In all of recorded History, which society was closest to anarcho-capitalism?

Gilded Age United States

Somalia

Neolithic

>a bunch of rump states
>ancap

Indeed

Have to agree with this one

second half of 18 century poland

wild west or Australia in the 1800s
Africa today

feudalism

This

The Belgian Congo.

>own large swath of land in ancap timeline
>there are many millions who do not own their own land, there is no where one can move that isn't someone's private property
>charge rent to those living on my property like other property owners, as is my right
>hire security contractors to enforce the collection of this rent (some or all of their wages will be payed with the revenue generated via rent collection)
>mfw it's okay as long as I don't call it a "tax" or "the police"
>mfw couldn't decide on a face to upload

so why did it work in USA and Australia but not Africa?

medieval Iceland.

Commonwealth Iceland/early settoement Iceland maybe?

I could not see Ancapism ever creating strong men, nor good times, only weak men.

Actual desire to colonize for the whole of the nation. Africa is a billion warring tribes who spit on each other for having a slightly different looking nose in the village next door. And every time any actual exterminating happens the UN gets butthurt. There was no UN to get butthurt for the plight of the Red man or the aborigine or the maori in the 19th century.

Feudal anarchy in Poland.

> lol, you live in my property so I can chop off your hands if I like so
>get your own free state if you don't like it

except it quite literally isn't by any measure. Communism's a shit-tier ideology but even then it's a fucking stupid statement

No, feudalism would be a better managed system because the land owner has an immediate personal incentive to maintain the value of his property.

Kowloon Walled City

Rocinha

Somalia

...

Incentive driven economics failed as a concept the moment businesses realized that people are willing to put up with tons and tons of in justices as long as they feel like they don't have a choice

None of those are as funny as a single line from the Ancap Detective short.

Banana republics in central america

I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”
“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”
“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”
He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”
“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.
“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”
It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.
Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.
I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”

He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”
“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.
“Because I was afraid.”
“Afraid?”
“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.
“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”
He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.

This and usa 1776.
Somalia has to much violence and retardation.
Libertarians usually support police/military/law to exist and maintained b gov. Give freedom to secure freedom, the contract theory

feudal anarchy in the 12th century in france (according to my history teacher) or the "wild west" in 19th century US I would say

Uh, no the Soviet Union failed my dude. Capitalism won

Not really. That was a collection of feudalist states with their hierarchy largely in tact. The Brits did not try to replace the local power structures to the extent that it wasn't strictly necessary and that was ingenious.

Correct

Likely early modern period, stuff like the Hanse or when your merchant ship carries more guns than the kings flagship.

Somalia has been doing better since the goverment collapse.I could do the same meme image with socialdemocracies

anyone have that comic where an ancuck starts stuttering in response to unreasonable rent?

that was a good read.

>Be ancap landlord
>Hire security dudes to manage your tenants
>After a while security dudes wonder why they let you have the rent they collect and stop paying you
>You fire them all but they won't leave
>When you try to hire a different security company, the old guys declare them "invaders" and kill them all
>No one wants to work for you now
>They're thinking about going after you for daring to hire another company

What do?

That premise sounds vaguely familiar.

Feudal societies weren't close to anarcho-capitalism; they were anarcho-capitalism.

If you have some basic laws but otherwise everything including police and military are privately owned, the natural consequence is a feudal society. Without a strong central government with a monopoly on force, there is no mutually agreeable arbiter that divvies up private property in society, and you end up with conflicts everywhere.

>Uh, no the Soviet Union failed my dude. Capitalism won
but not free-market capitalism.
mixed-economies won.

the American West

Thats bullshit, feudal societies are strictly hierarchical with no social mobility, pretty much the opposite of ancap goals.
Now early modern city states and merchant republics on the other hand can come close to ancap societies.

Only correct answer
t. brainlets that thing a communist government overthrown by radical Islamists is anarcho-capitalism

But it didn't fucking work. Shit was so bad it was one of the causes of the Great Depression. Turns out deregulation doesn't work out so well.

How did deregulation cause the Great Depression?

It's polycentric law. There's no monopoly over force or law so your Misesian economics should drive the natural order. But yet it doesn't so what gives?

Social democracy replaced Soviet socialism in most of the ex-Bloc yet they're still much poorer than their Western European neighbors. What gives? Is social democracy a failure too? Answer: communism takes a long time to recover from, even more so in a population where the average person was driven by motives of war, not trade.

Actually radical hypercapitalism replaced socialism. Socialism industrialized those nations and brought them a higher standard of living. There's a reason even some anti-Russian places like the Czechs want something like socialism brought back and why Russians have the Red banner as one of their symbols of nationalism.

>muh pew polls
This retard again. Are you that Brazilian monkey?

What are you talking about? The Czech Republic just elected one of their most right-wing leaders in a while, and the rest of Central/Eastern Europe is leaning the same way. In any case, social democracy is a form of capitalism, though hardly "hypercapitalism".

No, I actually live in the shithole I'm talking about.

You do realise your regular right/left views aren't applicable here? Here, communism is seen as a bulwark against western faggotry and liberalism while right-wing is essentially viewed as pro-US liberalism.

>Here, communism is seen as a bulwark against western faggotry
Co to kurva meleš

Except Poland I guess, they're weirdly Americanized. Not all of them though, I know plenty of pro-Soviet/Russian Poles.

>You do realise your regular right/left views aren't applicable here? Here, communism is seen as a bulwark against western faggotry and liberalism while right-wing is essentially viewed as pro-US liberalism.
Seen by whom? From what I can tell, the parties that had improvements in your elections include free-market liberalism (capitalist right-wing) and anti-immigration nationalists (conservative/hard right-wing). Lefties got universally btfo.

>Somalia has been doing better since the goverment collapse

hahahhahahaha

Nikdo v Čechách není zvědavej na komunisty ty kokote.

Free market liberalism is seen to be equal to pro immigration pro EU here. Nationalists are left-wing on economics. The Left here is synonymous to a a sort of a soft-resistance to Western cultural enforcement.

Social democracy may or may not perform as well as capitalism, perhaps performs better. But there isn't a question over whether it just works period. Anarchism hasn't even gotten off the ground in Somalia.

Following libertarian social and economic theory we should expect in spite of the countries hardships with civil war that a spontaneous order develops with adequate replacements for state institutions, which is not the case.

And I believe you're misunderstanding core components of your ideology. What's illibertarian Islamic law exactly?

He's not Czech, he didn't even understand me. It's a Brazilian communist retard falseflagging as Eastern Euroepan.

Do you think the brief anarchy of the French Revolution invalidates the success of creating the First Republic?
Can you give examples where the nationalists are strongly left-wing on economics? I'm sure they're more protectionist than the free market liberals, but I can't find anything suggesting they're comparable to your left-wing parties.
That's because Somalia didn't practice anarchism, they practiced a mixture of authoritarian communism, radical Islam, and "Please intervene bigdaddy United Nations". They existed in anarchy, that isn't the same thing. By that logic, every violent revolution or civil war in history is a period of anarcho-capitalism. That never happened in Somalia. No leader ever said "We wish to establish a nation with no government", they said "We wish to establish a nation with a strong authoritarian government, but we lack the resources to do so, therefore it's machete time".

I didn't say I was Czech you absolute dweeb, I said I lived in Eastern Europe. I gave Czechs as an example. Jesus Christ you are dumb.

So where exactly do you live?

So what country do you live in?

...

>Bulgarian pretending to know anything at all about Czechia
Well you failed.

Oh, no wonder then. An irrelevant and largely unsuccessful nation still clinging on to memories of Soviet glory days.

The American Frontier until the 1890s.

You're not realizing that the ideology people practice isn't important here. Do you think a libertarian society would composite a majority of libertarians? Likely not.

What matters are the property norms and regulatory environment. Somalia's regulatory enviroment is that there's no regulation. No infrastructure. No public protection of property or enforcement of norms. It all has to be provided by private enterprise or on a familial or tribal basis.

If libertarian economics weren't dogma than there would be visible signs of libertianism/anarchisms success in the country.

And again, what's illibertarian about Koranic law? Are you not in favor of private legal codes and private courts in actual practice? Oh what a shocker.

>Do you think the brief anarchy of the French Revolution invalidates the success of creating the First Republic?
Napoleon saves the first Republic.

>anarcho-capitalism
>true anarchy

>You're not realizing that the ideology people practice isn't important here. Do you think a libertarian society would composite a majority of libertarians? Likely not.
It would be composed by a majority of people that more or less follow basic libertarian tenets of respecting private property and self-reliance. Doesn't mean they're all consciously libertarian just as not every American is a conscious neo-liberal, but it's the people that shape society, except in the case of unstable/disliked despotisms.
>What matters are the property norms and regulatory environment. Somalia's regulatory enviroment is that there's no regulation. No infrastructure. No public protection of property or enforcement of norms. It all has to be provided by private enterprise or on a familial or tribal basis.
There was regulation, but it was limited to assorted cities, generally the ones that relied on either UN or terrorist gibs. What power they did have was used to infringe on the property rights of others. 'No infrastructure' is something that applies to any failed government.
>If libertarian economics weren't dogma than there would be visible signs of libertianism/anarchisms success in the country.
No, because they never practiced libertarian economics. They practiced begging for foreign aid and robbing others with military force.
>And again, what's illibertarian about Koranic law? Are you not in favor of private legal codes and private courts in actual practice? Oh what a shocker.
Muslims can be libertarians, but radical Islamists that convert or kill all non-believers by force, ban usury, etc cannot be called libertarian.

>Shit was so bad it was one of the causes of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression was caused by over-regulation of the market. It wasn't until regulations were lessened that the market recovered.

Odpusť si ty sprosťárny. Snažìme se tu mít vážnou historickou debatu.

And that's why the pomeshiks got btfo'd by enraged peasants so hard, they are still buttblasted about bydlo, FOR SOME REASON, revolting against them?

>still better than communism

Give your daughter for me to deflower, peasant.

Y-yes, comrade

People who say the feudal era are wrong, because the feudal era actually had both legal and ecclesiastical hierarchies, which wouldn't exist in AnClapland.

As far as I'm concerned, "Anarcho-capitalism" is just another word for a Hobbesian state of nature, e.g every man for himself, and the only law is the magnitude of your firepower.

thee future
Space will prove to big for States, we will have planets and maybe single systems with States bit Open Space will be Ancap

Veeky Forums af

10/10

>tariffs everywhere
yeah no

anarchy by definition is the absence of non-voluntary hierarchies

anarcho-capitalism fits that definition
>muh slaves
slavery/indentured servitude would still fit the bill if you sold yourself to slavery/indenturedor defaulted on a contract which as a penalty incurred slavery/indentured, you could not however be born into it

Wonderful.

> tfw you will never run a cheap dental parts workshop empire in the depths of Kowloon
why even live

>This is organic urban development in a free market economy. You may not like it, but this is what peak economic performance looks like.

who needs stupid labor and sanitary regulations