/liberty/ - Liberty

The problem with anarcho-capitalism is that truly free markets can't exist. Market pressures actually work against the transparency that's required to make it work. It will practically always be cheaper to spread disinformation about your competitors than to retool your factories to compete with them on a level playing field. When those competitors follow suit, it creates a situation where customers are so overwhelmed with FUD that they just give up, and the market collapses.

The only social system that can work indefinitely is one that recognizes the prisoner's dilemma and minimizes both the individual benefit and the mutual penalty for defection. I make no claims about what that system is, but it's certainly not anarcho-capitalism.

>>72766

I think if there were a decentralized means of communication between masses of individuals then the transparency could be preserved, but it's difficult to say.

>>72767

But that system of mass communication is extremely susceptible to disinformation campaigns, especially if the only parties vetting claims have a profit motive. If you were to create a publicly-funded entity that enforces truthful advertising and safety standards like not using lead paint in children's toys, you've come full circle and gotten right back to the bureaucratic mess we have now. There's simply no way to have a truly free market, so any system that fundamentally relies on the existence of a free market is fundamentally flawed. I have no problem with most of the minutiae of ancap society and I think it's entirely reasonable for individuals or groups of individuals to pay to build roads according to standards agreed upon by larger groups of individuals, but there's problems that simply can't be solved by saying "fuck laws, the free market with fix it."

>>72766

>It will practically always be cheaper to spread disinformation about your competitors than to retool your factories to compete with them on a level playing field

It may be cheaper but not as productive, otherwise we would not see any quality control. Luckily we have various consumer test reports that sheds light on any disinformation, and the fallout from bad PR is expensive.

>It will practically always be cheaper to spread disinformation about your competitors than to retool your factories to compete with them on a level playing field. When those competitors follow suit, it creates a situation where customers are so overwhelmed with FUD that they just give up, and the market collapses.

Care to give any example of this happening ever?

Increased levels of disinformation simply render obvious the market demand for verifiable information. Plus the strategy you mentioned doesn't eliminate the provider's obligation to make good on his own contracts. Between insurance, underwriters, and consumer reporting firms, your strategy doesn't work in an open market. These disinformation firms lose out because the firms that actually have to put their money where their mouths are have a financial interest in sniffing out reliable information.

>The only social system that can work indefinitely is one that recognizes the prisoner's dilemma and minimizes both the individual benefit and the mutual penalty for defection.

Did you know that the Prisoner's Dilemma describes a very particular type of circumstance? Even with the right incentive structure, the Prisoner's Dilemma only emerges when; A) there will not be repeated interactions, and B) the parties are unable to communicate with one another. Hell, it's called the "prisoner's dilemma" for a specific reason; the "prisoner" part of the scenario is vital to get the necessary results. Remove either of those two factors, and the defection strategy fails. You don't get to cite the PD every time people interact, because it doesn't apply to the overwhelming majority of real-world interactions.

>>72769

>But that system of mass communication is extremely susceptible to disinformation campaigns, especially if the only parties vetting claims have a profit motive.

How though? You're just asserting that. Everything else you say hinges on this idea that everybody will just spread rampant lies because lying is cheap, and nobody can possibly figure out a solution to this because [reasons].

>>72773

>It may be cheaper but not as productive, otherwise we would not see any quality control.

We see quality control in countries with government inspections, like the US, Europe, and Japan. We don't see it in mainland China, where government oversight is a formality at most. Mere correlation? Maybe. But there's a clear benefit for American companies to make safe products safely that certainly accounts for some portion of that difference.

>Luckily we have various consumer test reports that sheds light on any disinformation, and the fallout from bad PR is expensive.

What consumer reporting agencies exist for produce, or medications? Would you really expect every single individual to pay for an article comparing lettuce brands every time they go to the grocery store? Or pay for a chemical analysis on every bottle of pills they get from the local pharmacy? At what point does being sufficiently informed to contribute to a free market become unreasonable?

>>72775

The problem isn't with single large products, like cars or houses, or big-budget movies. The problem is with the thousands of commodities that people buy. Sometimes it's easy to tell that something is trash: you buy some dollar store toilet paper and realize you'd rather use sandpaper. Sometimes it's not so obvious: you buy some LECO brand LEGOs and don't realize what you've done until your child becomes mentally retarded from the toxic compounds leeching into his skin. Then you look it up and realize that it's been a national scandal for years that you haven't heard about because terrorism and celebrity rapes sell more ad spots.

>>72781

>We don't see it in mainland China, where government oversight is a formality at most.

Yet the market is heavily restricted nonetheless. That "formality" hampers competition.

>What consumer reporting agencies exist for produce, or medications?

Have you actually looked? There are a number of private certification labels on the market today, many of which exceed the standards of the FDA and USDA. And are you entirely disregarding the crowding-out of private entities by state operators? Most folks seem to imagine that the state agencies do a good enough job (without even bothering to look for evidence that they do), so a private label makes less difference to their purchasing decisions than it otherwise would.

>Would you really expect every single individual to pay for an article comparing lettuce brands every time they go to the grocery store? Or pay for a chemical analysis on every bottle of pills they get from the local pharmacy?

Is that seriously the only business model you can imagine? Have you looked up how the existing consumer reporting agencies work today? When was the last time you wrote a check to Underwriters' Laboratories, or IFOAM? Yet somehow they're still in business.

>Then you look it up and realize that it's been a national scandal for years that you haven't heard about because terrorism and celebrity rapes sell more ad spots.

You mean the stuff that's happening right now, with the state? I'm waiting for the part where you show how the absence of the state will make that worse.

>>72783

>Advertising doesn't exist on the internet

What? Just because you're one of the 0.5% that's not so incompetent than installing an ad blocker is black magic doesn't mean ads don't exist, or that online information sources don't exist primarily for ad revenue and as such are subject to the same market pressures as television and radio.

>>72789

>There are a number of private certification labels on the market today, many of which exceed the standards of the FDA and USDA.

And yet very few consumers are actually educated about those various labels and what their endorsement entails. The FDA and USDA enforce a minimum standard of quality. Regardless of what you think of that standard, doing the same thing with an NGO is just creating a cartel, which has the same effect on the freedom of the market. If there's an agreement between the grocery store and whatever label than the store will only sell certified produce, that organization can still exclude certain brands or products from certification, with the same chilling effect on competition. If there's no such exclusive agreement, how do you expect consumers to know the difference between half a dozen competing certifications, including some that sound just as official but don't require any actual quality control?

>I'm waiting for the part where you show how the absence of the state will make that worse.

Look at my flag, and reread the thread. I'm not arguing for the state. My point is that if you replace the state with a privately owned state analogue, what you get is the state, but without the illusion of democratic control and the legitimacy that comes along with it. Hidden oppression is a poor foundation for society, but open oppression is not any sort of foundation.

>>72790

>The FDA and USDA enforce a minimum standard of quality

They purport to, but what evidence do you have that these programs are beneficial on the net?

>Regardless of what you think of that standard, doing the same thing with an NGO is just creating a cartel, which has the same effect on the freedom of the market.

Except that cartels have always required government enforcement in order to form and remain in operation. Creating a cartel produces increasingly strong incentives to drop out.

> If there's an agreement between the grocery store and whatever label than the store will only sell certified produce, that organization can still exclude certain brands or products from certification, with the same chilling effect on competition.

If you assume that there's only one store and only one certification label, sure, but that just creates a bigger profit opportunity for creating a competitor.

> If there's no such exclusive agreement, how do you expect consumers to know the difference between half a dozen competing certifications, including some that sound just as official but don't require any actual quality control?

It's called "being an informed consumer", which people only fail to do today insofar as there isn't an incentive. If the effort you put in to determining a few trustworthy labels directly impacts the quality of goods you get, then your personal incentive to find and share information about those labels increases dramatically. It's pretty simple, actually; if the product doesn't have a label you trust, then don't buy it. People don't spring out of the ground fully-formed and without social connections, so they're likely to ask family and friends about which labels they trust. And any firm that labels a product as safe when it is not is liable for ruinous damages in court. The fraudsters are weeded out, and the honest firms pull ahead.

>My point is that if you replace the state with a privately owned state analogue, what you get is the state

But that's not what we're doing. The state is monopolistic by definition. When you eliminate that factor, it completely changes the incentive structure, and thus the results that you get. Calling market institutions a "privately-owned state" is like calling bacon "kosher pork". The non-monopolistic nature of the enterprise creates a fundamentally different sort of institution, and labeling it as a state is ignorant at best and deceitful at worst.

>>72794

>They purport to, but what evidence do you have that these programs are beneficial on the net?

None, but I'm not arguing that the FDA is a good thing. I'm arguing that the FDA fills a niche, and whatever entity ends up filling that niche will have a similar chilling effect on competition.

>Except that cartels have always required government enforcement in order to form and remain in operation.

Because governments dissolve cartels that refuse to play by their rules. Antitrust laws may not do what they say on the label, but they certainly don't do nothing.

>It's called "being an informed consumer", which people only fail to do today insofar as there isn't an incentive

How many individual products do you think the average person buys on a yearly basis? How long does it take to become fully informed regarding a product including features, quality control, fit and finish, production methods, comparisons to competitors, and extending into corporate practices and other things that ancaps claim the free market will effectively vote on. How do I know if the rubber bands holding my asparagus together were made with slave labor? Does the IFOAM label tell me that? What fraction of my time am I expected to spend informing myself on my purchases? Keep in mind that 33% of my time is spent sleeping, 27% of my time is spent working, 4% of my time is spent driving to and from work, etc. Am I left with any time to eat the food I buy or use the tools I buy?

>People don't spring out of the ground fully-formed and without social connections, so they're likely to ask family and friends about which labels they trust.

Yes, and this becomes a problem when their experience with brands is FOODMART MAKES THEIR "BEEF" WITH CAT MEAT! LIKE AND REPOST IF YOU'RE OFFENDED. It's a proven fact that facts can't beat memes, and that's not a result of the state.

>>72795

If online advertising doesn't generate revenue, why do I have to block online ads?

>>72807

>If online advertising doesn't generate revenue, why do I have to block online ads?

because they're idiots and don't understand the future will be tending towards direct payment for content producers, patreon style. the old model is centralized around services like google adsense and the centralizers want to keep that power.

>>72790

>If there's no such exclusive agreement, how do you expect consumers to know the difference between half a dozen competing certifications, including some that sound just as official but don't require any actual quality control?

Using the supermarket analogy, there's an incentive for the supermarket to stock goods which meet a certain degree of quality (like not poisoning people), so it would be upon them to select the best means of certification. In the smaller pool of supermarket consumers, equilibrium would be reached quicker in the certification market, wherein reliable certifiers are those that continue to be profitable. If a particular certifier is excluding an otherwise reliable brand for which there is consumer demand, then it is in the interest of the supermarket to source out multiple reliable certifiers for vetting. You have to remember that individuals are often secondary and tertiary consumers, and take advantage of services of which they are not even aware.

>>72827

There are already apps like buycott that tell you about the business policies and such, letting you make the decision of whether you feel comfortable supporting them financially.

>>72835

We've yet to establish that State consumer protection is doing a better job, or any at all, than independent citizens, to bother defending private effort.

>>72807

>I'm arguing that the FDA fills a niche, and whatever entity ends up filling that niche will have a similar chilling effect on competition.

But that's wrong, because the FDA's funding is guaranteed. An private institution's funding is based on its ability to fill a market need. This changes everything. You can't expect to be taken seriously when you say that the result is the same.

>Because governments dissolve cartels that refuse to play by their rules.

Except for the part where cartels destroy themselves. The more control the cartel tries to exert on the market, the greater the profit opportunity in breaking ranks. The railroads tried to cartelize in the US, but failed miserably until they could get the government to regulate the industry, enshrining the cartel's price controls in law. You can't do that without a state.

>How long does it take to become fully informed regarding a product including features, quality control, fit and finish, production methods, comparisons to competitors, and extending into corporate practices and other things that ancaps claim the free market will effectively vote on.

That's why you don't do that. That's a retarded waste of time. That's why, as I said, you find a label you can trust, instead of vetting every aspect of every single product. If people did all that shit, they wouldn't need consumer reporting groups. That's why they exist.

>How do I know if the rubber bands holding my asparagus together were made with slave labor? Does the IFOAM label tell me that?

If enough people care about that kind of thing, there would certainly be a profit opportunity for a firm to be able to guarantee that.

>What fraction of my time am I expected to spend informing myself on my purchases?

Once you've picked a couple labels you can trust, maybe a tenth of a second.

You really don't seem to get what these certification labels are FOR. As I said: if the product doesn't have a label you trust, then don't buy it. It's that easy. If you feel you must research something, simply researching that one labeling firm effectively vets every product they certify. That's the whole point of having these firms in the first place; they condense consumer information.

>It's a proven fact that facts can't beat memes, and that's not a result of the state.

You say that's proven, but what proof do you actually have? There's a lot of sensationalist headlines, but what actual data do you have about people's actual beliefs and behavior? Gee, somehow memes are a lot more visible on the platforms where they're designed to function. Who'd have thought? I guess that's the only sphere in which people operate and it informs all of their actual decision-making.

I presume you aren't retarded enough to make your decisions on the basis of memes, so what makes you think you're special? Everybody seems to think that everybody else is too stupid to make their own decisions, but rarely do I encounter the window-lickers who supposedly typify the entire population.

Just think about it for half a second:

Suppose the FDA et al simply vanished tomorrow. You might have a few months of their certified goodies in circulation, but then you're going to have to start making consumer decisions without them. Are you going to walk buy just any box with "MEAT" written on the side in sharpie from a dude in the park? No; you're going to go to the clean, familiar, safe store you know, that has a reputation to keep, and you're probably going to look at the label for labels that you trust. Hell, lots of people buy foods with the "Kosher" label just because that way the know that it doesn't have heinous crap in it, and that's not a government label.

The only people at risk are those who go out of their way to be aggressively retarded with their purchases, and I'm not going to shed any tears over them. I've no interest in separating people from the consequences of their own bad decisions.

>>72824

So remind me how this specific failure of the free market is a result of the state?

>>72834

>there's an incentive for the supermarket to stock goods which meet a certain degree of quality (like not poisoning people)

Not poisoning them overnight, to be sure. Poisoning them over the course of ten years in a manner that can't be traced back to them, or which they can hide behind the shield of "best practices," if it comes along with a large enough profit margin? Why not?

Look at the finance industry and their utterly unsustainable vampiric business model: they create imaginary money, diluting the relationship between money and wealth and making everyone else poorer, then they use that money to buy physical objects and when the bubble pops and all that money disappears, they're left with the material product of labor and everyone else is left with nothing. This effect gets worse as regulations are relaxed, not better. You can argue that without bailouts this could only happen once, but the executives in charge ended up rich enough that they could easily start a new business doing the same thing a couple of years down the road.

>If a particular certifier is excluding an otherwise reliable brand for which there is consumer demand,

These are commodities, there is little to no demand for any specific brand.

>>72835

And what happens when the editors of those apps start taking bribes to overlook certain practices, or one business dumps a bunch of dirt they've collected on another? Eventually the truth will come out, but it could have substantial effects on the market for years or even decades.

>>72836

No one is arguing in favor of the state, or the FDA. My point is that freed markets still aren't free because there's economic pressures that work against efficiency of the market.

>>72841

>Poisoning them over the course of ten years in a manner that can't be traced back to them, or which they can hide behind the shield of "best practices," if it comes along with a large enough profit margin? Why not?

You mean, like they already do?

>Look at the finance industry and their utterly unsustainable vampiric business model: they create imaginary money, diluting the relationship between money and wealth and making everyone else poorer, then they use that money to buy physical objects and when the bubble pops and all that money disappears, they're left with the material product of labor and everyone else is left with nothing. This effect gets worse as regulations are relaxed, not better.

That's the fault of fractional reserve banking and inflationist monetary policy. Bubbles in particular are created when the rate of interest is artifically driven down.

Also, I doubt that there was any significant decrease in regulations within the last fourty years, most likely longer. Sure, every once in a while, the government closes an agency, reduces the number of forms to be filed from 200 to 80 a day, and removes some insignificant license requirement. Meanwhile, many countries pass thousands of new laws annually. Under these conditions, there simply can be no talk of deregulation. Not to mention that the main problems in modern monetary policy, fractional reserve banking and inflationism, have never been solved.

>You can argue that without bailouts this could only happen once, but the executives in charge ended up rich enough that they could easily start a new business doing the same thing a couple of years down the road.

Not all rich people are evil masterminds. You don't make money just by doing bad things and chuckling about it, anon.

>>72842

>You mean, like they already do?

Yes, just like that.

>Not to mention that the main problems in modern monetary policy, fractional reserve banking and inflationism, have never been solved.

So how does the free market solve the problem?

>Not all rich people are evil masterminds. You don't make money just by doing bad things and chuckling about it, anon.

I never claimed that they all are. All I've ever said is that some people are willing to use unscrupulous means to profit at the expense of others, and there are ways to manipulate the economy that the free market is not prepared to deal with.

My point isn't that we need big government to save us from private enterprise, it's that problems exist beyond those created by the state, and that the free market is not a magic bullet that can destroy all evils. I agree that perfect market efficiency is the goal and that the state does more to interfere with that than it does to help, but I disagree with the notion that the way to achieve that goal is to say "okay, there are no rules, everyone go out and make as much money as you can by whatever means necessary."

>>72844

>So how does the free market solve the problem

It decentralizes. You've got a bunch of different consumer protection groups vetting everything, and the cost to bribe them all will quickly get more expensive than just making a good product.

>>72766

Just as you have a market on aggression you have a market on protection. Same goes for anything and everything that is in demand. As long as people need something and can pay for it, they will, unless you stop them. You can't completely prevent disinformation, but you can mitigate it. You don't even need Anarcho-Capitalism in particular to solve that as long as the market is remotely free to a minimal degree.

>>72757

Because they can't hold the narrative of "freedom" if AnCaps are saying the government is an exponentially bigger issue than the companies that keep them from starving. You'll find that you're no true Scotsman in any group setting if you raise valid points that make said group uncomfortable/challenge their world views in any way.

>>72769

Simple really. Get companies to give you money to pay consumers to review companies.

That's how ISO 9001 works (just with audits instead of consumer reviews). Same with the Non-GMO project which is considered much more trustworthy than the FDA "Organic" label. Pretty sure UL operates on the same basis more or less but with third party testing.

>>72780

Fun fact, in Game Theory, the Prisoner's Dilemma played out over multiple games has the effect of forcing actors to cooperate long-term for their own benefit by eliminating leeches and the like when they choose to not "play by the rules." Tit for Tat.

>>72781

>We don't see it in mainland China, where government oversight is a formality at most.

Yes, and you'll find that companies either:

A) Don't bother with quality control and are recognized for having a shitty product or…

B) Get third party quality control to ensure credibility when a customer (not consumer, customer) comes through and asks why they should have Apple build their next product instead of Bing Wong Dongalinlong down the street. The National Fire Protection Association that write the US Fire Code was a completely private entity up until the mid 80s.

>>72790

>And yet very few consumers are actually educated about those various labels and what their endorsement entails.

When I worked as a Dairy Supervisor, I was required to inform customers about them so they became informed because the company thought it bred "good culture" or something. We even had months where we focused on one or two of those NGOs and passed out flyers to curious customers. When I'd have a customer ask me if I knew if X was certified by Y NGO, I was required to know about it (and they asked quite often). Consumers are very well informed about topics they're passionate about. As long as they aren't eating rotten meat, the average consumers doesn't care about the quality of their beef unless they're passionate about the meat they eat, in which case the NGO is usually there. Not everyone needs to be a rational actor who's well informed on every subject for shit to get done. Stop trying to genocide stupid people- they have plenty of uses in AnCapistan even if they aren't informed on every minute detail.

>>72807

>How long does it take to become fully informed regarding a product including features, quality control, fit and finish, production methods, comparisons to competitors, and extending into corporate practices and other things that ancaps claim the free market will effectively vote on.

Assuming you have zero prior knowledge (unlikely) and no family members to turn to for help, probably five to ten minutes to download an app and figure it out. We live in the age of short summary information where you DON'T have to sift through newspapers and interviews to figure out if one brand of ass juice is better for you than another brand of ass juice.

>>72845

More or less this. It's like the "what if I just buy the entire river?" or "what if I just bribe all the courts?" analogy.

>>72841

>Poisoning them over the course of ten years in a manner that can't be traced back to them, or which they can hide behind the shield of "best practices," if it comes along with a large enough profit margin? Why not?

Because once it comes to light, you're the target of massive class-action lawsuits and your profits collapse because nobody is willing to buy from you or insure you.

>Look at the finance industry and their utterly unsustainable vampiric business model: they create imaginary money, diluting the relationship between money and wealth and making everyone else poorer, then they use that money to buy physical objects and when the bubble pops and all that money disappears, they're left with the material product of labor and everyone else is left with nothing.

Oh, and I'm sure the state monetary system has nothing to do with that. It's not like alternative currencies are outlawed or anything (sarcasm, by the way).

>This effect gets worse as regulations are relaxed, not better.

Care to prove that? How easy do you think it is to open a competing bank under our current regulatory structure?

>You can argue that without bailouts this could only happen once, but the executives in charge ended up rich enough that they could easily start a new business doing the same thing a couple of years down the road.

Considering that the government makes it illegal to sue those people for failing to meet their financial obligations….

>These are commodities, there is little to no demand for any specific brand.

Apple called….

>And what happens when the editors of those apps start taking bribes to overlook certain practices, or one business dumps a bunch of dirt they've collected on another?

They lose business and get sued into poverty on account of the fraud.

>Eventually the truth will come out, but it could have substantial effects on the market for years or even decades.

I see we're dealing in wild conjecture now.

>My point is that freed markets still aren't free because there's economic pressures that work against efficiency of the market.

You keep saying this, but you have failed at every turn to actually establish this.

>>72844

>Yes, just like that.

So again; what actual argument (not mere conjecture) do you have that establishes that the free market would actually be worse.

>So how does the free market solve the problem?

When banks are no longer protected from the consequences of irresponsible loans, and a single state currency no longer dominates the currency supply by law, the market is then actually permitted to function in the realm of money. When a given currency has competition, and the banks are all in competition with one another, you have something called "free banking", which historically has performed very well. States have legislated it out of existence because it restricts their ability to do all those things.

>there are ways to manipulate the economy that the free market is not prepared to deal with.

Again, you say that, but so far nothing you've said has stuck.

>the free market is not a magic bullet that can destroy all evils

Of course it isn't, because the free market isn't any one thing. "The free market" simply refers to permitting people the freedom of trade to find solutions to those problems. The free market never solves anything; it merely permits people to do so. It simply fails to restrict the natural tendency of people to solve problems.

>"okay, there are no rules, everyone go out and make as much money as you can by whatever means necessary."

That's not how the market works, though. There are rules, simply as a matter of nature. Nobody had to make them; they emerge as a consequence of the nature of things. Scarcity, supply, demand, diminishing marginal utility, the discipline of constant dealings, and so on. Nobody is above these laws, and failing to act accordingly is to invite disaster upon yourself.

>>72866

>Tit for Tat.

My favorite documentary from Richard Dawkins

Anarchists do not obey capitalism

>>72965

a state is the opposite of private property

>>72966

anarchists may or may not obey capitalism as is their wish

>>72983

Anarchists do not obey to anything

>>73012

Take a shower and come upstairs, Brandon. Your aunt made casserole.

>>73024

Anarchists do not obey their parents

I hate casserole - I want pizza

>>73012

you will grow up out of this

No arguments here

>>73036

To stop obeying rules is growing up

>>73081

stop ageism you fucking ageist oppressor

LITERAL NAZI

>>73107

lol

>>73012

fuck off i will not obey you

>>73012

Sometimes I obey my boy toy whenever he is dom.

>>73231

I did not order you anything

>>73232

You are not an anarchist

>>73235

u 2

>>72966

Capitalism is a system of voluntary transactions. What is there to obey?

>>73316

Your own will, when you make a transaction and it's your turn to deliver. And the property rights of others, insofar as they gained them through mixing their labor with a natural resource, or through voluntary transaction, when such an act of homesteading stands at the end of a chain of it.

Not a lot to obey, but some people just like to get something for nothing.

>>73316

You obey the NAP and private property, this is not anarchy

>>73328

because he wants to

>>73344

So he is not an anarchist

>>73357

you wants some things too so you are not anarchist too

>>73376

Anarchists do not obey anything, so I am an anarchist

Anarchy is not a game, it has no rules

>>73328

I do not obey the NAP; I follow the NAP. I do not obey private property; I respect others' property. Huge difference.

>>73399

The NAP is a rule that you want to enforce, if we do not respect property, you will repress us, all like the government

>>73408

Contradiction - you can't enforce a non-enforcement principle. If you do not respect private property, you are oppressing us and you are thus a state.

>>73413

Private property is arbitrary

>>73414

I will clear it up for you, I dont understand how it could seem muddled but it is the least arbitrary thing there is

I own myself, if I do not own myself I am a slave

because I own myself, I own my labor

because I own my labor, I can labor if and when I choose for any number of things all at my leisure, I am the only one who can make me work

because I own my labor, I own the fruits of my labor to do with as I wish

that is private property

>>73414

so?

>>73426

And we are free to disrespect what you think you own

>>73473

So we will not obey

>>73478

And the rest of us are free to stop you when you attack our liberty.

>>73487

We will not obey

>>73488

>We

You just destroyed all your points throughout every thread. I knew you were a brainlet.

>>73494

Not an argument

>>73497

If you can't figure out your own contradiction, you really are a brainlet. You're an anarchist, you don't need us to hold your hand and walk you through your own posts to show you where you went wrong.

>>73504

What contradiction?

>>73478

are you plural?

>>74083

No, by "we" I mean anarchists… like real anarchists

>Why are leftists so adamant that anarcho-capitalism cannot exist? Do they really believe human beings are innately evil and will abuse their fellow man for no reason if they have the means to make a living and to defend themselves?

They're two different questions but the second one is more interesting.

>Do they really believe human beings are innately evil and will abuse their fellow man for no reason

No. The reasons are crystal clear. I will lay out three propositions that I think most people would largely agree to.

1. Profit fuels further profit, growth begets growth.

2. The market is a competitive place. Market members who can grow faster than their competition will tend to displace the competition.

3. There are a large number of actions, both generally considered "good" and "evil" that are profitable.

It becomes very clear, very quickly that the person who is willing to abandon any sense of "good" and "evil" in their actions and simply only thinks in terms of what is "profitable" and what is "unprofitable" is going to become a dominant market force. Evolutionary pressure is strongly in favor of someone who will do "evil" just as readily as "good", but also pressures getting away with it.

I don't think people who support it are blind to "human nature" or whatever the fuck it is, I think it's playing with fire convinced that you won't get burned.

>>74287

>profit begets profit

many things beget profit, at a certain point you might face diseconomies of scale though

>market is a competitive place

true, but this is important later

>profit does not correlate with good or evil

it does however correlate with what the purchasing public perceives as good, for example eco friendly, fair trade, and non GMO stickers on products are a popular strategy right now

you have like 1 and a half pillars for you conclusion left but you needed all 3

>>74287

>1. Profit fuels further profit, growth begets growth.

This sounds poetic and all but it isn't quite accurate. Profit doesn't fuel profit so much as it facilitates investment which can realize more profit, or a loss if the investment was poor. It's a small point but I think people tend to hyper focus on profit and growth while not really talking about what really creates growth, which is taking elements from the physical world and forming them into some other shape or form, if the end product is more valued than the original state then there is profit, but it also removes those elements for use in other ways. Since the human hierarchy of value is always changing and natural elements used for one end product necessarily must deprive them from the creation of a different product the marginal value of creation is always changing, so profit will not always fuel further profit. More often than not something profitable today will be unprofitable years later, or less profitable than some other use.

>2. The market is a competitive place. Market members who can grow faster than their competition will tend to displace the competition.

Still kind of a weird focus on growth but I think I understand what you mean, if a firm can produce a product or service more seriously desired more efficiently than other firms then it will be prioritized when distributing scarce resources.

>3. There are a large number of actions, both generally considered "good" and "evil" that are profitable.

This is true. It might be more profitable to buy slaves to work in a factory than higher people for a wage, one is generally considered to be evil and the other good while the former would probably be more profitable in the economic sense than the latter.

>It becomes very clear, very quickly that the person who is willing to abandon any sense of "good" and "evil" in their actions and simply only thinks in terms of what is "profitable" and what is "unprofitable" is going to become a dominant market force.

I think that you are putting far too much emphasis on material things. I know there's the idea that free-market types only care about money but they do have some sense of justice and morality. An anarcho-capitalist society isn't just about businesses and firms, there will still be love, compassion, religion, art, music, there will be people even doing things without trying to make an economic profit, believe it or not. There would also be rule of law, a common understanding of what is permissible and not, and judges to mediate disputes based on this common law. Just because there is no state doesn't mean people will completely abandon their principles.

There will always be people who will disregard the well-being in favor of their own material and mental well-being. There will always be someone who will rape to satisfy their sexual appetite, or dominate the meek and weak-willed, or kill and plunder, this doesn't change no matter what social organization you have. I feel like it might of been a bit more clear to me what you mean if you weren't so vague and you could elaborate what you mean by "good" and "evil" actions that firms would use in order to make a profit. I don't deny that people won't do evil, but it seems to me far more evil is done when you let humans run states than what could be done in a voluntary system of exchange.

Because leftists are dumb.

They cannot imagine that anarcho capitalism can exist, yet they can imagine something like anarcho communism (where there is no police, but somehow people will stop you from being employed by someone else).

>>74321

Sorry if you're retarded

>>74310

this