Can Anarchists answer the basic questions?

1. If a country/region exists in a state of anarchy, what prevents a nearby empire from conquering it? Military action requires organization of the kind you can only get through forced subservience to a hierarchy. In order to defend against an invading army a region under anarghy would have to turn to insurgency, warlordism, and eventual totalitarianism itself.

2. If a person decides to break contracts, what stops them from doing it and just running away and repeating the process? People dont have telepathy, so others wouldnt know hes untrustworthy, and there is only you looking for him (if you even bother). He can just repeat it.

3. If people start dropping dead with mysterious illness, who investigates the source of it, and punishes the perpetrator? How do people even realize its the same illness without some ability to share information en masse.

4. It is impossible to get out of 0 wealth without assistance. Therefore over time almost all people will accumulate at 0 wealth, while few persons own all the wealth. At that point what stops them from simply killing the wealthy and dividing the spoils? And if they cant, and are kept in perpetual poverty, how is this any different from totalitarianism?

5. If the principles of NAP are followed strictly, then parents would have no authority over children. The only solution is to permit ownership of people, but that leads to more and more people owned (see 4), which is no different than totalitarianism.

6. Anarchy assumes people will have the IQ and control of emotions in order to make perfectly rational decisions for the present and distant future, even hundreds of generations in the future. That is the only way to have altruism in anarchy. Which leads me to ask, what do you do when people are low IQ or even the geniuses get emotional, and make shit decisions en masse which results in billions dying (including you)?

Please answer all questions irrefutably, not just one and done.

Attached: 1638730221892.jpg (800x1120, 146.25K)

Stop taking anarchists seriously

I can't believe you wrote all this kek

Attached: 1522265914767m.jpg (498x1024, 75.9K)

I don't believe anarchism will actually happen. If there is anarchy in the country, it will only be for a short time. Soon those with the most weapons and soldiers will become warlords and new governments will be formed. Because he needs food and money to feed his army. prevent his army from collapsing.
Even Mexican drug lords, to some extent, have assumed responsibility for the government.

Attached: 002qbdGVgy1gu1f919wuij60ps0pstby02.jpg (928x928, 146.12K)

An all mighty king is best.

At least the king takes responsibility for his actions, what responsibility does Biden take for increasing the costs of living?

Fucking goys.

They take themselves seriously. Ive been listening to Molyneux for awhile, and they are serious about this.

>not just one and done.
With all due respect based digits leaf Imma do that bc they're all easily explained away. Anarchism isn't supposed to last eg check D’Annunzio's Fiume which only lasted a year. Your error is in thinking in terms of your logical
>how could it even last
and not in theirs terms of dyonisian
>lets ride while it lasts

When edgelord teenagers and permachildren talk about "anarchy" they mean communism where they don't have to work and get to do whatever they want.

But that means I get to do what I want too, and I want to kill commies.

that's called intelligence then, user. You're the one working for them rn.

I was an anarchist

Now I’m a monarchist

Which means me , IM KING bitch
And if you don’t like it I challenge you to a duel to the death at high noon in my court yard in front of my entire army
I shall slay you like a dog you peasant

>in front of my entire army
no. niggers dont fight fair.

Private courts and security still exist to handle all these problems. Insurance will underwrite risks and process arbitration between parties. Instead of socialising all risk with a state, each individual can choose how much they are willing to pay for whatever circumstance they want to insure against, that way we all pay less to get more. I don't have to pay for your wife's maternity leave and you don't have to pay for my house burning down. You have to take responsibility for your fucking life instead of passing the buck onto other people through the state. There's no free lunch and the illusion that the state can provide you security is just that, an illusion. They weaken your security so they can take more wealth from you.

>4
Wealth is accumulated in society, societal wealth exists in what your ancestors leave behind, this is capital accumulation. It's like saying how did people progress from cavemen without the state. It's a fucking fallacy.

>5
Children are under trustee ship, they belong to a guardian as long as they voluntary associate with said guardian. Of course the parents can exert some control over their child but this is not the same as owning them. They simply cannot 'abuse' the child because they are the parent as the child is a future self owning agent. Until the child can exert it's independence, it will be placed in a state of trustee ship.

>6
No, it only presupposes that people act in a self interested manner, that is each individual acts towards the attainment of some ends that alleviate some uneasiness in their life. Not that they act for the betterment of anything else, even if their actions do help other people they still act in their own self interest through the psychic profit of their action. It does not presuppose people act morally or justly, in fact it recognizes that not all people will act in accordance of peaceful coexistence, and it still functions. Anarcho capitalism does not say there are no laws and no security, it says because people exist that laws exist and that security is a necessity of humans. It just doesn't think that a monopoly on security, conflict arbitration and justice is necessary. And if you recognise that monopolies are bad, how would a society function without a monopoly on these crucial functions.

>1
Nothing

Only places that can are either shitholes or inhospitable places that make the cost of acquiring it not worth it.

ie Afghanistan

>2
Nothing

Jaws and gypsies have been doing this for millenia and have still failed to get the rope.

>3
They would just be privately funded or by dontation versions of the institutions we have today. There are plenty of (((NGOs))) that do this today, although I wouldn't trust them at all.

>4
Not true, you can claw your way up its just most shit jobs are beneath bourgeoisie even if it's only temporary. Do you really expect people to roll over and die? This is the reason crime happens.

>5
NPCs are defacto owned by their governments. It's just in name only and with legalism that they delude themselves into thinking they are not. All rights they have are given to them, when they want to take them away they will hand them a pacifier in exchange.

Historically speaking children have always been property of their parents until they come of age aswell. It's only a modern invention the cps, just an excuse for kikes to take away your kids like in Germany if you are a bad goy and deny the holocaust.

>6
Nothing can be done

Most people are fucking retarded and aren't even able to look out for their own interests let alone comprehend what they are. Only the top 10~15% are rational actors.

Read (((Rothbard))) if or something if you're really interested in their theories and don't come asking retards here. And certainly don't take Stefan Molyneux seriously either, he's only an anarchist for "moral reasons". His UPB is fucking stupid.

i mean im not gonna read this im just gonna point out there are no examples of anarchist societies

Iceland, Ireland

Those were not anarchist societies they were tribal. Although with today's brainwashing you'd think they were because there wasn't an agency for every affair. In which the government tries to interfere in your daily life for the sake of jew money.

No they were anarchist you fucking retard. As in there was no centralised state, there was voluntary associations. 'Tribal' means NOTHING you fucking idiot. It's a rhetoric device like calling them 'barbaric'. It means nothing.

You realize tribes have leaders who kill people that step out of line? Its basically a family gang.

You realise that is not a teleological feature of leadership and that the exact opposite existed in a direct refutation to you supposing that was the norm. You should actually research what you are trying to argue instead of trying to fit your statist world view onto reality.

Your argument boils down to people commit crimes therefore we need a monopoly on crime to stop other competing criminals with the centralised gang of criminals. Instead you have to realize that legislating crime and enforcing monopolies on crime are not addressing the root cause of crime, because some people do criminal acts does not mean that they 'must' do criminal acts, only that you need to enforce the law against criminals. As in the just use of violence. As in the recognition of private property rights as the sole means to resolve conflict. Society is run on ideas, if you think it's legitimate to have a monopoly on crime, then don't be surprised that you live in an unjust society with all the effects of having criminal rulers running your society. The recognition and the change in ideas is the prerequisite to change in society, once you have enough people to produce a private property anarchist society it becomes self reinforcing.

I assume youre not an anarchist then? I read a lot of anarchist literature, but they never answer the real questions. See for what usually happens, a throwaway comment and a rant about my wifes maternity leave (?).

Insurance cant exist in anarchy because they wouldnt be obligated to pay out, ever. So no one would contribute. Alternatively it will grow out of control, oush out competitors, and mandate everyone in a region has to buy their insurance or get shot, usually once a year and based on income.
Same for the rest, a private court and security only works in our society because we have a state that acts as a check to their power. Without that, I can hire private security to kill you and any judge rhat tries to say Im a murderer.... which leads to warlordism, etc. You arent tackling the question by dumping it on free markets.

Going on a tangent rant is not impressing anyone.

What? Your answer for how people in subsistence poverty get out of it is..... 1000 years of industrialization in state-systems? Inheritance literally cannot exist in anarchy either, what a dumb post.

>child slaves
Why cant they abuse the child. Who will stop them.

But people dont act in a self interested manner. They almost never do.

You're the retard here, so completely blinded by modernity and historical revision. The state was confederated, just like many other people's you could call anarchist with your logic. Their world view and way of life was different than that of something like the modern civic cult yes. Just because there was less centralized authority doesn't mean they were your ideal larpcap commune.

>no un voluntary association

There is no alternative genius unless you are a woman and are willing to be concubine to another group. As a man the best you'd get outside your clan would be indentured servitude and a slim opportunity at being free. The only exception being skilled labour.

>tribes are based on voluntarism
Ok so you could have said "no, i dont know how tribal structures work".

If you actually read anarchist literature you would know all these questions have been answered. Literally read 'Ethics of liberty' and 'Private production of defense', that will answer every one of these questions.

>Insurance cant exist in anarchy because they wouldnt be obligated to pay out, ever.
A lot of the fallacies and misunderstandings of anarchy stem from a complete ignroance of economics and the function of free markets. I think this is your major failing and I can tell you will reject free market ideas so it necessarily means you reject anarchism which is the logical conclusion of free markets.

The reason why insurance will payout is because they will go out of business if they don't. Yes, I agree that some agencies will not pay out, and that there will exist mechanism in terms of security and other insurance agencies that will underwrite these risks but the main mechanism is that they will lose all their customers.

Once again competition in insurance will likely maintain multiple competitors. But even if one global insurance agency did emerge there is no
'coercion' involved and it's a reflection of each individual voluntarily associating with it, since there is no violent barrier for entry for any other competitors.

The state doesn't check it's own power, there are no private courts only state courts. Private competing courts check each others power through market competition. The good courts are patronised over the bad courts. Not just through individual day to day conflict but in businesses which will be the main consumer of conflict arbitration.

Self ownership and private property are the fundamental building blocks of society, there can be no legal murder only justified self defense. You most likely could hire someone to assassinate someone (just like you can now) but my insurance agency will underwrite that risk for me and your insurance agency won't underwrite that risk for you.