Bill Gates has around 80 billion dollars. Tough luck trying to keep a occupation up with that money alone, disregarding the fact that he won't be using all of his money.

He (or anyone else who has a shithole of money) hires the private army and installs a new goverment again with him as leader. Boom! We have a goverment again.
And dont say the soldiers wouldnt support, because we all know that people would do ANYTHING for money.

You don't really explain me how Ancap would work there... Like I said, the ieda ofdefense contractors is already full of problems by itself.


If I go tomorrow and I rob a bank, I will probably go to jail right? What if I go and rob the bank in an ancap society. If I have a defense contractor, it will protect me and the banks defense contractor will protect it too. It works if I have a defense contractor, and even there maybe. If I have my personal defense contractor, I really doubt they'd deliver me to the other defense contractor, if I have no defense contractor, why does the other defense contractor have the right to condemn me to jail without me even being right to defend myself bc I'm too poor? What if I'm not even guilty in the first place??

Defense contractors work for the rich, the poor, not so much. The actual justice system is flawled yes, but the ancap justice system IS A JOKE.

Use a fifty dollar bomb, and bam, a million dollars down the drain.

That works for the tank, and even maybe there again, I'm not convinced. But will it work against a f35 raptor? These are a little harder to take down I believe.


For a private army, you underestimate the money Bill gates, Slim,... have and frankly how warfare work in the 21st century. To conquer idk, Mongolia tomorrow, I don't need hundreds of thousand soldiers, and huge army stuff. Just a few jets bomb the shit out of the country and you use it to force the gvt to follow you. Nukes are also good for that.


For the gvt goods, it was a mistake, I meant gvt property there. Still, stolen or not, someone gotta sell that for an ancap society, or maybe abandon it and the stronger can seize it? That would be a GREAT SOLUTION.


For final considerations, what is an ancap society? As long as it goes, a king is an ancap citizen. The country is it's private property that he inherited from his father, if you don't like you can leave the country and he provides safety/other services in exchange of you giving him taxes, which we can call a private contract with a private company, the King SA.

human nature will not change

we lust

we envy

we have greed

we are lazy

we are angry

we eat a lot

and we r prideful creatures

over the course of thousand yrs all of these things remained in tact

we r selfish creatures

If I go tomorrow and I rob a bank, I will probably go to jail right? What if I go and rob the bank in an ancap society. If I have a defense contractor, it will protect me and the banks defense contractor will protect it too. It works if I have a defense contractor, and even there maybe. If I have my personal defense contractor, I really doubt they'd deliver me to the other defense contractor, if I have no defense contractor, why does the other defense contractor have the right to condemn me to jail without me even being right to defend myself bc I'm too poor? What if I'm not even guilty in the first place??

You're likely to get shot by security guards. If you attack a bank, you don't get to skip out on being held accountable because you haven't signed with them.

Defense contractors work for the rich, the poor, not so much. The actual justice system is flawled yes, but the ancap justice system IS A JOKE.

I don't see why poor folk can't just band together and hire a defense contractor, nothing is preventing you from having a peaceful, voluntary and organized community with rules. Also glad to know you've been to Ancapistan, it's really a great place.

That works for the tank, and even maybe there again, I'm not convinced. But will it work against a f35 raptor? These are a little harder to take down I believe.

Yeah, but you can't occupy a place by just bombing it. You're just going to kill mostly civilians while wasting money and encouraging folk to attack you.

For a private army, you underestimate the money Bill gates, Slim,... have and frankly how warfare work in the 21st century

You really overestimate how much money these folk have to spend on occupations, and how cheap it is to occupy a place. The unsuccessful occupation of Afghanistan costed about a trillion dollars.

Still, stolen or not, someone gotta sell that for an ancap society

Sell it while decentralizing the government.

For final considerations, what is an ancap society? As long as it goes, a king is an ancap citizen. The country is it's private property that he inherited from his father, if you don't like you can leave the country and he provides safety/other services in exchange of you giving him taxes, which we can call a private contract with a private company, the King SA.

Rich folk can't really afford this, and why exactly is government so good if your greatest fear is it returning?

government manages monetary policy

now that its gone the banks can print more money!!!

all expenses saved weee

People rob banks every now and then, maybe I could be able to do it, maybe not. Still it was an example you can apply it to me murdering a random person in the street. I won't be held accountable if that person doesn't have a defender, or if I have a defensor that can protect me from prossecution, and it's wrong to punish me without me having an attorney in the scenario I have no private defender; bc I could be innocent after all, that wouldn't be better than gvt offering me a public defender.

For poor people, it works too well to be poor lol, why can't poor people just share their money so they can have food, buy houses, get clothes,... It works so well right? DUMB POOR PEOPLE! Thet could be rich if they followed your smart advices.



Also for the army thing, you're still ignoring reality of warfare in the 21st century. I don't need to occupy a country to control it. If I just bomb a country till it's only dust left of it, there will be no resistance to fight me. In a rock paper scissors scenario, angry rebels don't beat tactical nuclear strikes.

And you ignored the king scenario totally. I don't think gvt is inherently good; gvt is what people make of it, especially in a democracy. I was just exposing that your ancap utopy will be replaced by a gvt at the end no matter what; and you might even call the US gvt a good gvt, once you compare it to what could come to replace it.

Edited 5/27/2016 04:19:35

For poor people, it works too well to be poor lol, why can't poor people just share their money so they can have food, buy houses, get clothes,... It works so well right? DUMB POOR PEOPLE! Thet could be rich if they followed your smart advices.

They already have all of those things, at least in a America. And if they need collective defense, they need to collectively pay for it (voluntarily).

I won't be held accountable if that person doesn't have a defender

No defense company wants folk running around murdering their clients. Bam, you're in gaol, and get tried.

Also for the army thing, you're still ignoring reality of warfare in the 21st century. I don't need to occupy a country to control it. If I just bomb a country till it's only dust left of it, there will be no resistance to fight me. In a rock paper scissors scenario, angry rebels don't beat tactical nuclear strikes.

You have no idea how warfare works at this point do you? One, you don't have the money to sustain dropping millions of dollars on folk. You can't bomb countries to dust, it's never been done before, and you'll kill yourself if you do it with nuclear weapons. The US government lost the war on terror after it spent trillions of dollars, now how are you going to win with twenty billion?

And you ignored the king scenario totally. I don't think gvt is inherently good; gvt is what people make of it, especially in a democracy. I was just exposing that your ancap utopy will be replaced by a gvt at the end no matter what; and you might even call the US gvt a good gvt, once you compare it to what could come to replace it.

I didn't ignore it, I said it would never happen because no one can afford to buy up a whole country at this point.

They already have all of those things, at least in a America. And if they need collective defense, they need to collectively pay for it (voluntarily).

The you're saying that the gvt prevents people from being too much poor? Or is it a magical force I don't know??

No defense company wants folk running around murdering their clients. Bam, you're in gaol, and get tried.

Once I'm dead I probably can't complain too much about the services of my company. And don't you free market the shit out of me, cable services for example are terrible, and yet people use them bc there's no offer really better than the one they do use. Companies will make money, rich folks will get the good services. That's how capitalism work.


For the army, common. You don't need hundred of billion dollars to have a good army, armies are too expensive today and wasteful. Gvts spends billions because of global threats. In a world with no gvts at all, way smaller budgets would be needed to have an army good enough to conquer country-size spaces.

The new american nuclear bomb, THE MOST EXPENSIVE EVER: [i}Once full production commences in 2020, the program will cost more than $11 billion for about 400 to 480 bombs[/i]

That's roughly 28 million dollars per nuke, and it's the best nuke ever made. You can probably make nukes with less than that. The real cost to make a nuclear bomb comes from technology, which already exists in gvt hands. And it goes the same way for jets, tanks,... You can build and buy those with a few billion dollars.

Then you have a good army done, easy as that.



The King example isn't wether someone can buy a country or not, you miss the entire point again. It's just an example that says that the King and feudalist society can be seen as an ancap society as well, as long as you decide that the King is a businessman and that he provides services to whoever lives in his kingdom so long as they pay for it.

The you're saying that the gvt prevents people from being too much poor? Or is it a magical force I don't know??

I'm saying that poor folk aren't really poor.

Once I'm dead I probably can't complain too much about the services of my company.

Everyone who knows how you died would immediately drop the defense contractor.

In a world with no gvts at all, way smaller budgets would be needed to have an army good enough to conquer country-size spaces.

How exactly? You need to pay folk to fight, pay for their equipment, and pay to keep them from starving to death etc. You need to buy vehicles, supplies, electronics, buildings and pay extra personnel. Armies are not cheap.

The real cost to make a nuclear bomb comes from technology,

And you need to fund your own nuclear program, build up the technology, buy uranium, and silos/bombers.

And it goes the same way for jets, tanks,... You can build and buy those with a few billion dollars.

Buy those for a billion dollars each. Now guess what, a guerrilla can blow up your tank with a 50 dollar bomb, so you have to replace it. Congratulations , you have a unsustainable money sink that won't get you any good.

The King example isn't wether someone can buy a country or not, you miss the entire point again. It's just an example that says that the King and feudalist society can be seen as an ancap society as well, as long as you decide that the King is a businessman and that he provides services to whoever lives in his kingdom so long as they pay for it.

King Solmon: Ancap af

Of course if you stretch the definition of everything, everything can practically be anything. But historically, ancap societies were havens for folk to get away from serfdom. See Medieval Iceland or the Free Cities of Europe.

Beh I won't argue about which poor people are poor or not, that conversation would just get out of the point here.

For the defense thing, I will keep my position, people will always want to have some kind of defense agency in your dream world. Well guess what, some will be scams to get people's money, and will refuse up to the max to provide services, just like health insurence companies already do. And you don't see people stop using these services, because there's no good alternatives to these companies.


For the military thing, you don't need ground armies to win wars or even bunch of physical soldiers. Elite special armies are much more effective than huge military formations in our days... Quality equipement is the key. For the nukes, what prevents billionaires and new countries from making those aren't money or technology, but other fatass nuclear countries that don't want them to have their biggest asset.


And you overrate too much guerrillas, they can only exist when you do your job the wrong way. And the US fought the war on terror like idiots. If the US really want Irak tomorrow, they just need to nuke the hole country and it's done. It's more of a matter of morals than strict ability to do so. The same would apply to rich as fuck people in an ancap world, except there's no gvt to prevent them from raising armies.


For the king thing, many things have many names. What one call of serf, one can call of customer. It depends on whom you're talking to.

Edited 5/27/2016 05:11:35

Oh look, we just need to hire Teamguns and he'll win the war on terror!

The amount of nukes needed to destroy Iraq would be enough for a nuclear winter, and enough to make Russia fire back. Congratulations, you'd lose even if Russia wouldn't fire back. Not to mention Pakistan and Israel, who could fire back too and would most likely get hit too.

Guerrillas will exist 95% of the time when you occupy a area with your military, and can spend little on defeating you while you spend a lot on losing to them.

I wonder how the romans managed to deal with insurgents...
Oh right, they offered the people a bait, so they wont bite anymore.
Instead of beating the shit outta of everyone just give them something positive.

Cata, romans dealt with insurgents by convincing the leadership that roman occupation was on their interest. They mostly keeped the former social order the way it was. Former oligarchs gained citizenship, serfs became peregreni (roughly a person that wasn't a full roman citizen).

With the elites content, it's easier to keep the masses happy. Peace and prosperity offered by the Roman conquest, as well as a possibility of promotion to a full citizenship status through military service was good enough for the masses of the conquered empires.


MGSB, it seems to me that you lost the argument and you're trying to demoralize my own by saying that I could win the war on terror if I wanted. Ofc I can't I don't pretend I can do that. I don't have the means to do that nor the will, for I'm the monster required to do such things. I just say there's always means to do anything, in case you're ready to accept the moral dilemma and consequences it can provoke.

The US invaded Iraq the same way they invaded Vietnam, and the same way William the Conqueror invaded England; with great armies and farfeched claims. Guerillas work as long as the means used to conquer lands are outdated and pacify lands come from medieval times.

Edited 5/27/2016 06:07:46

Teamguns, you haven't beaten me anywhere. You haven't proven that armies are cheap, and you haven't proven that the US or any military can just bomb folk and win. You've lost on all the other points too.

Edited 5/27/2016 06:21:03

Hmmm, I never said armies were cheap, just that a guy with 80 billion dollars could buy one. I also believe that this dude and his army could do A LOT of damage in a world with no gvt, and conquer significant chunks of land. I don't think that's wrong.


For the rest, I seriously though you'd had good arguments against my points. I think I'll try to find the other dude I met a few years ago and see if he can give real solutions to my points in an ancap system rather than just keep repeating that my points aren't valid because ancap is perfect, while just repeating the stuff I criticized in the first place.

Edited 5/27/2016 06:36:12

A B-52 is about 80 million dollars in cost, and the bombs it hauls can vary in weight, so let's use a general purpose bomb for example. Now this bomb costs 3,100 dollars per unit, and the B-52 can carry 35. Now assuming it drops it's load everytime it goes out and bombs, that's 100,000 every time it bombs a target. Of course you'll need more than one bomber, so let's say you'll have 70 (how many the US has approximately) up and running for bombings. That's 7 million for only seventy bomber's loads and you have to add the 5.6 billion for all the bombers in total. Now add the 105 mil for all the fuel. So how much does a airport cost? We can put it at 2 billion dollars. Alright, so you have 70 bombers, loaded with dumb bombs, and a airport. Now how many folk work at a average airport? Around 35,000. Now you could pay them, say, around 5 dollars a hour for them all (unrealistic though, you'd end up having to pay some of them much more). For a day of work , you'd have to pay them all about a million (and you wouldn't be getting money from this airport). So it's about 8 billion already, for what exactly? A fleet of bombers that don't have any support from any other planes, artillery, infantry on the ground, satellites or anything of that nature.

Now how much is a Anti-Air gun worth? 50,000 dollars, for a suitable 40mm anti-air gun. Do I need to say more?

Also, you should be able to beat my other points if I'm saying the same thing over and over again. But you can't, because you know most of your scenarios are based on poor folk having absolutely no money to hire folk, and private security firms letting random criminals run around even though that would essentially mean they would put their customers at risk and put themselves at risk of being outcompeted.

TG, good points!

And as for Smedley, "Teamguns, you haven't beaten me anywhere", -10 for this pretentious statement.


Some corrections:

See Medieval Iceland or the Free Cities of Europe.

Please... Not again this, Medieval Iceland and European Free Cities (medieval or during antiquity) were example of PURE/DIRECT democracies, they have nothing to do with AnCap. Each time you advanced these poor argument, you were always unable to explain what these nations had to do with AnCap, so I will give you again another chance to explain your point at least.

King Solmon: Ancap af

We are not even sure King Solomon (not Salmon, unless you meant someone else) ever existed, nice try...

Salman, not Solmon, sorry. Anyways, + 5 arrogance points for again not being able to defeat a single point I made, Koala, being arrogant, being irrelevant, and jerking off democracy again. 8 arrogance points for Koala.

Now let's see, was there a government in the free cities or Iceland? No. Was everything public property? No. Congratulations, it's anarchist and essentially capitalist.

Major, no one uses bombers to deliver bombs anymore, the US gvt has ICBMs for quite a few years if you'd forget.


You haven't answered any of my doubts in justice and law enforcement other than repeating that defense agencies would take care of the job.

You keep arguing that no one is rich enough to have an army, despite Bill Gates having 80 billion dollars and that this ammount of money would be the world's fourth military budget ahead of France, the UK and Russia.

You also didn't give a satisfactory answer to the what to do with the government's properties and military equipements that would 1) be fair to the people's right in these assets 2) prevent the rich folks from buying nuclear and high-tech military weapons 3) give a good solution to what to do with all the money collected without causing a collapse of the world's economy due to inflation.


But sure, keep telling yourself, and yourself only, that you answered my questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures