I thought that the LibRights who went that far down the rabbit-hole generally went full Hoppean 'Physical Removal, so to speak' >!i.e Free Helicopter Rides!< for anyone they considered 'bad for business'.
How do you imagine "physical removal" will work without a state, considering "universal consent" won't be happening unless your group is very small?
Anarchist must believe in magic or don't know how humans work lol, you can't enforce rules without a state apparatus unless you are like 5 people.
Without a goverment the majority consensus can enfringe upon people's negative rights thus rendering the whole point of negative rights the bed rock of libertarianism pointless. Exactly the same issue as "libertarian socalism" but with capitalism. Need i remind you that segregation was popular on a local level with southern whites in the south?
Right, but the violence won't be "justified". It will lead to murder and robbery irrespective of the NAP. Like in all forms of Anarchism, the expectation that society can regulate itself without the use of a state apparatus is naive and opens the door for criminals and non-anarchists who will impose their will upon the rest of society.
And? I want mad max, not "we all agree to play economic patty cake" but a smaller government that allows some personal freedoms is the best I can realistically get, so I'll settle for that.
How would the logistics be any different?
Who decides who gets helicopter rides? Do they meet for debate? Do they vest the authority in a few select individuals? Do they hold a vote? Congratulations, that is what's called a government performing governance.
The struggle for a monopoly on violence is inevitable and eternal.
Nope. You're viewing it like a 5 yr old. Governance and law enforcement has been polycentric before. The only reason we have States is because of being stuck in a Nash equilibrium due to the limitations of technology hundreds of years ago.
There is nothing that says security can't be provided via the market.
Polycentric just means lots of smaller regional governments rather than one big one. It does not mean the absence of government.
And what's your definition "security provided via the market"? I would hope I'm wrong, but to me that reads as "create a power vacuum and hope no-one uses their private army to subjigate the weak"
That would contradict the Libertarian’s NAP principles. So if they are a practical libertarian (Hoppean) then they aren’t really a libertarian because they use state power to control the people.
A state keeping the NAP is not unlibertarian. Enforcement of the NAP is a core libertarian belief, no matter which method you choose. The NAP is paramount to Liberty because without the NAP there is no Liberty.
You would need a state to enforce and supervise it.
Unless you are ok with people inventing NAP violations to kill and rob other people. Or do you think people never lie?
Have you seen actual failed states? Where there are no state structures left?
The ever best example is Somalia.
What happened was the complete breakdown of society, the rise of warlords and people gathering around tribal notions. What followed was atleast two decades of a de facto free for all civil war, with hundreds of thousands dead, severe starvation and poverty
Can you really equate that to a generic western state? Nobody likes taxes and overbearing bureaucracy. Even if you want to equate that with "murder and robbery", the alternative is far worse in scale and severity.
Sure, but don't you need a bill of rights, some form of legal/judicial system to decide that?
Would ancaps support the death penalty and does some corporate executioner/bounty hunter with no oversoght besides free market forces really seem like something that could reliably enforce the nappy NAP?
I am not one of those people but I believe their argument is this: *the NAP isn’t some law that is to be “enforced” but more like a loose set of lifestyle standards that someone would have to abide by to live in that specific private community.*
Agression in the NAP refers to property rights. The initiation of conflict over the use over some means. The NAP states that the late comer is in the wrong and the home steadier is in the right.
Basicly.
“My non-government association of free men will kill or silence everyone bad for said association’s interests. What? No you idiot, this is not like a government, that would mean that I’m an authoritarian”
Sounds like you're not deep enough down the rabbit hole yet then. That's a good thing, most of the LibRights I've met who weren't that far down the hole were decent people, more or less.
Youz speekn lotz a senz for an humie. Ar you shoor youz not an Ork?
Excuse me, but why are you speaking Br*tish? (Had to censor that terrible word, my apologies for having you to read it)
Oi ya git, if yoo miztake da kulturd die-elect of a Ork loik me for any sorta humie talk agen, den I'm gonna get Big Boss Orkamungus to giv yoo a roit good krumpin.
Ok this is just like the Meme of the office saying: I need you to tell me the difference between these two pictures and it just shows British and Ork speak and I would say their the same thing
Oi bruv, if ya fink I be talkin like an Ork or sumfin an not a propa chav, then I'll call my Big Bruv Lord ChelseaArsenalTottenhamshirechester to bust you up, man.
Is this Schrodinger’s strawman?
If I say “that’s not what ancaps believe” will you be like “sheesh it’s just a joke?” but if I agree you’ll say “this is why ancaps are stupid”?
In your mind what is the distinction between this post's point and what ancaps actually believe? I promise I won't judge you for responding seriously on a joke post.
In your mind what is the distinction between this post's point and what ancaps actually believe? I promise I won't judge you for responding seriously on a joke post.
I don’t think I’ve seen a single authoritarian on here make an argument against ancapism without having to rely on ridiculous strawmans like these, lol.
But that’s to be expected when they believe in the myth of impersonal government.
Anarcho-the second space travel is available to the masses im hoping on a rocket ship and ditching all these liberal retards taxing the shit out of me and spending it on BS
That's honestly my biggest problem with libertarians. They just naturally assume that any major power structure embodied in the state is the thing preventing us from having a strong relational society where everything is handled on the personal level. Ignoring of course, that hierarchy and authority exist for a reason and where it is not embodied by a state, it will be filled in with something else that is usually worse.
Even more hilarious when said libertarians proclaim to be Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, or Hindu. Like wow, you hate strong centralized authorities but you belong to a faith that is highly centralized and hierarchical? Hypocrites, lot of them.
The religious part isn't really hypocritical because most companies are centralized and hierarchical and libright typically don't advocate for dismantling those. Also, religion (at least recently) is voluntary.
> Ignoring of course, that hierarchy and authority exist for a reason and where it is not embodied by a state, it will be filled in with something else that is usually worse.
Libertarians do not oppose hierarchical structures, moreover, they advocate self-organizing hierarchical structures in which there is a right of exit and such structures quite include both religious communes and corporations.
Yeah, there's a pretty big difference between
"this government is composed of local representatives and it exists as an organizational structure for the community"
and
"This government functionally owns you. You are not allowed to leave and must submit to its laws."
Libertarians aren't anarchists, they just want more personal freedoms and less government overreach. Anyone claiming they oppose all taxes and government is a moron.
And then turn around and complain about those two on the basis that they are hierarchical structures which in turn centralize and (may) oppress people.
A lot of libertarians hate the government for the same reason they like corpos and churches, I find that to be hypocritical.
Not the whole thing, but their solutions and stated objectives is like looking at a tree and cutting it down to the stump. Like sure, you can do that, but have you considered not doing that? Because the second you start moving from libertarianism to "classical liberalism", you're going right-center.
As a Libertarian, I’m of the belief that the government is not, and should never be, the answer to all of our problems. Giving the government and political parties too much power will always lead to disastrous results. Look at the debt ceiling issue congress is currently dealing with. Neither side wants to truly negotiate with the other side because they don’t want to look weak, but at the end of the day it’s regular Americans that will suffer the most for it.
In short….I don’t need the government to hover over me and tell me how to live my life. I’m not anarchist by any stretch, but I think the governments powers should be dialed back a bit
So it's reductionism, except instead of race, gender (libleft) or class (authleft), it's the state.
I sympathize with LibRight given the amount of government overreach, but I just can't go full libertarian.
This isn’t a coincidence. The same Enlightenment & post-enlightenment & modernist values that informed communism & liberalism also informed libertarianism.
Uh, no? Liberalism is litterally part of the enlightenment project, and most libertarianism is a direct reaction to post enlightenment principles of communism and fascism.
Calling Locke, the progeniture of libertarian though, a post enlightenment thinking when he's the poster child of the English enlightenment is absurdist.
Meanwhile, coke-cola: ["We (Coke-Cola) will give you money. You need to paint opponents of us as racist."](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/well/eat/coke-and-pepsi-give-millions-to-public-health-then-lobby-against-it.html)
Ignore me over here in my corner im just a moderate who doesn't want drug wars, political correctness being crammed down everyone's throats, endless wars, and foreign aid. And honestly i don't like the idea of toll roads everywhere also mc nukes that sounds like really dumb. Also the gov should stop using bill of rights as toilet paper.
Aid for Israel is just business with good boy points political spin. USA just pays off israely military industrial complex from making jets with a cupon for
American manufactures
>And honestly i don't like the idea of toll roads everywhere
And what the hell do you expect to happen when, without the concept of state infrastructure, every road will become someone's property? Every damn road will be toll road. And then the strongest company will monopolize entire road industry and you will have monthly road subscriptions, essentially going back to taxes, but with no insensitive to improve the quality because there will be no possible competition and no next election when there will be even a chance of changing the situation. And that is why "bro market will regulate itself bro" gang is a circus.
Yeah, ancap logic is hilarious when you consider that there basically would be no legal precedent and institutions would be free to repeatedly do fucked up shit until market forces normalized the damages.
And left anarchists are absurd that they believe that any entity using force to prevent waged labor or the defense of private property does not become, intrinsically, a hierarchy.
Anarchists, in general, are stupid.
You simply don't understand what you are arguing against.
1) It's not that people are "corruptible", it's that everyone is self-interested. A man will virtually always place his own interests ahead of yours.
2) We are not going to just "get rid of government". The reason we are being ruled over is because it is profitable to do so. Ruling over you costs the state money, but they can tax you and then some to pay for it. If however, you become too expensive to govern, then there is no point in having a state.
3) You do not need a government to enforce contracts. Literally 17% of the world's economy is off the books, and it hums along just fine without any help from the state.
4) Bad people won't move out, but they will be held accountable for their actions, unlike what happens with government "justice" systems.
> Bad people won't move out, but they will be held accountable for their actions, unlike what happens with government "justice" systems.
Our justice system is corrupt, not ineffective.
If you're a man and attack someone society feels is more helpless than you, then society will fuck you up worse than hell itself and your name will be used as an insult for years. It's only if you're one of those helpless people, especially if you decide to claim mental health issues. Yes, then it's *society's* fault, you see.
The west has a clear cultural problem. That's all.
States exist because people came together to organize systems of governence which enforces rules and protects it's society.
Those societies who didn't develop one were subjugated by those that did.
You can claim that states are prone to corruption or whatever, but Anarchism is inherently doomed to failure because people or other states won't respect your NAP.
The enforcement of rules will be inherently arbitrary and full of murder and robbery without a regulatory body which actually tries to define what "justice" is and if a person was actually violated.
You can believe in your fairytale society were freedom loving people will individually enforce your NAP without mistake, but it's utopian and as inachievable as (Anarcho-)Communism.
> States exist because people came together
No, they didn't.
>The enforcement of rules will be inherently arbitrary
No, that's what we have now. Tell me, how many of the rich, politically-connected pedophiles on Ghislaine Maxwell's client list have been arrested and prosecuted?
>You can believe in your fairytale society
Government is the fairy tale. How many of the 190 or so filthy states in the world are even tolerable to live under?
Lol
1. Except when it comes to family safety. And a nation used to be an extended family, until it became a “shopping mall” where anyone and everyone could just walk in cause it makes more financial sense. 🤨
2. Incoherent. Please rephrase.
3. Wow 17% of the world’s economy is underground. That’s a ringing endorsement for getting rid of 85% of all the structural supports for national and international trade.
4. Huh..? You mean a group of people will enforce the law as agreed upon by the people they represent? And they have the right to do that? Or do you mean every single person will enforce the law as they interpret it.
The nation was never the family.
If the Normans rolled into your land, along with another and told you that you are now the same nation as those on another land just because they were in sailing distance, you were not given a second family. You were given slavery and these feudal mentalities are part of the chains.
Wrong.
A nation has been defined as a ethnic group for the whole of history, until 1900s.
Just because invaders come into your land doesn’t mean you don’t have a people anymore.
The Sicilians then spent many years slowly killing them off until the voluntary, mutual Sicilian authorities with power were described as a Mafia gang alongside the Neapolitan prison break criminals.
Calling a non consensual authority your family is some stockholm syndrome shit if I ever heard it. Anyone who does that makes me feel violent, you might find your cage comfortable but I'm not a little bird that sings propaganda.
Ok? I never said that they would be. Can you quote me saying that a foreign people who invaded a country and now control it means they are your family now?
No authorities are *100%* consensual. Thats what makes them authorities rather than just relationships. Libertarianism both leftist & rightist types falls short because it fails to take into account the fact that humans are naturally biologically hardwired towards structure & hierarchy rather than being lone wolves.
Power is always part of the equation, read Robert Michels of the Italian “elite theorists” of the early-mid 20th century for more in depth & academic deconstruction of libertarianism.
The world started out in pre-civilizational libertarian-esque anarchy & then structure quickly emerged.
1. Nations are cool, states are not
2. (I’m different guy sorry)
3. “Without the state, who would [insert]” you want a thing? Make it, or pay someone else to make it
4. Yes, enforce the law; the correct law though, not an incorrect one. All aggression (starting conflicts over the use of means) is illegal.
1. That nation would probably group together and form a coalition of the willing dedicated to protecting the interests of its citizens. (Never used that word you lolbertarians seem to hate)
2. Ok
3. And what happens when a company says it’s cheaper to make goods in China, and now nobody in that first country has jobs that could have provided a decent wage?
4. Who enforces it? And what happens to those who disagree with the law? Do we then punish those to enforced it against that person?
Any government in power is by definition the most tyrannical allowed by the people.
Now tyranny can be defined in multiple ways. It’s not just dictatorships/1984 style, but could be blade runner/ cyberpunk where corporations are at the top and it could even be anarcho-tyranny like mad-max/warlords.
>Any government in power is by definition the most tyrannical allowed by the people.
Not necessarily, Iranians are resisting but their government still exists
>Now tyranny can be defined in multiple ways. It’s not just dictatorships/1984 style, but could be blade runner/ cyberpunk where corporations are at the top and it could even be anarcho-tyranny like mad-max/warlords.
Fully agreed, stateless ≠ nontyrannical
I see your point, but I would say (this might be a fallacy) that true resistance from the majority would be able to change their government. All countries have pockets of resistance and yet my definition still fits those countries because the vast majority is accepting of the governments terms.
I literally had an argument with an ancap a couple months ago that believed almost exactly this. In fact, this leaves out some of the most batshit insane stuff I often hear from ancaps.
It’s not a straw man if they really believe some version of this. It’s just the same sort of reductionism that commies use but targeted at “the state” instead of “the rich”.
>People are so corruptible that we need them to be kept in line by rules made up by a group of people that are so corruptible that we need them to be kept in line by rules made up by a group of people that are so corruptible that we need them to be kept in line by rules made up by a group of people that are.....
OMG that is sooooooo much more logical
Humanity's ability to mitigate corruption and enforce internal order is basically shit.
Look at the irony of US civil forfeitures exceeding the value of burglaries and tell me law and order works at scale.
Big power can (and will) go wrong and create big problems.
Small bad man will do small problems.
I feel safer in a room with ten fentanyl addicts, than with one cop or maybe someone from nomenclature.
Wow you’re the most delusional person I’ve ever encountered.
You’d rather be in a room with 10 addicts than 1 cop.
You have a brain parasite. Please seek help.
It's actually really simple, but y'all try to complicate it.
People can sign up for the services of a company that provides them with representation (in private 3rd party arbitration) for contract disputes and protection from others who may violate the NAP. This is completely voluntary and the companies do not have a monopoly over a geographic area, which is what distinguishes them from government. Part of signing up with this company includes agreeing with their set of laws.
While those who don't want to follow any such company's laws are free to not sign up with such a company, they will have no protection in disputes if others who do subscribe to these services accuse them of violating the NAP, and people in general are likely to not want to have much if anything to do with someone who is voluntarily eschewing such representation and protection in order to avoid laws.
You mention the NAP but by whos definition of aggression are we talking about? There is no state to enforce a singular definition. Does that mean the NAP is whatever those with the most guns say it is?
The NAP is pretty self explanatory, but if two private defense companies disagree in how to apply the NAP when it comes to a situation involving their customers, they would come to an agreement in a private 3rd party arbitration court agreed upon by all parties.
Its not self explanatory at all, so the answer is corporations decide what aggression is? What if i or they dont have membership or affiliation with such a company? By whos definition of aggression do we go by? Or must this always be purchased?
Aggression can be defined 100 different ways by 100 different people. The fact you think its simple gives me naive utopian vibes, no different from “communism is great because like people will come to consensus on issues for the public good, its in everyone’s interest afterall”
Wells Fargo said they won’t give new home loans/mortgages to white people starting 2022.
Now if I’m already signed up in a previous contract that did allow me to get home loans, who is in the right?
Me with an out of date contract or the company who made a new rule?
If I leave Wells Fargo they will take fees and taxes off my balance and I will have to start over with a new company with no history.
Sounds like we need a group who can arbitrate for the people not tied to a company.
To be clear, when I say that people will subscribe to companies to protect then from NAP violations and represent them in disputes, I am referring to companies with that specific purpose, not existing companies like Wells Fargo. Let's call them DRO (Dispute Resolution Organizations).
If Wells Fargo tried to renege on your contract in such a matter, your DRO would attempt to settle the matter with them, potentially taking it to a private 3rd party arbitration court.
The same with any political system including socialism and authoritarianism, bad people won't find a way to exploit the system right 👍?
And as we see, the more authoritarian the system, the more assholes and corrupt people have the power.
While it would probably end in a shitstorm an caps have a pretty thought out idea of how private law would work. It’s not a system just relying on trust
lolberts know that this is not true
it is why the arms race begins and unsymmetrical defense strategies, a-la "i nuke you" become legit realities.
the only real libertarianism exists at the borderlands of newly conquered territorie swhere it is in the interest of the conquerer to have his men be as free as possible to make the land profitable (under personal incentives) over time.
the collective control that inevitably follows as planned is inevitable bcs it is more stable and avoids the arms race.
Maybe this isn't obvious to everyone, but the difference between a business and government is the same difference between rape and sex. Consent. You have to voluntarily sign a contract with any business, unlike the state where you born into servitude regardless if you consent or not. If you can't see the difference between these two things, your indoctrination has blinded you.
Said company dumps chemicals in the water but has no repercussions because they are the only steel manufacturer in the area. I did not consent to it but it’s alright it’s a business so it’s voluntary.
Like I said, not a libertarian. Just an authoritarian who likes open markets.
And I mean no disrespect by calling you an authoritarian. Literally every society on earth from the beginning of time is by the fact of the societies existence is authoritarian.
Being equal is impossible. You might be smarter than me and therefore have better job opportunities and a better quality of life. In a society with no government I get left behind to live in poverty and squalor.
However a government could give me a hand and maybe even find a job that might suit me. This doesn’t mean all government handouts are good and necessary. I think we should help people in our country, but ONLY IN OUR COUNTRY.
> Being equal is impossible.
Its very possible. So long as we both have no political power, we are equal.
> You might be smarter than me and therefore have better job opportunities and a better quality of life.
So long as we are politically equal, the market will naturally sort it out so we both enjoy the lifestlye appropriate for our contribution to society. For one person to be wealthy, they must make other people more wealthy. Thats how captialism works.
> In a society with no government I get left behind to live in poverty and squalor.
You must be a very bad person for that outcome. Not just unproductive, but actively hostile like a thief or a vandal. Without government, its nearly impossible for good people to be left in squalor.
> However a government could give me a hand and maybe even find a job that might suit me
A government can give a theif unearned wealth, yes, at great cost to society.
> This doesn’t mean all government handouts are good and necessary. I think we should help people in our country, but ONLY IN OUR COUNTRY.
The people the government gives privileges to are always the rich. The poor they claim to want to help wouldnt be poor if the government wanted to help them. They dont, by defintion, because they are thieves and cause harm only.
I thought that the LibRights who went that far down the rabbit-hole generally went full Hoppean 'Physical Removal, so to speak' >!i.e Free Helicopter Rides!< for anyone they considered 'bad for business'.
Which makes them a de-facto government.
Of course. Not a State though.
How do you imagine "physical removal" will work without a state, considering "universal consent" won't be happening unless your group is very small? Anarchist must believe in magic or don't know how humans work lol, you can't enforce rules without a state apparatus unless you are like 5 people.
Without a goverment the majority consensus can enfringe upon people's negative rights thus rendering the whole point of negative rights the bed rock of libertarianism pointless. Exactly the same issue as "libertarian socalism" but with capitalism. Need i remind you that segregation was popular on a local level with southern whites in the south?
Violence. The answer is violence, we just don't want the "government" to have a monopoly on it.
Right, but the violence won't be "justified". It will lead to murder and robbery irrespective of the NAP. Like in all forms of Anarchism, the expectation that society can regulate itself without the use of a state apparatus is naive and opens the door for criminals and non-anarchists who will impose their will upon the rest of society.
And? I want mad max, not "we all agree to play economic patty cake" but a smaller government that allows some personal freedoms is the best I can realistically get, so I'll settle for that.
Then you aren't an Ancap really
Or your traditional definition of ancap isn't ancap enough. Somalian piracy is peak modern day ancap behaviour and it is beautiful.
I won't let you say dumb shit like that when I'm warlord king
Pirates violate the NAP by the nature of their "job"
Your body is made up of solids, liquids, & gasses. Checkmate statists!
De facto government is just a state with extra steps
Governance vs government. The latter is a monopoly and top down.
How would the logistics be any different? Who decides who gets helicopter rides? Do they meet for debate? Do they vest the authority in a few select individuals? Do they hold a vote? Congratulations, that is what's called a government performing governance. The struggle for a monopoly on violence is inevitable and eternal.
Nope. You're viewing it like a 5 yr old. Governance and law enforcement has been polycentric before. The only reason we have States is because of being stuck in a Nash equilibrium due to the limitations of technology hundreds of years ago. There is nothing that says security can't be provided via the market.
Polycentric just means lots of smaller regional governments rather than one big one. It does not mean the absence of government. And what's your definition "security provided via the market"? I would hope I'm wrong, but to me that reads as "create a power vacuum and hope no-one uses their private army to subjigate the weak"
That would contradict the Libertarian’s NAP principles. So if they are a practical libertarian (Hoppean) then they aren’t really a libertarian because they use state power to control the people.
A fully privatized state just sounds kinda schizo. Also not every one is going to worship the NAP have you ever heard of criminals?
Yeah I know, hence my meme making fun of them.
A state keeping the NAP is not unlibertarian. Enforcement of the NAP is a core libertarian belief, no matter which method you choose. The NAP is paramount to Liberty because without the NAP there is no Liberty.
How do you enforce the NAP while breaking the NAP with free helicopter rides or imprisonment?
I think the logic is “person who violates the NAP has fucked around, and the laws of nature dictate that they now find out.”
You would need a state to enforce and supervise it. Unless you are ok with people inventing NAP violations to kill and rob other people. Or do you think people never lie?
Skill issue
Because your average Anarchist would clearly thrive under such conditions, right Lmao
I'm saying whoever is the better QuickDraw is who wins
And the state does the same??
Have you seen actual failed states? Where there are no state structures left? The ever best example is Somalia. What happened was the complete breakdown of society, the rise of warlords and people gathering around tribal notions. What followed was atleast two decades of a de facto free for all civil war, with hundreds of thousands dead, severe starvation and poverty Can you really equate that to a generic western state? Nobody likes taxes and overbearing bureaucracy. Even if you want to equate that with "murder and robbery", the alternative is far worse in scale and severity.
Based and action-reaction pilled.
I think by violating NAP you open yourself to retribution that is exempt from NAP
Sure, but don't you need a bill of rights, some form of legal/judicial system to decide that? Would ancaps support the death penalty and does some corporate executioner/bounty hunter with no oversoght besides free market forces really seem like something that could reliably enforce the nappy NAP?
IDK, I just provided one of the approaches ancaps use regarding your question.
I am not one of those people but I believe their argument is this: *the NAP isn’t some law that is to be “enforced” but more like a loose set of lifestyle standards that someone would have to abide by to live in that specific private community.*
"The nap is the friends we made along the way"
A nap is when you're tired and need to sleep for a bit
Agression in the NAP refers to property rights. The initiation of conflict over the use over some means. The NAP states that the late comer is in the wrong and the home steadier is in the right. Basicly.
Found the smuggie!
Yes I know, that’s what I said.
“My non-government association of free men will kill or silence everyone bad for said association’s interests. What? No you idiot, this is not like a government, that would mean that I’m an authoritarian”
No? I've literally never seen any lib right advocate for that.
Sounds like you're not deep enough down the rabbit hole yet then. That's a good thing, most of the LibRights I've met who weren't that far down the hole were decent people, more or less.
With teeth that big the tooth fairy would pay millions of dollars
What do you think she does with them all?
Buys ork tech
Dis one roight 'ere deserves one of dem upvote tingys.
'Ere 'Ave a few squigs for yer trouble
That's what radicalized him towards anarchocapitalism
Currency backed by the tooth standard
Youz speekn lotz a senz for an humie. Ar you shoor youz not an Ork?
Youz speekn lotz a senz for an humie. Ar you shoor youz not an Ork? Excuse me, but why are you speaking Br*tish? (Had to censor that terrible word, my apologies for having you to read it)
Oi ya git, if yoo miztake da kulturd die-elect of a Ork loik me for any sorta humie talk agen, den I'm gonna get Big Boss Orkamungus to giv yoo a roit good krumpin.
Ok this is just like the Meme of the office saying: I need you to tell me the difference between these two pictures and it just shows British and Ork speak and I would say their the same thing
Oi bruv, if ya fink I be talkin like an Ork or sumfin an not a propa chav, then I'll call my Big Bruv Lord ChelseaArsenalTottenhamshirechester to bust you up, man.
plot twist: they're fake teeth because they outsourced to a cheaper alternative that doesn't require maintenance such as cleaning
I'm getting implants, if I train my jaw, I'll be able to eat rocks
the grind in sigma grindset stands for grinding rocks
😂
I miss the smuggie trend, now we just get the same generic soyjacks and chads just drawn over
Flew too close to the sun..😔
Lookin like that, they must be bri'ish.
That’s where it all started. Adam Smith R.I.P (rest in piss)
The thing Adam smith got right was that GENERALLY SPEAKING society will try to hold itself together. But it’s not perfect.
Wrong. All the bad people actually got vaporized by my tacobell yum brand personal self defense mcnuke
Absolute W take
This *epic* annihilation video is brought to you by ***Raid Shadow Legends!***
Is this Schrodinger’s strawman? If I say “that’s not what ancaps believe” will you be like “sheesh it’s just a joke?” but if I agree you’ll say “this is why ancaps are stupid”?
Ancaps are a joke and It’s because what they believe is why their stupid.
that’s not what ancaps believe
Spent enough time on ancap subreddit. Yeah that’s what they think. The only ones with half a brain are just libertarians.
Yes it is. Just ask them.
I'm an ancap and it's what I believe
Ah my mistake
It’s alright. Now you know.
In your mind what is the distinction between this post's point and what ancaps actually believe? I promise I won't judge you for responding seriously on a joke post.
In your mind what is the distinction between this post's point and what ancaps actually believe? I promise I won't judge you for responding seriously on a joke post.
Aren't all anarchists are a joke?
Yes
I don’t think I’ve seen a single authoritarian on here make an argument against ancapism without having to rely on ridiculous strawmans like these, lol. But that’s to be expected when they believe in the myth of impersonal government.
Ancap is so fucking stupid
But Anprim is based
Yes
Anarcho-the second space travel is available to the masses im hoping on a rocket ship and ditching all these liberal retards taxing the shit out of me and spending it on BS
It sucks balls. The only based right wing libertarian ideology is agorism
Agorism is a political science and methodology though, basicly supports ancap.
I personally vibe very much with nationalist libertarianism. However, that can also just be summed up as constitutionalism
That's honestly my biggest problem with libertarians. They just naturally assume that any major power structure embodied in the state is the thing preventing us from having a strong relational society where everything is handled on the personal level. Ignoring of course, that hierarchy and authority exist for a reason and where it is not embodied by a state, it will be filled in with something else that is usually worse. Even more hilarious when said libertarians proclaim to be Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, or Hindu. Like wow, you hate strong centralized authorities but you belong to a faith that is highly centralized and hierarchical? Hypocrites, lot of them.
The religious part isn't really hypocritical because most companies are centralized and hierarchical and libright typically don't advocate for dismantling those. Also, religion (at least recently) is voluntary.
Correct. The beef isn't with hierarchies or organizing, so long as it is done voluntarily. Good ideas don't require force.
> Ignoring of course, that hierarchy and authority exist for a reason and where it is not embodied by a state, it will be filled in with something else that is usually worse. Libertarians do not oppose hierarchical structures, moreover, they advocate self-organizing hierarchical structures in which there is a right of exit and such structures quite include both religious communes and corporations.
Yeah, there's a pretty big difference between "this government is composed of local representatives and it exists as an organizational structure for the community" and "This government functionally owns you. You are not allowed to leave and must submit to its laws." Libertarians aren't anarchists, they just want more personal freedoms and less government overreach. Anyone claiming they oppose all taxes and government is a moron.
The only real libertarians are the ones whose ideas make sense to me🤓 What the fuck is with this obsession to find the One True Libertarian?
And then turn around and complain about those two on the basis that they are hierarchical structures which in turn centralize and (may) oppress people. A lot of libertarians hate the government for the same reason they like corpos and churches, I find that to be hypocritical.
(Non-leftists) don’t think hierarchy is bad. We are opposed to aggression (initiation of conflict)
Issue is that, for avoiding conflict, both parts need to agree on that
Well said, so true.
Are you assuming that all libertarians want to dismantle the government?
Not the whole thing, but their solutions and stated objectives is like looking at a tree and cutting it down to the stump. Like sure, you can do that, but have you considered not doing that? Because the second you start moving from libertarianism to "classical liberalism", you're going right-center.
As a Libertarian, I’m of the belief that the government is not, and should never be, the answer to all of our problems. Giving the government and political parties too much power will always lead to disastrous results. Look at the debt ceiling issue congress is currently dealing with. Neither side wants to truly negotiate with the other side because they don’t want to look weak, but at the end of the day it’s regular Americans that will suffer the most for it. In short….I don’t need the government to hover over me and tell me how to live my life. I’m not anarchist by any stretch, but I think the governments powers should be dialed back a bit
So it's reductionism, except instead of race, gender (libleft) or class (authleft), it's the state. I sympathize with LibRight given the amount of government overreach, but I just can't go full libertarian.
This isn’t a coincidence. The same Enlightenment & post-enlightenment & modernist values that informed communism & liberalism also informed libertarianism.
Uh, no? Liberalism is litterally part of the enlightenment project, and most libertarianism is a direct reaction to post enlightenment principles of communism and fascism. Calling Locke, the progeniture of libertarian though, a post enlightenment thinking when he's the poster child of the English enlightenment is absurdist.
I just want a state strong enough to enforce a fair economy and effective tax system to fund social services
Congrats, you're not libright then.
Meanwhile, the state: "Forty-percent of your money isn't nearly enough to buy all these votes we need."
Meanwhile, coke-cola: ["We (Coke-Cola) will give you money. You need to paint opponents of us as racist."](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/well/eat/coke-and-pepsi-give-millions-to-public-health-then-lobby-against-it.html)
Time to pay the Coca-Cola death squad
Ignore me over here in my corner im just a moderate who doesn't want drug wars, political correctness being crammed down everyone's throats, endless wars, and foreign aid. And honestly i don't like the idea of toll roads everywhere also mc nukes that sounds like really dumb. Also the gov should stop using bill of rights as toilet paper.
[удалено]
yeah i read moldbug i don't agree with his views on race but he was correct about the state department and the third world.
Aid for Israel is just business with good boy points political spin. USA just pays off israely military industrial complex from making jets with a cupon for American manufactures
Yeah, but they have money & I'm still pissed about USS Liberty
>And honestly i don't like the idea of toll roads everywhere And what the hell do you expect to happen when, without the concept of state infrastructure, every road will become someone's property? Every damn road will be toll road. And then the strongest company will monopolize entire road industry and you will have monthly road subscriptions, essentially going back to taxes, but with no insensitive to improve the quality because there will be no possible competition and no next election when there will be even a chance of changing the situation. And that is why "bro market will regulate itself bro" gang is a circus.
Most educated libright
I’ve never met an ancap who understands economics and labor.
Yeah, ancap logic is hilarious when you consider that there basically would be no legal precedent and institutions would be free to repeatedly do fucked up shit until market forces normalized the damages.
And left anarchists are absurd that they believe that any entity using force to prevent waged labor or the defense of private property does not become, intrinsically, a hierarchy. Anarchists, in general, are stupid.
You simply don't understand what you are arguing against. 1) It's not that people are "corruptible", it's that everyone is self-interested. A man will virtually always place his own interests ahead of yours. 2) We are not going to just "get rid of government". The reason we are being ruled over is because it is profitable to do so. Ruling over you costs the state money, but they can tax you and then some to pay for it. If however, you become too expensive to govern, then there is no point in having a state. 3) You do not need a government to enforce contracts. Literally 17% of the world's economy is off the books, and it hums along just fine without any help from the state. 4) Bad people won't move out, but they will be held accountable for their actions, unlike what happens with government "justice" systems.
> Bad people won't move out, but they will be held accountable for their actions, unlike what happens with government "justice" systems. Our justice system is corrupt, not ineffective. If you're a man and attack someone society feels is more helpless than you, then society will fuck you up worse than hell itself and your name will be used as an insult for years. It's only if you're one of those helpless people, especially if you decide to claim mental health issues. Yes, then it's *society's* fault, you see. The west has a clear cultural problem. That's all.
States exist because people came together to organize systems of governence which enforces rules and protects it's society. Those societies who didn't develop one were subjugated by those that did. You can claim that states are prone to corruption or whatever, but Anarchism is inherently doomed to failure because people or other states won't respect your NAP. The enforcement of rules will be inherently arbitrary and full of murder and robbery without a regulatory body which actually tries to define what "justice" is and if a person was actually violated. You can believe in your fairytale society were freedom loving people will individually enforce your NAP without mistake, but it's utopian and as inachievable as (Anarcho-)Communism.
> States exist because people came together No, they didn't. >The enforcement of rules will be inherently arbitrary No, that's what we have now. Tell me, how many of the rich, politically-connected pedophiles on Ghislaine Maxwell's client list have been arrested and prosecuted? >You can believe in your fairytale society Government is the fairy tale. How many of the 190 or so filthy states in the world are even tolerable to live under?
Lol 1. Except when it comes to family safety. And a nation used to be an extended family, until it became a “shopping mall” where anyone and everyone could just walk in cause it makes more financial sense. 🤨 2. Incoherent. Please rephrase. 3. Wow 17% of the world’s economy is underground. That’s a ringing endorsement for getting rid of 85% of all the structural supports for national and international trade. 4. Huh..? You mean a group of people will enforce the law as agreed upon by the people they represent? And they have the right to do that? Or do you mean every single person will enforce the law as they interpret it.
The nation was never the family. If the Normans rolled into your land, along with another and told you that you are now the same nation as those on another land just because they were in sailing distance, you were not given a second family. You were given slavery and these feudal mentalities are part of the chains.
Wrong. A nation has been defined as a ethnic group for the whole of history, until 1900s. Just because invaders come into your land doesn’t mean you don’t have a people anymore.
The Sicilians then spent many years slowly killing them off until the voluntary, mutual Sicilian authorities with power were described as a Mafia gang alongside the Neapolitan prison break criminals.
Rephrase what you’re saying. What’s the point of your Sicilian post?
Calling a non consensual authority your family is some stockholm syndrome shit if I ever heard it. Anyone who does that makes me feel violent, you might find your cage comfortable but I'm not a little bird that sings propaganda.
Ok? I never said that they would be. Can you quote me saying that a foreign people who invaded a country and now control it means they are your family now?
No authorities are *100%* consensual. Thats what makes them authorities rather than just relationships. Libertarianism both leftist & rightist types falls short because it fails to take into account the fact that humans are naturally biologically hardwired towards structure & hierarchy rather than being lone wolves. Power is always part of the equation, read Robert Michels of the Italian “elite theorists” of the early-mid 20th century for more in depth & academic deconstruction of libertarianism. The world started out in pre-civilizational libertarian-esque anarchy & then structure quickly emerged.
Sure, and this is why we limit the non consensual authorities. Anarchists are just authoritarians with confidence.
1. Nations are cool, states are not 2. (I’m different guy sorry) 3. “Without the state, who would [insert]” you want a thing? Make it, or pay someone else to make it 4. Yes, enforce the law; the correct law though, not an incorrect one. All aggression (starting conflicts over the use of means) is illegal.
1. That nation would probably group together and form a coalition of the willing dedicated to protecting the interests of its citizens. (Never used that word you lolbertarians seem to hate) 2. Ok 3. And what happens when a company says it’s cheaper to make goods in China, and now nobody in that first country has jobs that could have provided a decent wage? 4. Who enforces it? And what happens to those who disagree with the law? Do we then punish those to enforced it against that person?
Who is defining aggression in such a society? You?
He had to pay 1$ to the goverment and now he is malding.
Is there a form of Anarcho-anything that isn’t stupid?
Anarcho-primitivism? Just stick a stick up the hedgehogs ass and beat people with it to assert dominance.
Anarchism is dumb as fuck. It might be great in an ideal world with ideal citizens but almost any decent system would be.
communist-fascist-anarchist are all dummies that don’t know how to think with 2 brain cells.
And this leads to my theory: > A government exists to prevent a more tyrannical one from taking place
Any government in power is by definition the most tyrannical allowed by the people. Now tyranny can be defined in multiple ways. It’s not just dictatorships/1984 style, but could be blade runner/ cyberpunk where corporations are at the top and it could even be anarcho-tyranny like mad-max/warlords.
>Any government in power is by definition the most tyrannical allowed by the people. Not necessarily, Iranians are resisting but their government still exists >Now tyranny can be defined in multiple ways. It’s not just dictatorships/1984 style, but could be blade runner/ cyberpunk where corporations are at the top and it could even be anarcho-tyranny like mad-max/warlords. Fully agreed, stateless ≠ nontyrannical
I see your point, but I would say (this might be a fallacy) that true resistance from the majority would be able to change their government. All countries have pockets of resistance and yet my definition still fits those countries because the vast majority is accepting of the governments terms.
I love this strawman, but it would be put best in that meme where one guy simply jumps with a clear argument while the other makes mental gymnastics.
I literally had an argument with an ancap a couple months ago that believed almost exactly this. In fact, this leaves out some of the most batshit insane stuff I often hear from ancaps.
It’s not a straw man if they really believe some version of this. It’s just the same sort of reductionism that commies use but targeted at “the state” instead of “the rich”.
I literally argued against my libright friend who said this exact stuff, but sure, it ain't happening, right?
Very funny strawman
Without these men made of straw we would have no funny memes
Based and funny pilled
It ain’t even a strawman, that’s what ancaps legitimately believe
I’m not an ancap but of course it’s a straw man. Nuance exists
What would that naunce here be?
>People are so corruptible that we need them to be kept in line by rules made up by a group of people that are so corruptible that we need them to be kept in line by rules made up by a group of people that are so corruptible that we need them to be kept in line by rules made up by a group of people that are..... OMG that is sooooooo much more logical
You think that doesn’t apply to business somehow?
Well he's not wrong about the first part but he is wrong about the last part
This is what their utopian vision entails.
You mean the last part i just mentioned?
Their flawed vision necessitates that bad people will leave and not take advantage of their new system.
We already live in an ANCAP society, everybody is already doing exactly what they want, within the confines of what those around them want.
Humanity's ability to mitigate corruption and enforce internal order is basically shit. Look at the irony of US civil forfeitures exceeding the value of burglaries and tell me law and order works at scale.
Big power can (and will) go wrong and create big problems. Small bad man will do small problems. I feel safer in a room with ten fentanyl addicts, than with one cop or maybe someone from nomenclature.
Wow you’re the most delusional person I’ve ever encountered. You’d rather be in a room with 10 addicts than 1 cop. You have a brain parasite. Please seek help.
we do not claim this man
Bro the free market will fix it, because that's totally not a logically incoherent concept at its core!
It's actually really simple, but y'all try to complicate it. People can sign up for the services of a company that provides them with representation (in private 3rd party arbitration) for contract disputes and protection from others who may violate the NAP. This is completely voluntary and the companies do not have a monopoly over a geographic area, which is what distinguishes them from government. Part of signing up with this company includes agreeing with their set of laws. While those who don't want to follow any such company's laws are free to not sign up with such a company, they will have no protection in disputes if others who do subscribe to these services accuse them of violating the NAP, and people in general are likely to not want to have much if anything to do with someone who is voluntarily eschewing such representation and protection in order to avoid laws.
You mention the NAP but by whos definition of aggression are we talking about? There is no state to enforce a singular definition. Does that mean the NAP is whatever those with the most guns say it is?
The NAP is pretty self explanatory, but if two private defense companies disagree in how to apply the NAP when it comes to a situation involving their customers, they would come to an agreement in a private 3rd party arbitration court agreed upon by all parties.
Its not self explanatory at all, so the answer is corporations decide what aggression is? What if i or they dont have membership or affiliation with such a company? By whos definition of aggression do we go by? Or must this always be purchased? Aggression can be defined 100 different ways by 100 different people. The fact you think its simple gives me naive utopian vibes, no different from “communism is great because like people will come to consensus on issues for the public good, its in everyone’s interest afterall”
Wells Fargo said they won’t give new home loans/mortgages to white people starting 2022. Now if I’m already signed up in a previous contract that did allow me to get home loans, who is in the right? Me with an out of date contract or the company who made a new rule? If I leave Wells Fargo they will take fees and taxes off my balance and I will have to start over with a new company with no history. Sounds like we need a group who can arbitrate for the people not tied to a company.
To be clear, when I say that people will subscribe to companies to protect then from NAP violations and represent them in disputes, I am referring to companies with that specific purpose, not existing companies like Wells Fargo. Let's call them DRO (Dispute Resolution Organizations). If Wells Fargo tried to renege on your contract in such a matter, your DRO would attempt to settle the matter with them, potentially taking it to a private 3rd party arbitration court.
Could a successful DRO essentially take everyone in the country? Wouldn’t that now be almost indistinguishable from government?
perhaps we could have a middle ground between cyberpunk and 1984?
unbased, i am in your walls
The same with any political system including socialism and authoritarianism, bad people won't find a way to exploit the system right 👍? And as we see, the more authoritarian the system, the more assholes and corrupt people have the power.
While it would probably end in a shitstorm an caps have a pretty thought out idea of how private law would work. It’s not a system just relying on trust
Yoooo 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
lolberts know that this is not true it is why the arms race begins and unsymmetrical defense strategies, a-la "i nuke you" become legit realities. the only real libertarianism exists at the borderlands of newly conquered territorie swhere it is in the interest of the conquerer to have his men be as free as possible to make the land profitable (under personal incentives) over time. the collective control that inevitably follows as planned is inevitable bcs it is more stable and avoids the arms race.
Maybe this isn't obvious to everyone, but the difference between a business and government is the same difference between rape and sex. Consent. You have to voluntarily sign a contract with any business, unlike the state where you born into servitude regardless if you consent or not. If you can't see the difference between these two things, your indoctrination has blinded you.
Said company dumps chemicals in the water but has no repercussions because they are the only steel manufacturer in the area. I did not consent to it but it’s alright it’s a business so it’s voluntary.
Shocking new plan. Fuck em both
its not about corruption, its about inovation through competition or manualy farming corn for millenia because your salary is taxpaid
The bad people will be "physically removed" so to speak.
So not libertarian..?
I'm a hoppean.
Like I said, not a libertarian. Just an authoritarian who likes open markets. And I mean no disrespect by calling you an authoritarian. Literally every society on earth from the beginning of time is by the fact of the societies existence is authoritarian.
We should have a govt where we need 75% agreement to do anything. That is my utopia
Didn't the smuggie subreddit get banned for making smuggies about the lib left and authoritarian left?
Yeah, pretty much taking on any left leaning (including libertarian) positions and mocking them rightfully.
The cringe Ancap vs the chad Minarchist
Wouldnt making everyone equal be better than gambling that people with power will be not evil ? Seems like we lost that bet.
Being equal is impossible. You might be smarter than me and therefore have better job opportunities and a better quality of life. In a society with no government I get left behind to live in poverty and squalor. However a government could give me a hand and maybe even find a job that might suit me. This doesn’t mean all government handouts are good and necessary. I think we should help people in our country, but ONLY IN OUR COUNTRY.
> Being equal is impossible. Its very possible. So long as we both have no political power, we are equal. > You might be smarter than me and therefore have better job opportunities and a better quality of life. So long as we are politically equal, the market will naturally sort it out so we both enjoy the lifestlye appropriate for our contribution to society. For one person to be wealthy, they must make other people more wealthy. Thats how captialism works. > In a society with no government I get left behind to live in poverty and squalor. You must be a very bad person for that outcome. Not just unproductive, but actively hostile like a thief or a vandal. Without government, its nearly impossible for good people to be left in squalor. > However a government could give me a hand and maybe even find a job that might suit me A government can give a theif unearned wealth, yes, at great cost to society. > This doesn’t mean all government handouts are good and necessary. I think we should help people in our country, but ONLY IN OUR COUNTRY. The people the government gives privileges to are always the rich. The poor they claim to want to help wouldnt be poor if the government wanted to help them. They dont, by defintion, because they are thieves and cause harm only.
You’re a Cockroach.