Is anarcho-capitalism the single best ideology?

Anarcho-Capitalism is ironically more inevitable than Communism, purely because of how market innovation and human action is slowly but surely bypassing the need for government.

>more inevitable than communism
That's not saying much

...

>implying I listen to Pr4153 4114H (Al-WAHAB REMIX)

Not much but it is something and it is ironic.

>market innovation and human action is slowly but surely bypassing the need for government.
>chucklefuck teenager still doesn't realize how much our current level of economic interaction and stage of late capitalism 100% relies on strong governments
just about every major developed industry you can conceive of would not be profitable without a strong government

What do you add by slapping "capitalism" on? Why not simply say anarchy?

> Implying implications

Don't be so naive, you're conflating the need for certain services/guarantees with a need for government.

you need a government so the other governments don't come and ethnically cleanse you

I actually can't think of a worse fucking nightmare than anarcho capitalism, besides communism or Orwellian bullshit.

Seriously, whoever unironically defends ANCAP bullshit is fucked in the head.

Only nerds have an ideology

>His entire argument is a fictional scenario he made up

not an argument

As oppose to fictional scenarios you don't make up. When discussing a fictional scenario someone made up (the introduction of an ancap society).

...

These are usually amazing, but yours can't even do good satire of the NAP.

Hoppe isn't ancap tho, he's fascist/monarchist

What about this one?

> t. someone who's never read any of his books or listened to any of his presentations.

He's right. Hoppe is a fascist, he just views anarcho-capitalism as a way to achieve that fascism.

nigger, get out if my pool

>HOA
Homeowners Association? What exactly is that?

That's a contradiction in terms, just because he thinks undesirables will or ought to be removed/exiled from civilized society to protect it doesn't mean he's a fascist.

He just comes to a similar outcome that through his own logical process, albeit with a lack of statism. He's quite clear about natural laws superiority to statism but also the necessity of aristocracy + meritocracy + bigotry.

Still not fascism.

probably just to differentiate it from other flavors like anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, I suppose.

A neighborhood company that will sell you a house under retarded conditions and then call the cops on you if you don't cut your lawn every weekend. Also includes KGB tier inspections and snitching neighbors.

The Homeowners Associate pretty much dictates what can and can't be done in the neighborhood, and you have to agree to respect their rulings before you can buy a house in their neighborhood.

Rules could include:

>No Flags or signs
>No Canvassing
>No Firearms
>No Loud Music
>Etc.

>aristocracy + meritocracy

Those two are pretty much mutual exclusives.

Because the original anarcucks are communists who believe that the state is the only thing that keeps capitalism and hierarchy afloat and that as soon as statism collapses, humankind will achieve 100% equality and democracy.

Anarcho-capitalists believe the opposite, that the state is in its nature egalitarian and hinders true capitalism.

Though I honestly don't understand why they just don't work together on smashing the state, and only after that happens they'll see which group was correct.

Boggles me that after several millennia's worth of failed experiments, we've finally stumbled across a pretty successful system, one that's lifted a solid fucking chunk of the world out of abject poverty and promises to do the same for much of the rest given a few decades. Obviously the system I'm talking about is liberal democracy + regulated capitalism, and now that we've found it all anybody wants to do is shit all over it.

Libertarians shit all over it because of the "regulated" part, "Wah, we have to pay taxes and can't do literally whatever we want," and leftists shit all over it because -- horrors -- inequality still exists and it hasn't lifted every single person in the world out of poverty yet (just more than any other system we've tried). So clearly we need to scrap the whole thing.

The wildly successful thing we've got isn't perfect yet, folks! Let's burn it down and start fresh!

>americlaps take out 30 year loans to essentially live in micro fiefdoms

free dumbs everyone

poverty and unemployment is built into capitalism and countries like Bangladesh or Vietnam will never be "lifted up" precisely because of the way it works

>just because it exists in America means all Americans do it
Back to /int/

>unemployment is built into capitalism
Yes, because there is a limited amount of tasks to be done relative to the population said tasks can support, on a global scale.

Which is part of the purpose of communism. To use the power of automation to enhance everyone's life rather than accumulate onto the great riches of the few.

Which heavy social democracy does somewhat accomplish within capitalism. But the gains of social democracy are transient. Post-capitalism of any variety ought to make a permanent change in society much like capitalism did.

Communism, very likely, isn't going to actually accomplish this. But this doesn't mean we should give up on trying to improve upon capitalism.

I'm just gonna redirect you to the "regulated" bit. I'm defending *liberal* capitalism, a system which usually includes a safety net, in recognition of the fact that some percentage of the population will ALWAYS be unemployed.

What form should that safety net take? That's fair game for discussion! A welfare system, universal basic income, something else entirely, go fucking nuts.

I'm also not holding up liberal democracy/capitalism as PERFECT SYSTEMS that can never be improved upon; I doubt any such systems exist. Maybe a day will come when they've done all they can for us, and it'll be time to move on to something else, but that day is a long, long way away right now. Right now they're the best things we've got and the nearest runners-up aren't even close. It'd be stupid to scrap them now.

Have you seen Vietnam lately? Holy shit people need to get out more.

Frankly anarchists are fucking retards and historicall illiterates to boot. History teaches us that after achieving a certain level of technology, ALL HUMANS tend to gravitate towards forming states. All of them. Doesn't matter if it's central American natives, or the Anglo-Saxons, or the Egyptians, it's a completely natural and dare I say it inevitable process. Even in cases where the government physically ceased to exist (Western Roman empire, Somalia, Afghanistan, Spain), people reverted back to statehood after a small period of anarchy, simple because the people wanted it.

So I'm just gonna sit here and laugh my ass off when you anarcucks remove the state only to be baffled that it comes back a few years or decades later.

>But the gains of social democracy are transient. Post-capitalism of any variety ought to make a permanent change in society much like capitalism did.
What? How on earth can you possibly justify that?

Unionization/the right to strike, the abolition of child labor, workplace safety laws, the minimum wage, the criminalization of truck systems, the modern progressive income tax and other forms of progressive taxation with corresponding gov't investiture into education, healthcare, infrastructure, welfare ...

You're out of your mind if you don't think those things have transformed the character of every society that's implemented them.

>Anarcho-capitalism

How does that work? Capitalism calls for protection of private property rights by a state, otherwise it's not capitalism, it's just private armies defending guys and their property.

This is what I mean when I talk about the gains of social democracy are transient.

The true power of these measures rest in the hands of the state which is constantly subject to change.

Good luck finding any system that's not dependent on a state. Good luck establishing any state that's not subject to change.

Yes, it's not an easy task. But it's something worth doing.

It's not just the regulations part for Libertarians, it ends up showing just how shit Democracy is as a system of organizing society, in fact Democracy as got to be the worst long term, it expands the size of the government faster than any other system, but takes longer to cough splutter and die at its end because of the preceding prosperity.

>it expands the size of the government faster than any other system
You win the "most ridiculous post of the night" award.

What other systems are you comparing it to? Monarchy? Communism? Fascism? Feudalism? Oligarchy?

Liberal democracy ain't perfect, but when implemented successfully -- with a reasonably politically engaged populace and little outright corruption -- it's far more restrained than any other system of government that's been tried.

But it's what you're used to and you have nothing to compare it to, so all you can see are its flaws, because of course it falls short of perfection.