Don't spank your children, otherwise they'll violate the non-aggression principle in the name of the state

reactionary american "libertarians" jolting to the right at the first sense of nationalism

i am shocked :^)

Did you see the lard ass that got naked at the Lib conference? He had a fucking Iron cross on his arm

Libertarianism has always been right-wing.
Euros will never understand freedom.

>le obese american who doesn't know shit about "libertarianism" so he revises history to suit his needs
In every other country in the world, the word means something else. Stop being an arrogant cunt saying that your definition is the right one, especially when it's not.

This.

Why is he shilling Trump so hard recently?
I thought he was a man of brinciple.

>In every other country in the world, the word means something else.
Libertarianism is actually a quintessentially American thing. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are different things, you know.
>Stop being an arrogant cunt saying that your definition is the right one, especially when it's not.
How about your provide some legitimate examples instead of being butthurt?

"Libertarianism" historically referred to left-wing, anarchist type movements in Europe.

The "muh capitalism muh small gurvemint" is a mid-20th century American bastardization.

...

Sure, in Europe. American libertarianism has always been a distinct tradition that predated the industrial revolution and goes back to the War of Independence, which was fought to get the British government to stop interfering with American mercantile interests. European left libertarianism has almost nothing to do with American libertarianism, which emphasizes the importance of property rights and the right to bear arms in the defense of property claims. Left libertarianism, from what I understand, is a form of socialism, anarchism, or Communism. Libertarianism is not anarcho-capitalism, either, so don't go around equating 'anarchist' movements with libertarian movements. It's highly misleading.
>mid-20th century
You really think that Nozick was the original libertarian?

i bet you self-identify as a libertarian. do you also have autism? those seem to go hand in hand.

American lolbertarians should be curb-stomped.

But that's true. If you commit violence against your children, they are justified in defending themselves. Luckily there is no reason to ever do that.

>Ancaps have never been right wing

I don't see an argument.
I also don't see a source for the claim that there's a correlation between libertarianism and autism.
What do you self-identify as? Genderqueer?

You don't need to be a retarded anarcho-capitalist to not spank your children.

If you can't discipline children without physical abuse then you are just a plain bad parent.

i don't give sources when i troll american libertarians. it's almost pitiful how easily you bit the bait. i almost don't even want to continue. enjoy the autism and MUH LIBERTY, faggot

This is neither an argument nor the high level of discourse that this board is supposed to offer.
Hiroshimoot made a mistake.
Veeky Forums was it.

Reminder that liberty and property are spooks.

So instead of people's property "rights" being decided by the state, they're decided by whoever has enough money to hire a bunch of mercenaries to enforce whatever form of property rights they want on everyone else? Wow, that's so much different and better than how things currently work.

How is it not?

>How would an AnCap society handle the act of someone assuming ownership over something which had no previous owner?
First to claim it

While I was never really so much of "hit", some of the lasting impressions that have spurred me to be a better person were when my parents really snapped and went off at me. The thing was that they'd hold off until these points of contension, which make them fresher in my memory for it.

I don't necessarily know if open-palmed spanking is that bad in this case, if it's used for emphasis.

So if some guy dies, whoever calls dibs on it first now owns all of it? Wow, that surely won't cause any form of conflict ever.

>He's so clearly gone hard right as of late
>Not knowing about Hoppe
PHYSICAL REMOVAL

> whoever calls dibs on it
it being his property, of course.

What did they spank you for?

Anacap is not true anarchism.The goal of Anacaps would be to create privately owned micronations.

>they're decided by whoever has enough money (i. e. The State) to hire a bunch of mercenaries (the police/army) to enforce whatever form of property rights they want on everyone else

>Wow, that surely won't cause any form of conflict ever.
Why do you assume that anarcho-capitalism is pacifistic, or denies the existence and significance of conflict in human interaction? The entire point is that the state uses the force behind law to scare people into accepting goods and services which, on a free market, would not be desired.

Daily reminder that selling heroin to kids doesnt violate the NAP
youtube.com/watch?v=U2Nad1b_3yY

The state doesn't have enough money, though. Governments function when they're trillions of dollars in debt because they have the threat of force to sustain them. In a voluntary economy where human relations are not forced by the state but are entered into via literal (rather than social) contract, no such entity would be seen as legitimate.

Where are children getting the money to buy heroin? Maybe their parents or the other enablers need to be physically removed from the society. Maybe the children do, too.

>the only reason people dont sell heroin to kindergartner prostitutes is because there are laws against it

Yeah its not because most people arent pieces of shit or anything

Yes, physical removal would be needed.Still selling heroin to kids doesnt violate the NAP.
Totally irrelevant the NAP allows it.

>If you're in debt that means you don't have any money
No, it just means you're not paying your debts. You can be a millionaire who refuses to pay a 20$ debt.

Once or twice for hitting my sister. I was a little shit who didn't have the balls to vent on anyone bigger than me. They didn't tolerate it. Now I just don't hit. I understand (as I did) how dumb it is to pick a fight with somebody bigger than you, and how pointless it is to vent through being a bully from firsthand experience. The thing was, they made me think about it. Because they didn't do this for much else, it stood out.

I openly complained about something my nana gave to me in front of her. My dad waited til she was in the car to grab me by the wrist (felt like it could snap) and literally yank me out of her field of view where he told me in hushed tones how much a little shit I was being. I started saying thank you after that one.

I'd been trolled one day, too hard, by some cholo kids(majority hispanic school) and I was griping about it, so I pulled something I don't recall hearing and said "dirty mexicans..." My mom almost swerved out of traffic, and I didn't understand why. But I was confused, the good kind of confused, you know? The kind that makes you think instead of being bitter about shit.

To name a few. Otherwise they were very patient parents. They gave my sister and I a lot room to do shit and be kids until we went a little too far. So I don't think corporal punishment is the issue, in some cases it may be over parenting and not knowing when to turn on the MAD. Cause kids are sensitive to that shit.

>Still selling heroin to kids doesnt violate the NAP.
Sure.
>You can be a millionaire who refuses to pay a 20$ debt.
What is this supposed to demonstrate? A government can use force to make him pay that debt.

The government IS the millionaire in the analogy you retard

Does the NAP applies to gorillas?

It's a bad analogy, then. You should have made that clearer.
In that case, the only reason its creditors don't come to collect on those debts is the fear of what would happen if China demanded all of the money the US owes it. The only reason that money is worth anything is because the US backs it with the threat of force.
A corporation or individual as deep in debt as the US government would be punished in ways that one cannot punish the US government.

>if China demanded all of the money the US owes it.
CHina cannot claim debt like that m8.The US has to pay it back in an estimated time.

>CHina cannot claim debt like that m8.
Why not?
>has to
Or what?

>Why not?
Because the US bonds are due to an especific date, like 10 years laters.China can't just break a contract like that.

>Or what?
The US would have to declare bankruptcy or a default, and things like social security would run out of funds, and credit would be nigh impossible to get

>Because the US bonds are due to an especific date, like 10 years laters.
How do we know that the US will have the money to pay off the debts? What happens if it can't?

>and credit would be nigh impossible to get
And would China just accept that it was going to lose all of that value and let the issue go?

Could you post some more Hoppe memes?

>How do we know that the US will have the money to pay off the debts?
We dont, that is why debt has interest, but the US goverment could rise taxes or just print the money any time, so the debt,seems to be quite a safe asset
>What happens if it can't?

>but the US goverment could rise taxes or just print the money any time,
Which corporations could do the same if they were in a similar situation?

If its ok for some rich guy to hire a group of mercenaries to enforce his idea of property rights, then it's ok for him to say that "property rights" means everything belongs to him but you can keep using it as long as you follow a set of rules or until he decides that he wants it back.

Are we talking about corporations in an Ancap society or one that is ruled by a state?

Why are you assuming that only one person is going to hire mercenaries in this system? The entire point is that people are defending their property claims by force of arms against the other people who try to take them by force of arms.

Anarcho-capitalism is the go-to idealogy for edgy hipsters

You're completely missing the point.
I'm talking about governments' ability to print money and tax people. This separates them from corporations, this and the involuntary nature of state-based association.
Corporations do not tax people, although they could print money if they wanted to. Of course, this money would have to be backed by something that has market value if it's going to be taken seriously.
My point was that governments use the threat of force and legally enforced regulation of markets in ways that corporations do not and cannot. They do not because governments do these things and maintain their monopolies by threat of force; they cannot because a free market would not allow a corporation behaving like a government to sustain itself.

...

How could corporations print money?

>replacing one spook with another

>governments use the threat of force and legally enforced regulation of markets in ways that corporations do not and cannot.
Except that they COULD do it in an AnCap society because there would be no higher power stopping them from hiring a bunch of mercenaries and using them as a threat of force, unlike in a society that is ruled by a state where the state itself prevents this from happening.

They can't, which is my point.
They might be able to provide currency that has value within the corporation's context, but this would basically just be like tickets at Chuck E. Chesse's or a good-boy-points system. This is different from printing money backed by something that has real market value. It isn't very different from the fiat currency we all use today.
>But we all accept the dollar as a valid form of currency!
Yes, because the government backs its value with the threat of force and the force of law.

There's nothing stopping you from using force yourself to resist the mercenaries, or from hiring your own mercenaries.
This really isn't hard to understand.

Corporations could never rise to the amounts of power that state could m8.The State has control over millions of people, no corporatio could achieve China's or US level of power

>"There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They–the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism–will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."
BTFO

>the mercenaries are successful and manage to take all your property by force of arms
>now you have nothing to defend yourself with or with which to hire other people to defend you
A society which is ruled by a state is nothing more than a society where the corporation won. the fact that you can't see this is mind-boggling.

There's nothing stopping you from resisting the government either

Still I dnt get what you are trying to prove, the current debt system is based and backed by the goverment.Without the state, loans would have higher interest, way higher, which could probably be positive, as wages would have to go up and overall PPP would rise,but that would be another debate

The East India Company had control over India for decades

...

It was backed by the goverment, and it was mainly a trading agency..I wouldnt compare it to corporations as we know it

>>the mercenaries are successful and manage to take all your property by force of arms
>>now you have nothing to defend yourself with or with which to hire other people to defend you
How do you have nothing to defend yourself with? Did you surrender to the mercenaries and give up your weapons? Sounds like a voluntary action. You weren't coerced, you decided to abandon your property and let someone else seize it from you. You were just too weak or too cowardly to defend your property.

>Implying that physically removing degenerrates is not the purest form of egoism

>degeneracy

Anclaps unironically shill for feudalism, it's amazing.

>How could corporations print money?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip

Company scrip is scrip (a substitute for government-issued legal tender or currency) issued by a company to pay its employees. It can only be exchanged in company stores owned by the employers.[1][2][3] In the UK, such truck systems have long been formally outlawed under the Truck Acts.

In the United States, mining and logging camps were typically created, owned and operated by a single company.[4] These locations, some quite remote, were often cash poor;[1][2][3] even in ones that were not, workers paid in scrip had little choice but to purchase goods at a company store, as exchange into currency, if even available, would exhaust some of the value via the exchange fee. With this economic monopoly, the employer could place large markups on goods, making workers dependent on the company, thus enforcing employee "loyalty".[4][5]

Corporation hires a bunch of mercenaries to attack some town
>town may or may not have mercenaries to defend itself
>Corporation is successful, takes all the town's weapons and money, imposes a system of rules for its own benefit
>Now the town can't defend itself from the corporation
>corporation uses its loot to hire more mercenaries and tackle bigger towns
>is successful again
>Corporation's power keeps snowballing until it rules millions of square miles of land, hundreds of towns and cities

>libertarian
>order
choose one you retarded muh freedoms subhuman

This thread has cemented in my mind the notion that ancucks are completely and utterly delusional edeglords who don't understand how the world works.

You're pretty much right. I would rather pay taxes than go to prison, and I don't want to initiate the use of force against the state because it wouldn't have a positive outcome for me. Why would I benefit from attacking cops?
I'm just pointing out that governments and corporations function differently. Corporations and individuals use the bourgeois state to defend their property interests; the bourgeois state uses the threat of force to maintain its own legitimacy in the eyes of its subjects and allies; without the bourgeois state, corporations and individuals would not have legal recourse for property defense and would have to use their own force, or hire people to use force for them.
>Greentext
>Not a spook
>>Corporation's power keeps snowballing until it rules millions of square miles of land, hundreds of towns and cities
Are there no other similar entities doing similar things?
How does it feel to have no arguments?

>In the United States, mining and logging camps were typically created, owned and operated by a single company.[4] These locations, some quite remote, were often cash poor;[1][2][3] even in ones that were not, workers paid in scrip had little choice but to purchase goods at a company store, as exchange into currency, if even available, would exhaust some of the value via the exchange fee. With this economic monopoly, the employer could place large markups on goods, making workers dependent on the company, thus enforcing employee "loyalty".[4][5]
Yeah, but companies do this for example with coupons.But the debtors,wouldnt loan money that the company could manipulate,as its power is relatively low,so debts would usually be done on neutral currencies like bitcoin or gold.

>Switzerland
>No order
There is nothing as organized as a market society inside a private city.

That would be pretty unrealistic, and quite costly.Merc armies based empires havent been able to expand very far.Only civil or proffesional armies could perform that kind of conquest and make it sustainable. Besides, there are things like coalitions and the like

I'm pretty sure that's the history of the mongolian empire.

>are there no similar entities doing similar things?
I think his point was, given that there is no monopoly on force, or other hurdles in a business firm's way; it might see it in its best interest to start acting more like it is a state than that it is operating inside one.

Who's to stop them but other "companies"? I think there's a good point in keeping in mind how indistinguishable hierarchies that allocate power( of any sort, like capital and agency) can be from one-another at times.

Guess which city is privatly owned and which one is publicly owned

>Impose an educational system on conquered towns that encourages feelings of loyalty to the corporations and participation in the army
>hire the mercenaries permanently, have them train themselves and any new civilian recruits.

Edgy hipsters are the go-to scapegoat for salty conservatives with skin in the game.

>it might see it in its best interest to start acting more like it is a state than that it is operating inside one.
>Who's to stop them but other "companies"?
That's exactly the point, you know.
>I think there's a good point in keeping in mind how indistinguishable hierarchies that allocate power( of any sort, like capital and agency) can be from one-another at times.
It's hard not to keep that in mind when you people keep making this trivial point.
You're ignoring the significant differences between them. Nobody is denying the existence of mission creep and the power of authority. You're willfully ignoring the fact that corporations and the bourgeois state function differently and have different purposes.

>>Impose an educational system on conquered towns that encourages feelings of loyalty to the corporations and participation in the army
How would they impose this? What's to stop the townspeople from resisting?

>>Impose an educational system on conquered towns that encourages feelings of loyalty to the corporations and participation in the army
Harder than its sounds and pretty cost inneficient.Most companies couldnt sustain that high expending.On top of that, sabotage on their sources of income, products, could be sabotage,destroying the whole economic viability of the thing
>>hire the mercenaries permanently, have them train themselves and any new civilian recruits.
Super costy.Mercenaries are expensive as fuck m8,

Actually, it's the other way around. Much of the power of the empire was derived economically rather than militarily. Having India as one giant tea plantation maintained by the east india company contributed more to british rule than any army did

The East India company was supported by the goverment at first.It was not a corporation in the modern sense, it was more like a megacorporation, which only appear when the goverment intervenes