>>8091153
itt: pdf files

>>8091154
>pdf files
This isn't a YouTube comment section pal. If you don't even have balls to say what you want to say on fucking 4chan then I feel sorry for you.

>>8091157
Don't try to pretend that if it was said in meme dialect it means anything less than what anon meant to say.

>>8091405
>Don't try to pretend that if it was said in meme dialect it means anything less than what anon meant to say.
I can't take it seriously that's all. That's on top of being wrong.

Merry Christmas and a happy and free new year to all my Libertarians. Weather you be Ancap or Minarchist take care of yourselves.

this is cringe as fuck, anarcho capitalism isnt real anarchism stop larping

>>8091615
"Real anarchists" like the people who did CHAZ? Besides, being a "real" Anarchist is a dubious honor when you are liable to loose thae title of a "real" anarchist whenever you have a serious disagreement with another anarchist.

I remember the good old days when libertarianism meant sitting quietly on your ranch with your guns reading the Bible and Mein Kampf and collecting all the rainwater you wanted.

Instead of modern libertarianism which is apparently sitting in your studio apartment raping small children repeatedly while doing coke and mining bitcoin.

>>8091685
>Instead of modern libertarianism which is apparently sitting in your studio apartment raping small children repeatedly while doing coke and mining bitcoin.
It's not small children it's your mom, and I wouldn't call it rape more like and exchange of goods for services. Your mom's used cunt in exchange for my Bitcoins.

Objectivism is the only iteration of rational egoism/individualism that has appealing esthetics.

>>8091924
That is a really cool image anon.

>>8091925
/puukuur on reddit

>>8092034
>fluoride
wtf? are all americans this retarded?

>>8092037
lol. you get used to it around here

>>8092622
besides being the shittiest low-effort wallpaper... it's absolutely retarded

>>8092626
>besides being the shittiest low-effort wallpaper... it's absolutely retarded
One look at the record of failed democracies world wide says otherwise. Many honest to god attempts at democracy, like South Africa, fail and some dictatorships i.e Singapore succeed as long as they respect the economic rights of their citizens. This doesn't mean that dictatorships are great or desirable just that economic freedom is.

>>8091153
Tfw the free market is the ultimate moral arbiter for all things, based benevolent profit motive :DDDDDDD

>>8092910
>>buying actual property is now non-existant, only rental houses
Sounds like socialism to me anon. Also corporations as we know them can't exist without a state.

>>8092911
then why were corporations even more powerful in the days of less govt regulation? government literally had to step in to break up the monopolies that formed naturally

>>8092914
>then why were corporations even more powerful in the days of less govt regulation?
In what sense? Modern corporations lobby governments and use practices like regulatory capture to ensure their place at the top. The existence of a corporation requires the state because corporations are not normal businesses. They are taxed differently, they are treated differently from most businesses and they have "judicial person-hood" which is part of the definition of what a corporation is. In the absence of a state there probably wouldn't be corporations as we know them. You say the government HAD to step in but it's unclear what would have happened if they didn't, after all natural monopolies are rather fickle and not as stable as monopolies created by the state.

No steppy on the snekky

>>8092918
>it could've worked i swear!
it would've turned into feudalism real fast

>>8092954
>it would've turned into feudalism real fast
It didn't last time: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/06/roderick-t-long/the-vikings-were-libertarians/

>>8092956
>in the same article
"Originally, soon after settlement, Iceland had about 4,500 independent farms, but by the thirteenth century 80 percent of Iceland's farmland was owned by five families, and all the other formerly independent farmers had become tenants."-
seems like it did.

>>8092970
>Libertarian scholars and free-market enthusiasts have often pointed to the Icelandic Free State (930-1262)
>"We should be cautious in labeling as a failure a political experiment that flourished longer than the United States has even existed."
The Icelandic commonwealth took it's sweet time "collapsing." If you keep reading the article you will find:
>The process of competitive chieftaincies turning into monopolistic mini-states is obviously a move toward less privatization, not more
>It seems rather unfair, then, to blame this catastrophe on privatization.
>A more plausible explanation for the Free State's decline points to the introduction of the tithe in 1096. Made possible by Iceland's conversion to Christianity
Fighting monopolies by relying on an even greater monopoly is a bit like using gasoline to stop a forest fire wouldn't you agree?

>>8092975
>The process of competitive chieftaincies turning into monopolistic mini-states is obviously a move toward less privatization, not more
>It seems rather unfair, then, to blame this catastrophe on privatization
Why would it be unfair? The chieftains eventually bought all the land through wealth and thus gained power over it. Would Corporations act diferently in this case?
If so, why? Would they regulate themselves before no regulations despite having all the wealth and power to secure their dominion?

>A more plausible explanation for the Free State's decline points to the introduction of the tithe
I am sure it speed up the process, but i do not think this was the turning point.

Anyhow, i do believe an stateless nation would be successful and it would enjoy of many of the qualities Icelanders enjoyed at first. I do not think that a libertarian system supported on capitalism would be the correct way though.

>>8092976
pape related

>>8092976
>>8092977
>Why would it be unfair?
I don't want to retell the whole article since it makes a good point on it's own but if I must: Being a "chieftain" didn't guarantee power or influence on it's own. You could procure the services of a chieftain and then switch to a different chief on a voluntary basis without changing your physical location in a kind of non territorial jurisdiction. The moment this system stopped functioning and the chiefs became localized lords instead of service providers is when the doom of the common wealth was spelled. What happened was that the chieftains kept parts of the tithe to themselves essentially taxing their populations, thus statism was introduced to Iceland. They didn't buy up all that land just because they had a monopoly on some good or service but rather a monopoly on force. Again the article goes into great detail about this, consider re reading it.
>I do not think that a libertarian system supported on capitalism would be the correct way though.
And yet that is what happened in Medieval Iceland as well as some other societies.

>>8092986
I see your point. But I believe this just proves the fragility of your system against abusive factors and the corruptibility of the people. Let's say instead of the tithe, there are water suppliers that own a lake in each village. These suppliers pay a fraction of what they get from their buyers to the chieftains for protection. This still follows the Private Property method and creates the same problem that was exposed in the article.

The villagers pay a small quantity for something they need, the water owners pay extra for more protection and so this cicle repeats.

>>8092991
>These suppliers pay a fraction of what they get from their buyers to the chieftains for protection
Then you just employ the services of a different chieftain who is less corrupt. An interesting feature of this system is that your not stuck with certain arbiter/chieftain/what have you just because of the area you happen to live in. In this system the position of chiefs does not bestow any privileges in and of itself and the chieftains don't have a regional monopoly they have an incentive to do the right thing.

>>8092992
> they have an incentive to do the right thing
are you brain damaged?

>>8092997
You asked if some rich dude could pay off the local chieftains, I said it's not that easy if you can voluntarily choose different chieftains to follow and they don't have regional monopolies. I thought I was clear but apparently not. Either way I'm not explaining it again so you can fuck off. Thanks for the flags though.

>>8092997
not the one you were discussing to, just a rando

>>8092992
Alright, so explain this to me then.
>water supplier has a monopoly on water
>villagers need water to live and to grow their farms so they are forced to pay for this "service"
>water supplier pays the chieftain they choose a FRACTION of all their sales to a chieftain, taking the accountability away from villagers, creating a captive market.

Where's the incentive to do the right thing here?

>>8093013
>not the one you were discussing to, just a rando
Okay then.
>>water supplier has a monopoly on water
This depends it would be hard to monopolize all the usable water because the river has to flow somewhere, and there are various irrigation methods as well etc. But there would probably be some regulations that would naturally emerge as a consequence of the chieftains satelliting disputes between the farmers and the water suppliers, each side would have their representatives come to a mutually beneficial outcome. After all an absence of state does not mean the absence of law and order. That being said the Icelandic free state isn't some utopia or a perfect society (or else it wouldn't have collapsed) but I maintain that it was a good society and one we could learn from in many respects.

>>8093617
What language are the quotes in?

>>8093735
Spanish

>>8093810
I see, I thought it might be Portuguese for a second, thanks anon.

Art Nouveau, Objectivism and Retrofuturism render by chatgpt.