Could we get a non biased summing-up of the varying sides housed under the umbrella of libertarianism, followed by a brutal tearing up of the side you disagree with? Would love to hear thoughts on the matter.
Reading that piece of trash Atlas Shrugged, trying to get inside the mind of rightie "objectivists/rationalists" - not pleasant, but necessary imo. And to expand my mind, I guess.
AKA:
Murray Bookchin vs Ayn Rand.
Works of Non-Fiction vs Works of Fiction
There is no such thing as right libertarianism.
Also this. Better to say libertarian vs propetarian.
The trouble is the endless co-opting and twisting of terminology to the point that they become unsalvageable. The entire political discussion in the US is shifted far to the right. Left Libertarians would hardly be associated anywhere near Randian "Rationalists." The ideologies are so vastly different that there's little reason to group them together besides having the same name.
This is a problem with many layers to it, public misconception of terminology, private and scholarly usage of these words, the "proper" use, and so on - they all become hopelessly mangled.
For example, the term "Communist" and "Marxist," which I've adopted unironically, (and because I haven't developed my own views or reading sufficiently to further classify myself) are inviting to some people who are just being edgy and have no conception of what I'm supporting, whereas my father - who, thanks to some good conversations I've had, seems to be interested and happy that with the new thoughts/ideas I'm engaging in - is unable to get past the term Communist, and even Marxist as anything but pro-USSR Stalnist Authoritarianism. It's a confounding situation.
Yes, soon all of Holla Forums will embrace Aubrey (pic girl)
Anyways right libertarians are the kind of dudes who get mad at Thomas Jefferson for changing John Locke's quote about Life Liberty and Property to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Property to them is of chief import, as how can one have life or liberty w/o property?
However, they see no point in regulating how this property is possessed, and fail to recognize that a capitalist system will then put a bulk of property in the hands of a few. But their hands are tied by their ideology. They'd rather see people starve than for a rich man to give up his bread.
There's also the disconnect when it comes to criticizing government abuse of power, but simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the de facto power that businesses, especially when they reach global conglomerate s rank, can wield over a society.
both are equally retarded and imaginary
wew
At least it's better than your autistic ideology based on holocaust denial that has only changed the country.
Left = Socialism or Syndicalism or Communism or Communalism and so on
Right = Austrian economics or laissez-faire capitalism
That's actually the only real difference on paper but in action there is a huge difference. Right libertarianism naturally leads to corporatism and plutocracy from monopolies forming and to make it worse it can lead to fascism since these corporations can choose to take away all platforms for free speech or copyright it and it can own the police, judge, jury, and prosecutioner.
A source of trouble I run into when talking with some of my libertarian friends (more of my closer friends are drifting-right than not unfortunately) is that they are quick to label our current system as "crony capitalism," as some perversion of laissez-faire & that "true" capitalism would be different. (Ironic considering they often mock me about how "communism hasn't been tried before" lol)
Thing is though, this sect of right libertarianism seems to be *kinda* different from Rand's objectivism? Despite how similar they appear to be (and imo in effect are) Rand herself I think had a distaste for libertarians. I get the feeling that perhaps Rand, who's objectivist views held that no system held man back besides his own ability to grasp reason (idiotic I know lol) and then act on it, right-libertarianism that critiqued the current system were themselves weak-footed to a degree. That while these "true libertarians" see current capitalism as "crony capitalism," Randians would see it as the natural order of things? Or maybe I'm completely off-base.
Ultimately, despite their pretensions and aesthetic differences, they both fall under the right-wing of Libertarianism, a pretty pretentious and poorly "reasoned" sphere. I'd say they have more hope than aut-rightists & even many liberals, but still very wrong-headed. I still intend to make my way through Rand's work to get a better reading on it though.
But you can just boycott the monopolies, user! :^)
I think right libs imagine "true capitalism" to be this giant main street, where everyone is a shopkeeper of some kind or has some side business going on and everything is grand and happy, like a 50s family comedy.
And i'm sure Rand would have complained somehow about right-libs today, if only because she was an absolutely miserable person.
I'm not immensely familiar with Randian thought, I could never bring myself to read Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead. Keep on trekking though brother.
And starve to death since it can get so bad it could be just one huge corporation.
I fail to understand the disconnect Randians have with being vehemently against the idea of labor's fruit being "robbed" from the worker, (capitalist in their view) of any & all violence except in self-defense, & with the idea that humans can & should be able to thrive, not merely survive - and yet full throttle support a system which directly violates all of that. The small capitalist class leeches off the labour of the masses, who see only a fraction of what they deserve, that under capitalism the majority of people haven't the time or energy to truly prosper materially or mentally, and how capitalism is by nature violent, as the right to this property is inherently protected by both hard and soft violence via the state & its authority.
That they can base many of their tenets of Objectivism around these ideas & somehow miss how contradictory their political/economic system of achieving this is. How delusional can one be?
I'm a bit tired, so this probably won't be the most coherent post I've ever made.
Most people (barring some of the true psychopaths on the right) that call themselves libertarian fundamentally value certain basic principles by which a society is shaped around (liberty, self-determination, voluntary associations, etc). The problem is that there is there is a split as to how those principles are thought to be put into action by the two sides.
Left libertarians believe that those ideals (among many others) cannot be achieved within the framework of a society founded upon domination and exploitation, thus they seek to transform the society based around the elimination of those structures that perpetuate domination. This may extend so far as simply acting as a guiding principle for governance by which the maintenance of a society where domination/exploitation has been abolished is left to the autonomy of the people it has liberated, or go so far as to abolish the notion of unjustified hierarchy itself as a matter of principle in all facets of social organization.
Right libertarians on the other hand largely see the applications of their ideals through the lens of property, and subsequently seek to transform society based on the elimination of barriers to what individuals are permitted to do with their property in question. To them, property is the most important right an individual has, and the language they use to describe their other rights and freedoms is often re-interpreted to be consistent with their discourse on property.
Capitalism has always been intertwined with the state, even early economists like Smith (who at large advocated for the idea of less government interference in the market, essentially founding the classical school of economics) made it clear that capitalism itself cannot exist without the state to enforce it and provide a base of confidence for the economy's "participants." The very notion of property itself necessitates a state to maintain the threat of violent force. Property is not the state of "owning" something, as saying "this object is mine" alone means nothing. Property is the state of having the force to restrict other people's access to something. Barring the property you hold in use and proximity on a day-to-day basis, you will not be able to simultaneously restrict access to and make productive the property you claim to hold, necessitating the utilization of force outside yourself to facilitate violence on your behalf. Given such conditions, it only makes sense that those who have accumulated enough economic, political, and social capital would then seek to acquire more property by use of the apparatus of violent force by way of undercutting the efforts of competitors and erecting barriers to prevent further challenges. Remove the apparatus of violent force though, and property itself ceases to be enforceable and meaningful. Thus the right-wing libertarian is ultimately is a self-contradictory position, and whose logical outcome can only be the abolition of property (thus ceasing to be right-wing) or the re-institution of a state to violently enforce property rights (thus no longer being libertarian).
this guy knows
The late night threads (for me) never fail to impress
youtube.com
Just wat
?
lmao taken from comment, he's so close
"Any 'businessman' who calls for his industry to be regulated is trying to rig the game in his favour. Regulators can be captured and controlled more easily than customers."
I think this frustrates me the most about Randians and Libertarians in general. They're so damn close, they just cannot let go of devotion to capital.
Basically these "Randians" are the same sorts that think being demanded to do something with a gun pointed to you is still a choice unless that gun is held by the government. I think they have some sort of brain disorder that stops the from understanding what voluntary actually means. So this causes them to think exploitation by their boss is a choice since they could just go to someone else not realing many times a person cant do that.
I wish Mutualism was brought up. I feel we have one of the best socialist points of view on Libertarianism.
is there exist a porn of her?
Not that I know of, haven't found much fanart either. Doesn't matter too much tho because the creator, Brian Lee O'Malley, has a shitton of sketches of her, some of which are quite lewd. Long live Aubrey.
Meant to include
link?
where is she from anyway?
She's the lead gal in his upcoming novel series, regardless the art is all really good, he puts out sketches of her at a rapid pace
I'm interested in reading about mutualism, just to see what its all about
what it will be about?
also who is the author?
Bryan Lee O'malley, by novel i mean graphic novel, like the scott pilg series was
In addition to some Marxist readings and Atlas Shrugged (lol) I'm also trying to dig into some of the left-libertarian/mutualistic/anarchist (I know that's a huge brush I just painted, but atm I still am trying to figure out the varying ideologies/theories) and have a copy checked out of "The Murray Bookchin Reader" "Mutual Aid" and "What is Property?"
Would any of ya'll say those are good places to start in that field?
No idea really about what the focus will be, besides a band full of cuties - most especially Aubrey. And considering how many sketches O'malley's made of her, I think he agrees.
I'm just glad he moved past his chibi style he was rockin at the end of Scott Pilg and in his last novel. It looked kinda goofy.
I honestly couldn't tell ya bud, i'm still feeling my way around too honestly. we need like a reading club or something to help newbies
goddamnit forgot my flag
man, there's something really fresh about her
unlike all those copy and paste anime girls she looks like she actually has some personality
I am looking forward to the series coming out, I'm interested to see what kind of personality she's got.
This thread got so derailed, but in a good way at least
She looks good but does she have a penis?
oh I hope she does
Read Kevin Carson for mutualism
"The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand" is a good introduction to mutualist/freed-market critiques of capitalism.
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy is also good
...
Left libertarian is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist.
Right libertarian is an oxymoron. It does not exist.
...
I know it's b8 but jesus
No, you're just stupid.
There is no difference between domination by a social collective and domination by a state. Right libertarians believe in freedom from violent coercion from ALL sources, unlike all other political leanings. In before the "opressed by nature" argument because people have to work to eat and they actually have to pay for houses that other people built.
How do you expect people to follow the NAP when confronted with extreme differences in material conditions? Will poor people just roll over and die? And if a capitalist conglomerate of security firms exist that serve the interests of those who can pay them, how does this differ in anything but name from a police force?
I guess it goes without saying but this infograph is extremely stupid and whoever made it has zero understand of libertarianism or communism.
Without arbitrary restrictions on free-enterprise, it's guaranteed that the labour market will expand for low skilled workers. Unemployment was 30% in countries without a minimum wage during the financial crisis. Also, without all of this redistribution of wealth to the idiots in our society, and increased wealth for people who are useful, this will naturally decrease the population of redundant people while increase that of the useful.
No companies or conglomerate can "take over", wealth is founded on voluntary association, you can't try and oppress people using the funds that you gain from doing business with you (because obviously they'd stop doing business with you). Even if a conglomerate could somehow try to oppress people and have a guaranteed income, obviously they don't have a monopoly on wealth. So everyone else would have their own defence agencies, and their own guns, to fight back. It makes zero sense, the point of business is to make money, not to lose it all on pointless actions.
Second paragraph is made entirely redundant because of the fact that right libertarians advocate for the use of force to defend property. It's just that in the case of ancaps, this is done by private means. First paragraph is just a leftie meme about exploitation.
Enjoy your gulag when the time comes.
Enjoy your free helicopter ride when the times comes. .
Anarchocrapitalism is unfeasible and will never be implemented, so I don't worry too much.
>implying we need anarcho-capitalism before we purge commies youtube.com
Still waiting for the inevitable collapse of capitalism, eh comrade?
reminder than aynclaps are literally just monarchists
...
an excuse to not have to stand by any of your own retarded statements?
...
the difference is that we admit it
We voluntarily remove all political dissidents from communist societal organization
important difference
This is highly ideological and will NEVER WORK, simply because nations exist.
Nations want tax money and tax money requires money's being moved around.
If we did get rid of nations, society would very quickly select new leaders and borders because that's how primate psychology works.
A new World War would follow to contest the new borders.
In a different universe where you can just come and leave the world as you please (like a video game server), yes, you would want a higher quality of life, for fear people leave to better worlds.
But this isn't that universe, so we need to compromise.
National accountability is the next best thing.
America has 100 million armed citizens for this job.
If things get really bad, we can kill anyone we call a traitor.
It'll cost many lives, including innocent ones, but it's at least an option.
Europe, on the other hand, is COMPLETELY FUCKED. The E.U. owns those cucks.
...
Woah, you must be quite the expert to make such a definitive statement like that. Is your background more in academic research or do you do more direct study like Goodall? It would be great if you could recommend some texts for us, or even link to some of the journals you've published your research in.
An Objectivist reading of Marxism:
I exist.
Therefore this fucking bait is completely useless.
I agree with this view with a few adjustments and additions.
Allowing Capitalism that much control would literally kill everyone that doesn't buy the correct products because the privately owned police owners would cut a deal with all the monopolies and if you are left on the outside? Kiss your ass goodbye. Your NAP means nothing if you aren't part of the new Monopoly boys. Porkies without rules is a terrifying thought because they would at the end kill each other off so there can only be one.
Soon either our guns will be worthless or the majority of the population won't healthy enough to use a gun..
Porky has been trying to find ways to make the populist useless so they can take away everything from us. Once there are enough people who can't lift a gun or guns become useless, Porky is coming for us all in America. You just haven't figured it out yet..
Left Libertarianism- radical democracy. Everybody takes role in government cooperatively without calling it government or acknowledging authority over others.
Right libertarianism- monarchy, technocracy, dictatorship. A strong central government suppresses any partisan action. When it becomes irrelevant what people think, there's no purpose in misleading them or playing on their divisions and emotions. The government tries to make money by maximizing the nation's economic stock for more taxes. The only political action is voting with your feet. Ideally, the government wants money and has no interest in your culture or personal life.
...
What an insightful post.
Tankie please. Stop projecting.
Non-sequitur. I hope you realize this idea of owning far-off property is a relatively recent economic development?
Yeah. No.
Read cooperativeeconomy.info
Also Revolution in Rojava
What does this have to do with property?
The rest is just incoherent teenage edginess.
Did you mean not an argument? :^🍀🍀🍀
It's about as insightful as the leftie rants about muh capitalism that have no basis in reality. At least the 19th century philosophers they copy-paste their arguments from actually lived in a time where wealth large wealth disparities were evident.
at least stop shitposting and try to make actual argument
Have you tried leaving your suburb lately? Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If we use "libertarianism" literally, as an euphemism for "anarchism", there is clearly no such thing as "right"-libertarianism. If we use it, like Americans do, to describe principled liberalism, there is no "left"-libertarianism, as liberalism has long been superseded on the left by more radical currents of thought.
Either way, whether the opposition is liberal - leftist or "an"cap - anarchist, the difference is that they believe in private property rights and we don't. But that's nothing new, right?
You tell me my argument has no basis in reality yet when governments literally force people to make way of corporate infrastructures and people never recover because they literally work themselves to death to try a find a new stable home for their families.
Tell me how much different will it be when you are paying rent somewhere and then porky's security tells you to move or die because he wants to do something different with the newly bought private property he bought while you were "trying" to start your business?
You'll be probably one of the first few generations weeded out in your capitalist dream world.
So basically Rojava.
Yeah go tell them that to their faces.
How is M-L going these days?
Oh wait, it's dead.
So desperate, it's funny. Can you become any more pathetic?
To answer this question we'll just wait for your reaction when your little "Rojava" is yet another project failed in its infancy.
Can't wait for all the salty tears, better build an ark.
Phil please leave this board already
tankie delusion truly knows no bounds
You fucking whut mate? Rojava saved the Baath government as much as they saved Rojava. They need each other.
Are international banks ML now? You do know Rojava banned that stuff right?
And yet Rojava is already more socialist than the SU ever was.
People have been saying this for years now. "It will fail any moment now!". Except it hasn't and even based anti-imperialist Russia supports Rojava.
I'll keep that in mind Phil. At this rate you're going to cause a new Great Flood.
The ML communist party is in the government coalition of the NPF amongst all other socialist parties. It's an ML antiimperialist unity front effort, and it will work out, unlike your retarded americunt bootlicking adventure.
I sure hope comrade Assad will just give the turks free hand in cleaning up the YPG filth before the SAA moves in and builds the place up again.
Unless of course the spearhead of revolutionary struggles, Trump, is going to save you :^)
nice maymay, edgy socdem
Rojava will be gone, no amount of your tears and autistic screetching is going to stop this process obvious to anyone who isn't deluded into his autistic escapism.
Delusional is the word that comes to mind looking at pathetic western liberal anarkiddies crying for their baby "revolution".
There is no relevance by the YPG, they will be dealt with and this region remaining integrated into Syria.
actually there is no such thing as left libertarianism
Are you just ignorant, or pretending? Turkey is helping carve out it's own Islamist alternative to the Baath government and has even fought and attacked SAA toops.
southfront.org/turkey-plans-to-build-new-town-near-syrian-al-bab/
almasdarnews.com/article/turkish-forces-attack-syrian-army-latakia/
They're already looking to annex the territory they control. The Turks are the imperialists. Rojava wants a unified and independent Syria.
Have you actually bothered reading any of the links?
You sound like either Phil Greaves or a roach poster pretending to be "anti-imperialist".
The only one I see cheering for forces that literally want to tear Syria apart is you.
Good luck with your continued denial is Assad continues to work with Rojava unquestioningly.
Ask your doctor for lithium salts
there's no such thing as anarcho-capitalism either. Employment is hierarchy, rent seeking and usury are hierarchy, corporations are hierarchical
Have actually read Bookchin? Under communalism certain kinds of property are owned locally by the community.
You still have personal property (liquid assets, etc.). But other forms of property: land, infrastructure, housing and other real estate are owned and managed by the local community as a whole.
If you disagree with the collective management you can take your personally earned profits and setup shop somewhere else. This also prevents one person from monopolizing all the land and resources. Which I believe is one of the critiques "right libertarians" and ancaps have of today's society, right?
Anarchism doesn't exist. It's just an unchecked majority rule lawless fantasy.
Boy, are you in for a ride :^)
the US imperialists bootlicker is crying about the turkroaches US bootlicking attacks on you only deflected by the help of the Syrians… that need you for what exactly?
You are deluded to believe there'll be a place for you treacherous scum after the first main objective of clearing out islamists is achieved. Then the rest of US proxies will get what they deserve and the turks will back off, because russia can fuck them in Syria relentlessly.
It's like explaining the alphabet to a little bratty child that actually thinks it knows better but still can't think beyond A, B and C.
Both of you don't know what the word "anarchy" means.
Pick one
Please tell us what it means then.
Anarchy is literally democracy in its purest form with no checks or balances. How is it not democracy?
LMGTFY
Anarchy: 2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the absence or lack of government
Because the demos has no inherent right to rule over the individual???
Anarchy is reciprocal, when we are at a conflict of interest, we do not impose the hierarchy of the majority, but reach a mutual, reciprocal agreement
get a load of this guy
All governments are private property, stablishing private property is stablishing a government
Try being less autismal
There's actually no point in arguing about whether or not anarchism is compatible with democracy. If these people want the word "anarchism", let them have it. Meanwhile, actually focus on spreading propaganda and building a revolutionary movement.
t. Communalists
That's exactly what has happened in Aleppo though. Or are you denying that too?
Oh it's another "I'm just a smug and pretentious elitist and I don't need to explain my reasoning".
economistes-arabes.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/aita_banking_politicaleconomy-new.pdf
memri.org/reports/political-economy-syria-under-bashar-al-assad
This is your definition of "socialist"?
I hope you realize Rojava is taking aid from everyone. Including Russia and Iran. You know, the primary allies of Syria.
So, are the Russians imperialists too now?
twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/841023121972985862
twitter.com/MmaGreen/status/839865226929532929
Did you know that the Baath forces originally retreated from Rojava and left it to the YPG/PYD?
I think you're just trying very hard to pretend you're not a Turk-poster. Hence the ad hominems.
without rulers, an employer is a ruler as is a landlord and an investor. You're willfully ignorant
t. never were anarchists
yee russians are imperialist
Sure. I don't even have a problem with this.
Don't even know what you two are on about and I don't care enough to attempt to understand.
Wrong. Anarchy is without government. And an employer is not a ruler. An employer only owns himself and his property. An employee is simply someone who has made a contract with the employee to do an agreed upon task for an agreed upon compensation.
Because you are dumb autistic faggot
Property is a means to an end. Is there actually a realistic anarchist framework for implementing anarchism except "burn it all down"?
Yeah, except we live in the real world, and it doesn't matter if there exist no natural right or obligation for this.
Again. This isn't always possible. By modelling the system on Athenian Democracy the excesses can still somewhat be kept in line, without degenerating into "liberal democracy".
Well, you're in for a reality check then. Russia is not only sympathetic towards Rojava, but actively pushing it's interests.
al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/10/turkey-russia-mediates-between-kurds-and-assad.html
Right now it might be premature, but once Raqqa and Deiz ez Zor have been liberated, they will have to work together.
There's a difference though between contracting work, and monopolizing and renting out property. I don't see why the the second is sacred. Allow people to hoard real estate they aren't even using hampers economic well being and creates a class of economic parasites.
Voluntary and reciprocal apropriation
Therefore are you going to implement democracy by force? Nice red fascism you leninist
Look at him go.
Monopoly is just a meme. Housing market prices are dictated by economic laws. You are a no good unskilled-worker and can't afford an apartment in the CBD? Well no shit, because there is a high demand for housing in such an area, and as such they will be occupied by skilled workers who can utilise their location, and thus the free market automatically creates the most efficient system. Unskilled workers can find cheap housing, like agricultural communities, or apartments in the suburbs.
Take your ritalin you dumb autist
Even if it was given by medicare
Except it's more than just that. Profit often needs to be made on sales and landlords need to earn a living. The first will cause continuous inflation of prices until people can no longer afford them, while also promoting speculation. While the latter adds no economic value.
Cutting out exploitative landlords has been a huge boon to Rojava.
Except unregulated markets are capable of creating inefficient situations. Large corporations selling goods at a loss to drive competitors into bankruptcy, rentier capitalists that add absolutely nothing of economic value but still command a disproportional amount of the total wealth, etc.
The housing market is one of those examples. If a community needs more skilled laborers they can simply - as done in Rojava - invite them and assign them housing. No landlords or proprietors necessary.
Yeah, except in the real world landlords have a tendency to squeeze people. See Bangladesh as a great example of this: Wages or minimum wage is increased? Landlords just hike rents.
It adds nothing. It's just parasitic, and as Rojava has shown communities neither needs this and are in fact better off without it.
The hoarding of real estate by private individuals that might not even live in the area hampers the function of the market instead of benefiting it.
Then explain why there is more empty houses (by a large margin) than homeless people in the us. The free market creates the most efficient way to profit, that is undeniable, as it is in it's very nature. However, it is not the best system to satisfy human needs.
What happens if I disagree with how things are done under capitalism? The same fucking shit happens. I will either starve to death or submit to the system, or change the system. but the market isn't called a collective (because of……reasons), so it's okay
Man, if you aren't a Holla Forums falseflag you are a human caricature.
Right-Libertarianism became a political out for Jewish & White people that don't want to subsidize other ethnic groups living under the same polity.
The failure of that strategy was the birth of the Alt-Right.
The NAP is a moral syllogism that invalidates external claims on people and extensions of them (their acquired property).
Left-Libertarianism and anarchism is just leftist masturbation; people don't voluntarily form cooperatives where they share the product of their labour equally. Creating those structures requires superlegal structures because people treat each other like tools and always will (Israel is a prime example of where this dynamic shows up). And not only does treating people like tools happen naturally, but it's more efficient if you want to build a structure of production; competitive markets will always product hierarchical corporate structures. The only place where that's not generally true is where you're selling something that doesn't have a marginal cost/marginal profit like video games or songwriting or artisan labour - something with low material resource costs/manual labour for the eventual price.
State power is required to fundamentally change economic and production structures, even if its to create a hyper-individualized market. In the absence of that, you get localized markets with high tariffs/rents and local control over production and sales. I.e., anyone trying to project their ideal society onto a society with no agent that enforces law is in for a rude awakening if they don't want feudalism.
...
Except that's wrong.
rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/21042016
opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila-gupta/rojava-revolution-on-hoof
Except that it's possible for markets to develop without corporate structures. Again, Rojava is an example of this.
It's still hierarchical, though it's a product of merit, rather than a class of parasitic rentier capitalists that feel they're entitled to wealth for contributing absolutely nothing of value.
And that isn't true either.
cooperativeeconomy.info/the-economy-of-rojava/
Expand your knowledge, learn about Rojava and communalism before swallowing the corporate pill.
Anarchism is the rejection of the state, not the rejection of governance.
Rojava has a state nigger.
...
This is why I say fuck censorship, because it robs us of such laughs like these.
Read Bookchin
The only good fiction Rand ever wrote was The Fountainhead. Even that was only okayish.
Bookchin has never written fiction.
Why not LeGuin?
no its literally what they aim for
Of fucking course it is, it's anarchism. The individual is the point. This image is idiotic.
Yes there is - majority vs minority rule
There is no difference between domination by a state and domination by a land owner
State != propertied order. If you think so, you're literally retarded.
I wouldn't expect an ancap to understand anarchy.
Incomplete. If Porky can govern over you, you are screwed.
You'll never empower the individualist this way.
I get it now. Ancaps want to be slaves until they buy themselves out of slavery and then want to start their own plantation and buy their own slaves. Enjoy your "anarchy".
As a mutualist, this ancap going full retard is the best I've could have seen today.
Censorship isn't needed my friend. I will be laughing with you.
they're both pretty trash tbh famalam
What's to stop niggers from moving in and shitting up your neighborhood? or jews to come in and take over your major companies under either system?
It's dead in the water, nice pic though.
People with guns.
You do realize Rojava has no welfare and social security right? If a council/community doesn't want you in, that's it.
It's alive and well.
Why is she so perfect …
I love talkies and anarkiddies alternatively denouncing and claiming to have as their ow.
News flash communalism is gonna be the dominant artist philosophy the rest of you are going the way of the dodo
leftist not artist fuck I hate autocorrect
This Aubrey girl
Is very my type
...
...