Comments by "Mark Zuckergecko" (@markzuckergecko621) on "Am I an Ancap? And what is Anarcho-Capitalism?" video.

I live in Houston, it's hard to believe that private enterprise would be any worse at maintaining the roads than the state is. There are sections of the freeway that have been under construction for my entire life.
7
Most smart people are also pretty weird. You can even make the argument that being smart is inherently weird, since anyone who has ever driven a car knows that most people are very, very, very, very stupid.
6
I don't think ancap in its purest form is achievable on any kind of large scale for any sustained amount of time, that being said, I definitely consider myself closer to anarcho than statist, and much more capitalist than socialist. I think things work best when we keep the government out as much as possible, and leave more things in the hands of the people.
4
Capitalism takes greed into account. You get what you earn, nothing more and nothing less. So sure, people will be rewarded for being greedy, but only as much as someone else is willing to pay them. So at least greedy people have to do something to satiate their greed.
1
@soulknife20 you can't change human nature, you can only be aware of it and act accordingly with policy. Any form of wealth redistribution will inherently benefit the people who want to just sit on their ass and take what someone else created. Capitalism isn't perfect, and you may not agree with how much people get paid for what they do, but at least they have to do something in order to get paid. That's the whole point, it's not up to you or me to determine what something is worth, it's up to the person buying it.
1
@TheImperatorKnight I didn't mean weird in a bad way, just supporting capitalism as a general idea could be considered weird today, since it's become so trendy to be "anti capitalist".
1
@AK.102 this is why I think universal voting rights are a mistake. Less capable people will always vote for more government, and the bigger government gets, the less capable society gets as a whole. It has a snowballing effect. There needs to be some kind of mechanism to make sure voting rights are earned, based on whether or not someone provides for society or takes from society. The people who only take shouldn't get to vote, society has already done more than enough for them. The people who provide should be the ones determining how their work is allocated.
1
@xingyuzhou1891 because under Anarcho capitalism, the guy with the most guns would end up being the de-facto king. I'm not a pro government guy by any stretch of the imagination, but I do understand where at least some form of government is necessary. My ideal government would do basically nothing, and just be there so people know it's there.
1
@xingyuzhou1891 you didn't provide any reason that the guy with the most guns wouldn't seize power other than just because you don't think that would happen. Sorry, but that's not good enough for me.
1
@xingyuzhou1891 you answered your own question accidentally though, there's absolutely no reason that competing factions wouldn't go to war with each other in the absence of a centralized government. You're literally just saying "but that wouldn't happen, just trust me bro". No, I'm not gonna just trust you on that. It absolutely would happen. Look at the history of mafias, stability is rare and not often sustained.
1