people's shoes?
That's actually something I wonder about every time I encounter an anarcho capitalist, y'all seem so sure about this edgy thing when it doesn't even work on paper.
by the way you've not yet answered the same question Sargon did on redpanels which was:
what do you do if there's a murder, how do you investigate it in an unbiased manner if there's no public police or detective force?
and what if, say, there was a massive fire that wiped away your business, how do you rebuild?
and what the hell would you do if a rival corporation began killing off its opponents, how is the NAP going to stop that shit if there's no government to step in and sort it out?
so... you want an ancap society.. with governments?
and what do you do to
catch the murderer?
who does these investigations?
how can you be sure it's not fraudulent or rigged?
and what do you do if an outside source attacks the country?
you can sit there and tote "TAXATION IS THEFT; NATURAL HUMAN RIGHTS EXIST; WE DON'T NEED A GUBERNMENT; US LAWS US LAWS USA LAWS"
why do you keep living in finland then where you're taxed out of your ass?
is it the 'free healthcare'?
police services, firemen, ambulance, army,
basic sewer systems
infrastructure, the availability to have frickin disposable water just 10 seconds away from you at all times,
school systems, who does the school systems in an ancap society
or maybe it's the available electricity, central/non-central heating systems, telephone lines, internet, the welfare and safety nets for the lesser abled or the more misfortuned people?
what about elderly healthcare? shiiiiiiit I guess in an ancap society you'd have to either take care of your elders until they die, or you'd be forced to pay obnoxiously high prices on an unregulated market where you don't really know what you're paying for.
also, non-aggression policy?? NAP?
come on dude...
shit, not as in no history or no criminal background, but as in not having experience in the field or with other teams AND, as another thing, having a suspicious background.
and also I didn't check the thing about the constitution so I might've confused it with the universal declaration of human rights. I should put myself down more.
I'm Finnish for fucks sake
Isn't that at least the partial function of a constitution? A contract to protect your rights? I fucked up. But you do know what I was trying to get at right? Ignore the fact that it's completely retarded and doesn't make any sense.
- Wow, gears.
- It might not be gay in the most literal sense... but it's pret…
- You crafty old cunt.
Inverted fish tank
- Maybe it's just a baby boom. It could also be a result of thei…
- You trip on it because you think you're a victim... of something...
You cannot escape to game...
- ...or fitting in? potentially
Shit i found online
You don't dye your hair crazy colors to fit in... unless you're trying to fit in with a group you're trying to stand out.
Dying your hair is basically the fastest way of saying "I'm different" and that will, always, garner attention, good or bad.
- You can have values without being a nationalist... How's that …
the problem is the breeding rates of the middle-east far exceed those of other cultures. So in 100 years should we go down the multi-cultural route.. we wont be getting many cultures in peaceful coexistence. we will see the genocide of most of the cultures of the world. genocide through out-birthing.
Maybe it's just a baby boom. It could also be a result of their religion, as you know, a lot of religious niche groups are known for their huge families. As for your concern... can we say... mandate of heaven?
Show Comments (1)