Anarchists

Abbie Hoffman was a fucking jew.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbie_Hoffman

Presided over by Judge Julius Hoffman(no relation to Hoffman, about which he joked throughout the trial[20]), Abbie Hoffman's courtroom antics frequently grabbed the headlines; one day, defendants Hoffman and Rubin appeared in court dressed in judicial robes, while on another day, Hoffman was sworn in as a witness with his hand giving the finger. Judge Hoffman became the favorite courtroom target of the Chicago Seven defendants, who frequently would insult the judge to his face.[21] Abbie Hoffman told Judge Hoffman "you are a 'shande fur de Goyim' [disgrace in front of the gentiles]. You would have served Hitler better." He later added that "your idea of justice is the only obscenity in the room."[21] Both Davis and Rubin told the Judge "this court is bullshit." When Hoffman was asked in what state he resided, he replied the "state of mind of my brothers and sisters".

lol

I know Abbie Hoffman was a Jew. That's why he started his "Youth International party". He was a foregin Israeli agent sent to subvert America. However, my point was he was logical with his "Culturejamming" and was fun in practice and writing. It was one big party but also they held sophisiticated views that were just missing the point, essentially (not too unlike modern Anarcho-Capitalism)).

This is different from the modern Holla Forums-type who refuses to go outside and thinks that he can shape a political philosophy around the post-scarcity economics of the INTERNET and thinks that being able to jack off every waking moment is a basic human right. They are manlets who don't work compared to the old-style anarchists who worked for a brief while and then tried to get out of it, exploiting the government systems. In the modern world, the Anarchist is pacified by the government systems already.

Abbie Hoffman can potentially kick your ass. An average AnCom today would snap like a twig. That's what I'm saying.

Study the works of Abbie Hoffman, Holla Forums. He wrote many works about subversion. Steal this Book can be our method to smash the system.

Actually they are worse

TV anarchist

IRL Anarchist

TV anarchists are a million times better then IRL anarchists especially with the:

They believe in the magical concept of "the state"
What the living fuck this is supposed to be no one knows.

Because their totally oppressive utopia government is somehow not a "the state" despite having laws(this name is not used) and executing everyoen who violates this.

The "the state" is made up shit, every government is like a gang and eventually new gangs will form.
Them not understanding it and saying that their gang is not "the state" somehow is idiotic.

No.
I want some on-line interaction.

Anarcho-Communists believe that they have some kind of commune with the cultural norms of themselves being the only "laws". They believe that their own culture is what would dominate the international communist open-air commune. They really think that the nature of having a good time and everyone giving everyone else their own things and just sharing is what everyone will do. Study the actual, non-TV hippies. It's an interesting philosophy, that's for sure.

...

Also, The Church of the Subgenius (a very popular joke religion, and an early internet meme) and the members are pretty much people that think the same thing, but only semi-seriously. It's a religion of lazyness.

On the subject of hoffman I'd reccomend Steal This Wiki. An updated version of his book and was used as an antifa protest manual back in Occupy. It's being reupdated by commies atm.
stw.darknedgy.net/index.php?title=Main_Page

Steal this Book is great for any party that reads it when SHTF. When SHTF you need to subvert. Sadly, a Jew wrote the best book of subversion. Won't it be a dramatic irony when his book is our playbook?

I know they refuse to say they are laws and what they have is a government with functional laws.
However it literally is another government only more insane because it somehow refuses to say that its a government.

This would not be a problem if all Anarchy is
So somehow their hierarchical government is not "the state" however it has hierarchies.

Its silly in the extrema.
The best they can hope is some form of savage barbarism with no written laws however even savage barbarian are things I classify under "government".

Its silly in the extrema.
And there is nothing else to Anarchy if the state is made up fiction (my position) Anarchy is impossible we are already living in Anarchy.
Enjoy your free non-state* non-hierarchical* USA because this is the best they can hope for after their "anarchist government" is created.

Real Anarchists make
Look reasonable.

Dang it you derailed me.

I wanted to learn if Leftists in general would fight space aliens if space alien behaved/invaded like in the movie mars attacks .

Will they fight against the martians.

What do you think how will they respond to this?
Will they even try to fight the martians who are irredeemably evil bastards in this scenario and there is no mudding the water

What do you think their responses are going to be?

thank you for stopping by rabbi k. ike goldmanstein but you have to go back

Are those people for real?

I'm pretty sure that is literally the joke.
These are by the same person. He's an anarchist commie criticizing modern anarchist commies.

This is a really great thread. I've always wondered why anarchists would willingly allign with the far left. Surely they know that their "comrades" seek to replace whatever current state they live in… With another state. They are likely also aware that they will be used as cannon fodder should any collapse or revolution occur. and definitely disposed of after Politically speaking, it would make far more sense to strike off on their own, as a third position of sorts. So why stay. Drug hookups? Or is there a deeper reason?

Here's the rest of the series (I think).

>youtube.com/watch?v=rXUOHb9K9Mo

sup cuckchan, how ya doing?

the goyim know
shut it down by posting shitty comics

Whatever you say, greatest ally

Oh look, another subversive jew. Everytime someone tries to get me to 'hey user, libertarianism/anarchism is kinda cool though', all I am confronted with is kike subversion passed as philosophy. Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Abbie Hoffman.

Jews can only subvert and destroy. Thus any ideas they promote serve only this destructive tendency. Name the Jew or be exposed as one.

chaim is right on schedule and this time he's blessed you with the irrelevant comic creator's name

Holla Forums is not your neo-marketing space cryptokike

Anarchism as a concentrated, refined political idea; is antithetical to itself. It cannot be defined really, and only need exist after the breaking point when SHTF and chaos is the order of the day. Anything else up until that point, serves (((communism))) and leftist ideals. Even after the smoke cleared, any anarch/user who hadn't chosen a side and backed the emperor/commissar would be labeled a rebel. Any intelligent anarch would rather have a fascist dictatorship than a leftist mandate.
Sage for ramblings not giving glory to motherland

WONDER WHO IS BEHIND ALL THESE ED-U-MUH-KAY-SHENAL POSTS ABOUT COMMUJISM

Thats the point of the comic dingus. He's saying ancoms shouldn't support liberal attempts to censor racists, since they are the next group to be censored.

I in no way endorse Abbie Hoffman. I'm trying to make a comparison to the old-style anarcho-communist and the new-style manchild larper is all.

...

Yes this is his point.
He looks like he sees the idiocies of the "modern" left however fails to see the ultimate problems.

Like a guy who is kind of there.

Cool.
Because I posted it on cuckchan and 4pol immediately purged it for unknown reasons.

I copy pasted it to see if 8pol will purge it.
A social experiment if you like.

However 8pol is what I expected

And the images are great like others have seen.

Dude I thought I was the only one who noticed the OLD left VS NEW Left.

The OLD Left looks more respectable with tiny holes.

The NEW Left is only screaming nonsense and exaggerated to the extrema OLD Left positions.

Its like the OLD Leftist where capable to distract and not embarrass themselves publicly think TYT = new VS Sam Seder = OLD
youtube.com/watch?v=MxchvgtPpGk

I don't understand why anarchists can't just fuck off to the woods like say Alaska. Granted it's still part of the US and has laws but if you go out deep enough no one is there to enforce them. Why do they feel it's so important to stay in a big city and be destructive? Why not just say "we have no real agenda we just like to break stuff and be scumbag degenerates"? At least it's honest and you don't have to do mental gymnastics to justify why you live in some big city like Portland or wherever these faggots congregate. Maybe the problem is that they are then faced with the truth of themselves and that image in its sincerity probably disgusts even most of them. Anarchists are a joke, a plague on society who wouldn't last 5 minutes in a world without law and order because the people who follow this degenerate little cult of destruction don't know how to create anything (graffiti doesn't count you can't eat or sleep in graffiti). They are also very physically weak people most often and in a true lawless world the vast majority of them would be easy targets.

Dude did you see antifa? What twig man fagots they are?

They die if they are even put against anything competent.
Gangs, real hooligans.
They are a joke, and can not survive anywhere.

This is something I love to see.
Will they act all strong in the beginning and after anything competent shows up they run away like little babies screaming
And simply dispersal after this (killed, enslaved)?

Dang it 8pol you derailed my conversation.
I wanted to get the answer to a question how leftists will react if aliens invaded.

The question was how will they react if aliens show up and started attacking people.
I copy pasted the same thread content to leftypol.
8ch.net/leftypol/res/1860938.html

The discussion was hard.
They literally refuse to answer the question.
Distracted with everything

And after a lot of rounds where I asked them some of them finally answered.
I wanted some clarification on their position however then I realized I was banned.

For what?
Because in my hypothetical scenario i did say CNN will say space aliens are not a danger.
And I classified CNN to be leftists.
Despite the fact that I did note that its a unimportant detail and you can use the example with only CNN and no reference to leftism.

Despite the fact that it was made a long time ago and the discussion continued I was apparently banned because

I tried to be respectful to them, wit the exception of shitposters who wrote crap.
Here is the final post I wanted to post in the discussion:
Seriously I can not decipher this
is this supposed to be, people will be pissed off?
I'm not harping on language often however if I'm incapable of deciphering this it hinders a conversation.
I can not understand the last sentence.

I like to learn what you would do.
Personally and I'm waiting on the clarification of all 3 points.

1)Is there a difference between extermination by aliens and only occasional non exterminating alien raids?
2)Do you only fight if the aliens want to exterminate every human (self preservation) or do you ignore it if the aliens want to exterminate only some countries?
3)What if the want to exterminate the country you live in and not every human? What do you do?

I don't think its offensive to ask them.

He's also on the wrong side of the plank.

Why is the Nazi portrayed like some Jew characature of a Nazi instead of the clean-cut upstanding man a real Nazi is?

Its a anarchist comic made by some anarchist.
Its intensional.
However I love to ask is he having a mustache like Hitler or is he having some shadow liquid life form fused to parts of his face?
Its really hard to tell because if this is a Hitler mustache his eyes also have "sun glass mustaches".

Honestly if anarchists weren't such weak faggots I would view them as allies, at least for now. Anarchists want to destroy the jew controlled system and so do we. Difference is they don't realize it's jew controlled, but as long as they are fighting the jew (even without realizing it) I don't see the problem.

Just wish they werent such weak faggots and actually blew stuff up like they used to 100 years ago.

The only legitimate anarchists are anarcho-primitivists, because that form of social organization is only possible with stone age technological development or possibly at the very most agrarian society. Higher tech development necessarily creates a state structure.

That's the thing. They really don't. They accept the entire modern/liberal/bourgeois ethos and mythology.

Anarchists/Communists are a walking contradiction. You can't have equality, socialism, and all that other crap without also having a big government to force its implementation. The Ancaps are retarded too, but at least their worldview still makes sense internally.

Syndicalism, as opposed to other forms of anarchy, is an interesting thought experiment. It's not incompatible with nationalism. I think Mussolini had a lot of syndicalist supporters. Whether they were truly nationalist, or just hated marxists to the point they became literal fascists is something I don't know.

In what way?

Essentially pic-related. Ancapism is more of a thought experiment than a practical system. You'd essentially just end up with states-in-everything-but name and/or a foreign entity would come in and conquer the area. That's not to say that a lot of the things they talk about aren't legit, but they take everything to a ridiculous logical extreme because they falsely cling to this axiom that "all freedom is always good and regulation is always bad and I will never ever say anything opposing this because I need my worldview to remain absolutely 100% based on this single moral axiom"

Well could you give examples of some regulations that are good?

here's a good video about what is wrong with the left.

That's the thought process of these "anarchists" who're really just communists who became actual adults, though failed to shed their former influences. And so the dissonance pervades.

To those of us not mired in the thoughts of other men, ideologies and isms, propaganda and perfections on paper, anarchy is the only form of government, because anarchy is natural law.

And to reject natural law is the rejection of reality.

Governments are anarchic. Anarchy looks like Germany in 1932. Stop dividing reality and philosophy, they're the same thing. Do you call it government when a bunch of water gets together over time to carve a niche in the rocks and form a river? You call it natural law.

Borders.

Honestly from my analysis they are a liability.
Let them make their autistic searching however I don't trust them with my back turned.

If them agreeing that that psychopathic space aliens who kill humans from movies are a enemy to fight was more like trying to force feed a demon holy water.

They reluctantly even acknowledged this point and I suspect only because every single of their distractions or lecture modes was responded with

You can see it in
8ch.net/leftypol/res/1860938.html
PS: Can someone check if the thread is locked from replies?
try posting a comment there I got BANED.

My conclusion is simple if they are this level of mentally crippled and can not even acknowledge that genocidal space aliens are a enemy we might fight together then they are lost.

After the Muslims are publicly executing everyone in the streets the anarchist fagots will sneak around in their fag outfits trying to find fascists to hunt.
They will act like the Muslim execution squads don't exist, because they are mentally incapable of seeing them to be a threat.>>10245071

Borders aren't a regulation, however open-borders are a violation of private property rights, so to say that an ancap world has open borders is a contradiction.

roads

...

Again, roads are not regulations.

They aren't one in an ancap world, and I'm not going to argue from the limited perspective of a communist.

You're saying government regulations are never a good thing, and you're correct. So which corporation is securing the border between the US and mexico in your ancap world? How do they make money? Obviously individuals can just blast anyone on their property with their howitzer, but no one is going to live in the fucking desert given the guaranteed growth of your system, so how does B2MeXico Inc. get paid?

I say there are more retarded or equally.

Anarchists/Communists can save themselves if somehow they make everyone equal and everyone thinks the same and no one is ever doing anything bad.
This requires ludicrous levels of beyond human and even machines fail, so maybe a species of perfect machines might live in their an-com commune.

An-caps are retarded crap that will end up in disaster, nothing more then payed propaganda for big corporations.

Almost all of you guys are really uneducated and downright stupid, you are clearly children, and many posts here are clearly from shills, which you are lapping up like lobotomizees.

You are just falling for the Gnostic model of knowledge, sorting your view of the world into true and false, good and bad, etc., for no other reason that it simplifies the world down to an unrealistic cartoon and makes you very easy to program for the people who feed you your points of view and information. This is literally analogous to a computer, you are literally programmed to be a fleshy computer running Judeo-Masonic Operating System 5.0, having your humanity taken away from you.

Do you have any concept of what the purpose of government is? What the purpose of society is?
It's to order the human mind according to the will the of leader, the purpose the leader sets forth, to achieve the goals of the leader.

In order to do this, those who go against the will of the leader must be pressured to act against their own natural will and redirected toward the goals of the leader.
As a matter of economic competition and survival, almost all societies have adopted the use of slavery, taking in foreigners and pressing them to do simple tasks and promoting them gradually as their natural tendencies are suppressed and they become more productive toward the will of the master.

Guess what? As Germanic people, we are occupied, even in our own native countries, by foreigners, and we are all meant to be slaves. The versions of things that are promoted, that we are shown in the media, even here largely, are the versions that our foreign invaders want us to see.
They hope that we will adopt these bastardizations as ideals, and so warp our view of the world and weaken us, shutting out the possibilities of freedom.

If you look at our history as Aryan people, you will see a great deal of evidence that we have functioned as anarchists, with no set rulers. But clearly we did not believe in the rule of chaos, we achieved the best feats of all time. So there is a discrepancy in the definition of anarchy being used.
This word comes into English from Latin, coming from the Greek ἀναρχία (ánarkhíā), from ἄναρχος (ánarkhos, “without leader”) +‎ -ῐᾱ (-íā, abstract noun suffix), which comes from the Aryan language of the great lost civilization.
So you see, it simply means there is no one leader. It implies that there is no need for one, and that each man is his own leader, and the society functions according to their shared will, purpose, and goals.
This does not mean there are no LAWS, it simply means there is no SOVEREIGN. People agree on the goals and laws of their society and don't need anyone to step in and arbitrate the laws or make exceptions.

In reality this is the ultimate graduation of civilization, there is no need for one man to impose his will on the population, they simply function as one, abiding by the laws they have set forth, and police themselves. It's a society in which the citizens are equals, a society that has a much higher proportion of high-quality individuals than almost all example we have in our existing history.

An anarchic society also has leaders at some times, but they are not fixed. They simply rise up when there are new problems, do their duty to solve them, then they relinquish their position, or if they are unwilling, the law and the will of the people puts them back down, knowing that freedom and prosperity rely on having as many uncaged wills in society as possible.

In reality all societies are always anarchic in a certain space of the hierarchy, even if the group of those without leaders is only the sovereign himself, or a small council of leaders, or the nobility, or all the middle class, or every man in the whole land.
Now do you see what I mean about the true/false, yes/no, good/bad of Gnostic model of knowledge? It's a static model, meant to limit your intelligence to the here and now that serves your masters, to deny your past and future, to make you inhuman.

Try to keep that in mind every time you try to call something "good" or "bad", every time you try to meme "x, y, pick one", and try to break yourself away from the mindset of "things I like" and "things I don't like". Every time you think like this you are doing work for the Jews and Masons at the expense of your soul.

That was engaging. Thank you.

the mindset:

...

stop calling them anarchists faggot
they want government involved in every aspect of their lives. they are communists.
dont call them fascists either you kike. they can only be referred to as communism.

Great post.
This is true of every form of anarchism this is why I don't adopt the idiotic name "state" the things that exist are named governments.

And anarchism disintegrates because its literally about nothing if you ask any questions.
How is every government somehow the state yet your government is not?

Never have I said or implied that.

Sorry but is this sarcasm or do you agree that regulations are never a good thing? Since this is where the discussion began from.
First of all you have to understand that mexicans and mudslims have entered America and Europe for free gibs from the government. For instance Romania doesn't have as many rapefugees as Germany, not because of some nationalistic president or strong borders, but because they are too poor to give them gibs. The moment they are dropped in Romania, they go back to Germany. In an ancap world there would be no gibs. Now you start asking asking about jobs, well one of the reason mexicans steal jobs from Americans is because of minimum-wage laws. Do you really think a company would rather hire some foreigner that doesn't speak English, has a shady background, reeks of alcohol, than some local who is willing to work for less than the minimum wage law but can't, because of government regulations. Now you will might say that they wll form shanty towns on the streets, but considering that streets are privately owned, people do pay money to keep them clean, and just as people pay money to keep their neighborhoods safe and clean, so will they pay the same thing for the streets.
By providing a service, that people want, and people want safety. Do you want me to provide the specific system on how they get money?

You're falling for the same shit they are.
You literally just said that.

That mentality is a trap. Evolution is anarchic. That necessarily implies organisms, complex interconnected systems of sensory checks and balances, are anarchic.
Evolution of government is anarchic. That necessarily implies states, complex interconnected systems of social checks and balances, are anarchic.

Ah morality.
Good that I'm a moral nihilist and always define morality to be
Morality knowing the difference between good and evil and always choosing evil.

Morality is also always insanity.

Because how can you argue with insane people who say
Because morality is always evil worship.
Square wheels are bad and wrong society wold collapse if you forced everyone to only use moral wheels.

Everyone flowing morality will get everyone killed.
I can give countless examples from vegans to all sorts of lunatics.

In the end what is morality than some idiot saying "obey this rule for no reason whatsoever" ?

You need to be insane to follow morality or be moral.
Same for libertarians/ancaps same moralistic crap, same insanity.

POTTERY
O
T
T
E
R
Y

???

Let me state this
The ideology of anarchism is bullshit because there is no "the state" in the world.
This "the state" is fiction made up.
A idiotic part of the anarchism ideology.

Governments are organizations like USA, Russia you get the picture.
If you magically teleported every government employee of this planet new governments would form.
Gangs would become governments and other scenarios.

Governments fight one another in wars look into history.
Is there on "the state" and all governments in all of history are part of it ? Somehow! Or is every government its own "the state"?
I like actual anarchists to answer this.

Their position makes no sense.
So in a sense you can say that we live in the same savagery our ancestors did, tribal warfare and all.
There never was a period of political anarchy or you can say that we are literally living in political anarchy like in all of history.

So this disproves the ideology of anarchism.

I agree, and it is not sarcasm. I asked because I was where you are now about 4 years ago.
I understand completely, and in the ancap system, it's guaranteed that growth will be immense, rapid, and nearly perpetual. What about a $300/hr minimum wage doesn't seem like it would be enticing to shitskins? Moreover, what about paying illegal immigrants $20/hr instead doesn't seem enticing to any but the most nationalist of corporations?

Yes, please do. Systems are all I do. In fact, my understanding of systems is what led me from ancap to anarch.

As an ancap, you must agree, systems arise spontaneously: That's the "anarcho" bit next to the "capitalism," where government handholding or subsidy isn't necessary for these systems to exist(and are in fact harmful). Government is just another system, friend, one that arises spontaneously, as a corporation.

Don't adhere to the jewish dialect.

You can't disprove natural law and anarchism(natural law) isn't an ideology.

Bang.

You are all FUCKING RETARDED
You are playing with straw-man dolls of ideas that the kikes have made for you, you have absolutely no perspective.

shut the FUCK up and read this:

then shut the fuck up some more

seriously, you are so fucking stupid it's a crime. Read Plato's The Republic, then kill yourselves

Let me clarify that the anarchists running around in the streets are just of the communist ideology, ones who were told to call themselves anarchists by Jewish college professors.

The same is true of the DPRK (North Korea).
People don't want to be in shitty places, what a shock.
So if you live in some nightmarish capitalist nightmare people will not want to go there like into the DPRK.

Not only is the DPRK disproving your argument
So what is your solution to turn your country into absolute shit? And a hellhole everyone wants to escape?
Seriously what is this the green party program

I know I'm exaggerating a little here however this is exactly why its the case, and why you will not have any migration into ancapistan.
It will be the worst place on earth.

The US was ancapistan ~200 years ago, and it was the worst place on earth. Kind of like Australia, really.

I wonder how those two countries ended up, ya'know?

I'd wager one of them even became the global military superpower of an entire planet to such an extent that they can walk over whoever they want, do whatever they want, kill whoever they want, and even set up little independent countries called "black sites" where they're even more inviolable and powerful then "The Great Satan" they act as while in the media limelite of the entire planet who's neck is so comfortable as to be used as a footrest for their boot.

Are you insane?
You are angry and unstable however WTF?!
Plato?

I did read it! Years ago! Surprise!
Do you know about what it is?

Plato:

How is this relevant?

Wrong.
the US did have

ancapistan is even more insane and shit.

There is a direct evolutionary line from Dobbs to Pepe.

Wow I'm not ancap buddy that shit's for Allies of Israel youthgroup but you should probably go read "Government for good goys" starting with the chapter "Bend over"

How about I experiment with 5.56 vs. 7.62 on your ass?

you are totally fucking insane, kill yourself

The fire code
The highway traffic act
Health inspection

Sadly in reality, economies don't grow nearly perpetually and mostly Keynesianists believe in this. In reality people don't spend infinitely, and when they have enough stuff they start saving money driving interest rates low, and signaling entrepreneurs that they need to invest money in R&D to create more stuff for people to buy with the money the saved usually by borrowing money from banks or using the money they had from the stuff they sold. So no, there is no rapid nearly perpetual growth in an ancap socity, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I degrees.
Again there is no "minimum wage" in an ancap society, people get paid for how productive their work is(yes they do negotiate for a salary and there is no objective way of determining how valuable the work really is, but for the sake of the conversation let's keep things simple and imagine that there is an objective way). If a person produces the firm 50$ with his work, he won't get paid 300$ as the firm will go bankrupt, but neither can the firm pay firm 10$ as he could go to another place to work for 30$. A livable wage, as opposed to a minimum wage, is the quantity of money to live comfortably in a certain neighborhood, as there are things such as food, security, maybe rent etc. to pay. But can't a shitskin just live off on the streets and only cheap noodles from the supermarket so he could work for even 5$? Again, people pay for clean streets so he won't be able to live on the streets, he would have to buy a house or rent one, but, and this is really important, if the society is xenophobic they will not want to sell or rent a house to a foreigner, and neither will they sell him food, or clothes or anything else. But let's say that the firm constructed some houses for them, well that firm will risk getting bad publicity from rival firms for hiring the foreigner. Plus the firm has to spend extra money housing him, teaching him english, giving him food and water, maybe even a car, and all this instead of hiring a local that already has a house and knows english, so why should they bother with him? In the long run, it's cheaper and better to hire a local, than it is to bring foreigners.

Well here is a good system for healthcare that could work just as well for safety. Even if not everybody is in a voluntary community, it's still in the interest of the community to protect the entire neighborhood, as a house full of mexicans and niggers will drop down the value of the other houses, and will make the neighborhood less safe. As long as the majority of people pay for the service, and they will do since they want safety, then all will benefit. Of course there are other non-coercive ways of convincing the others to pay as well, such as social exile(refusing to do services with him for instance), or maybe he provides a service that the the rest of the community doesn't, so it all balances out in the end.

The difference is that a government holds the monopoly on the use of violence, creation of laws, and making sure that they are uphold. Sure a company can create rules, inside of it, but people aren't born inside a company, they voluntarily join it, and can leave any time they want while with a state you are born inside of it. Even in a company with the worst working conditions, they can't kidnap people from their homes and placing them in the company army to invade other companies, only states can do that. So no, a company isn't a corporation, it's a mafia.

So no, a state isn't a corporation, it's a mafia.

Starting the post with a angry insult.

Lets talk about mysticism the post.

WEW LAD so lets test your non gnostic knowledge what is better to fuel a car water or oil? In one of them bad and will kill the machine?

How about burning napalm? Is this good or bad to throw into the engine of a car?

How do you classify the difference between burning napalm and normal fuel? In your NOT true and false, NOT good and bad system?

If your mysticism is so wrong it will make machines not work and crash.
How will you live on your NOT Gnostic model of knowledge?!?!

Will it magically create food for you???
Why not reject the Gnostic model and use burning napalm on your computer to cool it instead of air? After all there is NO good and bad????

Seriously you are a silly rambling mystic.
I was thinking you go for fuzzy logic (degrees of right and wrong) instead of binary(absolute right and wrong 1 and 0) logic however.

More baseless assumptions.

Citation needed, where are you getting this from?

Impossible in practice and I will shoot you down like every other anarchist.
Children.
Children exist, parents have absolute control over their children.
Parents are the "leaders" of their children.
its really this simply and every
Is nothing other then special pleading.
PS: Is this why you are obsessed with Plato? You need his quackery about children to even start talking about anarchy? What are then all of these little humans people have around? Dwarfs? Mass hallucinations? Holograms????!!!!
Who judges the laws? Who is the arbiter of them? Oh so there is this magical special person who can do things other can not and others have to obey him?
Interesting.

You understand why i did say an-com is only for perfect robots at this point to you.
Yes if perfect robots who are programed the same they might function like this forever, however not for humans, see children exist!
You can even do this "anarchy" with a closed community of people especially if they are the same and know one another.
However after some time problems can start, also children exist!

You also talk about others imposing their will on some other people.
What will you do if others invade or attack you?

NO you did ramble about other things and then you returned to this unrelated point from the beginning.

Also I operate on fuzzy logic not binary logic
youtube.com/watch?v=rln_kZbYaWc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

You can emulate binary logic in fuzzy logic.
youtu.be/r804UF8Ia4c

People should stop splitting the pictures of comics in parts.

Congrats on being wrong. Kill yourself.

All of these are solved with insurance. Let's say someone works in construction and he is building a warehouse, so towards the end of the construction he calls an insurance company to ensure the building in case there is a fire, or something else. So they look around and say he needs sprinkles, there, there and there, he needs fire extinguishers there, there and there, he needs an emergency ladder there, the doors need to be bigger so that people can escape faster, fume detectors there, there and there, and if the builder/owner says it's too expensive the insurance firm will explain that when they give an issuance and there is a fire, then it's the insurance firm's fault and not the owner of the warehouse so if people die it's the insurance firm's fault, so they want to be sure that there will never be a fire, and if there is everybody will safely escape. Of course the owner doesn't want a fire to burn down the entire warehouse and kill his workers, but in the unlikely event that it might happen, he would rather pay a small sum now for the installation of all the sprinkles and emergency ladders, plus a smaller fee every month, than to deal with the aftermath of a fire killing his employes and destroying the goods that were stored in a warehouse.
Of course you could say that there is no guarantee that he will take the insurance, but there is no guarantee that he will take it even if there is a law. Here in Romania, about an year ago there was a fire in a club and people died, and even if there was a law forcing club owners to take an insurance, lo and behold the club wasn't insured, and it wasn't a club owned by some chinks, either, but by romanians.

They don't even acknowledge Islam as an enemy which has multiple more ideological similarities with the right and in contrast to the vast majority of western rightwings is actively trying to physically exterminate leftists on the sole ground that they are the "misunderstood others".

Lets have some evidence
youtube.com/watch?v=MxchvgtPpGk
the an-cap fantasies about having some all powerful shadow government who can cancel your bank account at any point if they think you are acting not immoral.

This is somehow a good thing in the heads of an-caps.

And this is why libertarians/an-caps are wrong. Especially an-caps you are literally creating a hard core totalitarian government institution yet somehow you insist its not a government so all of its tyranny can not be questioned.

Everyone else can see it's a recipe for disaster.

Most people don't know that insurance is often more effective than government safety codes, as an electrician, home insurance is way more stringent on things like aluminum wiring and knob&tube and fire alarm systems.

I excluded Islam because they try to excuse it

Here is a scenario with non of the excuses, aliens who you can fight on the streets and win.
youtu.be/rXUOHb9K9Mo
However geting a answer from them is like pooling teath of them.

And at this point they crossed into complete absurdity.
Do you seriously think people like this have the mental capacity to function in reality or even evaluate real life ideologies like Islam?

Where in my post did I suggest a totalitarian system? In the insurance firm, first of all there would be many insurance firms competing against each other driving the price down while providing more services. Secondly as I said, nobody is forcing anybody to take out an insurance.

As opposed to the statist fantasies about having some all powerful government who can throw you in the gas chamber for being a degenerate :^)

No, you will find no evidence of that at all. Trifunctional social order has been coming to every indo-european people in history.

What level of denying reality is this?
Ancaps are one of the handful of ideologies that can be disproved with facts.
FACT you can get into a different country.
FACT you can become a actual citizen of this different country.

So
Completely wrong!
Outside of a handful of tyrannical countries you can leave your country and never return.
The USA will not stop you from permanently leaving it!

You can voluntarily join a country like Russia or the USA.
You are disproved!

The rest is libertarian/an-cap retardation only less retarded then these gems!
Like the fuck! How do you not know this!!!! Do you permanently live in a fantasy land?!

Why would they defend the borders of a non-existent nation? Why bother with one universal wall instead of just defending your area with a smaller one? Why would they give a shit what happens in the middle of nowhere?

I never denied those things, but a FACT is that a person is born inside a country. Sure technically a baby can be born on company grounds, but the company won't force the parents to get the baby a company approved ID, unlike most European countries.

Outside of a handful chinese factories at any moment a worker can quit his job.

Never did I say that you can't. A person has to either belong in a country(abandoning their homes from their previous country) or live in the woods. If someone leaves a company, he doesn't have to leave his house, he can start working from inside his house, if that is what he wished. But let's say you can't disprove all these, even so it's not even the most important thing, the important thing is that a state has the monopoly on the use of violence, the creation of laws and making sure they are respected, this being a FACT.

They'd argue with you if you asked them the time of the day

Actual anarchists are pro capitalism.
Shitlibs call themselves anarchists to sound edgy, but it's really just like women calking themselves empowered.

you are severely retarded, you immediately rephrase everything you read in your own false terms, making no effort to understand, constantly telling the speaker what their intention is based on how you WISH they presented their argument so that your own point of view can remain "unchallenged". you are SEVERELY retarded. you are utterly consumed in self-righteousness, you have no concept of objectivity, you are completely mired in your Gnostic-theory programming.

it eventually boils down to it.
All it takes is asking questions.

WATCH THIS!
youtu.be/q8cHd5ssNac
See for a an-cap who literally admits he want to live in a nightmarish totalitarian society.

Answer me do you think this system(youtu.be/q8cHd5ssNac) is OK in an-cap?
like answer the question.

VS

You implied that its impossible to leave the government you are born into.

And this is wrong.
I have seen so many times libertarians/an-caps literally say you can not leave the USA.
It pops up constantly and every time I will smack you down for your retarded statements.

VS

What are the implications here?
You can never leave the country you are born into???
This sentence should not exist!
If these things are the same (you can leave the USA and your company at any time) why did you write this?!
Like what is the interpretation here?
You can not leave the USA?
The quote was about leaving!

What you are even talking about?
Seriously you started with a difference between government VS company.
You wrote like shit and implies things out side of sane conversations.
If questioned you on this and you say you did not meant to imply these things.
Your post is incoherent and implies extraordinary things.
Like you admitted you write like shit learn to state your position and don't write crap out.
Restate your grand difference between government and company.

More an-cap bad analogies.

No. Bad analogy lets restate this:
The office belongs to the company and if you go away the office the company gave you it dose not belong to you.
Do you see how insane this is? You write about things that are not even related.
The analogy is still bad because a government is more like a hotel that rents you a room.
You are arguing you can stay in a hotel room when you no longer are paying (taxes) and have declared to leave.

Is this more to your liking?
The USA rents space on its territory like a hotel, you have limitations and need to obey them and you pay for it (taxes).

I agree very strongly with this.

Was supposed to quote

WRONG!

Listen, if you ask libertarians/an-caps they will totally go on board with super totalitarian governments only they tell you to
If you criticizes private tyranny.

This not only will be standard procedure, it will be 100% approved by all libertarians and an-caps.

Want me to do it in 1 minute?
MS-land (the landlord who owns the land you are renting) has one clause in its contract you have signed.

See you have a MS-land ID and you need to have it because of the TOS, you voluntarily agreed to.
If you don't obey your contract with MS-land you are initiating force (this is what an-cap/libertarians believe).

I can literally recreate every totalitarian government and make it 100% an-cap approved with come TOS and contracts.

Also about the ID where did you work?
Did you ever work in a office?
You need a identification card on your person at all times and the company enforces it.

its like an-caps are idiots with no imagination about contracts, also they contradict FACTS all the time

I recommend watching
southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad
This will give you a idea of how contracts can be created to enforce practically every tyrannical shit you can ever imagine.
PS: To watch the episode you need to agree to a TOS of the website of the irony(its free BTW).

Socialist anarchists ostensibly believe in eliminating all hierarchies. This means every single person will be equal to every other. To do this, all production must be voted upon. They think having a direct democracy would end hierarchies. That's about as far as they've thought it through, other than that they will vote to receive free stuff from others. Every single one of them thinks they will be able to vote for free stuff from others. It's all a plan to fool others into letting them become parasites and eliminating sexual competition, because they are undesirable. They are aware of all the contradictions, but are seeking only to fool you by appealing to your virtues, of which they have none.

All this is caused by being raised with boomer thought patterns and by single moms.

That sort of thinking just leads to perpetual white flight because you can never have perfect unanimity between all private property owners within a given area to not sell to outsiders, and it can never be perfectly established through voluntary contract law. Ancapistan would be a standard cycle of (1)whites building area (2)traitorous whites selling property to "good niggers" or renting property to them as workers (3)"good niggers" inviting their cousins from the hood (4) niggers gradually destroying the neighborhood (5)whites leaving as all value is sucked from the area (6)repeat.

They say this out of their mouth.
However they are incoherent and self contradictory in practice.

Yes, mexicans wouldn't be leaving their homes to go to white countries if there weren't gibs. There is no possible way that the very fact that we are white our standard of living will be exponentially larger than theres to the point where even our lowest people live like kings compared to shit skins. That will never happen nor will it ever motivate shitskins to move here along with the lower crime rate, better women and so forth.

Its beyond insane to see libertarians/an-caps who have a ideology who literally forbids racism, sexism and

To be some racists, xenophobes themselves.
And think their globalist (no borders everyone can move wherever they like), anit-racist ideology to be some great recipe for racist Nazis land.
Its a clown circus.

I always thought that leftists tried to slander libertarians/an-caps because their ideology allowed for hospital to refuse someone based on their looks(race/whatever) and they die(serious) and also bakeries not making gay flag cakes based on the companies/owners political views (pointless leftist bitching).

However every libertarian did say

Seriously Libertarians/an-caps are republicans on steroids and what some of them turned racist and are posting here about the idiotic system they still believe in?

Here are some facts about your super stars!
alibertarianfuture.com/famous-libertarians/famous-libertarian-quotes/ron-paul-explains-how-libertarians-are-not-racists/
youtube.com/watch?v=XnPnAJeVuvw

>Answer me do you think this system(youtu.be/q8cHd5ssNac) is OK in an-cap?
After 6 minutes, I couldn't watch it anymore, both the host and the caller were tremendous faggots. I can't say if the system is ok in ancap world, because this fascist, pro marihuana and gay marriage, meritocratic anarchist doesn't really know what he wants or is. I could just as easily say that he is a fascist, since he did call himself one, that wants to live in a nightmarish totalitarian society and that this is what all fascists want.

Ok, I admit I was dumb and wrote some nonsense. I know this shouldn't happen in a written format, and I hope you will forgive me. What I should have focused on was that a state holds the monopoly on violence, the creation of laws and the administration of them, something you haven't talked about. I should never have talked about people leaving firms/countries and I am sorry to have created this confusion, plus you went on this massive sperging for nothing. I could comment on some things you said, but this is just a red-herring that I have dragged both of us into. Also please don't use southpark as some commentary on society.
I will say this however, I don't trust government, and I also don't trust big companies, I want neither the government nor Apple to install cameras in my house, I want neither of them to fuck with me, but at the moment the government holds the monopoly on the use of violence, the creation of laws and the administration of them, and this is something NOBODY should have a monopoly on. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be laws or that people can't defend themselves from violence, it's that nobody, no democratically elected government, no meritocratic association scientist, no big business, nobody should force their will onto me.

Oh an one more thing:
Why
do
you
write

like
this

?

What? There has always been a hierarchy in our people history, with elders leading villages and different village warring against each other. We never functioned as an equal mass of people setting goals for the good of the mass.

This is why your ideology fails. Nobody is equal, and those that are superior in some aspect will rise to leadership positions and stay there.

You must also remember that the "anarchy" you mention only exists in primitive society's, one of the major reasons the white race reached the heights it did was because of rigid hierarchy's.

Nice relativist drivel. Not everything is black and white binary, but there are objective bad things, and objective good things.

All right, back to discussion of lefty anarchists.

Whatever happened to the Weather Underground? I mean, I know some of them went on to become "respectable" leftist thinkers, but you'd think there'd still be loads of honest-to-God bomb-chucking terrorists advising modern-day antifa.

also
Is that a word?

Do you actually believe those joke images about ridiculous interpretations of the NAP? If you break a contract, you now owe that person restitution. That's it. They can try to chase you down if you flee but they're more likely to give up and eat the loss. This is why dispute resolution organizations were proposed. Just like auto insurance guarantees restitution for accidents to the person you harmed, a DRO guarantees restitution for someone you trespassed against. A business doesn't need to keep employees on a ball and chain, nor would it have the incentive to. They could just require their employees to be represented by a respectable DRO.

Nobody would sign, much less retroactively honor, a contract that says "we can eat your babies" in fine print. The society is tied together through respect for contracts but they're not sacred law. There is no magical forcefield forcing people to honor their contracts, and no arbitrator would say that everything is fine just because you agreed to it.

If there was really an organization offering tyrannical contracts that grant them the powers of an authoritarian pseudo-state, which is extremely improbable in its own right, there's nothing stopping the people held under the thumb of this organization from ignoring those contracts and revolting. The forces holding a society together are based on respect for ideals. Nobody outside the organization itself would care if it was destroyed from inside; it is antithetical to their society and does not deserve to exist.

there are societies where this has been true and there are always sub-sections of society where this is true….

you clearly have terrible reading comprehension

what the fuck are you talking about, prove it
again, prove it, or at least make an argument

god you're fucking stupid

Here is smug however mostly he asks the an-cap basically

He is 90% respectful and creates a normal atmosphere.
He exaggerates sometimes, however he probes the an-cap.

My favorite part is how the an-cap describes his utopia
Sounds like a nightmare in the making.

Try 14:41
Ancaps want secret people to have the absolute power to remove all your money!
Fun times.

No problem all is forgiven.
However if you are speaking on you ideology you need rethink a lot of things.
The problem with libertarians/an-caps is that non of it makes sense.
If you think about it you can create every nightmare with TOS and contracts.

The more you think about it an-caps require for everyone to be only good and do no evil, especially the CEOs.
News flash every system will work if no one is ever trying to do bad.

The an-cap land owners can simply be made into nightmarish tyrannies with some TOS.
A necessary watching is
southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad
it gives you some basic idea.
A an-cap has yet to give a reason why this exact scenario of this episode is impossible in ancapistan.
Its completely possible and I'm not signing on for a world where my energy contract has hidden details that might permanently enslave me.

And that's why you have covenant communities. It would stop this process before it reached step 2. People who are worried about nonwhites would agree to make communities where they are barred from owning property, or being offered services, or even entry. Of course it wouldn't really be necessary because nobody's handing out gibs but it's always an option. Nobody has to do business with Tyrone.

See above. It's painfully obvious you don't know the first thing about what you are arguing against. From respect for bodily autonomy and property comes the right of association, and from the right of association comes the right to discriminate. This used to be a given for a society that recognized property rights sixty years ago. Now schools brainwash you into thinking segregation was unnatural and a violation of your rights.

Usually when you point out that a man's private property is not beholden to any other forces but himself, you get the opposite reaction. "We need public spaces for a society to work" and all that shit. Somehow the narrative inverted here and nobody recognizes that there are infinitely MORE borders in a voluntaryist society.

And what does that have to do with me or anything I just said?

Full STOP!

Hold on for one second.
"the state" is fiction!
It never existed it never will exist.
Because its a incoherent idea.
Your ideology is based on fighting something that can not exist.
Because its incoherent nonsense.

See:

I have questions:
Is there ONE "the state" and all governments in all of history are part of it ? Somehow! Or is every government its own "the state"?

I like actual anarchists to answer this.

Actually answer this.

See
dictionary.com/browse/state?s=t

But ok, let me ask you one question, do you believe that an entity/group of people/one person/something else should hold the monopoly on violence, the creation of laws and the administration of said laws?

Days of Rage has a small epilogue that describes what happened to a lot of these radical leftists. Spoiler alert: Very few of them suffered negatively from their actions.

...

Libertarians fantasy VS reality
See:
alibertarianfuture.com/famous-libertarians/famous-libertarian-quotes/ron-paul-explains-how-libertarians-are-not-racists/

youtube.com/watch?v=XnPnAJeVuvw
What do these people not exist?
Are you pretending they did not say this?

The rest of your post is incoherent and contradicts libertarian dogma
No you can not say it like this or you are arguing from positive rights.

The rest is insane writing socialism.
Ok lets state some facts:
When did you start your libertarianism?
How big do you have of a channel? How many libertarians/people do you enlighten on what true libertarianism is?

I suspect you are some kid 30 something.
While libertarians super stars like Ron Paul have a following and reach more people on the definition of what libertarianism is.
You started long after them copied some ideas on your bastardized heresy is somehow more authentic then their version and interpretation?
Seriously why are you calling yourself a libertarian even?

And let me make another prediction, you are coping the arguments from supers stats like Ron Paul or mises.org word for word and you started libertarianism because of these super stars.
Yet somehow you disagree with their interpretation of one specific area of libertarianism.

And all your libertarian comrades will follow your heresy instead of the official one.
You some no name shitposter on Holla Forums.
VS people with massive view counts.
Why are you even saying you are a libertarian?

They're called Authorities and they're legal illegal monopolies of government funded services such as port, fire, garbage, sewage, water purification twice the organizations, twice the fedbucks, housing, that literally get so much money and do so much (((municipal financing))) that pension, operating, and other costs associated with running a city quickly become fiscally unmanageable due to the state failing to take action because the (((state))) - read (((501c(3) organizations and the like))) - ultimately make more money by letting it fail.

Very precarious ideology as it already exists and it (((profits))) quite remarkably.

Have I mentioned lately that I no longer care if they die or I do, so long as I don't have to listen to their bullshit any longer?

Dictionaries are not some source of authority.
There are multiple uses of the word state see the state of matter.

I make a wear precise distinction between the ordinary use of the word state on your special magical ideological thing you fight named "the state" I even put it into quotes every time.

I gave you one question:
Is there ONE "the state" and all governments in all of history are part of it ? Somehow! Or is every government its own "the state"?
I like actual anarchists to answer this.

Actually answer this.

Please not that I'm using "the state" its your super magical ideological definition of a entity not all the other uses of this word.
Now answer this.

user pls, he posted a definition, I think its reasonable to assume he's going with one of those definitions.

Why do you keep getting caught up on this? The state is an entity that owns the monopoly on violence in a given area. There are multiple states. Each claims an area of land in which its own laws exclusively apply.

If you're in America, you're under the authority of the federal government. That is an example of "the state." It exercises its sovereign right to enforce its laws within the territory it has defined. The federalist system allows smaller subsets of territories (states, counties, municipalities) to mange themselves, but at the end of the day they are beholden to the federal government.

I am not an anarchist, but I like debating.
There is no ONE global "state" that has conspired against the people. Usually when a libertarian uses the word "state" it's synonymous with the word "government", because out world the government of the country X is also the state, which actually corresponds with the definitions from the dictionary, so it's actually the ordinary use of the word.
So yes, every government is a different state.

Now please answer my question.
Do you believe that an entity/group of people/one person/something else should hold the monopoly on violence, the creation of laws and the administration of said laws?
I would also like a more detailed answer, especially if the answer is yes.

in our world*

You're only example was from primitive Germanic society, which wasn't very accomplished or successful. Same with every primitive people and their "anarchy". Why don't you give me an example of a modern anarchistic society?

The proof is history. Humans, and all animals, perform best when confined to rigid hierarchy's, humans are cogs, on their own useless, but when placed in the correct location within a machine can create great things.

cute, maybe if you keep insulting people it'll make you seem more intelligent.

I think Svalbard works as an example for a more modern functioning anarchy, never looked into it too much

Thanks.
However here is the problem your writing and every other anarchists writing looks now like shit.
Because all the
Referent to only one entity.
Like humans are living in a world government or better yet we always lived in a one world government.

Or you only have problems with one specific government and all other governments are perfect.
I seriously suggest fixing your writing and never to use words like
Write something like

Thanks for clearing this up for me.
Is there a difference between "the state" and a government? Can there be NON"the state" governments?

Thanks for clearing this up because using words like "the state" in the context of the USA can get confusing
Another misinterpretation could be that you only want to abolish a state in the USA and no other country is "the state".
You understand how this can be confusing do you? I'm using the quotes for this specific purposes.
OK my next post is the answer to your question.

This question is incoherent.
its like asking
What is this even supposed to be?

What is this? What is this even supposed to be? Can you give examples of what monopoly on violence is?
Or what its absence is supposed to look?

The question is incoherent nonsense.

Here is the thing this "the state" and "monopoly on violence" are buzz words that only exist in an-cap slogans and can not even be understood all this time you spouted a handful of catchphrases where these buzzwords functioned.

You have no idea what you where even saying.
You can not imagine what or understand what "monopoly on violence" or lack of it looks like.

You only repeated the same phrases "the state has monopoly on violence" and "if we have anarchy there is no state because no monopoly on violence" these are catch phrases.
You can not imagine what these things are.
Yet you claim to be capable to living and creating a utopia where these things don't exist.

I am not sure if this is modern enough for you, but there is The Anarchist Republic of Cospaia.
dailyanarchist.com/2015/03/11/the-anarchist-republic-of-cospaia/
There is also Lichtenstein, but that's more minarchist than anarchist
dailyanarchist.com/2014/08/11/liechtenstein/

I somewhat agree with you. I, and most right wing anarchist, have nothing against voluntary hierarchies. That is to say, there is nothing wrong with following Bob, because he is wise, or smart, or brave, or whatever, but there is a problem when you follow Bob, because otherwise he will kill you and your family. One is a voluntary hierarchy that is perfectly acceptable in an ancap society, while the other isn't. It's the ancoms that have a problem with any form of hierarchical society.
Where I disagree, is that humans are simple cogs in a machine. Sadly there can never be a central planner that can efficiently dictate how what every individual should do in order for the "machienary" to work. Adam Curtis had a good documentary on this.

States usually have land, boarders, and laws that apply within them
this is a nation without a state
like malta
meme it

generally "the state" is the group who have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within those boarders
double post, i know

dailyanarchist.com/2015/03/11/the-anarchist-republic-of-cospaia/
Classic anarchism

only glancing over the article you can see problem spots

Also

Its it a ancient example of sealand?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

Some family squats on territory that do to legal technicalities got excluded form all other government territories, big governments (AKA not about the size of a large farm) don't really give a shit about it for a long time.

it could be argues that none of the 50 states exist. given that federal agaents can operate freely
inb4 10th
there is only one state lending legitimacy to 50 subsections

he is correct, the only mistake he made was leaving out legitimate
Or what its absence is supposed to look?
Vigilantism

Where did the fighting trashcans meme come from?

that rally vid of eruotifa

I present to you my position.
its a peace I found in a leftists article that is literally dribble however you know what they say about monkeys and typewriters.

This catchphrase embodies exactly what I believe in.

Only for context, look at what it says about right wing.

The use of the phrase "the state" often implies illegitimacy, whether it's your government or someone else's. It is not so much a tool to identify individual governments as identify a transcedental idea of governance. Regardless of whether it's a democracy or a monarchy or any other form, there is one thing it always holds: The monopoly on violence.

A monopoly of violence is an exclusive right that a group of people declares upon themselves to justify the enforcement of their rules upon others, valid within the borders they decide they own.

When an anarchist from America says something like "I want to abolish the state/government/system", he is referring to the one in America, not because it's worse than the one in other countries, but because it's the one closest to him, and maybe he has a nationalistic/racial duty to fix the one his nation/race has, before he even tries fixing the government/state/system from other nations/races/cultures.
Just use the dictionary for this.
Also fighting the government/state/system doesn't mean breaking windows and smashing trash cans, it means teaching people on the dangers of the state, trying to infiltrate governemnt and getting rid of laws, moving into a single zone(The Free State Project) and voting for more libertarian candidates, maybe even going the Agorist route and trying to become self-sufficient and using black-markets instead of state markets to starve the state/government/system of it's money. There is no single good solution, and no, a revolution won't suddenly bring an ancap world, it will take a few, maybe even many, generations to revert the power of the state, just like it took many generations to go from the government/state/system the founding fathers had, to the one we have now.

Sure, in America cops can barge without a warrant in any house, if they suspect that person might be a terrorist. They can also shoot the dog if it attacks them. If I do that in America, I get arrested by the police, and be labeled a criminal.
In America, if people don't pay their taxes, they get thrown in jail, if I force someone to give me money with the threat of violence, I get labeled a thief.
In many countries in Europe(I am not sure about America) the government can conscript civillians to fight in wars, whether they want to, or not. If I try to do something similar, I get labeled as a kidnapper and maybe even human trafficker.
These are some examples of things a state/government/system can do, but civilians can't. Also to be clear, I am mostly referring to America, not because I live there, but because I am more knowledgeable about it, and most people from this board live in America. If you want I could also talk about the government of Romania, but I am not sure how much you now about it.
Would you also like examples of monopoly on law making and administration of them?

Form what I understand antifa loves to fight trashcans.
And its strange.
Don't all citizens use trashcans?
Like what is the point here?
I understand however everyone uses trashcans.

So everyone is unequal, correct?
Everyone = unequal

Figured I'd give you a lesson in words since you didn't read the fucking post.

The council of elders gave advice, but didn't impose laws. From the article
As I said, there is nothing wrong with following the advice of someone else, the problem is when that person uses the threat if violence to impose his rules. This is where we disagree with ancoms, they think that any form of hierarchy is not anarchy, whereas ancaps have no problems with voluntary hierarchies, such as following the advice of Bob, because he is wise.
Plus you need a state to impose no hierarchies which is a contradiction in itself :^)

These would be too small and weak.

My sides! I missed it during the inauguration, too.

And this is a standard bad argument from ancaps. You don't need welfare to attract non-whites. Whites will always maintain a higher standard of living, so white areas will always be attractive for groups who cannot maintain those levels of civilization themselves. This is true with or without gibs.

But they will, because the logic of the market rewards it. Businesses appealing to a wider clientele outcompete those which exclude people. That is why almost all businesses in existence shill for anti-racism. It is good for business to appease a wide consumer base, thus a market-based economy favors anti-racism.

they are only unequal to the degree they are free
every far right anarchist knows and believes this

pretty much the best thing you have stated

Nice.
Now give examples of a "anarchist government" where there is no "monopoly of violence" VS governments with "monopoly of violence"

——————

So anarchy is literally impossible according to your definition.
Try to describe any situation where some even one person if not a grope of people decide

If I drop the bloods and the cribs or any 2 or more gangs on a empty planet they will fight one another and every one of these "gangs" will say

No even a crazy gang war can be anarchy according to your definition.
Eventually the gangs will declare themselves to be governments (they are in their own eyes already).
They will be governments and not gangs simply because they are not hiding from a more strong(more warriors, more technology, more equipment) organization like the USA.

See:

mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

Strange wording.
I say that if this special person starts killing people without threatening its equally a ruler and a government.

So lets take the examples of your families living in their communes that are your utopias.
News flash children exist.

So lets say billy age 3 is a brat, he smashes things.
His dad takes him and by force spanks him and locks him in his room.

Question was this *illegal* under ancap?
Did he use the " threat if violence" you can have a scenario where he threatens his kid with spanking.

Is this ancap *illegal* ?

Sorry forgot archive
archive.is/d3Rpu

>mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

Its a irrelevant propaganda peace, like asking communists if communism will fail.
Its irrelevant if warlords will take over or not!
Give me one example of this "state of anarchy" because even complete chaos is not anarchy according to you.

Give example of something that is not a "the state".

Clarification:
These can be 100% theoretical things however they need to function in reality no impossibilities allowed.

I only like to know why?
Don't trash cans serve everyone?
Even the homeless?
This has to be more retarded then antifa burning down a public library.

Like I can understand why stores and businesses however why trashcans?
Do these people also shit in their own beads and burn down their own houses?
Or better yet beat up homeless people and destroy their tents.

i kind of did

Ok regarding children. First of all, they are owned by nobody but themselves, that is each child is the owner of his/her body. However, because he/she has not fully developed both physically and mentally he/she will automatically be placed in the care of his/her parents as his/her guardians. Now, if you ask who determines that, it's the culture of the society in which the family lives. If spanking is considered to be an acceptable practice in the culture in which the family lives, then it's ok to do so, if however spanking s not ok, and the parents do, than any Non-Governmental Organization or even private citizen can sue the parents for mistreating the child and the parents could loose the status of guardians of that child. The child could then be put in the care of another family member(grandparents, uncle, etc.), another family or a private, charity driven orphanage.
Now when will a child become an adult? well tbh I am not entirety sure, most likely the society/culture in which he lives determines that, it could be an arbitrary age or when he leaves the house, or when he gets a job. A libertarian won't tell you what's the best of of running a society, he will say that people should determine that.

Nice refutation, you sure showed me :^)

Well I still say that Cospaia was in a state of anatchy, maybe even ancap. Again, there is nothing wrong with following the advice of other people, it's when they impose their will on you, and the "council of elders" didn't use force to impose their will.

Completely made up bullshit. The study of the linguistics of Indo-European languages reveals the underlying structure of IE societies all the way back to the single Proto-Indo-European culture from which all modern IE cultures are derived.

IE societies have always been organized around male absolute leadership, with a fundamental hierarchy of Priests, Warriors, and Farmers (each ordered around internal morals/practices not acceptable to within the others), with leaders being either warriors or priests or both, with each category later elaborated on as tribes diverged. You can see this by studying the etymology for IE languages' word for king or ruler, it comes back variously to a father (in a religious sense) of the people, a reference to the way a chariot driver controls his horses, etc, in each case a single male figure to which others are beholden. That is natural, that is historical.

Getting real tired of this lazy historical revisionism to justify your defunct idiotic ideology.

How do you justify that statement?

Which is why I said it's always an option. If you are truly afraid of this being a reality, form a covenant community.

Funny how businesses in the south did just fine before the state took away their right to turn away blacks. True, more potential customers for business means more potential for profit. However, many customers are turned away when "lower class individuals," so to speak, patronize their businesses. Soft discrimination is employed to turn them away.

The most crude method is pricing. Fancy restaurants don't charge high prices because the supply costs are so high, they do it for the dining experience. People with poor manners are not willing to pay upwards of $50 for a small plate of artisinal cuisine. Even if it wasn't as profitable, I think people would be willing to pay a little extra for a nigger-free shopping/dining experience if the demand is high enough.

There's also rules you can choose to filter out the unwanted, like dress codes, no loitering, and so on. If this "more potential customers = more profits" line of argument held up universally, the homeless would be allowed in shopping malls. After all, discriminating against the super poor is wrong, right? They could buy a meal from the food court, right?

You want to use modern day businesses?
For your example?

Your examples are extremely small enclaves, with such a small population almost anything can exist, even communism in it's intended form. Of course when you try to expand past a city state everything collapses into an even more rigid hierarchy. And if you have a large number of these anarchist city states they will begin warring with one another and inevitably become rigid hierarchical society's.

You will never achieve a large and cohesive population, even with a homogeneous population, if you rely on a voluntary hierarchy. This is not a bad thing per se, but the state of our world requires it.

I agree, I am not calling for absolute central planning, for man must be able to pave his own way to have a successful nation, but he must not be left to his own devices.

No one person is equal to another.

There is no such thing as an "anarchist government." That doesn't mean it's impossible for people to regulate themselves, it only means you're conflating societies and nations.

A group of people that respect the principles of non-aggression can create a stable society in which a government does not exist. I specify this because the "muh warlords" argument assumes that you just take a random group of people who are familiar with, and wish to be ruled by, a state. You cannot subvert the wishes of others. Konkin chastized the concept of "anarchozionism," or setting out with like-minded individuals to create your own promised land like Rand's John Galt character, but I feel that's the most realistic way forward.

How convenient that you hand wave every argument inside.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents_similar_to_anarcho-capitalism

Granted that many of these are a case of "close but no cigar," but we see groups that inch closer to freedom are more prosperous. Look at China for example. While they went full communist, places near or within their sphere of influence embraced free markets: Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Macau. Freedom-minded people leaked out of the mainland and set up business in these former colonies. They thrived while the Chinese starved. Look at who stayed out of the EU. Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland did their own thing and look how they're doing compared to the EU member states.

First of I agree with you totally on child disciplining.

With this out of the way you at this point literally have concluded that anarchy is impossible.
You literally have your "the state" with rulers who have a monopoly on violence.
Parents can discipline their kids, kids can not their parents.
You have a *goverment* its family sized however it is a government and "the state" according to your previous definitions.

So every family is their won mini government with monopoly on violence towards their children.

Its literally game over.
You obsessed over some meaningless definition of "the state" and "monopoly on violence" and even in your perfect utopia where there was supposed not to be "the state" and "monopoly on violence" you have "the state" and "monopoly on violence".
Anarchy is impossible according to you.
You failed in even theoretically maping out your utopia.

I suggest not living your life according to a childish ideology who obsesses over meaningless things like who has "monopoly on violence". Because you have to admit they are impossible in reality for humans.

communes are tyranny of majority and if you want to be ruled by plebbitors that's up to you but no thanks. go back to somalia.

sage
there is no reason for this to be a thread

You claim so.
Yet somehow you have special councils who while being kosher with your definition of anarchy preform a lot of tasks like a actual government like
-administration
-coordination
So I use "anarchist government" o referee to these institutions.
I use quotes there to indicate something, should have used stars to say its more metaphoric like this *anarchist government*.

Its a pain to talk to anarchists who simply ban words(can not say we have a government) and then think they won because the wording of something is so impossible to say that they are confused with their own word butchery.

why not, also
inb4 state sanctioned corporate charter

thankyou for your valued contribution

also Vigilantism
by definition NOT the state

However I have a better question for you.
I was talking about a *country* in general.
Not one aspect of social life in a country you live in.

So lets move to the child question:
See

And answer it.
Also I love to see your definition of what anarchy is is this the same like in

?

...

Unless you're talking about leftist anarchists, these functions do not resemble the issues ancaps have with governance. I could very well turn that semantic argument right around and say that putting both voluntary and non-voluntary organizations under the tent of "government" is word butchery.

This one is somewhat controversial among ancaps. The core of the issue is the Samaritan question - whether or not you are compelled to help someone when you are the only one who can do so. Child rearing is one such manifestation of the question. At what point can a caretaker treat a child in a different manner than any other individual? When they leave home? When they are capable of living autonomously? Birth? Conception? There's no clear cut answer.

Personally, I don't think this is a question that would be universally resolved. I think each community would have a different answer, just like any other ethical dilemma. One interesting dynamic of voluntary dispute resolution is that arbitrators who rule favorably to a community get more business, and through this you effectively reach a common law system that reflects the wishes of the populace. (See video)

???
What? How? Why?

1)Vigilantism can only exist in the context of a government same like gangs.
if I teleport all these gangs or vigilantes on another planet they still do what they do however because they are no longer under a government they themselves become the government.

2) Think of lets say these zombie movies where there is a handful of survivors.
These people form governments even if they don't use these this word(fun facts a lot of gangs simply say the USA is another gang only the biggest one) or even have a name for themselves .

>"Ostriches? Are they dangerous?"

Clever girl.

Of what?
You posted some statements that are barely a sentence.
Same dance for you define what is "Vigilantism". The same rules apply explain exactly what this (Vigilantism) is.

I gave you mu definition.
Also i smell the old
That is a anarchist classic all these discussions boil down to this.

And the always fantastical
And it always gets discovered that even this esoteric rule is broken officially making this whole word play of a ideology 100% meaningless trash.

How is that a rebuttal ?
< fallacious counterpoint: an exception only applies in context to the rule
uwotm8?

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism

The foundation of the American legal system rests on the Rule of Law, a concept embodied in the notion that the United States is a nation of laws and not of men. Under the rule of law, laws are thought to exist independent of, and separate from, human will. Even when the human element factors into legal decision making, the decision maker is expected to be constrained by the law in making his or her decision. In other words, police officers, judges, and juries should act according to the law and not according to their personal preferences or private agendas.

State and federal governments are given what amounts to a Monopoly over the use of force and violence to implement the law. Private citizens may use force and violence to defend their lives and their property, and in some instances the lives and property of others, but they must do so under the specific circumstances allowed by the law if they wish to avoid being prosecuted for a crime themselves. Private individuals may also make "citizen arrests," but the circumstances in which the law authorizes them to do so are very narrow. Citizens are often limited to making arrests for felonies committed in their presence. By taking law into their own hands, vigilantes flout the rule of law, effectively becoming lawmaker, police officer, judge, jury, and appellate court for the cause they are pursuing.

The more I read of this anarchist defending his autism ITT, the more I realize that the ancap memes are actually true to the core despite their obvious sarcasm.

post those memes

I live with one. I agree with this assessment. She's also "trans"

your mudding the waters
thats antifa

I wish I had saved more.

LMAO, thats not a great one, but its a rare one
i wish you did too

I like how the Anarchist in the top comic is also cutting himself off from free speech.

remember these are "Anarchist for communism "
in there own literature thats what the red and black flags mean
they are known as "Red Anarchy"
the waters are intentionally muddied, anarchist philosophy is very flawed, but the perspective of many other anarchist ( Agorist, Mutualist, Voluntarist, Syndaclists )
philosophys point a spotlight on the flaws of other systems.

this is why they must be dismissed

of course i only care for the right wing anarchies, the rest fit under the umbrella of " we want to make REAL communism "

you do not have the reading comprehension or intelligence to understand the argument apparently, nor the temperament to entertain anything against your view

you didn't even understand what anarchy means literally

and you are literally so full of shit you're spurting it everywhere.

there are many words for leader that have nothing to do with 'father' or what else you say, you have absolutely no point anyway. Hegemon, archon, tyrannos, despotes….I don't need to go on. None of those imply what you say.

Maybe, if you made an effort, which you didn't, you could support that society is organized around male leadership. I'll give that to you because it's obvious. But where the hell is your point?

There is no evidence or argument to support that one leader always dominates. The entire point of my argument is that decentralization of power results in stability. Like the Spartans that Herodotus wrote about, with two kings and a council.

As a society approaches anarchy, it becomes more stable and productive. It depends on the quality of the citizens as democracy does, but to a greater degree. You can't have quality citizens without giving them freedom to develop their talents, so the pinnacle of government is anarchy.

you need bullying in your life

Sorry, I went to sleep for a bit, and now do see your post.

The parents, or guardians, whatever you want to call them, can't actually do whatever they want with a child. If they mistreat him, anybody could sue them for not handling their child properly, even the child himself could report this things to a neighbor, teacher or even a cop and thus loose the status of guardian and of the child. This isn't the same thing with states, when people were starving in the USSR as a result of poor central economy planning, America couldn't sue the USSR for crimes against humanity or something similar and get all it's people in America. The people also couldn't sue the USSR, the only thing they could do would be to either try and survive, or try and escape.

Also you seem to conflate governments with cultures, a culture doesn't have a central building where people meet to establish the culture, sure a government could try and change the culture of it's people, usually for the worst, but you don't need a government to create a good culture.

Also, let's say that even by my "definitions", there is no perfect utopia, and there will always be some form of micro-states. So what? Why shouldn't we try to reduce the power of the state as low as possible? Who cares if it sorta exists only at the level at the family, if the entire ancap world prospers from it and maybe even it's neighbors through trade? Sure you could say that in a 100 years the world might descend into a Mad Max type of world or a 1984 type world, but that could happen with any statist society, Somalia was a socialist country before it descended into anarchy, Russia with it's Tzars also had a government, before it descended into the USSR. There is no perfect system that will be eternal, since people aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and have a better live.
What an ancap world, truly needs is people who have as much freedom as much as possible, without infringing the freedoms of others, are skeptical of any powers, or people in power(CEO of Apple or whatever) and are ready to die defending their freedoms, not for themselves, but for their children, and children's children.

A simple mind, attacking a good post he doesn't understand.

I have some

...

...

this is not remotely funny

we get it, you're obsessed with the straw-man version of the idea and you delusionally raise your self-esteem by beating up your little toy of an idea

cooommmmmeeeeee on
im still laffin at pic 3

in all seriousness tho, there are far better ones out there

WEW
9/10 post

Well lookie here, a faggot kike projecting. Wouldve never seen that coming.

KYS loser. Heroin use is for the weak, so go OD already.

you deserve a cap and some gets i hope i provide both

No.
You literally can not have violation of law(vigilantism, criminals) if there is no government over you.
Think of it more like having your own website and being the admin.
If you are the admin you can not get baned by other users for rule violations you can ban other users for rule violations.
Since you make the rules and they are whatever you think like, you can simply change the rules before a action and you never have violated them.

You are speaking meninges nonsense.

And arguing the other way around and rejecting my definition is pure madness.
Everything becomes Vigilantism the police is Vigilantism the USA is Vigilantism the US army is Vigilantism the DMV is Vigilantism.

So ether anarchy is impossible for humans or everything is anarchism.
How do you distinguish between Vigilantism and NOT Vigilantism?

Once more what is the meaning of this?
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism
Translation:

How do you distinguish between Vigilantism and NOT Vigilantism?
In the anarchis system?
This is a question for anarchists.

The only conclusions are:
1) We (anarchists) are the government now and we can not be charged with vigilantism.

Dam thanks man.
I'm glad sane people are left in the world.
Most of the time its me arguing with anarchists.
And all I do I question them

Also I'm glad I was able to help someone see the problems in anarchism.
All it takes is asking questions.

Of course this thread derails into Anarcho-Capitalists vs National Socialists. Here's my two cents on the matter. The Internet is, in its nature,purely Anarcho-Capitalist. In its culture, in itsdecentralization, in it's cryptopunkm in the way it works. I like and respect this. But to claim it can work in the Meat World is asanine. Liberterianism can't even work in the Modern meat world so you want to try Anarcho-Capitalism? That's Ron Paul to the highest extreme.

The internet fails to have the pitfalls of the meat world. In the Internet, you have an overcoming of racial differences. It has been said before, on this board, that instead of what (((they))) wanted (everyone realizing we're all the same no mater who we are and we're all united in a communist buttsex orgy through the internet) we instead get together and learn our unique differences in a more diplomatic method. Furthermore, you need to fear not that muslims will stab you when visiting Usenet or you'll get raped while checking your email. Anarcho-Capitalism works but only in the realm of an imaginary concept such as the decentralized internet. In the flesh, it fails for the reasons I've said. FamousAnarcho-Capitalists such as Eric S. Raymond fail to see the difference and think that since people comprise the Internet that the same principles can be implemented into the real world. It's just a missing connection in thought.

Also, this:

kevinalfredstrom.com/2014/02/american-dissident-voices-liberty/

No problem.

Don't exaggerate and don't start talking about a different point.

The example was spanking and disciplining not some
Everyone can see that you are shifting the conversation to a completely different point.

Also you seam to not understand.
Here is the question once more

So lets say billy age 3 is a brat, he smashes things.
His dad takes him and by force spanks him and locks him in his room.
Question was this *illegal* under ancap?
Did he use the " threat of violence"? You can have a scenario where he threatens his kid with spanking.
Is this ancap *illegal* ?

I asked you is a specific action is an-cap *illegal* answer this specific scenario.

its always fun if the ideologs speak in meaningless definitions
And refuse to answer specific exact questions.
Its always some nebulous definition that no one even knows how to implement in reality.

There are other massive problems in your post however they take longer to unwrap for you so I go for the obvious kill.
Answer this specific scenario.

Hold one for one second?
Are you even a ancap?

Because

Literally makes the ideology of anarchy null and void.
If the only goal of the ideology of anarchy is to create something that is by your admission impossible.
If getting rid of "the state" is impossible the anarchic system is impossible.

Anarchism is about the abolishment of "the state".
There is nothing more to anarchism.
Anarchists think they can do it.

You are violating ancap princeliness.
Talk to other ancaps.

PS: I think you are starting to grow up, you realize that the ideology you associated with is not what you believed it was.
I suggest not putting labels on yourself of swearing loyalty to some ideology based on some youtube videos (or books or lectures).
I also did have my ideological phase then I realized that its all crap based on bullshit that id advertised.

Translation:

You are embarrassing yourself publicity saying these cheesy lines.
youtu.be/JhXsS9AN4iY

Also once more you are only taking on aspect of a society obsessing over it, somehow fooling yourself into believing its your ideology and thinking this can somehow build a fully functioning society.

The internet is build and regulated by the USA government!!!!!!!!!!
The USA has number of laws and if you remove these laws the Internet would turn to shit in everyones calculations.
So what your flawed cheesy analogy ultimately ends that an-capism only can exist on the back of a strong statist government like the USA, and you ignore this government.

Umm dude this is the nature of telecommunications.
The same can be made for radio and radio broadcasting and CB radio.
And CB radio is better in all regards VS the internet where everything is monitored.
(TOR is a government project! And TOR is more anonymous then the main clear internet)
Hell you can even argue that CB radio is more anarchist because there is no need for a government regulating the communication of the infrastructure.

Radio is like voice you star talking into the air and people listen to you.
However we are not on CB radio and internet is the more cool and hip thing so you made the analogy to the internet and not radio.

Holla Forums isn't anarchist but the Chan model is

Did you not read my fucking post? I'm speaking against Anarcho-Capitalism. Read more, you dumb ass summer-slid faggot

Did you not read my fucking post? I'm speaking against Anarcho-Capitalism. Read more, you dumb ass summer-skid faggot.

Also on the topic of the Internet, read Eric S. Raymond. His collection of essays, The Cathedral and the Bazzar, is what made me recognize the Internet as Anarcho-Capitalist. That is my rationale. Kevin Alfred Strom's article, which I link, shows why Liberterianism can't work in the real world. I link the two in my little post there.

I promise I will answer your question, but bear with me.
Basically your question revolves, on how much force should a parent use in order to discipline a child and not on the principle of discipline. You could have just as easily asked if it was ok for the parents to just send Billiy to the corner for 10 minutes, an hour, 10 days, or that he wouldn't get ice-cream for desert, or that he would got his hand chopped, or that he would thrown in the river. Again this isn't about the principle of discipline, which we both agree is ok, you are asking me for how much force can the parents administer in order to discipline Billy. This isn't even about child raising, this is about someone violating the NAP and getting punished, the question is how much should he be punished for stealing a loaf of bread? Giving back the loaf of bread or the equivalent in money, plus interest(and how much), or serving time in community service, but again for how much, should he have his hand cut like in some islamic countries, or should he just be killed?

Maybe you are not realizing, but you are asking me to micromanage this entire world's legal system so that it would be perfect, which is something no libertarian or ancap thinks it's possible. One of the key points of libertarianism is that nobody knows what's best for everybody else, we should all try to live our lives with as much freedom as possible, and not infringe upon the freedom of others and we will eventually find a system that works best in our world/community/city/neighborhood/house. Since people are not equal, there is no one system for everybody, maybe you need to use more threat of violence in some cultures, while in others you can use less.

Of course, the example you posted is about a child, and as I said, their not fully developed as such they in the care of some guardians, in this case his parents. Now the answer to you question, is that it depends on the culture and society they live in, it can either be acceptable or not. I could just as well ask you if it's acceptable in a natsoc society for the parents to kill their child if he broke his vase, let's say that it was actually legal. Of course, you will say that I am insane, and that only an ancap could think like that, but again, this isn't about the principle of discipline, it's about how much use of force should be allowed.

I said in that I am not an anarchst, I just like debating. I am more of a libertarian myself.
The context was that even if I am wrong, which I don't think I am, then so what.
It's not just about removing the state, it's also about making sure the state doesn't form again, but more than that it's a way of life, it's a set of principles by which people live, even pure anarchists have a way of thinking, of living, of interacting with other people, let's not even talk about all the other forms of anarchy like ancap, "an"com, anarcho-mutualists, anarcho-syndicalists, primitivists and so on. Sure destroying the state is probably the most important thing, but it's more than just that. For instance most ancaps believe in the existence of property rights, whereas "an"coms believe that they can only exist, because of a state.
No that actually in tune with libertarian and ancap principles of maximizing the liberties of all, which we believe, means also not interfering with the liberties of others, such as A is not "free" to kill B, as it violates B's freedoms(his right to his own body, which was "stolen" by A), this is also why we talk about the NAP.
So let me get this straight, you were once an ancap or whatever, then you figured out it's stupid, so you went for one of the most authoritarian ideologies ever, fascism or natsoc? I'd say you were like that guy from the radio show who was a fascist, pro gay-marriage, anarchist and meritocratic, that just didn't know what he was or wanted.

Nice and cute.
However care to address how your analogies are flawed and inappropriate?
How about internet VS CB radio?

Personally I say libertarianism can work in like its the 1800 or 1700 or we are a primitive tribe.
However in todays modern world it definitively would result in a terrible system and people starving in the streets.
Banks panics, frauds, scams, capitalists bullshits.
It would be horrible for 99.999999% of people living in it however it can be made in reality.

Ancapism is impossible to create even theorethicaly, ancaps ave no idea what they even want.
Liberterians are more like

I also definitively believe in correction my own side more then anything or people on my side will have stupid talking points.
And your internet analogy is flaw and a bad comparison.
You can refine it, however its still bad people on TOR actually get scammed all the time
And then he runs away.

I am not an anarchist , my entire perspective is we live in anarchy.
everyone agrees
its just at what lvl does the anarchy give way to order
my belief is it is far lower that international relations
what you described is reality

I give you some of my philosophy.
Chaos is impossible.

After a goverment fails new powers will emerge.
Even if you teleport people on different planets they will form governments.
Structure forms yet never order.
Governments are not perfect more a structured mob with internal problems see:
Crime in civilians and government exploits.
Order is a illusion.
If a government starts to fail its time for it to collapse so is the way of things.
A new government will form.

You can see it in everything, even animals will form packs and these packs also have problems and fail.

Tangential thought: every leftist I've talked to has either gotten offended or shied away from terms like "being ruled by blacks", or saying they want that.

Even in this clip, he changes the statement to "having blacks in government". This might have some meme power to it, appealing to our tribalist instincts. It has to be either in person or conversation though, as an image, it gets short circuited by denial.

what a waste of repeating digits

Someone should bolt the outside metal coverings for the trash cans to the ground.

Seatbelts

Bu but that is collectivism!

you're a fucking retarded child, stop posting, you are a totally self-absorbed moron with no good ideas

try giving a reason and explanation you moron

how does suspending natural selection benefit us? isn't the main effect that the plutocrats have masses of retarded slaves that can't survive without the bubble-wrap society spins around them to save them from themselves?

Not driving under the influence is a good law I don't want a driver that can't judge distances kill me

They are marxists. They can never be an ally.

lol I saw these on antifa twitter five years ago and I laughed so hard I became a fascist. So thanks to whichever fag created them.

Oh looks someone is angry.
And you till did not answer the "CB radio VS internet" statement.
You know it disproves your weak analogy.

However so is the fate of pseudo intellectuals like yourself.
You get angry instead of having well thought out points.
No wounder you emulate pseudo intellectual garbage like "The Cathedral and the Bazzar" its meaningless dribble that only looks intelligent until you start thinking.

Anarchy and statelessness is literally impossible in high populations. Inevitably people will form governance which in turn becomes a state and this was explained in Thomas Paine's Common Sense in the most common sense way possible.

You know what bitch? I'm going to bump this thread. I don't even like Nazis.

Exactly. The whole point of government is specialization in a larger society. Small groups can have "anarchy" for the same reason small groups don't need to be specialized into different professions like farmer, shepherd, builder, etc. So even when anarchists say "anarchy is possible in small groups and it's the natural way of things!" this is still a complete non-argument because government developed precisely BECAUSE hunter gathers settled down, built villages/towns/cities, and grew large enough to the point where governance became necessary.

Into the trash it goes.

Wrong retard

Hi OP you may have come here after reading an anarchist or two thread at leftypol.
Proper Anarchist discussion in all leftist places is always skewed and discussed in the (paradigm) brackets of leftism.
But what is it exactly that is leftist with this:
-*– I don't want government having the all power that comes with total dominance and umbrella "authority" that is implied in the bureaucracy. Real world problems that come from this are, police that enforce laws they know to be immoral, spying/data gathering (NSA), taxation and profitization of all activities, etc.
I don't accept that just because a mafia calls itself a government that it is "authoritative". I really don't accept democracy how it plays out. I am skeptical of even the theory of the everyone has an equal vote motto.
Give powers to a group today and if it ever becomes leftist you just handed leftists the power to do what happened during the soviet sweeps of both intelligentsia and all land owners or ideologues that disagreed or even questioned their methods.
-*– I don't acknowledge a man or a group of men knowing better how I should live, act, or think, thank myself.
-*– There is no reason at all to make legal boundaries on how anyone should protect their life and their property. If anyone is scared of Weapons of Mass Destruction falling into the wrong hands, these things are accessible despite any laws.
-*– When someone breaks into my house or decides to squat on my land, have I not the right to remove them from my viccinity?
-*– Productivity: People sitting around yelling at each other and signing papers and writing papers and arguing about papers while pushing some idea of a GDP around. These people are the biggest unproductive waste of space possible. Government often destroys value just to prove a point about morals or ethics.

And these are just the neutral stances you can introduce to anyone and they will prove themselves insane to disagree.
We are nationalists here at Holla Forums so also consider this:
-*– Government pushes ""diversity"" telling you who you can work with and why you must hire them despite their capabilities.
-*– Government pushes ""tolerance"" telling you what you must do despite how it affects your target customer or your profitability goals.
-*– Government attacks free speech all the time, skews facts, even bans research and if not bans then severely restricts by funding every other type of research with YOUR tax dollars (this is especially poignant when lies like we are all equal are unscientifically bruteforced into research results by throwing out any results that disagree).

Now tell me, is a community without ""diversity"" and ""tolerance" that is hwhite really scary if it is not corralled by "government" the all knowing big brother?

They'd have to work to survive. They like to pretend that once "The State" has been defeated everyone will share their personal belongings with the rest of the world so they can stay lazy, and they think it is fair that way.
What they fail to see is that people worked hard for the things they own, and that no farmer would freely give his crops to a bunch of lazy degenerates that have nothing to offer back

I love you Holla Forums

STRAWMAN, the post

it already fell under reckless endangerment the creation of a new law that is always applied like shit for the sake of some lawyers that get fat "defending" the drunks.

met a girl that tried to overdose on ambien but in the drug haze she got into her car fleeing from her abusive bf so she got a dui. never drank but had to pay to go threw a detox program witch they thought she was lying when she said she never drank. because dui means alcohol 100% of the time. so she ended up with thousands of dollars worth of "costs" that she had to pay to private organizations by the state(of Minnesota) all the while missing out on work and not being able to get help b4 she had to be sent to a ward for trying to off herself again.

OP here.
My post was about how leftists anarchists are of the mark.
And one of the old anarchists kind of sees this (be hones a lot of you love 70% of his cartoons).

I did not decide to advocate a ideal system.
With this out of the way I'm not much of a waker who obsesses over names.
No I simply say how something is supposed to work and you can give it any name.

The best example of name wankery is the word "democracy" propel chanting for democracy have no idea what they want, they are trained like you train dogs to roll over on a command word and "democracy" is this command word.

My bes examples of this are

Its silly.
Whatever name you give my system or set of ideas is irrelevant what matters is how it actually operates not some pointless wasts of time when people chant one idiotic word and no one has a living fuck what it means.

I don't have some perfect magic solution of a system.

Only notions and we see how it works out.
I completely oppose giving more power to some alphabet agencies.

Mixed bag here, depends on the context.
Who is he? How is the actual context?
ideally i say yes, however sometimes it might be better to run because its a army and you only get yourself killed if you try to throw them off.
I think you can agree to this.
Also you can call me a tribalist if we are talking your grupe VS some of todays garbage that has USA citizenship or not.
I say shoot to kill.
The story is different if you are talking about one of your "tribe".
However then there is the consequences in todays world where the government might simply target you for this so it might be better to make a tactical retreat and not piss of the current government to brand you racists-terrorists.
If we are talking hypothetical world where its inside the tribe you might simply try to ask them to go away and then use more forceful methods.
I think it would be better not to go into immediate shoot to kill because this can result in blood feuds.
You decide if its a good thing.
However ultimately I agree if your life is threatened you might go for the kill.

I know however I will stop you right here.
Form my definition its impossible not to have a government.
There are different forms of government and even governments with totally different goals.
Our governments today are obsessed with destroying their own nations.
Its like with knifes you can use a knife to cut bread or to kill.
Same toll and only the intension is different.
Everyone who points to today government evils/sins needs to understand that their
is on the same level like

Kind of agree however personally I classify communities and tribes to be actual governments.
You have people in charge the most basic one is
Children are subordinated to their parents. All anarchists have a meltdown if you bring the fact that humans have children to the table.
Then you have some social structures that are informal however enforced.
Lets remember that anarchists despise democracy and even if everyone was equal and you voted on everything the anarchists say its still "evil goverment/state".
Whatever these people(anarchists) want is a misery, even to anarchists themselves.

PS: I love you to write me where you define government to start.
For me its simple any for of organization even true absolute equal ones are governments.
I don't include non intelligent animals so that while animals might behave like governments some times
I don't include animals, only humans can have governments.

The debate with anarchists is to see if they even can come up with something that is even imaginable or coherent.
Because their bitching about "the state" ends up 2 conclusions there will always be a government.
(You defending your home is force)
(You are territorial)
(You are almost like a king of your own home)
(You are a government)
(WOW even if we have 2 people on a planet and one decides to loot the other we discover everyone was a 1 person government)
So their goal is meaningless.
Or government is impossible (anarchy is meaningless) and we always did live in anarchy.

However I agree with you if we are talking about "your tribe" its often good to chill and not immediately jump to murder because you might start a blood feud.
Even if you have 10 people on the planet and they are in the same family going the killer way will start some serious shit.
And its good to have some organized way of dealing when someone gets killed.
Intentionally or not (accidents).

Remember the story of the ant and the grass hoper?
Now replace the grass hoper with a violent locust and you have your typical anarchist.
These people don't understand what storing food for the winter is with comments like:
(actual anarchists suggestion from one of the YT videos)
If you ever gave these anarchists some territory they die of starvation because if things got hard the useless ones would demand to get food and everyone would starve.

PS:
This scenario exaggerates how real anarchists are like, they are this and 80% fagot.
Stick figure man who look like their 24/7 job is to be a fluffer in a gay porno.
Real anarchists are weak pathetic fagots and bitch how:

So NO real life anarchists will never get to anything, if the local socket fan club annihilates them of the streets you really need to massively engineer a region with only anarchists to ever try their experiment in anarchy.

Anarchists are like hippies I bet the girl scouts annihilate any anarchist "government" of the face of this planet.

No one should ever take any narcotics.
Alcohol is a narcotic.
Why is it that you can always spot the idiots by the fact that they defend degeneracy?

So Holla Forums why are all anarchists pathetic?
Al they do is bitch and obsess over a meaningless definition play they constructed.
Its not like they can even form a government (the autistic anarchists will throw a sissy fit that I'm not using their kosher words of anarchists-coglomoration-that-is-not-the-state however I don't really give a shit).

Seriously if you take a anarchist collective (or whatever the fuck they like to name themselves) these people, these anarchists are walking jokes.
They look like they have a 24/7 job of being the fluffers for some gay porno.
They are annihilated of the streets by everyone even the local soccer fan-club.

Why do you think all anarchists look like this? Why do they all look like nu-male++ ?

Has anyone a compilation of "debating" anarchists where anarchists make themselves look like retards?
Videos would be preferred and solid debunking.

No one says "I like racism/sexism/xenophobia/islamophobia.". People say "Niggers are stupid and commit lots of crime" "Women are emotional, physically weak, need to focus on raising kids rather than working or fighting in a war." or "Multiculturalism destroys nation-states and their sense of identity." "Islam's religion and geography is centered around an antagonism around the Christian West, 9/11, etc."

Certain environmental regulations. We had plenty of lolberterians in my region dump toxic waste into the water systems because they could just hand wave it off. HIPA is a decent example in terms of healthcare and preventing insider trading is kinda relevant.