Subreddit Rules:

It seems pretty necessary in society.

I think it’s impossible because the government regulates the internet companies and the isp charges customers money making profit. And without a government no one can profit or amass capital so there wouldn’t be any internet. And then cryptocurrency wouldn’t exist.

So why do you guys pretend you don’t want governments when you really do. Also defending personal property is a government if you are An anarcho capitalist but it’s not if you are an anarcho communist so don’t even try to trick me!

Say in Ancapistan there are multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers, they eventually get their prices to $10 per person monthly for insulin, but instead they decide to cooperate and form a cartel to charge $15 due to customers still paying the price due to the demand being inelastic. While you may think other companies will compete, they instead join the cartel because their profits would fall lower through competition between them and the cartel thus incentivizing them to cooperate to raise profits again.

Why wouldn't this happen in Ancapistan?

This is true of all rents, but I’m going to specifically focus my argument on land rents.

Rents are incomes that are derived from exclusionary ownership of access to resources. They are not derived from labor or action, but rather from passive ownership.

Land rents and state taxes are two expressions, then, of the same phenomenon: the coercively-enforced extraction of incomes from people with physical bodies that must occupy space on the surface of the planet.

Rents are not payments for services any more than taxes are. The state and the landlord might both pretend this is the case, and might even redirect your resources to fund services they pretend to provide, but ultimately neither must even pretend to provide services in order to extract income. All they must do is own and promise to hurt you if you don’t pay.

“But you can always move” does not justify rents or taxes.

“But you have a choice of whom to pay” does not justify rents or taxes.

“But they provide you with stuff” does not justify rents or taxes.

“But rents are purely voluntary” then so are taxes.

Once every square inch of the world is owned by someone—by some illegitimate state or even (for the sake of argument) some purely legitimate, homesteading property owner, then every owner is absolutely free to collect taxes or rents from you without any recourse by you. You cannot opt out, a violation of your negative liberty to say no to other people.

If we were to imagine a world in which everything was assigned a legitimate, private owner, then anyone born without any property ownership would lack negative liberty.

Anyone born without property, or otherwise lacking it, could survive only with the permission from private owners, and thus could not be said to enjoy negative liberty in any meaningful sense.

Setting aside the fact that all extant private property originated in violent state expropriation, and setting aside any philosophical objections I have to the propertarian ideal of appropriation through homesteading by labor mixing or what have you, we find that a regime of fully private ownership still results in a situation indistinguishable from slavery—a propertyless person absolutely unable to say no to property owners.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o&t=2s&pp=2AECkAIB

I like ancaps but I disagree with many of the content.

What about if bad guys make their own protection agency that allows murder? Thye think it's not a big problem.

It is.

Gengish Khan for example head of huge protection Agency that allows mass murdering others. He is doing just fine.

Also what's wrong with competing jurisdiction? We can just shop around and move. Sure we got to move is an inconvenient. But how hard it is? It seems that libertarian bigger problems are that there is no supply for more libertarian jurisdiction.

If there is we just move there and we are done. If the benefits far exceed the cost of moving then fine.

And the reason why there is no libertarian enough jurisdiction is because of libertarianism itself. Without Borders between cities any libertarian cities will have to accept tons of commie refugees that will simply vote or terrorize population to vote communism

Not all terms can be resolved by simply choosing different agencies.

Drugs can't be legal and illegal in the same territory. Age of consent can't be 16 and 18 in the same territory.

Tracy Lord is victim according to most people. I think Tracy Lord is aggressors.

Danny Masterson is a rapist according to most people. I think Danny Masterson is a victim. Why would a guy as handsome as he is would want to have a girlfriend that will press charges for rape latter?

Here, the girl being Danny's girlfriend is not mutually consensual because Danny would never or unlikely to consent having a girlfriend that will latter accuse him of rape.

The fact that this issue can't be resolved by contract or transactions make the whole rape accusation absurd.

How would competing right enforcement agency handle this? Well I suppose Danny can check if her girlfriend belong to feminist right enforcement agency and simply avoid her. Hmmm... Not too bad...

But yea moving to another jurisdiction with laws allowing contracts for sex in exchange of financial support and not enforcing full rape charge against rape victim that sign such contract would work too.

Many things that shopping for right enforcement agency can give cab also already be done like right now.

We can choose our own FDA based on private market certification. It's just that nobody is doing it yet in web3.0

Customers can simply choose not to buy product without correct certification label.

Voting actually works

Voting works.

How do you think commies got welfare?

Because politicians need their votes.

Why you have laws against polygamy?

Because most poor men that can't get many women vote in favor of monogamy. Many ugly women also vote against transactional sex being legal because they envy pretty women that can make money easily.

Why Israel got lots of aids? Because jews vote in blocks and good at lobbying.

And democracy, while not perfect, solves a certain function.

In monarchy the king is paid too well. The peasants can outnumber the one king and just kill the king or feudal Lords like French Revolution. Or we can all obey the law and have that one king oppress the people like free state of Congo.

In democracy the winner is majority (of used to be men). So it's more stable.

Better government can exist. Dubai is very prosperous. But it has state religions to keep people in line.

Liechesten is rich as fuck. But it's a principality. Singapore is dictatorship. Usually the most free and prosperous regions are small territories governed like business with clear shareholders.

I myself favor private cities and turn democratic cities into private cities owned or rented by it's voters.

Private cities can work like Prospera. But there aren't enough shareholders in to fight majority of commies in Honduras. Even though Prospera is awesome it's so easy for hordes of commies to simply outvote Prospera.

Armies and voters get things done. Ideologies that bring prosperity, like capitalism, need support from large number of shareholders for the ideology to be strong.

The fact that large number of communist and religious fundamentalists can influence our life is not necessarily the flaw of democracy. People near you always have power over you. They can commit crime. They can force their will and their unlibertarians sense of moral terrorism and riots.

Right to vote is like a steam hole so the whole kettle don't blow up.

George Floyd kill himself. But it's not voting that destroy cities. It's riots.

If you do not want to be influenced or governed by statists, you either have borders keep statists away, or limit gun ownership to only say freedom loving people. But that's tricky. Having borders and prohibiting guns are in a sense statism too. Also what counts as statist is often vague.

Just be practical. Look at what you can do. Start from your self. Start now. Start small. .

Let's say an AnCap nation is formed from whole cloth within the current boarders of the United States. Let's assume each person then retain the property that they had going into this situation. Going into the AnCap nation I have a mortgage with a bank, so the bank owns the house and only transfers the deed to me once I pay off the mortgage. Now I am in an AnCap nation, and there is no government to enforce the contract.

This could go one of three ways.

First both the bank and I uphold our shaken agreement and I continue to pay the mortgage until its paid off, at which point I get my deed.

Second, I could claim the property is mine and stop paying the bank on the basis that there is no government to enforce property ownership, so the deed loses any value. Therefore, I would only be doing myself a disservice continuing to pay the bank for a worthless document when I am already living in and maintain the space.

Third, the Bank fearing the second option, hires a militia to remove me from the house that they have the deed to. I could hire a militia to retaliate, however all of the money I had was also stored at that bank, so I no longer have access to any of my personal wealth.

I think the third option is the most likely. At face value you have a prisoners dilemma situation, where both parties can choose to cooperate or defect. However, the dilemma is heavily skewed in favor of the bank defecting since they are the more powerful party.

Let's say an AnCap nation is formed from whole cloth within the current boarders of the United States. Let's assume each person then retain the property that they had going into this situation? Going into the AnCap nation I have a mortgage with a bank, so the bank owns the house and only transfers the deed to me once I pay off the mortgage. Now I am in an AnCap nation, and there is no government to enforce the contract.

This could go one of three ways.

First both the bank and I uphold our shaken agreement and I continue to pay the mortgage until its paid off, at which point I get my deed.

Second, I could claim the property is mine and stop paying the bank on the basis that there is no government to enforce property ownership, so the deed loses any value. Therefore, I would only be doing myself a disservice continuing to pay the bank for a worthless document when I am already living in and maintain the space.

Third, the Bank fearing the second option, hires a militia to remove me from the house that they have the deed to. I could hire a militia to retaliate, however all of the money I had was also stored at that bank, so I no longer have access to any of my personal wealth.

I think the third option is the most likely. At face value you have a prisoners dilemma situation, where both parties can choose to cooperate or defect. However, the dilemma is heavily skewed in favor of the bank defecting since they are the more powerful party.

How to become a landowner in the ancap world? That is, if a person surrounds a certain area with fences, does that place belong to him?

'Power convinces you that it belongs to you. Actually, you belong to it'

- Curtis Yarvin

Interesting text, in my opinion. Read it:

https://graymirror.substack.com/p/its-easy-from-here

Somebodies shared some sources on being show the bad affects of gun ownership with numberly data. What would be an ancap's answer to these argument and do you think gun ownership really effects situations badly.

Isnt it very bad because they would just help people who pay?

I'm curious how many hard determinists there are among the AnCap community. How many of you believe in some variation of libertarian free will?

I know this appears only tangentially related to AnCap. I'm inquiring because our conceptions of free will & determinism are wrapped up in our conceptions of identity, and our conceptions of identity have a profound impact on our political positions.

I suspect that the overwhelming majority of AnCaps will believe in some conception of free will, and that's one of the psychological elements that have brought them into AnCap. I suspect (but have not yet checked) that we'd find heavier representation for determinists on the libertarian left. What do you think?

Does a wasp have a moral obligation to not eat a spider? Does a monkey have a moral obligation to not take coconuts from a tree?

If a monkey can take from a tree, why can't I take from you? Because you don't want me to? Why would that matter? I doubt the spider wants to be eaten.

What makes you think I have any more obligation to you than I do to a tree?

I just realized that I've never heard any ancaps address groups as aggressors and how to deal with them appropriately. Everyone is treated as an individual and the NAP applies to individuals. But in actual real life, many members of groups have similar interests and act together. Those interests could include violence.

For example: What if you live in a small wonderful community in ancapistan. Everyone owns their own land here and its a voluntary little community where all neighbors get along. There's obviously no borders, other than the border of your own private property, and maybe even including your neighbors land if you signed a contract to be part of some voluntary HOA type of alliance or township with closed borders and checkpoints to keep strangers out or something... BUT that doesn't stop tens of thousands of people from all buying the land around your township and making you a sort of enclave.

And what if all of those tens of thousands of people are aggressive hateful violent religious nutjobs. They throw rocks and feces at you and your family from over the border and your property. They break onto your property with weapons and try to r#pe women. They all wear a specifically unique headdress or clothing item that gives away that they are part of this violent extremist culture. They won't stop and will continue to do this, and are even planning to raid your town, which you know because you overheard on their radio signals and translated it from their language.

I've seen jokes about recreational McNukes TM. But wouldn't that violate the NAP in this case even when you are about to die from this raid, because a preemptive strike against these terrorists will also kill innocent children that live in their homes, as well as women who have been enslaved by these barbarians and are chained up in their houses.

Can you McNuke them or no? If not, what do you do?

Many of my chats with AnCaps led me to notions of natural rights. "People can't assert their ideas of morality over you, for example, their ideas about fair labor practices, because of natural rights."

Details seem sparse. For example, according to what God? What holy book? Do you have some rights-o-meter to locate these things? It seems like we're just taking Locke's word for it.

But the men who invented the idea of natural rights, men like Locke, had more than one philosophical opinion. If we're to believe Locke used reason alone to unveil a secret about the universe, then this master of reason surely had other interesting revelations as well.

For example, Locke also said unused property was an offense against nature. If you accept one of his ideas and reject another... that quickly deflates the hypothesis that Locke has some kind of special access to reason.

It seems to me, if you can't "prove" natural rights exist in some manner, then asserting them is no different than acting like a king who says they own us all. And it's no different from being like the person who says you have to live by fair labor practices. "Either play along with my ideas or I'll hurt you." If there's a difference, it's two of the three claim to have God on their side.

So if these things exist, why do a tiny minority of people recognize them? And only in the last 300 years?

For my part, I have to admit I do not believe they exist, and they're merely an ad hoc justification for something people wanted to believe anyway. In my view, they are 0 degrees different from the king claiming divine rights.

How would ancap perform maintenance and road expansion for highways. Also with multiple property owners how would that work