Leaving aside economic theory and the fact that a fully planned, state-run economy is a terrible idea there's a major problem with communism. It goes against basic human nature because humans are at least partially driven by self-interest. So if everyone is employed by the state and earns around the same salary regardless of the effort they put in, then no one really has a reason to go above and beyond and has every reason to slack off. So communism goes against basic human nature.

Why then do ancaps ignore human nature in the same way communists do? Ancaps seem to believe that humans can have a smooth-running scoetiy pretty much without concrete predefined rules, regulations, dominating forces like a state and unified enforcement agents.... even in highly complex societies like mega-cities or huge countries like the US.

How does that line of thinking not go against human nature the same way communism does? Humans have always existed within hierachies. Always.

Humans have only ever lived without hierachies and without predefined laws and regulations in the smallest of societies. A tribe of a fifty or so people can live without much of hierachy probably. If they're fairly egalitarian they'll discuss things as equals, everyone voices their opinion and things get sorted out without the need for laws or leaders. Sure.

However, the more complex a society becomes the more humans tend to implement hierachies, rules, laws, regulations etc. Once a tribe becomes a village leaders rise to the top. Rules get defined and punishment enforced. As they become a small town structures get written down on paper and become law. Prisons are being built, law enforcement installed, assemblies elected etc. The bigger they become and the more their population grows the more detailed their defined laws, regulations and leadership hierachy typically becomes.

That's not a value-statement and not to say those leaders tend to make good decisions and are moral leaders. But throughout all of history there has never been a successful anarchist state. Not once. Anarchy has only ever existed for short period of times, usually during period like civil wars, hyperinflation or other turbulent times. And anarchy inevtiably always ends up in chaos, mayhem, looting, rioting, destruction and violence.

Throughout all of human history not once has there ever been a successful anarchist country. Pretty much all countries on earth always had and and still have either elected officails deciding on federal or local laws, or otherwise have some type of hiereachy, e.g. dictatorship, kingdom, feudalism etc.

So how does anarcho capitalism not go against the most basic human nature the same way communism does? Sure, anarcho capitalism and communism can both potentially work on a very very small scale.

But how could mega cities like NYC or Tokyo or countries the size of the US ever exist without any unified laws, regulations, enforcement agencies, law-makers etc.?

So I'm schizoaffective and autistic. I'm also [Redacted], but, y'know, my handler doesn't let me share that publicly. As a result, I got an interesting brain. Makes me think differently than the average meatbag of mostly water with basic reasoning skills. When I was a kid, my parents and I played a lotta board games, and me being me always found ways to fuck with the rules to skate by on a win that no one expected. Like, you know Monopoly? You should never go for hotels, because you can cause a housing shortage by keeping all those green houses in play, and then you can dominate the board with some skillful negotiation.

These sorta boundary-pushing tactics were certainly enhanced and developed by playing a metric butt-ton of video games. I just, y'know, could see the effects of all my choices as they proliferated across a complex system with a multitude of rule-sets and ways to create inputs. And as a result, and when combined with my other, unspecified training, my mind is finely tuned with an ability to judge and determine the exact nature of the system we're in that is colloquially called civilization.

What do I mean by this? Well, let's look at the second amendment in America. Supposed to ensure protection against tyranny, right? Yea, no, the way technology and mind control has advanced over these last few centuries guarantees that a snowball has a better chance freezing Hell over than the American population has of overthrowing our government. But, y'know what that amendment does do? Guarentees there's a rifle behind every blade of grass, which, according to various foreign sources, and when combined with other factors like America's geography, make America fucking unassailable from external invasion.

This is the shit I think of. Let's take another example, perhaps one that's a little less hot in our cultural firestorm: the crusades. A buncha battles to secure the holy land from the likes of foreign heretics, right? Well, y'know, that little strip of land on the east coast of the Mediterranean is one of the most strategic locations for controlling trade between the west and east, but that is a fart in the wind to what was really going on.

Charles Darwin is typically credited with coming up with the idea of evolution. But, y'know, every fucking goat farmer six thousand years ago was well aware of animal husbandry. The concept of inherited traits was virtually a no brainer, and was used to great effect to domesticate evolve both plant and animal life to forms that better serve humanity. So, like, when do you think the first galaxy brain leader came up with idea of breeding better humans?

So, Jesus said love your neighbor and enemies, right? Even if religion is a completely engineered institution to program the population's behavior (and it is, and that's a good thing), it's probably a good idea to select the traits of peacefulness and ability to collectively love others. As a result of this epiphany, the leaders of the “dark ages” called for all those people who wanted to kill for God, and got them to kill each other. This had the benefit of causing an evolutionary shift in the genes of the masses, as the men who were the best fighters were artificially selected and got to breed with the surplus of women after each crusade, but, y'know, it also created a vacuum for the most kind and gentle men to get mad pussy while those dumbasses were off to commit genocide. As a result, both the Christians and Muslims intentionally created a force in the system that was their civilizations that pushed that masses to become more fit for the needs of what we can call the modern world.

Also, population control, because, y'know, we were an exponentially growing population on a finite amount of land that could only produce so much food. History was written by utilitarians.

But, hey, what's a little psychopathic manipulation when we're dealing with the literal apocalypse from the possibility of a foreign power growing stronger than your nation and just massacring all of your people? A lotta people tend to think of engineering society to make a utopia where everybody eats steak and gets to fuck. That would be a nice goal if God wasn't completely indifferent to the suffering and extinction of any and all lifeforms He ever created. That's where, y'know, the reality of “the elites are intentionally engineering society to be the most functional in terms of survivability in this competitive, dog-eat-dog world of ours” comes to shine.

I would absolutely love to live in a world where there's a four-day work week and there's a viable universal basic income and everybody gets ice cream for dinner, but when any system we can create for business and governance is inherently dominated and exploited by ruthless sociopaths, it's better that we allow our sociopathic leaders to facilitate a system that kicks every other systems’ asses to the curb.

Would I change anything about America? Oh you bet your burger I'd flip shit on its head if I ever became president, but as it stands, the American culture exists to keep everybody working as hard as they can, so our corporate overlords will have more power to make moves against foreign powers. You know why feudalism fucking worked? Because it allowed the wealth to be pooled in a small group per state, and that allowed those people to make big moves on the geopolitical stage. Ain't no “fair” system allowing anybody make, say, a purchase of foreign land for a sizable percent of your nation's GDP.

As such, a nation where wealth is fairly distributed would be crippled by the executive abilities of a nation of poor people that has a few extremely rich rulers. In the former, who's giving up their livable wage to pay for arming a military? In the latter, the rich create a livable wage that compelled the masses to go fuck up the other “fairer” nation. It's just basic strategy!

I dunno. I was just brainwashed by the CIA to create propaganda on Reddit. What the fuck do I know? I just see why anarcho-capitalism would thrive if it were allowed to manifest in a functional form. It's just a system that compels maximum utility and evolution.

Hey, i been looking for more books to read and decided to stop by here. I am not a ancap but still a libertarian, and wanted to learn more about the communities beliefs. I was wondering what i should add.

Heres a list of books i already read, what should I do from here, anything that will be worthwhile?

fiction:

Heinlein, the moon is a harsh mistress,

Rand, fountainhead,

Rand, atlas shrugged,

Rand, anthem,

......................................................

Non fiction:

Nozick, anarchy state and utopia,

Hoppe, democracy the god that failed,

Horwitz, austrian economics an introduction,

Stirner, ego and its own,

Hayek, road to serfdom,

Mises, bureaucracy,

Mises, the theory of money and credit,

Rothbard, anatomy of a state,

Rand, a case against socialism

I put the Anarcho-capitalist FAQ on Qortal.
The internal url is: qortal://WEBSITE/AncapFAQ
The external (standard) url is: https://qortal.link/ancapfaq

I'm trying to compile a list of these positions that have large amounts of (or just very credible) empirical evidence supporting them. Some examples include that Free Trade has greater benefits than negatives, that most of the cost of corporate taxes falls on consumers and workers (not to mention the economy), or that Marijuana should be legalized.

I don't particularly mind if like with the corporate tax you could arguably find data to form a counterargument that maybe the revenue from those taxes might make up for it in other areas of the economy, I just want to see empirical evidence supporting the stated argument.

Also, I got banned from r/libertarian over literally nothing (wasn't told what for either) which is very disappointing, but I'd love for this to reach as many libertarians as possible so if someone wants to crosspost it feel free.

its there a site or project like YouTube, but instead of subscribing for channels, you subscribe to other people sites, and that site/project scrapes the persons sites that you subscribed and proceed to present the information to you in a way kinda like this:

[jooj.com]

most recent videos

[videoname/image] [videoname/image] [videoname/image] [videoname/image] [videoname/image]

most recent articles

[articlename/simpleimage] [articlename/simpleimage] [articlename/simpleimage]

[dani.web]

most recent videos

[videoname/image] [videoname/image] [videoname/image] [videoname/image] [videoname/image]

most recent articles

[articlename/simpleimage] [articlename/simpleimage] [articlename/simpleimage]

[robert.lul]

most recent videos

[videoname/image] [videoname/image] [videoname/image] [videoname/image] [videoname/image]

most recent articles

[articlename/simpleimage] [articlename/simpleimage] [articlename/simpleimage]

Walking into the DMV or post office and looking at overweight people with relatively high salaries and cushy benefits and pensions breaks my heart. They’ve never produced anything at all, not even a single day in the lives. They only consume, yet they live in relative luxury compared to some guy working construction for 30 years. Depressing and rage inducing.

Lets call it a shitpost from now on to piss off commies