If Anarcho-Communist communities can exist in Anarcho-Capitalist country but not vice versa, which one is more free?

In what way? Are you referring to conquest?

If businesses can exist in a statist country but states can't exist in an ancap country, which one is more free?

What do you mean?

Living on land owned by someone else. The exact same thing that would happen today would happen then, the police or army would come fuck us up for that "theft".

Well obviously ancaps want to abolish the state. Why can't I have the freedom in ancapistan to become a prime minister?

Not sure that I follow. If you are living on the land you own whether it is few square feet or a town, there is no breach of NAP no matter what you do with it, or get together with others to do with it.

You can become a prime minister in the land you own. You can even establish democracy if you want, so long as you can get someone to participate in it with you. You can even go one step further, and get them to sign a contract that bounds them to respect the rules of the land in specific.

Way to disregard my whole post. Yes I know - you've restated the obvious. My argument is that your conception of freedom is distorted. Freedom for whom? Freedom for the oppressors to rule over the oppress? What freedom? Can I have the freedom to take your property? I know what freedom you mean, and I'll address that in the next paragraph.

The libertarian framework is based in non-aggression - I agree with this. I am a libertarian socialist. That being said, you are what Kevin Carson the mutualist refers to as "vulgar libertarians". Your libertarianism is limited to liberty in the abstract - you don't care about the history of how capitalism as a system was even allowed to happen, you rabidly apologize for property protected and acquired through the coercion of the state or other forces as long as the owner is tagged with .inc instead of .gov. It's why Mises referred to the oligarchs working closely with the state as innocent businessmen during the enclosure movement, to steal land from farmers and push them into becoming wage slaves. You agree the worker has no right to aggress the capitalist, but fail to ask why the capitalist has a large pool of workers to choose from in the first place. Why those workers don't have their own property.

Private property is based in a system of hierarchy, oppression and most importantly - aggression. It's baffling that libertarians want to uphold it, but it's my humble opinion that you're nothing but deluded apologist for the status quo.

Theft is not a violation of the NAP?

I don't want to be prime minister in the land I own, I want to be emperor of the world. Why do ancaps hate my freedom?

Communism is world-wide. It cannot exist with capitalism.

Because it violates the NAP

The Austrian school was a mistake, it's nothing but trash

You can have your non-corporate non-tyranny inside it, so I still don't understand what you're on about.

Props for detecting what I am referring to. My following question is, why do you wish to make others subject to the rules you prefer if you can have the exactly the system you want for you and those like minded. In fact, you can have it for everyone completely voluntarily, should they flock to you. But that would require something to show off.

Respond to my post faggot.

Why do you wish to make others subject to your spooky and arbitrary private property rights? The current arrangement of who owns what came about through the application of violence, and one who owns nothing has precious few options for becoming an owner. In addition, in order for there to be owners, there must be non-owners - under capitalism, the number of non-owner proletarians must necessarily be a good deal greater than that of owners.

Also

...

If you had been tied up your entire life, but learned to move the best you could, you'd think that you can only move because you're tied up. You'd resist anybody who tried to untie you.

Freedom isn't an easy thing or even an appealing thing a lot of the time, because a concrete definition of freedom also means responsibility. Real freedom is a person's responsibility for their own actions, and their potential for self-realisation. It takes maturity.

To reduce freedom to certain rights being recognised is in a way to run away from true freedom. Anarchism wants to transform all of society into the free commune, so that all people can take as much responsibility for their lives and realise themselves as much as possible. When you take that as your objective, private property is just another limitation, a set of chains on everybody involved that needs to be cut.

Slave-owners in the southern US actually used to argue that slaves who lived on their plantations had better lives than the workers in the north. You could have a world with slavery rights where some people could choose not to have slaves, or one where slavery is abolished. Which is more free?

I am using referring to the ability within the theoretical framework of systems for one to exist within another. Whatever aspect of freedom you want to attach to it is fine.

That is in itself a fallacy whether you call an object property or not and here is why: In order to construct a definitive moral argument it has to withstand both empirical and theoretical scrutiny. In that sense, whether an object X is labeled "private property" or not it is necessary that we examine what happens upon your freedom to acquire it:
If you are able to take my rock (whether you perceive it to be mine or not), in order for that to be universally moral I have to be able to take away the same rock from you at any time I please. In order to create a moral situation you have to create a loophole under which we would be infinitely giving each other (or taking from each other) the same rock that we both want. Thus, you cannot construct a moral argument, a rule or a system without making exceptions.

Firstly, I am not a libertarian, nor am I AnCap. I am regular pseudo-Holla Forumsack willing to discuss the theoretical aspects of AnCapism and AnCommunism.

Which worker has no personal property whatsoever? What is he working for? Slavery is against NAP, unless it's voluntary - in which case it is fine. I'm not able to heal literal retards from their lack of ability to think, and neither I can heal half-retards.

ok?

if non slavery is allowed in a slave society but not vice versa, which one is more free?

A family lives in Ancapistan (Capital: Rapetown) where everyone agrees to the rules of living there, but their 6 year old child doesn't want to be raped; how can said 6 year old move away from Rapetown to the peaceful commune of Ancomutopia without public transportation, money to hire a transporter, or violating the NAP by using roads without paying or alternatively by trespassing on land outside Rapetown because a wealthy Ancap owns all the land around Rapetown and has the city boxed-in. How?

Well, in ancapistan, property violence is legal (I can kill you because I claim this clump of atoms), but you aren't forced to commit property violence so ancom can technically exist.
Whereas in ancom society, no one is preventing you from trading or exchanging, but as soon as you kill someone because you soul-bonded with an object, the community would have to intervene, you murderer. Without property violence, the capitalist wage laborer relationship wouldn't exist.
In Full communism or FALC, no one prevents you from trading but there's also nothing to trade (communism assumes a transitional period of socialism, wherein all onerous necessary work is developed into non-onerous work aka no need for trade, or in the case of FALC automation has advanced to the point that human labor isn't necessary. no one forces you to torrent but you aren't purchasing those movies either)

Because private property rights are something that must be enforced, since they do not exist on their own.

I think you are conflating capitalism with free markets. Communist and free market based economies could coexist.

Some sort of fuzzy-feeling catharsis is not an argument.

You can have your slaves that will for for nothing, if they are your slaves voluntarily. In that metric, it is same in regards to freedom.

How can someone be a slave voluntarily? As soon as you sell yourself into slavery you're not free anymore, otherwise you're not a slave.

BDSM fags do that all the time. Are you implying they are not into it voluntarily?

This is nonsensical. As pointed out earlier, a republic being allowed to exist in feudalism but not the latter in the former does not make the latter more "free". Before we start talking about freedom, we should define it. Because you're basing it around some sort of spooky deontology it seems like, and I don't even think that coheres well with Capitalism.

If you are able to take my rock (whether you perceive it to be mine or not), in order for that to be universally moral I have to be able to take away the same rock from you at any time I please. In order to create a moral situation you have to create a loophole under which we would be infinitely giving each other (or taking from each other) the same rock that we both want. Thus, you cannot construct a moral argument, a rule or a system without making exceptions.
Why? Why do you need to be able to take away the rock from me? What if you acquired the rock through the state and now that the state is gone I am coming to take it back? Ethics don't have to be fair to both parties - they have to be ethical.

There are plenty of workers right now who rent an apartment or house, or owe money to the bank on their house. There are many, many people who lack personal property to any significant degree.

And this is where we get into deeper arguments about what it means to be "free". I'm arguing that the socioeconomic system that puts people in the position where they have to be a voluntary slave (which is pretty much wagedom anyway) is only free in the perverted sense, and is rooted in years of coercion.

^_^

No, but most BDSM people generally don't want to be raped. Getting fucked in the butt and actually being owned by another person are not even really comparable.

...

They are not real slaves, as they can dissolve the contract and there is no real enforcement that makes them property of other person.

Except they can leave.

Don't you besmirch BDSMs good name with anacap analogies.

Wew lad, someone actually took Fifty Shades of Gay seriously

In BDSM relationships the submissive has all the power, not the dom, because the sub can leave at any time, if they are restricted from doing so this stops being voluntary and becomes ACTUAL slavery

Don't shit all over my fetish with your shitty excuse for an ideology

slight correction, it becomes kidnapping

uwot8

If republic is allowed to exist under feudalism not by exception, but by a rule, and with it's own additional rules - and it is not possible vice versa - then yes, your theoretical feudalism has a higher degree of freedom than your theoretical republic. I know it doesn't sit well with you but so it is.

Why do you want to take away my farm and it's fruits from me?

And moral frameworks have to be consistent, or they aren't stable frameworks you can extrapolate from in the first place.

There was no contract for the BDSM crowd in the first place. If they however promised to engage in those activities by verbal contract for longer than they have, then they have engaged in aesthetically negative behavior known as lying - such people ought to be avoided (if you care about your own good). If they have signed a contract, thus promising their service, then they need to fulfill it, or correct the damages (as you do when something is stolen from you).

Property rights do not exist on their own, therefore, for an ancap society to be truly voluntary, everybody in it would have to sign a contract according to which they recognize the existence of private property, which is not a likely thing to occur

you could change your mind five seconds after signing the contract anyway and still end up stuck with something you don't consent to

I dunno. Do you consider a place that allows literal lifelong enslavement to be free?

If we assume the contract is non-dissolvable. But even so, if there is one person who did not sign that contract, then ancapism is no more.

I literally explained that you can set up your non-lifelong-enslavement in the OP.

I define freedom different than you.

Are you hiring workers and selling their products on the market?

I don't think "we support non-aggression" is consistent with "but not this property gained through aggression, this can stay".

Break the NAP pay the price or die

.>>1088743
Cross-purposes talk here.In BDSM there are things Dominates have the submissive sign called a contract. It spells out all of the Dom's rules. It is not enforceable by civil or criminal court.

What do you care? Maybe my wife works with me. Maybe I said to my son that if he works the land for a few hours I'll teach him how to fly a dragon. Maybe I suck off my brother in law after he fixes my plumbing. Maybe I give him some apples instead.
How does that go against your moral framework?

AnCap property is literally gained through voluntary transaction, otherwise it breached NAP.

the one that lets you keep the ownership even during a crisis

unless its vital to the survival of the state
fuck

If democratic communities can exist within dictatorships but not vice versa, which one is more free?

So it's really a your typical capitalist contract between boss(dom) and worker(sub)with the pretense of being slave contact between a master and a slave? Meh.

Pls respond

That's not an argument.

Firstly it doesn't necessarily, we would need more information to distill that.

Secondly, you've completely straw-manned him, he asked if you were exploiting your workers and you talked about flying dragons. If you're not exploiting your workers then there will no conflict with communists.

Thirdly, we care because we're advocating an economic system where no-one's labor has to be exploited.

Lastly, it's not about morals, it's about the direct measurable implications that capitalism brings to the world. Everything from full out wars to mass human misery.

pls respond

How does that go against your moral framework?

As I pointed out earlier, the large pool of workers we have is due to a long string of historic events that involved state coercion. If you are hiring workers, you are taking advantage of that. If you want to continue to hire workers, parts of the property used for market production must be collectivized.

AnCap land only makes sense in the abstract if you ignore material reality - "really existing capitalism". I don't care about what theoretically could be a voluntary transaction, I care about expropriating the expropriators. Read the book I posted. I already said if people wanted to voluntarily work under you they could - I just don't see why they would want to when they have common property that they have just as much leverage in as you do. Ancapistan can exist under Ancom - it's just that no one would want to work for capitalist (maybe someone would, maybe 1 in every 10,000 people are that incompetent).

My big issue is that how land is currently divided is deeply rooted in institutions antithetical to the NAP. Ancaps don't want to do land reform because if they gave the land back to the majority of people were would be no Ancap. Not enough of the population would like to be voluntary slaves. This is what I mean when I say AnCaps are apologist for the status quo. You can keep saying "muh NAP" I don't care. I care about really existing capitalism, not some abstract that can only be maintained by upholding past injustice.

Holla Forums is shit at arguing tbh fam, it's still not as bad as Holla Forumslacks writing those walls of text about soulessness, but damn, we're closer each passing day.

To put this in perspective: let's say someone sells their house voluntarily for $5000 not to starve. That's fine, but then I want to ask "why is he starving?". If the answer is, "due to centuries of coercion by oppressors" (which it is) I am going to want to change the system fundamentally, and then worry about voluntary property transactions.

Now I have to go wage slave tomorrow so goodnight, I'll check this in the morning.

Unless a child consented to a rape (where it is no longer rape), then it is against the NAP. If whoever does the raping owns all the property (where his laws are fully enforced), he could theoretically rape everyone within his realm.

So, I understand, and in a sense agree with your point (with a huge reservation - explained in a next paragraph). It is completely possible to construct surrounded-by-lava tier scenarios under which there is little to no chance of escape, especially when inheritance of children (and their attitudes) are in question.

Firstly we must consider that children adopt the stances of their surroundings. That is why children in capitalism, communism, fascism, see no wrong with what is going on - thus feel no need to have the dramatic escape as it is in your situation, just like youth in China sees no problem with skinning a living dog.
More importantly and with greater generality, what you are essentially asking is how do you react in a world of lunatics. It is not dissimilar to your position of where you see theoretical injustice everywhere. In order to change from one position to another you have to catch the youth, and to a greater or lesser extent we're living in it right now. Such situations will always exist and constant struggle in a man towards perfection is needed, as you have to constantly eat, clean dust etc.

The past doesn't matter, strictly speaking. What's important is his current set of material conditions, which have been influenced by several social relationships, some of which may be in the past.
That De-Ray guy in BLM clearly hasn't been hurt by slavery, for instance.

I'll answer later, have to afk also.

What the fuck? Are you trying to tell me who I can and cant rape on my own land you asshole? Fuck you, statist! Im sending my private army over to rape you in the ass right now as a fine! If the kid doesn't want to be raped I'm throwing him into the ocean where it's the only piece of area in existence not in ownership.
Exactly, there's never been a revolution in history, which is why Rome is still monarchist and has slavery, why would slaves want to revolt against slavery, right? I mean, they're used to it. Finally someone gets it!

WHERE?!

Also, before I go I just wanted to point out something that I left out.

Rapetown is in itself a paradox if everyone there lives by consent, and agrees to the rules by consent and thus it is actually a town of voluntary sex.

The only place where the potential problems arise is with children.

I'm sure people can do some breaching of NAP to get rid of you. It might be immoral to kill theoretical (you), but hey, they'll learn to live with themselves over time.

fuck freedom tbqh, it's a liberal notion