Anarchy

What drives someone to support unrealistic, overly idealistic ideologies?

Other urls found in this thread:

pdf-archive.com/2017/11/17/coincidences/
mises.org/library/aristocracy-monarchy-democracy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

An immense desire to "fix" what we perceive as a "broken" system. In other words the world is going so haywire we are convinced the problem is deeply embedded into the foundation of the current world order. As such we wish to try a new foundation out.

> I don't understand what you understand, it must be unrealistic and overidealistic
> this makes me feel better at night for being intellectually lazy
...and the point of this thread wasss? Fishing?

>establish Ancapistan
>in a world made up of organized nation-states that have self interest

Do I need to go further?

a Right-Wing libertarian social order is the end goal of fascism.

>In other words the world is going so haywire we are convinced the problem is deeply embedded into the foundation of the current world order.
As opposed to the truth, that the problems are inherent to humanity.

That's why every idealistic philosophy has the common flaw of starting with, "We just have to get everyone to-", which is impossible from the word go.

Idealism is lazy, realism is not.
Criticism is lazy, asking questions is not.

> in a world of inefficient, bloated and wasteful governments
A lot further.

> realism is not.
Realism isn't lazy, claim of realism just from being lazy...is lazy.

Those bloated wasteful governments can organize an army (collectivist oh no!) and march right through your now open borders. But you respected the NAP so here's a cookie.

The idea that monopolistic law can ever be anything but awful is utopian.

>The current state of affairs is bad
>Therefore I MUST be right
This is the opposite of logic.

Nice lazy namecalling.

Have fun dodging the recreational nukes

Kimcheetoh

Do you personally own nukes user? No? Then shut up.

Do you also have recreational missile detecting satellites, and are your recreational nukes attached to recreational ICBMs?

Lrn2NuclearWar

there's nothing unrealistic about anarchy. it is the only ideology you cannot escape from. all governments are formed from and currently exist within anarchy.

you actual brainlet.

I don't know, I don't understand why they can't see fascism always fails, or communism.

>I hate police
>a world with no police would be beautiful and perfect
Anarchists are teenagers who hate following rules

>Ancap unrealistic
Ironic that odds are this is some ancom faggot, attempting a pathetic divide the right raid. Saged

You don't know how to follow a conversation.
Pointing out that someone is acting lazy is not namecalling. Responding to this guys "fear government militaries" with the fact that governments are not the peak of militarism, isn't the opposite of logic.

I'm still waiting for a good enough post to respond to but these early ones are just bait and assumptions, lazy unproven assertions.

> they can organize an army
Not disputing that, i said they were bloated inefficient and wasteful at it. There's a reason we call it the military industrial complex and a problem.
> open borders
> NAP
Hh so you had no intention of being serious? Fair enough.

A young person's first exposure to a political 'ideology'. Most likely happened in college or high school.

See:

All the angry ancaps in this thread.

Wrong

I'm a paleocon

Your pic kinda undermines your point.

You cannot negotiate with anarchy any more than you can with gravity.
However, every single one of the AnarchoX flags proposes to do exactly that.

So yes, while anarchy itself is the simple state of the universe, all the various unrealistic AnarchoX groups try to CONTROL anarchy.

>I'm still waiting for a good enough post to respond
Nobody cares.
The perception you create is that you're a fool, and when you are finally moved to end your laziness and make an argument, you will remove all doubt.

it does not undermine my point. i never name a AnarchoX flag. i name anarchy, just as was named in the OP.

If you don't believe in open borders or the Infallibility of brown people following the NAP you are just a basic bitch libertarian

It is though, anarchy doesn't work. Everyone agreeing to a NAP and hoping people would just abide by it without any incentive is unrealistic. Any political "anarchist" ideology will spiral into some form of organized government. Anarchy is impossible user.

That's pretty vague.

There's literally nothing unrealistic about not violently subjugating your neighbor. You do it every day. You're not exceptional in any regard, so the fact that even someone as pathetic and lacking in moral spine as you could refrain from a violent subjugation of others should tell you about the feasibility of other people doing the same absent state thug-goons.

There's something completely unrealistic about expecting an anarchist ideology to survive in a world of nation-states. You can't disprove this.

> open borders
> brown people
Come again? Those concepts are a little foreign to my Libertarian sensibilities, I don't know who likes open borders and brown people, bit odd. I prefer private property and individual actions.

> You can't disprove this.
Why not? Because governments have bloated inefficient armies? Ooooh shaking

There are entire countries without militaries or any significant armaments whatsoever. They're not being overrun.

Anarchy is against simple human nature. It's as basic as that. Anarchy doesn't work, humans naturally band together with their in groups and preferences to work together towards a common goal.

I see where you're coming from, Whereas you want hardcore darwinism to solve the problems of the world I would prefer to unite with like minded people and purge the problems.

> Anarchy is against simple human nature.
....and giving fallible people power to violently control others doesn't? '
> humans naturally band together
....and Anarchism lacks society? Wtf is this thread and why do leaves always say the strangest things.

An organized force with a well difined hierarchy will always overrun a disorganized, squabbling in self interest force.

You know why? Because they are in a bigger country's sphere of influence. In who's sphere of influence will the United States of Ancapistan be in?

>you know why?
Because death and destruction are generally not profitable. The only times they're profitable is when other people pay the price - like when the U.S. leeches tax money from actually productive people to fund million dollar drone strikes on goat farmers. The winners are the leeches. The losers are everyone else.

Do you know why libertarian crap immediately gives people the impression that someone is, at-oldest, colledge-age?

The way that you brush off legitimate threats to your safety as if you think you're invincible.
The fact is, I don't care how inefficient a government is, a crowd of soldiers with guns will kill you before you can even say anything cocky.

As for the niggers you allow to live near you? You've got to sleep sometime, but that doesn't mean you'll wake up.

The answer to having a foreign lobby dictate our foreign policy and domestic policy isn't anarchy.

>a crowd of soldiers with guns will kill you
A toddler with a gun can kill you too. You're not expressing anything anyone doesn't understand - you're making a caricature of someone else based off baseless assumptions because you just can't fathom that other people might not want to fund thugs murdering children in a desert thousands of miles away for entertainment.

Good thing we aren't like Ancoms with their anti-hierarchy bullshit. Free market military would probably be the greatest defense force the world has ever seen, if they ever went on the offensive for profit fuck me look out.

It's not a foreign lobby, it's a domestic lobby in the form of the military and arms manufacturers. The Israeli lobby moves a fraction of the money that Lockheed Martin does.

>....and Anarchism lacks society?
>Anarchist society
Sure thing.
Say it with me now: "All you've got to do is get everyone to-"
Now insert your own flavor of bullshit that will never ever get unanimous agreement.

>....and giving fallible people power to violently control others doesn't?
No it doesn't humans are naturally violent and controlling. Like I said people will naturally band together and everyone is fallible, but the least fallible peoples will lead the group and have the majority of power, this way of thinking has lasted thousands upon thousands of years if it isn't broken don't fix it.

>....and Anarchism lacks society? Wtf is this thread and why do leaves always say the strangest things.
Anarchism lacks hierarchy which will form whenever people start making groups (which they make naturally) the groups will get larger and larger overtime and form centralized society "anarchy" can't last in the long term because of human nature, it's a Utopian ideal.

> The way that you brush off legitimate threats to your safety as if you think you're invincible.
We don't brush legitimate questions off, Libertarians more than any other group self-criticize, internally debate and debate others trying to continually work through issue after issue.

It's just the way you put it mate, you act as if governments just decide to waltz in to place willy nilly, that they're essentially taking over a no mans land territory without any method of approaching the issue of violent governments, I mean it's all pretty ridiculous as a scenario.

It comes across as intellectually dishonest because you know deep down that Libertarians have been pouring over national defense systems and structures for as long as minarchists have talked to anarchists.

> I don't care how inefficient a government is, a crowd of soldiers
My soldiers > their soldiers.
Our tech > their tech.
Our incentives > their incentives.
Our costs < their costs.
..and so on and so forth.
> As for the niggers you allow to live near you?
I'm going to live near niggers now? You act as if there would be no form of security or defense, why? How in 2017 are you still one of the few to assume this?

>if it isn't broken don't fix it.
It's broken.

>Anarchism lacks hierarchy which will form whenever people start making groups
Ancaps are fine with hierarchy. In fact, they strongly embrace hierarchy. The problem here is you are debating an ideology of which you apparently have zero knowledge.

>you just can't fathom that other people might not want to fund thugs murdering children in a desert thousands of miles away
What the fuck does the fact that "I don wanna" have to do with your ability to CHANGE IT?

This is why people call your stupid ass "unrealistic".
You act like an entitled brat who cries for mommy because his freedom is denied to him.
But what can you do about it? Literally nothing, because even if you 100% succeeded in implementing your ideal bullshit utopia, your success would just become the foundation for the next tyrant.

Protip: The problem is not "Muh gubment", its humanity.

>Libertarians more than any other group self-criticize, internally debate and debate others trying to continually work through issue after issue.
But where you fail is that all of that self-critique and introspection continuously treats your own will-to-power as if it counts for shit.

You act as if the universe cares that something is "wrong".

memes in combination with anchoring bias

One person can't make hundreds of millions of people change overnight. Wew. You've REALLY jogged my noggin'. I NEVER could have come to that conclusion on my own - it never would have even crossed my mind without your brilliant and COMPLETELY novel criticism.

I like how you people's argument always devolves from
>it's not right
to
>you're not likely to get there/it won't last forever

>you are debating an ideology of which you apparently have zero knowledge.
Protip: when your version of "Anarchy" includes rule by hierarchy, then its not everybody else who's misunderstanding anarchy.

Some things sort of related to this board I noticed.

pdf-archive.com/2017/11/17/coincidences/

> unanimous agreement
Since when? Every. Single. Post of yours. Is some weird assertion, some odd box to put Anarchists in like some sort of box made of straw....

> Humans are naturally violent and controlling
> So we fix that by legitimizing a few people to violent control us almost unchecked
> dismantling a system of justifying immoral violence and control is somehow realistic
> but the least fallible peoples will lead the group and have the majority of power
Hooooooly shit did you just say that? You've read history books yeah? You've seen modern politicians yeah? Power corrupts is a term because the worst people gravitate to the top and even when well intentioned people get there, they tend to fuck up as well.

> Anarchism lacks hierarchy
> the groups will get larger and larger
You can have a group....and a hierarchy....without the specific attributes of a state, that's the whole point of Ancap as opposed to Syndicalism etc. Rules not rulers, voluntary over involuntary, cooperation, choice and defense over violence and coercion. I'm getting the impression that you think we are anti-group and anti-hierarchy?...and that the moment there are groups and hierarchy anarchism is invalidated? I haven't heard that for a lot of years.

Brainwashing.
Culture pressure.
Turning it into religion.

>It's broken.

How is it broken?

>Ancaps are fine with hierarchy. In fact, they strongly embrace hierarchy. The problem here is you are debating an ideology of which you apparently have zero knowledge.

Anarchy is the lack of hierarchy and hierarchical leadership (which is natural) and you just said it's broken? Now you're saying you embrace it? It seems like you guys don't even know your own ideology tbqh.

> You act as if the universe cares that something is "wrong".
No we act as if other people ought to care about something that is wrong, that's the whole point of having debates, discussions, persuasion, having a vocal cord etc to communicate ideas and concepts.

We want people to see the world the way we see it and find people that can agree. We want to shift the culture thus shifting the politics and the society, just like the lefties have done in the west. Pre-post; Union propaganda, feminist propaganda, class warfare propaganda, equality etc.

weed and the comfort of a parent basement

I'll leave this here in case you want to educate yourself.
mises.org/library/aristocracy-monarchy-democracy

The "devolution" you cite is the same argument.

You would tear society down just to replace it with a vacuum that would immediately collapse into a new (likely worse) government.
Arbitrarily spreading chaos of that magnitude IS wrong.

Any notion that you have that your bullshit utopia would LAST is built upon the flawed logic that, "We just have to get everybody to-", which will never happen.

>Every. Single. Post of yours. Is some weird assertion
Because you people lack the introspection to identify the most basic critical flaws in your ideology, so everything I say sounds weird.

In this case, you fail to realize that your end-state of utopia would be so fragile that an incredibly small number of people could (and quickly would) work together to destroy it.
This is why the inability to convince everyone of your "rightness" collapses your whole system.

Violent extortion of people and the instantiation of completely uncompetitive and price insensitive monopolies is broken, in that virtually every human incentive to improve productivity is removed when you have thugs just taking shit from people.

Having a boss who pays you to do certain things he asks of you is hierarchical in a loose sense but there's nothing broken about it.

>No we act as if other people ought to care about something that is wrong
So what you're saying is, "All we have to do is get everybody to-"

> you people lack the introspection to identify the most basic critical flaws in your ideology
Fuck off because you've never heard Libertarians say "who will build the roads" or "what about police, law & national defense"? Are you being serious? You've never witnessed minarchists and anarchists debate or something? What are you even doing here are you even old enough to remember minarchist anarchist debates or did you come a few knee jerk reactions a few days ago on your first visit round these parts?

No it's not.
Moral principle does not impinge on predictions of outcomes. It's wrong to violently extort people. You recognize this in your everyday life and desist from fucking over other people. It's principled to extend moral expectations to moral agents, which includes state thugs who definitively extort from people and fuck others over. Where you don't you're just a worthless hypocrite.

No I'm saying that an ideology needs to spread for it to make more and more impact or branch off. This doesn't require unanimous consent and agreement of all people, your straw men are getting ridiculous. Did you even learn to read at school?

>You recognize this in your everyday life and desist from fucking over other people.

So you support a whites only Ancapistan?

i like this thread

Do what you want so long as all parties interact voluntary - I couldn't care less what you decide to do so long as that one single condition is met.

Do you believe your ideas will flourish in a majority non-white country?

So your problems with the economy validates the removal of government and organized society how? Most of the problems & monopolies today are caused by preditiory unchecked capitalism, I think that's where your problem lies. Abolishing organized society would create more problems than it would fix.

>We know how to build roads!
>We know how to enforce law!
>This means we have our shit together and our ideology isn't made of toothpicks
Yeah, that's the kind of naivete that would get you annihilated in under a year.

>It's wrong to violently extort people.
Y'know, might doesn't make right, but the idea that you can tangle with anybody who's "wrong" regardless of their might is childish.

>No I'm saying that an ideology needs to spread for it to make more and more impact or branch off.
Did you bother to think past that to the success scenario? Even if many people suddenly accepted this ideology, as soon as you become prominent, there would be people forming their own ideas in the shadows seeking to destroy you (exactly as you are right now with your own oppressors).

However, unlike stateism, you ideology leaves you critically vulnerable to such individuals in ways you apparently can't grasp.

>ancap implying I should eduacate myself while believing that a system where there is no centralized hierarchy and it would function because of "MUH NAP" would work in the long term and not spiral into multiple different centralized societies.

I don't care.

>with the economy
My problem is with people doing things that are abjectly immoral, which all state thugs necessarily do. So no - my problem is with ALL government as the direct object.

You don't care? So you don't care if your ideology actually succeeds? What's the point then?

Just admit libertarian and anarcho-cap thought is mainly a white thing.

What the fuck are you even saying? If someone put a gun to my head and said "give me your wallet or I'll shoot you" I'd tell them to fuck off. You really can't fathom people with moral principle dying for it? Despite ALL the examples throughout history that BLATANTLY contradict that notion? Just off yourself you pathetic shitrag.

I'm obligated to promote what's right. I'll fulfill my obligation. Whether anyone else wants to be right or moral is frankly their problem and not mine.

People unironically believe taxation isn't theft. People unironically believe that democracy isn't two wolves and one sheep voting what's for dinner.

Why are you dodging the race question?

> , you ideology leaves you critically vulnerable to such individuals
People like comfort. A libertarian society that successful provides for what people want while being heavily decentralized and voluntary would give anyone tough time to try and convince each individual to give up their freedom.

The greast shifting threat is the same with every society, the culture of the successive generations and making sure they appreciate certain things growing up, else they take them for granted. This goes for every ideology.

>We know how to build roads!
>We know how to enforce law!
What other "basic critical flaws" am I leaving out? These are the ones people ITT are implying
> you can't form groups
> you can't form hierarchies
> open borders
> how to enforce rules
> threat of other governments
> basic critical flaws already discussed 25,000 times for 60+ years
> very basic no libertarian ever considers them
> never
> ever
You sound very silly.

I literally answered it - I don't care. Then you asked another question
>You don't care? So you don't care if your ideology actually succeeds? What's the point then?
which I just answered.
And now you're confused for some reason. Good job.

>If someone put a gun to my head and said "give me your wallet or I'll shoot you" I'd tell them to fuck off.
See, when telling that awesome story about what a badass you are, you left out the part where they shoot you, and then your death changes nothing.
Nobody even knows that you died refusing a robbery because the guy who killed you professes his innocence even in prison.

None of this means that you're brave. You're just really stupid and died for no reason at all.

Except you left out the part where he said people through history have died for their principles......you didn't refute that.

You have to care though

The implications of a large population of people who are naturally more inclined to support statist policies (welfare state) in the vicinity of your ancap paradise is problematic.

I die. Wew - big deal. Unlike you I believe in an afterlife.
I really don't care what anyone else does or doesn't think - I'll uphold my principles. What you or anyone else do is your problem and not mine. I'm supposed to wish for the best for you but I'll admit I struggle with that in regard to spineless people like you who would suck a man's dick if he threatened you enough.

Your principles are worthless if you are dead, retard

>you have to care though
No - I *REALLY* don't. You or anyone else can support statist policies all you want - I do my job when I tell you how wicked that is. My job's done. It's finished.

No; they're really not. They're vindicated by the Almighty God.
>b-but I don't believe in God!
God does't care - He judges you regardless. Have fun bro.

How are property rights guaranteed under ancap?

and what is your ideology fag?

> more inclined
You know how many groups we can put people into that are more inclined to statism right now? We want a culture of individualism and yes we want to fight collectivists. If a terrorists bombs us for "our freedoms" you don't setup a police state and violate those freedoms, what's the point in valuing freedom them? The war on terror is endless, the war on collectivism is endless too, we just fight for Liberty to be the dominant culture/ideas and that goes for EVERY individual that will listen.

Ideas need to spread and there's not much we can do about the current situation of Democracy because democracy is shit, but we can side step it long term, we can discuss and spread alternatives and we don't have to pick between open/closed borders dichotomies.

Nothing is guaranteed in this life. Not even that you'll live to the next moment.

>Hooooooly shit did you just say that? You've read history books yeah? You've seen modern politicians yeah? Power corrupts is a term because the worst people gravitate to the top and even when well intentioned people get there, they tend to fuck up as well.
Centralized hierarchy and government has worked wonderfully for thousands of years. I want you to answer this, was there ever a society like you speak of that has ever lasted and prospered? No, because it's unnatural and Utopian. Just because our society is being subverted by kikes doesn't mean all the thousands of years before didn't happen. Anarcho capitalism is very much a product of its time.

>You can have a group....and a hierarchy....without the specific attributes of a state
Yes, but no. If you society is large it will form some sort of centralized rule. Yes there can be small groups isolated from everyone that run by their own code but large amounts of people require rules and regulation. Ancapitalism just expects everyone to obey without incentive which is inane, it also expects that no centralized societies with some sort of hierarchy would form under these conditions which is again inane and naive.

>Literally arguing, "Our society would last because people would have no REASON to destroy us"
Then I guess you would die very confused.

Lemme paint you a picture, cuz you're so smart, you must have a holodeck in your brain:

There's a whole segment of society who want to be "protected" by government (you must know this. I'd be baffled if you didn't).
Lazy and feckless though they may be, one of your successful citizens would betray you at the prospect of becoming a leader to those unwashed masses, and he would fund and supply them.

Now he has an army. One which possesses the unique advantage of only being paid in "revolution", while anyone else with a private force has to pay for equipment AND wages.

If you DID manage to stop him, suddenly all your successful citizens (the elite, lets call them) would quickly become open to expanding collective defense, which of course everyone must chip in for.
Goodbuy, AnCap World, one way or another.

What's stopping 170 million tacos from subverting Ancapistan?

And I'm pretty sure God doesn't want to listen to an autistic sperg rant about how much he doesn't care that brown people will ruin his ancap paradise

>if you kill your enemies they win

Go home

>They're vindicated by the Almighty God.
Is that the same god who said "Render unto Cesar", or is this your own AnCap god that you invented?

Crypto currencies and encryption in general + online trade are going to go a massive way in undermining the ability for state agents to bother people.

...

all ideologies are unrealistic and overly idealistic, even implicitly anti-ideological ideologies like neo-liberalism, take the black pill user

>If someone put a gun to my head and said "give me your wallet or I'll shoot you" I'd tell them to fuck off
No you wouldn't, you've almost certainly payed tax before. Why not just tell the government to fuck off?

But its good to be pretty sure that someone probably won't burn down your factory without you receiving compensation in some way at the very least.

Why do people build factories, stores, hospitals etc. in ancap if they can't be reasonably sure they won't be torched by competitors?