So Veeky Forums, I've had an idea for a homebrew about space ancapitalism...

So Veeky Forums, I've had an idea for a homebrew about space ancapitalism. It would basically be rogue trader except you can get away with pretty much anything as long as it doesn't violate the NAP (the same applies to NPCs as well of course). What I need though are ideas for companies and scenarios that would make for a fun session. The more outrageous, over-the-top and insane the better. Anyone got any ideas?

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/freecitiesgame/
wiki.eveuniversity.org/Caldari_State
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Violate the nap
Someone takes their Sleepytime seriously. Is the siesta sacred?

Make it like FreeCities.
reddit.com/r/freecitiesgame/

>outrageous, over-the-top and insane
>NAP
The most wild and imaginative marketing campaign, leading to gleeful citizens voluntarily exchanging goods!

What does NAP stand for? In my country it means the normal sea level.

Non Agression Principle.

Of course, the definition of "Aggression" is nebulous and depends on the ancap in question.

The unspoken Non-Aggression Pact.

Non-aggression pact

Basically, under ancap rules, if you want to screw someone over, you just have to be as autistically passive-aggressive as possible.

Like buying the rights to the stairs they need in order to get down from their penthouse apartment and refusing to let them by.

Or inviting them to dinner and then declaring them to be trespassing immediately after it's finished (which means they broke the pact first so you can kill them)

Or loaning them a bunch of money while misleading them about the due date so that they default and you can enslave or kill them for it.

...

Well obviously it's not going to be a serious aspect. It just means that the party needs at least an extra loose reason to go murderhobo on some random dudes. Plus it would be funny watching them come up with obtuse justifications for their actions.

The Red Bear Syndicate.
They give no shits about the NAP and instead extort those within their territory, they are able to get away with this because as a conglomerate entity they are able to bring to bear more forces than any other organisation who in the spirit of freedom and independence refuse to sacrifice their own resources for others. All is not lost within RBS territory however, those who submit to their rule are able to stand and elect local officials to represent them on the RBS board of directors, all are provided basic amenities, and those who labour are able to retain a sizeable percentage of their product. The syndicate uses the extorted resources to invest into a professional military, infrastructure, law enforcement system and a network of subsidies that allows syndicate members to not only compete but often undercut competition from other sectors.

When is he going to make the post-apoc Mad Max game that he spent so much time hyping?

That's Eclipse Phase user.

Space debris clearers, they however also own exclusive rights to most routes in open space where they operate. When areas are cleared out, they set an ridiculous tithe price to pass through their territory, shooting down any ships that refuse. When enough debris accumulate, they go back to clearing debris for a reasonable price.

but that's just anarchy. Like, straight up coercion by force

nah in an anarchy you cannot "own" shit, so the stairs and trespassing issues immediately fall away. Similarly money won't be a thing unless people band together and decide it will be but the lack of individually owned capital would make loans pretty redundant.

>tell everyone to convert their barter goods to a standardized system of currency
>control production of currency to devalue people's property and force them to sell it to you in order to afford food

am I doing this right?

Give them a galactic government to go up against that actually acts sane and rational but violates the NAP all the time.

Ancap you say?

Well if we're bringing in the An-cap we might as well bring in the other An-'s as well.

One idea I possibly have is cause the party to crash-land on this one planet. This planet is owned by a race of lizard-men that embrace anarcho-primitivism. (ideology that believes that advanced civilization and technology is the cause of all the wrongs in the world and that peace can only be achieved by living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. What's done to those who use this technology is left up to the primitivist in question, but in this case I think "greater than or equal to public stoning" will suffice.) Originally the race was actually quite advanced with technology such as robotic drones to work for them and self-driving vehicles, but eventually this ideology took hold and the race as a whole sacked their own cities and fled into the wilderness to form random assortments of tribes. The cities, now ruins and forbidden to enter by the tribes, still have automated drones and vehicles attempting to continue their previous functions, with some defense drones still active from the "sacking" phase of their history.

Once the party encounters the tribes they have to find a way to escape the world before the lizard-men kill them for having advanced technology.

This. Eclipse Phase already has space anarcho-capitalists. They're considered kinda crazy by both the commies and the normal capitalists but make good middle men between the New and Old economies.

anarchyball memes are weird

Inside jokes usually are.

No, no, I get what they're trying to say. "lel anarcho capitalsist aren't anarchists and anarcho pacifists aren't pacifists."
It's just presented in a... disconcerted manner.

*Disconcerting.
Also, it's just typical Polandball nonsense.

Rip the names from corporations in EVE: Online. Any player who gets the references gets one reroll.

You should read this. Not exactly anarchist since the megacorps make the laws, but it is definitely ancap-y in the sense that people starve to death a week after being fired because no one will hire them and charity/government handouts are completely unheard of.

wiki.eveuniversity.org/Caldari_State

This is a children's book about a bear that loses his hat.

It's made by a pinko Aka anarcho(((syndicalism))).

>WEZ ANARCH N SHIIIET
>except we want daddy commie state :)

You can't own shit in anarcho-capitalism anyways because they fail to deliniate between ownership and occupation. Ownership requires a state to enforce property rights. The minute you left your home in an ancap society, it's not yours, because someone can just roll in and take it and shoot you for trespassing when you come back.

Sure, you could hire private security to occupy the property for you, but that's still just occupation and not ownership.

Honestly tacking anything onto anarchy is just dumb. Anarchy isn't sustainable, it can never be more than temporary. Sooner or later a hierarchy always emerges.

Who do you buy the stairs from?

Who enforces the property laws?

Who makes sure they actually default and actually delineates the regulations concerning defaulting? What makes you think they'll let you enslave or kill them? Who prevents them from resisting it?

All your claims require the person you're attempting to screw over to be willing to bend over and present their butthole to you. Otherwise, since no rights exist to be enforced and there's no state to enforce these rights, it's all a matter of who shoots first.

the NAP is absurd.

Anything could be considered an act of aggression. Potentially any harm that comes to your person can be seen as violence.

I could tell you santa clause isn't real and it might shatter your world view and force you to retaliate against hallucinations of your uncle teabagging you during christmas whilst naked and singing "jingle balls, jingle balls"

Who determines what is harm and what isn't? Who determines what harm constitutes an act of violence and what doesn't?

What if like, you and other like minded people hire a company that will recognize, validate, regulate, and keep track of your property, and how it's traded, as well as having an armed branch that will protect the property of anyone who is a client.

Now obviously such a service would require a lot of people, labour hours, hardware and maintenance, more than anyone person could pay for. So every person pays a small percentage of the cost. Of course, people who have more will probably want the service more and so the company will charge based on demand, but everyone will pay roughly the same fraction of their property as a fee to this company on a regular basis.

Wouldn't that be neat?

>mfw a-capitalists argue there is no Social Contract
>then they say everyone has to follow an unspoken pact

Forgot my picture. It's really quite important since laissez-faire/anarcho-capitalists are full of fucking shit and just want to tread on anyone else without repercussions.

A company that sells Alcohol, drugs, amd.Violent media targeted to kids and also.operates privatized prisons. Space prisons.


A company that conducts case control clinical quadruple blind trials to test the efficacy of any drug you want. It also happens to be secretly owned by the megaconglomerate that controls the entire Spyrius quadrant, and they randomly test the drugs on customers by contaminating breakfast cereal.

A coven of hasidic Jews is awoken from cryo-sleep and set loose on an unsuspecting galaxy...

>Private prisons
>Without government backing
Who's going to pay to imprison others unless they're obscenely wealthy and spiteful?

The prisons pay for themselves, dumbass. Slave labor.

Slave labor run by spiteful businessman.

But that's aggression.

The workers are just bad negotiators really.

The prisons only imprison violent criminals and thieves who already violated the NAP.

I see what you did there...

I could go on, but basically you end up with a sort of fascist syndicalism.

It would differ from current countries and governments in one key way though: participation would be entirely voluntary. Having claims only to protect the property of those who enrolled, it wouldn't have any specific territorial claims, and a person living inside a zone they nominally control could still opt out.

You know, until they decided otherwise. Which they probably would, quickly.

But it would have to be voluntary, you wouldn't be born as part of that system.
That's the whole crux of it, you're free on principle, you can bind yourself to anyone but on default you're beholden to noone.

EveOnline
Check it

And a girl that loses her panties.

Indeed it's a near perfect system in principle. However the problem lies in people. There will always be people who are ambitious, greedy, power hungry, or all three.

>Ownership
>Occupation
>The difference matter !!

Anarcho capitalism just want people to live a happy life while being fully entitled to the fruit of their sweat, making sure it stays that way through a NAP, itself backed by private ownership of weapons.

Other political ideologies are concerned about semantics and other shit useless outside of debates.

Anarchocapitalists don't want to debate : they want to do their own shit and will blow your head if you tread on them.

>Anarchy isn't sustainable
Look at international politics : no clear world-wide hierarchy.
Yet we don't jump at each other's throats all guns blazing every time.

>inb4 muh UN

Nobody listen to them.
Powerful organizations use it to legitimize action but act as they please anyway if UN goes against them.
Powerless organizations use it as a shield to hire the might of powerful organizations.
And everyone else in between either ignore or openly shit on the UN.

>inb4 It's a gradual process !!
More like a cycle :

A organization emerges in a position of great influence over others in a general area.

Then it declines.

Then everyone struggle to be on top until something is so strong it starts lording over others but then it get weak then get ripped appart and then everyone struggle to be on top until...

And there will always be people stupid enough to give these ambitious ones power over others.
Hopefully, there will always be someone both courageous and stupid enough to shoot these bastards in the face.

Kek, yes hopefully, however I imagine most of human history would have gone much differently if such people were common.

Ancap thread?

>making sure it stays that way through a NAP, itself backed by private ownership of weapons.

And if someone is unable to access weapons or the other guy has more? The NAP has no enforcement of it's own and no one to oversee it being obeyed.

...

...

...

quick reminder that ancap is not anarchy, it's ancap
also breaking a contract violates the nap

...

I wish I had more of these.
Well, I do, but they aren't ancap balls.

>mfw a-capitalists argue there is no Social Contract
>then they say everyone has to follow an unspoken pact

Principle.

Non-aggression principle.

No pacts are involved - I won't hurt you unless you hurt me, even if you don't subscribe to the same ideology.

If you got neighbours that ain't dicks or pussies and you ain't an asshole yourself, you'll get their help.

If it ain't enough, you can ask neighbouring communities, either appealing to :
- their generosity ("Helping people to keep their roof above their heads is the human thing to do")
- their sense of preservation ("also, if you allow them to violate the NAP in impunity, nobody will help you when they come for you next")
- their natural greed ("and if we are victorious, I'll be in your debt. Let's even put a number on how much in your debt I'll be").

NAP enforcement depends on people understanding that if they don't help to enforce it, they'll become victims soon or later.

At low-level, it means a bunch of neighbours keeping an eye out for each other.

At high-level, it means private security contractors paid by insurance firms to assist their clients into securing their assets world-wide so that the insurance doesn't have to pay their clients for the losses of insured assets.

Welp, this will probably kill the thread. Thanks /pol/ for less Veeky Forums.

>So every person pays

Do you use violence to force them to deal with you, rather than your competitors?

Because until you use violence to force people to deal with you, you haven't recreated the experience yet.

What about commies tho?
They do not respect NAP.

>welcome to the my private property zone
>you are free to leave any time you like, outside is the mad max fuck you zone

Anarcho syndicalism:
>People should be free!
>Except not free to engage in voluntary trade!

Why would the insurance pay claims? There's nobody to force them too, they could simply collect your dues, hire a pmc, refuse to pay out if anybody tries to claim, and use their pmc to stop any retaliation and/or stop you from speaking out about their scam.

>Ownership requires a state to enforce property rights

It requires violence, but not necessarily a state to supply it.

Even simple animals understand property - wolves piss on trees to tell other wolves "No Trespassing."

>And if someone is unable to access weapons or the other guy has more? The NAP has no enforcement of it's own and no one to oversee it being obeyed.

Why the same thing that happens in our world today: You die.

First argument is at least an honest opinion
Second argument is good
Third argument is OK
Fourth argument is a bunch of bad sophistry.

I think that stupid politics still offend me more than bad politics. Like, I don't disagree too much with SJW ideas, but their arguments are so bad that I probably hate them more than an average Republican.

Arachnocapitalists beGONE

I love it !!

But what if :
>Fuck you. I'll stay in that zone and won't pay your exorbitant fee !!
>I'll pay these three guys there instead. They ask for less and, given the few dangers around here, they are more than enough.

It's all about the fact that nobody will force a lethal force monopoly on others :
Anyone can lease himself as a security agent.
If people see him as competitive, they'll hire him.
If not, they hire someone else or even just rely on their collective vigilance.

SJW and the alt right are both bad because they are both literally just memes incarnate parroting things from image-based websites.

At least democrats and republicans are just hypocrites.

What's "they do not respect the NAP" got to do with anything. *I* respect the NAP.

I dont prevent nazis from speaking even though they would deny me free speech
I don't rule over monarchists even though they would rule over me
I don't steal from communists even though they would steal from me

You don't have to follow my ideology in order to make me believe in my ideology - I believe in it no matter what you do over there.I have a simple principle: I will not aggress.

>welcome to the my private property zone

Why would I ever go to your private property zone, it sucks balls.

>Look at international politics : no clear world-wide hierarchy.
>there isn't a clear hierarchy among competing nation states

Also the situation isn't sustainable, it's the reason world powers change so frequently. The rise and fall of empire is a perfect example of why this isn't sustainable. Hierarchies emerge, crumble, and emerge again.

Because once they don't pay up to one customer, mouth-to-ear goes around and other customers stop paying.
And if they start killing customers on a regular basis, word will get out that their security is inefficient.
People don't live in a bubble. They got a family, relatives, friends, coworkers, ect... with whom they interact.
Unless you monitor everyone 24/24, you can't prevent rumors from spreading.

So a insurance whose business model would be to promise LONG TERM membership in exchange for OCCASIONAL compensation and then to default on that promise would go backrupt quickly.

>Why would the insurance pay claims? There's nobody to force them too, they could simply collect your dues, hire a pmc, refuse to pay out if anybody tries to claim, and use their pmc to stop any retaliation and/or stop you from speaking out about their scam.

1) Obviously I picked an insurance company with a good reputation.

2) It is a lot cheaper to pay out my claim than to hire enough PMCs to prevent me from assassinating key corporate officers.

The empires themselves are not sustainable, but the system is.

God dammit. This whole ancap thing is really just nostalgic longing for a romanticized version of the pioneer days, isn't it?

>Hierarchies emerge, crumble, and emerge again.
So the default state is a lack of firm established hierarchy.

Anarchy isn't about being sustainable FOREVER in a frozen state of utopian bliss.

It's about trying to prevent the emergance of organizations so powerful and amoral that they can and will tread on individuals with impunity.
That doesn't mean some organizations won't emerge. It just means none should be powerful enough to force a monopoly in any given area.

Except it isn't? Systems of hierarchy emerge and crumble over century. Clear hierarchies have existed in the past. Today we exist in a stage where the hierarchy is establishing itself.

Previously there have been clear country dominate, religious dominance of continents, military dominance of continents, and more. These systems often last hundreds of years with nations controlling their sphere of influence to a point they essentially rule the world within their reach.

Controllers in the past have been The Catholic Church, France, The British Empire, China, and more recently the United States for a brief time.

>It's all about the fact that nobody will force a lethal force monopoly on others :
I know some people who would disagree

>It's about trying to prevent the emergance of organizations so powerful and amoral that they can and will tread on individuals with impunity.
This happens and has happened in international politics multiple times throughout history. The Catholic Church as an organization is a fantastic example of one that held complete power for centuries.

>use their pmc to stop any retaliation and/or stop you from speaking out about their scam.
Do you honestly expect everyone to have access to all the up-to-date information on the people/companies they hire? It's hard enough to do it now with the government requiring them to release information, think about how much harder it would be if they not only were not required to give us the information but were allowed to suppress it with force if it managed to get out?

>People don't live in a bubble. They got a family, relatives, friends, coworkers, ect... with whom they interact.
>Unless you monitor everyone 24/24, you can't prevent rumors from spreading.
So why that isn't enough to stop the government from taxing you? They're inefficient and have gained a lot of bad publicity by now.

It's like you people have never heard of protection rackets.
You send some representatives to prospective companies/clients offering protection. Protection from what? Why them if they don't pay obviously.

>It requires violence, but not necessarily a state to supply it.
Anything that provides a local/relevant monopoly on force is effectively a state.


Some mountain man in the backwoods is his own state.

Also this.

>Do you honestly expect everyone to have access to all the up-to-date information on the people/companies they hire? It's hard enough to do it now with the government requiring them to release information, think about how much harder it would be if they not only were not required to give us the information but were allowed to suppress it with force if it managed to get out?

Mate, they have an office.

This scenario you're positing is becoming more and more unhinged.

Some part is, yes.

The other part is simply decent morality (with a good dose of selfish pragmatism) :
- don't take your brother's stuff (so your brother will be less likely to take your stuff)
- don't harm others (so they will be less likely to harm you)
- help others against injustice when possible (so they'll help you against injustice if asked)
- if all fails, fight for what is yours

For all this to work, you need to prevent justice and violence to be the sole province of a single organization that give itself full authority over the land you live in and people you live with.
Dictatorships or democracies matter not if, in the end, you are but a slave at the mercy of the State's whims.

>Is the siesta sacred?
Yes. Only thing above siesta in the Spanish belief system is the holyness of Spanish food.

You better don't fuck with our tortilla de patatas.

>corporations fuck people up the ass now
>people except taking away the scaffolding will stop them fucking us up the ass
Shit it'd just get a fuck ton worse. Sure regulations now are fucked by corporate interest, but if they didn't even have to make a pretense of following/making the rules do people really expect corporations to suddenly grow a conscious?

Reminder that Dole Fruit company enforces it's low labor costs right now by hiring militants to butcher South American villages that try and negotiate for better pay.

>So why that isn't enough to stop the government from taxing you? They're inefficient and have gained a lot of bad publicity by now.

Because the government was established before high-power scoped rifles were commonly available, making the assassination of NAP-violators much harder. Now they have sufficient dominance that it is no longer easy to dislodge them.

>God dammit. This whole ancap thing is really just nostalgic longing for a romanticized version of the pioneer days, isn't it?

Now I finally understand why ancaps are pretty much always murrican.

Yep. And that's what anarchcap is about preventing.
While an omnipotent but benevolent organization can look like a good idea, never forget that the "benevolent" part can quickly go away...

And you're going to get into their office and assassinate people how? Shit man I'm not even seeing where you're trying to argue from. How do you know who to shoot? Are you just gonna toss you're life away because that's what happens if you're going up against a corp.

Soooo...sufficient dominance allows you to ignore NAP at will, is what you're saying then?

No I'm just saying that saying international politics is in a sustainable state of anarchy is asinine.