Redpill me on ancap

redpill me on ancap

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_anarchism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Basically it's great if you have enough money for a private army to protect your family. For the rest of us it would be terrible however.

The most redpilled philosophy possible since it promotes self-reliance but also requires a lack of niggers to work.

Serious answer; read pic related. There's a torrent of the ebook version floating around.

Sup Forums answer: recreational nukes and loli sex slaves, what's not to like?

This. In practice you'd basically just be replacing the state with a de facto government run by the wealthiest corporations.

read the fucking sticky newfag piece of shit

...which would end up as a state in about 100 years

>what was feudalism

>Off-topic and Sup Forums-tier threads will be deleted
wow thats really enforced huh

In a nutshell.

This is literally how humans evolved to behave socially. The alphas that priorities their own liberty find a way to get into a position of authority themselves and lead the sheep.

Freedom and autonomy is a Caucasian value, and even among whites its not universal. Most people and especially shitskins want to follow and be told what to do and how to live because they lack the agency to live for themselves.

What you are suggesting is a system that goes against the core of human behavior just like communism and it will lead to equally disastrous results, before society resets back to being governed.

>want to follow and be told what to do and how to live
Does this apply to you, or are you just speaking for other people?

People could organize themselves voluntary as a democracy, or socialist society.

How ancap think.

An small child want to eat an entire 10 pounds chocolate bar.
Her mom say "dont eat it because it will give you diarrhea".

The kid is knows that, and is ok with trading the 10 pound chocolate bar for diarrhea.
And the kid think "I wish I was allowed to eat the chocolate bar."


The mom is the state.
The kid is the ancap.
Her mom telling him to not eat the chocolate bar is the law.

>what was feudalism
It certainly wasn't that.

Not to me, because a howhite with high liberty preference and a subversive streak (I'm on Sup Forums after-all)

I have met enough people in my life and line of work to have a good understanding of different races and their drives and motivations. About half of whites (especially women) just want to be told a strict dichotomy of right and wrong and be lead by high forces whether it be religion and/or Rule of Law.

If you're morally obligated to help a starving child on your doorstep you are personally responsible for feeding the entire planet.

>It certainly wasn't that.

Excellent rebuttal, sasuga leaf.

So the train is gonna run over a lot of people. The snake is clearly better for society.

its feudalism

>what are degrees of association
>what is the increase in personal responsibility directly proportional to your spheres of influence and tribe

I wish maxist deconstructionists would swallow a bullet.

What I'm quoting is the argument Redpanels (an-cap) put to Sargon of Akkad to justify an entire community deciding to not associate with a child because they declared him to be a witch.
It was his position that Sargon saying you are morally obligated to help that child as a member of the community would mean that you cannot uphold your principles without also relying all people in need on the planet.
I wish I was exaggerating.

youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
All you need to know

Jeezus christ both of those faggots are complete idiots, but as much as I hate to say it, Assad was correct in that instance.

It's a joke. Ancoms bully ancaps for fun.

>mfw this would still be a more credible opposition than Labor

America is a lucky place

It's funny that no matter who I speak to about anarchism, they mention people needing leadership, but it's always "someone else" who needs it and never the individual at hand. People always seem to know what's best for others...

It literally wasn't. Feudalism didn't arise from a corporatist structure. Nor was it the top corporation seizing power and running the show. Feudalism has a specific definition with specific characteristics, I suggest you look it up.

The ideal utopia if everyone was a peaceful genius.

But niggers exist, so it can't happen.

Capitalism is garbage.

>libertarian minarchists are ancaps
Only the disgusting elf creature declared himself to be an anarchist, the rest were minarchists.

What is your opinion about roads?

>corporations are some magical new construct that didn't exist in the past guys!
>its totally not the same as resource allocation being in the hands of a few at the top while the plebiscite toil as the human resource component
>ANCAP HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED

I actually don't mind feudalism, peasants had a decent life and sense of community and purpose even if upward social mobility was stiffled. I agree that it isn't exactly ancap, but its what society would end up reverting to after a short while of trying an ancap meme.

nigger tier ideology created by a bunch of kikes

protip: a free market is defined by exclusively voluntary exchange. Any aggression is a deviation from the free market, hence the requirement of defense to restore it.

Governments are, ipso facto, aggressors. Therefore there would be no governments on the free market. Voluntary forms of defense organizations are permitted.

Libertarianism is defined by the non-aggression axiom. It implies anarchy, so anyone who claims to be a libertarian and is not an anarchist is delusional, a liar, or both.

the most retarded political ideology to ever exis-

*remembers ancom*

oh wait nevermind

Locke's 2nd treatise on Civil Government is stronger on the issue of justice and police compared to AnCap fully private law enforcement and fully private arbitration.

Its do whatever you want unless you violate the non aggression pact.
There is no government and things like justice, security and stuff are all done by private business, no taxes.
The idea is pretty gud

>Voluntary forms of defense organizations are permitted.

You mean, forming a government? Fascinating.

Ancap is specifically non-utopian. Property rights defense is a massive topic in the philosophy. An ancap society would likely solve the nigger problem far more effectively than our current one, because there would be no gibs on which to subsist, and any miscreants would be shot, physically removed, or imprisoned and made to work in labor camps in order to provide restitution to their victims.

Don't need no stinkin' roads. But seriously, you know that toll roads exist right now, and people use them constantly without going broke?

>ANCAP HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED
>I agree that it isn't exactly ancap
So which is it?

You know nothing about feudalism.
You know nothing about ancap.
You're calling it feudalism because you don't have an argument.

Why do you do this

...

>governments are people who defend things and the more things they defend the more government it is
Fascinating

A government necessarily does not rest on the explicit consent of its subjects. If a person doesn't want government protection, they cannot simply opt-out. They are told to leave the country.

A defense organization requires explicit consent from its clients. If someone wants to stop receiving defense services, or wants to switch companies, they simply stop paying and the organization leaves them alone. Just like a phone service.

At least there may be an argument for ancom, when applied to really small communities. Like, family-sized small.

I present to you Queer Anarchism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_anarchism

and Anarcha-Feminism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism
enjoy

>sent from my iPhone

Governments are monopolies of decision making funded by taxation. So, no, it's not forming a government. The free market encourages competing agencies and breaks up this monopoly.

Anyone have the comic that shows how if we lived in ancapistan, it'd just result in a patchwork of "properties" with their own rules and contracts that essentially end up being states/governments anyway?

>an argument for ancom
>hate the government because it is a coersive organization
>want to organize and coersively destroy anyone who dares own private property
Literally not an argument.

>people voluntary gather themselves to construct roads in their community
>statist autistic screeching

>anarchy
>pact
>violate
>Anarchy

> patchwork of "properties" with their own rules and contracts that essentially end up being states/governments anyway?
When you go to a restaurant and they ask you to wait at the front so you can be seated, is that a government? When you go to the cell phone kiosk and buy a phone plan, are they a government? Those are all properties with their own rules and contracts.

What kind of useless definition of government are you using?

You mean they start stealing money from each other, give enormous power to centralised bodies to breach everyone's rights and arrest people, and enslaving each other into armies?

You will be total kike slave in ancap, not just bluepilled prol like now. This ideology provides no solution for jewish question, moreover, tribal jews will soom be on top of it while whites will eat each other by the laws of capitalism, and there will be nothing they cant do with you.

But you would violate the NAP.
Snek win everytime.

Yeah, its a society where people agreed with this pact.

...

Never owned an apple product, also I'm on a self-built desktop running GNU/Linux, silly porky.

That's not an anarchy. You fucking ancaps are on some commie tier mental gymnastic lvl

Whatever, just change the name then.

...

They only do this is wealthy, educated communities

Hence why this is impractical.

>not an anarchy
Define anarchy then.

>absolute freedom of the individual
>no laws and rules

Having a fucking pact or anything that can be violated is not an anarchy.

I've never seen this one before.

please re read my post leaf, you will notice I put in the caveat "family sized communities"
I know you're eager to redeem your bad name but it doesn't help if you cant into reading comprehension.

But this is just a pointless elaboration that doesn't change the trolley problem one bit. It is still immoral to actively murder the snek by pulling the lever. If you leave the trolley on its original course, you are not morally responsible for the results. To accept that moral obligations can be imposed on you without your consent is to throw out any hopes of a consistent moral philosophy, which breaks the universality principle and therefore becomes null and void.

>absolute freedom
>no laws and rules
This is a definition that no anarchst uses. If you want to argue against that, go nuts, but you'll be tilting at windmills.

So, what are the arguments for ancom in "family sized communities"?

Where is the ancap memes? Um desapoint

>dumb people suffering due to its own cause
I'm ok with this

Ancap is the future.

>This is a definition that no anarchst uses.
It's the established definition. I retierate; you ancaps are on some commie tier mental gymnastics lvl. An anarchy is when there is absolute freedom and absolute political freedom of the individual. No laws, no state, no rules.

>established definition
It literally is not. Who established it?

Look at the fucking word itself.
>an (without)
>arch (leader)

No rulers. Not no rules. There is no coherent system of social organization that can exist without any rules at all, because it cannot be called society at all. Solitary predators are animals with no rules (some, actually, since their mating and fighting practices tend to demonstrate evolutionarily stable behaviors which appear like rules). Primates, wolves, and elephants necessarily have rules, because they are social animals.

Again, if you have actual anarchists telling you what they believe, you can certainly plug your ears and say "not true anarchy" all you want, but you're not putting forward any arguments.

>It is still immoral to actively murder the snek by pulling the lever.

Nothing is ever implied where the track is actually aimed. The fact that you feel obligated to pull the lever one way or another makes you "morally" responsible.

The only way anarchy can ever work is if the individual only cares about one thing. You can not have any responsibility. Responsibility implies rules. Morals just get in the way.

You are not putting forth any arguments, you're giving your newly created opinion on anarchy. There are no leaders in an anarchy and also NO RULES as the established position. Kant in the greatest defense of anarchy takes the position that in an anarchiy there is absolute freedom of the individual because there are no leaders/government.

He literally argues that anarchy is the most moral choice becase every man is able to make his own moral decisions and is able to actually be truly free, free of the laws. Absolute moral and political freedom is the academic established definition of anarchy.

>Nothing is ever implied where the track is actually aimed.
In the trolley problem? Of course it is, that's what makes it a problem in the first place.

The question posed is whether you pull the lever to save a larger group of people in exchange for guaranteeing the death of one (or some lesser amount), or leave the lever alone. Utilitarians would argue that pulling the lever is morally obligated. Deontologists would argue that pulling the lever would make you morally responsible for the death of the individual, whereas not getting involved means you assume no responsibility.

The rest of your post is a non-sequitur.

>Absolute moral and political freedom is the academic established definition of anarchy.
Gonna need a citation on that one, boyo. Again, you have actual self-professed anarchists (of various flavors) telling you what their beliefs are, but instead you ignore thier arguments and complain that it's not "true anarchy" because you believe Kant is the authority on what is and isn't anarchy.

How about this, call the ideologies put to you anything you want. Just address the arguments being used, rather than going off about the label the person is using, because this line of argument is fruitless.

>you're not putting forth any arguments
There are plenty ITT. Which ones do you take issue with? Roads? Governmental coersion? People not needing rulers?

>self built laptop
Unless you invented the laptop,you wouldn't be able to acquire the parts for it without capitalism.

>self-professed anarchists
Again, rewriting the established definition.

And Kant is a great academic source to support the definition of anarchy, much better than self-professed fedoras. No leader, no government, no centralised force to defend any laws. You expect people to obey an agreement without being able to enforce it. Nobody in your anarchy has to agree to anything creating a situation where there are no laws and nobody has to follow any laws. The only laws or agreements anyone has to follow is those imposed by whoever is the strongest and able to impose their will onto others.

Kant was around before Anarchism was even invented

It works perfectly in a society with high morality and high birthrates.

>The question posed is whether you pull the lever to save a larger group of people in exchange for guaranteeing the death of one

You don't do anything. You walk away because it means absolutely nothing to you.

>Anarchy
>Capitalism

Pick one. You're arguing for something that could never coexist.

No rules, no morals, no responsibility.

Survival is all that matters and there is no rule that says you are morally obligated or responsible even for your own.

To put it real simple for you Bullwinkle imagine Mad Max, but you drive away with the tanker full of fuel and let everyone else die. NO RULES.

...

>much better than self-professed fedoras
Friedman, Nozick, Huemer, Rothbard, Proudhon, Hoppe, and plenty of other academics beg to differ. But no, apparently those guys are wrong, while you and Kant are right.

Either way, I still don't see any arguments.

>without being able to enforce it
If you take a toddler's toy, they will get upset and attack you. This is not learned behavior, it is inherent in most animals. Enforcement of societal norms comes from the individual, whether by himself or in concert with other individuals who share his views (of which there would have to be at least some in order for a society to exist).

>the only laws or agreements anyone has to follow is those imposed by whoever is the strongest and able to impose their will onto others.
Wow, it's almost as if that's the case with literally every sociopolitical system ever created. Humans are mortal. We have a survival imperative. Those two things make it so that the use of force is what ultimately decides how we behave. Political philosophy is concerned with how we ought to behave, while taking this into account.

>means absolutely nothing to you
You have yet to justify your claim that anarchy cannot have rules or morals or responsibility. If the individual is the smallest sovereign agent, then in the absolute worst case, he may have self-imposed rules, morals, and responsibility. Since he is an anarchist, he is certainly not obliged to listen to you. He can, however, work with other people who share his views, and then you can witness a society with emergent rules, formed from individual anarchists with no authority above them.

Again, I don't see what you people don't seem to grasp, that crying "no true anarchist" is not an argument.

There are plenty of rules within purely voluntary organizations. And if you don't like them you can quit the group and join a different one with different rules or start your own.

It's certainly more moral, but the state would no longer be a state, but a mere service provider competing among many on the open market.

Sorry senpai

What is an NAP? Non aggression pact?

>drug prohibition
>public good
Kek.

Anyway, the free-rider problem is easily solved by social ostracism. Look at what happens when a released paedo lives in the neighborhood. The same could happen with a database of those who pay for military defense (which, depending on the geopolitical area of the society, may not even be necessary; see Liechtenstein or Costa Rica). Those who free-ride can be voluntarily blacklisted from businesses.

Non-aggression principle. The idea that it is immoral to initiate the use of force against someone. It's a general principle, but the minutia are often debated (eg. is it aggression to blast death metal through the night toward your Christian nieghbors?).

Absence or nonrecognition of authority = NO RULES

> work with other people who share his views, and then you can witness a society with emergent rules, formed from individual anarchists with no authority above them.

You mean like an organized society sharing similar beliefs and goals which is the exact opposite of anarchy? So a micro government isn't the same thing as government?

tfw I don't have "so your retarded system doesn't works because it wasn't real _____ so we try it again because it wasn't real _____"

Organization is LITERALLY the exact opposite of anarchy. Am I doing it rite?

Anarchy is what it is. What you actually want is something completely.

kek

There is no incentive to socially ostracise people from your business either

It;s what (((they))) want. The complete destruction of society, pure jew debt economies.

>So a micro government isn't the same thing as government?

Is a chess club a micro government? No.

>Absence or nonrecognition of authority = NO RULES
Authority, or sovereignty, in anarchism is given to the individual. So individuals make the rules. When groups of like-minded individuals come together voluntarily, you have anarchist society.

I see you really love burning those straw men, but it doesn't negate anything I say. Go hog wild, I guess.

If there's no incentive to ostracize those who take advantage of these things without paying, then there is no problem with free riders to begin with. Thus, the government "solution" is unnecessary, and since it is the only reason for its existence (according to your pic), the government itself is no longer necessary.