Which one is better pol

Which one is better pol

Neither.

>Anarcho-anything

Into the trash etc

Ancap is conceivable and ancomm isn't. You cannot distribute wealth without a state. If it's on a voluntary commune then they could exist but only in an ancap world.

anarcho-primitivism

I feel like the pursuit of knowledge is worthy in and of itself. However, anarchoprimitivist settlements in an ancap world sounds wonderful:)

Anarcho monarchism.

The state itself is a system of rules that are FORCED onto the people. Whatever ethical theory you believe in simply doesn't matter in a state, because the state will enforce its own rules. Ancap is essentially a statist ideology. Market value will always supercede moral value when you leave it to its own devices.

Ancom is coercion by imposed cynicism. The central government works by making people cynical to their life's affairs.

but you guys hate people that don't follow your materialist worldview even if they do it on their own property

Multicultilarism.

And it does not work

Why not both?

Ancomm isn't meant to be a large organization. It's a means of living within another system.

>Anarcho-monarchism
>Anarchism
>Monarchism
>[Prefix]-archism

It's like describing a color as blue-red.

You can't have private property without a state.

Can someone explain Anarcho-Communism to me? It sounds like an oxymoron.

Neither would work, as there would be no framework within which to implement it, you retard.

>Anarcho monarchism

SJWs and local anarchist distribute the funds on behalf of the elite before the killing begins, unlike traditional communism where the bureaucracy does it on behalf of the elite before the killing begins. Does that explain it?

uhh I think so. Thanks user.

This is why I hate anarcho capitalism. Stephen Molyneux basically said the exact same thing. His non-aggression principle only applied to citizens, an idea that is arbitrarily made up.

Strict capitalists are the reason why Marxists are winning. They make it easy for capitalism to be picked apart.

I live on an Island off the east coast. I've had my fair share of Native encounters. I believe that ANY group of people is entitled to living space and territory. Fellowship among men (whether it's race, religion, etc) is more favorable than intersectionalism or multiculturalism, thus property, language and morality stem from the communications within that fellowship. Whites believed that they were entitled to North America; Natives believed they were entitled to North America; the opposing viewpoints was evident of a disregard for eachother's community. When whites colonized, the natives wanted to live in their own land with their own people; this was made impossible, as trade incentives pushed natives out. Then a treaty was made, and it lead to reserve niggers getting benefits, and a minority of natives working hard out of their community.

The lesson I learned from this was that trade and western law superceded whatever "moral" there was, even to many white people, and it still supercedes the morals of society today, because people like Hillary Clinton want open borders so immigrants can work to collectively increase our GDP and wages.

Tl;DR, Capitalism has led to moral decay

Ancap by far.

The world by default is Ancap. The world that we see now is what you get when society is raised without adhering to the NAP. It's too late for us.

Lmao libertarian ideologies are gay

Anarchism implies the lack of a state, does it not?

Webster definition:
>a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

Anarcho monarchism is a focus on advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in a manner that centers around the fellowship (A group of similar individuals). The idea is that we naturally communicate easier with individuals who are like us, thus we establish morals, territories, and language that shares the same context. The fellowship is the core of the community. One who has a difference of opinion will be ostracized by the community, not by force, but because he naturally doesn't belong (Like a fairy among fisherman). The fellowship builds itself up; first, a family, then a community, then a township, then a kingdom. And it's all based voluntarily, on loyalty and honour, not on rules and law.

Why do you hate freedom?

ANCAP results in somalia,
ANCOM rsults in 1920s ukraine.

Lmao dude, like, I'm not a fag who respects things. I'm like, a big tough guy, i like power and stuff. Tell me what to do!

I like that cutey on the right.

based. it's sad how bluepilled Sup Forums is on capitalism.
People here complain about globalism without reaizing that it's just capitalism in a more conected world

Both are unsistainable pipe dreams, so it really doesn't matter.

Anarchism is not a sustainable state of civilization. Both are retarded.

>Anarchism implies the lack of a state, does it not?

It doesn't matter what anarchy actually implies or practices, the problem is the public image of anarchy has been dragged through an open sewer by every form of media for hundreds of years, so that every single person believes "Anarchy = Chaos" and that image related would happen immediately.
Just like any good crime, the person who would benefit the most is the likely cause. Go on, guess.
"An-" prefix: without
"Archy" any ruler

>Anarcho-Communism

Anarcho-Communism doens't exist and it's fucking impossible you idiot

They contradict each other

Yes you can. I own my house and if you try to take it I will shoot you.

...

I like LLA's vids on Bioshock/Fallout/Star Trek
His politics is dumb as shit though

Be an anarch not an anarchist

In practice sure, but communism is stateless by definition. Anarcho-communists just want to skip the socialist phase and go straight to communism overnight.

Into the trash faggots

>Implying

How can you own your house without a deed?

Literally just a democrat

There can't be anarcho-communism. There are no rules in anarchy.

> They contradict each other
"anarcho-snowflake"
pretty to look at but they disappear into a nasty wet spot as soon as you touch them.

Molyneux is a NatSoc now though

anarcho-anarchism

>private central bank
>Immigration
>Equal rights

A deed is just a piece of paper why couldn't I?

Why be a monarchist when you can be a monach. BOom!

Equally dumb as each deny fundamental aspects of human nature

>Muh AnCaps denies that human beings are social animals and will collectivize with other groups for power. Voluntaryism exists until I lob my Carl's Jr. Tomahawk XL through your window and take over your child sex slaves. My private court says it's fine, no NAP violation.

>Muh AnComs denies that human beings are motivated by self-interest. At some point one of them is going to find a way to allocate more resources for themselves and boost their power within the commune. Others driven by their own self-interest will see a benefit to that action and find ways to either usurp that person's power or boost it to ultimately boost themselves. Human beings aren't equal and power will always stratify itself.

TLDR: fuck these meme ideologies

I could also shoot you and take it for myself, no?

The NAP is not capitalism.

You could, but I hired an agency to defend my property so go ahead and try it.

and if you dont have the money?

>>Anarcho-anything
>Into the trash etc
SPBP

Anarcho-* just ends up meaning lesser concentrations of power, that end up destroyed by stronger concentrations of power. Anarcho-* literally dies as soon as it exists.

I probably had nothing worth stealing then. Competing agencies would ensure lower prices that would broaden the base for people seeking those services.

>"An-" prefix: without
>"Archy" any ruler
In a historical context, this has ALWAYS meant state powers, legal powers, something forced.
Anarcho capitalism is essentially rule of capital. Anarcho communism is mob rule.

I could call myself a reactionary, but it doesn't encapsulate the full scope of my beliefs, therefore I kind of have to say "Anarcho monarchism" rather than "reactionary monarchy", for the simple fact that monarchy is ordered by precedent systems and institutions. Those very systems can't flourish within the scope of modern law; they have to come about naturally, "an" without "Archy" ruler. Without government law, and without the sword that protects the law, people have to live their lives on the trust and loyalty of other people. Who do they trust? Their own kind, their fellowship, their family, their friends, etc. The family unit is the first in an anarcho monarchist nation, because "one protects the other who feeds the workers who serve the one who protects. " This dynamic expands naturally (without the use of law or state). The natural dynamic of family extends to become community (In which the chief rules), and becomes a kingdom (in which the king rules).

Monarchy is the best and most logical evolution of pure anarchy.

>anarcho
>capitalism

choose one

so you admit that in this society you would either be a worthless hobo working slave labour or some rich warlord conquering other warlords and enslaving their hobos

not really. ANCAP is a real possible (yet incredibly somalia-tier retarded) system

>he thinks I'm an ancap
I'm simply debunking this meme that you can't own property without a state.

A society like that seems very unstable, mate. Now image if a powerful man in that agency is a friend of mine.

Imagine if a powerful man in the government is a friend of mine and we decide to take your land via eminent domain

I guess technically you can, but there really is no guarantee you'll keep it.

No american citizen would be ok with that.

Anarcho-Communism is literally Communism.
>Life in Communist state
>Not giving your own shit away
>Get shot

>Live in Anarcho-Communist """Commune"""
>Not giving your own shit away
>Get shot

It's like Hillary having a name change every time her fuck ups are revealed to not be associated with the name but it still literally the same thing.

There's no guarantee you'll keep it under a government either. Your money is routinely taken from you and your rights can be voted away. At the end of the day might makes right, whether you like it or not.

Purple?