So, you're a leftist

So, you're a leftist.
If i discovered a new land and other people came over and we started a society there based on private property and it worked, kinda like things where when murrica started settling the midwest, but without injuns to kill.
There it is, an ancap society, it's not perfect but it's standing and based on consent. How would that make you feel?
If you had the power to violently overtake it and force it into soviet communism, would you do it?
Would you invade it, try to create the idea of democracy and subvert it into being more like socialism?
Wold you let it be?
And why would you do it?

Attached: 1494120255829.jpg (700x861, 113.01K)

Other urls found in this thread:

all the land is already discovered

I feel like externalities would eventually be so bad we couldn't just let them stay, like they were destroying the environment with no control or their unsanitary conditions were a breeding ground for disease.

If their policies were leading to so much suffering to the population that it would be humanitarian to intervene, perhaps we should.

The US will come and bring you freedom, if you don't hand out your resources

It's like when i was talking with a creationist.
Let me explain, there is this crazy technique called, imagining! You use to create scenarios that aren't real and explore ideas around it.
Let's try it!

Should we do that in african countries that have warlords kidnapping kids for their armies or in venezuela now or when it turns into shooting people trying to emigrate?

By the way fuck off OP. Those threads only shit up the board and don't make any productive discussion.

Attached: 73.png (500x466, 66.84K)

We probably wouldn't care. Communism vs. capitalism concerns world economic systems, not dumb hippy communes people set up on some island.
If people within your community no longer consent to the arbitrary laws you've written up, however, we may come help them set up their preferred social order. You don't get to oppress people just because you're doing it in your own little corner.

Marxists are fundamentally opposed to dumb thought experiments. We try to base our analysis in actual history and the material relations within it. This stems from the rejection of Utopian socialism in the early days of our movement.


How about we solve those problems by ending our imperialist policies towards those countries instead?

I see, you're autistic, it's a common thing in chans.

And you are retarded, it's also common in chans.

I'm all for that. I also wouldn't invade them.
But the thread is more about seeing collectivists expand their thoughts. I'm curious and not trolling, but this place is as bad as Zig Forums, it's just a different ration of autism/bad will.

I love these ridiculous hypotheticals. "What if a perfect society happened and there were no problems? What would you criticise about it?"

It's like people who advocate for a "benevolent dictator," like, of course it will "work" if the dictator is BENEVOLENT.

Can you read?

It doesn't exist. This is just peak utopianism.

Tbh, thought experiments like there are usually just stupid exercises in hypotheticals with little bearing in reality. What, you want to explore the moral reasoning behind spreading communism? I'm a socialist because capitalism is an existential threat to our species and must be replaced with a less batshit insane system. I'm not in it just out of some base moralism.

Well, fuck off the thread then. You're bumping what you hate.

I’d probably become an ancap, if not, very religious


Of course I would. I'd leave it alone militarily, though.

So you're the kind of person that would let others do as they wish with their lives and could change your mind.
Let's say then that the liberland thing that's going on in unclaimed land between two countries takes off and becomes a place that respects private property and doesn't invade or embargo people, would you wanted left alone, invaded or subverted?
How about seasteaders?

And how about

Not at all. Autists can't deal with the complex ambiguity of material reality. Instead they work with imaginary fantasy scenarios that make them feel at ease. They like doing mathematics, programming computers, playing with train sets… You're doing just that in your fantasy scenario. It's very typical of right-libertarians, which is why the ideology is so popular among autistic people.

Wild Aborigines appear, and they all smell of gunpowder, horilka and pig fat.
They lived here all along, and while they don't believe that land can be owned, but that it should be used, they consider that building a "society" in this, common land, and most of all draining its resources (trees, soil, water etc.) constitutes a violation of the NAP.

But they are above all a people who believe in peace and brotherhood, so here are their representative's words.

What is your answer?

Attached: fd3b2e349e323709eeecfb84e95f839c76d7a9cb.png (600x755, 470.56K)

Well given that you can’t shut up about every other country on the planet it’s only a matter of time before you’d start putting all of your problems on the rest of the world and decide that attacking other countries and neutralizing their imagined threats to your peace, but you’d probably manage to keep it together at least til I’m dead so sure whatever floats your boat.

Didn't read, you should stop bumping threads you don't like.


excuse the misclick. if liberland actually became some kind of isolated state that didn’t influence anybody I wouldn’t give a shit but in reality, it would either
A) result in some weird sex cult shit, like 99% of utopian projects
B) turn into America 2.0 and just invade other countries for petrodollars because it makes money

You should stop making threads you don't want people to respond to.

The same reason anyone who believes in anything "preaches" about it. If there is such a thing as human nature, one of its facets I think would be the inability for a human to enjoy something and *not* talk about it at some point. It's the nature of ideas and ideologies themselves, they want to spread. I think that no matter what someone says consciously, somewhere in their head exists the thought of "it'd be nice if everyone believed and lived as I do." That sounds totalitarian, sure, but what do libertarians want? Everyone to have freedom. Different desire, same mechanism.

I gotta leave for one or two hours, lifting time.

You didn't answer my questions but i'll answer yours.
By their words you mean that "consider this a violation of the NAP"?
Well, these aborigines weren't there for long enough for this society to develop and install itself, there were no signs of them ever being there or working the land and making it their own, so the law, based on private property, would say that wherever they settle, demarcate to claim ownership and work on is theirs and they can rightfully complain of any pollution or harm originating from the lands owned by people in this society.
Unless they start violence, there will be no violence.

Ok then.

How isolated do they have to be before you want to force them to not be based on private property and individualism?
If it works it's not gonna turn into a sex cult or murrica, but it is gonna attract rich people and become some sort of fiscal paradise, most likely. It's the least i can predict of external influence mixing with banking freedom in this world.

I was looking for a specific response, it's hard enough to not derail by answering honestly to the people that are on topic.

Makes sense. I wonder what mechanisms would socialist subversion take in a society that doesn't have democratic principles, taxes or subsidies.

We're concerned with the material world only. You can fight on the spiritual plane on your own :)

Get rid of this fucking meme.

You're the one who derailed the conversation by calling me autistic friendo. What I did is connect it back to the original topic.

Go away, twelve year old.

Where is that in the OP at all?

Yes, every country must be converted until we have global Communism. Your little Utopian experiment would likely be among the last though if it hasn't degraded into pedo Island beforehand.

Attached: onlyway.png (640x360, 290.3K)

The picture

Oh shit. I chose a random image.

Technically, at least at a local level, capitalism has the 'consent' of the workers. The point is to show that this relationship is abusive, violently unequal and exploitative, and the consent artificially manufactured, and because of the nature of that relationship and the dependency of capitalism on that relationship it's very unlikely that if ancap settlers (who presumably already have theorized plenty about the inner workings of their ideal society) ever made Ancapistan™ that it would peacefully remain in a state of consensual balance, because you would need the ancaps to intentionally consent to being workers in order for the system to function, and even if they were all self-employed it's unlikely that they would co-operate peacefully among each other for several reasons (necessity of profit and therefore growth, competition, fixed capital distribution, empathy being counterproductive to success, etc.)
Sage because shitty loaded thought experiments are counter-productive to reason. Yes, i would put all of those fuckheads in the gulag and give them a big pointy dunce hat. And no, someone consenting to being skinned and eaten alive doesn't make it ok.

I see. I expected an opinion like yours to show up earlier.
So you think you know that the system would fail because people would be unable to "co operate peacefully" and you consider people's decisions to be the result of abuse even if their lives improve and they claim it isn't so and that is enough to do them violence.
Very interesting.

oh fuck off

Attached: foucault.png (807x935, 207.59K)

Why are so many people in this thread opposed to thought experiments and hypotheticals? How are they counterproductive to reason? Don't they help refine reason?

I don't think i know. I'm just curious how or at what point people would feel justified in interfering.

As soon as the capitalists on your little island start hurting people because they don't respect their "property rights." That's when we interfere.

Attached: onionsboy.jpeg (211x239, 8.54K)

Only if you simultaneously critique the basis they stand on. Else they're just empty abstractions, or worse, abstractions held to be the real thing.

Would you interfere in any actual countries in the world today?

Private property rights require the existence of a state to enforce them. If no state exists at the time, it becomes within the interest of those who stand to materially benefit from the creation of a monopoly of violence (a state) to form one either by necessity or simple economic self-interest. To think the largest and most influential companies in such a society won't form or the very least insert themselves in the creation of such a monopoly of violence is idealist.
Would doing so objectively advance our interests? If so, then yes, as would any other political ideology with a state. Materially why would they not? Assuming there was still no state in such a society, then it completely lacks the means to organize itself in a manner upon which they can validate their own existence through the application of power and violence, as opposed to those around it who can and most likely will. Your example of the Midwest is actually fitting here, because those with a monopoly on violence did eventually take control and those who refused to ally themselves with one or at the very least formed their own were either subsumed or killed off.

The world does not operate on hypothetical scenarios, it operates on violence and material power. Even the curtailment of both requires the use of both.

"Consensual" Capitalism is impossible because consent implies two equal partners. There is nothing equal in the relationship between the worker and the boss. The boss controls capital, the worker must sell their labor in order to feed their self. Once the boss controls sufficient capital they can abuse the workers as they like without fear of repercussion, the individual worker cannot make a difference against the sheer means of the individual boss. This is the principle behind unions, because only when the workers band together can labor have equal bargaining against capital. But unions are something this ancap society would consider a violation of contract or the NAP or some other inane bullshit to protect their exploitation. And so once the boss uses capital to bully the workers with hired thugs (aka McPolice), you get revolution.
In short, see pic

Attached: 15294426393.jpg (600x337, 44.01K)

If those interventions didn't have a horrible 'success' rate (a misnomer since usually they're actually just to achieve some sinister profit or resource related goal) then I might be in favour of that, I'm not a fan of seeing atrocities in other countries and just sitting by, but we know that those kind of adventurist imperial missions almost always cause more harm than good.

Well that's not very polite. You realise the 'individual/collective' dichotomy is totally false right? Capitalism claims to be all for the individual yet everyone is enslaved by inhuman market forces - even the super rich can't run their businesses in a way that won't generate maximum revenue.

He's destroying someone else's gun though, that's actually existing libertarian socialism.

If you build Ancap-island, then obviously this is going to through a bunch of phases: pioneer,expansion, financialisation and corporate consolidation, then become a stagnant slave society, If you neighbour a Socialist Island, this would be very convenient, if anybody gets the idea of revisionism they get to go have a look at Ancap-island.
There also is the problem that Ancap Island might think that they need new markets, and try to imperialise the Socialist Island, in that case we airdrop flyers with a list of all the free social services, that are available on the other Side and wait for a Slave uprising.

it’s not gonna be a paradise. you have no clue how capitalism works.
I’d ask you to read Wage Labor and Capital, a 30 page pamphlet, but I doubt you’ve read anything before which is something I’m not gonna be able to change

As someone above has already said, socialism is about dismantling capitalism as a global economic system. If socialism happened and some autists decided to make Ancapistan(tm) on an uninhabited island, there would be no reason to care as long as they wouldn't have the power to coerce and take labor power from anyone outside their cult.

This is kind of a bizarro version of the "if you are a socialist, why not create a hippy commune instead of living a capitalism". Capitalism is a GLOBAL SYSTEM, not just a LIFESTYLE. You cannot escape it by living in a kibbutz. Same applies to an inverse "capitalist commune" in a socialist society.

Of course realistically speaking there is no such thing as "consensual capitalism" and Ancapistan would eventually devolve into a mad maxian PMC rapeopolis so the Red Army would have to step in at some point.

What if the people there grew wings and the rivers flowed with lemonade?

The precise point is that what you envisage is a hypothetical situation. I.e. one that does not cohere to the real world. It is idealist, it is a picture of how you want the world to be, not how it is.

it does not cohere to the real world in these ways:

the land is already discovered and owned
people already did live there and they had to be killed to take the land. Already, your ancap paradise is built on genocide.
no it wasn't you killed a bunch of people

now for the rest?

how would it make me feel? I would feel like I feel now, living in this actual situtation . yes i would overtake it with soviet communism.

Private property does not require the existence of an institution that dominates through control of the majority of violence. A governing institution does not equal a state.

You subjective definitions of consensual are different from mine and from most, but it seems that you think that you should be able to impose yours onto others.
And speaking of unions, people are free to associate, that doesn't meant they can strong arm and beat up others into participating though. Unless you know better than the poor bastards that disagree with you, i guess.

That is an interesting point in another discussion that i don't really feel like elaborating here. I agree, the world works in a certain way and not even the powerful and corrupt can deviate too much from it. I think the few ways things can be, without grinding to a halt on human nature and the complexity of dealing with finite resources, do not include communism.
Most here disagree, but i created the thread to see how they disagree and how this disagreement may be used to justify imposing it on others.

Did you read the word paradise and craft a whole post without actually reading the whole thing just because you were so eager to say "YOU'RE WRONG AND DUMB GO READ THE MANIFESTO" ? I think you did.
But i'll add it to my lefty reading list.

So you're incapable of dealing with people contradicting or arguing with you? Is this the power of Libertarianism?

An ancap society would inherently be way more violent. What the fuck do you think the wild west was?

I'm using this.

It is the limits of my patience. Autism is too volatile to take head on.

What do you think the wild west was?
Here, read this book: ISBN-13: 978-0804748544

The west was pretty peaceful and self organizing.

I would go over there and debate them the merits of socialism and convert them using facts and logic like the supreme gentlemen I am.

How will you prevent me from taking over your property and using it to enrich or otherwise benefit myself and others, other than with violence? Even if we both signed a NAP, the enforcement of such an agreement would have to necessarily include some form of violence (ideally, from a neutral third party, which there is no real reason to believe why it would or could exist), otherwise there's nothing really preventing anyone from breaking it. And if you're including violence in the equation, there is no reason why either me or the other person couldn't force the other to sign a unfavourable contract.
Obviously, but the institution which we know as the state is the one that, at least in our world, permits private property and the 'free' market as such, via it's regulation and the implicit use of force. Unless you propose an alternative entity that would be able to fulfill the same functions in Ancapistan, there's no reason to believe that there would even be either (private property and the free market), at least in their current form. I hope you realize also that allowing free association of individuals and also the appropriation of land and resources from each other is a horrendous idea.
By opening your mouth or moving your fingers across the keyboard you are imposing your words onto others. How unethical!

So then you're admitting that you're not willing to argue in good faith, and don't actually want answers to your questions? Why make the thread then? I've got a funny feeling you might be the one on the spectrum.

People will naturally want Socialism, higher working pay, etc. so they'll try and to form unions and dual power structures against the Bosses of the supposed Tax haven. This will be seen as a foreign influence and they will go on a tard rage against countries.
Even so, letting in the bourgeosie fleeing from Socialism will be considered as letting in Convicts convicted of theft from the Working people. We won't let criminals of the people destroy our lands and thieve off of it go unpunished.

Attached: WinYQRCy.jpg (400x225, 24.29K)

It takes one to know one.
I want answers to those questions, the people i'm not engaging are deviating or just complaining that "hypotheticals are worthless, kys".


I don't quite follow your line of thought, too many posts and replies.
But it's interesting how we all have our doom or bloom scenarios based on what we think things ought to be. In the end it's useless to explore them, like the anons telling me "hypotheticals are worthless, kys". That's why the whole point of the thread was to think about hhow people justify their beliefs and justify imposing them onto others.
The point i got the most is that forcing people to obey collectivist policy is not bad because, no matter if two people agree to it, if something fits into the marxist idea of exploitation then it's already forced so might as well go FULL FORCE but in THE CORRECT DIRECTION!

Let me artistically analyze your autistic analysis.
My glib, infantile answer to your post was meant to be a cheap joke but you answered seriously.
That is top brand chan autism and we stray further and further from actually getting anywhere.

I don't follow you either
Where did you get "forcing people to obey collectivist policy" from?
Second of all don't you have your own idea of "exploitation" (your so called "collectivist policy") and want to impose that on the whole of a society?

Attached: large.jpg (500x355, 52.92K)

Wait, so first off people were "derailing", and not enough people were replying seriously within your arbitrary parameters, but now there are too many posts and replies that you've chosen to engage with so you can't process them all. Which is it?

Again, more caterwauling about how people didn't reply in the way you thought they should. Are you not capable of parsing information? You've certainly chosen to be selective with the people that have given you serious replies, so I don't think you're incapable of doing the same to others.
That's why the whole point of the thread was to think about hhow people justify their beliefs and justify imposing them onto others.
This is just relativist nonsense, also the point of this thread wasn't ever stated as that, this is something you've added after the fact. You're complaining about people not engaging seriously whilst simultaneously retreating from replying to people that do.

So you just didn't understand what other people were saying or? Because this isn't what that poster said.

Why is a social relation ethical if two people agree to it?
It's not an idea, it's a material fact.
There's also empirical evidence supporting this, you can find it in Anwar Shaikh's work.
How about justifying it by being right?

I love libertarian hypotheticals like "what if Farmer Joe gave Cletus eggs for looking after his chickens…". They're so precious. I wish I lived in the same world that ancaps and lolberts do, that consists of nothing but small mom and pop businesses that trade pineapples for cows among each other.

an actually existing non hellish ancap society would disprove marxism

I got it from the people who pick the option of invading and forcing change.
And yes, i have my own idea of exploitation, but i don't want to impose it on people. I want to be left alone and make deals with whoever i want if i want.

What a i wimpy wish. If you're gonna make mocking wishes aim for the moon, i want to live in cybercommunism in the post scarcity world, i'll be the worker one day and the poet on another.

I guess it would.

Through freestyle semantics hans is right and you're wrong. You just repeated the point.

Attached: 1486347475562.jpg (480x480, 37.67K)

You want to impose your ideology on to others by the act of starting a society in some shape or form and want others in the Society to uphold the same idea and not have ideas that you consider "collectivist" and activly try to thought control them to maintain that order of private property. Sure at its creation there may be people who have the same ideal of upholding private property but once they consider their material conditions and look at the world not through introspection but with empirical observations they will realize that to improve their own lot in their life they will have to develop a dual power structure to counteract the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
You can't have both.
Capitalisme is predicated on violence and it is inevitable that the working people of that society that you want to impose will use methods including violence to counteract the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,see >>>2909384

Attached: Cute-Hatsune-Miku-_-hatsune_miku257-40076982-300-295.jpg (300x295, 29.17K)

Only if it actually helps anyone.

Ok. Here's what i mean.
Many people do not consider agreed upon contracts and private property as violence, you do, that's your problem.
If many people who think like this gather and have a functioning society you're still gonna say it is imposed dictatorship of the burgindy.
You need a tonne of freestyle semantics to say that.
Even if you are right, there is, in my opinion, a huge difference between people peacefully associating respecting private property and things like:

Well, venezuela is collapsing, some african countries have warlords kidnapping children for soldiers, north korea, china, israel and others have prisoner camps.
Would you like to invade them?


First the US should end its imperialist policy towards these places. For Venezuela, Africa and Israel this should already go a very long way in resolving the problem.
Then we can look at whether invading them will actually help anyone. My guess is that it won't.

But your little ancap utopia isn't China. Sending some kind of forces might very well be a sensible option.

Doesn't matter, the point is that you're imposing your ideal on to other people so you can't claim you don't as I've already demonstrated.
As a simpleton analogy, if people don't think shooting people is violence it wouldn't make a difference whether or not it's violence or not. People will conclude that in order to not get shot is to shoot those that are shooting at you or abolish the means at which one can shoot you. Whether they consider any of that to be violence or not doesn't matter.
Back to our hypothetical scenario, the working class will form a dual power structure to counteract the distribution of power in your society.

Attached: large (1).jpg (500x654, 78.77K)

I would think youve not read your history books mate.

Yes. Consentual capitalism is a myth.

Also enjoy your full scale embargo, the tables have turned

You… do realise that something like reducing the workweek back to, say 16 or 20 hours a week is easily possible under socialism, right? Even at current development.

Alrighty then.

Who is the utopian now?

It does matter. Your definition of violence is not absolute. Even if you are right when you say that it is because of this an that, many people disagree and live life as though it isn't.
The difference between my definition and yours is that physical violence and the threat of physical violence are very separate things for me and not for you.
Like i said, people who do not consider contracts and private property as violence can live together well, but you use your definition of violence to give a pass to actual violence.

That's fine, it's not forbidden, freedom of association. This might be a healthy thing. Many here, you too i think, would wager that on a private property, contract based society without the state it would be in the form of an upheaval of abused and disgruntled child laborers. I don't think so. But we're starting to get into crazy derailments that can only end in shitslinging and telling each other to read this or that book to no avail.

We were not even talking about whose definition of violence is right or not. You can't just say you are not imposing any ideal on other people yet at the same time impsing a ideal on people by creating a society.
Societies with class antagonisms will fall whether you call the actions taken by either of the classes to impose their rule on the other violence or not.
This is a silly game of schematics that's not leading to any productive conversation.

Attached: original.jpg (320x276, 76.4K)


More news at 11

Attached: b27a148353f9ae5dd7362b93f712f73c9599b8fabcfecb3cc2a559f8bc63fb63.jpg (540x720, 80.02K)

You actually believe that real consent can be had between two people of inequal power? So if someone is starving and another person has food and the starving person sells their self to the person with food in order to eat, this is completely fair, just, and acceptable?

I wouldn't want to participate in a society that accepts slavery or interact at all with someone who would let a starving person starve.
You may have some psychopaths who would love to explore the weak but economic prosperity eventually lifts the vulnerable out of their reach and allows for charity to take care of the ones who can't do anything for themselves.
Here is the point someone will scream at me that i'm wrong and delusional, of course.


The next time I wake up, please change my physical form to that of FINN MCMILLAN of SOUTH NEW BRIGHTON at 8 YEARS OLD and keep it that way FOREVER.

I am so sick of this chubby Asian man body!

Thank you!