Comrades, why haven't you converted to Anarcho-Capitalism...

Capitalism could happen.

...

Not arguments, Statist cucks

tbh, anarchy itself is a stupid idea because it leaves people without any form of safety net. But I mean, I guess ancap is more plausible than the ideological paradox that is ancom.
But the issue remains, it is a state in which the weak would be preyed upon. Which is stupid.

Not an argument

confirmed for never reading a single book about anarchism and learning politics from memes

Sounds like an abusive relationship.

Anarchism is the lack of hierarchies which capitalism requires to function. "anarcho"-capitalism is an impossibility. It's merely the replacement of state/corporate tyranny with absolute corporate tyranny.

Anarchy is a stupid idea. When people come together and organize for a common goal with any type of safety net or regulation. Or system of voting. Guess fucking what? It's a government.
You anarchist morons would leave the disadvantaged to die out in the cold with your bullshit ideology.

Daily reminder that statists are tools of the Capitalist piggy and need to be removed under the NAP.

You really have no idea what is anarchism, read a fucking book

anarchy by its very nature would become survival of the fittest. aka capitalism. You cannot have a communist system and an anarchist system. You either organize a government to take care of the people or you leave the weak to die. Your choice, but you are no different from the soulless capitalist.

this

This guy gets it

why do you all keep falling for the bait holy shit

You are stupid, and assuming you know everything by just taking the common sense approach and making up stuff that follows it. Anarchism is not technically anti-government, merely anti-state, a non-hierarchical voluntary anarchist government is a necessary aspect of anarchist society.

How can you claim to understand the nature of something you don't understand? If you don't know what anarchism is, don't make statements about its nature. Anarchism, the lack of hierarchy, is an essential of a communist society, and a communist society is essential for it. This requires organization. Anarchism has always required anarchist organization, which is different because it lacks hierarchy, this is what anarchism is about.

Capitalism≠Free Markets

There are market based anarchist ideas like Mututalism, Left-Wing Market Anarchism and Agorism. There is nothing about markets that implies capitalism, private property, wage labor, bosses or hierarchical workplace/social relations.

c4ss.org/

If you create an organized system, it's a government. It doesn't matter what you deluded morons claim, it's still a government. And a government by the workers and people IS NOT inherently evil or abusive.

self governance ye boi

I just said anarchist government is an essential part of anarchist society and we are not technically against government, just the state and hierarchy, which obviously includes capitalism.

How do you expect to maintain current private property norms (absentee ownership) without a state?

NAP my man

NAP is aggression

...

Is the NAP salvageable as a concept if it's applied to socialist conceptions of property like ownership based on occupancy and use and you're not exploiting anyone?

I'm an """"Anarchist""""

But rents are okay kek

Not an argument

tbh only aspects of socialism works. You can't go full on socialist lest you risk stagnation.

I resent my father but don't want to leave from his protection. I'd prefer if my mother would join in arms against my father, kill him, and then provide me shelter.

I guess? My main problem with NAP is ancap's general inconsistency with what is and isnt coercion and aggression.

The socialist equivalent would ideally not need to be as explicitly stated.

NAP, as a tool of enforcement of absentee property, is an act of protecting thieves, and theft is aggression, as is intentionally aiding that theft, so the NAP which by design allows this, is aggressive itself.

Why do Americans repeat the same arguments thinking we've never heard them before lel

Tankies, get out.

Top lel

Literally not an argument

Also socialism is a direct yes/no, on/off, 1/0, either you have it you don't, you can't have just bits and pieces of socialism nor are there tiers of socialism with some things being [x] amount socialist and others [y] amount socialist.

No but these are.

learn to read

-Murray Rothbard 'are Libertarians "Anarchists".

Rothbard thought that anarcho-capitalism was the only feasible form of anarchism as he thought the the social and individualist schools were 'irrational' and not economically viable.

what

Should we follow in the footsteps of based Che and Castro and hunt down faggots?

Yes this is what I'm disputing. Directly. You can not pick and choose an aspect of removal of the parasitic bourgeois class and the return of their means of production to the workers. This is not something you can take a part of and say only that part works. This is not social democracy.

pls

Yes.

What a contradiction. Also no, no markets of any kind please.

Hi Holla Forums. That would be idpol, and idpol without a liberation mindset at that. Something nobody on Holla Forums would ever sincerely advocate, as that sort of identity politics harm the revolution.

the weak are preyed upon now by the state and le capitalists

Well he was an absolute retard then I'd rather not return to a system whereby the Warlord who has the largest private army reigns supreme over the population. At that point you've created a state and a form of hierarchy meaning it's no longer anarchy.

No it is not, read a fucking book nigger

Yup, that sums up ancap mentality quite right

Nice argument

...

Nice autism

You need ancap for the economy and everything, anarcho communism to build the roads, anarcho-monarchy to provide spiritual guidance

Kys if you disagree

pics.onsizzle.com/arachno-capitalism-industrial-worker-we-fool-you-esimoot-wedsatyolu-ww-2516061.png

Spiders rule!

Humour me, what the hell is that?

[IMG]i64.tinypic.com/214yr0n.jpg[/IMG]

i64.tinypic.com/214yr0n.jpg

There is a spiritual monarch, but no coercion.
Acknowledged- that we have no issue with monarchs, and will leave them unmolested in their palaces.
If man does not worship and admire a monarch, he will worship and admire something else. A monarch unites people, since everyone is supposed to worship and admire the same thing. Unity is important- so important! The monarch embodies and directs the nation.

Almost made it buddy