The Anarcho-Capitalist Movement

[Jared 39]

If a customer doesn't repay a loan, what then?  Will there be a warrant for arrest?  How will the rule of law be enforced (right to life, liberty, and property)?

[Capitalist 35]

37 minutes ago, Jared said:

If a customer doesn't repay a loan, what then?  Will there be a warrant for arrest?  How will the rule of law be enforced (right to life, liberty, and property)?

That solely depends on the contract between the actor and the bank.

[K9_GAMING 6]

8 hours ago, Capitalist said:

"Everyone around you for all you know is holding an automatic rifle! Does that not bother you of your safety? If the people of the world thought that the world would be a better place without one, would the people not have risen up, and destroyed all of what the government stands for?"...Bother me personally? Not at all and who cares if I do? Look at the Bataclan Paris attacks back in 2015, if everybody carried AR Rifles at that rockshow, the terrorists who ambushed that show would've not stand a chance, but since France is a gun-free country, that attack resulted in 90 innocent deaths. More guns means less crime, more guns means more protection. Only bad guys want innocent people to be unarmed. Another reason why government is evil and helps bad people, also an armed people keep tyranny in check.

Capitalist,

although i see vaguely at what you're trying to point out and i really hope this comparison was just that and not an opinion of yours. in paris adding guns to the situation most likely would've made the situation worse because of the problem that more shooters means more bullets so more people are likely to get hit, a higher death toll and secondly how do people know who to shoot at? more innocent people would've been killed. also if paris was a gun  legal country it would become harder and harder to see people planning to kill 90 people as everyone would be armed. although a bit of a minarchist (in the sense i want less control from the government) myself i do not believe in this extreme end of the spectrum.

K9

[K9_GAMING 6]

they need to add a dislike button to this site

[Capitalist 35]

41 minutes ago, K9_GAMING said:

Capitalist,

although i see vaguely at what you're trying to point out and i really hope this comparison was just that and not an opinion of yours. in paris adding guns to the situation most likely would've made the situation worse because of the problem that more shooters means more bullets so more people are likely to get hit, a higher death toll and secondly how do people know who to shoot at? more innocent people would've been killed. also if paris was a gun  legal country it would become harder and harder to see people planning to kill 90 people as everyone would be armed. although a bit of a minarchist (in the sense i want less control from the government) myself i do not believe in this extreme end of the spectrum.

K9

Sure I'm aware of the possibility of stray bullets and misfiring could've cause innocent deaths too, but it would be a smaller death toll because the innocent people could've taken cover and defended themselves from the terrorists. I´m not saying all lives would've been saved if everyone was armed but it would´ve been less innocent lives lost and this one of many other incidents right? I mean this just one example. Same could've been said about Columbine Massacre and many other incidents.

 

"and secondly how do people know who to shoot at?"...If they look like terrosist, walk like terrorist, shoot into a crowd of people with kalashnikovs and shout things like allah akbar. Well I think at that moment I know who my target is.

 

"also if paris was a gun  legal country it would become harder and harder to see people planning to kill 90 people as everyone would be armed."... Yes? That's the point right?

"although a bit of a minarchist (in the sense i want less control from the government) myself i do not believe in this extreme end of the spectrum." ...Okay, where is the argument?

Edited December 10, 2016 by Capitalist

[K9_GAMING 6]

1 hour ago, Capitalist said:

"although a bit of a minarchist (in the sense i want less control from the government) myself i do not believe in this extreme end of the spectrum."

this wasn't meant to be an argument, however - you'll like this - it was an opinion.

[Capitalist 35]

6 minutes ago, K9_GAMING said:

this wasn't meant to be an argument, however - you'll like this - it was an opinion.

Correct.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Capitalist

[K9_GAMING 6]

2 hours ago, Capitalist said:

"also if paris was a gun  legal country it would become harder and harder to see people planning to kill 90 people as everyone would be armed."... Yes? That's the point right?

sorry, i think you misunderstood, i meant if no one was carrying youd easily see the guy carrying however if everyone was carrying you wouldnt spot them. sorry for the misunderstanding

 

[Capitalist 35]

4 minutes ago, K9_GAMING said:

sorry, i think you misunderstood, i meant if no one was carrying youd easily see the guy carrying however if everyone was carrying you wouldnt spot them. sorry for the misunderstanding

 

Oh I see, true but carrying weapons does not mean open carry right? If everyone is open carrying their weapons than yes I would agree this could be a possible problem because everybody has a rifle on their hands and if somebody is planing to start shit it´ll be harder to spot them before hand, true and that's not a bad argument. But you see if people don't open carry then it´ll be easier to spot a preperator, anyone who has a weapon drawn will have more eyes on them than a person who dosen't open carry or least have their rifle on their back or holster. Either way staying armed is still a better alternative than being unarmed in a terrorist situation.

[K9_GAMING 6]

54 minutes ago, Capitalist said:

Oh I see, true but carrying weapons does not mean open carry right? If everyone is open carrying their weapons than yes I would agree this could be a possible problem because everybody has a rifle on their hands and if somebody is planing to start shit it´ll be harder to spot them before hand, true and that's not a bad argument. But you see if people don't open carry then it´ll be easier to spot a preperator, anyone who has a weapon drawn will have more eyes on them than a person who dosen't open carry or least have their rifle on their back or holster. Either way staying armed is still a better alternative than being unarmed in a terrorist situation

yeah thanks for understanding, i won't contest what you said, i see the logic behind this statement

[Capitalist 35]

28 minutes ago, K9_GAMING said:

yeah thanks for understanding, i won't contest what you said, i see the logic behind this statement

Thank you.

[Jared 39]

On 12/10/2016 at 1:38 AM, Capitalist said:

That solely depends on the contract between the actor and the bank.

Sorry for my delayed response.
Would that mean the use of force could be agreed upon in the contract, i.e. allowing the involvement of private security and warranting the arrest of the one who did not pay as agreed upon in the terms of the contract? 

[Capitalist 35]

On 14/12/2016 at 5:34 AM, Jared said:

Sorry for my delayed response.
Would that mean the use of force could be agreed upon in the contract, i.e. allowing the involvement of private security and warranting the arrest of the one who did not pay as agreed upon in the terms of the contract? 

Yes

[DLimit 167]

Anarcho-Capitalist systems shall not thrive based on the sole premise that the lower-classed proletariat shall be incapable of affording the basic necessities to life, such as food, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, and education. In the process, the company that provides it's workers with the lowest wages shall be capable of accumulating a larger surplus of profits due to the cheap production costs of their business.