Anarchists

Do many anarchists spend time on here? If so, how do you find it? Do anarchist threads often end up being more hostile or do anarchists and fascists/authoritarians just keep to their own threads more?

I honestly think anarchism is something we might evolve into, but we're clearly not getting it soon I don't think. I guess governments being disbanded doesn't help elites keep things nicely divided and conquered though.

Or is it that anarchists almost always stay away from here and this thread is going to turn to shit almost instantly?

Anyway, was just wondering so thought I'd ask.

Looks like Sup Forums needs more anarchists.

Gif related

...

Sup Forums is terrified of AnCaps and spams any thread with shitty memes so no discussion can take place.

I am a neoreactionary who is borderline AnCap.

Neocameralism > 'polycentric law' IMO.

Anyone who calls themselves an AnCap deserves to get their face smashed in with a hammer by a pack of wild dindus.

Hello Rorschach Romanov.

I am an anarcho communist destroy the class system the 1 percent will no longer prop up the state the state will whither away.

We need a general for anarchism.

Oh they were here pretty hardcore for a bit.

...

What kind of anarcho-communism? I have no issue with laborers voluntarily forming cooperative firms. I do -- however -- take issue with authoritarian communism which deprives people of property rights.

aren't anarchists basically "I'm too smart for the rules to apply to me " ?

Some.

>and a small picture of Ron Paul
kek. gets me every time.

There are many anarchists here, just as there are many libertarians, liberals, traditionalists, communists, socialists, national socialists, fascists, etc...
This is a great part of the internet where you can speak your mind without fear of being censored by moderators, and if your idea holds up, it might catch on.
Humour in any idea you put forward is appreciated, but it will undoubtedly be added as people give you shit for your opinion no matter what.
If you take yourself very seriously you will have the shit torn out of you, unless you have an incredibly high IQ and can take on just about any argument.
It's not an aggressive environment, as much as it can be easily perceived that way.
It's an environment which is full of trolls and shills, but also the most genuine people you'll ever meet.
The people here don't have social responsibilities or consequences to answer to, and that ability for complete candidness is this place's greatest strength.
It's an environment which teaches you that words are only that; words, and that they hold no power when you give them no power.

I wish Sup Forums had secondary political philosophy flags.

Not an argument.

>ability for complete candidness is this place's greatest strength
that is the power of being user.

for the same reason we should not have any flags

if you want to collect your 30 pieces of flair then there is another place you can go for that

Q. What is an argument?

A. Not.

>if you want to collect your 30 pieces of flair then there is another place you can go for that

Plebbit?

Anarchy is a bullshit pipedream.

Like a working communist society or a utopia.

It works as a concept, but not in practice.

The strongest or smartest establish some sort of power base, and then things to support their version of order soon follow.

>Pro tip: You can't prove this wrong.

Comprehensive anarchy is indeed encumbered by many impracticalities: hence, neocameralism (which is realistic anarchism).

So you prefer a state to have control through force than a successful company becoming a big entity by providing great service to the public?

Or you have some other system in mind?

Dubs.

There are many different -ist here, it's just the more daft ones don't last long in a discussion.

The most obvious one are communists, as they generally lack any specific plans for certain steps to their "utopia", or worse, start prattling on about post-scarcity

Commies are actually (usually) more sophisticated than basic bitch progressives.

>Implying the company wouldn't use force to keep it's dominance. Implying they'd continue to offer great service after establishing their monopoly.

>Wew lady, and besides, just looking at almost any and all dystopia [in particularly cyberpunk] it's always neocameralism, and it's always terrible.

I'm ancap, what up my man

You got any evidence to back up those bold claims comrade?

>Implying the company wouldn't use force to keep it's dominance. Implying they'd continue to offer great service after establishing their monopoly.

Well, an AnCap would say: The State is a monopoly on adjudication and protection; if monopolies are are always deleterious, then The State must also be deleterious because it is monopolistic.

>Wew lady, and besides, just looking at almost any and all dystopia [in particularly cyberpunk] it's always neocameralism, and it's always terrible.

>I decide my politics with fiction

Marxism is more systemic than "Ban this because it hurts my feelings".

Since taxation and state laws and regulations aren't a thing everyone is reliant on voluntary financing from people.
If a company I used started to act immorally by initiating force on people, I'd quit financing them, increasing the bill for who ever is left paying that bill. So more people stop using that company's goods and services, further increasing the bill for the people who're still left.

Either that company lowers the quality of their service or they increase the bill, both of these alternatives makes people less likely to invest.