Update

ancap.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Firstly this means anything is allowed, any unethical, unfair business practice,
 
 Secondly the idea of getting rid of a state in capitalism doesn't even make sense because **if we get rid of the state, the strongest corporation will become the state**, only with the difference that state is at least *supposed* to work for the people while a corporation is only by its very definition supposed to care solely about its own endless profit on the detriment of people. Therefore if we scratch the state, McDonalds or Coca Cola or [Micro$oft](microsoft.md) -- whoever is the strongest -- hires a literal [army](military.md) and physically destroys all its competition, then starts ruling the world and making its own laws -- laws that only serve the further growth of that corporation such as that everyone is forced to work 16 hour shifts every day until he falls dead. Don't like it? They kill your whole family, no problem. 100% of civilization will experience the worst kind of suffering, maybe except for the CEO of McDonald's, the world corporation, until the planet's environment is destroyed and everyone hopefully dies, as death is what we'll wish for.
 
-In addition to this the whole idea is also **[logically](logic.md) faulty** at the very basic level by assuming two contradictory premises at once: that people CANNOT behave morally and therefore need capitalism (money to ensure fairness, economic pressure etc.) to make them behave well, and that people CAN behave morally in the sense of purely voluntarily resisting "bad" things like establishing states. If an anarcho"capitalist" tries to educate people about harmfulness of state, believing he can turn people to change their behavior, he also has to accept it's possible to convince people in the same way that they can just behave well in general and won't need capitalism. There is no way out of this -- there are people, like [us](lrs.md), who believe that people can learn selfless moral behavior, and then there are people who don't believe it -- that's still fine as far as logic goes -- however "anarcho"capitalists try to believe both at once. That's not just stupidity squared, but probably cubed.
+In addition to this the whole idea is also **[logically](logic.md) faulty** at the very basic level by assuming two contradictory premises at once: that people CANNOT behave morally and therefore need capitalism (money to ensure fairness, economic pressure etc.) to make them behave well, and that people CAN behave morally in the sense of purely voluntarily resisting "bad" things like establishing states. If an "anarcho"capitalist tries to educate people about harmfulness of state, believing he can turn people to change their behavior, he also has to accept it's possible to convince people in the same way that they can just behave well in general and won't need capitalism. There is no way out of this -- there are people, like [us](lrs.md), who believe that people can learn selfless moral behavior, and then there are people who don't believe it -- that's still fine as far as logic goes -- however "anarcho"capitalists try to believe both at once. That's not just stupidity squared, but probably cubed.
 
 A typical "anarcho"capitalist is a redneck who probably thinks the only thing preventing him from beating a corporation at its own game is state holding him back with high taxes -- he thinks that if he's allowed to keep all his crops he'll become a beast starting his own business that will go on beating Facebook, i.e. he thinks that if he can keep all five of all five carrots he grows on his field, he will somehow become so powerful he can bring down an army of ten thousand men with the most advanced technology who by the way can now also keep all money it makes, because he heard this in some fairy tale about Henry Ford or something. Of course that's highly laughable and pathetic, but indeed typically [American](usa.md).