>private police

That's already within a system that regulates that kind of thing wherein which these security guards answer to the actual police so they won't abuse their power.

Er, this implies everyone in a society would want to comply with the NAP or believes in its rules.

It also implies that every security agency would never wish to abuse the NAP or form a monopoly which is highly wishful thinking.

yeh, after all when in the history of mankind has a criminal ever gotten someone to work for him just for the promise of wealth

the very idea is just preposterous

>It's simply not profitable for them to work for the criminal.
>this is what ancaps actually believe.jpg

irl thats not how humans function, succesfull thieves become powerfull and less succesfull thieves organise with them to share in their power, those that controll deadly force often become even more powerfull and are automaticaly integrated into the powerstructure, and thats if they dont just choose to take over

this is a basic part and parcel of politics

an-cap society would function exactly like that,it would be the weirdest sort of totalitarism ever

>They would have to fight over other security forces, private armies, bounty hunters and so on. It's simply not profitable for them to work for the criminal.
What is the incentive for those other security forces, private armies and bounty hunters to fight the criminal, if the victim cannot afford to pay any of them?

Also, why would professional combatants be inclined to uphold the NAP? Together they can seize control of the land, because the non-combatants can't compete. Other professionals wouldn't be incentivated to protect the property of others over taking control of the protectees themselves because if hired they only take a portion of their protectee's wealth as opposed to controling all of their protectees wealth.

There are still going to be laws around. And if a security force starts abusing their power, since there is competition the people will hire another better security force. The one that abuses will eventually fail.

Most people would want to comply with the NAP because first if you violate it, everybody is against you and second diplomacy is more profitable than use of violence.

you're assuming humans will refrain in any way from acting illogically or engage in self-destructive activities

also what's stopping security forces from just using their weapons to start taking out the competition, banding together under strong leadership and eventually taking control of the entire population?

>if you violate it, everybody is against you

That assumes that everybody accepts the NAP. Most people don't.

>second diplomacy is more profitable than use of violence.

That kind of depends. If you have enough dudes working for you, and enough money to produce tanks, helicopters, etc, then what stops you from just taking over and enslaving everybody else?

>if a security force starts abusing their power, since there is competition the people will hire another better security force
what if the security force is benefiting the people who hire it but abusing others?

>if you violate it, everybody is against you
Except for all the other people that benefit from violating the NAP.

>diplomacy is more profitable than use of violence
Sometimes. Sometimes not. There's no reason I can't be a dick to some of my neighbors and share the wealth I take from those with my other neighbors.

>NAP
This is the biggest meme i've ever seen.
Consumers have already shown that except some bleeding hearts and hippies, the vast majority of people don't practically care that their household items(clothes, electronics, sweets) are produced in atrocious conditions and sweatshops.
So why the fuck would anyone follow the NAP is beyond me.

>What is the incentive for those other security forces, private armies and bounty hunters to fight the criminal, if the victim cannot afford to pay any of them?
His family or neighbours can pay for that. If there's a criminal in town you want him to be dealt with even if he did no harm to you.

>Also, why would professional combatants be inclined to uphold the NAP? Together they can seize control of the land, because the non-combatants can't compete. Other professionals wouldn't be incentivated to protect the property of others over taking control of the protectees themselves because if hired they only take a portion of their protectee's wealth as opposed to controling all of their protectees wealth.

Because it's not profitable for them. Eventually some other army will come along kill them and seize their property. It will be an endless cycle.

not to mention the benefit of charismatic leaders propagating ideologies that allow groups of people to take the wealth and resources of others without moral conundrums

hey guyse

remember london-manchaster 2011?

>It's not profitable to control the land, the people, and the means of production

They will have to fight other guys that wish to uphold the principles of the NAP and anarcho capitalism. It simply is not profitable. You do that you better be prepared to fight endless wars.

vast majority of people do not give a crap about long term profits, they care only about short term rewards and satisfaction

banding people together under the promise of loot and comfort has worked incredibly well historically speaking

If you placed a million humans into an empty earth with no existing power structures - would anarcy remain or would they form the kind of society we see today (given enough time)?

so basicaly youre talking systemic collapse and 40 years of war

They would form societies but it wouldn't look like it does today, their history would be different.

why would they?
if a group is large enough it is quite simply not profitable to oppose them
so if a security force gains enough local power that no single sponsor could fund their competition to make fighting them profitable the other security forces will likely join up with them creating a snowball that results in a military dictatorship

>That assumes that everybody accepts the NAP. Most people don't.
Most people respect the laws of the state. What makes you think they wouldn't accept a simply concept such as NAP?

>That kind of depends. If you have enough dudes working for you, and enough money to produce tanks, helicopters, etc, then what stops you from just taking over and enslaving everybody else?

If you already have that it means you're probably rich. Why would you want to waste all that in wars just so you can enslave everyone? It's better to continue negotiating in deals and trade. Also remember people are more productive when they're not slaves.

>His family or neighbours can pay for that. If there's a criminal in town you want him to be dealt with even if he did no harm to you.
There's no reason to believe that it's impossible for me to enter into a mutually beneficial relation with this crimminal.

>Because it's not profitable for them. Eventually some other army will come along kill them and seize their property. It will be an endless cycle.
It is an endless cycle. It's way we have conquests and revolutions. So is competition within the market. But you can get a bigger foothold on the market if you skew it in your favor - taking the power to compete from others increases your own relative power as a competitor.

>If he steals money then he would violate the NAP, meaning that now he's a criminal. Why would any private security force want to work for said criminal?
Ancaps truly are comedy gold.

History is filled with small groups of people fighting large ones. Also you imply that someone could gather such a large force without news getting out about his intentions. He wouldn't have the change to do it.

>It simply is not profitable. You do that you better be prepared to fight endless wars.
>fighting wars isn't profitable to warrior aristocrats and their grunts
We need combatants to protect us from combatants - violence is a product that creates it's own demand.

>mfw ancap logic

>What makes you think they wouldn't accept a simply concept such as NAP?
It's doesn't have any enforcing agency behind it, unlike state laws.
>inb4 the invisible hand.
Yeah, ok.

he does have the promise of wealth
which is sufficient

>Most people respect the laws of the state. What makes you think they wouldn't accept a simply concept such as NAP?

because theres no state to enforce it, and if you start enforcing things in anarchy you better have a army with you, because enforcing will prompt other people to either - start huddling together, digging in and arming themselves to the teeth/alternatively running tothe hills and vowing eternal revenge till youre dead - or - enforcing their own stuff with their own armies

only way to avoid this is to have ideological/religious homogenity, so people accept stuff based on group identity and ''public interest'', which then isnt realy an-cap

these arent even some cynical critiques, this is how shit functions and theres so many examples of it troughout history its like debating weather a glass will fall if you push it over the table -inb4 its not in your interest to push your glass over the table and pushing other peoples glasses over the table would violate nap and thats not profitable

>I hopped over them

oh fuck hahahahahaha

I can either work as a security guard an have a stable wage and life.
Or follow this nutjob that claims I'll be wealthier but will have a higher change of getting killed in the upcoming conflicts.

Yes could convince some guys to follow you certainly not enough to conquer everyone.

>History is filled with small groups of people fighting large ones
And losing.

Who the fuck remembers the Sythicans, no-one - they got buttfucked by the Slavs and other groups, subsumed and no one gives a shit about them any more.

and yet history proves you wrong generation after generation

>Yes could convince some guys to follow you certainly not enough to conquer everyone.
You might get enough to conquer a lot of people and have your rule last your whole life plus the lives of several of your successors - it's happened before. That's how we got most aristocrats.

>because theres no state to enforce it
There is private police, private courts, the people, they can enforce it.

>these arent even some cynical critiques, this is how shit functions and theres so many examples of it troughout history its like debating weather a glass will fall if you push it over the table -inb4 its not in your interest to push your glass over the table and pushing other peoples glasses over the table would violate nap and thats not profitable

I'm not saying that there would not be criminals or people trying to start dictatorships. But there would far less than now

Anarcho capitalism is a good system not because it assumes everyone is a good person but because it forces people to negotiate with each other

yup, nobody ever followed a capable leader on a massive pillaging spree

>Or follow this nutjob that claims I'll be wealthier but will have a higher change of getting killed in the upcoming conflicts.
the trick is making everyone have that chance, then it's an easy choice.

I'm pretty sure you'll have a higher chance of getting killed if you reject helping the guy with the bigger army.

That worked because there are governments. A government can protect criminals, deal with shady people and get away with it, there's no accountability.

In my example I was talking about an anarcho capitalistic society.

>anarcho
>capitalistic
>society

>I'm going to ignore the long history of mercenary companies selling to the highest bidder since antiquity
>but this totally won't happen in my little fantasy world because of some abstract principle that is at complete odds with the competitive nature of humanity

There were no governments until there were governments. Don't you understand? Private forces became the governments. Those private armies and private policemen you talk about? Germanic invaders that provided protection / ran protection rackets after the collapse of the Roman establishment. Their dominance was cemented over generations and associations between them and that's how we got feudalism.

You're on a history board. You should start by reading history.

>You should start by reading history

It's full of people like John Calvin who insisted that the monarchies existed because it was God's will... nevermind that the monarchies were cancer incarnate.

I wouldn't just say "read history", I'd say "study history"

Then call him a bitch nigga for good measure.

people dont like being forced to negotiate

people like grouping into tribes and making life easy, the kind of individualistic logic that an-cap is based on only functions under a state authority, without it humans would form tight groups and wouldnt give much fuck for legal profit margins and negotiating every silly shit

again, only way for that to work is if you achieved ideological/religious homogenity, and so a sort of hegemony

pretty much what youre describing is like a abstract form of selforganised fundamentalism, some muslim and early protestant societies sometimes functioned like that, religious militia, religious courts, the faithfull, ''they can enforce it''

Monarchies existed because it was the Invisible Hand of the Market's will.

If these private armies try to form government they will be against everyone else because since we live in ancapistan almost everyone dislikes governments.
Simply providing protection doesn't make you a government. There's accountability in private armies unlike states.

if they're holding all the guns and you're holding none of the guns you can dislike it all you want, there's jackshit you can do about it

No. Ancaps are retards. Actually, an-anythings are retards.

you can get explosives

Well explain me how would they manage to hold all the guns?

>Simply providing protection doesn't make you a government
If the only thing standing behind your kids getting raped to death by the neighbouring tribe is the group of people calling themselves your government - you will accept.

They bought the gun supplier and patented guns as intellectual property so now nobody else can make guns without violating NAP.

Gradual accumulation of power (manpower and money) through threats of NAP violation or outright violation.

Reminder that corporations that work within weak states, like third world countries, have often formed paramilitary organizations to repress workers.

>Between 1989 and 2002, eight union leaders from Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia were killed after protesting the company's labor practices. Hundreds of other Coca-Cola workers who have joined or considered joining the Colombian union SINALTRAINAL have been kidnapped, tortured, and detained by paramilitaries who are hired to intimidate workers to prevent them from unionizing.

>Alfredo Araujo, the former Head of Industrial Relations for the Alabama-based coal miners has been charged with the murder of two trade union activists lowered from a bus and shot in 2001. Valmore Locarno and Victor Hugo Orcasita, respectively the president and vice president of the Sintramienergetica trade union, were stopped by members of paramilitary group AUC while travelling near Valledupar, a city in the Caribbean region of Colombia.

>In February 2013 a former contractor for Drummond was sentenced by a Colombian court to 38 years in prison for organizing the killing of two labour leaders in 2001. The judge ordered prosecutors to investigate Drummond’s president and several former employees to determine whether they had a role in the killings. Consequently, in May 2015, a former executive of Drummond was charged with the murder of two trade unionists, after former paramilitaries claimed he took part in the murders ordered by the company. This case is now to be decided by Colombia’s Courts of Justice.

We need to send them some ancaps to teach them about the NAP as soon as possible.

You can't buy all the guns/soldiers in the world even if you try.

But let's say you somehow manage to gather enough to start a war. How do you know your soldiers are going to agree with you on starting an unjustified war? If you hire soldiers that are ok with that, then news are going to spread that you're willing to start a war. So before you're even ready to start you have numerous forces knocking down your door.

>You do that you better be prepared to fight endless wars.
Exactly like how we are, right now?

AnCap ideology sounds very nice, unfortunately human history has plainly shown that we are the reason we can't have nice things.

Almost everyone dislikes governments to some degree already. They just dislike anarchy more.

Governments in general are accountable to outside forces like other governments and the groups which their power relies on: militaries/militias, police, guilds/syndicates/unions (think of merchant republics), the majority (for democracies such as ours). We have formal "checks and balances" but power-dynamics have always been more complex than have/have-not.

Combatants will only be accountable to combatants if they chose to violate the NAP. There are incentives for combatants to violate the NAP, specially if they associate between themselves.

>AnCap ideology sounds very nice
Only if you like feudalism.

>So before you're even ready to start you have numerous forces knocking down your door.
Some of those forces will be there to join in. The war is justified to the winners, to the takers of it's spoils. To learn about private armies google "mercenaries". That should be enlightning.

it realy seems that, similarly to how the word 'socialism' is used to denote all sorts of absurd crap, the word 'capitalism' is used by anarcho-capitalists, and conservatives and others too, to denote not so much a opportunistic economic setup based around maximising profit, but a kind of ethical and moral system that automaticaly pressuposes a concrete ideology, worldview and value system, that individuals not only accept but operatively live in thought, word and action, almost like a religion

Again why would a private company risk getting exposed for their warlike ideas? And you're comparing mercenaries of the past with today ones. Wars today are more devastating than ever with nuclear weapons and such so there's less incentive to go to war. Also with current communications technologies its very easy to expose to shady deals of a company.

It's not profitable. Yes there will be some private armies trying to form states especially in shithole regions, but there will also be forces ready to deal with them

>Only if you like feudalism.
Well, it's not *supposed* to be feudalism... but that's what'd happen in practice as far as I can tell.

>But let's say you somehow manage to gather enough to start a war. How do you know your soldiers are going to agree with you on starting an unjustified war? If you hire soldiers that are ok with that, then news are going to spread that you're willing to start a war. So before you're even ready to start you have numerous forces knocking down your door.

Why would they disagree? They are soldiers, in your employ... presumably you'd have sorted out the mutinous sorts during the interview process, not to mention the free market doesn't exactly favor experts who fail to provide service (in this case mercenaries who don't fight) so the profession itself will self-select for people disinclined to consider moral justifications.

So at the very least, you'd have a personal army at the outset to deal with numerous forces at your doorstep... and that's assuming other forces are so principled as to fight over a problem that may very well not be their problem practically.

>They just dislike anarchy more.

im not sure about that, perhaps its a question of dosage, long periods of anarchy perhaps arent seen as desirable, but people seem to realy appreciate short periods of all out carnival

the anarchist dream has always been how to make this period of carnival into a stable constant

See The world will now you have such an army. It's not going to look good on you

There is not risk in getting exposed to their warlike ideas as long as they don't bother other companies (or, specifically, bigger companies). Corporations have militarily fucked third world countries in the ass and nobody has given a single fuck. If anything, other corporations cooperated. On the other hand, you are seriously retarded if you think private armies (aka mercenaries) will give a single fuck about your NAP, mercenaries are always on the side they think will win or the one that offers the most, and this is the case all throughout history.

mercenary units tend to develop a kind of loyalty to the group that is hard to achieve in egular armies, similar to guerrillas, special forces, cells and such, since thats pretty much their only safety net in crisis, and saving each others lives turns out to be good teambuilding

>people actually deny the NAP (peace be upon it)
how the fuck does these retards keep going?

There is a risk, the guy with the army wants to form some dictatorship and therefore implement taxes, something companies hate, so they would definitely be bothered about it.

If the won't care about NAP they will fail. Who would want to hire a private army that does not care about NAP? Or to an army that constantly changes sides? And don't compare mercenaries from the 1400s to modern private armies.

thats

not

how

capitalism

works

ever

>the fantasy world in my imagination is more important than what actually happens in the real world
Remember to never let your kids do praxeology folks, or this will happen to them.

>The world will now you have such an army. It's not going to look good on you
So... everything depends on a world army of overpowering strength who allows an AnCap paradise out of their sense of good will?

>mercenary units tend to develop a kind of loyalty to the group that is hard to achieve in egular armies, similar to guerrillas, special forces, cells and such, since thats pretty much their only safety net in crisis, and saving each others lives turns out to be good teambuilding
While true, mercenary organizations who don't deliver don't tend to stay in business long. Part of looking after the group means ensuring the group gets paid.

We'll just compare them to mercenary companies in the 1960's in Africa, who practiced barbarity on a far more institutionalized and profit-driven scale

Not an argument.

>Society based on a ton of voluntary contracts
>No central body to uphold those contracts
ayyyy what could go wrong?

>experience is not an argument
Okay mises, whatever you say.

Does ANCAP believe in intellectual property or not?

>Who would want to hire a private army that does not care about NAP?
Prolly someone interested in violating the NAP for their own personal benefit and the benefit of any who help them. That'd be my guess.

If most people don't want ancapistan then there won't be an ancapistan.
But since we assume we live in ancapistan then yes there would be a lot of people opposed to that army.

Does anyone actually believe in this ideology? Is there a single human being who fully comprehends it and still follows it? Or is it only mentioned for theory and meme purposes?

>If most people don't want ancapistan then there won't be an ancapistan.
>But since we assume we live in ancapistan then yes there would be a lot of people opposed to that army.
That's a bold assumption. And not a terribly useful one, since just about any ideology will suffice if everyone agrees upon it and never violates its principles.

Not that many people would be interested. And the ones that are interested would be ostracised by society and eventually fail.

There's only one principle though and its the NAP. And it's a very simple one. Also if you don't agree with the NAP and want to create your own syndicalist commune you can, you have the freedom to do so unlike other ideologies.

>Not an argument.

if corporations can field armies a number of major corporations or conglomerates will inevitably form, officialy or under the table, and monopolies or, bipolies will form, inevitably, and this, even if not resulting in a classicaly recognisable state dictatorship, will basicaly either turn into corporate feudalism, military domination, or some sort of civil wars scenario, probably all three alternately one after another or in combinations, and all of that possibly without any 'court' ever officialy declaring the freaking nap was ever even violated, surely some set of legal terms and regulations can be made up to designate the heaps of corpses in the streets as 'perfectly legal'

and this isnt even taking into account that the ''consumer base'' wont spontaneously form their own forms of forces, that the workforce wont find ways to fight back, that whichever organised crime groups that dont integrate into the system wont become guerrillas, that the 'lumperproleteriate' wont turn slums into maze fortresses and just do their own thing to the point you can only take them out with carpet bombing, that all sorts of silly shit wont spring up in a increasingly financialised and digitalised economy with shit like robotics and 3d printing and nano-bio-cyber-whatnot

i mean theres examples of states just going trough a period of crisis and corporations immediately start hiering security forces to deal with workers, examples of corporations settling scores and securing concessions with mercenary death squads, i mean you allready have integral examples of how this would work, you cant be that autistic

Are you surprised? Have you read rothbards work on child markets? Or mises on epistemology?

>Oikos Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs

Holy fuck hahaha

>Not that many people would be interested. And the ones that are interested would be ostracised by society and eventually fail.
Why wouldn't anyone be interested? People make risks to increase their power all over the world daily, partly for more power but also because power is self-perpetuating such that every time one expands their power it becomes easier to further expand their power. The notion that people wouldn't be interested is preposterous, unless there were some other overwhelming force which guarantees defeat... but then why wouldn't that overwhelming force seek to expand their own power?

>There's only one principle though and its the NAP. And it's a very simple one. Also if you don't agree with the NAP and want to create your own syndicalist commune you can, you have the freedom to do so unlike other ideologies.
Yes, and said commune is free to use their rejection of the NAP to fight and overtake other communes.

More importantly, *multiple* communes are free to do that, and other NAP communes are free to not fight against the non-NAP communes (which they may very well do out of self-interest if they aren't the ones under attack).

The problem with AnCap ideology is it only works with the widespread strict adherence to the moral principle of Non-Aggression. And frankly, if it were possible to get such widespread and strict adherence to any moral principle we'd have solved the problems of society long ago.

This has to be bait