This thread is for Discussion of Libertarianism, Capitalism, AnarchoCapitalism, and the physical removal of communist fags from our board of peace..
Libertarian/Pol Discord:
d*scord.gg
>Post sneks
>Bump for Life, Liberty, and Private Death Squads
>Vanilla /lrg/ pastebin- CREATE IF YOU DONT SEE ONE IN THE CATALOG
pastebin.com/aEL5VWHY
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
d*scord.gg
twitter.com
> american food
> remove burger
> mexican food
> remove taco
> muslim food
> remove kebab
> commies don't have food
> remove ????
>Update
dignity
interest bump
>physical removal of communist fags from our board of peace..
I am starting to "use" twitter to see out people that seem to understand communism. I keep asking why it works only under a homogeneous society....and they get pissed really quick. Tell them that communism is so bad that even North Korea lies about it and calls themselves democratic lol.
Haven't seen one of these threads in a while. Cheers, lads
>I keep asking why it works only under a homogeneous society
It doesn't
>Tell them that communism is so bad that even North Korea lies about it and calls themselves democratic lol.
North Korea has a planned economy. It isn't communist
remove famine
how do u respond?
>this fag again
How do you respond to these simple questions?
Answer them or say you don't have one, keep ignoring it shows your lack of a workable ancom ideology.
>What's stopping everyone from joining a co-op in today's political climate if it would make them better off?
We have examples of some that do exist, so why aren't they more successful or taking over in the market?
>in a collectivized society do people have to work to receive resources if they can or can they receive resources from the work of others if they choose not to perform labor?
Because one is being a wageslave and the other is literally living off others labor.
>if people have a right not to collectivize and the individual has the right to keep private property and means of production, then how can the stateless communist state be achieved?
Especially when open market economics has always won over collectivized markets.
I tried the discord link and it said the invite expired. I'm a newfag to discord but I want to check it out.
already did, honey
Ancaps and ancoms have different notions of anarchism. Argumentation in this context is pointless
just copy-pasted a previous one, I dont have any discord
cheers
youtube.com
youtube.com
Capitalists achieve, in peaceful natural means, the utopia that commie fags try to impose through the inefficiencies of corrupt, coercive government
its kinda dumb desu, one wants no coercion and property, the other no hierarchy and no property, and neither agrees on any terms whatsoever
No you didn't faggot.
You've deflected the entire time in the last thread and where utterly unable to answer them, you barely said your system doesn't call for the collectivization of the means of production through force and then said a stateless communist state would happen 'naturally' without any explanation of what that entails.
Ancoms are cancer that can't handle simple questions, if not prove me wrong, the entire last thread is here for you to show how much of a deflecting faggot you are with the inability to grasp basic political and economic concepts that defeat your worldview.
bump
bumping for liberty
Remove breadlines
Much as I respect Rothbard, one of the many things I hold against him is his misbranding of our school of thought as "anarchist".
True anarchy would have no rulers/hierarchy, but the only system truly calling for that is individualist/egoist anarchism. "Anarcho"-communists want to have power put in the hands of trade unions/syndicates/communes, while "anarcho"-capitalists want to have individuals, families, firms, clubs, churches, and other voluntary institutions.
This is why, despite agreeing with Hoppe/Rothbard/etc, I do not brand myself as an anarcho-capitalist.
This.
>individualist/egoist anarchism
how does that work, in practice?
That's why I prefer "Laissez-faire Capitalist".
>individuals, families, firms, clubs, churches, and other voluntary institutions.
In the absence of the state safety-net, you must fall back to private safety nets: family, extended family, friends, and churches. Everything you mention.
>Libertarian/Pol Discord: d*scord.gg
>This instant invite is invalid or has expired.
send help
I dunno, you'd have to ask an egoist anarchist.
However, given that anarchy means "no rulers" (an- meaning no, and archos meaning ruler), then it seems to me that people who want absolute individual sovereignty and no hierarchy are the only ones who are proper anarchists.
no seriously what's the discord, like every time the link has always been broken
Daily reminder that open/closed borders is a false dichotomy as the current system is neither fully open nor fully closed and private property =/= open borders.
Although open borders almost makes the state non-existent.
so they fuck off and live in the woods?
just copy pasted from other place, dunno
> Ruler: a person exercising government or dominion
How does no rulers equate to no hierarchies? Is a voluntary hierarchy the same as a ruler? Seems a bit of a stretch and conflation, I mean we have different words for things for a reason if they just meant the same thing with no nuance then we wouldn't need and they'd have no use.
fugg
isn't it possible to post a permanent invite link so I can just use from the archive?
alert the discordbros of this
That's basically why Voluntaryist got popularized.
I sure wish they would.
>Is a voluntary hierarchy the same as a ruler?
Debating semantics seems fruitless, but the point is that "anarcho-capitalism" promotes voluntary hierarchy, and hierarchy of any kind is antithetical to anarchy by etymology and, consequently, by definition. Personally, I would consider a voluntarily obeyed ruler to be a ruler nonetheless, but it's besides the point.