>anarchic literal means "no rulers"
>"anarcho" capitalism has rulers in the workplace
Has there ever been an ideology so contradictory?
>voted in a weedman
>he's scared to legalize it
wew leaf
>>66888689
Anarchism means no rulers*
Fucking auto correct
>>66888742
>Burgers
>Intelligence
Pick 1
>>66888689
Turns out you actually need leaders to get things done. This is why anarchy is not a type of government but rather a time between powers of government. So any working government form of "anarchy" still must have rules to create a superstructure for a nation to grow on.
>>66888742
>vote Trudeau in because I want to get free weed
>get 100k rapefugees instead
getting stoned either way desu senpai
>>66888911
Bum dum dum tis
>movement's name is socialism
>it's really asocial
>>66888689
Communism is pretty close. Communism, as a pure ideology, demands a horizontally organized society.
Here's the kicker, horizontal societies can't exist so long as they are human. Leaders and exceptional people always rise to the top, either through deferment or even apathy by others or through will and action by them selves.
Anarcho-capitalism is just as unnatural and unobtainable as proper communism.
>>66888689
The difference there being the choice of who you have as a superior.General elections are practically mob rule, in the sense that the majority will pick who goes into power and everyone else will just have to deal with it until their term is up. In a workplace, if you don't like the leadership you can quit and work elsewhere.
>>66888828
0/10 weak ass reply
>>66888689
an-caps are just sociopaths who create a meme philosophy to explain how their horribly jewy beliefs are some how justified.
its basically fat pig small business owners who want to own actual slaves and hate that they have to pay their employees anything
>>66889088
Of course you can't make everyone the same, but does that mean taking away the opportunity for individuals control their work and lives. Literally everyone wants to have influence over the things that affect them. Democratic structures could work limiting unjustifiable power, making everyone the same shouldn't and couldn't work.
>>66888689
>anarchic literal means "no rulers"
>still believes in measuring sticks
>>66889863
>Of course you can't make everyone the same, but does that mean taking away the opportunity for individuals control their work and lives.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what it means eventually. It boils down to the question, which system of society and governance is the slowest for that to happen.
>>66888689
if its in mutual agreement how can the employers rule? you can choose at any point to not follow your employer orders. you are stupid goy.
dont fall to jewish propaganda, we dont and were smarter than you.
Not even an anarchofag, but if you're going to insult it at least get your definitions straight.
"An" is the Greek root for without. "Archi" comes from "archxi", commonly (i.e. Wikipedia) defined as leader, or ruler, but talk to a historian or etymologist and they'll tell you it means "archon", which is traditionally used as one of three concurrent, appointed rulers of Athens. During the later stages of Republican Athens, the position of Archon diminished in authority, greater power returned to the people, and most importantly the position of Archon was assigned by random lot. Strictly speaking, anarchy refers to this transition to a more democratic rule, where citizens individually held greater power and each man should be capable of leading, should his lot be drawn.
That's the classical definition anyway, the modern edge-lords wearing Che shirts and screaming down with corporate pigs have little to do with the classical version.
>>66888911
kek
>>66888689
Yes, Socialist-Libertarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
>>66888689
Therein lies the paradox.
Anarchy is merely a transitory phase. Anarcho-Capitalism is merely the groundwork for Corporatism, just like Social Anarchism is merely the groundwork for Communism. Anarchism is inherently impossible to maintain.
>>66891041
This guy gets it. All horizontal power structures, no matter how good willed or set in law everntually over time become vertical. In fact, horizontal power structures are usually transition phases as anon points out.
The question really is: What system is the slowest to transform tyranny?
Not: What is the least tyrannical system.
>>66888689
Workers are free to quit you retard. It means no rules by a governmental body, not that people won't exert their power.
>>66888689
>>"anarcho" capitalism has rulers in the workplace
What the fuck? How does voluntarily trading labor for payment equal being owned?
>>66888689
>>66892331
This, there has to be rulers in the first place.
>>66888828
>>66888828
There isn't a maple leaf flag on the moon.
>>66888689
Anarchy is about as realistic as capitalism. The moment some group of people from somewhere else gets organized and decides to come take your shit you need a someone to lead you against them in order to survive. All a sudden you have a ruler again.
>>66892930
Lol, replace capitalism with communism. I've been up too long.
>>66893130
Capitalism is anarchy. As soon as a violent coercive gang is perceived as "government" Anyone with money is going to buy that gang and forcefully manipulate the economy, and no one will stop them because the gang says it's ok and the gang is recognized as legitimate, so what it says goes. That is not capitalism.
>>66888689
But it is a free choice to aasociate yourself with those companies
>>66888742
>first nigger president
>then woman president
americucked
