Anarchy is the best political philosophy out there

Anarchy is the best political philosophy out there.

Why aren't we doing this already?

Too much of a pussy?


Anarchism thread.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=NKERC6F7mSM
youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Early_years
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Anyone who isn't an anarchist is a filthy statist who needs violence to help him treat his gender dysphoria

...

I've reached the truth my friend. And it's that's wrong, I don't want to be right.

>tfw Sup Forums used to be a Libertarian board

If plenty of freedom of good. Surely, unlimited freedom is really good.

Which anarchism? There are so many subtypes and they're all completely different from one another except for their opposition to the state.

Keeping this bumped.

t. fellow ancap

we grew up m8

Lefty anarchists misidentify the state, so they really shouldn't be considered anarchists.

The only true anarchists are anarcho-capitalists.

Anarcho-Capitalism, a market based society with no government.

in to big strong retards

>Anarchy is the best political philosophy out there.

t. edgy 14 year old on summer vacation.

How's the government doing? Fucking sheeple

t. bootlicker who thinks his pet government won't turn on him

...

Sup Forums is anarcho fascist. Tribalism is the most natural order, can't have freedom without a gang of men protecting the perimeter.

youtube.com/watch?v=NKERC6F7mSM

What's stopping suitably powerful groups from just becoming governments? Infrastructure and borders develop naturally.

>This was me 4 years ago

Libertarianism is the way to go.

I have nothing against defense my friend. It's when those gang of men turn on their own society where I draw the line.

Because anarchy is for selfish cucks who are more concerned with their lives than that of their nation.

Some people just need to be forced to be selfless, deal with it.

These are lefty anarchists, ie degenerates.

And, not an argument.

Remember the Muslim invasion is a government sponsored program. They give Muslim incentive to come. This would not be the case in a free market, since low IQ people would come to high IQ Europe and fail without forced assistance.

What are you, fucking 12?
Anarchism is basically leaving people run around and do whatever the fuck they want.
It's not the stone age anymore, faggot. Organize yourself.

>turn on their own society
Criminals are not part of the society.

This is ancap thread, friend. We hate fake lefty black flag "anarchists" just as much as everyone else.

>Being this ignorant.

Anarchy is order.

Why wouldn't you be able to organize in a society without forced redistribution of income?

We are already living in Anarchy. The government is just more powerful than you, and has made you their bitch. If you had any skills, you could rise to the top and shape the world the way you want it. But you're living in some fantasy world were you think redefining existence will somehow grant you more freedom.

>organize yourself
B-b-b-but people will do that naturally via incentives without any incentives at all :^)))
The only moral action is reaction!!!!!!1!

nope

>What's stopping suitably powerful groups from just becoming governments

Having many competing defense agencies.

If that doesn't work out, at least we had a few years of true freedom. That's infinitely better than perpetual state slavery.

Anarchy is chaos with brief islands of stability spontaneously coming into existence and disappearing moments later.

...

Anarcho-syndicalism is the real and natural state of civilization. All governments exist within and stand (feebly) opposed to the reality of anarchy. You're born into a society which imposes strictures on conduct, but the legitimacy of that system is derived from the threat of violence against you if you disobey. Order is only maintained by brutality and fear of brutality. The line between order and chaos is an imaginary one.

>Living in anarchy
Kekus maximus.
You call being forced to pay money to some dickheads because the majority said so is anarchy?

This nigga can't even Google this shit.

kek smiles upon me

>Having many competing defense agencies.
And then one of them gets big enough, or colludes with other agencies, and forms a state.

>That's infinitely better than perpetual state slavery.
Better to keep the state you know and attempt to fix it, than to welcome the state you do not know.

...

I see a lot of female anarchists and I like to fantasize about kicking door on them and raping them a gun point but before then give them a chance to call the cops so they either turn their backs on everything they stand for or take a hard fucking

Sure it is, you're free to rebel and not pay your taxes at any time.

Big Brother won't like you mooching off his land, though.

...

>threatening people with violence
>vs. having more resources than someone

Statists actually think these are the same thing. Top kek.

This is the government right now.
:)
If they do, people simply stop giving them money, problem solved.

...

Spooks are a spook as well

>Anarcho-Fascist

They cancel each other out

I'll get arrested and put in prison in no time.

>government owns the land

Cool ideology but incompatible with humans, just like communsim.

>Anarchist

You are a pedophile and want to abolish the state because you want to watch cp and/or molest kids without going to prison.

Or you are a junkie or a stoner.

>he thinks he can get people to respect his property rights without force

why are ancaps such plebs?

>Competing defense agencies

Sounds like people are already organizing, competing, and establishing territories. I wonder how long it'll take before they take over/combine with other industries and form one big package for people

>A few years of true freedom

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm an ancap at heart, and I love the dream. It just doesn't last.

Are our current governments not just applied anarchy? After a while of it people get tired of being raped and abused so governments form. Being older than 12 and considering yourself anarchist is fucking retarded

...

Choose one first of all.

And in an anarchist society we would still have laws and morals. You can't initiate force. Children can't give consent. Having sex with children is rape, ie initiation of force.

Too bad, the confederated defense agencies just claimed your city as their property, and have instituted a 10% rent for living on their land.
If you refuse, they just toss you out of city limits.
If you refuse to sign the contract stipulating this, then you're no longer under their protection and cannot be insured against any "accidents"

>posting my image before me
reeee
Oh, and I'm sure that ancaps believe in reactionary force.
The problem is that they don't believe in proactive force.

It is just like communism

another utopian belief system promoted by jews

top kek

>He feel for the Anarchy meme.

>laws
Who enforces the laws?
Who decides which set of laws to follow?
Who decides which set of laws have which jurisdictions?

>morals
Morals don't exist without force to maintain them; if someone fundamentally disagrees with the NAP, tough shit, they don't care if you think diddling kiddies is wrong.

Haven't you read the "competing" part of the agencies? They've would be many. So the force and power would be decentralised, unlike governments.

>You could have prevented this

>libertardianism is the way

lol edgy summer cancer
mfw you hate roads

Anyone breaking the NAP would be put in jail, or if it's an immediate threat, people will take the matter to their own hands and defend themselves.

>Who enforces the laws?

The police.

>Who decides which set of laws to follow?

The consumer.

>Who decides which set of laws have which jurisdictions?

Whatever consumers + companies agree to.

Anarchy doesn't mean no institutions, it just means you can't initiate force against people. It's not that hard to understand.

Why? Fascism comes from fasces (a bundle of sticks), it symbolizes the band of brothers. Anarcho fascism is a male centric and martial approach to a free society. Libertarianism with ethnocentrism.

You are so dumb.

Have you ever heard of private roads?

The thing is not to be able to, but to want to.
Yeah, you guys could organize, but what about stupid niggers or arabs? Without any law to keep them organized, they'll just kill eachother and destroy everything that keeps them from doing so.
Most people are dumb as fuck, and need to be kept in line like the stupid monkeys they are.

Weird, if that's the case why didn't Arabs and blacks wipe themselves out before any government was put in place?

>Being this autistic.

Privatizing the police force could never work, especially with no regulation. Clearly one group would get a monopoly and be the fucking government at that point, doing whatever they want.

Anarchy does not work if anyone actually wants institutions or stability and thinking for 30 fucking seconds shows that

Anarchy isn't a philosophy, it's the absence of any philosophy.

Well lets see...
20% of the world population is white/south east asian and capable of creating a stable society, innovate
80% of the world is literally hyper aggressive monkeys

Yeah, open borders all the way, fuck the military...
There comes a time when you to my edgy teenage friend will wake up to the reality that the smart people will be killed off without organized defense of their territory

Or you are just a Jew, trying to destroy western society with destructive ideologies...

A free market ensures that no one company or institution becomes a monopoly. Monopolies only form when they are given special privileges from a state.

>There would be many
Alright, so two small agencies out of a hundred in a region join up.
Then they have a merger with a third.
And then subsidize a fourth and fifth.
Whoopsydaisy, they now have 5% of all the power in the region, are on track to get more, and it's highly unlikely that the rest of the agencies will instant ally with each other.

Who's jail?
Who decides which jail to go to?
What if the people who own the jail decide that the NAP is for plebes?
If the people could defend themselves satisfactorily, why did they fund a private defense agency?

>the police
Which police?
Which consumers?
What if different consumers disagree on different laws?
What if the consumers and companies can't come to an agreement on who has what jurisdiction?

>It's not that hard to understand.
Oh, I know. It's incredibly simple.
It's also incredibly retarded, childish, naive, utopian, and cancerous.
Proactive force has its merits, just as reactive force does.
Force is not evil, evil actions are evil.

Anarchism doesn't mean pacifism...

They did.
In fact, I'm pretty sure everyone did.
Mongols, slavs, africans, white, whatever. They all waged war at eachother just to get more land or whatever the fuck they wanted.

Eh, atleast they formed tribes and tried to organize themselves, not like anarchists.

Anarchists are not anti-regulation, you fucking retard.

>Clearly one group would get a monopoly and be the fucking government at that point

Well then we're back to square one aren't we? And we had a few years of freedom. Anarchy is still the better option here.

>Anarchy does not work if anyone actually wants institutions or stability and thinking for 30 fucking seconds shows that

Then you don't understand anarchy. Anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no rulers.

>blacks
Tribal structures sorta count as a government, and regardless, tribes are too small for mutual destruction.

>arabs
You dumb fucking nigger, arabs had governments since Rome and before. For fucks sake, the very concept of government originated in Mesopotamia and quickly spread outwards from there.

You're asking questions, which is good.
Check this video out.
youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o

Oh my god i'm dying laughing. No monopolies would still exist. Look at post civil-war US, a free market in which companies would use different techniques to destroy competition like opening business next to another then dropping their prices to put them out of business. It's easy and simple. And once this police force, or any other military force has unregulated power or no competition they can do as this wish leading to, essentially, a government.

Watch this

Who decides which regulations are to be followed?
What if I decide I don't like those regulations, and don't follow them?

>And we had a few years of freedom. Anarchy is still the better option here.
Listen, I know it doesn't mesh with your mojo mantra of "FREEDOM(tm)" all that well, but stable """slavery""" is far, far better than a few years of WOOHOO FREEDOM BOYS WOOOOOO.

>Anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no rulers.
Rules require rulers, they both come from the word "rule" for fucks sake! More precisely, rules require a singular source of authority by which everyone subject to those rules is subordinate to.
Whether this source of authority, the state, is a single man (a monarchy), a group of men (an oligarchy), or all men (a democracy) is dependent upon the government.

>Anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no rulers.
That sounds an awful lot like communism to me.

I'm off to sleep you filthy statists. I enjoyed arguing with you.

>opening business next to another then dropping their prices to put them out of business

Name a single company that profited from this strategy.

...

>I don't know what I'm talking about

>Anarchism doesn't mean pacifism...

Yeah, good like organizing thousands of people on a large area to fight together against invaders when everybody worships Individualism.
Who is going to fight and die in the first row?
Me me me me me is the death of western society!

This video puts too much faith in private business. The claim that all their conflicts will be upheld from a contract based solely on the will not to lose business is not. Going. To. Work. All these corporations will constantly be trying to undermine the other, slowly chipping away at competition. Just because a group is private doesn't mean they give two shits about their customers or what's right. In fact, any company like this would only be in such a large position through backstabbing others. The business world is doing whatever it takes to beat out competition. That is what so many libertarians/anarchists put faith in, competition, but its very nature is to be other groups making yourself the sole dominant figure. In any given, unregulated scenario of a free market society, given enough time, there will be monopolies of everything giving a select few any power.

"In a seminal deal, in 1868, the Lake Shore Railroad, a part of the New York Central, gave Rockefeller's firm a going rate of one cent a gallon or forty-two cents a barrel, an effective 71 percent discount from its listed rates in return for a promise to ship at least 60 carloads of oil daily and to handle the loading and unloading on its own. Smaller companies decried such deals as unfair because they were not producing enough oil to qualify for discounts."
via en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Early_years

And on top of that there were other techniques like those of the westward expanding US RR companies to take advantage of famers and other groups as they had no competition.

>That is what so many libertarians/anarchists put faith in, competition, but its very nature is to be other groups making yourself the sole dominant figure.
This; where the fuck do you think the state itself came from?
Competition between petty warlords and chiefs, which morphed into competition between city-states, which became competition between kingdoms, which became competition between nations.
The entire history of humanity as been reducing anarchy at the most fundamental, individual levels, while moving competition upwards into more abstract levels of organization.

For the Libertarians here, please understand that the NAP is a negative concept, much like justice. Just as justice is the absence of injustice, the NAP is merely the absence of aggression. However, people will avoid work as they avoid pain so you must make stealing more painful than labor.
Also remember; the NAP is not pacifism, if someone is to threaten you or your property, it is justified the use force to stop them.
Furthermore, there can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.

Aggression and force are not necessarily immoral, and as such the NAP is not necessarily moral.

>Anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no rulers.

Only followers don't understand that there will always be leader personalities who pull more than their own weight.

Just because you call your master "Government", doesn't mean that if you overthrow them, you are free. You will always have someone more powerfull than you take from you, because you are a bitch. In your fantasy world, it would just be someone with more guns comming into your territory to rape your women and cut your dick off.

When, in your opinion, is it acceptable to initiate force?

Actually, i prefer feudalism if you want to play make believe things that will never happen

Depends on what you're initiating force for.

Forcing people to wear seatbelts or to obtain a driver's license in order to mitigate accidents and death is an acceptable use of force.

Taxing people for the common good of the nation and its defense is an acceptable good of force.

Taxing people and using that money to fund scientific research is an acceptable use of force. Although the market is more efficient when it comes to research, there is no gurantee that it will, while there is such a gurantee with a government willing to do so. Scientific knowledge is worth it for itself.

Institutionalizing a mentally unstable person for their and other's safety is an acceptable use of force.

You get the idea.

>inb4 you somehow twist all of these to fit with the NAP idealized definition of harm

At the very least, Feudalism has historical success.

If roads were private then that would probably be something that is enforced anyway, though most people wear them anyway, a law maybe unnecessary.

It's fine to have a force to defend your nation, just be careful it doesn't become a tool to expand the state's power into other nations. The outcomes are not favorable.

It depends on the scientific research. If you are going to tax people to fund it, it must benefit them in a provable way. Government grants are a huge waste of money.

Stopping a mentally ill person from harming themselves or others is not aggression.

I'm not twisting them, but maybe it would be best to figure out ways to do or have those things without initiating force.