ROADS

no thanks i rather do something productive

the faggots book I found on /pdf/ or /pdfs/

Here's an easy way to shut down ayncraps next time you see one. The following scenario:

Let's say you buy some property and awhile later I buy all the property around it. I refuse to let you walk on my property so that you can travel outside your property. I have a right to protect my property from transgression which includes trespassers. I put a high voltage electric fence on the border to keep others (you) out, and I WILL NOT let you pass under any circumstances, that means no trades, no treaties, no bitcoins, nothing. Without outside access you will surely starve to death, but you can't walk on my property because it violates the NAP. Ayncraps at this point will realize they're being retarded or double down and insist they have a right to travel; if they do, this admits positive rights exists (and you get those rights by violating my rights), which means the NAP in itself doesn't actually exist. Ayncraps btfo.

Rights are spooks. Get them to read Stirner.

Attached: property rights.jpg (680x514, 27.08K)

Capitalism bad

There's no argument here, so I'll just state the obvious. Rights are given by the majority, or secured by the minorities, you can't say "You aren't allowed to take away my rights" anymore than you can tell your mom not to take your tendies. But sure, I agree that people deserve rights, unless those rights are infringing on other's rights.
What a stupid, empty purpose. Might as well say the only moral purpose in life is to kill and die in combat. It is ABSOLUTELY baseless and just a platitude.
Money is evil. It has convinced people that anything can be had if only you have enough magic to exchange. That human lives, the environment, morality, happiness, and all above can be bought and sold. It's absolute bullshit, and it's contradictory nature always bites it's apostles.

Ancaps will dicksuck anyone who commits violence in the name of defending private property.

fascists are better because ancaps are just fascists who live in a capitalist system not currently under existential threat. They're just going to become fascists when you start to win anyway. At least when you're looking at fascists you know something right must already be underway.

Every right wing argument ever btfo

Attached: 9b8394b5dc0707d99f5ac32211907b7ca73f0cd9ad4b0c7ac3e2f59fa4fe9052.jpg (578x768, 89.69K)

Fascists actually have a coherent ideology that is shitty.
Ancaps purport to believe in anarchy (dissolution of hierarchy) while simultaneously upholding the hierarchy of private property and employer-employee relations (often explicitly).

fucking meme flag

yeah I once saw an anarchist pick an apple off a tree, that fucking hypocrite. Doesn't he realize he just declared himself Supreme Dictator of that apple?

This is your brain on NAP

What exactly do you take issue with here? I assume it has something to do with your little made up difference between "personal property" and "private property" but if you want to engage me in conversation about it then it shouldn't be up to me to try and guess.

How is "private property" even meaningful as a concept if it's so broad to cover any behavior to the point that eating food you find in nature counts as private property?

What is your definition of private property even? Let's start there. The lefty definition is roughly: ownership of socially productive resources by a person or entity that does not work the resources to produce and may bar others from using it for that purpose or otherwise regulate their use.

"private property" isn't meaningful as a concept, and that's the point. Nobody outside of communist echo chambers distinguishes between private property and personal property. Property is property.

Both "private property" and "personal property" are property, meaning that the owner owns it to the exclusion of others. If the existence of one makes anarchy (translates better to "no rulers" than to "dissolution of hierarchy" btw) non-sensical, then so does the existence of the other.

i feel the other way around. ayncraps and libertarians have a coherent ideology and economic theory, which, while dumb and false, can be challenged and debated.

fascists have no views and just spew random shit because they don't like minorities. their wealth of "theory" is "born in le wrong generation".

you can argue with ayncraps but fascism is basically a religion

Then you're just dodging the core question which is "what is property?" which should be clear from the context.

Maximum brainlet
you are seriously so fucking stupid

By coherent I mean in the formal sense. Fascism blaming a secret cabal of jews or whatever is dumb and un-rigorous but it's logically consistent. The foundations of anarcho-capitalism are outright contradictory because (1) it upholds hierarchy between employer and employee via private property and (2) it upholds hierarchy of "the market" over the people and production.

First of all, I touched on that as much as is needed "property, meaning that the owner owns it to the exclusion of others". I mean, do you really want to trade definitions of a common word? Just google define:property

and secondly, what you call "dodging the question" is actually me staying on topic despite your efforts to change it. Property isn't hierarchical to the extent that it negates anarchy as a system of government (or lack thereof), whether that property is an apple, a farm, or even a factory.

no u

Attached: anarchy.png (943x449, 53.6K)

You're an idiot.

Attached: guffawingsluts.jpg (471x359, 23.29K)

I'm not convinced that you're qualified to judge who is and isn't an idiot, since you yourself seem pretty fucking retarded.

So this is the power of ancap theory.

You can either stop being a fuckhead and actually engage in discussion or you can go back to /liberty/

I'm not the fucking moron getting my definitions for technical terms from google, dipshit. Are you in high school? It's just embarrassing.

Oh I'm sorry, I can't respond to your post until you define each and every word you just used. I don't work with the common definition of the word "the" as I prefer to use a convoluted one that excludes worldviews other than my own :^)

"Property" in this context isn't a common word you brain damaged chode.

You are a retard and should be ashamed.

We're talking about political and economic theory not casual discourse.

Bullshit. We differ on our usage of property as a concept, which is more fundamental than the fact that I define a difference between private/personal. That's more to the point than what you said.
Property in the most basic sense is hierarchical because it establishes two classes - one who owns and one who does not. No matter how you define property this is an element of it.
That's a vulgar definition of anarchy. It's not specific to government/state but a general principle. Even most ancaps agree on that point (and for instance cite irreligion as an example of anarchy).
In addition to the definitional hierarchy of property, farms and factories as private property are hierarchical in the sense that they reinforce hierarchical structures outside of mere ownership. Private property is used to enact hierarchical control over the economy with the owning class using its position to control production and to take a greater share of the value produced.

If we're discussing something technical like politics and economics, it's necessary that we clearly define what we're discussing. Otherwise the back and forth is basically meaningless and there's a breakdown in communication because nobody knows what the other is saying. If you are operating under a vague definition of property, then you're just thinking with your feelings instead of your reason, which makes you easily manipulated by capitalists who will scare you away from recognizing your unfreedom by telling you du ebul gommies threaten you.
No, in this case we're only talking about one word really (three if we count the distinction between personal/private). That should not be too much to handle if you think you're up for debate.

test

I got banned just now for using the dictionary definition of "property"

I guess he changed his mind when he read my appeal, since I appear to be unbanned for the time being, but I don't want to push it (since it's actually not entirely clear what I got banned for) so this is my last post in this thread.

Maybe one day we'll get to discuss politics, but it will probably have to be on another board

Attached: LOL-coward-mod.png (1072x248, 24.49K)

you got banned for being a tardlet
cool, get out and don't come back faggot

all of your posts are /b/-tier

you have not added anything intelligent to the conversation, and you never will because you are not capable of doing so

There was never a conversation to begin with because you refused to even define your terms so we could start one, faggot.

Incorrect, I defined it three times.

1) here:

2) here:
>"property, meaning that the owner owns it to the exclusion of others"

3) and here:

It should be pretty clear that I am using the common definition of the word, property means "owning something," you know, like what the word actually fucking means

Now, if someone else wants to use some convoluted made up definition they can do so, but it's on them to define what they mean

What do you mean by "own" exactly, because the whole ownership/property thing is usually circular. And even the definition you gave is still hierarchical, as I mentioned here.

relevant

Attached: Lolbertpolice.jpg (520x858, 227.39K)

I would love to effortpost with you, but it's going to get me banned

I already got banned once while another poster is just spamming "idiot" and is apparently heralded as a great leftist thinker by the mods, since poking him back in a playful and rational way got me banned.

If property is hierarchical to the extent that it negates anarchy then picking an apple negates anarchy. Obviously, I think that that is nonsense, and that hierarchy of that nature does not negate anarchy. A hierarchy only negates anarchy if it can't be opted out of. So if someone owns an entire country and everything in it, that's not an anarchy. But owning an apple, a farm, or a factory does not fit that description.

Mods are fags here.

Having an apple doesn't mean you own it.e. Someone could try to take the apple from you, but you would probably resist since you don't want to expend more effort picking another one and risking further loss. Another rational actor would avoid fighting you as well because it's easier to just pick on for themselves than to fight you for what you have. The pertinent question, though, is whether someone owns the tree and can stop you from picking the apple. That's property/ownership.

the board owner here is intermittently absolute trash
A good percentage of regulars here have a few bans under their belt.