Anarcho-Communism VS Anarcho-Capitalism

My commie cuck of an English professor, Mr. Alperstein, assigned us a 12-pg compare and contrast essay. My first idea was to red pill him by comparing ancap and ancom, but he rejected it. So now I'm comparing my "brother and sister," using them as personifications of the ideologies (like animal farm).
ITT We compare and contrast these polar opposites, while giving this needyfag (me) some advice on the whole personification thing.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Here's another one of those shitty commie autistic memes comparing the ideologies.

what is your professor's email address

Not sure why you need it

ancaps are retarded, it's just feudalism 2.0

ancomms are also retarded, but mainly because you can't have a system without a central authority

Another government will just take it's place.

>anarcho-anythings
The edgelords of pawlitiks, 100% of them atheists too

Was feudalism really that bad? Didn't Japan industrialize because when the technology came from the West, the local lords stuck a finger to the shogun, and developed industries on their own?

>Was feudalism really that bad?

Yes

Unless you like the idea of being a serf for some masochistic reason.

Japan industrialized at the barrel of a gun

-->ancoms
is this the most retard snowflake political allignment ever ?

They worked much less than we do in the modern capitalist age. Some had up to a third of all days off.

'Anarcho'-Capitalism is an oxymoron.

Anarchists have always been about dismantling all forms of hierarchy. They oppose both the state and capitalism for the same reason, that they create unjust authoritarian social hierarchies.

They also died a lot younger and were conscripted to go fight for their lord whenever he wanted more land.

Anarchism itself is an oxymoron

> hurr durr we wanna dismantle all force of coercion
> BUT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THESE RULES OR ELSE...

>They also died a lot younger
Nothing to do with the socio-economic system, that's a matter of medicine and technology. Actually, if you survived past your early years you could easily reach your 60s, it was infant mortality that was the main issue.

>were conscripted to go fight for their lord whenever he wanted more land.

Conscription is still around and was used to send tens of millions of men to their deaths in the 20th century. Replace lord with president/dictator and land with entire countries and it's clear not much has changed.

Anarcho communism can't work, the whole practice is set to keep the idea of socialism brewing in basically libertarians who wanted to be socialist but had the historical knowledge of socialism in practice with the USSR, PRC, and so on and wanted to scrap the idea and build it up as a 'free' system.

It's just bad workings to salvage socialism from its failings, hence why its never worked and always failed in practice to a failed state or an oppressive collective that became tyrannical.

Anarcho capitalism is the ignorance of the need for a state or the natural creation of one (as in nation states) in order to justify ultra hardcore views built on principals like the non aggression or hardcore libertarian views. Though it is much better (and far greater to look into) it is in many ways a far more intelligent view than anarcho-socialism as in it does not ignore failings or human conditions but works on them, however it's components are more workable but still theoretical.

Anarcho socialists are people desperately trying to make Marxism come true while pointing out the killings and failings of socialism.

Anarcho capitalism is ultra libertarians who see society as possibly being better in a more liberated sense but ignore the need for the state to enforce collective order and ignore the failures of oppression the lack of one would make or that the creation of a state is a natural process of higher human civilization.

being a serf

doing something productive is always serving other people

if you do it by your own, you serve directly your clients, if you're dealing with a bussiness, you're serving it

what is exactly the bad thing about serving other people? neet parasites like don't like co-op?

In regards to your picture,
if a private business man wanted to created a state like is being implied by his use of security to enforce laws on his property, he would be against an efficiently armed society who will refuse to consume from someone oppressing them.

The road argument is painfully stupid when comparing it to the state. you already pay arbitrarily priced, extortionate amounts in tax to maintain a vast network of roads you don't even use across the entire country, so how would it be unreasonable for a private investor, who is trying to maintain the road as cheaply as possible to make his business more accessible to consumers, to ask for a market price rent on using a road, it would be phenomenally cheaper on top of being morally sound.

Lastly, the dead fish. There are billions to be made on fishing, if it was profitable, they would be avoided for a better dumping ground and someone would capitalise on exploiting them, especially if there were rare species which would draw more fishermen. The revenue from the fishermen using your source of fish would allow you to maintain the habitat and regulate the fishing so that they don't all die out, an infinitely more reliable and efficient way of maintaining natural habitat then the bureaucratic mess the Fed uses to steal peoples land and neglect the wildlife.

This could also be applied to the African Elephant. If Safari owners got more business from hunters, they could spend more on protecting them from poachers, the hunters could sell the ivory, driving down the demand and therefore the incentive for poachers. As long as the hunters are kept from irreparably damaging the populations, such as killing anything but the oldest bulls in the herds, the elephants will draw more and more money from hunters and so are kept safeguarded in the long run.

>ancap vs ancom

You mean stupid vs stupid?

Both of these forget that anarchy is just anarchy and can't be binded to other concepts. Moreover all your special snowfaggot ideas can't be enforced, maintained or even implemented without you stopping from being an anarchy. Moreover if you are an anarchy, you can't defend yourself from feudalism, foreing empires, foreign infiltrators... it just sucks.

That businessman would convince others to join in a collective for security against other competing groups. These would separate on different races and cultures and tribalist societies. The state is a collection of societies in a common order or doctrine under means of creating better good for the whole. This has reflected the highest success for civilizations, from empires to republics the state has advanced scientific means and human progress more than any institution, heavily shown in successful states that where able to maximize order into productivity and freedom into productivity resulting from that order.

It's reforming the state, not abolishing it, but making it a productive form of freedom and order that needs to be done to reverse the trends of failure recent statism has seen from lack of open freedom but common order.

>if a private business man wanted to created a state like is being implied by his use of security to enforce laws on his property, he would be against an efficiently armed society who will refuse to consume from someone oppressing them.

Except people forget one thing. Empires and not even kingdoms are forged in a day. First a would be lord would engage on a local level, too small to become infamous and just enough to be able to build a power base. Once that is done with the use of mercs who don't give a shit, terror weapons as there would be no restriction and all out total war tactics designed to scare rather than kill and he can expand by only claiming small bits of land at a time and being so scary people are more likely to concede or not fight at all. In a century or two or three you will start reaching the level of kingdom and anarchy would have ended. I am leaving our religion and ethnicity from the mix might I add.

>That businessman would convince others to join in a collective for security against other competing groups.
The incentive to break any agreement and offer a competitive price or rate is way to big for a non state sanctioned cartel to exist, the gains would include stealing huge amounts of customers from others agreeing to gouge prices, getting a huge PR boost and possibly even destroying all the competition stupid enough to enter an agreement where they would offer goods and services for more than market price.

There's no real profit in invading a people with no tax system, with ample resources to arm themselves and hire PMCs for defence, such wars would be so costly, and image destroying that it would be economic suicide for a business.

The area of Ancap that doesn't convince me is that it requires a philosophically aware population, who are willing to maintain their individual independence. Now, the boons of private education for all would theoretically educate people of the importance of such things, however to get such a system going I can only imagine would be possible by forced re-education in voluntarism, which, of course, is completely antithetical to voluntarism and libertarianism in general. I may be missing something and usually am when i enter an argument with Ancaps, I find myself being seduced by it more and more but I think I'll stick with Minarchism for now.

>implying peasant life wasn't best life

You have to remember that anarchy was tried before.

Following the fall of the Roman Empire certain parts like the Province of Dacia and most mountainous regions of the Empire devolved from government. People live in villages or village unions and never got around to a full government, considering the fact that Churches where still made we can assume they also had books and also decent metallurgy for the time, so they where not backwards. But because of that they where easily conquered, though most invaders moved on, leaving them behind, but some did stick around and because an organized army beats an unorganized militia, they eventually lost and because of the threat caused by outer forces governments where formed, eventually.

>
There's no real profit in invading a people with no tax system, with ample resources to arm themselves and hire PMCs for defence, such wars would be so costly, and image destroying that it would be economic suicide for a business.

Two or there things, tax systems are easy to set up.

There is nothing stopping the guy from using WMD

And image does not matter so much if the guy made profit from raw resources or rare resources where people don't give a dam about image.

Notice how rulers of states have customers that kill them if they break a contract, aka a social contract.

Just because the modern state is bound to water down by lack of the control of citizens doesn't mean overthrowing that state implies non state is better, rather that a proper state is in order.

People should be free to move from the state, but also they should be free to be an active participant as a form of customer. This provides incentive for society to shift and do so in an organized manner that still wholes together communities and those that can prosper under common interest in a corporate structure that is a state. Right now we need to give people the freedom to do both in order to restructure the state, because it is the inability to choose that creates a failing state.

And if no profit existed in invading a people with no tax system why did Australia happen? Or America? Canada? WW2, which was a starting reconquest war for resources? What of great advances that advanced mankind only being done in a structure like a state?

A free state, not a non state, is the head of human progress and a freer state could possibly lead to anarchism with no need for a state but only under a social contract being perfected by the populace, which must be organized to be achieved through a social system like a nation state.

We need to see the set reason and purpose of the state itself as a whole and as en end game scenario to achieve real libertarian societies, not as a wall to break down but a bridge to build from.

Really just playing devils advocate at the moment, but I believe the volunterist argument for no state, is not so much it would be "better" just that it would be moral.
And the concept of a "proper state" is usually countered with "power always corrupts and will always inevitably devolve into modern socialism".
>pic related

not sure how a WMD would create a profitable economic base for tax or production, given how you are killing your likely workers and irradiating the landscape which would otherwise have highly diversified assets to capitalise on, from environmental to simple housing.

The insight into post imperial Rome is interesting, however I don't think it's entirely fair to compare the economic pressures of isolated communities in pre dark ages to the high information, highly economically diversified world we live in today.
Still good food for thought, thanks.

SOUNDS GOOD BRUH
LAMO

I'm a zealous Christian and I'm a voluntarist.

If you think Japan was being lorded over and forced to industrialize by the US, you're retarded.

Instead, they were forced to open their ports up for trade. The shogunate recognized that they'd be made into economic slaves of the Europeans if they didn't industrialize quickly, so they just fucking caught up centuries worth of commerce and science in like 40 years.

>jpeg artifacting
Holy fucking shit, how many times has this image been saved?

WMD is more than nuke. Stuff like Sarin would be a really great tool to scare people.

Question for all your Sup Forumsacks, lets says we somehow magically reach a post-scarity society and that every person with some minimal investment can easily live like a king nearly self-sufficiently.

How exactly would you earn money outside of extremely narrow job possibilities that are going to be oversaturated with job seekers anyway?

The reason it CAN'T exist by definition the human condition.

States will naturally occur in a population based on social contract, a method utilized through means of teaching and creating morals and a moral society under a set of rules that increases their prosperity. Just because money is involved in early anarcho cap societies doesn't mean it won't evolve into taxation and grand plans that involve inter-generational efforts that'll create a state structure.

Ignoring how every society that becomes advanced creates a state that inverses these ideals is ignoring human history. All we know of state based history is there because those that didn't employ that structure failed in comparison. Any state vs a non state structure in competition would fail, the state society would do better and expand influence and control opposed to it. That's why only the US-NATO led West and before hand the German NS state was the only one to oppose socialism. States naturally become either harsh social contracts against enslavement of other states or perish under those that will use force made within a state against it. Communism breeds in non states as well as Islam, Fascism and harsh rule over opened rule. People crave structure and those who don't will be over run by them, the trick is to create a free structure that creates a free society. A non state is one that has a greater chance to lose freedom than a free state.

...

Why would I if I can easily live like a king?

Instead I'd probably just curate art, literature, and chinese cartoons.

I always wanted to study the humanities more, but I didn't want to be a poorfag.

Money is a medium of exchange. The only reason anyone would want money is if someone else had something else they wanted, and they wanted to try to trade for that something. If you're assuming everyone "can easily live like a king" (people already live better lives than kings in the first world) with no input from others, I can't imagine what people would care to buy from others but unnecessary services.

Socialism. No really.

Post scarcity means over production of the means of production to a populace. Supply and demand as a rule of society is dispelled. Everyone gets everything, humanity has no drive, and like the famous mouse utopian experiment we die under these conditions because we are no longer needed.

To have such a society we will have to create a network of biological gratification so well that is can do its best to expand and control the stars than we ever could hope, our purpose is passed like a torch and we die in a eternal pleasure that burns us away.

youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM

>implying anyone who isn't in the top 10% of the economic ladder aren't de facto serfs today

toplyl

What if you require medical aid that requires a highly specialized doctor?

That's a service. But if we're going future mode you can chalk that up to auto-treatment capital that doesn't require human hands to operate.

>specialized doctors
Which are products of a structural society that creates the conditions of a productive environment that breeds such advances and applications of highly skilled sciences training and demand for pushing such people into existing.

A state. Again, all productive prosperous societies grew and growing took a state form over time to better the lives of those that actively participated in it in each others mutual interests. We need to restructure this idea, not toss it out of the garbage thinking it can't be equatable to what its been shown to be; the best plan to make humanity more prosperous.

Nothing is a product of a state. The only thing states do is thieve from others.

>Unless you like the idea of being a taxpayer to niggers for some masochistic reason.
current situation is SOOOOOO MUCH BETTER

>ignore the failures of oppression
oh the ironing

if anyone else thinks this poster is full of shit. check out bitcoin

Then why do all prosperous societies have states? If ideas are competition and states are not as good a way to live why does it win in the history of thousands of years of all known human societies in history?

Either they win naturally against non states in competition by participation of the greatest number of people who create the greatest amount of advances from the application of the state
OR
it's a natural incurable product of humanity that cannot just dissolve accept by application of itself to produce a better society that can be more voluntary and less traditionally forceful or over stepping the non aggression principle. Republics came out from autocracy. Socialism failed from its inability to produce freedom which worked while capitalist states prevailed. States are literally the form of people living collectively for a better productive means, and the ones that succeed are the better plan for society.

Either the state is better than the non state or it can create it. Either way statism must be applied and it will succeed over application of it. Transitionary or naturally superior, it's here to stay and reforming it is better than trying to scrape the whole.

>bitcoin
>the product of a reform of a state created economic form (nationalist capitalism) is proof it is not as successful as a non state

Just because a transition or reform of a state is better doesn't mean the state fails. It produced the steps necessary to create the transition, that itself is proof is can produce necessary means to a free society rather than the end means of a failing one.

Your not looking at the big picture, the question you should ask is can a state lead to a freer society in the long run and what does freedom entail? Progression is key to success, strengthening society to progress gives its generations gifts that produce such advanced societies that can transition into currencies like bitcoin.

Because people are controlling assholes who can't handle the idea that their existence or ideas might not matter to other people, so they shove themselves into other people's lives through violence while trying to justify it.

There's nothing necessarily competitive about ideas. I have ideas - they don't compete with anyone else's. Largely because I couldn't give a single shit about what most other people think whenever it's against the commandments of the Almighty God.

There's no "succeeding" with a state, unless you believe theft en mass is a success - since that's all a state necessarily does.

With the roads if someone personally owns and maintains it charging the people a flat rate for use rather than it being maintained with a bit of money porportional to each individuals wealth going to a large public fund you have an entier dofferent set of issues. The roads will have differing quality, some people just won't take care of them at all because people will take them anyway. The prices between roads will vary and some may be outragously overpriced and the prices will just keep growing as the owners try to maximize profit. It will be to the point where many of the poor can't afford to use the roads and they're only for the wealthy. This might seem okay to you if you believe in the bootstraps stuff, but you need to remember that the rich need the labor of the people. As they constrict and sqeeze the people for all they can get eventually it will come back to bite them when they no longer have a labor force or the people decide to rebel and put the owners head on a pike.
Hyperindividualism fails when you take anything more than a glance at it. No one human can accomplish much on their own, it's just now how things work. As humans we need the support of others in order to survive. A "self made" businessman wouldn't have the opportunity to be rich were it not for the education he was provided, the resources from all over the world he has at his disposal either because of his parents wealth or imperialism guarenteeing our access to those supplies. If you let people horde for themselves and leave others worse off you are creating a self destructive system that in the end will collapse.

Gas masks and detectors are a cheap and inexpensive communal investment dude. And again, contaminating an area and exterminating a population are not conducive to building a profitable state.

Again, the argument isn't that it's "better", just moral to not involk aggressive coercion. The threat of tyranny to take over isn't really valid, as it's not really morally applicable to get rid of an immoral thing even if it has the chance to return, no matter how likely that is.

Also, you are comparing people's "craving" for structure through the established lens of modern common thought, it's also human nature to rape indiscriminately, but to form a better moral social structure we "evolved" out of it, without the structure of modern education and cultural upbringing we are still no better than the animalistic cro-magnon, and so it should not be said to be impossible to improve common thought to incorporate the intolerance of anti-authoritarian structures, just like rape and all the other declared taboos.

Again, I'm only challenging your logic, I myself am also not convinced by volunterism or anarchy or whatever.

Just give it to him

Sarin goes through gas masks this is why it's so deadly and it dissipates after a while meaning that it's easy to clean up.

Also with the advent of automation land and resources will be worth more than people in certain situations.

Exactly, the human condition prevents it from working. Like communism it sounds good but it ignores basic human societal conditions naturally built in social interactions that will always create problems, mostly problems of productivity in social environments over generations and opposition of those willing to use force for their own benefits.

Making a state which opposes both of these issues is the only way to have a realistic free society, non states could happen but as a product of the state with gradual reforms built around the ability of people to employ betterment to themselves based on their ability to better others.

A state is necessary or inevitable, non state bitching otherwise is the same as those whining that communism has never really been tried, it ignores the elephant opposing them that is history and application of ideas.

Is it moral to deprive millions of future humans the better life a state can bring?

My logic is that by all accounts morality is built on a social system of long scale application, which only comes from a state, mostly a nation state. Values, morality and the ability to better society is built on application of a state in a correct manner, just because SJW's today are pushing the state into an insane hellhole of illogic and muh feels doesn't mean it itself is a institution worth throwing out. We need reforms not complete destruction of the idea.

The greater misery lay with disarming the people of the use of a state than in them creating one, the state will naturally occur because it is naturally productive and helpful to those that use it. So lets use it for the better of man.

There's no such thing as "the human condition" as some kind of unilateral universal quality of personality. There's a tendency of people to be incorrigibly psycho/sociopathic and feel a need to inject themselves into other's affairs, but it's not a rule. Tendency =/= law of nature.

A state is neither necessary nor inevitable. At best (for you) it's something more likely than not ceteris paribus going into the future.

Bitching about the state is actually more akin to bitching about murder or theft, which most people hold as entirely valid things to bitch about.

Humans compete, that's the free market that's war that's history because that is man. That is the condition. Humans competing with non states in states have won the world because their system was more productive and provided more potential for mankind. That's the element and application of human nature, unless you can make humans non competitive in a socialist form non states won't exist because mankind and the best of it is built on competitive environments of transitions. Non states will always lose out militarily, through markets, and through history as they remain irrelevant forgotten conquered or replaced by states from within.

can you give me a link saying it goes through gas masks? because I'm lead to believe it is dangerous to skin and requires a chemical body suit. it also has an antidote to neutralise it's effects on a person temporarily.

also, are you suggesting an economy based entirely on land for agriculture and resource excavation is a sustainable?

Humans don't necessarily compete, no. People tend to compete because beating other people out makes them feel better/nets them material things which make them feel better.

That's not a universal condition. Again: observed tendency =/= law of nature. There are people who have never competed or had a desire to compete with anyone their entire lives.

There is no universal human nature.

And again; I and others object to the state in a completely moral fashion. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Aggressive violence against others is wrong. Therefore states are wrong.

sorry, misunderstood what you meant by automation.
it is always cheaper to hire people over automated machinery, except when the price for human labour is driven well above market price by minimum wage laws.

a machine will always need replacing in order to stay competitive, it will always need maintenance and a constant stream of replacement parts, it is not a long term investment to completely eradicate labour costs, the energy cost is extremely expensive on it's own. Human's can always be cheaply retrained, their salaries can be subverted into insurance bennefits through cooperative agreements with insurance companies.

Automation is only needed when the cost of labour is driven up well past the market price which can only be done realistically by the state.

Yes they do. All successful humans compete. All successful societies are competitive.

Again this is communist tier thinking that humans aren't, hence why non statism is madness not based on logic but emotion and wishful thinking of what could be and that's why the application fails and the society produced is not as great as a free state society like the West has produced.

"Success" means different things to different people. Unless you're going to tell me your opinion of what success is constitutes a universal truth with perfect correspondence to that term, which is a metaphysical position that functions in complete opposition to empiricism/physicalism/materialism/naturalism, you're not saying anything substantial at all.

Pretty simple really, anarcho-communism doesn't exist. Communism requires a state to be in charge of redistribution. People will naturally barter with their belongings and labor (capitalism) so you will need a strong and repressive government to stop this. You can even call it the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to convince illiterate dirt farmers that it's a good idea.

Higher living standards.
Better productive means.
Better chance to educate apply skills and choose opportunities for yourself and family.

All of which have been expanded and produced by societies largely in statist societies. The fact a non statist society has never proved any of those that rival statist societies of have evolved to counter statist societies shows they loose either in competition or naturally fail to the success of statist societies. That's success, the survival of ideas that work.

There's no necessary correspondence between states and those.

Observed tendency =/= natural law. And even then, all I see states do is murder and steal from people - any good I've ever seen occur has been individual people doing it.

Unless you're going to tell me something good only a state could possibly do, you're not saying anything at all in support of the concept.

>he thinks conscription doesn't exist

Trust me conscription may be less common but when it happens in this 'modern' age i's a LOT more bloody. The amount of westerners conscripted by non-feudalist countries in the 20th century was enormous and the amount that died will always be a tragedy and probably was the beginning of the end for Europe. None of it is related to feudalism.

>That's success, the survival of ideas that work
That's not success to me at all. If bad ideas subsist - like the idea that murder or theft is acceptable - then that's abject failure.

>tripfagging

>observation=/=facts
Yes it does.
A state survives against other societies, that's what it does best.

Correlation =/= causation. If you observed maggots every time you found a carcass, you wouldn't say maggots come with carcasses as a natural law of the universe. Inductive reasoning is utterly limited.

They aren't, hence states provide the greatest security to prevent it via a tax system within a social contract. The state isn't perfect but it can be reformed, again it is a pathway to true non statism as non statism provides against the natural order of humans and only states have shown to intergenerationaly change humans to better benefit a social whole.

>cats
As long as it keeps netting me return conversations with other people I'll keep using it. And it has and does. They see the name and we continue where we left off.

>They aren't
What aren't? What in that post is "they aren't" addressing?

You can't "reform" a system of murder and theft - it's bad *NO MATTER WHAT*, as a moral *FACT*.

>observed maggots every time you saw a carcass

Yeah I'd say carcasses naturally provide the means of maggots to live as a product of its natural state of existence and maggots using it to create their own.

Correlation is related to causation, it isn't equivalent to it entirely but it is undoubtedly related to it. Success of states proves only that humans socially made to create a system of benefit will naturally occur, the state is a form of that next to voluntary trade. That's just true, an observation of a phenomena that is humans socially interacting.

>conversing with Sup Forumsacks

>Anarchism

>Thinks without states, there is no tyranny

That's not the nature of humanity, we are social animals and oligarchy naturally forms.

States and, particularly courts, exist not for justice, but for maintaining the peace between competing factions.

As in murder and theft. The greatest threat is outside communities, either nations or inside groups, that need to be surprised by force or threat of force to the benefit of the larger whole of the nation state. If the prison system didn't exist Detroit Chicago and Los Angeles would be rubble (more so than now).
The US would never overthrow the UK and become the sole superpower of the world spreading western ideals and winning against an even more authoritarian structure that controlled near half the planet.
Without a state authoritarianism rules because non states become victims of vicious autocratic rule such as Iraq to ISIS with the failing to build it into a nation once more.

Moral fact is that immorailty will exist either in a non state and state, morality can only be preserved and taught best to be so in a structured society like a state, and that reformation of a state rather than statelessness has shown best the path to create a moral society in realistic observable fashion for hundreds of years.

Ignoring the mountain of evidence is doing a disservice to creating a world you want because being realistic rather than idealistic is the only way to apply useful ideas rather than talk about fantasies you wish could be real.

You need way more information to make that conclusion than what "you see maggots every time you've seen carcasses (where you haven't seen every carcass)" provides you. This is *really* basic logic. Have you ever taken a logic course?

>correlation is related to causation
That is absolutely logically wrong. There's no relation whatsoever.

Wow kid when will you learn the only truth is might makes right

>American teacher
>Openly Communist/Marxist

Every time.

They are absolutely wrong. Murder and theft are always bad.

It's a moral argument - you're never going to convince me murder or theft is okay in x circumstance, no matter what x is, because it's always wrong. It is a moral fact. I'm not obligated to stop saying murder or theft is wrong just because they happen and probably will continue to happen - in the *exact* same fashion, I'm not obligated to stop saying states are abominations just because they'll probably keep being instantiated. That is absolutely disingenuous to try to argue I am.

Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron because communism literally cannot exist without a state to utilize force whenever someone tries to exert their property rights.

If Zebras eat grass I assume it nourishes them.
If birds eat worms I assume it nourishes them.
If maggots eat carcasses I assume it nourishes them.

That's called the observational method, the way to see things reoccuring in patterns and deduce the order of the phenomena. Applied to application of ideas you see statism succeeds over non statism over use of such ideas. You also see socialism fail.

Humans want to be happy, and if a non state society was possible to provide greater happiness we would've seen it emerge.
The fact that we haven't either shows statism succeeds and/or statism will create a society like such in the future if they are better via the social contract.

Then what about murder in defense of yourself? Or in defending an invasion from a structured powerful statist army? By using your own to repel them?

You have to admit statism is a means to move to a freer non state society though, that's what I'm saying. If your idea is right then the social contract and first means of states to exist will inevitably allow it to win out. If not then you are literally overlooking the reality of the society to advocate a moral good you say supersedes all.

It's like being a communist but non aggression trumps equality. It's cringey and exactly similar to the argument techniques used by them to justify supporting an idea overwhelmingly in opposition to their claims. Even Molyneux agrees the nation state needs to exist as a drive to create such a society he advocates.

>murder theft always bad

You don't assume that at all. For all you know, it's an automaton with programming that makes it "eat" grass, and gets no 'nourishment' whatsoever from doing so.

Humans don't also necessarily want to be happy. I couldn't care less about happiness - it's a non-value to me, so your generalization dies in instance-1.

>Then what about murder in defense of yourself?
Always wrong. I'm a perfectly intellectually consistent man - I'm a Christian pacifist voluntarist.

There is nothing free about murder and theft. Absolutely nothing. You can't do good by doing evil. Good is not evil - it's existentially impossible to render opposites equals.

>killing your near murderer is wrong
>humans don't want gratifications
>being Christian when it would've died to the Muslim invasions without Christian states protecting it

...

First of all, you admit yourself that post-scarcity means you hardly have to do anything to provide for your own needs.

Creative professions would boom. Art, music, literature, and video games would be where most people work, and if the popularity of shit like etsy is any indicator, I'll wager it'll be a new golden age for cottage industries as people turn to hand-crafted goods for variety. STEM fields would probably remain unaffected, still need someone to probe the bleeding edge of the laws of nature.

Basically, a capitalist utopia. Not sure what is smoking.

>following God's literal commandments is wrong
Top. Kek.

“Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.”
“Do not use force against an evil man.”
"Do not resist evil with evil.”
“Forgive and you will be forgiven.”
“In everything do to others as you would have them do to you.”

>property rights
>rights
Right are given by the state fuck off fascist.

Right fuck the crusaders defending against the hordes. Should've let them kill them all and install Islam.

That might've triggered the apocalypse, which would've been fine. When it ends it ends. There's no escaping judgment - and you're judged for what *YOU* do when it comes to God's commands, not what anyone else does.

>Thinks the state grants rights
>calls other people fascist

>Anarchists have always been about dismantling all forms of hierarchy.

nope not true at all my friend.

Anarchism traditionally fight to eliminate unjustified hierarchies.

But using muh tradition to define an "oxymoron" is simply fallacious.