Anarchy is the best political philosophy out there.
Why aren't we doing this already?
Too much of a pussy?
Anarchism thread.
Anyone who isn't an anarchist is a filthy statist who needs violence to help him treat his gender dysphoria
>>80550793
I've reached the truth my friend. And it's that's wrong, I don't want to be right.
>>80549773
>tfw /pol/ used to be a Libertarian board
>>80551443
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
>>80551443
we grew up m8
>>80551726
Lefty anarchists misidentify the state, so they really shouldn't be considered anarchists.
The only true anarchists are anarcho-capitalists.
>>80551726
Anarcho-Capitalism, a market based society with no government.
>>80551792
in to big strong retards
>>80549773
>Anarchy is the best political philosophy out there.
t. edgy 14 year old on summer vacation.
>>80551886
How's the government doing? Fucking sheeple
>>80551886
t. bootlicker who thinks his pet government won't turn on him
>>80551443
/pol/ is anarcho fascist. Tribalism is the most natural order, can't have freedom without a gang of men protecting the perimeter.
>>80549773
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKERC6F7mSM
>>80551834
>>80551858
What's stopping suitably powerful groups from just becoming governments? Infrastructure and borders develop naturally.
>>80551886
>This was me 4 years ago
Libertarianism is the way to go.
>>80552198
I have nothing against defense my friend. It's when those gang of men turn on their own society where I draw the line.
>>80549773
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.
>>80552205
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.
>>80549773
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.
>>80552009
>>80552328
>turn on their own society
Criminals are not part of the society.
>>80552205
This is ancap thread, friend. We hate fake lefty black flag "anarchists" just as much as everyone else.
>>80552425
>Being this ignorant.
Anarchy is order.
>>80552425
Why wouldn't you be able to organize in a society without forced redistribution of income?
>>80549773
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.
>>80552425
>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
>>80552244
>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.
>>80552526
Anarchy is chaos with brief islands of stability spontaneously coming into existence and disappearing moments later.
>>80552555
>>80549773
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.
>>80552547
>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.
>>80552677
kek smiles upon me
>>80552577
>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.
>>80552733
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
>>80552719
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.
>>80552824
>>80552733
>threatening people with violence
>vs. having more resources than someone
Statists actually think these are the same thing. Top kek.
>>80552555
This is the government right now.
:)
>>80552756
If they do, people simply stop giving them money, problem solved.
>>80552878
>>80552677
Spooks are a spook as well
>>80552198
>Anarcho-Fascist
They cancel each other out
>>80552874
I'll get arrested and put in prison in no time.
>>80552874
>government owns the land
>>80549773
Cool ideology but incompatible with humans, just like communsim.
>>80549773
>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.
>>80552920
>he thinks he can get people to respect his property rights without force
why are ancaps such plebs?
>>80552577
>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
>>80553076
>>80553031
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.
>>80552891
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"
>>80553076
>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.
>>80553003
It is just like communism
another utopian belief system promoted by jews
>>80552824
>>80552878
top kek
>He feel for the Anarchy meme.
>>80553209
>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.
>>80553226
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.
>>80551443
>You could have prevented this
>>80552244
>libertardianism is the way
lol edgy summer cancer
mfw you hate roads
>>80553421
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.
>>80553421
>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.
>>80552939
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.
>>80553619
You are so dumb.
Have you ever heard of private roads?
>>80552537
>>80552554
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.
>>80553767
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.
>>80553664
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
>>80549773
Anarchy isn't a philosophy, it's the absence of any philosophy.
>>80549773
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...
>>80553926
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.
>>80553428
>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.
>>80553642
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?
>>80553664
>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.
>>80554087
Anarchism doesn't mean pacifism...
>>80553908
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.
>>80553926
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.
>>80553908
>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.
>>80554103
You're asking questions, which is good.
Check this video out.
https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
>>80554089
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.
>>80554461
Watch this >>80554428
>>80554257
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.
>>80554257
>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.
>>80554461
>opening business next to another then dropping their prices to put them out of business
Name a single company that profited from this strategy.
>>80552824
>>80552382
>>80552939
>I don't know what I'm talking about
>>80554180
>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!
>>80554588
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.
>>80554682
"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 https://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.
>>80556062
>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.
>>80558596
Aggression and force are not necessarily immoral, and as such the NAP is not necessarily moral.
>>80554257
>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.
>>80552719
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.
>>80560627
When, in your opinion, is it acceptable to initiate force?
>>80549773
Actually, i prefer feudalism if you want to play make believe things that will never happen
>>80561135
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
>>80561219
At the very least, Feudalism has historical success.
>>80561783
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.
>>80553676
it cums from faggot
>>80563149
>probably
Again, you're thinking in a reactive manner.
Think proactively.
Instead of thinking "this may be unnecessary", why not think "lets make it a law regardless because it's a good idea that people don't get hurt"
> just be careful it doesn't become a tool to expand the state's power into other nations.
Why not? There is literally nothing wrong with imperialism, and a global state based upon authority, rather than markets, is preferable.
>
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.
What are you on about? The entire point of state-sponsored research is that it doesn't need a ROI; it's research for the sake of itself such as theoretical particle physics (or early space exploration).
It's a "huge waste of money" now, for invaluable advances in human knowledge decades or centuries later.
Sure, the markets might do it more efficiently (in 10 years instead of 20, and for half the cost), but when you're starting this research 50+ years before the markets would have even conceived of it, it's better overall.
>Stopping a mentally ill person from harming themselves or others is not aggression.
I'm not talking about stopping one on a rampage, I'm talking about preemptively institutionalizing one before they have the chance to do so.
>I'm not twisting them, but maybe it would be best to figure out ways to do or have those things without initiating force.
And why not? I already said that force isn't necessarily bad, and it;s far more straightforward, direct, and simple than waiting for the free market to devise a voluntary solution.
I'd much rather spend a hundred billion dollars and 20 years on space ships now; rather than spending ten billion over five years in half a century.
>>80554428
best video ever
that man is like what stefan moleneux wishes he were
>>80556062
>>80556353
the worst shit you can come up with is nothing compared to when they do it under statism
it will always be a power multiplier for evil
>>80564931
>force isn't necessarily bad
argument of a cuck as a bull forcefully takes his wife
>>80549773
Yup it's summertime alright
>>80567417
Wrong, it is a force multiplier for power and action, which evil requires.
In you quest to minimize evil, you limit what a society can look like.
>>80567514
>memes
Oh, nevermind, I guess you really are just summer.
>dae le cuck
leave it in the bait threads, son.
>>80567417
What the fuck are you talking about? With untapped power businesses aren't just businesses, they are the exclusive power of the land. As I stated, competition that is unregulated means eventually and unavoiudably someone will come out on top and with no more competition they can do as they please. With statism they can be stopped from being infinitely powerful. Honest to God go back to the seventh fucking grade and learn how to think with some old dumb assholes shitty video.
>>80567149
Also this, that video was paste eating levels of retarded. A private judge that is known to be fair and equal? My ass, that's a fucking oxymoron, by definition a private judge isn't equal and fair. Literally all of what he said could be easily argued against or is just irrelevant sputtering bullshit.
It is by far the best political philosophy.
It's also not the most practical overnight solution.
But the fact still remains-- it is by far the best political philosophy.
It's inconvenient and makes people uncomfortable. But the more people are willing to understand it and acknowledge it, the less impractical some future implementation will be.
Historically this is how all revolutions and advancements of civilization have happened, except slowly over centuries, hard to even notice for the people involved.
Now that ideas can spread and be learned instantly and globally things CAN happen a lot faster, people just have to be willing to listen. And the more that ideas are behind rapid changes the smoother it is. The Soviet Union collapsed this way.
Libertarianism 40 years ago didn't really even exist as an identifiable philosophy, much less something with members. It's key ideas and authors were disconnected and spread out over centuries before Rothbard integrated them all and built the foundation of Libertarianism we know today. The movement has grown ever since then, and even more with the internet. I see no sign it will slow down.
>>80572047
Damn right
>>80572047
But it's not the best, and it is the very antithesis of civilization. It is the very antithesis of human nature and of human history.
It is as inhuman as you can possibly get.
>>80572614
Freedom is anti human? But arbitrary government is?
You so far to talk about this natural state of humans, would you enlighten us and tell us what it is?
>implying anarchism has anything remotely to do with anarcho-capitalism
anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron
The first libertarians were socialists
and before you call me a leftist shill, im a fascist you fucking politically illiterate mongoloids
>>80574441
Fascism evolved from socialism so it's actually leftist
>>80574872
Meritocracy, Nationalism, Hierarchy
The core aspects of Fascism are inherently anti-leftist.
Collectives, such as those of the nation, parish, or family are not always bad.
>>80549773
#broke: fedora tipping An-capism
#woke: theocracy, patriarchy, absolute monarchism, and slavery
I cannot imagine how anyone can be a libertarian as of 2016 and not turn into a reactionary instead
>>80574441
>anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron
no it isn't
>>80551443
We kind of realized libertarianism is autistic and is not congruent with the real world, even if sounds good economically).
The fact is, the vast majority of people (especially women) lack the agency to properly use freedom. Giving freedom to women was a huge mistake.
>>80574441
is this b8 or are you retarded
>>80549773
>>80575670
what if a private corporation uses its private military force to conquer an area and rule over it?
>>80574872
>Fascism evolved from socialism so it's actually leftist
Socialism evolved from feudalism, so its righting
(not kidding, monarchists were the first people to call themselvs socialists- as they feared that democracy will lead to unbridled capitalism)
>>80575736
>being this misinformed
wew
>>80575844
>even (((Rothbard))) realized the "muh roads" problem
kek. Cucked by their own theory
>>80576004
On the other hand, anarcho-socialists like Benjamin Tucker were an influence on libertarianism.
>>80575946
They were right. The enlightenment was a mistake.
>>80576047
>the joke
>your head
>>80575670
Yes it is? Are you trolling? Only a state or an entity identical to one can protect private property rights en masse.
>Anarchy works guys!!
Just look at Somalia retard
>being an anarchist unironically
I don't see any arguments, fellas. Just a bunch of Stormfront rape-babies.
I'm already preparing a network of contacts in my industry so that when free state/seasteading style projects gain popularity in Australia I can offer retirement and other financial services.
Going to be difficult though with the internet being censored.
>>80572047
>Libertarianism 40 years ago didn't really even exist as an identifiable philosophy
what? wasn't all pre ww1 USA a more or less libertarian utopia (or as close as its ever gotten?). that are just the things I keep hearing sorry if its totally not true.
>>80552425
The incentives to keep society peaceful and orderly are more congruent with Freedom as opposed to statism which perverts and corrupts incentives. Citation: 6000+ years of recorded history.
>>80582549
>as an identifiable philosophy
>>80552642
Sounds exactly like life.
You statists think you can control anything, but you control nothing.
>>80549773
>he doesnt want to sell babys he got from underage hookers
>>80552719
He means life itself is anarchy. The most able, or lucky achieve and everyone else settles or fails.
>>80552547
I think you underestimate the power of moral conviction to create new standards in society. Overt slavery was considered normal for a LOOOOONNNGG time, but now it's almost universally considered immoral and must be quietly slipped past the average person's moral compass. I do see it being possible for society to reach the conclusion that morality needs to be universalized for the benefit of all. Just have to spread the information, make the arguments and defend self ownership fucking ruthlessly.
>>80583398
Governments don't own anything. Literally everything they have was stolen at gunpoint. They're immoral gangs disrespecting every living person's claim to self ownership.
