Is this the most consistent political ideology to ever have been come up with?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Liberalism has a pretty good run IMO.

American conservatism is consistent.

Yes
>tfw our nation's normies would never understand.

if by consistency you mean absolute certainty of collapse within miliseconds then yes its up there with communism and the other anarrchist shit

I mean in terms of consistent logic and following certain principles to their conclusion.

AnCap doesn't collapse, AnCap IS the collapse. It's essentially Mad Max with better tech

Says the Greek

No it isn't. They say they want small, limited, non-invasive government, and then all they do is promote bigger and more invasive government.

Only if you consider neocons and traditional conservatives to be the same.

any form of anarchism cant last by principle

Liberalism
>we want freedom
>[...]
>gays and men wearing dresses are commonplace and rights keep getting granted to them
Thing is, in recent years (esp. in America) they've been giving these people more rights than their fellow men - and not only this, they're trying to silence the average fellow from voicing his opinion out if it "harms" a select minority, while allowing said minorities to shittalk the majority without any repercussions. It's a recipe for disaster, really.
I can't help but feel like liberalism is not really a thing now, if anything I'd call the so-called "Liberalism" in America Authoritarian Liberalism.

they consider themselves to be, so I trust their judgement.

Most consistent in terms of retardation

/thread

What's that principle?

>people will respect property rights after the collapse

Really makes me think

You think John McCain calls himself a neocon?
The reason whatever you call "real" traditional conservatives never have any impact is because they're either A) not in office in the first place, or B) supported by any concentrated interests who move money even if they are there.

He's going to say something that's logically the same as saying "things don't last forever", even though that (((criticism))) can literally be applied to every human state of affairs since the beginning of time.

All these normie blue pilled fags.... Fascism is the only true worldview/ideology.... to disagree is to admit ignorance....... to understand Fascism is to be in its agreement..... embrace truth or accept death

Yes.
Anyone strawmanning AnCaps are simply letting us all know how perverted their minds are and they project it on pol

It's unavoidable. Countries have developed alternate political ideologies, but globally, we are AnCap and will always be.

The fact that humanity is still here and flourishing without a global governing body just proves that it's the only choice we have.

Yes. True Ancaps are quite autistic about remaining consistent with the philosophy of freedom, voluntarism, and non aggression. It's the helicopter faggots that are co opting the message and imagery for their love of fascism.

12 yr old anime fapping nazicucktard detected.

>then all they do is promote bigger and more invasive government.

How do AnCaps do this? ? ? ?

The only "consistent" systems would be pure anarchy or pure authoritarianism, where one person/entity controls everything with no limitations. Anything in between relies on value judgements.

how can you prevent anyone or a group from concetrating influence- power and ending up being a de facto goverment? youl go back in an oligarchic style in no time

...

In the worst case crash scenario people would be forming communities as fast as they'd be forming warrior bands.
I doubt law abiding citizens would be forming the warrior bands, but not devolving to the mad max situation would require a relatively well armed populace in any case.
Most of Europe could go either way I guess.

...

What was that supposed to be? An insult? What about my post rubbed you the wrong way?
At any rate, there's a difference between European liberalism and American "Liberalism".

>unrealistic

Eh, maybe?

Constant as in far more retarded and hopeful than even communism

...

You can say you're a fish because you swim like them, but that doesn't make it true.
It doesn't matter what he calls himself, we know he's a neocon. The neocons are basically democrats at this point. You are right in that actual conservatives don't have power anymore and haven't for a long time.

Ow. I don't know whether to wince or laugh at that.
It seems basically correct!
Insightful, at the very least.

There's a conviction involved that people collaborate peacefully in the general case, while remaining capable of defending themselves as necessary in the specific case.
Thus we should not disarm people, but should increase their ability to defend themselves as necessary without fear that they will misuse these capacities.

There's another conviction involved that technology makes this work better in both ways.
Firstly, that technology can enable people to live consensually in peace with each other, and that people will do so as best they understand how when so enabled.
Secondly, that unrestrained technology increases the hazard level of individuals such that practical capabilities become less and less dependent on qualities of individual advantage.
Peace becomes steadily more rational and steadily more rewarding as tech levels increase.
Capital accumulation and technological advance are closely related to each other. Capitalists contest the world with new methods, advancing the human position vis-à-vis nature.

>I doubt law abiding citizens would be forming the warrior bands
Militia traditions. You could use them. They transition well and will help hold up local tech levels.

Nihilism

They are only as unrealistic as the ideology it criticizes ;)

...

Can you read?

>makes so much sense

You can't be this retarded

>for a long time
No - never. And it doesn't make any sense that they ever would - there is no incentive for people on the state dole to shrink government or to limit themselves.

yes - I can read.
How do AnCaps want a bigger government? ? ? ?

please elaborate what exactly is unrealistic about ancapism?

>ye
No; you obviously can't.

>American conservatism is consistent
>American conservatism
>No it (American conservatism) isn't
>They (American conservatives) say they (American conservatives) want small, limited, non-invasive government, and then all they (American conservatives) do is promote bigger and more invasive government

I suggest you read molymeme's practical anarchy.
He does address that argument.
Basically, if you had the people trying to consolidate power coming at your door to make a contract, what would you ask of them to include in said contract?
Why follow that contract? Because you've got a whole lot of other consolidating "dispute resolution agencies" forming at the same time that can do business with security and justice.

I will grant you, however, that all this would require an armed populace.

It's pretty useless in reality, because it implies humans will willingly accept the disadvantage of individualism completely. It only works when we have absolute, utter collectivisim and thus decide to throw it all away, while sort of maintaining it.

Because in the end, the small person will always end up being taken over by bigger groups of people who pool their resources, who will then create their own order and way of things, which becomes a country and so on ad infinitum until the system collapses and reverts back to what it was with no gain having been made.

>individuals cannot cooperate
wew

The only reason someone would find AnCap retarded is if they themselves have ZERO moral understanding.

AnCap is 100% self-responsibility.

Any criticisms stem from your inability to look after yourself and need a government to do it for you

The point of the government is to pool your resources together in protection against others who pool their resources together.

You may be able to look after yourself, but the 5 people who don't and band together will take everything you have not because you're less skilled, but because they are more.

You need 100% of all individuals cooperating fully, anything less is utter failure.

I can read.

Just tell me how you think AnCaps want bigger government?

No, you don't. You don't need all the guy's wives to help pour concrete to pour concrete.

Consistently Insane Maybe

You.
Cannot.
Read.

Thats fine - pooling your resources is fine.
But it has to be voluntary.

ok - well you can't explain why AnCaps want a BIGGER government, so its obviously an empty accusation

Tell me of your political beliefs or lack thereof, pirate.
Genuine question.

>American conservatism is consistent
>American conservatism
(You)
>No it (American conservatism) isn't
>They (American conservatives) say they (American conservatives) want small, limited, non-invasive government, and then all they (American conservatives) do is promote bigger and more invasive government

yes. it's the only one that isn't shit

AnCap here
He's talking about About American conservatism.

explain yourself faggot

You need all ancapistan members to agree on the frame or it doesn't work.

And what happens when the first pooling of resources forces you to give them your resources?

What do you do when everybody is pooling their resources and you have to either find somewhere to pool yours or die?

Conservatives want smaller government too. AnCaps want literally no government or voluntary association with a government.

The pop-culture meme is "Conservatives are big government". The fact is the left is for big government and the right is for smaller government.

I used to be confused too - they I grew up

I think you could actually do that, if the water supply was your property to begin with.

Of course, in that case one of your competitors would just build a pipeline next to yours, and sell his uncontaminated water for a better price.

...

Thanks Finnbrah
my answer > > >

It's highly illogical.

People don't have to agree on anything - they just need to not try to violently subjugate others to their whims.
You experience that every moment of every day of your life - virtually all of your interactions even in the shithole you live in are peaceful.

Nigga, who needs roads when we got jetpacks.

Government don't create roads today. Private companies do.

Have you see me mention ancap even once?
A single time?
YOU. CANNOT. READ.

Be more like this guy. He knows what he is.

SHIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET

Harvey Weinstein perfected anarcho-capitalism.

whats preventing a monopoly on justice and security? or in any other field? and whats preventing the heads of these monopolies from collaborating to have complete control of a the society and devouring the competition.

>they just need to not try to violently subjugate others to their whims

Which means they need to actively disadvantage themselves. And it all falls apart once one person decides to go the other way.

please see OP > > > > Its the thread that hasn't mentioned conservatism.

See how you are authoritarian and don't even realize it? You are in an AnCap thread trying to talk off topic or conflate 2 topics and then act all confused when your not getting the answers.

I was was a child too once

The elite don't like the idea of its slaves becoming self reliant and self dependent.

It makes them obsolete

Even a commie knows that what you've just said is dumb.

Also
> It only works when we have absolute, utter collectivisim

Why is that exactly, and what in the name of fuck is collectivism doing in a world with only private property, or property yet to be appropriated?

And don't forget, no matter how many people pool their resources together to fight you, they still don't have the right to *initiate* the use of force. This means you can simply tell them to fuck off, and find people who share your ideas.

I definitely believe so. It's only a system of rights developed using man's own ownership of himself as an axiomatic foundation. Then, deductive logic is used to extrapolate what is right. This framework allows us to judge whether or not something is right, such as taxation or public property. From there we can make judgements that do not rely upon the temporary values of those in power

If you do follow the deductive logic from it's axiom, then it's very hard to not be an Anarcho Capitalist unless you succumb to utilitarian concerns.

>Which means they need to actively disadvantage themselves
You think a nigger is putting himself at a disadvantage when he decides he shouldn't rob a gun shop in Kentucky? Are you sub-70 IQ?

>Its the thread that hasn't mentioned conservatism

(You)
>American conservatism is consistent
>American conservatism
(You) (You)
>No it (American conservatism) isn't
>They (American conservatives) say they (American conservatives) want small, limited, non-invasive government, and then all they (American conservatives) do is promote bigger and more invasive government
ILLITERATE. LOW-IQ. BONG.

As I asked, if a gentleman from justice and co. came to your door to ask for a small investment to set up his company, what would you want in that contract for it not to devolve into that?

Furthermore, in a free market, meaning no one has the consolidation of millions of guns of the state to enforce their will, and which corporations use even today to enforce the very legal fictions they hide behind, monopolies would not be possible.

The case to be made is huge, which is why I suggested molymeme. I only made the leap from minarchist to anarchist because I had a lot of time to study this stuff during off-duty hours in the military. Made my last 3 months a living hell in a way, but it was worth it.
If you can't be assed anyway, here's the most basic case.
youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

Utilitarianism is bunk.
Utility monster destroys everything about utilitarianism by making abundantly obvious the fact that it's impossible to access the values of other people.

Which type of anarchist specifically are you, since the Sup Forums overlords make the basic label automatically commie?

Definitely. I'm heavily antagonistic towards Utilitarianism as well, I was simply noting that the kinds of people that walk through and understand the anarcho capitalist deductions and then still disagree with it are usually utilitarians in some fashion. It's always people that get caught up on implementation, when anarcho capitalism has nothing to do with implementation and is entirely a system of rights.

It's the most consistent one I've seen so far, at least. At most, it may not be possible to be any more consistent.

>ironmarch
Shitskins and Muslims need not apply.

Best word is probably voluntarist?
I don't ascribe to rights-based nonsense. I really wish they'd just give us a fucking 'A' so I'd stop getting people whining about the flag when I'm about as far from a commie as one gets.

Probably.

Doesn't make it any good, but yeah it's at least pretty much 100% consistent. That's why it's so boring.

Fair enough.
As long as you don't come a-knocking asking if I've "heard the good word of Marx"

Classic liberalism sure, not the neo liberalism democratic socialist pc culture currently mainstreamed today.

I consider myself a classical liberal. I want gay couples to be able to guard their marijuana crop with AK-47's

I'm trying to stay out of the heat of the debate, but to bounce a thought out there: isn't ancapism a tougher sale in a "late capitalist" society? See,

Once people took lots of pride in their possession and tried to mind them so, that all this immeasurable value could eventually be passed down the family line. Those days of grampa-built family farms are over, and property means much less for most. At least to me, it seems like owndom could use a rebranding.

*possessions

I can't get a handle on what you're getting at.
What is your concern?

A system can be sound (consistent), but still dysfunctional.
A political system's soundness can be indeterminable, and still function perfectly in the real world.

Just because niggers don't have the *right* doesn't mean they won't mug your ass and rape your wife.

This.
Conservatives have been consistent in that they've consistently failed to achieve their objectives. Public education also disenfranchises the church (bibleschool) in contemporary ethical education.

Haven't seen this one before, very good video.

You're basically having a conversation with yourself by the looks of it, and then calling me low-IQ because you're not actually saying anything.

I don't need to see your flag to know you are burger-tier educated