What is the dumbest political ideology

Post what you think is the dumbest political ideology and why.

In my opinion it's anarcho-capitalism. It's pretty much what I assume a libertarian would come up with if they had a 5 year olds understanding of human nature rather than the 10 year olds they usually do.
Anarcho-Capitalism
>rape is legal
>murder is fine
>prostitution ok
>child prostitution is ok since kids are property

Before you fags jump in with ideas of consent and non-agression remember that there is no government. Who the fuck is supposed to enforce it. Anarcho-caps are pretty much arguing that Somalia is the ideal state. Except that somalia also has too many laws.

Oh but wait. Anarcho-capitalism only works in a racially homogeneous society.
1. Somalia is racially homogeneous
2. how are you going to prevent people from coming in if there's no military, police, or government to build and maintain a border.

...

hey

You pretty much posted it.

more of these

Anarchy only works if there are no states at all. We need to dismantle all states in existence in order to reap the benefits of Anarch-capitalism.

Does everybody here actually agree that anarcho-capitalism is the dumbest political ideology.

...

As a libertarian I am quite fond of ancaps because they help make us look more moderate by comparison.

but somalia is full of niggers

>Does everybody here actually agree that anarcho-capitalism is the dumbest political ideology.
Dude. Even Communism is more sensible, it's just overly optimistic. AnCap basically just means "I believe in creating corporate monarchies".

Not an argument

...

Not an argument

>ancap in theory
freedom, joy, prosperity
>ancap in practice
serfdom, sorrow and poverty

You can compare it to being able to become landowner as a serf, if you like feudalism take a trip 100 years back in time and be a serf in russia, you would get your shit up fucked fast
Ancap is just a more catchy word for teens than neofeudalism is

There is still law in an anarchistic society, the difference is there isn't a monopolization of force that dictates the law.

...

All political ideologies in the last 300 years are garbage. Return to Plato's Republic and then go from there. A state built on justice and philosopher kings is the greatest of them of all.

Yeah remember how fun it was back during the middle ages when Kingdoms would slaughter eachothers' peasants while trying to deprive the other sovereign of their ability to coerce others in long bloody wars? Wasn't that fucking great?

when the libs become shitposters themselves when in fact we in the alt right and Nrx control the memes of production and the memosphere.

>Oh but wait. Anarcho-capitalism only works in a racially homogeneous society.
>1. Somalia is racially homogeneous
"racially homogeneous" is a codeword for "no darkies"

>i have no idea what anarchy means

imbecile.

We don't need one. An-caps are usually a-priori self-refuting .

Yeah

No, anarcho-communism is much worse and doesn't make sense period.

Great. With smarter whites instead of having small scale turf wars you would have larger ones with more destruction and suffering.

If I did what would you do about it.

>there isn't a monopolization of force that dictates the law

so in other words a million vigilantes?

...

this, at least capitalism will default take over in anarchy

feudalism and monarchy during the middle ages have no relevance to anarchy. The peasants willingly subjucated themselves to the nobility who were perceived as "authority". The peasants didn't wage the wars, they just followed orders. The whole purpose of an anarchistic society is to abolish the myth of authority.

>implying that the republic isn't just larping and isn't just as much a pipe dream as anarcho-capitalsm

As if whites would be any better. If anything it would be worse. Whites are smarter and would probably come up with ways to cause more suffering and destruction

Is this an actual belief? I don't see how that's even possible.

Not really. What takes default is force. Capitalism only works if one group has a monopoly on force to make sure everyone plays by fair rules. Without a central government there is no capitalism. There is give me this for this price or I will rape and kill your entire family and then take it.

Whats the difference. They are pretty much the same thing. the only difference is in what they believe the end goal of anarchy would be. Which they both fail to see would be absolute shit.

>we haven't tried real socialism before

Anarcho-capitalism is a paradox once you demystify the notion of what a "government" is and reject the Kantian morality that only a direct aggression is a harm and that an omission or otherwise predictable consequence is removed from moral liability.

Governemnt is any form of enforcement of will by some people over others. You have corporations, they make contracts, what do they do to enforce them? Any mechanism thereof is an act of governance even if you don't call it that.

You have an interest in a market for various utilities and security: all that essentially would be is a democratic-is governemnt that is divided into its sectors rather than branches and people literally vote with their wallets what services are afforded to them.

And ultimately this still assumes that there would be a standardized currency that these barons who just so happened to be called corporations would use as a medium of trade and would necessarily respect. Why would they? How could they even?

Society would necessarily just be a shitshow. A return to serfdom in a barter economy, rife with banditry and invasions of rival corporate powers. Actual business owners don't want anarcho-capitalism. They want a government, just a sensible one with reasonable and predictable courts of law and equity for their business dealings. If anything they would love "more" governemnt insofar as we get more courts and judges to counter the already overloaded docket.

>mfw when I read such utter bullshit

Lets just give you the benefit of the doubt and see what happens
>no authority
>certain individuals start accruing resources and wealth due to being more fit/charming/etc
>these individuals soon have others swear allegiance to them.
>these group starts becoming hard to oppose as individuals.
>other groups form
>individuals that are left are forced by these big groups to swear allegiance or risk being killed
>groups become massive and start forming state like entities
>repeat history from 4000bc-now

There's still a monopoly on force dumbass it's just a much smaller geographical area

you are now fighting for the monopoly of force with roving bandits

>willingly

kek

If you went against the aristocracy you were slaughtered like a dog.

...

...

...

She is a libertardian and a jewlover.

>Anarcho-Capitalism

Is the jew's ideal and with his unlimited supply of shekels he would own all the goyim in the land

...

Not if you refused to acknowledge his currency. Read up on the NAP.

And property rights is authority. If I live near a spring, and dasani owns that spring and won't let me drink, a proper anarchist would tell them to fuck off and drink from it, then fight anyone who tries to stop them.

Anarchy and capitalism don't work, because the objective of capitalism is to own (control) as much money/resources/influence as possible.

Democratic socialism.

Even jews hate anarcho-capitalism. Jews would be fucked in an anarcho-capitalist society. There is literally no group of people that would benefit under an anarcho-capitalist society.

...

...

...

Eh. Anarcho-capitalism is way worse. I'd rather pay a 50% income tax rather then be murdered and have my wife raped by marauding tribes.

>There is still law in an anarchistic society, the difference is there isn't a monopolization of force that dictates the law.
>420
This post basically.

...

what is the deal with this guy and ancaps???

...

you can't have a functioning political system without a monopoly on force

It's really that simple.

That's Stirner. The images all illustrate a fundamental problem with anarcho-capitalism, that is that it only works if all parties agree to live under capitalism. The only problem with that is that no one would do that unless they were forced to do so, much like they are now via the state.

cool, thanks

explain this image i dont get it

just read stirner's wiki and he basically said that might = right when it comes to property so natural property rights are an illusion just like some ethical principle like the NAP

Do you actually think, that people who want no government, are more delusional than people making prayers to their eternal leader Kim, or communist anarchists?
Or the worst: Islam is also a political system disguised as a religion.

Anarcho-capitalism just describes a system which slowly replaces the state with private entities not a new system that can be implemented in a revolution.

I don't think this can exist outside of the dream world of its followers. It will just be the normal at some point when capitalism just optimizes away all the state's institutions.

>how are you going to prevent people from coming in if there's no military, police, or government to build and maintain a border
I know it is bait but...
For starters, no welfare, no health care. Social pressure to not employ foreigners or rent to them.
Also who says that there would be no military, borders or police. They would just be called different names and organisation would be private.

Military to secure borders are just property owners organising and paying a security force to enforce their claim on land and to subjugate land that refuses to trade for irrational reasons.
Also big companies and insurance companies will want to secure their trade routes from being pirated.

>mfw when I read this post
Kims communism is almost as bad as anarcho-capitalism. Islam is hundreds of time better than either. Islam might have draconian laws, but for the most part when enforced it creates relatively stable societies. I'd would rather live in Saudi Arabia then in an anarcho-capitalist society.

>Anarcho-capitalism just describes a system which slowly replaces the state with private entities not a new system that can be implemented in a revolution.
So it pretty much is what is happening right now with globalization but much worse. The private entities aren't going to be individuals they are going to be multinational mega-corps. If you think your freedom is curtailed now just wait.

>It will just be the normal at some point when capitalism just optimizes away all the state's institutions.
Capitalism is self-defeating. It requires continuous growth. Which is a problem when resources are finite and the population isn't growing anymore. Capitalism is also shit at optimizing certain institutions. Sometimes non-capitalistic government spending is necessary.

>Also who says that there would be no military, borders or police. They would just be called different names and organisation would be private.
roving militias. got it. what happens if you aren't a part of on of these militias and they decide to attack you and your group.

>Military to secure borders are just property owners organising and paying a security force to enforce their claim on land and to subjugate land that refuses to trade for irrational reasons.
Also big companies and insurance companies will want to secure their trade routes from being pirated.
Military spending is ridiculously expensive. You really think private companies are going to be able to fund the thousands of ships needed to secure trade routes. Also you really think they won't use those ships to exert monopolies and tarifs on other companies

I've met a self proclaimed anarcho-communist (in his 40s...YEAH) so I'm going to say no

I've met one. All he could specify was that "Automated labour is going to free us all"
He's under the impression that once the technocratic 1% no longer needs the rest of us for our labour, that they'll create a paradise for a steadily rising global population instead of cutting off welfare for the humans who produce nothing of value to them while occupying land and resources they could use. I tried explaining to him that while engines freed horses from their labour, it didn't keep them alive but at that point all he could do was spew fallacies at me. "I've been around for a quite a few more years than you, (approximately 20) I've got a pretty good idea of how the world works" Well that's fucking fantastic, how about you use that breadth of knowledge and wisdom to actually come up with a fucking argument you fucking hack. Sorry, I'm still mad over that converstation

Ancap would be the quickest to reinstate the state.
Within a few weeks there'd be a new government.

Theocracy can destroy progress for hundreds of years.