If initiating force against another person is morally wrong then doesn't that mean that the state is immoral?

If initiating force against another person is morally wrong then doesn't that mean that the state is immoral?

Is anarcho-capitalism the ultimate redpill?

Morality is a spook

Fuck off faggot

Yes. But don't call it ancap. That's redundant. Ancap is the purest form of anarchism, successfully describing human behaviour (action).

Its got nothing to do with moral hypocracy though. Retards should be ruled, and expended to purpose. We aren't all equal, and don't all deserve the same chances. Especially if you're a male, old, or ugly, and not in my kin-selection or otherwise personal circle and deem no use beyond expenditure to such.

Woooo lad.

Morals don't count for shit. They really are fairy tales that we tell our children after Christianity went out of fashion.

>Morals don't count for shit. They really are fairy tales

>Implying Christianity created morality
:/

>If initiating force against another person is morally wrong
It's not.
>doesn't that mean that the state is immoral?
Even if it was wrong, it would imply that the state is immoral.
>Is anarcho-capitalism the ultimate redpill?
No, it's something that literally only exists on the internet, that has never directed a society in any fashion, and is a complete meme to anyone but ancaps.

According to Rodney Stark, Christianity is growing faster than Islam. And Europe is steadily being re-Christianized since mainly Christians are having children.

Initiating force is obviously only morally wrong if you're a Kantian and believe in moral absolutism.

The problem is that it's easy to justify taxation and some level of force with utilitarian ethics, so that's what people usually refer to when they try to justify the state's existence.

Morality is a personal choice and the state is a reflection of the society you live in. States that exist, exist at the behest of the society they rule. It's symbiotic.

There may be things you hate about the state. He'll, you personally may want the state completely abolished. But until society reaches a consensus that it should change, the state is still largely a result of the people's choice...even if they don't realize they chose.

Ancaps like to live a fantasy that everyone is 5 seconds away from revolution. The reality is that society in general doesn't mind the systems they live under.

>but people are angry now!

Until I see an armed revolution, I'll be fine ignoring Ancap wet dreams.

>anarchism
>capitalism
Pick 1

I appreciate that the ancap flag looks like a warning.

It's like a sign to avoid these brainlet threads

Quads for truth

>If initiating force against another person is morally wrong then doesn't that mean that the state is immoral?
Personal morality is subjective, so literally everything can be morally wrong and morally right. Public morality is objective, and according to it, Anarcho-capitalism is more immoral than almost anything.
>successfully describing human behaviour (action)
Success and ancap can't be pronounced in a same sentence. How can you call a political philosophy that was slightly propped up as a propaganda tool of Cold War era, and never had even the smallest scale practical application or influence successful?

Correct, my man.

you dont understand all action is fundamentally capitalist action is anarchism.. or its force..

god this board is indoctrinated in double speak

>you dont understand all action is fundamentally capitalist action is anarchism.. or its force..
This is your logic, and a scholastic concept you chose to adopt. I'm talking about materialistic and objective confirmation of Ancap, which it has none.

only americans could shill for anarcho-capitalism, as your whole social and cultural references are provided by the Market.

Force is not intrinsically wrong

t. european backwater thats been under the thumb of one tyrant or another for 2000 years

>b-b-but this is how it works!!

I didn't make that implication.

Yes. Anyone who isn't Ancap is either a bootlicker or dreams of wearing the boot.

This is retarded, capitalism relies on a state to defend private property.

What is initiating force anyway?
If you and me dispute over property, and both use violence to defend it, who is the one initiating force?
>inb4 muh private courts. bullet proof!!

People have to do things they don't want to do all the time. It isn't just the government. Ancaps are naive.

This.

The idea that capitalism can exist without a state is ridiculous. Does any educated person really think that we can collectively maintain institutions like free trade voluntarily? The only reason you are able to get your oil shipped from Saudi Arabia and your dildo shipped from China is because the US navy protects trade routes all over the world. Even with US military presence it was difficult to monitor pirates in Somalia. Every few years Iran threatens to block the Straight of Hormuz. Our navy is the only reason anything can be shipped from Taiwan at all.

Capitalism doesn't only require a state, it requires a hegemonic state in the world which can maintain it.

Capitalism is not natural, feudalism is much more natural.

Anarcho-capitalism in today's America (or even the west for that matter) is about as reactionary as high schoolers saying they want communism/socialism or whatever the fuck they want to call it. It would take too much of a reform to have it implemented in any significant or substantial way, without people being severely opposed to it. It is an impractical ideology to hold in modern society.
Besides, anarcho-capitalism is for faggots anyway.