Is he a liberal? I once saw him tweet that Anarcho Capitalism was the only ethically consistent political philosophy, so I thought he was an ancap (I am one).
There's 2 camps in anarchist philosophy, and they HATE each other. The people in the streets are anarcho communists, and we have fundamental disagreements about the definition of anarchy.
Anarcho communists define anarchy as: No hierarchies at all.
Anarcho capitalists define anarchy as: No rulers at all. Hierarchies are fine as long as they're voluntary.
Yeah I find that confusing. For my whole life I viewed anarchism as no government, but these "anarchists" want MORE government to force no hierarchies. It's delusional. It's like creating a whole new word, but instead of actually making a new word, forcing a new meaning onto an already existing word, and then pretending that's what it has meant all along.
Hmmm... The democrats haven't done that with any other word right? I'm pretty sure it stared with a g... Guh.. Gend - Forget it. Must have been my imagination.
I regularly get into arguments with people on twitter who tell me I don't know what anarchy means as the historical association of anarchy is with leftist communists. They're completely delusional because like you said, they need a government in order to enforce their no hierarchy, which will of course, create a hierarchy.
And that, my friends, is why anarchocommunism is literally a contradiction. You cannot have “anarchy” and total government control of society. That is not anarchy
it's almost as if marxism uses semi-organized chaos in order to appear as though they're anarchists. it's really 2 things, though: the average idiot sincerely believes that they're helping to speak truth to power and dismantle what they hold to be tyranny—the loosely defined "useful idiot" group, and the other are the relatively few- which incidentally includes the media, who believe that they stand to benefit from it somehow- who know that, to the untrained eye and with an unexercised critical reasoning faculty, most people will view it more as "dumb, angry kids doing dumb shit" rather than the violent insurrection in which they're cognizantly engaging
they're not anarchists. that's a misnomer. whether they mean to or not, they're fighting for something that couldn't be further from any reasonable definition of anarchism
I don't think the pussies in the streets are anarcho-anything. They are straight-up totalitarian communists and the media is covering for them by calling them anarchists.
To add to Sargentpilcher: There is no Anarcho-Communism. It's synonymous with Violent Communists. Their Anarchy is an unreasonable fairytale - and the only government they oppose is the one not 100% obeying to their authoritarian rule.
The "no hierarchies at all" idea is just vague nonsense. If you have 2 people and one is twice as productive as the other, he is on top in a hierarchy of competence. In a free market it manifests itself in a better position and higher wage (for example).
For these Anarcho-Communist fags that's already a problem. You are supposed to be equal - the point is EQUITY. So the "no hierarchies at all" is merely a bad cover for hardcore egalitarianism. And how do you achieve that? You hammer down the nail that sticks out. Aka: You destroy, murder, oppress until everything is "equal" (which "equal" being devoid of meaning and open for arbitrary interpretation). And what can do that? A government. A very, very, very powerful, all-encompassing government. Who controls it? A tiny fraction of people, as usual. Who is at the receiving end of the stick? The rest of the population. And prepare for """mixed economy""" on steroids.
And voilà, you end up in the same communist crap as always - which ends in totalitarian socialist dictatorships that are more brutal, murderous and evil than Nazis could even dream to be. Yes, Communism is Fascism on steroids.
This is why they are just plain communists who use Anarcho-Communism as means to deceive. It's an euphemism. But if you look closely, they are just the degenerate foot soldiers devoid of meaning in life. Young, brainwashed, radicalized, ignorant, never worked a day in their lives. The more functional and smarter ones go through media, politics, bureaucracy, activism, NGOs, etc. But they share the SAME ideology. It's all the same: Marxism.
Anarcho Capitalism is the idea that government is illegitimate, and shouldn't exist at all. Once you have an entity with a monopoly on the use of force (The definition of a government), that the power inevitably grows as the worst people try to grab the power. Take the United States for example, we started out as the smallest government the world has ever seen, and as a result, became the most successful nation the world has ever seen, and as a result, has grown the government into the largest government the world has ever seen. Because of this, we can't trust anybody with a monopoly on the use of force. JRR Tolkein was an anarchist, and the one ring to rule them all, was a metaphor for government, and it must be destroyed.
AnCaps believe in a single law, which we call the Non Aggression Principle, which is essentially "Thou shalt not enact the use of force, unless it is first enacted upon you, and you react in self defense". We believe in property rights, taxation is theft, and the government is illegitimate.
Edit: An alternate title for AnCaps would be "Voluntarist".
Edit 2: There is a lot of theory about how we could privatize things that are public today. Private security forces, private roads, private military protection, private courts (Dispute resolution organizations).
How does the Non Aggression Principle apply to things like vaccines or mask mandates? Things where leftists twist the NAP to suggest that it's aggression to not comply since you pose a threat to others for not doing something to yourself, as in their eyes a vaccine or a mask is harmless but does a whole lot of good for others?
Leftists are stupid. The non aggression principle has to do with property rights (all rights stem from property rights). Whether you wear a mask or not, is not a matter of violating any bodies property rights.
Now, if you were to go into a store, and that store required you to wear a mask, that is their property and they have every right to demand you wear a mask while on their property, for the same reason they have a right to demand you wear shoes, pants, and a shirt. They would also have every right to say the opposite and say masks are not allowed while on their property, and what they say goes, and if you don’t like it, then you can voluntarily associate with a different store.
A mandatory vaccine is a clear violation of property rights. A voluntary vaccine is not a violation of property rights.
Everything should be voluntary. EVERYthing. Leftists don’t understand the NAP, and like you said, they twist it.
True. My favorite Beatle by a wide margin but, without a doubt, the worst human in the band. His complete avoidance of Julian was unconscionable. Bit of trivia: Paul wrote "Hey Jude" for Julian in hope of lifting his spirits (it was originally titled "Hey Jules")
if you want a purely voluntary societal organization, ancap would probably be considerably closer than ancom; but that's just my opinion, so feel free to say i'm wrong/why
Is he a liberal? I once saw him tweet that Anarcho Capitalism was the only ethically consistent political philosophy, so I thought he was an ancap (I am one).
Classic liberal. It's what MAGA evolved into.
I gotta ask, since your one of those anarcho-capistalist guys, what do you think about all those anarcho-pussies in the streets?
There's 2 camps in anarchist philosophy, and they HATE each other. The people in the streets are anarcho communists, and we have fundamental disagreements about the definition of anarchy.
Anarcho communists define anarchy as: No hierarchies at all.
Anarcho capitalists define anarchy as: No rulers at all. Hierarchies are fine as long as they're voluntary.
Yeah I find that confusing. For my whole life I viewed anarchism as no government, but these "anarchists" want MORE government to force no hierarchies. It's delusional. It's like creating a whole new word, but instead of actually making a new word, forcing a new meaning onto an already existing word, and then pretending that's what it has meant all along.
Hmmm... The democrats haven't done that with any other word right? I'm pretty sure it stared with a g... Guh.. Gend - Forget it. Must have been my imagination.
I regularly get into arguments with people on twitter who tell me I don't know what anarchy means as the historical association of anarchy is with leftist communists. They're completely delusional because like you said, they need a government in order to enforce their no hierarchy, which will of course, create a hierarchy.
And that, my friends, is why anarchocommunism is literally a contradiction. You cannot have “anarchy” and total government control of society. That is not anarchy
it's almost as if marxism uses semi-organized chaos in order to appear as though they're anarchists. it's really 2 things, though: the average idiot sincerely believes that they're helping to speak truth to power and dismantle what they hold to be tyranny—the loosely defined "useful idiot" group, and the other are the relatively few- which incidentally includes the media, who believe that they stand to benefit from it somehow- who know that, to the untrained eye and with an unexercised critical reasoning faculty, most people will view it more as "dumb, angry kids doing dumb shit" rather than the violent insurrection in which they're cognizantly engaging
they're not anarchists. that's a misnomer. whether they mean to or not, they're fighting for something that couldn't be further from any reasonable definition of anarchism
It's not even no hierarchies at this point it is no hierarchies where they are not the top.
Hmmm, I never knew that, sounds more like me.
I don't think the pussies in the streets are anarcho-anything. They are straight-up totalitarian communists and the media is covering for them by calling them anarchists.
they believe in no gov but all gov at the same time is my guess. They literally have anarchist symbols on their "shields"
I thought it was cool when they were begging for food over at the CHAZ
To add to Sargentpilcher: There is no Anarcho-Communism. It's synonymous with Violent Communists. Their Anarchy is an unreasonable fairytale - and the only government they oppose is the one not 100% obeying to their authoritarian rule.
The "no hierarchies at all" idea is just vague nonsense. If you have 2 people and one is twice as productive as the other, he is on top in a hierarchy of competence. In a free market it manifests itself in a better position and higher wage (for example).
For these Anarcho-Communist fags that's already a problem. You are supposed to be equal - the point is EQUITY. So the "no hierarchies at all" is merely a bad cover for hardcore egalitarianism. And how do you achieve that? You hammer down the nail that sticks out. Aka: You destroy, murder, oppress until everything is "equal" (which "equal" being devoid of meaning and open for arbitrary interpretation). And what can do that? A government. A very, very, very powerful, all-encompassing government. Who controls it? A tiny fraction of people, as usual. Who is at the receiving end of the stick? The rest of the population. And prepare for """mixed economy""" on steroids.
And voilà, you end up in the same communist crap as always - which ends in totalitarian socialist dictatorships that are more brutal, murderous and evil than Nazis could even dream to be. Yes, Communism is Fascism on steroids.
This is why they are just plain communists who use Anarcho-Communism as means to deceive. It's an euphemism. But if you look closely, they are just the degenerate foot soldiers devoid of meaning in life. Young, brainwashed, radicalized, ignorant, never worked a day in their lives. The more functional and smarter ones go through media, politics, bureaucracy, activism, NGOs, etc. But they share the SAME ideology. It's all the same: Marxism.
Anarcho Capitalism is the idea that government is illegitimate, and shouldn't exist at all. Once you have an entity with a monopoly on the use of force (The definition of a government), that the power inevitably grows as the worst people try to grab the power. Take the United States for example, we started out as the smallest government the world has ever seen, and as a result, became the most successful nation the world has ever seen, and as a result, has grown the government into the largest government the world has ever seen. Because of this, we can't trust anybody with a monopoly on the use of force. JRR Tolkein was an anarchist, and the one ring to rule them all, was a metaphor for government, and it must be destroyed.
AnCaps believe in a single law, which we call the Non Aggression Principle, which is essentially "Thou shalt not enact the use of force, unless it is first enacted upon you, and you react in self defense". We believe in property rights, taxation is theft, and the government is illegitimate.
Edit: An alternate title for AnCaps would be "Voluntarist".
Edit 2: There is a lot of theory about how we could privatize things that are public today. Private security forces, private roads, private military protection, private courts (Dispute resolution organizations).
It sounds like libertarianism to me. I vote that way (except Trump) not because it would work, but because it is the right direction.
How does the Non Aggression Principle apply to things like vaccines or mask mandates? Things where leftists twist the NAP to suggest that it's aggression to not comply since you pose a threat to others for not doing something to yourself, as in their eyes a vaccine or a mask is harmless but does a whole lot of good for others?
Leftists are stupid. The non aggression principle has to do with property rights (all rights stem from property rights). Whether you wear a mask or not, is not a matter of violating any bodies property rights.
Now, if you were to go into a store, and that store required you to wear a mask, that is their property and they have every right to demand you wear a mask while on their property, for the same reason they have a right to demand you wear shoes, pants, and a shirt. They would also have every right to say the opposite and say masks are not allowed while on their property, and what they say goes, and if you don’t like it, then you can voluntarily associate with a different store.
A mandatory vaccine is a clear violation of property rights. A voluntary vaccine is not a violation of property rights.
Everything should be voluntary. EVERYthing. Leftists don’t understand the NAP, and like you said, they twist it.
And that is where the ancap nonsense fails apart.
voluntarist is probably the best way i have ever heard ancap explained. thanks for taking the time to lay it all out for us
His dad was a great song writer but apparently a terrible father from most accounts so you have to give him a bit of a break
True. My favorite Beatle by a wide margin but, without a doubt, the worst human in the band. His complete avoidance of Julian was unconscionable. Bit of trivia: Paul wrote "Hey Jude" for Julian in hope of lifting his spirits (it was originally titled "Hey Jules")
if you want a purely voluntary societal organization, ancap would probably be considerably closer than ancom; but that's just my opinion, so feel free to say i'm wrong/why