Is Anarcho-Capitalism the most moral system...

...

>implying it isn't

Discovering that you can't form tribes with murderers is not making something up to be more comfortable.

Yes. It's Aristotelianism morals taken to an extreme autistic level.

But it literally is? Life without a tribe is uncomfortable. If you pretend that there is something bad about murdering other people, and get others to believe you, you will live way more comfortably

Physical force isn't the only evil. Ancap has no good solutions for financial extortion.

>muh humanist me-me is the definition of morality

>Anarcho anything
>Perscribing to morals

This is where you fucked up

Should we call them natural laws then?

>natural laws

I shit on my balls.

I also shit on my balls

I shat myself.

...

...

Shitting shats.

Forgot image.

If you think exercise of force is inherently immoral you're an idiot.

funny thing about anarcho-capitalism is that it's the only anarchism that comes close to what normies imagine anarchism to entail, i.e. complete and utter chaos.

>moral system
that's some spooky stuff you're talking about mate

Anarcho Capitalism is autism
there is no such thing as objective morality

Guys! Somebody remind them about the N.A.P !

>exercise of force on innocents can be moral

Yes.

>hey, have we ever considered just telling people being mean is bad?
Great idea there, buckaroo.

If no one finds out you're in the clear. If the community knows then they vote to murder you use the money for roads/gardens

I find the philosophy of self ownership and the upholding of the NAP in your personal life to be hugely beneficial towards a productive and fulfilling life/personal relationships

However, as an over arching, wide spread political philosophy, I don't think it can be applied is too un-pragmatic

under anarcho-capitalism you can legally own slaves, and child labour is fair game too

BLACK AND YELLOW BLACK AND YELLOW BLACK AND YELLOW

I'd much rather be a private slave than a public slave
youtube.com/watch?v=24d8a-BiV38

>Is Anarcho-Capitalism the most moral system?
Best laugh I've had in weeks

No you wouldn't.

>t. pedo

>Implying age of consent isn't a spook and extremely authoritarian

>mfw i'll never be a sex slave to a qt grill

>voting to take someone's rights away
>anarchism

Nope. Ancaps will often claim that they're the most consequent branch of libertarianism because they want to get rid of the state's monopoly in violence which, according to them, infringes on the natural rights.

However, if you actually look at the natural rights you'll find that the right to initiate violence isn't among them. The monopoly on violence doesn't violate any rights because people wouldn't have the right to it anyway. Secondly, a market without a government to protect it is not free from violence. Quite the opposite, actually.

tl;dr: Ancaps aren't morally right not libertarian because their preferred system would be even worse than the most oppressive government.

>t.statist cuck

>He thinks that a military is for self defence
>He thinks any state is geopolitically sustainable without aggressive military policies and posturing
>He thinks that your property rights mean anything without violence to enforce them
Wew lad pls kill yourself

>violence to enforce them
how is there anything wrong with protecting yourself from aggressors

that is self-defense. Your body is your property, that's why you can defend it. Same with all property

There's no point of a defensive military. Every state that's remained on the defensive got overrun because it failed to address geopolitical threats and nip them in the bud. Isolationism never works, it only stagnates while the rest of the world grows in power and wealth. Look at Century of Humiliation or America before the Second World War.

fucking /pol/sters

>that is self-defense.
Sure.
>Your body is your property, that's why you can defend it.
Absolutely.
>Same with all property
Woah there. Ideas of property are not universal or intuitive, your axioms are not everyone's.

And when I decide your property is mine I'll very aggressively defend it.

youtube.com/watch?v=2dTh3iI0is8

if we disagree about what property is, we can fight or negotiate over it. Property is subjective, there will be fights about it in any political system. Creating a state doesn't solve this problem. Creating a state to settle property disputes is just creating one large entity that will enforce one subjective idea of property onto others, it will be the arbiter of all these disputes, but it isn't any more right about these things than anyone else. And of course it funds itself by taking people's property. So it is shit

chortle

>But I'm not touching you
>But I'm not touching you
>But I'm not touching you
>But I'm not touching you
What a solid foundation for a moral system