Redpill me on this ideology. I don't have time to read a book, but you can suggest some anyhow

Redpill me on this ideology. I don't have time to read a book, but you can suggest some anyhow.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism
youtube.com/watch?v=yBCiMxuX9_g
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Almost perfect ideology; one flaw: no roads.

It's a fun idea, but it falls apart quickly.

People with power will take control.

You're the reason why this society is falling apart. You don't have time to read a book, yet you want knowledge. Why don't you kill yourself, motherfucker ? That'd be probably better. Fucking piece of shit.

Calm down Belgium, you still mad the UK left?

I don't have time because I'm not a fucking NEET like you, faggot

power naturally centralises

states don't just exist in a vacuum, they exist because that's what happens when large numbers of humans exist in the same area

Anarcho-Capitalism. The belief that there should be no government in favor of people controlling their own properties as individual "nations". The problem here is that without government, their money has no value. The "capitalism" part of Anarcho-Capitalism falls at the first hurdle.

books are shit.. i feel like theres too much narrative or self-promotion in them.. Im like OP.. i get my info from online discourse

The way I hear it explained is that it won't take away the power of a governing body, only make it more efficient due to it being made up of many competing businesses, Can anyone confirm or deny?

what about gold?

so you have a government made up of businessmen? is that what you're getting at?

>non-country

>govenment dictates monetary value

thats why you need "sound money" in the form of precious metals.. dont need a state to tell you the value

try no more hunger by william dudley pelley

Anarchism, of all types, are fundamentally flawed.

It may be desired to live without the interference of a state/government, but it is virtually impossible, and the only two (potentially three) examples that occurred in history failed miserably.

> be Catalonia, a region of spain, in 1936
> be full of leftists (primarily marxists, anarchists, socialists).
> use Workers' Unions to control business
> try to defend yourself against Franco
> get slaughtered

or

> be Ukraine during early USSR
> try to skip Dictatorship of the Proletariat and go straight to full communism
> be opposed by Tsarist sympathisers and Commies
> get completely destroyed by Red Army

In order to preserve your belief system, one must use force. This is how Islam manages to persist as an ideology. They execute mass amounts of people and use violence to perpetuate their miserable existence.

They are too unorganised, too decentralised, too individualistic, and it allows them to be easily conquered.

IMO we live in a global anarcho-capitalist system already, and governments have been built upon it and then at least somewhat democratized over the course of human history (like a corporation that decides to give all its employees shares).

It would be nice if everyone valued nonaggression and a good fair contract but aggressive institutions of power will arise from that naturally.

>I don't have time to actually educate myself so just shove anything down my gullet and I'll swallow it whole like the stupid piece of shit I am.

Somebody repost that series of pepes about ancaps. One was about parent starving its child to death since it was his property.

Roads are paid for by ads

Anarcho-capitalism: the sole purpose of society is to maximize the freedom of the individual. Government is by definition the negation of freedom. Therefore remove government and allow all voluntary actions (personal, economic, etc.) to take place. Read Murray Rothbard and David Friedman for deontological and consequentialist reasoning for that system.

Commentary: Completely unrealistic viewpoint. Government in many ways is generated purposely to maintain commerce and exchange. Without centralized government, AnCap will merely degenerate into a series of sub-corporate-governments; effectively a feudal system. At some point one feudal system will rise up, become larger and take us right back to huge government. Sounds great in theory, but cannot be actualized in the real world.

The best system to build a society on. Privatize everything, No federal government, property rights for the individual and the right to shoot and kill anyone who threatens your right to your property

Fpbp

It's pure ideology.

There's a couple more. Think of streetlights, lighthouses etc.

I suppose. But the businesses will be competing within the "govt" so it isn't so centralized or monolithic. but i cant shill for this belief because im not to sure this is what they even think

If you don't know something well enough to argue for it, you definitely don't know it well enough to argue against it.

wait so there's still a government, but corporations exist and compete with it for goods and services?

if so that's not really what AnCap is all about, read Friedman and Rothbard to properly understand the AnCap ideology, reading some of their books is what turned me away from it

No, with AnCapism, no government, and businesses rise and fall with the ebb and flow of supply and demand. Anarchism is just flawed, as I previously mentioned.

t. Someone who was an editor for a popular Anarchist meme page for a while.

...

What the fuck is that?

Like every other form of arachy basically

they want to be the borg

Ancap is a free market on steroids, no laws. You can't own slaves, you can't own property. You can only 'claim' these things, but there's no risk aside from the agreements between buyer and seller (they have no way of suing each other though).

People could still make their own laws, but they would be non-binding.

...

Has a very strong theoretical foundation but lacks real-world empiricist data (apart from the obvious free market benefits against communism/socialism).

Read:
>Human Action by Ludwig von Mises
>Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard
>The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard
>Democracy—The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Ancap is a shekel ideology. Nothing for non Jews.

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism

this is the right one :^)

>I don't have time to read a book

Capitalism in the way Rothbard and co. describe cannot work without a state for very long.

It'll turn into some tribal shit eventually leading to big government again.

its a sham and a pipe dream. literal shit of anarchist theories. anybody who believes it is a sustainable society is a fucking moron.

It's like the wild west but modern.

If you don't have time to read a book I'd recommend you to watch the speeches of Tom Woods at the Mises Institute.

youtube.com/watch?v=yBCiMxuX9_g

If anything, those will show you there's actually a lot of common sense to it and will dispel all the memes Sup Forums spouts often.

...

True anarchy, not that ancom BS.

After a couple hundred years civilization would probably start up again though. I see it as a reset button.

The reason AnCap is a meme is because it's already in effect, but on a larger, more legitimized scale.

It's the same reason anarchism is a meme, because nature is by default without man-made laws.

>Civilization means central governments.

An ideology for people who want to watch child porn and take drugs without going to prison.

> because nature is by default without man-made laws.

True, but hierarchy is a natural thing. AnCaps promote voluntary hierarchy, which may be nice, but isn't realistic. The weak will always be subjugated by the strong. Authority can never be destroyed. Almost all anarchists (with the exception of Egoists) wish to find ways to avoid the natural occurrence of authority. Ancaps make it voluntary, Ancoms attempt to make a communal authority, and syndacalists use organisations for authority. Some cause, some authority, some person or thing will always be above you. It is the flaw of anarchism.

>spics read

t. John García

Almost perfect ideology; one flaw: other humans.

...

...

...

If one man has to get around at night, either by water or by road, you can bet that at least one person along the line of humanity will find a cost-effective way of illuminating his path for safety. He may establish such illumination for his purposes only, but others may follow suit if suitable lighting is a problem for night-goers. Not an ancap, just a Friedman-ite and I can fathom private-market solutions.

...

...

...

Did they actually say the shit on the right?

It'll grant you pic related :3

i know a lot of people on Sup Forums are sociopathic but do you think this will be the norm

Yes, of course they did, but those quotes are severely out of context to make them look as if they changed radically their opinions, when actually some of these pair of quotes in the very same book.

Libertarianism isn't as bi-dimensional as most of Sup Forums thinks.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Chill out, Sideways Germany

Awful thread, night kids

Daily reminder Libertarianism != Anarcho-capitalism

but it's the logical extreme no?

I'll hand it to libertarians and ancaps when it comes to tearing Marx apart. They're right about Marx being a bullshit philosopher with no real world economic or work experience.

How the fuck does anyone take Karl Marx seriously? He was just a B-list actor living mostly off of his rich family and friends until he decided to start writing about his own bullshit special snowflake philosophy despite having no background in philosophy or political theory whatsoever, in a series of poorly written fiction novels. No wait, my bad that was Ayn Rand.

Marx was born to an incredibly wealthy family and the only times he wasn’t cloistered with academics, he was philandering with the wealthy elite. The first half of his career he was funded almost entirely by a wealthy businessman, and then the second half of his career was at various academic institutions when that fell through. Oh shit, I’m confused that was Murray Rothbard.

Ok, ok, Marx was basically a government bureaucrat who eventually became a college professor and did little else. Man I fucked up again, sorry. That’s Milton Friedman. I’m struggling here.

...

Anarchism: The simple idea that it is morally and pragmatically wrong for ANYONE to use aggression and threats of violence against other people except in self defence.

more dumb than socialism, quite the achievement

>why can't I hold all these ad hominems

Debate their ideas or shut the fuck up.

Ayn Rand's most important novel has been in uninterrupted edition for more than fifty years, being printed between 15,000 and 30,000 per month even today.

Milton Friedman got the Nobel in economics.

Murray N. Rothbard has more academic accomplishments than any of all the lefty sociology spouters you could ever list combined.

Nah, you're a faggot. And you lost. See, you don't understand humans because you're an autiste who tries to think like a fucking calculator. Doesn't work like that. Humans do not think numerically. Now go "beep boop" fuck yourself.

Ayn Rand, objectivist. Hated libertardians and anarcho-capitalists with great passion

Milton Friedman, classic liberal, Chicago school. Despised anarchism.

Rothbard: demented idiot, spent an entire life unironically dedicated to unachievable, infantile utopia. Worse than Marx.

Would there be any way to make sure that no cartels would be formed?

PRETTY
MUCH
A
NON
COUNTRY

A FUCKING NON COUNTRY