Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
What's your political ideology, robots? Mine's anarcho-capitalism.
Bup bupa-a-lu a whop bump bump
Bayumpity bump
what makes the state illegitimate, but bosses fine?
in other words, why is government only bad when it is centralised to a certain degree?
>>29589297
Voluntary Cooperation is fine. Violating rights of others not. Hierarchy is not inherently bad.
>natural tendencies bad
>give everyone free reign
>apparently better than having people adhere to a higher standard
this dead old guy is retarded
Mine's kill all humans we're a failure of evolution
>>29589297
A boss has power over you only if you make a contract and agree to obey. You can change bosses without changing your country and losing your social circle or you can have no boss at all (start your own business or be a freelancer or an artist or leech of your parents or whatever).
Government on the other hand has power over you no matter you want it or not. Almost all livable land is under some government and you can't choose no government option. And if you disobey you'll be thrown in prison or even killed.
>>29589357
I never mentioned hierarchy though, the term used was government. By this is meant government in principle. It may be voluntary to work for a boss because you have no property, but really it's voluntary to give a mugger your wallet too. The freedom that exists in an interaction has everything with the strength of your alternatives. Somebody who is starving to death in a village somewhere I would argue is not free, because freedom is not just negative but it's also the potential for development. Of course negative freedom is also necessary to be free, but rights are a fabrication and homesteading, "mixing" labour and other arguments for the despotism over production we call property are absurd.
Chaote
Not a legit one but it can be summed by "everybody is intelligent and not a bitch so no need for restrictions of any kind since we all want the good of everyone"
>>29589399
If you disobey a boss you'll starve to death. What's the difference?
Can't go wrong with a technocracy, I say.
>>29589382
Are you a retard? He says if people are bad and can't be allowed to do as they wish how these same flawed people with power over other people will better the situation.
>>29589429
Bullshit. You can choose other bosses or no boss. Start your own business or be a freelancer or make art or grow potato and cukes in your garden or whatever. And I dont see people in the first world starving, even 'poor' ones.
>>29589440
What is technocracy?
>>29589414
So you are an anarchist?
>>29589490
If you start your own business, you're at the mercy of the masses. There's tyranny of the majority, this is tyranny of capital. All you can and can't do in a capitalist economy is decided by its profitability. People aren't starving because they either go to work, where they are exploited, or go on benefits, which is degrading. If you don't accept either of these subjugating terrors you starve.
>>29588966
Political: ancap
Personal: primitivism
I don't advocate my ideas anywhere, they wouldn't be taken seriously. I don't live by either, I have no survival skills and I don't spend time in nature.
>>29589550
>If you start your own business, you're at the mercy of the masses. There's tyranny of the majority, this is tyranny of capital. All you can and can't do in a capitalist economy is decided by its profitability
You have to make stuff people want, it's simple really. Why make useless things?
>People aren't starving because they either go to work, where they are exploited,
How is voluntary exchange of work for money exploitation? Are you excpect getting everything without working?
>>29589587
But why do you think primitivism is good if you havent lived primitively?
>>29589619
>You have to make stuff people want, it's simple really. Why make useless things?
You can't even conceive of doing something for yourself, or expressing your individuality as it differs from the crowd? That's the nature of capitalism. No freedom.
>How is voluntary exchange of work for money exploitation? Are you excpect getting everything without working?
It's exploitation because private property is not legitimate, it centralises what is needed to produce in the hands of a small minority, limiting the overall potential for human activity, i.e. freedom. Since the bourgeoisie owns all the facilities of work, they dictate the terms that work is conducted under. It may be a voluntary exchange, but it's certainly not a free exchange.
>>29589690
>You can't even conceive of doing something for yourself, or expressing your individuality as it differs from the crowd?
You can make art, nobody prohibits it. If people like it they even can pay you money for it, imagine that.
>It's exploitation because private property is not legitimate
Why?
>it centralises what is needed to produce in the hands of a small minority, limiting the overall potential for human activity, i.e. freedom. Since the bourgeoisie owns all the facilities of work, they dictate the terms that work is conducted under. It may be a voluntary exchange, but it's certainly not a free exchange.
Do you understand that factories and stuff don't just pop into existence, right? People who own them either started small and developed their business to become big, or they are descedents of people who started them, or they bought it or they were effective workers and got promoted to leadership or whatever. Nobody 'stole' this stuff from anybody, people worked to get it.
eco-anarchist, minarchist, cosmopolitan.
part of the problem is human beings having so many languages.
we need to dial this shit down to like 2 languages.
an asian based one and an english based one.
>>29589810
>You can make art, nobody prohibits it. If people like it they even can pay you money for it, imagine that.
This is why art in capitalism is so terrible.
>Why?
I explained, it's an economic dictatorship with no justifications.
>Do you understand that factories and stuff don't just pop into existence, right?
they're built by workers
>People who own them either started small and developed their business to become big
small businesses are just as bad, are harder to organise a workforce in and were the main support base for fascism
>or they are descedents of people who started them
a hereditary economic nobility, economic juche
>or they bought it or they were effective workers and got promoted to leadership or whatever
who promoted them, why do bosses have the right to judge merit?
>Nobody 'stole' this stuff from anybody, people worked to get it.
people did work for it but it certainly wasn't the owners
>>29589641
I've read about pre-civilized humans and surviving hunter-gatherer tribes. Our pre agricultural ancestors were stronger, healthier, lived dangerouslyTM, had strong social bonds etc. They lived long lives past infant death.
So I'm thinking I have something to learn from them. I'm white and live in the North so it's a bit different for me, of course. I have my own indigenous tribal traditions to take inspiration from. There are many forgotten wisdoms, such as home made cultured foods. But I've failed at it so far.
I'm atheist, secular manchild millenial guy, so it's tough. I view my atheism as a disability btw. I don't care that it's technically correct. Well I do, that's the problem. I want to believe in all kinds of magical shit like our ancestors used to. There's no mystery anymore.
>>29589813
>different cultures is a problem, we need to wipe them out to destroy social cohesion and create rootless masses
kys pls
mines liveascomfortablyasicanuntilidieism
capitalism requires a state and a capitalist business acts as a miniature state when it pays for a private police force
>>29589450
it's called bureaucracy. people with power have to answer to law or other organizations. free anarchic people just fuck around whatever.
>>29589895
>being a comfyfag
You know you're hamstringing your own personal growth right? It's in the fire that we're tested and purified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy
You wagecucks will love this part.
"Jefferson's belief was that unlimited expansion of commerce and industry would lead to the growth of a class of wage laborers who relied on others for income and sustenance. The workers would no longer be independent voters. Such a situation, Jefferson feared, would leave the American people vulnerable to political subjugation and economic manipulation. The solution Jefferson came up with was, as scholar Clay Jenkinson noted, "a graduated income tax that would serve as a disincentive to vast accumulations of wealth and would make funds available for some sort of benign redistribution downward."
>>29589887
that's not what i said, but okay. that's the opposite of cosmopolitan ideology in fact.
i want to see cultures together, but i also want to see borders disappear. "celebrating culture" isn't enough.
There's absolutely nothing desirable about arachno-capitalism, all of you fucks who support that system should be beaten up for being so retarded.
>>29588966
if anarcho capitalism were to be the law of the land, what stops those with power from basically doing whatever they want to the people who can't really stop them?
>>29590056
The free market will take care of everything and right all wrong.
Just kidding of course it won't. Ancap is just feudalism with a new name.
>>29589874
>This is why art in capitalism is so terrible.
The purpose of art is to be aesthetically pleasing, to be liked by people (visual arts). To give people something to think about to tell a story (literature). And if you say somethings shit it doesnt make it so. We dont have censorship or something. Do what you like even if nobody likes it.
>I explained, it's an economic dictatorship with no justifications.
No justifications? Really? Do you want me to gib u sum justifications?
>they're built by workers
Try building something nobody needs. You wont get rewards for that. To be employed there needs to be an employer. Work is uselees if nobody needs it.
>small businesses are just as bad, are harder to organise a workforce in and were the main support base for fascism
WOO WOO faSHizm!
>a hereditary economic nobility, economic juche
Whats wrong with inheritance? People work hard to ensure their childrens prosperous future.
>who promoted them, why do bosses have the right to judge merit?
Who should have the right if not rhe owner?
>people did work for it but it certainly wasn't the owners
Are an idiot? You think managing a business is not a job? Deciding how many things should be made etc buying raw material, searching for dealers etc Making business work. If it goes bankrupt then no job for workers.
>>29590056
You stop them. People stop them. People with guns.
>>29590144
el oh ell
>>29589878
>I don't care that it's technically correct.
It's not actually technically correct. There are prophecies in the bible predicting events in detail that wouldn't happen until hundreds to thousands of years later. God is real. Supernatural beings are real. There's a whole realm of existence beyond what you know to be true.
>>29590096
>The purpose of art is to be aesthetically pleasing, to be liked by people (visual arts). To give people something to think about to tell a story (literature).
So the purpose of all art to you is to meet some other person's demand? Every day I;m more convinced of the ignoblity and vulgar collectivism of capitalism
>Do what you like even if nobody likes it.
To be a good artist takes time and effort, if you want to be able to paint a greater number of things for example. If you become a professional painter, which is the only practical way if you want to be serious, you're subjugated to the market.
>No justifications? Really? Do you want me to gib u sum justifications?
yes, all arguments for private property I've heard have been ridiculous
>Try building something nobody needs. You wont get rewards for that.
you said to do that with art
>To be employed there needs to be an employer. Work is uselees if nobody needs it.
more slave mentality
>WOO WOO faSHizm!
I value my freedom and fascists would kill me
>Whats wrong with inheritance? People work hard to ensure their childrens prosperous future
do you believe in hereditary monarchy? property is just another way for one person to subjugate another by merit of nothing more than their birth
>Who should have the right if not rhe owner?
Nobody if they're deciding it for someone else
>Are an idiot? You think managing a business is not a job? Deciding how many things should be made etc buying raw material, searching for dealers etc Making business work. If it goes bankrupt then no job for workers.
robbing people takes a lot of effort and risk
and to say workers would have no job if there was no employment rests on the assumption that property must exist
>>29588966
Honorarianism
It's basically an anarchistic version of feudalism.
The tenets are as follows:
1.Honorarianism is a practice. It is providence; it begins the rise of a civilization and ends at the fall of civilization.
2. Through the utilization of Honour, morality, and ritual propriety, we attain an honorarian society. If we live by words and decrees, we will avoid crime on the basis of punishment; if we live by honor, propriety and morality, we will avoid crime on the basis of shame.
3. Whose society? the moral agency of society, by which:
4. In likeness, we come together; in empathy, we feel for eachother; in communication, we understand eachother; these three virtues make up the foundation of morality.
>>29590144
>implying that you have enough power to stop warlords/corporations from stealing your shit
okay, man
I have no idea what I believe or what I think is right and wrong. I don't know how to figure it out.
Paleoconservative
I just can't hop on the nazi or fascistboo train like some people on this site
>>29590278
it only takes an armed 15% of the population of the US to overthrow the government. that isn't counting defectors and people who will refuse to shoot civilians. this is why the second amendment is essential against tyranny.
>>29590231
>So the purpose of all art to you is to meet some other person's demand?
Youcan do whatever in your sparetime even if nobody likes it. But generally, yeah, people make music and books and pictures for other people to enjoy.
>To be a good artist takes time and effort, if you want to be able to paint a greater number of things for example. If you become a professional painter, which is the only practical way if you want to be serious, you're subjugated to the market.
You must do likable stuff, yeah. Why do you expect to be given everything for painting noncollectivist super cool paintings which nobody likes?
>yes, all arguments for private property I've heard have been ridiculous
Here you go. There is enormous amount of people have limitless amount of wishes, and to fullfill these wishes they wont to use limited amount of resources. Interests of all these people come into conflict. To decide who can and who cannot use a resource to fullfill their wishes there is a wonderful mechanism: private property.
>you said to do that with art
in your spare time.
>do you believe in hereditary monarchy?
No, first monarchs subjugated prestate societies. They are nothing more than a gang.
>>29588966
Patriarchal nationalism.
Pic related. Tests are filteries.com, celebritytypes and politicalcompass.
>>29590278
What stops the state from instituting involuntary slavery? The morals of the population. Slavery existed everywhere in the world for thousands of years, but at one point some people decided that it was immoral. Despite giant economic interests they managed to persuade the majority of people and in the most of the civilized world slavery was eradicated (it still exists in some African and Asian countries). If some modern western government decides do reinstitute slavery, this idea would be met with such universal outrage and resistance, that the government will have to back down. Such exactly attitude towards authority is a prerequisite for an anarcho-capitalist society. What tyrant in his right mind would dream of ruling such a people, where resistance and hatred and disobedience is universal?
>>29590405
That doesn't prove anarcho capitalism right, that just means that a government overthrow is somewhat plausible. Like the other Anon said, anarcho capitalism would just lead to feudalism 2.0.
>>29590425
>Why do you expect to be given everything for painting noncollectivist super cool paintings which nobody likes?
I don't, in fact if I was it would probably ruin it
>Here you go. There is enormous amount of people have limitless amount of wishes, and to fullfill these wishes they wont to use limited amount of resources. Interests of all these people come into conflict. To decide who can and who cannot use a resource to fullfill their wishes there is a wonderful mechanism: private property
So it's just one out of many potential ways to manage resources? This isn't necessarily an argument for any one system so much as a generalised statement about resource management, and capitalism wastes a massive amount of resources.
>in your spare time.
you have much less spare time if you work for a boss, who doesn't work himself
>No, first monarchs subjugated prestate societies. They are nothing more than a gang.
same with the first proprietors, there was some first act of appropriation and then violence
anarcho-judaism
basically I make the commies and fascists fight each other then sell their belongings after they kill each other
Itt: anarcho-capitalism is a meme politic.
>>29590555
at some point people will realize that the masses are too stupid for less government. people are stupid is not a meme, people are really really fucking stupid, especially beaners and blacks.
voting is there to make these stupid people feel like they aren't complete subhumans and it works.
>>29590525
>So it's just one out of many potential ways to manage resources? This isn't necessarily an argument for any one system so much as a generalised statement about resource management
I've not encountered other plausible systems.
> and capitalism wastes a massive amount of resources.
Oh, please. Look at venezuella. Highest oil resources in the world, people are destitute.
>Not nesesaryly. First propritors were people who first mixed their labour with resourses. I agree that thruout histoty there were a lot of violence and illegitimate appropriations, but because we cannot know now who the first legitimate owner was, we just have to accept the current ownership. The market will give property to people who use it effeciantly.
>>29590771
>Oh, please. Look at venezuella. Highest oil resources in the world, people are destitute.
I don't advocate for Venezuela though
>Not nesesaryly. First propritors were people who first mixed their labour with resourses. I agree that thruout histoty there were a lot of violence and illegitimate appropriations, but because we cannot know now who the first legitimate owner was, we just have to accept the current ownership
it makes sense to be entitled to the product, but to appropriate the entire instrument of production, i.e. land, is just theft.
>The market will give property to people who use it effeciantly.
but only efficiently by the standards of the market
I will go to bed soon proprietarian anon, it was good talking and sorry if I seemed angry or hostile.
>>29590771
>Oh, please. Look at venezuella. Highest oil resources in the world, people are destitute.
venezuella is literally 3/4 private sector
>>29588966
r e c r e a t i o n a l
n u k e s
>>29590609
All ancap means is those stupid people can't force you to do things, have a community for which you need to agree to a contract to entire with a minimum IQ to enter. Tons of possibilities, in a free society you AREN'T able to be abused by stupid people, that's kind of the point.
>capitalism wastes a massive amount of resources
Capitalism incentives efficiency first and foremost. If you are being inefficient you will be out-competed.
>yes, all arguments for private property I've heard have been ridiculous
>It's exploitation because private property is not legitimate,
>No freedom
Freedom is the ability to follow your choices, and make decisions for yourself. You having ownership of yourself and control of your actions/life. If private property is not legitimate, how is it logical to pursue freedom? Do you disagree that ones body is their private property?
>>29591462
forgot to quote
not sure how you can advocate freedom if you don't advocate for private property
>>29590876
>>29588966
Minarchist, pretty close to yours.
>inb4 lol enjoy no neetbux
I'm a wagey.
>closed borders, fuck unqualified immigrants
>little to no social security and benefits; food vouchers and the like for those who truly need them, under high scrutiny so no abuse
>"free" trade but the market is still regulated: basic worker's rights (no min wage though) and environmental laws enforced, tariffs and import quotas, etc
>the government is strong and present but not ubiquitous nor inefficient, no wasteful programs like cumulative welfare or gov-financed media; strong army, police and homeland security/foreign affairs departments
>good individual freedoms, but to a certain extent (hard drugs illegal, euthanasia under close scrutiny, no gay marriage)
>government in the form of a representative democracy
What is such an ideology called, if it even has a name?
Fascism.
>>29590352
I used to be a paleo-con, but I got redpilled on democracy. I mean look at what it's brought us in America. The people have voted themselves into slavery in return for gibsmedats. It's a goddamn sham. What we need is a revolution to overthrow the whole system. Democracy simply cannot solve the problems we face today.
>>29593142
But isn't democracy the least shitty option we've got?
Totalitarianism is even worse, since a bad leader brings the country to its knees. At least a bad leader in democracy fucks off after five years or so.
>>29592988
probably paleo-conservative like pat buchanan
>>29592988
Mercantilism with some democracy
welcome to the 17th century
>>29592429
How does a state not violate the NAP?
>>29593181
What?
>>29593178
Aren't paleocons more right-leaning and more traditionalist in their values than what I described?
>>29589490
Are ancaps really this delusional? Get the fuck off my board, I like my Neetbux and accept genetic determinism and pessimism.
>>29593253
and you're no doubt miserable because of it and will never escape
I'm a socialist. Cosmopolitan socialism is best socialism. Nationalism is evil.
>>29593281
>Muh murket
>>29593175
>Totalitarianism is even worse, since a bad leader brings the country to its knees.
The problem is democracy makes people complacent. They tolerate the government's wrongdoings because they feel like they have power to change it. If a dictator were doing what our government is doing, there would be a revolution.
>At least a bad leader in democracy fucks off after five years or so.
The leader is irrelevant on his own. He is representative of the entire system. Switching leaders changes nothing about the underlying system. And the underlying system of America has one single goal - making maximum profit for the economic and political elite. Voting for Trump won't change that (although it will improve the situation slightly).
>>29593183
How does private owners treating the people on their property like shit (i.e a corporation that owns a section of land ruling like a dictator) not violate the NAP? You can always say "well you can fuck off to another place then" but that's similar to the statist "why don't you move to somalia then?", don't forget the dictator can stop their people from leaving, so I'd rather have some extremely limited government to stop that type of thing. Essentially I view government a necessary evil that's sometimes needed to hold up the NAP but must be severely restrained to stop it from doing the exact thing it was made to prevent.
>>29593309
I understand where you're coming from, but I still don't understand how a bad dictator wouldn't be much worse than a bad democratically elected representative.
You're right, the underlying system isn't changed by the leaders themselves, but that's true for fascism just like for democracy. What's necessary in that case is a fundamental destruction of the previous sytem and the construction of a new, more efficient one. That relies entirely on the people.
>If a dictator were doing what our government is doing, there would be a revolution
Not necessarily. A dictator is backed by the military and the police. Most tyrannical dictators weren't overthrown by the populace, iirc.
I'm also not a fan of totalitarianism because of its extremism. I don't think extremism works in the long run, there has to be a certain balance to things. Again, democracy is shit, but it's the "best" we've got in order to maintain some cohesion.
I can definitely get behind the aesthetics of fascism though, if anything. But I'd like to hear more from your point of view.
>>29593309
Yes but what if the revolution is over something stupid and will fuck up the country worse than simply electing a new leader? After all, people can rebel because they want more gibsmedats.
>>29593436
>How does private owners treating the people on their property like shit (i.e a corporation that owns a section of land ruling like a dictator) not violate the NAP?
Private security forces would defend those peoples land, a corporation can't just claim it and if it originally built on the land and people moved into it they'd sign a contract establishing terms and the company would be punished for violating them.
>, don't forget the dictator can stop their people from leaving
Again this violates the NAP and he would be guilty of crime and you'd have private arbitration and security forces resolve it, people would have to sign something when moving it and you just wouldn't move anywhere with absurd rules. He couldn't just impose them on people though.
>Essentially I view government a necessary evil that's sometimes needed to hold up the NAP
So you just don't have consistent principals? "The Nap should only be followed when I feel like it"
We can initiate force when we kind of have too because you could never privately do _______. (fill in the blank with every thing the state claims only it can do that can be better done in the free market)
>>29588966
>anarcho-capitalism.
cool meme bro I'm an anarcho-fascist, I also enjoy slapping "anarcho" to ideologies that go against anarchism.
>>29588966
Anarcho-Capitalism is a bit too free for me. I'm just a bog standard Liberal. I think Anarcho-Capitalism is a bit too idealistic, baby steps man.
>>29593696
Why? please form actual arguments.
>>29593626
Just saying things don't go together isn't an argument buddy.
>>29589901
my statements have not been refuted so they must be true
>>29593559
But what if the laws enforced by the private security company are unjust? Also what defenses are there against a particularly rich fellow bribing the PMC and the pmc going "eh whatever" and moving on, as much as I hate the state, justice is one of the few things it should cover. Of course one can simply not hire a PMC because of it's incompetence but the damage will still be dealt. Also you realize that after a guy signs the contract, the company can change the terms and say "LOL FUCK U", don't forget it can get so rich that it can always just hire the pmcs into working for them rather than the people. Essentially my biggest fear of anarcho capitalism is that it'll turn into a kind of neo-feudalist system. If you can give me some proof that won't happen I'd be a voluntaryist like you.
>>29593559
>you'd have private arbitration and security forces resolve it
what prevents one party from owning the arbitration body or the security forces? How do you guarantee and fair and objective trial and regulations?
>Private security forces would defend those peoples land, a corporation can't just claim it and if it originally built on the land and people moved into it they'd sign a contract establishing terms and the company would be punished for violating them.
You're misinterpreting his question or maybe avoid it intentionally.
He's asking about a corporation that rightly owns land, rightly has workers, but underpays its workers and abuses them.
>>29593753
People are shitty.
Any form of system is going to be abused
Anarcho anything is going to end up with too much power in the hands of the elite. The world is not all equal, some people will always end up on top. Even in our current system there is a massive power imbalance. Removing checks, aka anarcho-whatever, is just going to make it worse. You anarchos are stupid. You WILL be a slave to the elite. You want anarchism because you think it will improve your life or give you a chance to be part of the elite. It will not. Poor people should want socialism. And frankly everyone on this board is poor.
>inb4 bloo bloo I make 100k a year
that's poor buddy.
>>29593753
I bet your willy gets rock-hard when arguing with other people about your science-fiction dystopian ideology huh?
>>29593823
>emoving checks, aka anarcho-whatever, is just going to make it worse. You anarchos are stupid. You WILL be a slave to the elite.
That's only the case of anarcho-capitalism though. Its' the one form of "anarchism" based on competition. Which is why calling it "anarcho" is always such a fedora move by them.
Literally every other form anarchism is based on co-operation.
Social liberalism
It's not really an original stance but at least it's not a meme ideology
>>29593887
>Literally every other form anarchism is based on co-operation.
And that's why it will never fucking happen on a large scale, ever.
>>29593800
>>But what if the laws enforced by the private security company are unjust?
Study polycentric law a bit more
No one would hire them and they wouldnt' be able to reach any agreements with abritration agencies or other PS agencies so they would be useless.
>Also what defenses are there against a particularly rich fellow bribing the PMC and the pmc going "eh whatever"
That that PMC would violate all it's contracts and nobody would ever use them again, and no one would work with them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
poly centric law basic video
>Also you realize that after a guy signs the contract, the company can change the terms and say "LOL FUCK U"
Not if it's a term of the contract and there would be outside parties who handle the actual contracts
>don't forget it can get so rich that it can always just hire the pmcs into working for them rather than the people.
Okay so it can hire private security so? Companies hire private security nowadays.
>Essentially my biggest fear of anarcho capitalism is that it'll turn into a kind of neo-feudalist system. If you can give me some proof that won't happen I'd be a voluntaryist like you.
You don't seem to have looked into it at all, and feudalism requires the initiation of force.
>>29593948
Fair enough, am now voluntaryist.
>>29588966
You should look into Mutualism, if you haven't already. Essentially it's just a different, and I would argue much more realistic, analysis of market anarchism. Mutualists view capitalist norms (Wage labor, hierarchies, rent, excessive interest, etc) unable to be sustained without the state, and impossible when it comes to voluntary association. And no, contrary to the Wikipedia page, it is not based off of the LTV. Really only Proudhon says so; most mutualists subscribe to the subjective theory of value or a hybrid of the two.
And to address the thread, if you haven't already guessed, I am a Mutualist.
>>29593823
>The world is not all equal, some people will always end up on top
Yes the people who contribute the most this is a GOOD thing.
>Anarcho anything is going to end up with too much power in the hands of the elite.
If they can't initiate force why does this matter?
The elite are also a product of the state, not something it protects against. Regulatory capture, beaurcracy, taxes, and tons of other systems exist today simply to reinforce the elite, state power is a tool that is used by them. In ancap they can't initaite force so it's a non-issue though.
>. Poor people should want socialism
Is that why freer markets have historically always resulted in the biggest improvements in standards of living for the low income? This justifies shooting people who disagree with you? Socialism just removes your individual power it's absurd to imply that having individual choice makes you a slave. You want to create agencies allowed to force people to do things, I don't.
>>29593854
Not an argument
>>29594025
How does any of that require a state to be sustained?
> impossible when it comes to voluntary association
holy shit WHAT
How is voluntary choosing to do something impossible with voluntary association, and what is the alternative that keeps it voluntary?
>>29594029
Convincing people they should follow a voluntaryist ideology and expecting a society to uphold a NAP are fools gambits. There is no reason saying an elite couldn't easily rise up by forming tribal allegiances and promising favors to create a new state based on their influence in a free market. Keep in mind, the world before statism was ostensibly ancap. Tribes used new technology and influence over land to leverage power over others and create the state. Anarchism isn't sustainable because it relies on people buying in and commit to the ideology which is clearly not the case seeing as we do not exist in an ancap society. It is too easy to consolidate power in the vacuum of the free market.
>>29594066
Lets look at one of these capitalist norms so you can see what I'm trying to say. I'll reference an analysis of the state's money monopoly from Kevin Carson's "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy":
"Individualist anarchists like William Greene and Benjamin Tucker viewed the money monopoly as central to the capitalist system of privilege...
In a genuinely free banking market, any voluntary grouping of individuals could form a cooperative bank and issue mutual bank notes against any form of collateral they chose, with acceptance of these notes as tender being a condition of membership. Tucker and Greene usually treated land as the most likely form of collateral, but at one point Greene speculated that a mutual bank might choose to honor not only marketable property as collateral, but the "pledging ... [of] future production." But assuming that the mutual bank limited itself to rendering liquid the property of its members, there would be, strictly speaking, "no borrowing at all"...
Near-zero interest rates would increase the independence of labor in all sorts of interesting ways. For one thing, anyone with a twenty-year mortgage at 8% now could, in the absence of usury, pay it off in ten years. Most people in their 30s would own their houses free and clear. Between this and the nonexistence of high-interest credit card debt, two of the greatest sources of anxiety to keep one's job at any cost would disappear. In addition, many workers would have large savings ("go to hell money"). Significant numbers would retire in their forties or fifties, cut back to part-time, or start businesses; with jobs competing for workers, the effect on bargaining power would be revolutionary."
Why do you think, without the assistance from a state, capitalist norms such as hierarchies would be a dominating force over cooperatives?
>There is no reason saying an elite couldn't easily rise up by forming tribal allegiances and promising favors to create a new state based on their influence in a free market
Every other company would be highly incentivized to go against them, the security forces would have to be totally bankrolled by them so it would be extremely costly for the company (allowing other companies to out-compete them), it would require the population just accepting it and not leaving or just bankrolling external companies private security forces, and thinking all other "elites" (even though the wealth wouldn't just be totally with 1 person in an organization) would just trust his promise and let him initiate force against them is absurd.
>the world before statism was ostensibly ancap.
Tribal societies were largely not capitalist.
>Anarchism isn't sustainable because it relies on people buying in and commit to the ideology which is clearly not the case seeing as we do not exist in an ancap society
No it doesn't it just relies on market forces making it economically impossible for a company to bankroll a state, now we have the state protecting them allowing companies to become way safer and larger then they would otherwise.
>>29588966
Visit /pol/, you will quickly lose your ancap views
Because they're literally retarded and don't work out in the real world
>>29588966
I don't subscribe to any ideology, mainly because I don't know enough about any of them to identify with one. And I don't really care because it is stupid.
>>29593911
>And that's why it will never fucking happen on a large scale, ever.
Who says it would? It depends on how "large" you're thinking as well. it wouldn't replace globalization for sure but we've yet to see it flourish naturally.
Anarchism is based on free association. Only those who want to be anarchists and want to live in an anarchist society would do so.
It's not like capitalism or communism or democracy where it FORCES everyone to live under their system even if they believe in another system.
>>29594251
forgot to quote
>>29594145
>>29594212
>capitalist norms such as hierarchies would be a dominating force over cooperatives
Of course they would, because they actually incentivize good choices and efficiency. In ancap you can do your idealist hippy shit you would just fail in competition because it has shit for incentive. Again it still is forcing people to NOT do something because they don't like it, that isn't voluntary. Nobody would force them to use big mean scary banks who charge interest it would be their free choice, as it is voluntary.
>>29594307
>those who want to be anarchists and want to live in an anarchist society would do so.
Such a society would immediately get fucked by neighboring countries who weren't stupid enough to give up a centralized authority in the name of freedom.
>>29594322
There would be private defense agencies, and many private companies seeking to get away from taxes, and as well as just private citizens to defend it. All you need is a couple nukes.
Daily reminder, not to you specifically OP, but to the people on this thread, that Capitalism needs three things to be considered Capitalism:
>Market Economy
>Private ownership of the Means of Production
>Wage labor
Capitalism isn't just "voluntary association," fucking randroids and austrianfags. Ancap can be voluntary but its not the only anarchist ideology that is baka
I believe in values, not ideologies.
>>29594373
So your solution to national defense is using nuclear missiles under whose authority? An I democratically elected cooperation with incentive to eliminate competition? The mafia is also a free enterprise that uses violence to manipulate the market to their advantage.
>>29594373
>private defense agencies
I'll just watch as your small PMCs attempt to defend a territory that they have no stake in against an organized army backed by a true military budget.
>get away from taxes
Not a powerful enough incentive.
>private citizens to defend it
Citizens against a foreign army which has access to military logistics? Are you serious?
>All you need is a couple nukes
Where are you getting these nukes? You can't order nuclear missiles on Amazon, you know.
>>29594376
I didn't see anyone claiming otherwise.
>>29594392
If you have certain principals/values would they not lead you to a certain ideology?
>>29594411
>So your solution to national defense is using nuclear missiles under whose authority?
Against whoever is being attacked and has one?
>An I democratically elected cooperation with incentive to eliminate competition
What?
>The mafia is also a free enterprise that uses violence to manipulate the market to their advantage.
They initiate force, and are the same thing as the state.
>>29594424
>I'll just watch as your small PMCs attempt to defend a territory that they have no stake in against an organized army backed by a true military budget.
Private companies have large budgets and it would be an investment, the state doing so would also have to rationalize it in some way to its citizens and you could reasonably have people being paid quite alot to undermine their state and kill their politicians.
>Not a powerful enough incentive.
To move somewhere? Of course it is.
>Citizens against a foreign army which has access to military logistics? Are you serious?
>taliban
>revolutionary war
Those are without significant funding or advanced weapons or modern communication.
>Where are you getting these nukes? You can't order nuclear missiles on Amazon, you know.
You'd just need a couple decently off capitalists or even a large group of free people to agree to put the resources/money together to obtain one
>>29594318
Mutualism is as voluntary as ancap. It's a market economy, no economic planning, and obviously there's no state so no mob rule or anything. Idk if you're opposing that but just wanted to make that clear if you were.
When we look at complete competition, this example being banks, why would high interest rates continue? There's nothing stopping a few individuals from coming together and issuing their own currency, or even an already existing currency. Currently under a state, it's almost impossible to create a new bank, and interest rates remain high; in some places it's also because of a central bank but interest rates were high before that. With the state gone, individuals will come together to create banks and there will be a shit load of competition. As I'm sure you'll agree, competition leads to lower prices and better service. So why would that be different with banks? Obviously under Mutualism there's no one telling/FORCING you to not charge interest other than to cover administration costs, but how do you think high interest would exist with complete competition?
Capitalism makes the unfair assumption that labor and wage labor are the cornerstone of a civilization when in reality, labor is simply a means to an end. Labor seeks to achieve sustenance via food, water, and shelter all in order to gain freedom from labor in the future. People work to save in an ideal world and those that cannot save wish they could and work to the ideal of freedom from labor.
Therefore it is incorrect to assume labor is essential. Labor is the stepping stone of society in order to produce sustenance without labor via automation. Once this has been achieved, labor is simply and antiquated idea. Freedom is to be without labor.
>>29588966
Technocratic Fascism
>>29594490
>large budgets
Because of whom? Civilians don't usually pay private contractors. They're backed by states.
You're describing a highly specific situation and not addressing the problem.
>To move somewhere
To move to another state, yes. Not to some decentralized commune.
>>taliban
The conflicts you're thinking about have nothing to do with the kind of warfare that would take place in the situation we're considering right now. If a US state decided to become """anarchist""" and seceded, for example.
> group of free people to agree to put the resources/money together to obtain one
You're not being realistic, just like 99% of anarchists. You think the UN and similar organizations would let a bunch of idealists build their own nuke? Do you know what Iran is?
>>29594490
Initiating force has always triumphed over voluntaryism. That is why we have the state and not anarchy.
People want to associate with other people who are like them.
You can't just open the borders to Nigerians who have sub 70 IQ's and violent crime rates 10 times higher than the typical white population. Or Muslims who spit on the ground every time they see you're not worshipping their sand nigger desert god and plot terror attacks behind your back.
So what will happen is a group of people who want a safe place to live and raise a family will get together and found their own little community somewhere where they can be safe. They'll build a wall around it to keep out everyone else, and only allow people in who they judge to be amenable to their shared values.
Issues like the roads, the borders, the management of pests such as mosquitos.....etc. These issues affect everybody, so everybody needs to get a say in their resolution. Therefore there needs to be a democratic process to adjudicate the will of the community
Why should one person spend the time, effort, and money fixing the border fence when everyone in the community benefits from it? Localized cost, dispersed benefit means that nothing ever gets done. Therefore you need to have rules which state that everyone in the community benefiting from the resolution of these shared problems needs to contribute something. Call it "taxes", call it whatever you like, but it's necessary
Also, there need to be rules of moral conduct. If this is to be a safe place to raise children, you can't have people fucking in the streets. You need to enforce community standards of some degree
Furthermore, there are certain economic concerns better handled at the community level. For example, in a housing development it's inefficient for every single house to have it's own network of pipes delivering water to it. Therefore since everybody in the local area needs to subscribe to the same company delivering water, everybody needs to get a say, through a democratic process. This is an issue best handled by a local community government
>>29588966
National Conservatism.
That means a free market economy without allowing degenerate shit like gay marriage or transgender rights and multiculturalism.
>>29594322
>Such a society would immediately get fucked by neighboring countries
Countries already get fucked by neighboring countries these days.
>>29592988
Holy shit, are you me?
I agree completely with this.
>>29594511
So whats the difference with ancap then?
If that is actually viable sure but I don't care if it follows the NAP
whatever is most efficient should succeed.
>>29594544
Companies have budgets for defense because it would be an investment for future profits, it's not a defense company it has money because it's offering a service/product efficiently.
>To move to another state, yes. Not to some decentralized commune.
If they can avoid all taxes why wouldn't they?
If it's stable and has security forces there I don't see why not.
>The conflicts you're thinking about have nothing to do with the kind of warfare that would take place in the situation we're considering right now. If a US state decided to become """anarchist""" and seceded, for example.
If the us becomes anarchist we have plenty of nukes
(though it wouldn't just suddenly change it would be a slower process most likely)
>You're not being realistic, just like 99% of anarchists. You think the UN and similar organizations would let a bunch of idealists build their own nuke? Do you know what Iran is?
This would only be a problem after a voluntarist society is created which would likely involve quite a bit of counter-economics and undermining state power. The UN wouldn't have a say in whether we have a nuke or not, and I didnt' say make.
>>29594549
>Initiating force has always triumphed over voluntaryism. That is why we have the state and not anarchy.
explain slavery
>>29594713
You're a bretty cool guy, anon. What would you call your ideology?
What is the An-Cap position in relation to migration and Nationalism?
Too much freedom can be a bad thing, especially when other races that are not white or East-Asian are allowed a slice of the pie.
The political compass test thingy puts me about a square and a half in to the righty/libertarian (lower right) quadrant, which I think it fairly accurate. I have voted on for every part of the political spectrum in past elections based on candidate, the specific party in question, and my confidence in their ability to do somewhat better than a catastrophically terrible job.
Make 'merica great again tho.
>>29594738
I'm >>29594694
So, National Conservatism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_conservatism
>>29594705
>Countries already get fucked by neighboring countries these days.
Yeah, and an anarchist society would as well.
>>29594721
>If it's stable
it's an anarchist society, of course it's not stable. And a militia formed of citizens isn't a security force.
>If the us becomes anarchist
Reading comprehension. I was talking about a state, say New Mexico or some shit, who cares. Or another country like Honduras or whatever, it doesn't matter.
>The UN wouldn't have a say
How naive.
>>29594721
Explaining slavery is easy: people began to have moral reservations about people being owned as property. In the same way, people are beginning to have moral reservations about people being without food or without the same economic opportunities as others. So they rely on the STATE to pass legislation and enforce said legislation in order to protect society and their fellow man. And anarchy still fails to be relevant :0)
Why is every irrelevant fedoralord an anclap?
>>29589357
Why are rights good?
Why do rights exist?
>>29594782
I see. I think I'm more moderate about social issues, I just don't want gays and mentally ill people parading and talking shit about equality or whatever, nor do I want immigrants coming for the benefits and shitting up the country. Other than that people should have a reasonable amount of freedom.
What's your political compass like? Pic related
>>29590096
>He thinks literature is storytelling
You're a fucking retard.
How can someone claim land? No one has any right to land nor does any person have right to anyone else's labor. Capitalism is a meme.
If you aren't anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist, then you're either economically illiterate or a statist fascist.
Collectivism will always lead to totalitarianism and mass murder.
>>29594847
Your chart is complete bullshit, it doesn't work like that.
Also
>using statist as an insult
>>29592988
>good individual freedoms
>no gay marriage
What the fuck
>>29594847
Oh, fuck off with the Horseshoe Theory.
All it is is a bullshit theory concocted by Centrists so they can masturbate about how superior they are to anyone with an actual opinion.
Furthermore, this assumes that National Socialism is far-right instead of Centrist.
Pretty far-leftist economics, far-rightist social policy. It balances out to equal Centrism.
>>29594823
My political compass is basically exactly where yours is. I got rid of my screenshot I had of it, but it was two squares up from the centre and three squares into the blue quadrant.
>>29594889
Gays can fuck each other in the ass in the privacy of their own homes, but expecting the taxpayers to endorse homosexual behavior is stupid. I'm not even religious, but marriage is between a guy and a girl, that's how it is.
LGBTQWhateverthefuck has gone too far, it needs to be stopped and given strict restrictions
>>29594926
Oh, okay. Moderate right-authoritarian is where it's at bby
>>29594878
lol i called my dad a statist once for defending the police when they searched someone we know. so fucking glad i dropped libershitism.
Libertarianism has this crazy idea where they atomize everybody down to the level of the individual. The truth is, human beings are not fundamentally individuals, they are tribes. This is the correct way to look at human beings and human behavior.
We don't exist as free floating entities disconnected from the world around us. Take a salmon out of a stream in California and dump him in the Hudson river. As he dodges floating garbage ask yourself, is he the lesser? First of all he'll have a hell of a time reproducing with no other salmon around. The environment is totally different from what he's adapted to. The water is different, the seasons are different, he'll no longer have any contact with other fish like him. Do you think a salmon is capable of feeling loneliness?
Pluck a German accountant out of his community and drop him in ancient Egypt. Is he the lesser? He'll no longer connect with his neighbors in a natural easy way. His skill set he's spent his entire life developing will no longer be of any value. The environment is no longer agreeable to his biology, he can't even go outside without getting a fierce sunburn. He'll no longer be able to have pure German children who share his genetic profile.
The natural human impulse in every single circumstance is to form tribes. This is the way we've evolved, this is who we are. To reject this is to reject fundamental human nature for some sort of a priori academic value system.
Tribes can reproduce, individuals can't. Tribes can live forever, individuals can't. Most importantly, tribes can repel the overwhelming force of other tribes.
This fundamental misunderstanding of human nature is why anarcho-capitalism fails, why egalitarianism fails, why multiculturalism fails.
>>29595040
It really is an ideology you grow out of, I don't even mean this in a patronizing way, it's something 99% of people will subscribe to at one point in their lives then realize it's fucking retarded and just drop.
Go figure
>>29594878
Statists are evil, though.
>>29595200
Whatever you say.
Your ideology won't ever work in the real world. >>29595059 is completely right. Libertarianism and its various sub-ideologies are based on a false assumption.
The only two systems that will ever work are republican democracy and totalitarianism.
>>29595254
>Real world
Nice spook.
Libertarianism is irrelevant.
Both of those systems are irrelevant evils that force secularism, because the truth disrupts state-worship.
>>29588966
effectiveness
plain and simple
one day when an AI can take over and force humans to function as a collective that would be preferable
the world needs just one Superman to damn or fix everything
>>29595303
>Nice spook.
Have you even fucking read Stirner you mongoloid, or do your views exclusively come from his Wikipedia article? Do you know what a spook is? Goddamn you 16 year old """egoists""" are insufferable.
>Libertarianism is irrelevant
Yes, it is.
>evils
It doesn't matter whether or not you think systems X or Y are evil, nobody gives a shit. What matters is if they work and if they can be implemented for long periods of time.
There's no "truth", stop. Human beings work in collectives, not as individuals. These collectives inevitably form large-scale associations and either become totalitarian states or representative democracies. That's all there is to it. Your armchair philosophy won't change anything to that.
I stopped arguing with ancaps just because their ideas are so ridiculous that they will never happen irl. Same with monarchists and neoreactionaries in general.
>>29594847
>fascism is egoist
The fasces literally symbolizes unity and collectivism you fucking retard
>>29595444
Monarchism and reactionary points of view are much more applicable than ancap, though
I'm not a monarchist by the way. I just think it's less of a stretch than any form of anarchism.
>>29595059
This. Humans evolved into tribes for a reason, but liberals are turning humans into atomized, powerless, lonely, cogs in the machine.
>>29595408
I'm 28, stop whining.
>What matters is if they work and if they can be implemented for long periods of time.
lol empiricists.
>>29595408
>nobody gives a shit.
yeah /b/ro all that matters is if people care about thing it doesn't matter if its wrong!
>>29595728
>I'm 28
It doesn't matter big boy, you're still retarded.
>empiricists
Sophistry won't get you anywhere. A political ideology's value is determined by its applicability. If it doesn't work, it's shit. Period
>>29595759
>is if people care about thing it doesn't matter if its wrong!
Is this a strawman or do you not know how to read?
See above, "statism" might be good or evil but it doesn't matter, what matters is that it's the only thing that works
>>29595802\
>you're still retarded.
if u disagree with my irrelevant enlightenment (read: delusional) ideology then ur dumb
>A political ideology's value is determined by its applicability. If it doesn't work, it's shit. Period
becuz i sed so hurka durka i am the arbiter of creaton because i am CLEARLY the smartest man alive
>what matters is that it's the only thing that works
becuz i sed so
>>29595932
Oh you're just baiting for (You)'s
There you go then
>>29588966
Statists BTFO
BTFO
>>29596116
>anything i dont like MUST be le bait
