/liberty/ - Liberty

>>74630

>Protection from other gangs and mercinary groups, as well as control/protection of land and resources.

You've shifted his question. He asked why would you attempt to start a cartel over, not why you would have a small army. A cartel and a small army are two different things with different implications, the one with cartels having a focus on narcotics, alcohol, etc while the other is a fundamentally different question which doesn't necessarily tie into drugs, etc but perhaps a question of firearms (if there's even that.)

>who cares what you call it? It's a collection of wealthy people who develop autonomous killing drone swarms. The NAP would say that's ok as long as they don't uneash them on you. But once they do, what good is the "principle"?

At that point you can start protecting your property. This is a very odd point because you can already program AI into a drone, doesn't suddenly mean that the first use of it will be to destroy others. Same with raising an army, there's a whole bunch of private security companies out there that gain their money by providing consumers with a product they value. There's not much point in messing with your consumers now is there?

Also his argument is essentially saying that all you're proposing is that the worst that can happen is another government. Which as you'll notice is not much of a defense for the idea of government.

>Your argument so far is "people won't do that". This is painfully naive since humans have always done that and would have clear reasons to group up to support a local economy.

Local economies aren't the same as cartels… Also, no it's not naive because how many chocolate cartels do you see today? How many bootlegged alcohol dealing gangs do you see? None, because there's no reason for them to exist.

> Theft and murder aren't going to magically disappear from human psychology.

No one said that they would, it's just that a solution to these things doesn't lie in an institution that has some sort of supreme authority to do both. If you live in a neighborhood and you have fear that your daughter would be raped, you don't rape her as some sort of precautionary action do you?

>>74635

>everyone is latching on to the cartel comment for some bizzare reason when it's not relevant to the general point.

Then why would you bring up Mexico or cartels to begin with? If it's not relevant to the point then you shouldn't be bringing it up, should you?

> I mean militia-type small groups and gangs who fund themselves.

Gangs and militias dedicated to what exactly? Gangs exist primarily either to steal wealth or to deal in the black market (which is where most gangs actually get their wealth as opposed to going around stealing from people's houses.). Militias are in of themselves not inherently bad and can serve as a good defense of the community in question. so this is an odd point.

>Call it a cartel or whatever. Maybe I have a shitload of weed and I want to control the marijuana sales in my region so I get a bunch of people together and we raid other farms and extort people to get control.

Inevitably private law enforcement will hear about it and have you put on trial and arrested, or maybe you'll just be shot along the way. You have this odd implication as though that in the absence of a state there won't be any resistance to your actions, when there will be.

>it's not really relevant hypothetically why I personally would form a cartel when you know it would happen. You know this because it already does.

No. It happens because of drug laws. Again, you don't really see a lot of chocolate cartels or alcoholic dealing gangs around because those things are legal. There's no reason for those gangs to form so they don't.

>average farmer in the midwest could not defend himself against an autonomous drone swarm, even if he paid for protection.

Why the obsession with "autonomous drone swarms"? You are aware there are ways around drone swarms that even a third worlder could think of, right? Even if he couldn't afford to pay local militias, that's implying that there won't be donations in regards to this sector which effectively help protect him as a part of a given area.

>I'm saying it's inevetable states would re-form.

Right, that's what I said your argument was.

> You understand humans already existed in a state of anarchy for a period of time, right? Those bands and tribes became cities which became city states

First of how all, how are we defining anarchy exactly? You're not referencing the "Wild, Wild West" or even Medieval Iceland but rather "bands and tribes" which is odd because it implies that this is somehow anarchy? Even odder is that you suggest that cities naturally become city STATES but you don't really provide anything to support that conclusion, much like pretty much all of your argument.

>Talk about shifting the question. I'm not defending government, I'm pointing out that all roads lead to the formation of bands and those bands lead to conflict and you always end up back in some form of governance. It's not a defense, it's an acknowledgement of the reality.

Formation of bands of people leads to conflicts? What the fuck is even meant by this?

>>74638

also if we're talking only about practicality as opposed to just general validity then your statement also doesn't apply.

If I'm a slave and I believe that men should be free, is the idea of being free suddenly impractical because I cannot maintain adherence to it in my current state?

>>74638

>They don't have to, but it's easier than getting killed.

In AnCapistan, if someone said this to me and others, I could make a legitimate case to the community to riddle you with bullets, doubly so if you followed through on your threats. You are not bulletproof no matter how poor of a shot niggers/spics might be.

>since you folks seem to have the bad habit of nickpicking tangential details of hypotheticals

Let's get back on topic since what everyone's saying went completely over your head. A cartel exists when something is illegal. A cartel, or mafia, or whatever you want to call them has to serve a good to the community in order to function. Cartels/Mafias, as shitty as they may be, often times provide protection and other services to their local community, as pointing guns has no meaning unless the one pointing the gun is Juan protecting his sister/wife/daughter/uncle/cousing/what have you either monetarily through funds earned by the cartel, or defensively against other cartels. There are very few sociopaths who will choose to be a gun pointer, because a sociopath only cares about himself and therefore will choose the path of least resistance which usually doesn't involve pointing guns at people armed to the teeth- this dramatically shortens the sociopath's life. Cartels/Mafias/etc. that are "tyrannical" instead of calculating are typically only that way because the government has:

>A) Effectively outlawed self-defense

>B) Simultaneously not performed its "duties" of protecting its client base

So staying on topic, your generic OP that's been answered a dozen times is "what keeps everything from becoming Mad Max? What keeps X from forming a private army?" Instead of answering your question directly, I (and I'm assuming others) were trying to get you to think about what you were asking to show you have some semblance of an idea of what AnCapistan was before coming here and flinging shit. In order to understand AnCap, you have to change your questions first. You have to think as if you were the businessman in question when asking these sort of questions, which is an abstract process. Instead you took a step lower and simply regurgitated /pol/ talking points which is why this thread hasn't garnered more interest. I'm going to give you a brief piece of AnCap philosophy, so let me help you help yourself.

>>74695

>Wealth & Power are interchangeable in AnCapistan, they are very hard to separate in AnCapistan unless you're dealing with niche fields like Religion

>Power of force (military, mercenaries, bandits, etc.) requires charisma, but more importantly it requires large amounts of wealth because you have no backbone to rely on to produce goods for you (unlike a government).

This is doubly so because AnCapistani markets are threaded like a spider web- AnCapistani society has reached a point where self-sufficiency is established through specialization and trade instead of doing everything yourself. You might have some self-sufficiency skills, but self-sufficiency in the terms most people think of it is a hobby/luxury skill to have, you simply need to be good at what you do in AnCapistan

>In other words, you have no power unless you have wealth.

>With few exceptions, wealth can only be generated in AnCapistan by providing a good or service that people want/need

>Therefore if you hate everyone and want to kill people (and not be immediately shot for doing so, cutting your life short), you must first provide an equivalent or significantly more important good to whatever you are taking from AnCap "society."

>You must do this while competing with other businesses providing similar goods. If you create a monopoly item/service, it will become profitable for other businesses to do so as well thus cutting your monopoly short

>This means your profit margins will become increasingly smaller as you expand away from a single business location, as you will have to compete with more businesses and you will have less community trust as you expand in order to gouge your prices for extra profit margins

>If you expand into another industry, you must make it profitable to do so

>Therefore if you expand into military might industries and your profits are from a different industry, you must compete on two fronts to maintain your army, you must convince those who buy your goods that it's ok that you rape women and kill babies, and you must fight off other armies/security companies/etc.

>Keep in mind your soldiers must have an incentive to work for you and not McPMC down the street offering shorter hours, less time getting shot at, better benefits, etc.

>Unlike post-apocalyptia, ancient societies, or what have you, communication is widespread in AnCapistan, in fact it's probably faster/better/more reliable than it is now

>Unlike now, huge companies suffer from growing pains in AnCapistan as they don't have the regulatory power of the state to kill their competition

>Effectively to grow your business beyond a certain level depending on your market (for most services, a local region, for most large-scale companies like grocery stores dealing in goods, the equivalent of maybe the East Coast, maybe a few international companies among manufacturers) is like playing Battletoads, but on an even higher difficulty

What I want you to take away from this, is that in order to be misanthropic you must first be a philanthropist, but the moment your philanthropy dries up, you will have no more money to fund your misanthropy AND people will be aware of what you did, so you must continue to be a philanthropist. For most companies, if they are able to extend themselves with wealth to the point where they could theoretically hire a PMC to literally kill their competition without suffering massively from the blowback (because nothing kills your business and soldier hiring team quite like your competition posting videos online of McDicks soldiers killing unarmed McDildo workers- your competition doesn't need propaganda when you're creating it for them), it is both more profitable and more manageable to just continue their business model or try to buy their competition (which comes with its own set of issues that are too long for this post). All the greatest wealth-holders (that weren't through government contracts) since the rise of the industrial society had a philanthropic goal in mind: Rockefeller for all the shit we give him wanted to get cheap oil into every household. Carnegie wanted to make steel dirt cheap so every worker could use steel products. Bill wanted every household to have a computer in it. S&W wanted every citizen to be protected from niggers, etc. Unless wealth is stolen (which comes with a whole new set of issues involving those who retaliate to theft), wealth can only be generated from philanthropic means.