>>30643341 Oh they'll show up. They always do. Though to be fair, I've come to realize that there are actually two kinds of ancaps.
First there are the realists. The guys who understand voluntary action means not everybody might want capitalism, and in a truly anarchistic society, anyone should be able to choose if they want to live like syndicalists, mutualists, primitivists or whatever so long as they do so willingly. But most importantly they understand that corporatism is authoritarian, and therefore an affront to liberty.
Then there are the apologists. The corporate dicksuckers, the Ayn Rand sycophants, the people who look at the shit that happened during the gilded age and praise the robber barons as great liberators who should be revered for their contribution to human progress. These guys don't want to set you free. They want to set themselves free so they can coax you into their company town and pay you in dirt.
Unfortunately, the latter tends to be more common.
I'm particularly fond of the National Anarchist Movement. In a perfect world, something like Anarcho-Strasserism.
Basically an ethnic/racial guild system amongst different workers unions and people can choose different tasks if they feel they've outgrown another, but the productivity structure remains. For example, a workers exchange program akin to a foreign exchange student program. In case of a national or statewide emergency the entire country would be made aware and mobilized against a direct threat (effectively creating militias or a temporary state to later be dissolve back to Anarchism, the prolonging of a state would have consequences), a completely voluntary movement would be required, and nobody forces anyone to defend it. It either survives, or it doesn't. The oldest members of the unions would mobilize against threats. Basically an industrial chiefdom with a democratic system/weekly meeting to decide who stays, who goes, who comes in, who's getting transfered, new ideas we may have etc, even the chief can transfer or be replaced . It would be a socialist system / internal currency system. But all the money that comes in is effectively distributed throughout the entire participating network. People would earn either digital or traditional currencies, but there would also be programs to help workers move forward. For example a discount on a vehicle or bicycle for those new to the workforce. After five years a new bike opportunity or ten years a new car opportunity is reinstated. But of course that would only be there to help, everyone would still have buying power. I'm undecided on a average national income. I don't think there should be any. And anyone can start a business at any time as a side income to their main job without question or intervention, ever. And guns, lots of guns would be produced in many different plants; ownership implies responsibility. Stand your ground is law, but hopefully in such a system logical procedures would prevail.
>>30645044 >In those times there were no enclosed lands >everyone farmed wherever the fuck they wanted >all of a sudden the nobles decide to drive everyone out and murder people who resist so they can charge rent like Jews
From A Declaration from the Poor Oppressed People of England: "The power of enclosing land and owning property was brought into the creation by your ancestors by the sword; which first did murder their fellow creatures, men, and after plunder or steal away their land, and left this land successively to you, their children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand by the power of the sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your fathers, and that sin of your fathers shall be visited upon the head of you and your children to the third and fourth generation, and longer too, till your bloody and thieving power be rooted out of the land." From A New-year's Gift for the Parliament and Army: "The life of this dark kingly power, which you have made an act of Parliament and oath to cast out, if you search it to the bottom, you shall see it lies within the iron chest of cursed covetousness, who gives the earth to some part of mankind and denies it to another part of mankind: and that part that hath the earth, hath no right from the law of creation to take it to himself and shut out others; but he took it away violently by theft and murder in conquest." From The Law of Freedom in a Platform: "if they prove desperate, wanton or idle, and will not quietly submit to the law, the task-master is to feed them with short diet, and to whip them, for a rod is prepared for the fool's back, till such time as their proud hearts do bend to the law ... If any have so highly broke the laws as they come within the compass of whipping, imprisoning and death, the executioner shall cut off the head, hang or shoot to death, or whip the offender according to the sentence of law. Thus you may see what the work of every officer in a town or city is."
The tribal structure of homo sapiens prior to the existence of civilization was basically the same thing as miniature city states. Tribes claimed territory and would defend it from outsiders, there was a proto-political structure with a leadership hierarchy and codes or "tribal laws", there were notions of ownership of private things (e.g. this spear is mine not yours because I made it, etc.), there was diplomacy with other tribes, and so on and so forth. The state of nature was much more anarchic than the big state modern world obviously, but it wasn't pure anarchy, territories and authority did exist, however loose they were.
>>30643228 Anarchism is madness. Without a government, there would be endless violence and zero stability. The wars would just keep raging forever, until a new government emerged from the victors. You want anarchy? No need to be an anarchist, there are effectively lawless places today. Just move to African countries such as Liberia, and see how much fun anarchy is (endless tribal warfare / rape / murder / mayhem/ cannibalism feces and trash everywhere )
>>30645119 Ancaps believe in privatization of good and services, meaning control by private entities where employees get compensated for there work with capital or currency. Individualist would be more of a trading and barter system where everyone produces what they need and want or find another individual to trade with.
>>30643228 Anyone here against democracy has matured into a fascist. Somebody has got to be the big guy in order to prevent others from taking power. Time and time again I have seen anarchists turn to fascism, we are all against mob rule. If you have an enlightened despot then all is good. Even better is a fascist republic.
>>30643511 >he guys who understand voluntary action means not everybody might want capitalism bullshit, it's you leftists who would force us to be your welfare slaves and prohibit voluntary exchange. We libertarians/ancaps could not give a fucking shit about your socialism if you could only practice it amongst those who want to give to their "society" on their volition instead of imposing it on us as you people do and continue advocate doing so retard.
>>30653233 >We libertarians/ancaps could not give a fucking shit about your socialism if you could only practice it amongst those who want to give to their "society" on their volition instead of imposing it on us as you people do and continue advocate doing so retard
Isn't that kind of the fucking point of anarchism? If you want to live like a capitalist or a socialist, so long as you do so through voluntary means it's all fine. Nobody here is against that.
And are you really telling me you think corporatism is a good thing, or are you misinterpreting what corporatism is?
>>30653118 >There's plenty of room for all of us! look i would love to live in peace with other people who oppose the state/ruleofthemob, but that's not what they want or who they actually are>>30653233 pic related
leftarchists simply aren't consistent against the initiation of force/aggression like we are. All they essentially want is a new state where they steal from us at a greater rate in place of the corporatists they long to oust.
>>30653486 nobody is stopping you from getting together with your best mates and using money for shit. those who don't want to use money will get together with their friends at some other place and not use money for shit.
>>30645372 Most anarchists aren't against the idea of authority in general, just not authority for the sake of authority, that you must prove that your authority is not only right and beneficial to those under you but also necessary.
>>30653233 Well, you've proven you have no idea what you're talking about by regurgitating the same tired argument. As soon as anyone supports something besides capitalism, people automatically begin their criticism of totalitarian command economies, because they have no clue what collectivism, socialism, and communism actually are.
for me, true individuality doesn't give a shit about anything but his own will
say, would you believe a king is an anarchist? I'd say he's the perfect egoist. Right on top, ruling everything and making justice on his own accord and preferences. I don't believe in any "ism" but egoism, if it's the will of those corporates to conquer and enslave us, well, too bad for us if we allow it to happen, but there is no difference in the egoism of one and another. I just don't believe in social order or justice/equality or morality forced from the outside, it's all a spook trying to stop you from doing your will.
so would I classify as an anarchist or an egoist? or are they both mutually inclusive?
>>30653369 >anarchism I would hope so, but talk to leftists from here or leddit and see what they think about you owning the "means of production". These people are just entitled scum in general. >corporatism Where the hell did I insinuate corporatism is a good thing? Corporatism is simply the collusion between the monopoly of force that the government holds with certain businesses that endows them benefits/advantages to circumvent the natural rules of the free market. Without the government, these corporatists would be completely fucked, but of course so many leftists/authoritarians from the right support government coercion for their own self-serving interests (welfare,protectionist markets, muh military, etc.) and opens the door for the corporatists to use this massive coercive power for their self-serving uses as well. The point is authoritarians are the truly selfish ones and will always get their way so long as the government holds the power to steal from us, not we libertarians who are simply consistent in opposing coercion by living things against other living things etc.
I am anti-state. I hesitate to call myself anarchist because socialists say that anarchism means opposition to both the state and capitalism. I think people should be free to associate in all sorts of ways, including in capitalist arrangements, so I don't fall under their definition of anarchist.
>>30653543 >it could AnCaps. how? you do understand our philosophy is simply that of non-aggression, right? Why would we ever care to coerce you into being an individualist when you're just acting amongst other who voluntarily agreed to be collectivists and not coercing us?
>>30653421 Stop shitting up our thread you faggot, one sided contracts are coercion, power in few hands is coercion and somebody shouldn't be able to kill 10 people before his reputation as a murderer gets out.
>>30653831 >in favor of laissaz-faire co-operatism in which property and capital is owned on an individual and collective level >mfw capitalists accuse me of being a socialist and socialists accuse me of being a capitalist
>>30654046 >oppose private gun ownership I swear to fucking god, how do these retarded leftarchists plan to accomplish this imposition if they want "anarchy"? can someone explain to me why all leftards are so fucking contradictory and inconsistent/selectively ignorant/cherrypick everything? Actually I figure it's probably because of their sense of entitlement and how they need to constantly justify it. They are truly selfish scum.
In an anarchist society, if someone wanted to role-play consensual wage-slavery they could, just like S&M freaks can role-play chattel slavery right here and now, even though chattel slavery is abolished.
However, since all property would be communal, no one would be forced to work for anyone else.
>>30654007 >I am anti-state. call yourself a voluntaryist bro. What you are is what I am, except I prefer for capitalism because it's just voluntary exchange. If people want to be socialist and living in their community where they voluntarily expropriate from each other to tend to their member's needs, so be it, idgaf at all.
>>30654307 So a libertarian farmer, in order to have property rights to work his own land is going to need to have a contract with every other person on earth. Does this sound stupid to you? These are the types of strawmen you are bringing up.
>>30654370 my nigga >>30654383 >since all property would be communal no retard, impossible, lmfao. This is what defines leftarchist entitlement/contradictions. You are not for no government in the least you fucking idiot, I, and many others, will not accept your forcing me to share my property with you or your fucking collective, retard. >wage slave >>30654307 pic related imbecile
Personal tools are productive objects that can be used by a single person.
Property consists of the tools and productive systems that take multiple people to operate. For justice and equality to exist, property must be communal. Today one class owns most of the property, but does not work, while another class (the great majority of humanity) owns no property, but does most of the work. A small middle or petite-bourgeois class also exists which owns some property, but also works. These are small business owns and salaried professionals with stock or business equity.
Strawmen? Do you know what they word means you fucking idiot?
>>30654431 >in order to have property rights to work his own land is going to need to have a contract with every other person on earth
How retarded are you? What you're suggesting is an actual strawman you fucktard. So long as his property is clearly indicated to others to be his (e.g. fences, signs, guards, lawns or any kind of demarcating boundary), he can be morally justified in defending it and do to it what he pleases.
Wouldn't the persistence of markets lead to all kinds of problems with negative economic externalities like pollution costs, systemic risk, inequality magnified through the generations via gifts and inheritance until the class system reemerges?
Wouldn't any regulatory apparatus powerful and informed enough to internalize the externalities simply be able to run a planned economy in the first place without the overhead of also running a market?
>>30654702 To elaborate on this point small businesses and the state provide about 85% of the employment, so you have to wonder if big business and corporations really deserve all the special considerations they receive.
>>30654694 >relative value of their labor lmfao, wtf is relative value of their labor? you mean subjective value of their labor? So you're saying if I voluntary hire some entitled leftist and he voluntarily agrees to work on my property in exchange for an amount that we agree is the worth of his labor, he is then entitled to my property because he worked on it for that wage? Holy fucking shit, you leftists are just too retarded.
>>30654761 Which results in people trying to take his land from him in a never ending cycle of fighting and chaos. Of course mass spamming cartoon strawmen as if I have time to refute them one by one is ridiculous, especially as you don't even seem to know the points of contention.
>>30654702 If nobody can own property, nobody can profit from property. If nobody can profit from property nobody would make property. So how are factories made when it is in everyone's interest to not contribute to making that factory and there is no central authority to force people to make a factory?
Why still exists the assholism about 'zapatistas'?... Im mexican, from mexico city for all you retards subcomandante marcos was a scam. They only exploit indigenous people on coffe swetshops and then they put them to sell coffe at universities, so hippies can buy 'zapatista-coffe' in order to 'support the cause'. Also marco´s little sister is a senator of the most corrupt-narco-party (PRI). Also the CISEN (mexican paramilitar intelligence) destroy all "bad guerrillas" and let the EZLN continue scamming hippies, this is just a well thought business...dont be retarded, seriously...
>>30655039 >Now you're just putting words in my mouth where? So what is the relative value of labor? Just answer the question if you assertion is true.
Also what is exploitation, or rather why is it wrong? Exploitation, as I understand it, is simply someone taking advantage of something or someone else, and not necessarily through coercion. In essence, it is simply being intelligent enought to leverage one's property, lmfao. Whether it's my body, or my house, I can voluntarily leverage this to my benefit, but your entitled leftists will cry "muh exploitation" because you're entitled/too retarded to avoid being "taken advantage" (when in actuality it's for your mutual benefit as a voluntary exchange)of by your own fucking volition. Go look at the pic>>30654967 It sums up why you leftists are full of shit.
>>30655359 >more Rothbard. cool, we of course don't believe anyone is forced to do anything for anyone else unless they agreed to do it in a voluntary exchange. My parents didn't have to feed me/cloth me/house me and I raised this understanding to them often when they tried to discipline me by threatening to stop supporting me. However, they never stopped under their own volition, and I as another person have no right to coerce them into serving me. Get rekt by the moral consistency of libertarians unlike you entitled, selectively ignorant (e.g. muh private property, personal possessions, w.e arbitrary entitlement justification etc)leftards.
Classical left wing anarchy isn't based on the NAP to begin with, so it can hardly contradict a definition it cannot use.
Classical anarchy is not so much the absence of coercion relating to person and property, but the absence of legal hierarchy where there would be a leaders (including over property in the work place) and the special class of police who get to enforce laws exclusively. In classical anarchy, anyone can enforce the laws that their fellows have common agreement with. In economics, classical social anarchy essentially says that anyone who works upon a thing has ownership of that thing, so workers own their businesses and can elect temporary managers and work things out to run the factory or whatever. In all cases of anticapitalist anarchy, property can only be possessed, and absentee ownership is not possible.
There are different strains though. Mutualists allow each person to possess a means of production, and they allow private possession of individual product, while making sure collectively worked means of production are the collective property of those workers. Anarcho-communism, by contrast, abolishes money and not only enforces collective ownership of the means of production, but also of products, so that all products are sent to a free store, so that everyone who works to the best of his ability can meet their needs without monetary cost. Ancoms vary on accepting other communities being mutualist or other kinds of classic anticapitalist anarchy, so how far their law goes may vary, but you can see that classically speaking, anarchy does NOT mean no laws, only no formal unrecallable leaders, no title of absentee private ownership, and no special enforcer classes. VERY different from simply being "no coercion."
>>30656118 I'll put it in a way that you can understand.
In an anarchistic society there is no standard for property rights, as there is no coercive state to enforce it. Property rights are contractually agreed-upon like everything else. By claiming ownership of anything, you are subjecting every other human being that could come to own said thing to the terms of a contract they did not agree upon. This is a power-grabbing, hierarchy-forming, criminal action.
The one bug jagged edge with anarchy is going to be bribery. People wanting to get ahead will always try to pay somebody off and someone greedy will always have their hand out. Now with no ruling system to protect from bribery total monopolies will ruin it. Don't get me wrong I know government don't fix this problem however there is a framework there that somewhat reigns it in.
>>30656437 Property rights are not something agreed upon by society, they are innate. If a monkey plucks a banana from a tree and another monkey takes it from him, he is going to use violence to get it back. Did the monkeys democratically decide that if a monkey plucks a banana from a tree, then that banana is his property? Did the monkey elder decide that?
Your house is not your house because society says it is your house Your house is your house because you worked to get it. And you are not pissed of if somebody takes your shit because society told you but because you evolved to be pissed of.
>>30657105 And that is why Ancaps can't get along with all the other Anarchists. You ditch Individualism from the get-go by starting with presumptions of property rights.
The monkey owns the banana because it is not worth it to the other monkeys to take away his banana. If the monkey were to "own" ALL of the bananas, the situation would be different, as it logically follows.
Your house is yours not because you toiled for it and it is "rightfully" yours. It is yours because we have mechanisms, agreed by consensus, that make other people recognize your efforts and not come and take it.
The mere fact that left-anarchists and loads of other political philosophies reject your notion of property rights, not to even mention the "innate" nature you place upon it, goes to show that they are not, in fact, innate, as they are not even universally accepted.
But anarchy never meant "without rules" to begin with, so it's not ironic in the slightest...
Classical anarchy(ies) = without hierarchy (no masters and no conventional bosses with title or deed in the workplace, only managers chosen if necessary who can immediately be recalled) Anarcho-capitalism = without coercion (meaning INITIATION of force against person or property)
>>30657408 I always thought it meant no government, no rulers, no hierarchies.
So if there are rules that everyone follows (or else have the others punish them), is that not a decentralized government itself? Unless everyone agrees with the rules and voluntarily follows them (anarcho-fascism), but that's unlikely to last long before someone wants to break the rules. What if the rules are in fact unreasonable and based on some people's emotions? Then someone will have to break them and piss everyone off all the time, causing them to punish them neverendingly. Is that not authoritarian, then?
>>30657623 If the rule in question was a joke anyways, people probably shouldn't be too mad over it, but probably should have told someone within four goddamned years that it was a joke.
Most anarchists fail at being anarchists somehow. (even you: you'd be vigilante justice, therefore forming a police of sorts to do so, thereby inherently creating a state in the process, just as you are saying here)
>>30657624 What are you scared of? Neverending street wars?
>>30657817 >father joined in the military during the 'nam war >mother (kind of an old hippie) was affiliated with biker gangs and got in trouble for making meth in her kitchen >I was constantly in fights at school and nothing makes someone a 12 year old anarchist like a school system where lazy teachers scapegoat a well-behaved kid all the time
I think I see a pathological reason why I take everything entirely too seriously.
Anarchism is kind of absolutist and silly, but left wing anarchists such as ancoms tend to define the state as being the instrument for the oppression of one class by another, and given that they believe that after the revolution and expropriation of workplaces, the workers will all live in communism with common ownership of all means of production, there will be no classes, and therefore no need for a state. It all sounds vague to me. Do they imagine that the end of classes means the end of all serious disputes therefore no need for a state? Can an ancom clear this up?
Ancaps often use this definition of the state "a geographical monopoly on the initiation of force". But if that's true would anybody breaking the NAP and initiating force be a mini-state until he was stopped? Also, doesn't this definition allow an individual to get richer and richer while not initiating force, and owning more and more property until they have enough to start telling everyone what to do while supposedly not initiating force? According to Ancap NAP, no, but to everyone else super-extended absolute property rights start to look like a state again.
It seems like all anarchy is incoherent due to being too absolutist. It's liable to self-detonate. The only coherent alternates are libertarianism or decentralism which accepts the state, but wants to minimize the power of rulers, the number of rules and their severity, without pretending you can ABOLISH such things.
>>30657392 >The monkey owns the banana because it is not worth it to the other monkeys to take away his banana. The only reason it is not worth it is because he would fight to get it back. A monkey that does not fight to get his banana back would not survive because other monkeys keep taking his goddamn bananas and he would have nothing to eat. Humans evolved to fight for what they worked for because otherwise we would be distinct already.
>The mere fact that left-anarchists and loads of other political philosophies reject your notion of property rights, not to even mention the "innate" nature you place upon it, goes to show that they are not, in fact, innate, as they are not even universally accepted. That is their philosophy but not how they would act in reality. If they build a sand castle and I smashed it they would not say ''that's cool, I don't believe that you can own land anyway''.
>>30658084 >>30658192 It seems to me like the closest thing to pure anarchy would be absense of government and little street wars between groups over resources until eventually, something comparable to a government exists as one group eventually emerges as the victor over a large area.
So it seems to me like if anarchy actually managed to exist, it would self-destruct after a while. Minarchy seems like the closest realistically sustainable thing to it.
>>30658213 You and every other animal fight for something not because of some abstract notion of property, but because you view said thing as something that will aid you in whatever goals you seek to achieve. Your base desire isn't that of exclusivity, but of functionality. Ownership is an abstract concept to contextualize that desire, taking into account scarcity and degradability of the things we usually seek. It is not some holy static variable of the human condition.
>>30658775 >anarchy is unsustainable (eventually, a government emerges) >governments are unsistainable (can't last forever without becoming authoritarian) >even a dictator with sincerely benevolent intentions doesn't live forever and gets wrekt by other governments
A great thousand-year reich of any kind isn't possible.
>>30658920 Despite your tendency to make typoes, you have such good foresight due to an ability to understand how things work and therefore figure out how things will/would play out without/before those things happening, since you have a strategist's brain..
>you are absolutely right
gb2 studying (your time should not be wasted like this for at least 4 months)
>>30660001 >anarchists of all walks will never collaborate to claim a massive section of land that will be divvied between socialists, capitalists, mutualists, primitivists and others to run their own separate stateless societies
>>30660432 >mfw captain obvious has arrived to make a pointless declaration >inb4 retard posse arrives to complain about a strange couple posting >inb4 retard posse arrives to suggest me and my gf are the same person >inb4 retard posse arrives to scream about alleged mental illness >inb4 retard posse is so upset they always need to comment >mfw retard posse is always fucking trolled right as I wouldn't be as amused by it anymore, the stupid cunts
I said we'll not post for at least 4 months. Are you capable of not replying to us after I announce this, or did my gf really make idiots cry this hard?
>>30661191 Psyops knows enough about how the mind works to know when to start being upset about it (and that right away is not a good time because that's when someone who is trolling will laugh the hardest). Figures, right?
>>30661569 At least assuming they're somewhat rational, you are probably a very low priority to them. Clearly, we have won against psyops since we got them to give up and leave you alone. So we should stop trolling them and you should gb2 studying. Right now.
I like the idea of anarchy. Liberty and shit is pretty much top priority for me, but, I'm having a really hard time seeing how it could work. Minarchism/Libertarianism seems possible. Is it an idealist thing, like communism or is there some practicality that I'm missing here?
Yes, like minded people live in communities where they can agree with one another, consequently establishing an efficiently organised hivemind that can deal decision making easy, without the need for voting or something else.
>>30663303 A road is a structure built by several people which vastly increases productivity of just about every productive activity. As such, it should be socially owned and its construction should be decided upon collectively.
A car is a personal item, for personal use, driven by one singular individual. While it may be used in a way that increases productivity, it is still in essence a product geared towards the individual and as such it is owned personally.
"Transportation technology" is an abstraction of both these two and countless other moving parts. It signifies nothing, and affects the use of each methodology of ownership in absolutely no way.
If you're in a social anarchist community where all of the transportation is owned collectively how are you supposed to leave? Pretty sure they're not going to just let you drive off into the sunset with their stuff.
>>30645902 >Without a government, there would be endless violence and zero stability OH MY GOD THERE ISN'T A GOVERNMENT BETWEEN THE US AND CANADA AND MEXICO THEY'RE GONNA FIGHT UNTIL ONLY ONE IS LEFT oh wait, those nations have been peaceful for hundereds of years without any coercion happenning between them. same for europe for the past 60, russia and china, etc.
there is already anarchy between governments. it isn't bad at all. the only thing to lose your shackles.
>>30663977 Do you have any actual statistics on these anarcho capitalists who supposedly say you're not allowed to live in a commune in an anarchist society? You sound like a whiny cunt.
In my past experiences it has routinely been the opposite, with anarcho socialists/Marxists/whatever implying that free trade would not be possible in their utopia, as any form of private property goes against their ideology since it is "oppressive."
So what the fuck are you even on about? Where are the boogeymen you've constructed? Have you done this to easily discount your opponents, you faggot?
I mean, holy shit. Anarchisism as a whole is such a self-defeating, ALREADY divided philosophy, that I could not understand why anyone would subscribe to it. You are literally rebels without a cause.
>>30672007 >what are nukes >what is economics >what is silent war >what is profit
anarchy is literally what you see in any after-math story. its not that a government is bad in general, its just that our government is very badly handled. government was originally not more than a basic foundation of rules, so everyone could live in peace, until greedy fucks completely exploited it, and people are too stupid to realize.
the only way, is a government governed by no one, but the people directly itself.
anarchy is wishful thinking and only could work if every single person in the world understands the concept of basic rules like no killing/no stealing/no leading etc
>>30644404 > Basically an industrial chiefdom with a democratic system/weekly meeting to decide who stays, who goes, who comes in, who's getting transfered, new ideas we may have etc, even the chief can transfer or be replaced
> It would be a socialist system / internal currency system. But all the money that comes in is effectively distributed throughout the entire participating network.
> After five years a new bike opportunity or ten years a new car opportunity is reinstated.
>And anyone can start a business at any time as a side income to their main job without question or intervention, ever.
I have seen some shit on /po/l man but what you just described is one of the most batshit insane ridiculously flawed system i have ever heard described.
>>30645611 chinese anarchists were amongst some of the first to oppose foreign concessions in china >basically the state had failed to adequately protect it's borders and had become so powerless to foreign interests that a non-state situation would be preferable
>>30685956 >the earth cannot be property of individuals
>wants to steal achievements from people >thinks mankind can just magically dissolve its differences and achieve utopia >thinks the people are selfless enough to be all giving to one another despite cultural boundaries
>>30685975 >>30686000 >>30686021 You are actually stupid enough to confuse Libertarianism with Anarcho-Capitalism and Objectivism? And then you're actually stupid enought to imply that Friedman was an Anarcho Capitalist?
Take your shitty facebook tier image macros back to tumblr.
I don;t care about anything. Nothing. I think humanity tries to hard to act civil meanwhile we wage war over things like Oil, land and we charge people insane amounts of money to save their lives while they die of terminal illness. We fight over skin color, sexual orientation and idiots walk among us who think that there exists some master race who will lead them to a utopia - I feel sorry for them, the deluded fucks.
All of life really is a stage of people pretending we as a race are more than evolved apes. Some say we're chosen by some god - I don't think so. No foreseeing god would be silly enough to not see this shit coming.
I just want to get through life, live in hedonism and then die with No fuss and no alarms.
'This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.'
I contend that there is fuck all I can do about suffering. I'd help someone if I saw them getting jumped for example, but I'm not going to march the street with a sign because of war crimes in some hell hole in the middle east. I'd be lying if I said I cared about it that much.
I'd have no problem killing someone who would put my life in danger.
>>30681513 How is it flawed? The incentive is money and a socialist network, but any kind of business can also supplement ones personal needs.
In other words, there is just enough structured labor to satisfy those who prefer order, and just enough freedom to satisfy those who prefer personal business models.
I don't see a problem with what I said at all. A bike for example is there to help, the help would come directly from a risk pool created by the participating members. They can also opt out if they wish. But ultimately it's to help people who share like minded goals. And it's a privilege not some given right to own a bike or car. If anything people should be working for transportation.
> people can choose different tasks if they feel they've outgrown another, but the productivity structure remains.
so if i start a business and want to move on and do something different i have to leave all my infrastructure behind so it can be reassigned to another person.
>In case of a national or statewide emergency the entire country would be made aware and mobilized against a direct threat
Who determiners what a threat to the nation is?
>The oldest members of the unions would mobilize against threats
>Basically an industrial chiefdom with a democratic system/weekly meeting to decide who stays, who goes, who comes in, who's getting transfered, new ideas we may have etc, even the chief can transfer or be replaced .
So are people forced to attend these meetings or are people just expected to honor their decisions voluntarily?
> It would be a socialist system / internal currency system. But all the money that comes in is effectively distributed throughout the entire participating network.
So you want to institute a tax system where everyone works to pay you or the chiefden or a leader....and you think that isn't communism.
> People would earn either digital or traditional currencies,
What possible incentive do i have to work if all my money just gets redistributed? You are proposing that people dedicate their lives to the existence of others while at the same time being individuals who start businesses and create value and wealth.
>a discount on a vehicle or bicycle for those new to the workforce. After five years a new bike opportunity or ten years a new car opportunity is reinstated.
So what happens if you want a motorcycle or another form of transportation? Why and how would anyone innovate? (cont)
> anyone can start a business at any time as a side income to their main job without question or intervention
so you propose to let anyone without question start any busines they want? Who would fund these ventures? Why would someone working fore everyone elses needs somehow find it in their heart to squeeze out even more value he will not get to keep.
Your system is just a combination of oligarchy, communism, and nationalism. You have no idea how incentive works or how human nature works. I don't know who told you forcing people to listen to what you say is anarchy but they were pulling your leg.
People acquire things two different ways when it comes to human interactions it is theft or trade. Theft is what you are proposing.
“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.” ? Frédéric Bastiat
This is what kind of anarchist I am. Not sure what to call it. I've nicknamed it techno-anarchism and data-anarchism. Does anyone have a name for it? (inb4 some dumbass says something rude)
In terms of left vs right, I'm kind of in the center, and this is what the political test said last time I took it. Libertarianism annoys me due to it's worship of the 'free market', but I was strongly entertaining the idea of minarchy (and I was a 12 year old anarchist once). There's just one problem with minarchy, though.
>the US government was originally intended to be a minarchist democracy >now look at what it has become >richfags exploited the shit out of all the loopholes they could find
I can't just be minarchist when I have experimental/historical proof that it does not work out.
>>30689064 Naw, this thread is worth lurking in. Bumping. Cry more, faggot.
Question for ancaps. I'm not trying to be snarky here, I really just want an answer:
>ancap happy shiny utopia begins >people begin claiming and privatizing land >titles to private land are exchanged (voluntarily) >those who know how best to play the market begin amassing huge amounts of land >the deeds to their lands are inherited by their children >capital dynasties are formed that perpetually amass more land and capital (again, voluntarily) >after some time of this happening, nearly all land on earth has been bought out by one or another of these few families
>>30695166 >here's someone who knows they don't have all the answers to everything >and is honest enough with themselves to admit they are inherently a minarchist
Minarchist who is only an anarchist in regards to data is best anarchist in my opinion.
If you were to aggressively do anything about the aggressive people in the far right of the purple square (the type of ancap where big business basically IS government, but by another name), you and your posse would inherently be functioning as a minarchy.
>oh, you were surprised you aren't further to the left? >without any statism under consideration, you probably are further to the left
You do have allies, in that case, but you're wise not to want to let them know you exist until you can help them somehow. You didn't want to annoy them and waste their time, so you don't want to talk to them until you can help them somehow. That's actually very considerate of you. But as you see, your current behavior patterns aren't constructive at all.
>>30695213 homesteading. You cant just lay claim to land you cant monitor or improve. Even if some how some person or group in this world amassed enough wealth to be able to police and maintain all the land well then its not anarchy is it.
>>30695166 Try mutualism. It's a centrist form of classical Laissez-Faire that goes against contemporary capitalism and denounces business hierarchy. I'll put it into some bulletpoints:
>Individual property rights. If you buy a house, it's yours and nobody else can make any claim to it. Basically, fuck landlords. >Cooperatism. People who pool their labor into a business all have some degree of ownership of it on a collective and individual level, and therefore a company is run democratically rather than feudally. Basically, fuck bosses. >Just compensation. The amount you are payed for your job is relative to how much labor you put in, the quality of labor provided, the difficulty and skill needed for the task and other such factors. Profit is pooled and divvied amongst the workers, instead of floating to the top and "trickled down". Basically, fuck wage slavery. >Credit unions. Basically, fuck banks.
>>30695761 > The amount you are payed for your job is relative to how much labor you put in, the quality of labor provided, the difficulty and skill needed for the task and other such factors.
How is this being measured? Who makes these measurements? How does one measure quality or difficulty within a spectrum of individuals with different skill sets and proficiencies? How would you determine who gets payed what and what things are more important than others?
You know theres a reason why communism doesn't work. How would a small group of people, ie a state, know what is needed for the individuals of their country better than the individuals themselves do? They wouldn't and thats just one of the many reasons a state doesn't work.
>>30695910 >how such a scenario is prevented from happening at all within an ancap society.
Thats a great question mate.
I do not think multi billionaires could not exist for any real stretch of time in one family. I believe it is the state which enables such wealth.
Have you ever heard of the concept of "from rags to riches to rags"? It stems from the behaviors typically exhibited by the offspring of such wealth. Rich kids don't have it rough they grow up with everything being easy and convenient and never have to struggle to get anything in life. This lack of experience does not instill a hard work conservative attitude typically needed for maintaining wealth. Rich kids become spoiled and tend to squander their parents wealth becoming destitute thus from rags to riches to rags.
Most if not all of the multi billionaires exist in some from or incarnation as a result of the states existence and structure. Without a state billionaires who exploit either the system or its structure have nothing to exploit meaning that if one is a billionaire in a stateless society it is only through extreme merit and excellence.
So you see what you are proposing could not happen in a anarchic society.
>>30696576 > I'm sick of having to explain things.
you do realize you are on a anonymous image posting website right? You need to be able to qualify your position if you want to participate. You have not reputation here only what you say. If you have trouble explaining your position maybe you should reconsider it.
I mean christ I know this is /pol/ and this shit is expected, but can we for once just band together and make a stance at the fucking HUNDREDS of fascists and statists that make up this boards instead of sitting around playing no-true-scotsman at each other?
You know what? You win. That's all you really want, isn't it? To win? Fuck me no wonder you're an ancap. I don't even want to imagine how much of an insufferable turboturd you are in the real world.
And yes, I'm mad. Before you point that out, just keep in mind that you've been spewing liquid shit at me from the start of the day. Have a nice day, you venomous faggotron.
>>30643511 Thanks for acknowledging this. It's a shame to see there's so much infighting. Who is a "real" anarchist is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, as I'm sure we can at least all agree that the state is the biggest problem, currently.
>can we for once just band together and make a stance at the fucking HUNDREDS of fascists and statists
So you think we will achieve this by getting mad and calling names no. If you are having problems defining your beliefs then perhaps you should stop talking about anarchy as it seems you are not a great example of the belief.
What anarchy really comes down to is morality. The state only exists through force and coercion thus ANY state that exist is flawed and based on moral division of responsibility. With a state its ok for me to use violence to oppress and steal from you this is the real issue with anarchy.
You seem to think it is alright to use force to tell others what to do and i think that is where you are becoming confused. If you think it is ok to use violence to force others to adhere to your will then you are not an anarchist.
>And all I've been getting in return from ancaps is nothing but utterly pointless hostility:
You want to instate a system that tells people what to do and you expect gumdrops and lollypos? What world do you live in where people gladly here your suggestions as to how they should be violently oppressed and stolen from?
Oh and btw this is an ANARCHIST THREAD expecting us to be pro state in any way is fucking retarded.
in short work out your problems mate then you can start talking about what others should do.
>>30643311 >a perpetual state of ignorance fuelled anarchy This is a fallacy. Just because the whole planet does not move like clockwork... Actually, with the ability of the Pentagon to set up shop anywhere @ any given moment... Anyway, with clear authorities and penal systems, we are definitely not already in anarchy.
>>30697616 The only anarchist who cause infighting are ancaps. Traditional anarchist all seem to get along just fine. Then these obtuse capitalists come along thinking they are Rich Uncle Pennybags and start pushing people around.
>>30697467 There are a LOT of bad Murray quotes from the nineties when he tried to make "paleolibertarianism" a thing. And when I say bad, I don't just mean that I merely disagree with them. I mean they're just fucking bad.
>>30697910 I keep saying they wouldn't be so bad if they weren't ALWAYS the first people to fling shit and never even attempt any kind of mediation. I don't like the idea of communism for the lack of individual property rights either, but you guys still let me get on the level with you and we can have a good time shooting the shit. There are just too many ancaps that want the whole fucking movement for themselves and nobody else. We need more people like this nice guy here: >>30697616
>>30698264 >It is productive property we would like to see collectivized.
What will prevent me from using my car or house to produce some form of wealth? Can i not deliver packages or taxi people or rent out a room? Who defines the means of production? Who the fuck are you to tell people what to do?Hows communism working out? Hows you relationship with your father?
Pick one and only one. I hate this gender wars bullshit. Little boys and girls need to grow the fuck up someday and stop fighting about which set of genitals is better. Cause really, that's not what the genitals are for.
>inb4 someone wants to to try to have a discussion with me about 'omg how will teh mommies and daddies raise teh children' when I figure that's all between the couple to negotiate their gender roles within the context of their personal relationship anyhow >inb4 thread is ruined because I just fucked up: I responded to this stupid childish squabbling
Is anarcho-primitism is what this 'genitalsarchy' crap calls itself? Anarcho-primitivism is shit-eating retard tier anyhow but the more I hear about it, the more I hate it.
>>30697222 I'm the ancap poster of all of those except for the last one from yesterday and just as I was about to post a picture that I posted here yesterday on another thread I was alerted this thread was still alive with the pic in it. You're full of shit your leftard, I don't have to be nice to you degenerates who construe strawmen instead of arguments and advocate initatinos of force against us('muh relative surplush labur entitles me to ur pwopwerty!!!!!!").
You don't even fucking CARE what the genitals 'are for', you're an engineer who pretty much exists to step all over the naturalistic fallacy all day every day. But you are objectively right about that. Even 'hurr they exist for breeding and breeding only!!! D:' people have to agree.
>you were sick of the 'girls vs boys' shit when you were 6 years old >because you were already emotionally and intellectually evolved past that >you thought they'd grow up, but your peers are still fighting about it in their 20s >and it has been scaring you because it's strange and unnatural of them >it's uncanny valley tier to you that girls and boys have no love for each other >you don't want kids yourself because you don't want babies >but you also don't want everyone else to also not have kids >because you don't have a fancy political reason for not wanting kids
I understand perfectly why you're freaking out at your peers' behavior, but maybe they'll grow up someday.
>>30698776 >Honest, dignified, morally consistent Yes, this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that I've become adjusted to from browsing this board to the point that I can almost immediately discern the actual motive of the people who use it.
Nice try, Goebbels. Looks like your Zyklon stocks are about to take a hit.
>>30698710 I know, but they're still kind of creepy (both the girls and the boys). I don't know what's causing them to act like how they're acting. I missed a lot due to a messed up childhood and then reclusing and waiting until maybe they resolved their weird crap.
(I am seriously a statistical outlier, not statistically relevant or representative of any statistical group except perhaps the very small minority of human being who don't have the 'imma form babby' instinct. The 'muh statistics, i only want to interact with representatives of statistical groups!' people can safely ignore me, I represent no trends or political crap with the 'i don't like babies' thing because that really is very simply all about my feelings: not liking something is feelings. I see this as incidental. Some people see this as special snowflake syndrome because that's what they say to everyone who isn't getting depersonalized by their crap. I'm saying all this crap because I know one of them is gonna come swoop down and CARE and crap, and they're going to be really fucking annoying.)
TL;DR: I missed a lot of societal brainwashing, and then I was confused, but now I kind of know what happened
>>30699026 You missed so much it's almost like you're from a parallel world and have been trying to figure out this one or something. But what you've been trying to understand really is pretty weird and fucked up.
You should be cautious. Society is actually a fucking dangerously retarded trainwreck around you.
>>30656768 >>30699042 of course it is. You collectivist authoritarians are from leddit, so of course you would circle jerk and corall together pretending to be "seperate" sects of anarchism, when you're really all practically the same leftard garbage constantly spewing depraved strawmen against us individualist libertarians/ancaps who oppose your entitlement
>>30699307 Get out of here you clown, capitalism is hierarchical. What you fail to realize is that once you achieve your "anacho-capitalist" society is that the richest man in town will own all of you.
>>30699307 Man, I'm not even upset anymore. Everyone else coming together has really made me feel all fuzzy inside. Like we really CAN have a world of perfect brotherhood and boning hot ginger chicks in the middle of a wheat field.
And all we had to do was understand that even though we have our differences, we know that none of us will ever reach the level of faggotry of the average anclap. Thanks for showing us the way, man.
>>30699473 >>30699482 Don't even take them seriously. Taking someone's argument seriously means they have an argument that's worth discussing.
>>30699529 Kinda reminiscent of something else, though you aren't too keen on horror movies.
>psycho, psycho, knife-weilding and dangerous and gonna fuck u up >though you generally prefer to weild guns >you wouldn't kill people unless defending yourself or your small amount of territory from invasion, though
Anarcho-primitivists are also center, but ironically enough, kind of the opposite of you.
>>30699473 >get out of here you clown lmfao, I'm he clown? rofl, go back to leddit you feeble, parasitic piece of shit with absolutely no actual refutations against capitalism/libertarianism/voluntary exhange >hierarchical ROFL, holy fucking shit, we don't give a fuck at all about hierachy and we never said we did!! We oppose the state/governement/coercion against individuals justified because of a mob, not 'hierarchy" like you demented leftards This is what I mean about strawmen, you fucking retards. No one but you delusional, loser, elliot rodger esque, egalitarians would try to coerce others from using their innate superior capabilities to advance ahead of their lesser peers and establishing positions of superiority that individuals voluntary-key word dipshit-agree to submit to. We individual beings are inherently not equals in capability or status-never have been and never will be.
>>30699682 It's funny because the theif-gang wasn't very hostile to Link in the game, but I guess a theme like that was probably to denote that they could be very hostile and their territory could be dangerous because they'd aggressively defend it.
>>30699572 >the level of faggotry of the average anclap >the level of faggotry translation from buttblasted language of leftards to english: >I admit I have no refutations against your moral consistency,but I remain selectively ignorant and just spew adjectives with my feels laced in them because I'm a feeble, entitled, parasitic authoritarian who needs to steal and leech off the property/labor of others to survive
>>30699878 >Then you must be eliminated, along with the state. lmfao, nope, It's you remnants of the authoritarian parasite who will be eliminated once the state no longer exists. You leeching, poor, useless, occupy-wall streeting, basket weaving, womyn studies degree holding leftards won't be able to compete with us in an arena without the monopoly of force the government holds currently to restrict us. Once the chains are unshackled and the state is dismantled, you who oppose our natural right to voluntarily associate and exchange with whomever we choose will be annihilated in self-defense.
>>30699771 >>30700102 >>30700367 >parasitic piece of shit >demented leftards >delusional, loser, elliot rodger esque, egalitarians >innate superior capabilities to advance ahead of their lesser peers and establishing positions of superiority >We individual beings are inherently not equals in capability or status-never have been and never will be >moral consistency >feeble, entitled, parasitic authoritarian who needs to steal and leech >remnants of the authoritarian parasite >leeching, poor, useless, occupy-wall streeting, basket weaving, womyn studies degree holding leftards
I take it back. This isn't funny. This is fucking HILARIOUS.
The best part is that I'm now reading it these posts in this voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHgW2z61_9k
>>30694551 >who determines what a threat to a nation is
That's a fairly simple question, we as a people determine outside threats all the time. And especially in the case of militias.
>why the oldest members mobilizing
Realistically, it would be anyone most inclined who would warm of threats. But old generally means more years of dedication to anarchism.
>supposed to attend or honor voluntarily
Voluntarily, but if you don't participate your word might go unheard or you might miss out on important updates, degrading of course your participation/usefulness in that particular system.
>you want to institute a tax system
No, it works a bit different than that. For example, say the nation has products and services it sells/provides. These products and services are directly distributed and assembled at a particular factory/agency etc, which then ships them to a store/gives them to customer, the store is an extension of the factory so the money would go right back to the hands of the workers.
>what possible incentive if/ $ redistributed.
The money gets distributed on a national level through different means. First you need to take into account that some will prefer a ancap system while others will strictly prefer a socialist system. But ultimately we are ALL trying to defend Anarchism. So what happens? Say you have a touring agency and it is completely run in a socialist fashion, the tourists would spend on goods and services the country provides, but the socialist tour guides would have a different financial structure which they uphold. They would not be direct earners in any way, they would simply be part of their own network of social anarchism. The incentive isn't money, it's sharing ones country with others. However if they like, they could do business with capitalistic intentions.
Some retarded pieces of trash in my neighborhood broke my bike after deluding themselves that I derived sexual stimulation from riding it. Then they tried and failed to beat me up after school every day.
>tfw out of the projects now >tfw I will never see those retards again
>>30700876 I feel compelled to smash his face with a brick because he's a retard like the moronic and worthless pieces of shit who I beat up every day after school for trying to beat me up on my way home from school. But I'm not going to because all he has done is open his retarded whore mouth. I would have avoided them if the street weren't a dead-end oval-shaped street and my home was futhermost into it.
>and if they weren't pieces of shit, I wouldn't have always fucking won
>>30700946 You're a sex-obsessed retard like the worthless pieces of shit I used to have to fight every day in order to get home from school.
>>30700582 >I take it back. This isn't funny. This is fucking HILARIOUS. lel, it seems the commietard has become euphoric in rage. You even admitted you're butthurt you feeble piece of shit. Just go back to leddit /r/anarchism and have a blast telling ur kewl stories.
Thread replies: 323 Thread images: 91
Thread DB ID: 1190
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.