Why is /pol/ so against ANCAP?
Bigger opportunities for corruption, hidden or otherwise, than even the current system
>>81005200
I'm for Ancap if there was a huge wall around it that prevented subversion by outside forces (third world hordes and communists)
>>81005200
Because most of /pol/ isn't even remotely libertarian?
>hey guys, let's keep hierarchy
>and say it's not hierarchy
It's a stupid fucking name that's about as dishonest as you'd expect from corporate shills.
>being anarcho anything past the age of 16
>>81005200
The same reason I don't put red-hot nails in my urethra.
>>81006975
>only people who haven't read anything by kropotkin, bakunin, or proudhon are allowed to agree with them
thread theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38K9X5PMLRU
>>81005200
cause it creates shit like Scientology
Read up on Curt Doolittle and propertarianism. Then watch some of his youtube videos. He's pretentious but he makes mortally wounding arguments against the libertine aspects of libertarianism and its logical conclusion anarcho-capitalism. He has many libertarian sympathies himself.
Laissez faire markets in racially diverse societies produce unsustainable levels of the free rider effect; i.e., certain groups tend to take more than they contribute to the commons (think philanthropic endeavors in the case of ancapistan) producing social strife between groups.
Libertine policy creates diversity of cultural and civic and legal norms which leads to further social tension. Increased social tension increases demand for government which defeats the primary ambition of libertarianism.
Anarcho-capitalism might be possible, or at least a classically liberal attempt at it, but only in a racially homogeneous, high human capital (high IQ, sufficiently low time preference, etc.) society.
>>81005200
>Why is /pol/ so against ANCAP?
they want to allow the great cuckening to happen simply because they think they can make a few extra shekels off of it. they cant
>>81008529
">Anarcho-capitalism might be possible, or at least a classically liberal attempt at it, but only in a racially homogeneous, high human capital (high IQ, sufficiently low time preference, etc.) society."
"
- So basically America (and virtually every European country) in the 1950s
1. It's impossible
2. If possible it's just a society where ppl with money are kings like monarchy or even feudalism
3. Lack of authority causes degeneracy
4. Capitalism in its pure form is not even that good lol
5. Ancaps on YouTube and instagram politics are ugly
6. It's not real anarchy
7. Mutualism is better
8. Fascism is better
9. It's unnecessary to give people more freedom than you need to
10. It's basically a fucking meme with like what 6 great thinkers
