Opinions on Anarcho-capitalism?

You’re currently living in it. Capitalism and indulgent “””freedom””” for the rich and powerful and their pets, living lavishly in their gated communities; Anarcho-tyranny for the masses where massive globalist corpos make the rules and use a mafia state they control to implement those rules.

Based but bluepilled.
I agree with 90%+ of the practical decisions of ancapism but adhering rigidly to something like a "non agression principle" as if it's a direct command by Jesus Christ is just asking to get subverted. There is a big purity spiral madness whenever it's mentioned.

Attached: Hoppe.jpg (1038x692, 130.11K)

Still better than slapping more regulations at everything. This is Europe 2022

corporations only exist because of government
anarcho-capitalists point out that government is a criminal mafia gang of violent psychopaths that should be done away with

Except not really. I'm not able to chose who I will slave to today or tomorrow. I'm hard in the system I didn't get to chose.

not quite, because you can argue for self-ownership without arguing for the possibility of owning anything else
this would actually be consistent with much of what Hoppe says
that's why I'm first and foremost an anarchist, because it's anarchism itself that's the only logically coherent philosophy there is
the reason I'm also a capitalist, i.e. that I support the existence of property rights, and thus an anarcho-capitalist, is simply because I believe that to lead to the most preferable outcomes
it's fully possible that this is wrong, because unlike with anarchism, i.e. self-ownership, it's not a matter of logical consistency, but a matter of preference
I'd be fully open to the idea of alternate anarchist modes of existence which precluded property

>corporations
assuming you mean monopolies?

>Diligently plotting to take over the World and let big corpos kill us all.
Those are communists. You Swedes certainly should know the difference by now.

Attached: snowflakecommiesjw.jpg (403x404, 25.67K)

Its not given from jesus, property rights obviously come from ability to do violence. Ancap is ideology that can be summarized as
>Everything will be better if ability to do violence lays in hands of as many parties as possible

Its just second amendment taken to extreme

no, natural monopolies can easily exist in the absence of government, and would not be detrimental at all
I meant what I said: corporations
corporations are legal entities that only exist wherever you have governments
governments and corporations are just two sides of the same fascist coin

>There is a big purity spiral madness whenever it's mentioned.
I believe in the NAP. But step over the line and I'll show you what the NAP means with the bottom of my boot heel crushing your frontal cortex.

Attached: WhatWeDoToNazisAndCommies.gif (320x240, 432.36K)

Well natural monopolies are not realy monopolies, since they dont have exactly 100% of market, just large majority

no, I'm talking about actual natural monopolies, having 100% of the market
I really mean what I say

Example needed

>assuming you mean monopolies?
Those are only created and maintained by government.

Attached: TeleCommie.jpg (1122x720, 56.09K)

Every step into anarchocapitalism direction is better than the current socialist mess

Maybe he means like oil or electricity. There's only a few people having access to those.

I can't give any concrete examples, because government exists everywhere on the planet, but I can give you a hypothetical example: the first company to establish a city-wide utility like an electrical grid or a plumbing network
for a while, they will have have a natural monopoly, because no one else will be delivering that good
if they do it efficiently, they can effectively prevent competitors from establishing themselves, but if they at some point don't, then competitors will most likely be able to establish themselves, and the natural monopoly disappears

It would be horrible. I liken it to the current state of defi in crypto. Crypto is like 90% scammers, and the rest are either good people or people that haven't thought about scamming but would do it if they had the opportunity. And there's basically no protections for the consumer, if you get scammed then too bad

yes, exactly, such products
there's another type of product you could conceivably make the same argument about, which would be some highly rare natural resource
the same argument as in my above post () applies there, i.e. that as long as the single company extracting this natural resource does so in an efficient manner, it might be prohibitively expensive for anyone else to enter the market, but if they at some point don't, then it might be worth it for a competitor to establish themselves in another spot where it's found

You can argue for that, but then Mises comes along and says because Man wishes to substitute a perceived state of less satisfaction with a state of higher satisfaction, he appropriates previously-unowned and unused Nature-given goods and production factors so he can employ in production processes. Arguing Man shouldn't do that is arguing that Man should starve to death, so it cannot be a universal ethic

Sure that could be, but the example is not good because me building a simple well would make me competitor already for plumbing company. I think that hi-tech industry might be more likely for that scenario.

> Ancrap reveals himself to be an edgy violent retard
pottery