Mob rule.

Got it

and what does one do on a 48hr op? <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

with no state, then what stops those hired for security from TAKING rather than TRADING?

A lot of this sorta thing i settle on is/ought.

yeah and these small communities exist within states, yes?

why pay when you have alll the guns and superior skills to fight?

and the security operates within the territory of the state?

I mean if the security companies just occupied a local community and ruled over the local populace

who's going to stop em?

and are subject to the laws enforced by the police force of the state?

the state has the authority of for security

Ought is nice, but *is*.. well.. is what we needsmust focus on.

which has conditions outside of money

@Muten lol implying the current state is accountable hahahaha

ie. outside the mechanisms of trade

the only counter I've heard to "rogue armies" and "security company occupation" is just "people wouldn't appreciate it" which means???

don't confuse theory with implementation

Plus whose going to break up the monopolies? In an Ancap society that'd be a larger problem than we have today.

you can't compare a theortical ancap society to the implementation of a rep republic

@Terry Arcona Well they are accountable to more people, less accountable in general but equally accountable to the general public

theoretical representation republic vs theoretical ancap society

so, in theory, a state SHOULD be accountable

applies in both situations

If you want a 100% free market with 0 govt monopolies will ruin the economy more than it has now.

but the mechanisms of accountablity used by a traditional state lay outside the mechanisms of trade

not so in the ancap world

so how do you prevent one from using the other as leverage?

@Muten dude who pays the securty companies? if they become corrupt no one would pay them and they would go out of business

negative

but they have guns

who needs money when you have guns

just exploit the people you occupy

like they did in the olden times

they ONLY go out of business cause the STATE prevents them from just TAKING the money

with no STATE, the security firm just ROBS the client

"I just want to be able to rob people ok"

why pay for what you can TAKE by force without opposition?

@Muten lol no they aren't, you're living in fantasy land, current states are accountable to corporations and big money lenders, they don't give a rats ass about jo smoe the little guy

^^ ah, u are breaking the rule; theory vs theory

at least we HAVE an implementation no matter how flawed

I mean god's right but you missed my point anyway

DAMN THAT'S A THICC BOI

@SageTheory government is responsible for most monopolies, hell government it self is a monopoly

well, not really.

a monopoly isn't based on the customer

government should be a monopoly of the population

it's based on the competition

everyone is part of their company

'part of' means what exactly?

The govt isn't a Monopoly lol and yes it's a problem you'd make worse under ancap

My arm has an elbow, i have an arm

government is the monopoly that EVERYONE is a part of

well

that's actually retared

well, not really

I retract that statment

lol

the gov is GIVEN a monopoly on force in exchange for agreeing to protect your rights

i.e. apply that force discriminately and fairly

I sense 56 iq people

are there ancaps around?

go away and it will rise to 100

@ManAnimal who says there wouldn't be opposition, practicaly all AnCaps I know of are armed, presumably most people would be in an AnCap society, we're talking about changeing the out look of people and raising people to be more responsible rather than the type of turds mondern public education is poping out

Now, if we argue idealistic versions (utopias).. Representative Republic wins out in my estimate.

yes, hence the error of initial criteria

Well, is the argument idealistic or realistic?

The govt doesn't control industry unless you go full socialism and that doesn't work. We live in a bastardized capitalist system where the govt intervenes in the market and ignores monopolies.

@SageTheory it's amonopoly of force yes it very much is

you are projection from our CURRENT system which ENABLED those ancaps to acquire skills, resources and discipline into your theoretical world

but take away the current paradigm and those fundamentals disappear as well

How does one train in a realistic AnCap implementation?

Ignores the ones that they choose to tho

they don't

I'll give it as something that's possible.

@Laucivol Representative Republic have failed misrably

but any theory must have clear entry criteria from a common external domain as any competing theory

i.e. people in the wilderness choose representtion democracy vs people in the wilderness choose to be ancap society

@Terry Arcona Okay, sure.. but praytell how a *realistic* ancap society would work better?

what?!

Representative Republic have failed misrably?

So just tear or down lol

yet you sit there had can express you ideas on a compute

Tear it down*

with food in your belly

and no nuclear fallout

failure?

I'll play along, but I need to be convinced why it's better than the current.

Honestly I'm still waiting on the Ancap solution to the monopoly problem.

again, projection from the current paradigm which enables entitlement into fantasy

just like the communists

So far I've only seen idealism equivalent to Marxism.

^^

Because all I've heard is that it's a problem like I didn't know.

@Laucivol that's what I've been explaining but aperently you're not paying attention

I'd agree with taht assessment

I was driving. @Terry Arcona

both simply make opposite assumptions regarding human nature

one thinks people are all alteristic and the other all rational

And the scroll up I did look at was just vitriol.

neither can account for any variation

So, how do we get there.

@SageTheory the solution is simple, monopolies form far easier with government assitance, take away government and there will be far less monopolies

not exactly

government substides hurt COMPETITION

Okay, any historical precedence for the claim?

but don't HELP nor create monopolies

there is a difference between the only game in town and say Standard Oil

i mean, facebook was the first, twitter was the first

they didn't have to destroy competition to corner the market

Like I said, I'm game to hear the argument. But I'm also dubious.

they CREATED a new market

so one is a monopoly and the other isn't

Erm.. Myspace. >.<

Oh my god it’s mananimal

but they didn't interfere with myspace

I thought you were gone

myspace just couldn't compete

FB crushed Myspace and Livejournal

again, leave the thinking to others lol

exactly

but because they presented a better product

So to say that FB didn't have competition is dishonest.

so then FB did **not** create a __new__ market, and were not first?
make up your mind, pls

not by employing dirty business practice

They just happened to steamroll them.

@ManAnimal yea myspace came before facebook, facebook grew far larger when it got in bed with the government

techincally you are right

BUT those other platforms had a BB gun

If your talking utilities then yes technically so but those are formed because it's easier to have one water company than multiple water companies. I'm talking anticompetitive monopolies that hurt the economy.

@Terry Arcona that's cuz they're operating on govt software <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

vs the Cannon FB developed

And if I dig deep, probably find other competition as well.

so we are in agreement, fb isn't a monopoly at least it wasnt..... at FIRST

Nonetheless less the BB Gun v Cannon is a fair analog.

it's only later that they start employing unfair tactics against those trying to enter the market it becomes a monopoly

(Fuck, I shouldn't have taken that drive now that I sat down and the intoxicants are hitting.)

And yes silicon valley is a problem but I don't think ancaps have an answer to it because they have no way in breaking up monopolies.

many forget that a monopoly is defined by how a company treats other competitios NOT customers

@ManAnimal well technicaly even with the government aid it's gotten it's still not quite a monopoly but it's damn close

it's hard to monopolize on the internet

true. but 'gov aid' isnt' always a bad thing. in fact, it is the ONLY way a gov can operate with a free market

It's more of a cornered market.

the 'ideal' gov simply takes money from one interest and pays it towards another interest of competing interest

Technically social media isn't operating as a monopoly.

They are operating in cohoots, though.

@SageTheory government doesn't break up monoplies either, atleast not the ones that are bed with government which is practicaly all of your fortune 500 and up companies today

so if people vote they would like more public transit rather than cars, i charge a premium for driving the cars and every dollar from that goes ONLY to public transit. zero sum

Yes that's a problem

TELL ME HOW ANCAPS WILL HANDLE IT THO.

@ManAnimal if companies are recieing government subsidies it's no longer a free market

so i don't make cars 'illegal' i just compartmentalize and by doing so, i encourage investment in trainsit tech which makes the cost come down

we aren't talking about companies

follow my example

don't make up your own and say it doesnt work; focus on my example and tell me how it doesn't work

i never mention a company receiving a subsidy

The resting argument of AnCap seems to be that the gov't enables bad habits due to favoritism and nepotism.

Because saying no govt = no monopolies is false and also it's not so bad to where it's crippling the economy.

i said the gov pays for trains with dollars raised by taxing car owners

@SageTheory AnCaps handle it by not handling it, monoplies simply form less with out government, AnCaps don't promise there wont be any but there will certainly be far less

the gov pays a compnay for a product (trains) just like any other customer

xD

Okay

exactly Laucvioui

So they don't have an answer

they focus on the shit implementation

We just have to take their word.

rather than comparing ideal to ideal first

Alright, the thing about as said monopolies still form.. and have even more power than they would under mixed economies.

corruption is everywhere, we know. but ideally, for the sake of comparison, we pretend it doesn't exist so we can assess the merits of ancap vs republic

They would nothing would stop them. Even though we have monopolies only a few really get away with forming them.

(@ManAnimal "Capitalism hasn't been done right, yet." I know what you mean, but it falls into the same problem as the fierce Communists there.)

not sure what you mean exactly but i do agree in general

@ManAnimal the biggest corruption is seen between corporate back room deals with government

eliminate government you take away alot of the corruption

Thing is that sans wider gov't anti-trust laws in place gets to the same badness.

the KEY difference is that while i can describe the ideal mechanisms of capitalism they cannot describe the ideal mechanisms of communism

I'll give you that.. ergo why I caveated I know what you mean.

capitalism rests of 'capital being a storage of value' and any implementation would lay along a spectrum of how well it acheives that metric

ah, ok

@Terry Arcona what qualities would a society have to have for it to count as anarcho-capitalist

hey,, I thought you died last month?

@Terry Arcona Most of us are trying to find out how to make AnCap work, TBH.

my heart did

In fact read up on Rockefeller he accomplished his monopoly with colliding with other companies.

I really want the idea to be functional... but I just don't see how.

personally, I would LOVE to be the electrical engineer that developed the first cloaking device and create Galt's Gulch with it

but... Dreams vs Reality

be sure not to confuse

As I've said numerous times is/ought.

the idea doesn't really seem coherent to me

also, how about this observation: "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I shall never work solely for the sake of another man...."

Ought AnCap be able to function in ideal? Yes. Is humanity able to make it so? As Death in June just said.. doesn't seem to be.

^^^ can this saying be applied to both MEN and WOMEN?

i don't agree with the first part

capitalism is inherently anti-anarchist

or does one have to devout themselves to the family for it to work?

sticky question

Eh, I'll give any ideal a shake.

Ancaps are more unreasonable then commies

?

the only way i could see it making sense is if anarchism was just being used as a synonym for a high level of decentralization

I'd even say, "Ought Communism able to function? Yes. Will it? See history."

capital is easier to steal than slave labor

also easy to trade

thus the point

(History replies: Not just no, but hell no.)

@Death in June the people would have to be more responsoiible as they were more like in the 1800s in america, there would have to be decentralised means of record keeping and contracts and perhaps most importantly of all many services provided by government today would have to have private companies pick up the slack, example, private company for road mantence, private securty companies, private fire departments

Whereas AnCap the historical answer is... .... ... maybe?

read my profile

Rational Man Animal

in the REVERSE order

thus commie = animal

@Laucivol that's cool, atleast you're open minded to it

rational is at the top of the pyramid

So again I just have to take your word and hope companies are benevolent enough not to form monopolies.

hard to stay there when survival is at stake

And my experience of corporations is not so much.

I cannot trust a company to have my best interest at hand.

well, the problem is that a corporation MUST by law place the profit of share holders ABOVE all other concerns

Nor can I trust a sovereignty to have my best interest at hand.

thus if the company can break the law but profit more than the fine....

they are required to break the law

you see the paradox

Also yes I want to have options to skim through as my house is burning to the ground.

(Even GodManAnimalEmperor wants AnCap to make sense, by the by... but we still don't see the result as net positive versus what's before us.)

that is the one flaw with the market

cancer is a GREAT market creature

but what WILL be or what is sustainable tommorrow has no value to the market

it will consume it self if it profitable and will never realize the inevitable cliff until the fall begins

@SageTheory they will have a much harder time when there is so much competition, the free market is not kind to monopolies

that is an oxymoron

if you have COMPETITION

you have no MONOPOLY

Except we've seen that going completely hands free *is* kind to monopolies.

Rockefeller bought out all his competition. Nothing stops that in Ancap world.

The industrial revolution EG Rockefeller, Carnegie and so on shows us that.

well, not really because.... now that interest rates are artifical and money is fiat

not real capitalism

(i know, i know)

The only reason people don't do that now is anti monopoly laws otherwise they'd be more common.

(Still not arguing against it.. . once we moved to fiat currency... capitalism breaks.)

but in truth, we have changed the very basis of the mechanism that makes capitalism function

Derivatives destroy markets. Period

Besides the few that the govt doesn't crack down on

Only GOD should be able to create something from nothing

not banks

And this is true in An__CAP__, too.

@SageTheory a bigger richer company could do that but then more competition would arise