Normal anarchists (social anarchists) vs anarcho-capitalists

Even if you hate both, which side do you think has better points?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It's MLP vs Sonic basically. There's no side that is better than the other, both are equally retarded and cancerous.

Left anarchists have a such a retarded ideology it's not even possible to take them seriously. Ancap would lead to a shitty society but it would still be an ancap society.
You need coercion to enforce equality.

That's sort of what I was thinking too. Left anarchism makes no sense to me. I feel like an anarchist society, would naturally turn to an ancap society. Seems like you'd need pretty intense laws and coercion to make sure that no one really owns private property or conducts businesses deals without the large community in mind

Left anarchism is mostly impossible hippie garbage.

Ancaps are also autistic, but at least it's not totally implausible.

Where do I fit in?

>everyone should be free to do literally anything they want
>all the negative and positive implications of that
>no publically funded anything in the slightest
>like at all

You are an anarchi-capitalist. Own property, decide what happens with that property.

Anarcho-Communism: Everyone owns everything. No sense whatsoever

>only free on property
No. That's too constricting. Everyone should be wholly free fucking everywhere.

anarcunt anything is cancer 2bh

r8 me

Looks like I found an ancom!

In your case, there is no ownership which isn't natural.

Left anarchism gives you Afghanistan minus the religion, right anarchism gives you Somalia. Still, reading about anarchist Catalonia makes the teenager in me nostalgic.

>anarchism
>laws

That's the flaw of ancom.

pure anarchist

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives

straight down on one of those political compasses. it's neither left (redistribution of wealth) or right (free market with common currency) on a political chart.

the problem with pure anarchy is it theoretically would always devolve into An-cap or a tyrant would take hold and instill an authoritarian regime (monarchy, Stalinist, fascism)

(the same can be said of any left-of-right anarchy, but it's especially true of pure anarchy)

Ancap have the better memes so they win by default.

Somalia are multiple socialist states fighting each others, thats not ancap
I would say that medieval europe look way more ancap

9/10 would trade on my own will with.

Isn't there a "tyrant" of sorts running your life as we speak? Taking your money, forcing you to not do things to your body, etc...

In 1776, we were essentially in AnCap. When the tyrant (Britain) invaded, property owners came together to protect what was theirs and won.

Private security companies and your own personal arsenal would keep back any "tyrants" quite easily

That is the problem with trying to make an pure anarchist society. You get people who are so weak they need to have a leader, or they are so weak they feel they need to lead something.

That coming from Brazil.
You basically live in a social anarchy, Pedro.

I want to live in ancapistan

Ancaps have better points obviously even though neither are serious ideologies and are just autistic symptoms of a sickly, fragmented society. Ancaps see government doing all sorts of evil pozzed shit and because of the writings of some Jews, think that government is bad inherently. Left anarchists are just the bored failed children of the bourgeoisie engaging in class warfare by fighting for everything the current system tells them is good (anti-racism, equality, feelsy bullshit).

And let them.

Choice and freedom is powerful.

Fuck you're right.

...

and immediately imposed a bunch of new taxes

Nobody has yet to explain to me how they expect to regulate an economy in a fucking ANARCHY.

>multiple socialist states fighting each others

Yawn. Warlordism is not "socialist states"

Both are fags, fuck the rules.

i do not consider any modern government leaders tyrants. nor do I believe fascism, monarchism, or Stalinism inherently require a tyrant as a leader. I myself am in-fact a fascist-reactionary, drawing my views from the success of the Estado Novo regime of Portugal and my view that it's downfall was the lack of someone to take Salazar's place upon his death

rather, I believe any leader that would emerge as a leader of a formerly anarchist society would be a tyrant. It requires a large mix of power, control, and terror to either control or convince a country of anarchist to do as you say

...

There is a no regulation.

You accept a currency that you feel valuable enough for your trade and the economy fluctuates naturally. Read up on Austrian School economics.

>implying this is a fault in anarchism

Still, can we agree that freedom is choice is the best way of living?

Do what YOU want as long as you don't infringe on another person or person's property.

>anarchy
>regulations
You don't fucking get it do you? NO FUCKING REGULATIONS

Can anarchism work in a majority religious society?

he means left-anarchist
they don't know either. it's not very clear.
they seem to think laws and money are the only things keeping people from being altruistic

>Do what YOU want
That's all you need. Take that qualifier bullshit out

I get that, but then you have socialist anarchists for example. How would they have an anarchy and socialism at the same time?

the gentle caressing strokes of the invisible hand

> implying regulations are needed

>In 1776, we were essentially in AnCap

>implying in 1776 there weren't laws, rules, governing bodies, courts, public and private spheres and assets, police and military in America.

Read a history book.

Stop with the fucking NAP argument and Anarcho-capitalism actually isn't that bad.

People just have to realize the NAP doesn't work, but a capitalist society based entirely on the exchange of funds is workable to some extent.

Define "work." Again, Afghanistan is very religious. And people live there.

>the same can be said of any left-of-right anarchy

Explain why it isn't true also of AnCap?

I mean you'll probably reference the NAP, but I fail to see why you think people wouldn't violate the NAP anytime they think they can get away with it the same way they do with laws now, only in AnCap there isn't anybody to enforce the NAP so whoever has the largest private military is king.

Never said it wasn't

It's called a theocracy, dipshit.

In an AnCap society what would happen if someone got food poisoning while eating at your restaurant?

But doesn't socialism just lead to social decay and lack of social norms, because people are more dependent on government than family?

You know who really has the best points, in almost every regard? Anarcho-Monarchists.
Basically you abolish the government and you give the most liked and trusted person in the nation a sceptre, crown, robe, and a really big gun. Everyone else can pretty much do whatever they want and should probably buy guns too. The King or Queen's only real job would be to go around the nation and, because they're so well liked, rally up citizens to go out and raid anyone trying to start up a new government.
Of Course England would have the queen, America would have Tom Hanks, and so on and so on. If you want to go further, Anarcho-Nazism, a similar system in which a zombified Hitler would forever lead the world, rooting out jews, gypsies, non-whites, and pro-government statists who tell people what to do.
This is my ideology, an Individual Anarchy vouching for Electoral Monarchy with some Ethnic Cleansing thrown in, and I personally ask you to respect it.

Boycott mostly, stuff like that.

Simple things ideally, there wouldn't be any extreme measures beyond what you would assume would happen normally, with some extremities.

I agree to an extent

my interpretation of the tenants of fascism (hierarchies, nationalism, duty, brotherhood, free market, no free speech, a strong government) are to some extent far removed from their origin. I view the restriction of free speech as something that should apply solely to national media. Local media can do as they please, but the (((4th branch of government))) can fuck off. Free market = freer people, so that's a no-brainer. I view hierarchies as natural and that the only responsibility fascism would have in that regard is to not try and stop them from occurring. a strong government would exist in the sense of military might and a strong justice system, felons deserve no sympathy. nationalism, duty, and brotherhood are all ideological and the government should promote these in society, but it's not like they even COULD be enforced.

>thinking anarchy without incentive is the same as anarchy with incentive
Please kill yourself huemonkey

Massive gun battle.

Teach me master, I wish for a voluntary exchange of goods and services with no government interference with you

They just ostracise the non-religious
Ostracism is not anti-anarchy

There is no such thing as Left-Wing Anarchy. It's a myth. All Leftism is inherently and objectively authoritarian because it demands that unequal things be made equal through State force.

>Explain why it isn't true also of AnCap?
it's built around the idea of property rights and a strongly combatant populous as opposed to the peaceful and nonsensical society pictured by left-of-right anarchists. it could still happen, but it'd be harder. it's also more likely it'd become multiple small feudalistic societies as opposed to one large authoritarian one.

there's one of those ancap ball memes explaining it

i'll see if I can find it

I like the theory behind an AnCap society. Not convinced it'll work in reality. A minarchist view would be more realistic (courts, first responders, military for defense). Aside from those, pretty much every other power would be in the market system and not in the state's hand.

Left-anarchists by definition is a contradiction and doesn't make sense.

>social anarchism
>capitalistic anarchism

Mate... it's like you don't fucking understand what Anarchy is.....
No social shit, no capital shit. It's a fuck-fest free for all. Anyone that says different, is a god damn retard, and i'm tired of people changing meanings or creating half-way X+Y=XY variants. Go fuck yourselves. If you get a community and call it Social Anarchism, i'm going to come in and shit on your fucking toilet seat and say, ANARCHY!!!!
If you get a community going and call it Capitalistic Anarchy, i'm going to throw my shit at your bathroom window and scream ANARCHY!!!!

Don't give me a reason to freely play with shit you dim-witted fucking twat. Don't EVER give humans a reason to de-evolve. Primal anarchy is where we came from. We move to more efficient and organized methods of social being.

found it

look into the history of anarchism
left wing anarchism predates center or right wing anarchy

people like you that are against adding adjectives to anarchy only emerged after a solid while of anarchy being an idea

Thanks. It confirmed what I thought that it's still inherently unstable.

That not what anarchy is at all you mongoloid. Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules.

Monarchy doesn't mean there's only one rule does it? It means one ruler.

the argument he's making is that if there are no rulers, no rules can be effectively enforced and it's nonsensical to claim that an anarchist society could even have rules

it's a common critique

you murder everyone that doesn't think exactly like you until the rest start doing so out of fear(they won't)

just like regular socialism

who builds the roads in an ancap society?

Companies, and they pay for it by collecting rent from any property looking to connect to said road

theoretically?

people who need to transport things or get to places quickly and effectively

ie. merchants and companies with commuting workforces

these would be private roads tho. public roads would be non-existent
take that as you will (the way I see it, it would be a nightmare. road networks require so much planning and still aren't efficient)

so the roads will ignore distant, urban areas that tend to be lower income yet require greater expense to connect

There's plenty of ways to enforce rules without putting a gun in someone's face. In an AnCap world the market would be swift and unforgiving.

It's not even a hard proof to imagine. If everyone had a choice to pay 0 taxes and not worry about being thrown in a cage; the government wouldn't exist very quickly, as an easy majority of people would elect for that option.

If there were no rules do you really think that everything would immediately descend into chaos? People still have standards and morals, especially back then when more people were religious and answered to a higher authority. Anyone who didn't follow the morals would just be ostracized

Seems like dependence on government just leads to morals getting worse

fpbp

This

A clear example in modern times is a breakdown of the family. Now (especially minorities) a sickening number of people are literally married to the government for support and welfare.

>Normal
>anarchists
pick one

fpbp

>People still have standards and morals
Not when their water shuts off.

I disagree entirely

property rights and rules can -only- be enforced by force. either your own or your government's.
ultimately what stops you from shoplifting anything you need? - it's he fear that the cashier's packing a gun, or that he'll call the cops.

>standards and morals
>in $CurrentYear
you're too kind to your fellow man

you're right that'd it'd have a better shot in a very religious society.

that said, most religions have rules, and sentences/ punishments for breaking those rules

you could argue it'd just become a theocray

r8 me senpaitachi

That doesn't make sense. People still shoplift with an omnipowerful state and it's laws above their head.

That's the same logic the left uses to ban guns. Whether there is a law or social norm that scenario won't change.

people would get sick of vigilantism and create a police force and courts to standardize treatment of criminals and reduce illegitimate uses of force
since those people are sacrificing substantial amounts of their time, they'd need to be paid
since society as a whole benefits, and to reduce individual burden, costs would inevitably be extended to all in the form of taxes

anarchist movements ignore the conditions that created modern government and think they can magically prevent it repeating itself without putting a gun to the head of 90% of the population

The further you are to a corner, the more of a ruhtard you are. Sorry to break it to you famalam.

yes, people still break rules even when force is used to enforce them.
but the way I see it, less people break them than if they were unenforced.
if you saw a sign on the road that said "no cops next 50 miles" can you name a single person that would drive the speed limit?

and look at city's in chaos. when the cops have their hands full and -can't- enforce the law entire city blocks get sacked by people that have likely never stolen in their life prior to then

>morals and standards are not rules set and given in circumstancial social existence

Mate. Anarchy means no more moral.. no more standard, no rule... what... so ever. I'm going to shit on your toilet and throw shit at your window just because you can't seem to figure that out now.
And if you want to pipe up to me over it? Ima break your fucking knees and shit on the open wounds after.

none of this is done with violent coercion so whats the problem

But again...Do you think that, without governmental rule, human beings are so rotten to the core that we'd all descend into chaos?

If we were really that rotten, do you really think we'd have lived this long?

what do you think happens when you don't pay that entrepreneur the cost of the past month you spent in safety-land
he either breaks your knees or, if he's in a good mood, just kicks you out.
and then what happens when there's no lawless hellscape outside the gates to kick you out to and no foreign country is willing to take you in?

people created government because it was a solution to longstanding social issues stemming from selfishness

Pretty much this.
We came from anarchy, got tired of taking care of every fucking task on individual levels, found out if we don't bash each other's face in consistantly for memetic alpha bullshit, than we can form a way more efficient coalition, councils and towns form, communes, city to city trade/common law forms, next thing you know it's pretty fucking efficient to act within a commonality within an entire country state. ect ect...
Anarchy is moving backwards down that line.


I ain't saying Communism is the end-game. Fuck that none-sense. There has to be something that we're not touching up on. A pretty brilliant mixture between freedom of expression/trade/ownership and common law/moral, but that shit is still pretty far off.

>But again...Do you think that, without governmental rule, human beings are so rotten to the core that we'd all descend into chaos?
yes
>If we were really that rotten, do you really think we'd have lived this long?
the world's held together with duct-tape and bubble gum

AnCap because The Labor Theory of Value is BS.

Normal anarchists would probably take longer for their society to collapse in that they would be more likely to band together against outside threads while Ancaps larped about their non-agression pact while they got divided and conquered, but both ancaps and anarchists would get destroyed very quickly.

while I don't disagree with left-wing anything

what about left wing anarchism implies the Labor Theory of Value?

No, people did not create government, people created communities, tribes, and working together. Governments were placed upon them by force, a monopoly of protection that they had no choice but to pay to.

I think you people just seem to misunderstand what anarchy means. It doesn't mean everyone HAS to live individually at all times. Family unites, tribes, villages would still be a large part of life because they are a large part of humanity.

>while I don't disagree with left-wing anything
fug

*while I -do- disagree with left-wing anything

Anarchism is basically a theroy that completely ignores "what do you do when people won't go along with it" and fails to explain how shit won't happen like a small coilition of people won't form an army and enrich the fuck out of themselves at the expense of everybody else. And how dealing with threats like this ultimately wouldn't at the bare minimum turn you into lolbertarians.

Lolbertarians are basically ancaps that realise that ancap society is an autistic fantasy world. Libertarianism is actually still really retarded but at least they actually have a grasp on a system that could actually viably sustain itself, rather than a system where basically everybody has to go along with a non-aggression pact or it all falls apart.

No. People need to realize the NAP is a fucking principle. It doesn't "work" because it is ultimately not meant to be enforced. It is almost saying, don't fuck with other people, and they probably won't fuck with you. However if people want to act like consequences don't apply, they will find out, in various forms of private justice, they do.

if there are no rulers then who enforces the rules necessary for a communism?

ancoms blown the fuck out

Anarcho-capitalism pretty much defines what people mean when they say "That's so crazy it might actually work".

communism has 2 stages

1. authoritarian gov that moves labor to where it's needed and gets goods to people that need them
2. lawless society that emerges as layers of authoritarianism are stripped away from the 1st stage

an-coms believe the first stage is unnecessary and just leads to dictatorships