Isn't anarcho-capitalism an oxymoron?

>economic system that runs on voluntary contracts
>no central body to enforce those contracts
I don't know if it's an oxymoron, but it's definitely pretty naive.

It's just a theory on how an anarchist society would arrange itself.
Nature already prevents that from happening. Coercive governance creates a weak society that gets overtaken by less coercive societies.
>there would be no incentive for people to respect each others' property rights.
Not getting shot is a pretty good incentive.

Irrelevant. Anarcho-anything, including anarchism, is pants on head stupidity.

This.

no they are just regular morons

The end state of a state is anarchism one way or another. Do you really think this dance should just go on forever?

Someone hasn't read Hoppe

Deluded. According to who?

According to history. Unless you can point out a way in which governance today is totally not subject to the same flaws that causes every state in the past to collapse.

All states start without a government and end with one. That's the natural progression of a state.

It doesn't collapse into anarchy. There is a temporary power vacuum and then a new government forms to fill the void.

According to history, periods of anarchy are short. Some group always rises to take control.

Ironically, the only way you could maintain anarchy would be to have an external overpowering group solely dedicated to preventing anyone else from taking control. But, at that point, is it really anarchy?

The way to maintain anarchism is to have a society of functional adults. Nobody knowingly acts against their own self-interest, so there is no reason why people should have to be forced to act in their own interest.

>Not getting shot is a pretty good incentive
until you have at your disposal a posse capable of outgunning your target

Numbers don't mean shit when technology is involved. The dumb will always lose against the smart.

No but it's a fancy way of saying "fedualism".

>That's the original definition of anarchism

Doesn't make it not an oxymoron.

>Coercive governance creates a weak society that gets overtaken by less coercive societies.

WTF does that even mean. The Native Americans were probably as close as you could get to "real" anarchy in terms of having no overarching government. They weren't able to overcome the comparatively far more authoritarian colonists.

Soon.

Are you telling me that native american society wasn't controlled by the tribe elders?

Bruh, anarchy means just means no gov't, so everything is voluntary exchange. Voluntary exchange=capitalism

>Ironically, the only way you could maintain anarchy would be to have an external overpowering group solely dedicated to preventing anyone else from taking control. But, at that point, is it really anarchy?
Just destroy the modern world and send society back into the Stone Age.

Anarcho-Primitivism wins every time.

Yes. And they're completely aware.

>We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.
Rothbard.

So what prevents the development of technology

>anarchy means just means no gov't
It doesn't.

>Voluntary exchange=capitalism
No.

Actually, neither of them is

I'm not a communist or a fascist, though... I'm more of a classical liberal

Technically, could you argue that we already live in an anarchist world, and that certain groups have power based on force?

>Aztecs
>Anarchists

>Tawantinsuyu
>Anarchists

>Haudenosaunee
>Anarchists

>Coercive governance creates a weak society that gets overtaken by less coercive societies.
I wish this was true. Unfortunately, history shows that in reality, coercive societies tend to overtake less coercive societies. There does come a point, though, at which more coercion creates a weaker society. The USSR reached this point, for example. But this point comes at a level of coercion that is too high to save anarchist societies from being overtaken by states.

Say what you will about the tenants of national-socialism but at least its an ideology.

>The way to maintain anarchism is to have a society of functional adults.
Yes. Unfortunately no-one has figured out how to keep the level of functional, peaceful adults in a large society high over a sustained period of time without some sort of police force.

The dumb will tend to usually lose against the smart. However, in real life unfortunately some of the smart are sociopaths or just very selfish. So the nice smart people don't just have to defend themselves against dumb people - they also have to defend themselves against selfish/sociopathic smart people.

Yes. This is the case. And in this anarchy, states have emerged organically.

>All humans act a certain way

Nice meme.

Are you implying that a police force somehow contributes to more functional citizens?

Well yeah. Nobody would ever follow the rules if there was nobody out there enforcing them to some extent.

Isn't it completely obvious that it does?
Some people would still be nice if there was no police... unfortunately, the number of such people is limited.

So you're saying nobody would act in their own self-interest unless they were forced to? Or are you saying that the rules go against self-interest? Either way, it doesn't make sense.

People would want to be nice, but the problem of a lawless society is that everyone would be extremely paranoid.

But the most authoritarian societies have the most paranoid people.

What the fuck does that even mean? What is their own self-interest? Their own self-interest is not being killed, which in an anarchist society means "I better not go outside a lot and be extremely weary of everyone".

Only if there are known spies among the population and heavy persecution of dissenting ideas. Not every authoritarian society gets a boner from genociding anyone who says that the dictator is a poopy face.

Anarcho-communism is redundant.

And what if it is in my self-interest to enslave everybody else?

No. Its anarchy there are no rules, people just do what every the fuck they want.

>inb4 there are rules just no rulers.
well if there are no rules being enforced with out a ruler, then there are no rules.

Mutualism is the original definition of anarchism, dip-shit.

Anarcho-communism basically just primitivism
>small collective that shares everything

>are you saying that the rules go against self-interest
The rules of a modern society don't necessarily go against people's real self-interest, but they definitely, in multiple ways, go against people's short-term understanding of what's in their self-interest. There are many people in society who are either sociopaths or have poor impulse control or both - the rules serve to restrain such people.

>there are anons ITT thread who believe communism can be enforced without a state
Shameful.

>People would want to be nice
No. Probably the majority of people would want to be nice, but a sizeable minority of people wouldn't. A sizeable minority of people would take your stuff if they knew they could get away with it. A smaller, but still significant minority of people would literally kill you to take your stuff, or just for fun, if they knew they could get away with it.

Which is why everyone would be extremely paranoid.

That will change with the digital age. Being centralized is a massive weakness for computers.

You can't base a society around the idea that people will just be "nice."

I'm not defending anarcho-autism.

So the answer to restraining people who don't think about consequences is to try to dissuade them with consequences?

Nothing you say doesn't also apply to states.

You're a big guy.

>So the answer to restraining people who don't think about consequences is to try to dissuade them with consequences?

And what would you do? Just kill them?

>So the answer to restraining people who don't think about consequences is to try to dissuade them with consequences?
The people I was referring to do think about consequences, which is why they normally don't act on their antisocial impulses.

Cont... the people with poor impulse control whom I referred to don't think about consequences, but consequences remove them from society before they can do too much damage.

>anarcho: life is not restricted by government
>capitalism: the economy is not restricted by government
I don't support anarcho-capitalism, but I don't see how they contradict each other.

Capitalism implies the existence of money, and who prints money? Government. Beyond that, how do you enforce contracts or copyrights without a government to administer such things? Who stops me from copying your company name, logos, and branding?

Capitalism is more than just pure economic liberty. Capitalism requires enforceable contracts, and those require enforcement.

They would face consequences even quicker in an anarchist society. Anarchism is highly social so any ineptitude in that aspect would become apparent very quickly. Antisocials can go unnoticed so easily in a state because the government replaces social aspects of society.

>Antisocials can go unnoticed so easily in a state because the government replaces social aspects of society.

Explain what you mean by this.

But what if the antisocial is charismatic? He can get people behind him. And then what?

Government (of some form) is required to enable absentee ownership or even the current employer/employee relationship, otherwise workers would quickly expropriate businesses and tenants property for themselves.

Do you seriously think that employees think in the back of their mind "I would definitely stage a coup and take over this business if it weren't for the government"?

A better example is real-estate. You can be considered the owner of a chunk of land without ever setting foot on it simply because the government recognizes you are the legal owner of that piece of land. Without government, there would be no way to enforce absentee ownership without setting up landmines.

If the land is in a place with trespassing fuckers, the owner would have guards stationed there even if there was government.

I'll take it a step further: It is already kind of hard for the goverments of some countries to enforce that.

If people are just going to empty terrains and building their houses there without permission in societies WITH goverment and the risk of getting kicked out because they built their houses in terrain owned by someone else, imagined if they had no such fear.

No, but I think that the inherently conflicting nature between employer and employee (the former wants the most labor for the least cost, the latter the opposite) would come to a head in the absence of a state over time. Employees wouldn't see a reason to have someone boss them around to their detriment, and the state wouldn't be able to enforce them telling the boss to take a hike.

People with guns make the rules. If they are strong enough to guard the land, at some point they will probably just start taking land by force from everyone.

What makes this guy exercising a monopoly on force over this chunk of land different from a state?

Somebody else's lands is worth less to you than it is to them though, so it's not worth the effort to take it.

If those people were capable of organizing to that extent, they would have made their own business.

That's not what anarcho means.

>What makes this guy exercising a monopoly on force over this chunk of land different from a state?

Good question. They're never able to answer this.

>If those people were capable of organizing to that extent, they would have made their own business.

Employees can and did organize effectively to bring their bosses to heel even under the state. It's why you aren't working 12 hours a day just to make ends meet.

>Somebody else's lands is worth less to you than it is to them though, so it's not worth the effort to take it.

How exactly?

>Somebody else's lands is worth less to you than it is to them though, so it's not worth the effort to take it.

It's not like people fight wars over land or anything like that.

By God how ignorant is Veeky Forums.... I'd recommend reading some of Stefan B. Molyneux' work, the greatest philosopher of modern times.

When was anything said about a monopoly?
So the state does nothing then. Gotcha.
All instances of aggression involve some people acting against their own interests. If everybody knows this, then nobody will be an aggressor.

>All instances of aggression involve some people acting against their own interests. If everybody knows this, then nobody will be an aggressor.
Stupidest shit I've read.

Neither of them are. Both have writers who have described how it would work and exactly what makes them anarchist.
Yeah, I get the feeling they want to be right-wing and browse /pol/ but are scared of the racism and antisemitism.

>When was anything said about a monopoly?

This guy aint gonna be letting people exercise force on his land if it means losing his land in the process.

>So the state does nothing then. Gotcha.

Are you a fucking infant? The state didn't (fully) prevent them from organizing, but it did stop them from outright seizing the businesses or killing the bosses (despite several attempts).

I should hope anarcho-capitalists aren't all this childishly driven to extremes. Maybe that's why they can only get half-assed rhetoricians like Molyneux to speak for them.

>All instances of aggression involve some people acting against their own interests

I'm sorry, are you trying to suggest that nobody has ever benefited from aggression? That's just plainly wrong.

The state being an intermediary in that situation is the only reason those conflicts didn't turned into battles probably.

No, he's trying to suggest that soldiers never benefit from militaristic aggression, which also isn't true.

Then give one example of a conflict between rational entities that has no non-violent solution.

"I want this land"

"This land is mine"

>If everybody knows this
...