/r/Anarcho_Capitalism

Photograph via //r/Anarcho_Capitalism

Welcome to /r/Anarcho_Capitalism, a place to discuss free market capitalist anarchism and related topics, and share things that would be of interest to Anarcho-Capitalists.

Welcome to /r/Anarcho_Capitalism, a place to discuss free market capitalist anarchism and related topics, and share things that would be of interest to Anarcho-Capitalists.


View the latest comments here.


Unfamiliar with Anarcho-Capitalism?


Related Subreddits:

Complete list of related subreddits...


Links & Information:


/r/Anarcho_Capitalism Discord


Reddit's site-wide rules are strictly enforced in this subreddit, and we do not tolerate spam posts. Beyond that, we try to uphold freedom of speech for everyone to the maximum degree possible, irrespective of viewpoint (even those we feel are abhorrent), and we welcome participants from other subreddits.

/r/Anarcho_Capitalism

196,978 Subscribers

36

taxation is theft

1 Comment
2024/04/09
04:59 UTC

3

Even the failed business agreement relies on reciprocity.

Both association and the freedom to disassociate rely on mutual respect.

0 Comments
2024/04/09
02:42 UTC

131

personally i think it should be two trillion

17 Comments
2024/04/09
01:24 UTC

71

How's everyone's 2023 theft prep going this year?

24 Comments
2024/04/09
00:05 UTC

149

end the fed

14 Comments
2024/04/08
22:53 UTC

0

Art of peace. How to live peacefully without counting on government or morality

Okay. Ancapnistan is nowhere to be seen.

So what?

Died?

Let yourself be robbed by taxes?

Lay down and let people fuck you up?

The thing with libertarianism is it's more of a moral guidance. Tax high. So it's the welfare parasite's fault. Yes. So what should we do? Nothing. It's idiot voters, welfare parasite fault, bla bla bla bla bla.... We can try to change the world I wouldn't hold my back.

According to basic libertarianism, the sole purpose of government is security. Once we are reasonably secure enough from aggression we should just make lots of money productively and buy whatever we want and win. Yay....

That's the idea of libertarianism right? Once the situation is libertarian we win. Do we? It's something to think about. Most people don't win under libertarianism. Most welfare recipients will get less money under libertarianism. Most religious bigots will just have to let people sin.

Without affirmative action, most minorities with low IQ average won't be accepted in good schools. Some minorities with high IQ average will be very overrepresented. And that won't win in normal democracy where majority of idiots can vote.

Without tariffs, most blue colar workers will have far lower salary. Without monogamy most men are incel.

Just keep that in mind. There are very understandable reasons why most people aren't libertarian.

However, statists often have limited power. They can't just force their way to you. They often have to lie to you first. And if you see through their lie you can be quite free.

Obviously, as most ancaps know, even for security we should count on ourselves and private parties instead of government.

Governments make it worse.

So ancaps want to get rid of governments. How? Terrorism? Coup? That's not peace.

Also, where is this so called ancapnistan? Is the whole libertarian philosophy useless because there is no ancapnistan?

To be honest, who wants to live and defend a region where skinning cats alive is legal anyway. I am a libertarian, but as things got too cruel I too have limit. In pure ancapnistan, skinning cats alive will be legal because it's his cat. I prefer normal private cities like Prospera or Dubai or Monaco or Singapore over that any time. Hell, place I live is better than that.

I am trying to show that it works. We just work with what we have first.

So what should we do?

Art of peace is somewhere between Ancap and libertarians. We look at our situation. We accept that as is. We find ways to make it work. This shows that principle of libertarianism can work without we having to wait that all governments are gone. Even people living in a very corrupt and poor country like me can enjoy a libertarian life style with few changes.

Find jobs with minimum taxes and regulation

Easier said than done. What I have in mind, and I did both, are crypto trading and internet marketing. You don't need a loicense for that.

Notice if you live in a privilege rich country, this solution has disadvantages. Why would you want to compete with people in 3rd world country if the minimum wage are high in your country? I would flip burgers if I were American.

Many countries do not tax income from foreign sources. My country unfortunately do that. But there are many loopholes that greatly reduce taxes.

Or you can make money a lot and then pick a legitimate occupation with very low taxes. For example, if dividend tax is 0, you can make a lot of money, form a corporation, and get dividend. Or your company can have anonymous debit card. I am still looking for some ways.

Whether what you do is legal or not depends on many things. Again, we are not counting on morality too much. Contact lawyers. What's important is you don't go to jail.

I recently read someone got charged with money laundering after being found to store $2.4 billion of bitcoin. Well, looks like you can hide money well without getting caught in crypto. Took a cop 4 years to nail that old lady. And they still can't easily seize the bitcoin. Be careful.

Make everything explicitly transactional. Turn contracts, as much as possible into series of repeated small transaction order

Libertarians would argue that governments have two purposes. Secure your right. Enforce contract.

Do you want government to enforce your contract? If you're good at lawyer, fine. I live in a very corrupt country. I would rather not.

So what do you do? Enforce your own contract. How? Join the Mafia, and kill snitch? Dude..... I am a libertarian for a reason. That's not my comfort zone.

See, even without a contract, normal transactions are quite robust.

Imagine if I want to commit buying KFC chicken for 50 years. Then I would stipulate that KFC need to keep cooking delicious chicken. Then I need to subscribe to KFC. Then I may have to pay either in front, or yearly or at the end.

That's kind of complex and so many things can go wrong.

What makes more sense is if I like KFC I just buy it. How do I ensure that KFC will keep cooking delicious chicken? If it doesn't you and others' stop buying.

Other samples.

A young employee wants someone to take care of him during retirement. Where should he go? Should he work for a company that offer generous pension plan?

There are easier way to do so. Just find company that pays more. Then buy bitcoin. And that bitcoin is his pension plan.

A young woman wants rich guy take care of her for life. In return the young woman agrees to keep providing sex and producing heirs.

What should the young woman do? Sign a contract? Nope. Consent can always be withdrawn. Get married? Well, what happened is consent for sex can always be withdrawn but consent to financially support isn't. So marriage means the woman is in such stronger position she can just leave her husband and collect money like Bill Gates' and Jeff Bezos' wife.

Art of peace means we want to have win win situation. If one of the party end up holding the bag then the other party will not agree. Women that insist on marrying often end up with poorer husbands than if she aim for sugar daddy.

How does she ensure that the guy sticks around?

She turns marriage into a series of mutually beneficial transactions. Perhaps she sells virginity first. Any man willing to pay $500k for mere virginity must be loaded. That's husband material there. Then she can sell sex to the same guy and get paid monthly or per fuck.

How does she know she will be taken care for life? When she's young, her value is huge. Just get paid more and buy bitcoin.

Will the guy and the woman be nice to each other? Most likely yes. If they're not they will leave each other.

The woman gets richer. The richer guys got smart pretty women cost-effectively. Few conflicts can arise.

When things go wrong they can go their separate way amicably. That means the woman doesn't have to go to court suing for alimony. She already have investments. The guy also don't have to waste time and money on lawyers.

I think the muslims have contract marriage. Sugar relationship is so similar with muslim contract marriage. I am impressed. Not that I am a muslim nor do I like their religion in general. But some aspects are quite normal. Dubai is the only muslim regions that are great though. My own country is reasonable but only if you're rich.

The only time series of repeated small transactions can be scammy is in Ponzy. In most cases, a history of win win transactions build trust. That trust become some sort of barrier of entry from competitors.

What about if a child is born? Again, instead of marriage, the woman is better off asking for explicit child support payment that's collateralized with bitcoin and enforced by private courts.

Do not count on morality, empathy, love, or government

Those are very unreliable and may be catastrophic.

What is moral? Does anyone agree? No. Even among libertarianism what is moral is not clear. What about if we have a relationship and then someone act immorally? What about if we lend money and the other guy doesn't pay? Well, you can go to court. Again, counting on governments. Are you a lawyer?

Do not lend money to anyone, unless you are an expert and know the in and out of money lending. Let money specialists handle that.

What about if some smart beautiful woman told you she needs money and needs to borrow some? NEVER LEND money. She is scamming you. Just make her pay with some service if she's over 18. If she likes you, she'll do it. Borrowing money may just be her way to get close to you. If she doesn't like you she won't and that means she's useless anyway. Stay away from useless people. Forget her. Move on.

In particular, I am always suspicious of women who don't like money or prefer guys poorer than I am. We are not a match. She can be a feminist.

Well, make sure you at least get some nudes or handjob depending on what's legal in your country and that the price is cost-effective. This can be used as proof of consent latter when disputes arise.

If something can be a scam it's a scam. The government won't help. I noticed this when people were offering ponzy to me. There is always a loophole where the organizer of the ponzy can lie. For example, the ponzy or high yield investment always use dubious exchanges where they can cook up numbers.

Use Private Court and Private Marketplace

Governments can be very useful if not used directly. You can use ebay or uber.

Those are online marketplaces where buyers and sellers meet. They have specialized court when you are cheated. However, people rarely cheat. They also have records keeping to make it easy to choose who to blame.

When crimes occur, it's easier to press charges if you are helped by a big organization.

I prefer private marketplaces more than private courts. Private courts get paid if you go to court and that's usually when things go wrong.

Private marketplace get paid if you have successful transactions. The private marketplace doesn't want to mediate all disputes. They prefer no disputes to show up in the first place.

So they have better incentives.

Avoid contracts

One purpose of government is enforcing contracts. Unless you have private courts to enforce the contract, I would suggest simply avoiding it. Otherwise, you will need government court when things go wrong.

Fighting in court is expensive. Often whoever bribes the judges more win. That's not justice. Typical libertarians are not in the business of hurting others. We always want situation where whoever is just win and that place is not a government court.

For a similar reason, I would keep insurance to a minimum. Insurance requires a contract. Besides, insurance in my country is so shitty the price is 10 times normal due to cartels anyway.

As I said, turning commitment into smaller transactions are doing well anyway.

Use Bitcoin or XMR or cash

Unless you're dealing drugs, I would recommend bitcoin. XMR is overkill and hard to cash in. Many no KYC exchanges don't allow you to deposit XMR and withdraw.

My friend told me that the more you use cash the less likely you are to fear tax collectors.

I mean you can be honest and jot down your income anyway. But it's going to be extremely difficult for government to proof you are evading taxes if they never see any money going in or out of your bank account.

As far as I know, it's legal. Again check lawyers.

Rent don't buy

Just for the record, I bought a house. So this one is catch 2-2. Anything you own can be seized by the government. I am still thinking if it's a good idea. Rent means I have to sign a contract with landlords. Perhaps if it's simple enough buying is fine.

I am thinking of selling my house to my parents and family and rent it. Anything goes wrong to me then government can't seize the house.

Renting also follows the principle of turning things into smaller transactions where each side still have positive incentive to cooperate.

So, enslave or higher employee?

For libertarians, this one is obvious. Well, assuming both are legal and "ethical", I would suggest hiring an employee instead. Buying a slave means you lose a lot of money in front.

Marry a woman or be a sugar daddy? Again, sugaring is the way to go

During Punic War, Carthage made the fatal mistake of paying Rome early. Rome knowing that Carthage have paid fully his obligation then destroyed Carthage.

Many white farmers are driven out of Zimbabwe with their land seized. If those white farmers rent farm land instead their loss would have been minimal.

Make sure there is no possibility of scam or force on both sides

As usual, if it can be a scam it's a scam. Always ask yourself, what can this guy do, if he's a psychopath to scam me. If there is a way, back off for a while. I would ask my bro to examine slightly complex deals.

Many women would go the extra mile scamming me first and when all fail cooperatively spread legs. Assume all people are like that.

I'll continue this.

11 Comments
2024/04/08
16:19 UTC

11

Why have anarchism and anarcho-capitalism become so different?

Anarchy, by definition is a system based on the negation of the principle of authority, or of a regulatory state.

What doesn't seem to make sense to me is that self-declared anarchists today defend neither freedom nor a free society, forcibly imposing the end of "capitalism"

Capitalism itself is not a political system, and even naming it doesn't make sense, because the free exchange of wealth and "profit" is natural to humans. If there is an end to capitalism, it would be with the end of the human race, or with some kind of spiritual enlightenment capable of making people deny their own nature, which I don't think is what anarchists are proposing today.

In the end, it seems to me an idiotic appropriation of a term that doesn't do justice to its principles.

63 Comments
2024/04/08
15:27 UTC

189

The world is ending today. So here's a laugh

90 Comments
2024/04/08
14:25 UTC

60

"I wouldn't want to be a libertarian during [insert crisis of choice: 9/11, Covid, 2008 crash]." Then it turns out: in each case we'd all have been VASTLY better off without the stupid and evil things the regime did

2 Comments
2024/04/08
12:20 UTC

14

Cool stateless Welfare system in the Philippines! Even school children do it! It's called a "Paluwagan"

We here in the Philippines have a cool traditional welfare system! Paluwagan works more like a cooperative savings system but when expanded, It has huge potential. It's a core part of Filipino culture and the cool thing about it is that the more people you have in the paluwagan, The more lump sum each and every single one recieves

8 Comments
2024/04/08
12:00 UTC

0

Palestine is already ancap. They just need private cities to keep them in check

They are quite LITERALLY STATELESS

But they have government, I mean Hamas. Well, Hamas is just an organization. Technically they are stateless. But any kind of organization can show up on ancapnistan right, including terrorist ones.

That's the thing. You need private cities to defend yourself from Hamas.

But they have Israel bombing?

I am not sure how reasonable jews are. But it seems that we can negotiate some arrangements. Pay them to protect us? In return we ensure no rockets ever go to them and when situation cool off jews can join. Perhaps they pay us for that. It benefit them so much too.

But the people are not ancaps. Well, freedom is like smartphones. You don't expect people to provide that for you for free. It has prices.

Hmmm... turn voters into shareholders. Now they are shareholders. Tada private cities.

Then tell them that the lower the tax and the more they legalize, the more money they make. Legalize polygamy at first. Then legalize weed, drugs, gambling, anything victimless.

If competing governments criminalize we should legalize and tax. Money..... Sin tax is money. And it's justified by market condition. Other places are less free. So the more free place deserve money for providing a place and protection to do sinful stuffs.

Turn voters into shareholders of private protection agency.

They make money.

Jews don't get attacked and may join.

Profit.

Perhaps some experienced investors can provide a guiding hand.

Oh one more issue.

But it's a holy land. How can we sin there?

See.... It is precisely because it's holy land we have holy terrorism, holy bombing, holy bullshit, holy complexity.

Humans don't need excessive moral to live peacefully. If a bunch of drunk and drugged psychopaths can live peacefully under capitalism, who needs religions?

47 Comments
2024/04/08
11:12 UTC

239

Baby killer. Upvote this post so its the first result when you Google baby killer.

11 Comments
2024/04/08
11:08 UTC

201

[Mini trucks legal in Texas] Texas Becomes The First State To Win The Battle Against Imported Car Bans

14 Comments
2024/04/08
08:37 UTC

0

Economic productivity, consent, and simple immigration strategy

It seems to be easy and obvious to get anything consensually if you are economically productive. If you are economically productive someone would pay you well and you just use the money to pay for what you get.

I think mutual consent, mutual benefit, and economic productivity is correlated like 99% of the time and the difference are rare and philosophically interesting.

When a person is NOT economically productive, then total mutual consent is impossible. Imagine economic parasites having children. Either the children starve or someone will be forced to pay taxes to support it.

Yes there will be voluntary donation but it's over rated. I am not even sure if voluntary donation count as economic productivity at all. See? Exception are rare and philosophically interesting. In practice, in most western countries we have tax funded welfare and in most poor countries we simply have poor starving children. Neither is consensual. Children aren't consent to be born and definitely not consenting to be born into poverty.

So if we want benefits of libertarianism, all we need to do is to only allow economically productive people to come in.

So, many people want to come to your country? Congrats. You have build a great country then.

Now, how do you ensure that every single immigrant coming are economically productive?Simple.

  1. Charge $1k per head per year
  2. Make sure they can't vote or hold gun till they invest.

Tada. Every single immigrant coming will be economically productive. Otherwise how are they going to pay the $1k?What about children born?

How to ensure that every children born are taken care off and will be economically productive?

Simple.

  1. Charge $1k per head per year
  2. Make sure they can't vote or hold gun till they or their parents invest.

Then economic parasites that fail to make money won't have children.

Children, after all, are just immigrants from different border.

A country run for profit will figure this one right away.

A democratic country will have huge problem because often, it's the productive immigrants that are prevented. Why? Because local voters don't want superior competitors.

2 Comments
2024/04/08
06:49 UTC

6

Why Did Argentina Increase Its Money Supply?

I haven't been keeping track of Milei's economic policies since he got elected and I looked them up recently. It seems that Milei increased the money supply in Argentina by a lot. Anybody has any clue why he did that? I mean isn't inflation the number one issue in Argentina?

17 Comments
2024/04/08
03:09 UTC

25

If a man becomes more risk-seeking as his options degrade, and The State degrades his options...

What is the relationship between The State and market criminality again?

7 Comments
2024/04/08
01:17 UTC

0

Have you cyber-bullied a bordertarian today?

Get on it.

1 Comment
2024/04/08
01:05 UTC

Back To Top