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 Guerillas work as long as the means used to conquer lands are outdated and pacify lands come from medieval times.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

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

Alright, discounting that folk still use bombers to do that, let's see how much a ICBM plus missile silo costs.

40 billion for 100 missiles. 40 billion for the silos. These don't have nuclear warheads ps.

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.

Well wtf are you expecting?

1): Sell normal things like dams, bridges and roads to locals. 2)Dismantle all military hardware while decentralizing the government. 3): Better a economic collapse than nuclear war.

Here's the thing, I doubt your plan for dismantling military hardware will prevent a nuclear war... And you're again overpriceing the missiles, the new US nukes cost 11 billion dollars for 400 bombs (arround 27.5 million dollars a piece). And those are THE MOST EXPENSIVE bombs ever. You can probably manufacture older and less sofisticated bombs for less.


For normal things being sold, you keep saying that was money stolen from people, and yet the same people that got stolen will need to pay off to have back their property? There's too many problems there, local people won't magically have money to buy dams, and some assets might not be bought because no one care about those like a lost bridge in the middle of nowhere, that can collapse due to a lack of infrastructure works killing people that were crossing it. You also still didn't solve the problem of what to do with the money collected from the selling of all this stuff.

Yeah sorry about that bud. You're only counting the nuclear warheads here, not the ICBMs and warheads in total. I also don't see why anyone would do such a bad investment, that would cost them tens of billions of dollars when after they've nuked everything, they won't have any soldiers to hold anything or defend, and every defense contractor, militia group or population of locals in the area.

There's too many problems there, local people won't magically have money to buy dams

Well a dam can be locally owned, or but by a rich guy in the area if it's particularly big. He would of course hire folk to keep it running, because dams are valuable things.

and some assets might not be bought because no one care about those like a lost bridge in the middle of nowhere, that can collapse due to a lack of infrastructure works killing people that were crossing it.

Why would no one who would be crossing this local bridge care to buy it? And if no locals exist, why is there much chance for anyone to die crossing it?

You also still didn't solve the problem of what to do with the money collected from the selling of all this stuff.

I don't have all the answers, but neither do folk like you to statist problems. This money could most likely be given to politicians, government workers and old government workers as a parting gift, or given to charities.

But then, I got a few more years to learn about politics, read a lot, and here's the conclusion I got: Anarcho-Capitalism is an utopia, just like communism, it can't work because of human nature. I really wished I could talk to that guy again so I could finally use my upgraded knowlage to win the argument ^^.

Really? You must've been dumber than a turtle if it took you "upgraded knowlage"
to know anarchy and communism are impossible due to human nature. Lmao at your ignorance

*Peeks in*

anarcho anything doesnt work and u should probably drop tht pipe dream and cum back to the realm of possibility

A socialist talking about reality? Hah, good one. Tell another joke.

A anarchist talking about reality? Hah, good one. Tell another joke.

A Koala talking about reality? Hah,good one. Tell another joke.

Anarcho-Capitalism. Hilarious.
Tell another joke.

Edited 5/28/2016 02:36:04