Ancap is the only logically sound ideology

[psychomandible]

Sorry for the late reply, went to class, transcribing this from what I wrote in my notebook:

The flaw of your libertarian perspective is it has an incorrect view of rights.

Certain relative rights, like privacy and property, are derivative of one's right to contract.
This is because rights must have both an entitled party and a guarenteer of such right. This is where we derive negative rights, like speech, as the guarenteer is all people, insofar as they are all obligation not to infringe on your right to expression.
However, rights like privacy and property are not intrinsic rights, as they are defined in absolutely relative terms to your interactions with other society. This is not by definition natural, so where are these rights derived from? These rights are derivative of your right for your agreements to be honored. This is captured in your right to contract, either with an individual, or with society in a social contract.
Since these rights of privacy and property are themselves derivative of your right to contract, you have the right to contract how they are applied or contract them to other parties. Libertarianism is flawed in the way that is treats these relative rights as natural rights which must be maximally preserved.
Therefore, a just government must not maximally guarentee individual privacy and property, but instead maximally obtain societal consent in their constriction of such. Reusseau partially captures this in his articulation of the general will, but it is most effectively explicated by Locke's natural rights in the Second Treatise of Government.
Participatory democracy is the best system in maximizing the validity of the social contract. Even if people are Low IQ, their rights are still valid, so they must be party to the social contract as they are governed by it.
TLDR: While a monarchist system of selective democracy may maximize the magnitude of one's contractual rights preserved to their person, it is illegitimate in its surrender of rights to the government, making democracy by the masses preferable.

That's why the government is the problem as it protects the group over the individual whilst ancap Is made for the individual. You also forget that once an capistan is a thing contracts will have to be seen as fair by both parties, and if on does not agree with what the other is trading with he can just move on to the next trader and since the cost to entry will be as low as the product costs to make that means you will have plenty to choose from.

How is private property rights any different from the right to free speech ? Are you saying I don't have a intrinsic right to my own body ? And by following your logic I can not defend a violation of my right to private property and by following that to its conclusion I have no rights as I can not contract anything or say anything beacuse I do not have a body to contract or say.

I also don't understand how you can seriously tell me that a low iq nut job in la has the same vote to change the life of a farmer in Idaho as that farmer in Idaho. Beacuse that's what you are advocating for, for someone to be able to vote away someone's property rights.

 

[psychomandible]

In Ancap society, if I were a billionaire, I'd kidnap thousands of people and enslave them using a private military, creating an enclosed city. This immediately isn't Anarcho-Capitalism anymore.

What is your response to this? A free market is fundamentally dependent on 3 elements: Property Rights, Rule of Law, Individual Freedom. In Ancapistan I can take all 3 away with enough resources.

You don't think all of these people will be fully armed ? And that they won't have their own private insurance company to look after them ?

 

[psychomandible]

this is solved by enshrining basic rights and liberties which supersede the rule of the majority. The exception to my previous argument about contracting is that one cannot contract away their natural rights, only their contractual ones. Social laws cannot regulate an individual to the point where it infringes on their natural rights, but it is perfectly permissible for laws to be against an individual's own belief otherwise. Government will not naturally satiate every persons individual will, because if it could, there would be no need for government. Consenting in the social contract mean you consent to sometimes be governed by rules you disagree with. This is perfectly permissible as long as you can leave the contract by leaving the governed area.

This is literally ancap nigga

 

[GrowthReaper]

You don't think all of these people will be fully armed ? And that they won't have their own private insurance company to look after them ?

Nigga that is just feudalism. The average Joe does not have money for an arsenal capable of defending him against my thousand man army, and thus he is forced to pay an "insurance company" or lord to protect him, but unfortunately the value is too high and he is forced into debt slavery.

 

[psychomandible]

Nigga that is just feudalism. The average Joe does not have money for an arsenal capable of defending him against my thousand man army, and thus he is forced to pay an "insurance company" or lord to protect him, but unfortunately the value is too high and he is forced into debt slavery.

I don't have time for this genuinely retarded response .
1. You act like prices will be the same and that people's incomes will still be low
2. He doesn't need to be able to defend himself against the full army but you're still attacking thousands of people not just one guy
3. How is the value too high ? You'd obviously pay for what you can afford and again it would be far cheaper then you think

 

[degenblondie]

For example?

What natural rights are you talking about, did you know the idea of natural rights aka divine rights for being human come from the catholic church way before Locke in England? The idea that all humans are born equal.

Nobody has consented, no one ever did. The governent made a social contract, specially within the enlightement moral values from the modern era. And there's no way to leave the contract because every area on this planet belongs to a certain country even Antartica and the oceans and now the fucking outer space.

Yes I knew that, and I’m Catholic. Locke however was earlier to articulate it in a civil sense I believe.
The social contract is forged through participatory democracy. The contract is not between the individual, but rather the populous and the state. Since the populous as a whole is free to enter or exit the contract with the government (locke’s writings about revolution), it’s still valid.

 

[degenblondie]

This is literally ancap nigga

this is called a normal government

 

[isis_Bleach]

Logically mogs everything else
Nazi ? Mogged
Commie ? Mogged
Fascist ? Mogged
Socialist ? Mogged
Everything gets mogged try and change my mind
@Volksstaffel
@imontheloose
@Jonasㅤㅤ⠀
@iblamemandible7

The wealth of nations was written in 1776 its outdated bro

 

[degenblondie]

This is literally ancap nigga

ancap is when the people enshrine a government with their individual liberties through contract and establish a constitution to protect certain rights of the individual? JFL. gotta be a troll

 

[degenblondie]

That's why the government is the problem as it protects the group over the individual whilst ancap Is made for the individual. You also forget that once an capistan is a thing contracts will have to be seen as fair by both parties, and if on does not agree with what the other is trading with he can just move on to the next trader and since the cost to entry will be as low as the product costs to make that means you will have plenty to choose from.

How is private property rights any different from the right to free speech ? Are you saying I don't have a intrinsic right to my own body ? And by following your logic I can not defend a violation of my right to private property and by following that to its conclusion I have no rights as I can not contract anything or say anything beacuse I do not have a body to contract or say.

I also don't understand how you can seriously tell me that a low iq nut job in la has the same vote to change the life of a farmer in Idaho as that farmer in Idaho. Beacuse that's what you are advocating for, for someone to be able to vote away someone's property rights.

dude did you read anything i said. waste of my time. i’d rather argue with a kindergartener

 

[GrowthReaper]

I don't have time for this genuinely retarded response .
1. You act like prices will be the same and that people's incomes will still be low
2. He doesn't need to be able to defend himself against the full army but you're still attacking thousands of people not just one guy
3. How is the value too high ? You'd obviously pay for what you can afford and again it would be far cheaper then you think

God, anarchists are so naive.

How could the average Joe or even a fully organized and mobilized town defend itself against a billionaire warlord? An insurance company in this case would simply be another warlord under an unassuming name.

My point being that Man only follows 2 possible behavioral restrictors, Rule of Might or Rule of Law, and the latter does not exist in Anarchy.