Ancaps aren't real

It does it exist, it just they have qualitative differences.

Ancoms/classical anarchists are anti-hierarchy, neutral on statism

Ancaps are anti-state, neutral on hierarchy. Also right-libertarianism is a form of classical liberalism, and cannot be understood, except under that broad tradition of thought.

Personally, I'm a mutualist. I just think Mutualism would instantly become capitalism.

lol

This is good satire.

Honestly, when a certain someone advocated for child-markets, I assumed the joke was up, as the act clearly jumped the shark on purpose to bring the whole comedy to a clear and distinct closing.
Aparently some thick-skulled autistic children people did not get the memo, but still take the whole farce seriously.

The entire ideology was crafted as a joke from the beginning, right. Right?

Attached: wanquan_tale_zhong_da_zhang.jpg (1320x1656, 311.3K)

Attached: smh.jpg (410x480, 21.95K)

Suire but all anarchisms are a meme

Well, if I'm gonna harvest my crops you can be sure it will be my property, regardless of any State or not, you're just gonna have to try your luck taking it from me without having any bullet wounds.

Anarcho-capitalism really is just a big LARP, isn't it?

Attached: marx laugh.jpg (298x350, 48.57K)

aren't all forms of anarchism larp?

Idk, try taking my shit and find out for yourself ;)

well imagine how retarded you need to be to think that this way is a sound way to organize society. there’s a reason ancaps are almost exclusively american.

He doesn't have to tbh. The organized militia groups who have allied themselves with the other local farms/businesses to form a "mutually beneficial arrangement" will make claim to your land or demand tribute from it eventually.

so what makes you any better than the jews then?

nothing, because you have the same oppressive mentality, which is why NutSac is a dying cult, nobody wants you, not even the whites lol

oh sry, i meant NutSac

lmfao, fucking mods

What? I'm not a NutSac.
I was just merely pointing out what would inevitably occur in an ancap society. Businesses would join up together to create organizational apparatuses that are beneficial to them in order to provide security and safety to their own enterprises, then enagage in force based diplomacy to make other smaller groups either hand over their property or pay tribute to them. A state that is subservient to few enterprises and companies is far more benifical to those involved than no state at all.

Nah, because ancaps have the non-aggression principle and (should) respect property, so they know they will get shot if they try to take my shit.

What you're referring to is socialism

You might posses those crops if you can defend them, but the idea of private property includes the backing of a state as a fundamental element. Stateless property is impossible as it is a contradictory term. This is why ancap is retarded.

Pure idealism

Property and the State are 2 different thing. Having property is natural, even tribes had it, cant just take someone's stuff without repercussions.

I dont think he claimed they would leave him alone. Bad people will always be around, regardless of system, and history has proven that a State doesn't stop that, rather enfore it, because then the bad people run the State.

here is where multiple things have been conflated into a single term for some, which makes arguing difficult.

This quote by jefferson shows the distinction between what socialists might call private property and personal possession.

In this example sure, crops you have grown yourself are by rights yours, you are using the land which you can not own, but it is everyone's land and you are using it right now, but its your work that has gone into the growing.

Private property is the control over that land a state grants, such that it can just sit there unused if you so desired it, and if you went away and lived on the other side of the planet you would still get to exercise control over that land because the state is backing your claim to it.

'private property' can be contrasted with the idea of 'public property'. As you see here, property exists in both, property itself is not a word that implies ownership, it is simply a classification of asset. What makes you own a thing is 'private', which is when the state has classified that lot of land to be controlled by a single individual. When one says 'my property' then, the word that indicates ownership is not 'property', the property is the thing being owned, ownership is indicated by the 'my'.

Property only exists with a state to define and regulate it. Otherwise, while there are certainly things you can own, property is not one of them.

Attached: 1536416038388.jpg (500x595, 111.18K)

You seem to miss that the word "private" has been used several times now. There is a distinct separation of private and personal property around these parts, which I recommend you look up.

That user was specifically talking about private property. As in , capitalist private property. We're not talking about personal property here, which is the things you yourself personally own.
The point is that the state is inevitable either way. We aren't arguing moral contrivances here or what is right and wrong, we are arguing what would inevitably happen in an ancap society. The use of violence and force doesn't dissappear, and the profit motive certainly hasn't disappeared either. In a conflict and dispute between companies or enterprises in an ancap world, the company or enterprise which utilizes the backing of a state, manufactured or otherwise, will win out every time. That is because the company that has the backing of the state has both the "legal" and military backing to substantiate his claims. If you're some farmer in the middle of nowhere and a state backed company comes in claiming that you are utilizing a tool/land which they have a right to and which you must pay a royalty/rent to utilize, the scenario is this: you have to deal with the entirety of the state that's backing him, while he only has to deal with just you. Who do you think has the advantage here?

Just spotted this gem on Reddit.

Attached: trulydaring.PNG (1042x505, 63.03K)

lol as if he's ever getting married.

lmao this retard is first in line to have his organs forcibly harvested after the revolution

Do I get gulag?

Attached: ancap bingo.png (1404x1800, 182.7K)

what the fuck

how can ancaps be real if our eyes aren't real

Dear God redditors are retarded

Yes, with the major exception of individualist/post-left anarchists, most anarchists are not anti-state at all. They just want a highly egalitarian political structure (e.g. direct democracy), equality of outcome etc.

Consider that:
1. Ancoms are not interested in trying to replace coercive state functions, with voluntary ones. Many ancoms only see the state as evil insofar as it serves the bourgeois/financial elite, through Wall St, IMF, etc, rather than "the people".

2. Examples ancoms point as practical implementations of their program include the CNT/FAI. But the CNT, as with other 'anarchist' political parties, ran considerably interventionist states which attempted to monopolize force and which regulated/prohibited many different kinds of exchange.

To have meaningful "exchange" you need to have a state that reliably enforces bourgeois private property rights. This is antithetical to anarchism. An anarchist society is one where people freely renegotiate property relations. "Interventionism" is the name of the game.
This is my main problem with anarcho-capitalism, and it's a huge one. You are all about "voluntary contracts," but allow the individual no freedom to voluntarily determine which property rights to uphold and which to abolish. Beside this, you regard any contracts made as absolute, they become objects of law rather than simple statements of intention, ones that need to be enforced even if this doesn't please the individuals enforcing it. This isn't freedom. This is slavery.
All in all what I'm saying is that you faggots need to read Stirner. You'll turn into a socialist. I guarantee you.

If there is no normative idea of of property, then the most powerful will just grab whatever they want. Freedom entails the ability to make things your own, ie. ownership. Contracts are not just 'statements of intent', that would render them meaningless.

-Jeremy Waldron, "Enough and as Good left for others"

Moreover, I've already read Stirner, and anyone who isn't a brainlet realizes that he's an individualist anarchist, not a socialist. Using Stirner to support Socialist Ideology is retarded. The real-world consequences of socialist programs are enough to deter me from socialism, anyways.

...

Exactly. The idea behind anarchy is that the masses of free individuals ARE the most powerful people around. All they have to do is take charge. If you don't believe this, you aren't an anarchist.
Sure. You might be able to negotiate such ownership with your neighbors. You can write it down on a piece of paper: "If they don't enter your house without permission you won't enter theirs. If someone from outside the community enters either of our houses without permission, we work together to get rid of them. If one of us breaks this agreement, their ownership over their property becomes null and void." Now, this piece of paper has no magical significance, it just states your intentions. It doesn't hate to be enforced, but as things stand, it is in advantageous to everyone in the community that it does.
This can change at any time of course, you might stop thinking that someone has a right to the house they've claimed, and then a new piece of paper will need to be written. It is purely descriptive, meant to describe what you think the sensible course of action would be under certain circumstances.
If I say "hit me and I'll hit you back" that's meaningful, right? But it isn't a contract. After you've hit me I might still decide not to hit you back. All I'm doing is making my projected intentions known to you. This is enough meaning to make contracts work, not to the extent that they work right now, but to enough of an extent to build a society. One that, contrary to our current one, is entirely free.

How does socialism in any way contradict this right? It does just the opposite: Ensure this right to every individual. Socialists want to abolish bourgeois property, property in as far as it is an exploitative social relation, property meant to coerce other people into offering something of themselves. This is not the personal property that enables people to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Stirner in "Stirner's Critics":
>>Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.
It is entirely possible to support socialist ideology with Stirner. It is not possible, however, to support a "normative idea of property", and still think you are an individualist.

Ancap was always a meme, the idea of it being a voluntary society is stupid, anarchy and capitalism are contradictory. How can it be voluntary when your life is dictated by the market forces and you have to work for someone else to survive? Also property rights were created to justify stealing of others land and resources and owning slaves.

Attached: CtWAQyMXYAEneMV.jpg (318x380, 28.48K)