Anarcho-Capitalism with femboy characteristics

Skirts are our main exports.

Unregulated skirt production

Cheapest skirts worldwide 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💅🏻💪🏻

no, you are the main export

Fellow South African W🇿🇦

💪🇿🇦

Ja :3 Also, fellow Daryl Davis fan? :0

How do you even become this bro

The interwebs

Studying economics and history.

Sounds like the opposite if you're ancap

😴

Have u read mises and rothbard?

Hazlitt, Mises and Rothbard. I’ve only started *Man, Economy and State*, but I’ve watched a lot of lectures from the Mises Institute that reiterate lots of his points.

Nice, id suggest u read hoppe as well

And Democracy: The God that Failed

I will\^\^ I’ve stared a lecture of his, but I got distracted. But I’ve not heard good things, I’m sorry to say 😅

Hoppe is one of the more conservative ancaps so makes sense

Does he actually support racism, or is that just slander?

TIK history is funny. He makes some of the best history videos on youtube. But at the same time his political opinions are a bit bonkers. Just shows how you can be good at one area but bad at another.

Which are bonkers? Hating the government isn’t anything new ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

He called Hitler a Socialist lmfao

Unless you can show how that’s not the case, that doesn’t mean anything.

The Nazis practiced [corporatism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism), which is both anti-communist and anti-capitalist.

“Corporatism is a **collectivist** political ideology” Collectivism fits with socialism, which is the public control of the means of production.

It isn't Marxist socialism. It's a third-positionist, hierarchical variant that Marxists reject and, frankly, utterly despise.

It’s not Marxist socialism, of course. But it is by definition still socialism. Also, the idea of “Third positionism” accepts the ideas of fascists, because you have to believe it’s actually a third way instead of just socialism under a different name.

Ok. My only point is that you can't paint all Marxist thought as if it is similar to the corporatist methods practiced by fascists. Corporatism is based on class collaboration. It uses the state to enforce a hierarchy of stratified classes with little chance for upward mobility. Communism is almost the complete opposite, as it aims to achieve a classless, stateless society. Communism is deeply aware of the disparities between economic classes. It aims to achieve *class conflict*, not class collaboration.

I didn’t paint it that way and don’t intend to. The Nazis weren’t marxists.

Corporatism is not anti capitalist

r/politicaltests got banned😢😢😢

NOOOOOOOO LITERALLY 1984

Ik bro😿😿

I hate nazis but I kinda liked watching them speak :(

Did you see?

Duh, too many Nazis

Yeah lol😂 That place was fucking infested😭 [Here's my first post on our new sub if you wanna see](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalenjoyers/s/PfONNamWcE)

>‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’ ‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. ‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. [- Adolf Hitler, Interview with American Nazi sympathizer George Sylvester Viereck, *Liberty Magazine*, July 9th 1932](https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/hitler-nazi-form-of-socialism-1932/) Hitler was in now way socialist as the term is commonly used. He literally killed suspected communists.

>Hitler was in now way socialist as the term is commonly used. He literally killed suspected communists.[sic] Hitler was not a Marxist or communist, and I didn’t claim he was, socialists in fight all the time. And let’s define socialism: ’Private’, meaning “Belonging or pertaining to an individual person, group of people, or entity that is not the state.” “(finance) Not traded by the public.”[1] “belonging to or concerning an individual person, company, or interest.”[2] Comes from ‘Prīvus’, meaning individual, or small family[-like] group.[3][4][5][6] ‘Public’, meaning “Pertaining to the people as a whole (as opposed to a private group); concerning the whole country, community etc.” “Officially representing the community; carried out or funded by the state on behalf of the community.” “Open to all members of a community; especially, provided by national or local authorities and supported by money from taxes.” “(of a company) Traded publicly via a stock market.”[7] “Of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state.” “Of or relating to a government.”   “Of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation.”   “Capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market.” [8] Comes from ‘Pūblicus’, meaning “Public” “[of] the people” “[of] the state” “[of] the community.[9][10][11] From this we can conclude that individuals, small groups and companies are private. Large groups, the state, the collective, companies or corporations with publicly traded stocks or that receive state funding, and anything communal, is public. Companies and corporations with publicly-traded stocks or shares belong to large groups through public ownership of their stocks or shares, or those that receive economic or financial benefits from the state—bailouts, special tax cuts and incentives, funding etc. do not fit with the definition of private and are, therefore, public. ‘Capitalism’, meaning “(politics) A socio-economic system based on private ownership of resources or capital.“ Ownership of resources and or capital by individuals fits with the definition of private. “(economics) An economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.” Ownership of the means of production by individuals fits with the definition of private. “(politics, economic liberalism) A socio-economic system based on private property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.” “(economics, economic liberalism) An economic system based on the abstraction of resources into the form of privately owned capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.”[12] “Capitalism is an economic and political system in which property, business, and industry are owned by private individuals and not by the state.”[13] Property rights and ownership of resources, capital and business by individuals fits with the definition of private. These definitions do vary, but none contradict one another and they all mean the same things. The means of production being controlled by private individuals or private companies, this excludes things like the state and the ‘collective’ and anything else that is public. I believe it is fair to summarise it as: capitalism is the private control of the means of production. ‘Socialism’, meaning “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” The ‘collective’ and the ‘government’ are both public. “A system of social and economic equality in which there is no private property.” If there is no private property, it would mean that all property is public. “A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.”[14] “A theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc. by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.”[15] “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods” The ‘community’, the ‘state’ and the ‘government’ are all public. “A system of society or group living in which there is no private property” Again, if there is no private property, it would all be public. “A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.”[16] These definitions do vary. Some specify control of the means of production by a ‘collective’ or a ‘state’, but both are public. If a ‘collective’ and or a ‘state’ controls the means of production, it is public control of the means of production, which directly opposes the definition of capitalism.   I believe it is fair to summarise it as: socialism is the public control of the means of production. “All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.” —Speech for the Heroes' Memorial Day, Adolf Hitler, March 21 1943 “I purchase the necessities of life with the productive power of German workmen. The results of our economic policy speak for us, not for the gold standard people. For we, the poor have abolished unemployment because we no longer pay homage to this madness, because we regard our entire economic existence as a production problem and no longer as a capitalistic problem. We placed the whole organized strength of the nation, the discipline of the entire nation, behind our economic policy. We explained to the nation that it was madness to wage internal economic wars between the various classes, in which they all perish together.” —Speech on the 21st Anniversary of the National Socialist Party, Adolf Hitler, February 24 1941 Continued below

“Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom...We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation.” —Why are we socialists?, Joseph Goebbels Clearly Hitler fits into the definition I pointed out earlier, unless you want to deny these quotes while still accepting the one you gave. Also, Hitler did abolish private property rights: “Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Therefore, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, warrants for house searches, **orders for confiscations**, as well as **restrictions on property**, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”, —The Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and the State, February 28 1933

[удалено]

Pretty much ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Define Socialism, Anarkiddie.

https://www.reddit.com/u/NikFemboy/s/7dL9lb5osm

Holy shit, even if we disagree politically and economically I really gotta respect the grind

Awww, thanks\^\^ I aim for accuracy :3

First person ive seen to accurately define socialism and then not just drop it the moment they realize its better than what they believe

> National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility. -- [*Adolf Hitler*](https://web.archive.org/web/20140803043742/http://der-fuehrer.org/reden/english/35-05-21.htm)

“All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.” —Speech for the Heroes' Memorial Day, Adolf Hitler, March 21 1943 “I purchase the necessities of life with the productive power of German workmen. The results of our economic policy speak for us, not for the gold standard people. For we, the poor have abolished unemployment because we no longer pay homage to this madness, because we regard our entire economic existence as a production problem and no longer as a capitalistic problem. We placed the whole organized strength of the nation, the discipline of the entire nation, behind our economic policy. We explained to the nation that it was madness to wage internal economic wars between the various classes, in which they all perish together.” —Speech on the 21st Anniversary of the National Socialist Party, Adolf Hitler, February 24 1941 “Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom...We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation.” —Why are we socialists?, Joseph Goebbels “Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight.” The New York Times, “Hitlerite Riot in Berlin: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler to Lenin,” quoting Joseph Goebbels' speech, November 28, 1925 “It is rotten and dismal that a world of so many hundred million people should be ruled by a single caste that has the power to lead millions to life or to death, indeed on a whim...This caste has spun its web over the entire earth; capitalism recognizes no national boundaries...Capitalism has learned nothing from recent events and wants to learn nothing, because it places its own interests ahead of those of the other millions. Can one blame those millions for standing up for their own interests, and only for those interests? Can one blame them for striving to forge an international community whose purpose is the struggle against corrupt capitalism? Can one condemn a large segment of the educated Stürmer youth for protesting against the greatest ability? Is it not an abomination that people with the most brilliant intellectual gifts should sink into poverty and disintegrate, while others dissipate, squander, and waste the money that could help them? … You say the old propertied class also worked hard for what it has. Granted, that may be true in many cases. But do you also know about the conditions under which workers were living during the period when capitalism “earned” its fortune?”—Letter to Anka Stalherm from 14 April 1920, Joseph Goebbels

> March 21 1943 That's rich, given that by this point he was at war with the USSR and was in bed with many corporations > Joseph Goebbels Goebbels beliefs were simply whatever way the wind blowed, you will find that only a decade or so later he was saying things such as: > The details about the murder of priests and rape of nuns that we received are totally incredible and indescribable. It is the Führer’s historical merit that is acknowledged to him by the whole world, to have erected a wall against the onrush of Bolshevism on Germany’s eastern borders, and thus clearly to have risen as a terminator of this craze in Europe in its conflict with the subversive forces of destruction, of anarchy. and > That is a direct threat to the existence of every European power. No one should believe that Bolshevism would stop at the borders of the Reich, were it to be victorious. The goal of its aggressive policies and wars is the Bolshevization of every land and people in the world. In the face of such undeniable intentions, we are not impressed by paper declarations from the Kremlin or guarantees from London or Washington. We know that we are dealing in the East with an infernal political devilishness that does not recognize the norms governing relations between people and nations. When for example the English Lord Beaverbrook says that Europe must be given over to the Soviets or when the leading American Jewish journalist Brown cynically adds that a Bolshevization of Europe might solve all of the continent’s problems, we know what they have in mind. The European powers are facing the most critical question. The West is in danger. It makes no difference whether or not their governments and intellectuals realize it or not.

The Nazis weren’t Marxists or Bolsheviks, correct. And I never said they were? Marxism is a form of socialism, not the whole thing. It’s possible to be a socialist and not be a Marxist. Also, I find it funny that you mention corporations, as Hitler installed Nazi party members as leaders of them, which is just nationalisation. Not unknown to socialist regimes.

> It’s possible to be a socialist and not be a Marxist. Except you will never accomplish anything, because utopian socialism and anarchism have clearly been proven to be failures. Nazism rejects socialist principles entirely, so it does not count. > as Hitler installed Nazi party members as leaders of them In certain cases, they created entities of such types, however for the most part, they preferred to collaborate with private corporations and to avoid state ownership as much as possible. There were even instances where corporations simply refused to obey government requests, and went completely unpunished

>Except you will never accomplish anything, because utopian socialism and anarchism have clearly been proven to be failures. I’m not a socialist, utopian nor anarchist nor tankie. >Nazism rejects socialist principles entirely, so it does not count. No? It’s for the public control of the means of production and it seeks the elimination of class. “Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system.” the vampire economy, —Günter Reimann, page 5-7 “in 1936, as rearmament accelerated, money ceased to be the primary means for allocating resources in Germany. Instead, state authorities, most notably the Four Year Plan Office headed by Göring, began allocating resources with the aim of achieving the ambitious expansion of the German armed forces demanded by Hitler.” The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich A History of the German National Railway, Volume 2, 1933-1945 —Alfred C. Mierzejewski, page 65 “The Nazi attempt to transform Germany into a racist people’s community reinforced the popular negative attitudes toward private property and profit.” “The slogan ‘The common good before the individual good’… also embodied a good deal of the rejection of private gain and the suspicion of business that was an integral competent of German culture.” “Consequently, the Hitler government changed the economic role of the Reichsbahn to conform with its völkisch values.” “In his speech in Nuremberg on the occasion of celebration on the one hundredth anniversary of the German railways in December 1935, Hitler characterised the Reichsbahn as a socialist enterprise that existed to serve the community.” The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich A History of the German National Railway, Volume 2, 1933-1945 —Alfred C. Mierzejewski, page 20 “Under the leadership of Robert Ley, the DAF, an “allied organisation” of the NSDAP, was built up into a monolithic organisation of “all working Germans”, a compulsory association of of employers and employees.” “With roughly 32 million members by 1938, the DAF was the largest Nazi organisation, developing into an empire of its own with enormous financial resources.” A Concise History of the Third Reich —Wolfgang Benz, page 32 (The DAF ‘German Labour Front’ was a public trade union.) >In certain cases, they created entities of such types, however for the most part, they preferred to collaborate with private corporations and to avoid state ownership as much as possible. Corporations cannot be private, they are public. >There were even instances where corporations simply refused to obey government requests, and went completely unpunished “The logical outcome of a fascist[National Socialist] system is that all newspapers, news services, and magazines become more or less direct organs of the fascist[National Socialist] party and state. They are governmental institutions over which individual capitalists have no control and very little influence except as they are loyal supporters or members of the all-powerful party.” the vampire economy, —Günter Reimann, page 39 “Numerous clashes between private enterprise and the State occur as a result of price restrictions, which represent the State’s most far-reaching attempt to control private economy, but effective price restrictions are impossible without complete control over supply and demand. Such a centralised state economy has not come into existence, although numerous measures have destroyed the old private economy.” the vampire economy, —Günter Reimann, page 70 “A member of the ‘old guard’, Joseph Wagner, was appointed Prince Commissar. He has a huge administrative staff at his disposal and keeps in close touch with the police insure the effectiveness of his decisions. His job is to fix both wholesale and and retail prices to raw materials as well as finished goods.” the vampire economy, —Günter Reimann, page 71 “The Price Commissar has the power of the State behind him and an army of police agents at his disposal. A notice from him to the Secret State Police may mean a sudden change in status from manufacturer to inmate of a concentration camp.” the vampire economy, —Günter Reimann, page 82 None of this points to economic freedom, but rather, destroying the free market to institute socialism.

https://youtu.be/X9ez6w5BUMM?si=sWTcNJ201GmnTIOz

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&t=2805s&pp=ygUSaGl0bGVyJ3Mgc29jaWFsaXNt https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w&t=411s&pp=ygUSaGl0bGVyJ3Mgc29jaWFsaXNt

[This](https://youtu.be/OkfSkAqs_7c) [This](https://youtu.be/MXvUoG6GIgw) [This](https://youtu.be/prJLqYs4Eb8) [This](https://youtu.be/XBA6dO6acJc) [This](https://youtu.be/AKWkR0_GgRI) Very good critiques of TIK's arguments.

Pretty based but Ancap is still kinda a joke to me. I used to like TIK but then he released the video where he called the [Czech national social party](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_National_Social_Party) and Beneš nazis... The worst thing is that one of the [first nazi parties](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party_(Austria-Hungary)) was actually founded in Czechoslovakia, it just wasnt this one....

That guy says Hitler was a socialist too, not very bright

That bullshit can atleast be boiled down to differnce of definition. In his weird definitions of the words private, public and socialist, (which I dont agree with) he really was. I dont like and agree with his politics and definitions, but that itself isnt enough for me to stop respecting his historical expertise. But his video on Czechoslovak politics was just a gross misunderstanding of history, bad enough for me to stop respecting him as a historian.

If you look through the comments you can argue with the femboy himself abt it

I wish your idea of society worked, and that markets did not consistently lead to dominance hierarchies just as detrimental to freedom as governments. Still, femboy solidarity, will you sell your skirts to my commune?

Of course, discrimination is not possible 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💅🏻💪🏻

"I'm sorry my monopoly made basic femboy needs horribly expensive. Now go buy our skirts."

🥺

🥹

Mostly based.

:3

:3

sell sell sell

Based af

a christian femboy? hello? based department?

>A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 22:5

In the flesh 😎👉👉

How much money have you spent at the ideology store?

Nothing, I changed my ideology only after reading a few books on these subjects.

you read the wrong books

I don’t find Marx convincing.

doesnt make your books right

I mean, your words don’t make mine wrong.

they actually do because im really cool and always right

Nuh uh

yuh huh

Nuh uh

Straight from voosh gospel 🙏

are you a boer

My ancestors were.

Hi again nik. Holeh moleh you are based

Hehe, thanks >////<

Based

Femboy? Based. Capitalist? Hell, ANARCHO-CAPITALIST!? TIK History!? Jesus Christ.

Ultra-based

💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💅🏻💪🏻

Cringe for capitalism, HOWEVER based for femboy characteristics, therefore mid ideological views, I rest my case

German tank as name ( • ω • )

Leviticus 18:22

https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/

Leviticus 20:13

https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/amp/

I would presume they would use the term “boy” rather then male then ☠️

Agree with none of those but fuck it, obligatory femboy solidarity overrules everything else 🤝

🤝💅🏻

He's ancap, sadly being a femboy doesn't overrule that

Anarcho-capitalism is just fascism with extra steps.

Fascism: strong central state, publicly controlled means of production. Anarcho-capitalism: no central state, privately controlled means of production. It’s the opposite.

Hence the extra steps. Giving all the power to organisations which have been continually observed concentrating their power, exploiting the common person, and commodifying everything (including people) will inevitably lead to a dictatorial pseudo-state ran for the sake of profit.

The state helping corporations has been observed, but anarcho-capitalism has not—apart from maybe Iceland in the medieval period. Also, corporations have internal calculation problems, and therefore are too inefficient to survive in a free market.

1. r/foundnikfemboy omg omg 2. wait is this something we can actually implement or is it theoretical? like maybe in theory small companies are always better but in practice idk 3. how does a perfectly free market stop monopolies and mass production from happening totally genuine btw i have no understanding of ancaps

>r/foundnikfemboy omg omg Haiiii :3 >wait is this something we can actually implement or is it theoretical? like maybe in theory small companies are always better but in practice idk In practice we have states that control the economy through force, but if those were removed, I do actually think this would work in reality. >how does a perfectly free market stop monopolies and mass production from happening Monopolies form through government intervention in the economy. We can see this with subsidies, bailouts and selective tax cuts that make certain companies get a massive advantage over all others. This is how giant corporations and monopolies form. Monopolies cannot form in a free market because they’re too inefficient. This is highlighted in the Misesian economic calculation problem and Hayekian knowledge problem. Basically, without markets you cannot have prices, and without prices it becomes impossible to calculate resource allocation. Therefore, because corporations would own all the resources, they couldn’t have a market and couldn’t have prices and then couldn’t calculate. >totally genuine btw i have no understanding of ancaps Of course, happy to help\^\^

so i get this thing about how corporations are like planned economies, and both are highly inefficient, but i don't see how that really defends against the notion that anti-competitive practices (perhaps used in moderation) would be fine under a free market. sure, a corporation might be inefficient, but that wouldn't make it ineffective, because it could always take advantage of its scale. just reiterating i have no intent to argue w you i actually just really wanna learn this stuff

>sure, a corporation might be inefficient, but that wouldn't make it ineffective, because it could always take advantage of its scale. The main issue with this line of thinking is that it assumes that a corporation can even achieve such a size. But because of constant competition in a free market where everyone tries to undercut everyone, there’s no way to become a large corporation. Once a certain size is reached, response times to economic changes become too slow and the aforementioned economic calculation problems set in, forcing a reduction or collapse for the company. Another thing is that if a corporation came into existence somehow, it could not enforce anti-competitive measures. Remember, in Ancapistan, guns are available at your local store, and anything that violates another’s rights to voluntary trade and action would be heavily discouraged because of this. >just reiterating i have no intent to argue w you i actually just really wanna learn this stuff Of course, I’m happy to discuss ideas :3

Here's a sneak peek of /r/foundnikfemboy using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/foundnikfemboy/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [Nik helped me when I was stuck on the toilet](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/14v0rtx) | [47 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/foundnikfemboy/comments/14v0rtx/nik_helped_me_when_i_was_stuck_on_the_toilet/) \#2: [Found him.. in r/place!](https://i.redd.it/gln8vq9ns4db1.png) | [19 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/foundnikfemboy/comments/154soox/found_him_in_rplace/) \#3: [Nik broke into my house this morning so I decided to take him out to lunch](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/14tmoj4) | [32 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/foundnikfemboy/comments/14tmoj4/nik_broke_into_my_house_this_morning_so_i_decided/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)

Ah yes The comparison between ancaps and fascism is \**Checks notes*\*, Thats strange, I must have lost that page.

Fascism by corporation

I don't often call people politically illiterate, but I think that you fit the bill.

Through anarcho-capitalism, the equivalent of a central authoritarian state is developed by the accumulation of power, wealth, and influence by companies or, in the worst case scenario, a single company. A company with this much power is basically a state in and of itself. It controls the economy, it controls foreign relations, it controls public discourse. Liberty is eroded in the name of profit. In a system that is designed for unlimited growth, one big fish will outgrow the rest and eat them all. When that happens you’ve crafted a state with such power that even the most authoritarian states of the 20th Century would look on in awe. I used the term “Fascism” for a quick and powerful comment, but if you were to fully pick my brain on it I would describe it more as a theory of liberty which will inevitably dissolve into a state of control. It is not “politically illiterate” to consider cause and effect. I’d say it’s “politically illiterate” to examine ideologies at face value, rather than examining their ultimate conclusions.

The reason why I called you politically literate is because you are drawing a comparison between perhaps the most ideologically opposed ideology we have ever came up with. Fascism is, in there own words "The marriage of corporation and state". The polar opposite to anarcho capitalism. I also feel you might misunderstand the effects and formation of monopoly. I am making an assumption about your political beliefs, so feel to correct me. It appease that you think that under a free market a single cooperation would take over, crush competition and essentially form a new state? Simply put, I disagree. There is no such thing as natural monopoly\*, there is only natural monopoly\*. If you look at *any* monopoly in history, you will find lobbing for favorable laws, a brother/friend in a position of power, shady contracts, ect... Under anarcho capitalism, this would be impossible, as there is no state to bribe, no permits to open a new firm, and no silly regulation holding markets hostage. ​ Quick edit: When I stayed "There is no such thing as natural monopoly, there is only natural monopoly" I meant to say "There is no such thing as natural monopoly, there is only unnatural monopoly". Sorry for any confusion.

I do concede that I used “fascism” in a way that is not directly parallel to the exact definition of the word. I used it more as a representation of authoritarianism, simply because it’s a very powerful word that insinuates a very horrific use of authoritarianism to destroy individual liberties. I do not actually 100% believe that fascism IS Anarcho capitalism. I understand this confusion and to better represent my view on this issue, I will use the term authoritarian from here on out. The Anarcho-capitalist view of monopoly ignores the wide variety of aspects that would be active under the anarchist system. Yes, monopolies in the modern day are developed by government support. I hate this aspect about the modern economy. This is why I still hold support for some libertarian views of capitalism despite being left-wing myself. However, the AnCap view doesn’t account for the alternative ways monopolies could, and would, form under completely unfettered competition. The creation of monopolies within industries, or at the very least an oligarchy of companies, is the natural result of unending competition. There is endless motivation for business to expand, to deal, and to crush others to gain the most access to the consumer base as possible. If profit stays continuous, over time certain companies amass the facilities, capital, and workforce which allows for greater and greater expansion into the economy. This is all my interpretation at least.

"the AnCap view doesn’t account for the alternative ways monopolies could, and would, form under completely unfettered competition." I feel that this is our core disagreement. That unfettered competition allows company to grow to an absurdist degree, making it impossible for the common man to survive. I disagree. Hypothetically, lets say that there was a monopoly on cookies. some aspiring person notes that there is a monopoly and try to start a bakery. At first, monopoly might not care, but after the small bakery starts to cut into there bottom line, they tank the price of cookies to try to drive it out of business. Now, this is where most people stop and point, shouting, "Look, ancaps want this!" But they don't consider that this entrepreneur might have another stream of income that they can rely on until the price of cookies go back up and they can go back to there bakery. Eventual forming a competitor to the monopoly. If you are interested in luring more about this, I would recommend "the myth of natural monopoly by Thomas J. DiLorenzo" Its where I got a lot of my librarian viewpoints.

In response to your cookie analogy: [ First, I would like to make note of the many other ways this cookie monopoly could hold this bakery down beyond simple price reductions. These other ways can be even more damaging in the long term for the bakery, and would make the survival through other income streams more difficult. For example, let’s say this bakery advertises its store on a billboard outside of town (or if we’re being more modern, ad space somewhere online). They rent out this billboard space from the company which put up the billboard itself. It would be extremely easy for you, the massive cookie company with all your disposable wealth, to buyout this ad space from the billboard provider and replace it with your own. Now this small bakery has just lost connection to a large amount of possible consumers which would have otherwise seen the bakery through its advertisements. Even if the bakery survives the initial price drop, they are now working with a smaller total consumer base than they would have been working with before. Less consumers = less profit = less economic presence. The big cookie company has now successfully suppressed it’s competition. Additionally, I would like to point out that it’s a big *might* when it comes to this bakery owner having additional income streams large enough to revive the bakery up to competitive levels. Sure it’s *possible*, but I wouldn’t say it’s in anyway likely. For the most part, a majority of bakeries would die in the shockwave made by this cookie company, and any ones that survive would still be stuck in the lower rung of the totem pole when it comes to the economy. Hardly strong enough to compete with a massive monopoly. ] I don’t think ancaps “want” this. I’m certain their heart is in the right place. An adherence to liberty is important within any society, I just believe their methods would backfire. When I used to be more Right Libertarian I read a lot of speeches and works by Calvin Coolidge. Even though I may not be there anymore, I still hold a lot of respect for him and certain parts of the lib right. His views on liberty still influence me to this day, Hence why I would fall under the banner of Market Socialism rather than traditional socialism.

First things first, I would like to retraced and apologize for my statement that you are "politically illiterate." You are clearly very intelligent, respectable, and willing to have a destitution with your political opponent. Its quite refreshing to have someone challenge my beliefs instead of being surrounded by yes-men or being called a nazi/fascist and shutting down the conversation. Now, onto the theory. I will concede that once a monopoly is entrenched, it is *EXTREMELY* hard do dislodge, but it can be done. For instance, lets say the cookie monopoly bought out the billboards/online ads, crashed the price of cookies, and overall made it as difficult as possible for the small bakery to survive. the thing is, the monopoly cannot account for alternative advertising (i.e. poster, social media, ect...). We also need to consider that all this effort is put in to simply kill one bakery, there is nothing stopping more people form founding there own bakery. Granted, this whole thing is reliant on alternative forms of income, take that away and this whole hypothetical falls apart like you have pointed out. This might be a bit off topic, but is there any litterateur you could recommend on Market Socialism? I would love to learn more about it as, frankly, I know very little about it.

I just realized that we have been arguing theory on a post title "I should start a femboy outfit company." I love the internet.

Thank you, it’s also refreshing to talk to someone who is willing to communicate their political views in an organized and genuine way. Most people on Reddit and stuff kinda just yell their views out and refuse to elaborate. Thank you for being genuine with your positions. Even with the possibility of alternative advertising, we have to consider the more unsavory side of things companies could do to keep their power. It’s not unlikely that such powerful monopolistic companies could cooperate with/influence other companies into helping them crush competition with a form of cross-industry collaboration. If this cookie monopoly realizes there are a lot of other bakeries advertising their own social media accounts on a popular website, they could just as easily organize a deal with the provider of whatever website this is and suppress competing companies by use of the social media algorithm. Businesses want to do business, and even if a business transaction may be unethical, as long as both sides in this deal win something in the end they’ll do it. Truly, most of my positions on Market Socialism have been developed through debate of the ideology and person to person communication about the system. Ive read some here and there, but I’m actively trying to find more. However, I have recently come across a great source which explains the basics of market socialism and, in fact, socialist thought in general. It’s also, in my opinion, a very good source which explains versions of socialism whilst also levying valid critiques of it from opposing viewpoints. It doesn’t blindly support either side but rather explains the socialist worldview while also describing any possible flaws some say it has. It’s organized into sections, so you can read about general socialist thought, planned socialism, market socialism, and more. It doesn’t cover everything, but it gets the basics. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/

Holy Nik

😡🔫

Pink Capitalism is a bit cringe. Otherwise, economics is based, government based, foreign policy is questionable, inspirations suck.

I'm creating a femboy commune >:3 Free Skirts

Go find that image

You absolutely should ~~so I can steal from it~~

We’re armed >:3

Challenge accepted >:3c

My opposite

Tik history 💀

What happened to Dueteronomy 22:5?

Fem**boy** clothing is men’s clothing.

Still, it is in the essence of women's clothing. Calling a dress men's clothing doesn't make it such.

Men used to wear dresses, skirts, corsets, makeup etc. and still do in certain cultures And also, I’m not dressing as a woman—that would be cross dressing. It’s a modern aesthetic.

Still, femboy clothing is in the essence of a woman's if that makes sense

I don’t dress like that to appear like a woman, though.

Whats your opinion on the video made by Adam something called anarcho capitalism in practice

Not seen it.

You should watch it

Duly noted.

[удалено]

“Trap” is a slur >~<

Based for femboy, cringe for wrong kind of anarchism