Economic Theory is Fun tho.

It's not enough to not understand economics, you also need to lack empathy and self-reflection.
- I thought that was well covered by "incel".
- Phew, thank god I understand economics

Every Man is an Island motherfuckers realizing that No Man is an Island.
Humans specifically only were successful because of pack hunting. We died quickly in nature as individuals. Anarcho-capitalism rejects this need for each other replaced with the unsound idea that each individual can handle everything on their own.
Works great until you break your fucking ankle and realize nobody decided being a doctor was important or the only person with medical skills has decided they don't want to do business with you.
- The ironic thing is that they because successful because of civilization and pack mentality, but are so conceited, they think all that infrastructure (public roads, doctors, restaurants, etc) exists simply because they exist. It's weirdly how toddlers see the universe, and why tantrums between the two groups are so similar.
  
  Nor weird at all. It requires a social and emotional maturation process to occur before an adult can appreciate the golden rule. When this developmental process fails you have a chronological adult who is developmentally immature. One of the technical names used to refer to this outcome is narcissism. Such people have prominent narcissistic traits.
  
  Yeah, the old "you don't find libertarians in poor countries with bad infrastructure" trope.
- Kropotkin identified mutual aid as a key factor in evolution, not only but especially in humans
- It's literally just libertarianism under a new and more descriptive name.
  
  Capitalism (strictly defined as the private ownership of the means of production) can’t exist without the premise of private property being protected by laws that are collectively agreed upon, enforced, and adjudicated by peers within your community.
  This implies that any capitalist society is compatible with democracy, as in, "the will of the masses controls society" and not as in "you get to vote for genocidal liberal who will make us richer, or genocidal fascist who will make us richer"

Anarchy (as a political philosophy) is about an absence of coercion.
Capitalism is about the supremacy of property rights over all other rights, backed up by the threat of violence against anyone who doesn't play along.
How anyone can think those two concepts are compatible is beyond me.
- backed up by the threat of violence against anyone who doesn't play along.
  Every political ideology includes that. What good are rules without enforcement? Just because the enforcers are supposed to be random individuals in some ideologies doesn't mean the threat of violence for not playing along is gone.
  
  Anarchism claims to be different. But yeah, that's a big part of why I see anarchism as a thought experiment and not a serious ideology.
- Ok I should preface by saying I think ancap is dumb and having a slight disagreement with what you've said does not mean I'm not defending them. They're asshats.
  But: imo, anarchist thought escapes definition. There's no such thing as anarchism (in the sense of an agreed-upon political philosophy), only anarchists.
  Readers of Rene Girard might describe coersion (insofar as it's a natural result of hegemony), as a sort of force of nature, like violence, that, if society doesn't find a healthy way to express, will come out sideways, in ways that are anti-social.
- Anarchism can only exist when there's a single individual not interacting with any other person, period. Every human interaction immediately breaks any sort of anarchism, there will always be some agreed upon behavior, whether implicit or explicit, violently enforced or not.
  I suppose most ancaps are actually minarchists, or "minimal state" proponents, because capitalism fails terribly without laws and some way to enforce them. Without a state (even as small as a group's leadership), "ownership" doesn't exist, whoever's stronger owns the thing. You blink, you lose. You die, it's first dibs. Fell for a scam? Too bad, you should've been smarter. Got captured and sold into slave labor? Too bad, you should've seen that coming. Someone stole your stuff? Too bad, you should've secured it better.
- Capitalism is primarily an economic system, not a political philosophy. And while it requires property rights in order to function, it is primarily concerned with solving problems in the absence of coercion, so it is absolutely compatible with anarchy.
  You're making a fundamental error when you think that property rights would not or do not exist in anarchy. What doesn't exist in anarchy is the enforcement of such rights by a STATE. A property owner (or in this case, really anyone who lays claim to a property, since a state that could issue official deeds does not exist) still has the right to defend their property using violent means if necessary.
  So yes, capitalism and anarchy are absolutely compatible.
  
  Anarchy requires the absence of a state... And private property... Anarchy is to the left of "workers siezing the means of production".
  But anarcho-capitalists are, as you've said, only focusing on the economic system of their politics. If you ask them about the politics and government of their fantasy? Well, they all reveal a desire for a deeply coercive state. Anarchy, and also Libertarian, are words being co-opted.
  
  Private Property cannot exist without a state. That which gives private property legitimacy is a monopoly of violence, otherwise you have a winner-takes-all might makes right system.
  Collective ownership of property can be enforced via the collective itself, without a need for a governing body.
  Anarchism is certainly idealistic, but Anarcho-Capitalism is pure fantasy.
  
  A property owner (or in this case, really anyone who lays claim to a property, since a state that could issue official deeds does not exist) still has the right to defend their property using violent means if necessary.
  Okay, but if there isn't a state, who is to say the workers don't have the right to protect their surplus labor value from theft by seizing the means of production, through violence if necessary?
  This is one of the reasons why anarcho capitalism is an incoherent ideology. People who believe in it think that the right of private property is just something everyone agrees should be held sacred, when it only exists because of state violence.
  
  LOL.

I prefer to call them "19th century robber barons" who yearn for the days of company towns, where they would own you from cradle to grave.
- They aren't robber barons.
  They're the simpering toady to the robber baron.
  The robber baron loves the government, he buys as many politicians as he can.

I love watching them try to explain why it wouldn't just become neo-fuedalism lmao
- Cause they imagine themselves as the Lord and not the Peasants that they currently are in reality.
  
  To be fair, some of these fucks are the Peter Thiels of the world that are part of the aristocracy.
  But in a world without the state to enforce their bullshit they would fall quickly to violent people like back in the old days of feudalism.
- The thing is that’s what they want. They all want to be feudal lords.
  
  Edgelords

I misread it as arachnid capitalism, and I was trying to figure out which spiders were apparently pro-capitalism lmao
- They are really good at networking.

Is there anything worse than anarchocapitalism?
- Fascism has done far more harm to the world. Barely any half-serious anarcho-capitalist has had a hand into influencing much practical policy. Even Milei is backing down from some of his campaign proposals, and he's just gotten elected.
- Hmmm. What about anarchocapitalists that leave capitalist out of their descriptors and larp like they're contemporary versions of the DK-listening, doc martens wearing, spiky hair having kids from the 1980s. And ancaps might be slightly better than the rich people at the top that use every advantage they've been given as a lever to suppress the success of everyone else. At least ancaps still have the potential to change.
  
  There are voluntarists that believe we are ethically obligated to help each other, but aren't willing to use violence to force others to do what we want.
  
  Donkey Kong listening?
- Anachrocapitalist groomers as the image implies?

Yes, exactly that. Ancaps live in a right-wing fantasy world, like the rest of the right.

*volcels
Their shitty behavior is what keeps them from getting laid. That makes them volcels.
- Then actual incels are exceedingly rare!

Aka Pimping your population out to U.S. companies

What about the roads, who will pay for the roads?
- Yesterday I saw a person say that they should all be privatized. Which is so insane I walked away and talked to someone else. Like I’m not going to convince a guy at a bar that his extremist ideology sounds like it wants to create just a godsawful way to live or that our country has tried the whole “minarchism” thing and it was a fucking disaster that led to us creating regulations, roads, etc.
  
  Basically a bunch of toll roads where you pay to use them, right? But paying every time you use the road will get expensive quick, so road companies will offer subscriptions so you can save money if you frequently use their roads. Some companies will bundle subscriptions from many road companies together so you'll only pay for one subscription instead of dozens. They might even offer discount if you use yearly subscription. Viola! Now you have road tax except paid to private companies.
  
  My in-laws live on a private road. They're the fourth lot down from the main road (for the uninitiated, if your property would block access to another property, then there exists an access easement across your property, and you must allow people - principally the owners - to traverse your property so they can get to theirs). Everyone is responsible for (but not obligated to) maintaining the stretch of road in front of their houses. The first couple houses are owned by folks with a good chunk of change and the road is as nice as it gets. The third house down has never done a thing to their stretch of road and it's a piece of shit for that little bit. You're cranking the steering wheel from lock to lock to lock again to avoid holes 6 inches deep. Their house is in a sorry state so there's not a chance in the world they have the money to fix the road up. My in-laws throw some gravel in the holes from time to time to make things a little easier on themselves.
  The municipality can't/won't do a thing. They don't own the road and it's not like the neighbors are blocking people in or out. The road is only nigh (not completely) impassable.
- Honestly fuck the roads.
  
  Fuck roads! We want an advanced system of High Speed and Light Rail to make roads obsolete for traveling!
- The slaves will be taxed, of course, FREEDOM B***

Cut. It. Out.
- Dump. Alanis.

Man, I am so glad "anarchocapitalist" is starting to stick. I can't believe they got away with the other word for as long as they did.
- What other word? Minarchist?
  
  Libertarian, which ought to be understood as left anarchist.
  
  "job creators."

We have the worst aspect of anarchism, but wait there's more, we also have capitalism!

Isn't that the guy who dated Alanis Morrisette when she was 15 and he was thirty something? Don't pretend he isn't a fucking loser too.
- ~~He claims the song wasn't about him, and she refuses to confirm or deny it.~~
  See the comment below, my memory sucks.
  
  In a 2008 interview, Coulier said he was the ex-boyfriend who inspired Morissette's song "You Oughta Know"; in the 2021 documentary Jagged, Morissette denied the song is about Coulier.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alanis_Morissette#Relationships

Ah yes, I have insulted my opponent in the genital area, therefore his arguments are invalid.
- Nah their arguments are invalid because they aren't based in logic or economic theory.
  
  If it makes you feel any better I just think human interaction should be voluntary.
  
  Please enlighten me as to how that is the case.

Great book on Modern Economics Ive been reading, cant recommend it enough!

Correct I di

incels who suck
FTFY
- Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure I learned at school that you can use "that" for everything, "who" for people and "which" for things

I know this lazy, dumb as shit 40yo Republikid who sounds like CNBC and Cramer who finds empathy by feeling bad for the anti-work subreddit.
“At least Im not them” he says.
Try to get into the nuts and bolts of things and the dummy shuts down spectacularly.
Also, he’s never had a gf. IDK how these folks plan on winning when they get no love.