Why aren't you anarchists robots?
>>27926656
I don't really give enough of a fuck about society to try and pigeon-hole by worldview into a collective hivemind.
>>27926676
You could kill the rich, share wealth and resources to other robots.
>>27926698
Without the rich creating jobs and industry for tax money, I wouldn't get welfare. Not a fan of biting the hand which ultimately feeds, anon.
>>27926656
Because I'm not an edgy 12 year old anymore.
Background: was an anarchist with 12
>>27926735
>Without the rich creating jobs and industry for tax money, I wouldn't get welfare. Not a fan of biting the hand which ultimately feeds, anon.
That is why workers should seize the means productions, instead of corporations owners.
>>27926778
>workers
Most things are produced by machines. Not that I would be against an AI leadership.
>>27926798
>AI leadership
>tfw
couldn't you just program some moral rules/law for assigning work through some assessment of the body and mind. and people could refuse work if they wanted, other people could treat them how they want if they do. feed them or not. and maybe just go live in a community they know would feed them. housing really isn't that hard, it's the power. gas, water and food are abundant.
I think it's ridiculous when people think "automated work posting" means you can't say no and it turns into an unrealistic and ridiculous dystopian novel.
>>27926778
>That is why workers should seize the means productions, instead of corporations owners.
Workers, as in the average person, doesn't want to or isn't capable of leading a group and taking care of production themselves. Your idea doesn't work on the scale of modern industry. It has to be small and isolated to work.
i am not 12
lmao
robots will be the first to die out in anarchy
>>27926656
I am.
Ideologically, that is. I'm not a cliche idiot who falls for the "DOWN W/ THE MAN DUDE wanna smoke some pot rofl lmaaoo" meme
I don't think many stereotypical anarchists are left. They are getting extinct. I don't think it's a good thing though. People are becoming normies even though the flipside of that are edgelords
>>27926778
If workers seized the means of production then everyone here would be forced to work shitty jobs instead of leeching off the government.
>>27927383
>i am not 12
Your conduct suggests otherwise.
But I am. First we need to throw the communists out of helicopters and then we can have our racially segregated ancapistan. It'll be beautiful, as long as you have gold.
Anarchists are a bunch of kulak traitors that want to destroy the war machine we need to protect communism from the capitalists.
>>27927413
FRICK YOU
YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING
>>27926656
Anarchists (an-coms, an-syns) are the biggest fucking normies around. A robot like me would be screwed. You need social skills and with all inhibitions removed any beta males would be kicked out of society while 80% of women flock to Chad.
>>27927549
>he actually believes that ancaps would enforce conservative values
Let's see how the power of the market stops people from having sex and taking drugs when it's been making money off of that for decades.
i used to be but then i read plato
now im not sure about my ideology but the law seems like a really good idea
>>27926656
Who said I aint.
Ancap/agorism, egoist anarchism and other forms of stirnerian or survivalist anarchism are based.
All leftist ideologies are fucking shit, ancom and ansyn especially.
>>27930343
>agorism
this sounds awful and retarded, r9k would be fucking eradicated.
I'm anarcho tribalist i guess. egoist anarchy is ridiculous. I can't imagine there are people who genuinely think total government control exist, unless they're the kind of person who just wants to give up on the work associated with living and just do the labor.
>>27930683
>>agorism
>this sounds awful and retarded
What do you mean? It's literally just a way to apply ancap.
Of course most of /r9k/ would be eradicated, since welfare would depend on charity or simply be completely abolished.
>egoist anarchy is ridiculous
How?
Because I'm not a teenager.
>>27930782
ancap sounds awful
my last post was here >>27926994
i don't really understand accumulating capital, maybe that would be a better place to start for me so I can understand egoist anarchy or egoist anything a little more.
all I understand it as is a comfort for the time you're alive. I don't think it's existential, not a way to hold onto life because you don't want to die, but I guess it could be about wanting to not suffer by not having enough. but then wealthy people only need a fraction of what they have to have the comfort to keep from suffering. And I don't understand why, as a society, we wouldn't try to keep all people from suffering (the social contract works to do that, usually. I mean, when you think of why the first society came together, we still work off that same premise, but don't really think about it so it gets lost and we go back to a more primitive culture)
>>27930910
Maybe read Stirner. You seem to have an issue with the underlying philosophy
Basically, what you're saying is:
>wealth generates comfort
>everyone wants to be comfortable
>there's a limit to the amount of comfort you can purchase, whereas there's no limit to the amount of wealth you can accumulate
Therefore, you're asking that the wealthy be stripped of some of their wealth in order to provide comfort to the non-wealthy.
Is that it?
I fundamentally disagree with that
Might makes right, the strong are deserving, etc. There's no reason for anyone who doesn't deserve wealth to obtain it - and "wealth" can be replaced by anything else here: what you don't earn (inheritance counts as earned, by the way), you cannot claim. It doesn't matter if it's money, food or whatever
Basically, my property is mine. You have no right or claim over it, regardless of your condition.
>>27926656
I don't really have enemies so I make up ones.
I think that makes me an anarchist.
>>27931118
No
That just makes you retarded
>>27931049
I definitely do.
>Therefore, you're asking that the wealthy be stripped of some of their wealth in order to provide comfort to the non-wealthy.
that's absolutely what I'm saying. mostly because the excess wealth doesn't bring more comfort.
>There's no reason for anyone who doesn't deserve wealth to obtain it
that makes sense, I consider "wealth" to be any form of capital, so I gotcha.
>Basically, my property is mine. You have no right or claim over it, regardless of your condition.
I get that, but I think that means there shouldn't be public property at all. No public roads unless they were donated to the community, no nothing. You'd have to pay tolls to use someone's road, if they even want to let anyone else use it.
I fundamentally disagree with might makes right too, because I don't think my property is mine anyways, no matter how hard I worked for it. I don't mean then, that it's someone elses (the state, the community or society, etc.) I just don't think anybody owns anything. They just use it until it's expired its function or they stop using it. Then someone else can choose to, or choose not to.
>>27926656
because I'm a national socialist
>>27931118
do you have any idea what an anarchist is?
Because I'm older than 17. Just by a little bit, but I am.
>>27931170
>I definitely do.
Have a problem with the philosophy? To understand egoism you need to read about it
>excess wealth doesn't bring more comfort
Doesn't matter. The wealth belongs to the wealthy, they've earned it. You have no right to claim it's yours, because you didn't earn it.
>there shouldn't be public property
Yes, exactly. Everything would be private property.
>pay tolls
Yes, or choose not to use that road. Either way, if you follow the ancap way of thinking, the NAP (non aggression principle/non-initiatory use of force) tells you that the freedom to roam is a thing, and that passing through private property in order to get somewhere else shouldn't be treated as aggression. But that's a specific issue anyway, it's not really relevant here.
>might makes right
It's the only true law, though. Nature shows you that the strong survive. The problem right now is that most people have been led to think the strong and the weak are equal, and that therefore, the weak should be given shares of what the strong have. This is stupid and destructive
>I just don't think anybody owns anything
That's more of a philosophical issue, again.
Do you think you own yourself (your ego) and your own body?
>>27927383
This desu.
You should still take your trip off, though. Filtered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgHNtzxO0y8
>>27926656
Because they make no sense?
>>27931243
yes in fact I do
also, I installed a plugin that replaces any text with another text. I configured it so that every time the text Post successful! appears, it is replaced with Troll successful!!, just because it makes me smile.
Is that anarchy enough or I have to spell it to (you)?
>>27931674
wewo lado
>>27931306
>Have a problem with the philosophy? To understand egoism you need to read about it
I know, I don't mean to say I disagree without knowing about it. I don't know, I can't disagree. I'd like to understand it better, and will be looking at some Stimer as you suggested.
>You have no right to claim it's yours, because you didn't earn it.
I know, I'm saying I just don't see that as functional, or even humanly possible (the isolation would be great and strange)
>tells you that the freedom to roam is a thing, and that passing through private property in order to get somewhere else shouldn't be treated as aggression. But that's a specific issue anyway, it's not really relevant here.
that makes sense, I like that. I figure people honestly wouldn't mind that much anyways.
>It's the only true law, though.
I don't agree, it can be overcome. It seems like a hindrance to freedom rather than a freedom, to me.
>The problem right now is that most people have been led to think the strong and the weak are equal
I think there ought to be an awareness of our differences, but it shouldn't be framed in the lens of a hierarchy. What warrants "shares" when it comes to necessity, or even to desires (non-suffering and/or a basic level of comfort) I don't think strength or weakness determines anyone's "deserving" of them.
but, in a kind of opposing sense, I don't think anyone deserves anything. Good or bad, no matter how much work they do, or how lazy they are.
>Do you think you own yourself (your ego) and your own body?
I don't. I think I, in part, am my body so I have a different relationship to it, but I don't own it. Even my mind isn't "mine", it's just part of me, something I use (although nobody else really can)
Anarchy is the child of all the hilariously bad ideologies
>no public services
>no peace officers to protect property from poor
.>no understanding of subsidies
Idiots
>>27931818
>no public services
why wouldn't there be? you can have community dining rooms where people serve food, community centers with computers and games and workout equipment, libraries, schools and everything without having a government. the communities work to provide that for themselves, if they wish for it.
>no peace officers to protect property from poor
>property
>poor
okay anon
>no understanding of subsidies
why would you need funds? you just go straight to the material if you're talking about necessary resources for building things like schools etc.
generally i think that people who geniunely believe that the poor deserve to die are bad
my political beliefs stem from that, i suppose
apparently according to >>27930343 i'm a classical liberalist
i'm p. sure that puts me up against the political zeitgeist here but w/e
>>27931785
>Stimer
Stirner with an r (Max Stirner)
Read "the ego and its own"
>I just don't see that as functional
On what level? it's perfectly functional, it just doesn't correspond to the egalitarian view of human interaction. It's more "feral" in a way.
>it can be overcome
How?
>It seems like a hindrance to freedom
Not really. Or rather, yes, but only to those who are too weak to be free in the first place, if you want to extrapolate
>it shouldn't be framed in the lens of a hierarchy
It depends on what kind of hierarchy you're establishing. Anarcho-capitalism and forms of egoist anarchism are proponents of "meritocratic hierarchies", in a way, since the individual's position and standing entirely depend on his ability.
>I don't think strength or weakness determines anyone's "deserving"
I think you're focusing too much on the underlying meaning behind these words.
The strong (those who have the ability to thrive) are able to claim more than the weak (who are unable to succeed). Those who can acquire and protect what they claim to be their property "deserve" to keep it under natural law.
>I don't think anyone deserves anything
Again that depends on your definition of "deserving".
>I don't
Why? I don't understand.
If anything, your body is the first thing you own.
>isn't "mine"
>it's just part of me
I don't see how these two are mutually exclusive.
I see property as whatever you can claim as yours and then protect. That's not a strict definition, just a vague frame, of course.
Property itself can hardly be defined, since there's no natural way to determine ownership: therefore, anyone can claim anything as theirs as long as they have the means to obtain and defend it, for example
Would you agree to that?
Sorry for the late answer, by the way
>>27932041
>people who geniunely believe that the poor deserve to die are bad
Could you elaborate on that?
Why wouldn't the poor and, by extension, those who are unable to thrive in a given environment, be handed the means to survive?
Also, if you want to see where you stand politically, you should try the political spectrum quiz at gotoquiz. It's not extremely accurate but it'll give you an overview of where you are on the graph
>>27932041
>>27932996
>Why wouldn't
I meant why would* the poor be handed the means to survive
>>27932938
>Read "the ego and its own"
gotcha. thanks anon
>On what level? it's perfectly functional, it just doesn't correspond to the egalitarian view of human interaction. It's more "feral" in a way.
that's what i mean, it's primitive i think. like, it seems like it wouldn't be human enough for people to continue doing it.
>How?
sharing and choosing to disobey that law by replacing it with someone like a responsibility to care for one another.
>Not really. Or rather, yes, but only to those who are too weak to be free in the first place, if you want to extrapolate
I agree with that from your view, but to elaborate a bit I mean that it would hinder the strongs freedom by reducing their access. I think. To humanity, to one another, and to a lot of cognitive stuff because so much of their focus would be on protecting their stuff.
>It depends on what kind of hierarchy you're establishing. Anarcho-capitalism and forms of egoist anarchism are proponents of "meritocratic hierarchies", in a way, since the individual's position and standing entirely depend on his ability.
That makes sense to me, but I mean all these systems have some kind of value system put on someone's ability to labor, engineer, etc. wherever they put their work. That notion makes the "government" (or not, whatever it is) even more particular, and makes a hierarchy based on "ability to run a business" more than it is "ability to work with metal".
I'm kind of thinking about an invisible hand or some consumer based force that would determine a skills worth. It makes it contextual, and I don't think humanity's want to not suffer is contextual at all.
>I don't see how these two are mutually exclusive.
they're not, but I'm saying there is a misconception that because it's part of you it is *causally* yours. some people believe in christian values, so they claim it as their identity, not just something they identify with. or any other religion, philosophy, etc.
p1/2, i skipped around some
I read crimethinc stuff and dumpster dive sometimes. Does that make me an anarchist?
>>27932938
>I think you're focusing too much on the underlying meaning behind these words.
i definitely am. that's just what I come from though. language is really fun to me, also just really fucking stupid cause none of it really means anything.
>The strong (those who have the ability to thrive) are able to claim more than the weak
that makes sense, I think deserving was a bad move for me because, although I'm saying nobody deserves anything, I'm also saying humanity comes with some wants, and everyone "deserves" to have those (not suffering is usually what I'm talking about). I just think that the function of a collective "humanity" exists (we can understand the idea of it cognitively) in order for us to navigate each other and, hopefully, reduce unnecessary suffering. I don't understand why we would do that for each other, though, I just believe it's right to try. I wonder about why I believe that often, and I think it's because I've agreed to do that as a group. I feel as though some egoist governments or economies do the opposite, and so I oppose them. I try to look through egoist philosophy lenses to understand why the hell I care about preventing suffering for others, though. It's hard.
>Why? I don't understand.
>If anything, your body is the first thing you own.
I just think it's the first thing you use. Ownership isn't some phenomena that's just in the ether, it's a kind of biological thing that only exists, I think, in order to survive. Once you know there's abundance though, you can share without having to fear for life. I think that's what's hindered by private property; you still fear.
>>27933132
>it wouldn't be human enough for people to continue doing it.
It doesn't disqualify charity as a legitimate means of acquiring wealth and comfort.
>a responsibility to care for one another
But that responsibility would be a hindrance and would limit the freedom of those who don't want to help others.
>reducing their access
Oh you were talking from a purely practical point of view? I guess that's true, but it's not really negative;
>their focus would be on protecting their stuff
opportunity cost. If they don't really want it, they won't protect it. It's their problem anyway.
>value system
The only value system ancap has is whatever the free market decides is valuable. Isn't that a legitimate enough invisible hand?
>makes a hierarchy based on "ability to run a business" more than it is "ability to work with metal"
I don't see how that is inherently negative.
I suppose that if you're an anarcho primitivist, you're a proponent of more "fundamental" value systems rather than intangible services and the like
>some consumer based force that would determine a skills worth.
You're basically describing the free market, here.
>because it's part of you it is *causally* yours
It *is* you. What is you is yours, don't you agree with that at least? You, are the property of yourself, that seems obvious.
I'm not trying to define ownership as anything else than what you WANT to own. What you decide is yours, is yours.
>humanity comes with some wants, and everyone "deserves" to have those
I don't really see why. Because you want something (or need something), you deserve it? I'd say that unless you have the ability to obtain it, you don't deserve anything
>not suffering
so to you, the lack of suffering is the most basic "right"? If so, why?
From the rest of your post I think I (more or less) understand your way of thinking, although I think it's based on erroneous assumptions that don't really exist. For example
>it's right to try
What is "right"?
>>27933261
>private property
You're confusing private property and personal property here.
I agree that ownership isn't a random phenomena. I just think it's essentially defined by the individual. What you want to be yours is yours if you can obtain it, something like that.
But I am a anarcho communist
>>27933459
You are my worst enemy.
>>27933459
Why are you such a normie?
>>27933416
>It doesn't disqualify charity as a legitimate means of acquiring wealth and comfort.
that's true. on both ends, giving and receiving. like anal
>But that responsibility would be a hindrance and would limit the freedom of those who don't want to help others.
also true. but, I'm saying it's just a tradeoff which they're free to make. help others and accept some weird responsibility and get to associate, or dont and have the freedom of doing with your stuff whatever you want.
>opportunity cost. If they don't really want it, they won't protect it. It's their problem anyway.
gotcha
>The only value system ancap has is whatever the free market decides is valuable. Isn't that a legitimate enough invisible hand?
I think so. I think that last post tired me out cause I can't really elaborate on why I think it's incongruent with the way we ought to function.
>I don't see how that is inherently negative.
because then people who suffer already from, say, a social disorder, but have great skills with their product, will suffer more and needlessly since their abilities are already very valuable. This is already true, where maybe someone is really good at something but can't get a job because they suck at interviews.
I guess what your system would propose is that, in order to be *truly* valuable you need both. and that is true in our economy and society now.
>I suppose that if you're an anarcho primitivist, you're a proponent of more "fundamental" value systems rather than intangible services and the like
I think so. like I said about the person's fundamental skills, the product they're selling or whatever.
1/2
>so to you, the lack of suffering is the most basic "right"? If so, why?
I think it's something that society exists for. to prevent or alleviate unnecessary suffering (killing each other for something we could easily ask to use/have/borrow)
When I think about this, I think about what the first society came together for, and why we continue to stay in a society. that whole "social species" thing is bullshit. There's just a lot of us, there's not many places you can go anymore where there aren't people. We're a cognitive species, and our cognition led some humans to try to live together in a group (beyond family) and restrain from doing certain things. those things became moral, only because of the agreement. "I told you I wouldn't steal if you didn't fuck my wife, you fucked my wife but I never stole and that's mean" or something like that. Also religion is in there but fuck that whole talk, that gets too deluded.
>What is you is yours, don't you agree with that at least?
not really. I mean, just because I don't think I own anything or have property, doesn't mean I don't have any agency to deny people the use of the things I'm using.
>I'm not trying to define ownership as anything else than what you WANT to own.
exactly, but I'm exchanging own for use. Own implies the agency I'm trying to convey, but they agency is only there because of whatever happens here
>humanity comes with some wants, and everyone "deserves" to have those
in whatever word fits better for "deserves". It's some personal agency that comes with being an individual, and with being part of a group (this duality I think is related to what humanity might mean)
I think ownership is a contrived and primitive concept that blocks the way for a society to flourish. "use" does the same thing, but allows for a kind of awareness about a connection to the rest of people for some betterment, while "own" blocks it.
2/3, longer than i thought it'd be
>>27934066
>You're confusing private property and personal property here.
I think so too. my body isn't "private property" I think.
>I just think it's essentially defined by the individual.
I agree. I don't think it doesn't exist, I just think we as a society agreed to let objects and whatnot work that way.
to expand a little, I think the
>allows for a kind of awareness about a connection to the rest of people for some betterment
is important because it helps alleviate suffering more. I don't know if I thoroughly explained why alleviating suffering is important, but I tried I guess.
I'm an AnSyn in theory, I'm not in practice because most people are way to fucking stupid and irrational for anarchism.
>>27933996
>>27934066
>>27934107
>dont and have the freedom
That seems preferable to me. Keep in mind that egoism doesn't exclude cooperation or voluntaryism at all. If anything, it enhances their efficiency: a "union of egoists", working together in order to reach their personal goals quickly and more efficiently, for example.
>people who suffer already from, say, a social disorder
That depends entirely on specific circumstances, though.
>I think it's something that society exists for
I disagree. Society is an association of individuals that agreed, at one point, to work together in order to better their odds of survival. That's the early definition of society, more akin to tribalism (which I'm definitely not against, tribalism is cool as long as it remains an association of egoists)
Modern society isn't about survival anymore, as much as it's about growth and the enhancement of technology, which is why a case could be made for anarcho-transhumanism (yes it exists). But fundamentally, society is only about the prevention of suffering (or rather, danger/death in general) if it's a small-scale tribalist group. Even then, this goal of survival doesn't mean the weak should be given the same opportunities as the strong: quite the opposite, actually.
>cognition
>restrain from doing certain things
We sought compromise, as shown by the godawful system democracy is. Morals are literally a "social" construct, just like ethics, and we follow these constructs because there's no alternative.
>to deny people the use of the things I'm using
Even when I'm not physically present on the land I own, I don't want people coming on it without paying rent. It's much more practical to define ownership. It's also in our nature to want stuff for ourselves, and that's fine.
>I'm exchanging own for use
But why? it's inefficient. If you don't want something anymore, just give it away. But don't abolish ownership altogether.
>>27934695
cont.
>I think ownership is a contrived and primitive concept that blocks the way for a society to flourish
Quite the contrary imo
If nobody owns anything, we don't advance. Ownership creates need, need creates demand, and demand, when answered with offer, initiates economic transactions. It would lead to stagnation and regression to a primitive way of living - although I guess that's not a bad thing in itself. But I wouldn't call an anarcho-primitivist society "flourishing".
>my body isn't "private property"
It can be if you choose to sell it
I understand why you think alleviating suffering is important, although I don't agree. I get how it ties with your conception of ownership and use, but it seems to me like it's mostly inefficient
>>27934695
>That seems preferable to me. Keep in mind that egoism doesn't exclude cooperation or voluntaryism at all. If anything, it enhances their efficiency: a "union of egoists", working together in order to reach their personal goals quickly and more efficiently, for example.
that makes a lot of sense for sure.
>That depends entirely on specific circumstances, though.
true, but those circumstances to exist and exist frequently in any context.
>ociety is an association of individuals that agreed, at one point, to work together in order to better their odds of survival.
I don't know, I feel it's more to prevent prevent suffering. or maybe, that was the next step.
>as much as it's about growth and the enhancement of technology,
agreed
>which is why a case could be made for anarcho-transhumanism
that's somewhat more accurate to what I believe in, didn't really think more on a better word. cool.
>society is only about the prevention of suffering (or rather, danger/death in general) if it's a small-scale tribalist group.
I don't think that's true. in medium sized groups where everyone *could* have needs met, then the focus changes. but in a huge one where needs are not met, suffering is *created* rather than prevented, it becomes about different things. For some, it's about trying to work with each other to prevent unnecessary suffering, others is about preventing their own suffering (through drugs, camwhoring, escapism etc) and others is about building capital.
Reminder that Egoism only applies tribally, the Aryan race will rule the world from their Hyperborean Utopia located in the Armenian Highlands led by a Armenoid God-King
>this goal of survival doesn't mean the weak should be given the same opportunities as the strong: quite the opposite, actually.
I agree, but small-scale tribalist groups only abandon weak and old because they have little resources. if you're abundant, you look out for everyone so you can grow.
>We sought compromise, as shown by the godawful system democracy is.
ahaha I think that's pretty good though. It's just a stupid fucking execution of compromise.
>Morals are literally a "social" construct, just like ethics, and we follow these constructs because there's no alternative.
the alternative is to face consequences, I think. I agree though, it's a social construct. that's what I was trying to say but I guess I said it weird, sorry.
I mean, we agreed to that restrain, it was a choice, and over time became moral because of the consequences (also religion, oblivious parents etc.)
>Even when I'm not physically present on the land I own, I don't want people coming on it without paying rent. It's much more practical to define ownership. It's also in our nature to want stuff for ourselves, and that's fine.
I guess that makes sense. I don't think it's in our nature though (even though I remember at some point saying I do, I just think I was trying to get at something else)
>But why? it's inefficient. If you don't want something anymore, just give it away. But don't abolish ownership altogether.
how is that inefficient? besides saying I want to use it later or don't want others using it like that^ because that totally makes sense.
But I think through my perspective, if you didn't own it, it's not like you can have any feelings about other people using it when you aren't anyways, not unless you wanted to use it again.
>It can be if you choose to sell it
ownership precedes selling and buying. if i don't own, I can't sell, so there would be no such thing as "selling my body"
only lending it to someone to use.
"may i use your body? I'll let you eat my cheeseburger"
Because libertarian municipalism is superior. It's like anarchism for grownups.
>>27926656
I generally am, or I just understand that I am just allowed to live, just allowed to post this, which is really sad
>not fighting for volk und fuhrer
fucking fags tbqh fampai.
>>27935028
>>27935003
>>27934798
>>27934695
You guys are all Judeo-Masonic tools pushing the Globalist agenda. Anarchism destroys cultures and peoples and will lead to a Jewish masterminded capitalist corporatocracy
>>27934219
Sounds pretty tankie. That's why they propose the need for muh glorious vanguard
>>27935205
NO ALARMS AND NO SURPRISES NO ALARMS AND NO SURPRISES NO ALARMS AND NO SURPRISES NO ALARMS AND NO SURPRISESim just having fun talking, I think anon is too. I'm thankful for these kinds of talks, they're fun and enlightening for mealso their anarchy is the one that would lead to jews sofuk u
>>27926656
Because I graduated middle school.
>>27926656
I personally don't want to live under a government but I understand that it's best for people as a whole to submit to a strong authority.
>>27935003
>that was the next step
Comfort? Yeah, I suppose. Either way, the prevention of suffering is every individual's goal, more or less. No one seeks suffering, right?
>in a huge one where needs are not met
In a huge society, that I'm assuming would be statist, the destruction of individuality to benefit the collective would inevitably lead to the suffering of individuals. These individuals seek to escape that suffering for sure, but in a personal way. I don't know if that makes sense
The end game is egoism, I think that's a given. In the future, there's going to be a return of strong individualism.
>>27935028
>because they have little resources
You're right. The more wealth and resources a group has, the more it can afford to help the weak. It doesn't change the fact that it would be better off letting the weak fall behind if they're not contributing to the group's advancement.
>I think that's pretty good
51% bullying the 49%? It's fucking terrible, m8
Democracy doesn't work because it gives power to the majority, and the majority is stupid as fuck, especially in a welfare state
>to face consequences
Sure but that's a moot point considering the society we live in.
>we agreed
I didn't, though
But I can't go anywhere else.
>inb4 somalia
>I want to use it later
>don't want others using it like that
You're more or less describing ownership here, in a way.
>if you didn't own it, it's not like you can have any feelings about other people using it when you aren't anyways
There's always an emotional attachment to the things you use regularly, that's why I said ownership was in our nature. We want things to be ours, in a primal way, like animals mark their territory. My stuff is my stuff, not your stuff. That kind of thing.
>if i don't own, I can't sell
Yeah, you're assuming you don't own your body. Otherwise, it would work
>>27935205
>Globalist
>implying statism isn't what's allowing the judeo masonic agenda to survive via inefficiency
Also, left-wing anarchism destroys culture. Right-wing anarchism (ancap, egoism, national anarchism) prevents their destruction because
1. the elimination of a welfare state eliminates illegal immigration, since illegal immigrants are mostly motivated by higher social benefits
2. the NAP and similar principles allow the preservation of a certain culture, community or ethnic heritage by considering invasion as an initiatory use of force
>capitalist corporatocracy
>implying monopolies aren't greatly state-dependent
>>27935487
>Comfort? Yeah, I suppose. Either way, the prevention of suffering is every individual's goal, more or less. No one seeks suffering, right?
this is one of my favorite avenues. I think through suffering people understand a lot more. I know more about me through my suffering than i do my pleasures. I also think I connect with others more intimately and profoundly through suffering. I don't seek it out though.
> the destruction of individuality to benefit the collective would inevitably lead to the suffering of individuals
I'm definitely not advocating for that. I feel like through an equal playing field, individuals could be even more individual rather than trying to overcome all these obstacles.
>These individuals seek to escape that suffering for sure, but in a personal way.
>I don't know if that makes sense
it does, it does. maybe I'm advocating for an egoist anarchism but without and capital.
>I think that's a given. In the future, there's going to be a return of strong individualism.
absolutely.
>It doesn't change the fact that it would be better off letting the weak fall behind if they're not contributing to the group's advancement.
true, but I don't think that's wrong. like I said earlier in the post, it's not about providing luxuries for people, but when resources are large enough to prevent everyone's unnecessary suffering, the people who choose not to help are *necessarily* put in suffering by others (they get beat up, shunned, etc.)
>51% bullying the 49%? It's fucking terrible, m8
>Democracy doesn't work because it gives power to the majority, and the majority is stupid as fuck, especially in a welfare state
I meant your analysis/joke was good. I found it funny, anyways. I totally agree though with all of that
>Sure but that's a moot point considering the society we live in.
I guess, I mean some people don't mind jail at all. they prefer it, so they can be total dicks outside and thrive inside jail.
>>27935751
>I didn't, though
>But I can't go anywhere else.
I totally get this, I didn't agree either, the consequences are totally imposed. Sucks, I'd go somewhere else if I could too.
>You're more or less describing ownership here, in a way.
it seems the same because the function is really similar, but there's some cognitive dissonance that happens with ownership. at least, I think so.
>There's always an emotional attachment to the things you use regularly, that's why I said ownership was in our nature.
there's never been a society without ownership, so we can't know that there's an identity you associate with using something regularly. But, the fact that there hasn't be a society without ownership kinda shows that we don't want to part with it, so I get your point.
I figure marking territory is more for a safety/survival thing, but I understand.
>Yeah, you're assuming you don't own your body. Otherwise, it would work
I know, that's what I'm saying though. if you don't own, you can't sell or buy.
>>27931426
>not recognising infamous trips
>>27935751
Oh, sure, you're right. Pain allows for more growth than satisfaction, and it is through suffering that we truly evolve. But it's precisely because we hate pain that it allows us to grow.
>maybe I'm advocating for an egoist anarchism
Egoist anarchism is vague enough, really. And it's not because you value individuality that you're an advocate of individualistic forms of anarchism
>but when resources are large enough to prevent everyone's unnecessary suffering, the people who choose not to help are *necessarily* put in suffering by others
Only if the society they live in subscribes to a specific ideology.
If these people were in a small survivalist tribe, or in an ancap society, or a functional, large scale association of egoists (those are just examples), they certainly would not be shunned.
If they lived in an ancom utopia, they'd be hung by the balls though.
>I totally agree
Oh okay. I'm not advocating for authoritarianism, but it's undeniable that technocracy is incredibly more efficient and less retarded than pure democracy. But either way, as long as there will be a centralized authority, people will never be free
>some people don't mind jail
I don't know man, I'm not into anal that much, especially not if it's on the receiving side
>>27935773
Cognitive dissonance happens as soon as there's human interaction.
Ownership is a good way to regulate the use of materials and services by providing a greater amount to the most successful, resilient and adaptable individuals.
>there's never been a society without ownership
Unless you count remote, primitive tribes in Oceania and South America, then I guess not.
Well, marking territory and owning something really is about the same fundamental principle: my things are mine, period. There's a sense of security and strength you get when you can benefit from material goods you know are "yours" and nobody else's.
>>27935996
>But it's precisely because we hate pain that it allows us to grow.
of course. I like that. I wonder sometimes though, like.. the way you're putting it, if we could agree to those things. I think there is, I think we do it. like, it already is an anarchy, we're just saying I don't want this consequence, i don't want that. I don't know really how to put it, but we're already there.
>And it's not because you value individuality that you're an advocate of individualistic forms of anarchism
okay, good that there's some distinction then.
>Only if the society they live in subscribes to a specific ideology.
yeah, talking about how some ideology could be successful or unsuccessful is way less fun than talking about why society exists, so I'd say we just not go there.
>But either way, as long as there will be a centralized authority, people will never be free
true but, like I was saying up there^, aren't we all already ultimately free? ultimate in an absolute, the highest, most central way, not like "it comes down to..." or anything.
>I don't know man, I'm not into anal that much, especially not if it's on the receiving side
i love anal, but I get it. I don't wanna get rammed in jail.at least not seriously, I'd totally do roleplays like that.what the fuck am I saying
>Ownership is a good way to regulate the use of materials and services by providing a greater amount to the most successful, resilient and adaptable individuals.
that makes sense. I think when you're viewing the framework, that's true, but I don't think that framework is necessary, needs to be the way it is, or even real (some consequence of our biology).
>There's a sense of security and strength you get when you can benefit from material goods you know are "yours" and nobody else's.
true, but when you have more than enough, that extra stuff can go away. and I mean, more than enough to have an extra safety net or two, too.
>>27935996
I think I'm on your side, in the sense that we either need no safety net at all, or plenty for everybody. Right now (in the US anyways, because that's all I truly have experience with) it's in between, and that makes for people who can stay in poverty and suffering but not die (or die off as a group), so the nets stay low without lifting us as a whole to anything more.
>>27936249
>it already is an anarchy
>aren't we all ultimately free?
Completely. In the egoist anarchist sense, we're already in an anarchy: the individual has the power to take action in whichever way he sees fit.
You're right, we are already free in the most basic sense. Even the basic law of nature (the strongest wins) applies to modern society, since the state is basically the biggest bully.
So yeah, I get what you mean. But it would still be nice if that individual freedom we all have (fundamentally) could be allowed to actually thrive in reality.
That's where illegalism becomes relevant, I suppose.
>I'd totally do roleplays
Anon pls
>I don't think that framework is necessary
Arguable
>needs to be that way
It doesn't need to be that way, it's just better.
>even real
Ownership?
Well, according to Stirner's definition of ownership, personal property is actually the most "real" thing there is, because of the ego's sovereignty over what it perceives.
>when you have more than enough
For some people, enough is never enough. For others, enough is just a place to live, some food and basic comfort. It depends.
>that extra stuff can go away
Yeah, as long as it doesn't bother whomever possesses this stuff
I'm actually all for minimalism in one's lifestyle. I don't own many things, and I'm not attached to any of my stuff aside from my computer.
Yet I'm an advocate of (ultra)capitalism because I believe in absolute freedom, and especially the freedom to choose, own, and choose what you own.
>>27936268
>no safety net at all
>plenty for everybody
The former makes more sense, since a universal safety net would require the rich to be highly taxed (among other reasons)
As far as I know, the US isn't bad when it comes to its policy on benefits and social security (much better than Europe, at least). I still think Democrats are being retarded though. Free healthcare isn't a "right", ffs
>>27926656
I enjoy anarchy and punk subcultures, however its infested with spoiled children and transgender socialists now so I'll pass.
>>27936565
>transgender socialists
Anarchism =/= left-wing, though
There's a form of anarchy for everyone.
>>27936548
>That's where illegalism becomes relevant, I suppose.
i agree, I think there are ways to strip away facades of restriction and be more transparently free.
>Well, according to Stirner's definition of ownership, personal property is actually the most "real" thing there is, because of the ego's sovereignty over what it perceives.
that's pretty interesting, I like it. I don't know if I agree but I still like it.
>For some people, enough is never enough. For others, enough is just a place to live, some food and basic comfort. It depends.
true
>I'm actually all for minimalism in one's lifestyle. I don't own many things, and I'm not attached to any of my stuff aside from my computer.
>Yet I'm an advocate of (ultra)capitalism because I believe in absolute freedom, and especially the freedom to choose, own, and choose what you own.
I think that makes sense. even the freedom to rule others in some sense.
>since a universal safety net would require the rich to be highly taxed (among other reasons)
I think that's only true where money/ownership exists, which is why you can't have ownership *and* enough resources for everyone (regardless of what "enough" means)
>I still think Democrats are being retarded though.
they are
>Free healthcare isn't a "right", ffs
why is that? I think health is, but with the way insurance companies and all work it doesn't even make sense, I can't reason out how there can even be arguments for free healthcare without just claiming it as some fundamental value and "it doesn't matter how, just as long as it gets done".
>>27936743
>there are ways to strip away facades of restriction
Look up Renzo Novatore.
>even the freedom to rule others
Of course. Some people need to be ruled, anyway, so they would willingly submit themselves to the authority of someone else even in an anarchist society.
>that's only true where money/ownership exists
True, but eliminating them is impossible anyway, for now at least. And I'm okay with that, I like having money. The elimination of currency would lead to a drop in innovation and in the maximum level of comfort available (there wouldn't be any incentive for anyone to manufacture Veblen goods)
>why is that
I said earlier that I didn't believe in any other law than the law of nature. This extends to society: there's no "right" to anything except what you can claim as yours, so, there's no "right" to healthcare unless you can afford its cost.
Free healthcare is a myth just like every other "free" thing, anyway.
Most internet anarchists are just left wing feminists that want to use violence
>>27936856
>Look up Renzo Novatore.
for sure
>they would willingly submit themselves to the authority of someone else even in an anarchist society.
cool thought, people are weird.
>True, but eliminating them is impossible anyway,
yeah, but that doesn't make it interesting and useful to talk about.
>I like having money.
me too, in this whole system anyways. if I were without money but still here it would fucking suck.
>The elimination of currency would lead to a drop in innovation
going from this to nothing definitely would, but I think there are ways to ween off or start anew somehow. like, it's the *elimination*, some severance that prevents us from functioning without it. if there could be a newness without severance, we'd be fine because the incentive would be self gratifying. create it for the sake of having it, not for the sake of selling it.
>This extends to society: there's no "right" to anything except what you can claim as yours, so, there's no "right"
ah, that's kinda what I meant about deserving I guess.
>Free healthcare is a myth just like every other "free" thing, anyway.
i agree, and I totally don't. Pay is a construct, so non-free isn't real. neither is free. It's just language I think.
>>27937018
>if I were without money but still here it would fucking suck.
Yeah, for sure. I'm starting to look into survivalism in order to develop a more minimalist lifestyle and hopefully become self-sufficient one day, I think that could be cool. Taxation is theft, I want out.
>there are ways to ween off or start anew somehow
I think that once society reaches a high enough point in terms of technology, we'll see it break down into tribalist forms of government again.
But right now, we could eliminate money realistically, but it would just be replaced by another type of system to measure the value of goods and services.
>the incentive would be self-gratifying
I suppose. But it depends on what you're producing. A lot of industries depend exclusively on customer demand, especially for large scale projects.
>Pay is a construct
>It's just language
Again, that's semantics: I was talking in the purely economic sense.
>>27937215
>Taxation is theft, I want out.
I agree, I think we should be able to opt out or in. receiving and giving. it's kinda ridiculous that it's a mandatory thing.
> it would just be replaced by another type of system to measure the value of goods and services.
agreed.
>But it depends on what you're producing.
true. I think something like cutting wood for fire is self gratifying (gratifying isn't the right word)
>A lot of industries depend exclusively on customer demand, especially for large scale projects.
yeah, I don't think people would make phones for themselves or to just give away. or internet service, which is strange because all that really takes is maintenance and electricity.
series of tubes.
>>27937291
>we should be able to opt out or in
Big brother wouldn't like that now would he?
>cutting wood for fire
Yeah I see what you mean. On the other hand, employing hundreds of men to build a luxury yacht isn't self-gratifying: only the act of owning and using the yacht provides satisfaction. And that yacht wouldn't be built if money did not exist.
And yeah you're right about phones and the Internet.
>>27937335
>employing hundreds of men to build a luxury yacht isn't self-gratifying:
yeah that's what I mean about gratifying being a bad word. I mean, the product is the means and end. the path and the destination. that works with firewood, and i guess it could with other more techy products but not everything. and advancement of any technology is definitely not an end in itself, it's a means to get to an end which is more pricey but desired products.
I think you're pretty spot on, we're just in a stage right now, still in motion on a trajectory towards something more free. it just kinda sucks now because we *require* money to make yachts and invent shit, we don't just do it because we want it. most of the time that's how it seems anyways.
>>27937462
>the product is the means and end
Depends on the product. Most products that would be considered unnecessary by primitivists (anything that doesn't play a role in your survival) are made with money as an incentive: if money wasn't there, they wouldn't be made.
Money is just there as a way to legitimize trade.
As soon as technology makes trade obsolete (in a long time, probably), we'll be able to truly evolve.
I'm going to sleep now. Thanks for the discussion anon, it was interesting.
>>27937806
have a nice rest. thank you too.
