What is the ethical argument for anarcho-capitalism?

That any reason you could have for claiming you're entitled to property or services from others will be subordinate to the claim everyone has to *not* be coerced into servicing or giving up propery to others. Basically negative rights are more fundamental than positive "rights." It'd be bad both if you stab a guy to death and if you don't stab him to death yourself but do neglect to help him. But generally most people would consider the murderer worse than the unhelpful bystander. You have a right to *not* be murdered, but you don't have a right to force people to serve as your medical attendant or bodyguard. Ancap is mostly a reaction against all the ways people have ended up using the state to try to coerce property / income redistribution or to arrest and incarcerate for reasons other than genuine violation of others' right not to be harmed e.g. drug laws.

Simply put the ethical arguments for Ancap revolve around the right to self-ownership, the necessity for social interactions to be voluntary, the importance of property rights and the virtue of people being allowed to follow their path in life, pursuing their subjective preferences as long as they don't hurt others, without trying to force or dictate to others your own preferences.

All of the above are connected and stem from eachother and are argued from quite a few different bases, natural rights, god given rights, utilitarianism, basic common social principles and off-shoots like argumentation ethics and other axiomatic justifications.

Property rights for example stem from self-ownership and so on.

They notice. They just won't have you extradited and prosecuted.

> selfishness can be turned to productive use for society
FTFY

"fuck you, i do what i want"

That nobody has the right to rule another, but people do have the right to own property.
Everyone has their own body, for example, which is their property. They can also inherit property, or get paid property(money) by someone else for an agreed-upon good or service. Contracts are another form of property, owned by all who sign.
Ancap isn't a form of government, it isn't a political ideology. It's a philosophy regarding self-governance and property rights. It, libertarianism, classical liberalism, and minarchism, are all very different ideas.
And Ancap isn't inherently anti-government, though it heavily appeals to anti-government types. Ancap governments can be of any sort, and, in fact, can be very similar to what we currently have.

You can leave a hotel, but if it keeps your bags, you'll think they're doing something immoral.
If I could properly secede, that'd be perfectly fine.

Muh brobberdy

You can, just without the property rights that are granted as purely legal constructs of the state

Depends on if they follow the NAP if so you do 2hat you will as long as it is not harming others or their property.

Who owns physical matter? Do I own the moon if I’m the first homsteader on the moon then sell it to an absentee owner? Self ownership only entitles a person to their transformation of matter. Matter can not be created only transformed. Why do ancaps ignore the the nature of the physical universe?

Because you are ignoring the whole point of normative claims and argumentation, it's a social thing. You either have argumentation/opinion/claims or you have force or nothing.

If I claim the moon and everyone agrees....then I basically own the moon especially if everyone helps me enforce it, but that's obviously not how society works.

While transformation of matter makes perfect sense, there really is a social aspect that is absolutely critical to how property works.

I mean if I'm the only capitalist in a population of communists and try to rent out a house...I may be perfectly logical in my justification but....

A society built in this way is a virtuous one

Voluntarism.

He stopped playing Rust so much

capitalism?
not even once, yankee

Exactly, there is no inherent right to property. Property is merely a social construct. You can’t be a capitalist in a society of communists and justify private ownership if society doesn’t acknowledge it, there is no rational justification short of threatening everyone with a nuke. Therefore you can not assert any fixed premise to the justification of ancap besides common social understanding and acceptance of norms. Fundamentally the issue becomes why would society accept your norms?

That’s why I want to get rid of private capital and make the selfish labor for their personal gain. Market socialism is top tier

He got laid

> Property is merely a social construct.
I wouldn't say it's merely a social construct, calling it that almost gives it an air of being easily changed/disgarded/unecessary, whereas property can be found to be extremely necessary to have a society, even most marxists agree with this with their "personal possessions" distinction and things like the tragedy of the commons.

But I would also add that the justification of property, that is the justification itself is about as subjective as science in that with science you have a subjective hypothesis, objective facts and then a somewhat subjective interpretation/conclusion of the facts in regards to the hypothesis. Same thing with property, a claim is normative, objective links are used to argue and of course the conclusions of the people involved with the claim are subjective/influenced by culture.

So you're exactly right that the actions themselves have a social and cultural aspect and they way their are viewed is based on the social constructs and culture but the logic behind them is a bit different.

> why would society accept your norms?
For sure, all systems realistically you would want and need the underlying culture, it's the precursor and base for the politics.

> ou can not assert any fixed premise to the justification of ancap besides common social understanding and acceptance of norms
That's where I'm not so sure, these ideas are about as universal and consistent as you can get throughout an extremely long period of time and while the acceptance of ideas and the actions of implementing and maintaing them rely on the people themselves accepting it, the basis itself and the logic behind it is much more solid than that but I guess it's a distinction isn't it? Between ideas in a vacuum and ideas implemented in reality, similar to Communist experiences. I don't even think it's that important whether we attach labels of subjectivity or objectivity.

>Property is merely a social construct.
Stopped reading there.

Is this supposed to be pro-Stirner? Or anti-Stirner by someone who never read Stirner?

>property is merely a social construct
Commies generally believe in the right to private and personal property IIRC, its capital ownership that they sperg out about

10/10 reply.

Literally that Taxation is forced and is a legitimate crime that has been carried out for thousands of years by authoritarian governments.
Honestly there are certain levels to ancap and it's boiled down to wanting the ability to open up your own business without filling out a million papers and marking down every profit I made no matter how little just for the government to tell me that I still make too much money therefore "fuck you pay me"
It's fucking rediculous that in order to not be taxed you must find a way to lie about your profits which is a crime in order to evade taxation which is a crime. You are basically comitting federal level crimes which can ultimately limit your rights when really its the government that is committing a crime and enforcing more crimes against its citizens in order to justify its pervious crimes.
>"but it's the government they are doing what a government is supposed to do"
Right... the same government that justified killing millions of people by saying it was for the cause of defending freedom, peace and to defeat communism. Ironic isn't it?

>and marking down every profit I made no matter how little just for the government to tell me that I still make too much money therefore "fuck you pay me"
Any sensible business owner is going to keep his books up to code just so he knows where the hell money is flowing in his company.
Not disagreeing with your post, but in an ancap society accountants would be just as useful as they are now.

There's a difference between personal property and other forms of property.
Many forager societies didn't believe in personal property, but they believed in land and resources that belonged to their family or people.
The notion of (not necessarily personal) property is one of the human universals, so trying to organize a society without it is like trying to organize a society without laughter.
condor.depaul.edu/mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm

>many forager societies did not believe in personal property
[citation needed]
>not necessarily personal property is a human universal
If it is possible for a human to not believe in the idea of shared property than the idea of shared property is by no means universal.

It's possible for a human to never laugh, too.
Making laughter illegal is still a bad idea.

Social constructs are real, just not fixed. All you're saying is a different kind of society chooses to define property in a different way.

>The notion of (not necessarily personal) property is one of the human universals, so trying to organize a society without it is like trying to organize a society without laughter.
What kind of strawman is this?

Under an ancap system communal property isn't illegal. You can share your shit with whoever you want, nobody is stopping you.

>anarchy
>legality
Is ancap the stupidest ananything?

You know what I meant, you nigger. An anarcho-capitalist society does not strictly forbid the sharing of property.

What if I consider communism violates NAP?

Unless they're forcing communism on you it doesn't. If they're just sharing all their resources and capital with each other its perfectly fine.

But I get to force my private property rights to abundant natural resources granted to be by the law and the state upon them right?

If you can prove that its your property that they're squatting on, then yes. However, if they claimed those resources first then you're outta luck.