Can ancoms and ancaps coexist?

But they are hierarchical (as are prisons for that matter). If hierarchy = government then prisons and companies are inherently governments.

Prisons are part of the state dumbass

This isn't the biting counterpoint you think it is.

yes. Modern day: Capitalism + Constitutional State : A set of laws (private property's) under a stronger set of laws (state's).

"Anarcho"-Capitalism: A set of laws (private property's).

dubs.

You have a lot to learn homie. Read about private prisons. All the things the state does a corporation can but with private as a prefix simple as that. It's how Hierarchies are, that's how power can be used.

"Free market" capitalism ultimately ends up with all the wealth and power in the hands of a small few, who are functionally no different from government. Tyranny of corporations is just as bad as tyranny of the state.

Except we get cool looking cyberpunk world instead of cancerous ineffective governments pushing sjw agenda

While Ancaps could tolerate ancoms with their communes, since ancaps would just consider them collectively owned property, ancoms cannot tolerate ancaps, anymore than an abolitionist can tolerate a slave master, even though the slave master is perfectly okay with others not owning slaves.

While Ancaps are correct at pointing towards certain aspects of actually existing Capitalism as being from state muh privilege, they fail to realize that to protect their absentee property and to keep the tenants and workers who use it from just taking it for themselves, they'll need to resort to statist-like tactics and organizations. Stateless Capitalism would likely be more competitive and risky, and maybe even a little nicer for the workers, ultimately it would not change the worse aspects of Capitalism, or eliminate hierarchy and rulers.

We're already practically living in a cyberpunk dystopia but instead of the cool 80s aesthetic we get shiny IPhone-looking bullshit and corporations are the main force pushing the SJW nonsense anyway

Corporations are just doing it because the people have been brainwashed by the government schooling system into it already

you're right in a way though, why can't we have good aesthetics in our dystopia at least..

Let me guess, it's cultural marxism right?

We already have close to laissez-faire capitalism done. They're called economic free zones and they are hell holes scattered in various countries as economic test spots and loopholes. It is fair to point that without a gov to regulate you will have both communist and capitalist societies exiting in it whether you start with ancom or ancap.

in a revolution, ancaps would just be a tiny force under the wide wing of reaction. Fascists and neoliberals have the same economic policy anyway.

Call it whatever you want

I prefer to call it paranoid right-wing bullshit.

Are you saying "refugees welcome" isn't a government endorsed propaganda policy? Or other idpol stuff for example affirmative action?

Can you stop being a redditor?

wut? Refugees welcome is damage control done for the results of the Imperial actions of NATO

Read Marx.

Dude, fuck right the fuck off.

The reason normies won't swallow the leftypill is because at least 1/5 of the people here base their ideology on a shaky foundation of convenvenient but bullshit terms. There are more rational arguments that can be used, other than pure autism.

None of those posts contain esoteric or controversial terminology usage

thanks ameritard

Mutualism is a happy middle ground for an AnCom and AnCap alliance.

Ancap and ancom are not congruent. I don't think ancaps can function without money, for one. I also think if ancaps and Ancoms had separate side by side societies they be at war with one another since ancoms would view ancap shit as slavery and seek to abolish it

I know not everyone here is a fan of him but Badmouse did a fairly decent video on the topic
youtu.be/eSMOwjsBX1s?t=10s

Wrong

The idea that real capitalism exists apart from the State is something that was invented by zealot economists after Capitalism was already invented by classical liberals and mercantile states/charter companies. I don't understand how stupid you have to be to think this. You're actually really low Autism Level user, you should leave. I don't want to help you, you have bad genes and bad decision making

Capitalism is fundamentally impossible without a state to enforce private property/wage labour/etc.

So no, not really.

it's a mindset, like the gorilla one

...

Corporatism isn't what you think it is.

The core idea of capitalism is the existence of private property; if I say I want to make widgets, I have to gain access to a widget factory from someone else since I personally cannot do so. In order to do so, I either apply to work for the enterprise he runs to operate the factory or rent it; in either case, I end up paying him some sort of fee for the muh privilege of producing, either directly as rent or indirectly through the whole scheme of "I make the thing, the owner takes all of it, then later he pays me and the rest of the productive factors a part of its value then pockets the rest".

This is, in my opinion, the central problem with capitalism; the fact that it gives these owners immense wealth far in excess of what they need to live a happy life despite not having really done anything.

However, what capitalism also incidentally does is accumulate that wealth. That cut that the property owner gets keeps applying ad infinitum; those who have not pay those who have, eventually until those who have have everything.

Now, in reality, this is actually a good thing. Due to the existence of economies of scale, monopolies are able to produce more with the same amount of resources than a competitive marketplace can. There are of course problems, as I'm sure you know, with monopolies within a capitalist system, as they turn around on the consumer dependent on goods and shit on them, as well as become complacent and not improve production, but overall the accumulation of capital is a positive thing.

This is what Corporatism is. Corporatism, essentially, wants all industry to be maximally concentrated, but it wants the owner of that industry to be the state, operating on behalf of its people, rather than random dipshits.

So, yes, capitalism eventually leads to monopolies which is sort of corporatism (not really because the end-stage of capitalism is monopolies ran by private individuals and not the people), but that's not at all my problem with capitalism.

have you perchance considered going back

Your "wants" are irrelevant. Your understanding and comprehension of global policy is very american

pretty much

And yours is plain retarded. Damage control for NATO? In the face of who?
Who would do ANYTING to NATO countries if they did not "damage control" by flooding themselves with low Autism Level criminals?

China? Russia? Who the fuck would dare to hold them accountable?

Never mind that it is mostly AMERICAN military actions that led to it, and EUROPE takes the fall through it's own cucked policies.

Japan isn't being flooded with refugees. Israel isn't.

It's completely up to the country's citizens choice to be dumb enough to believe state propaganda about refugees.

Also, cheap labour is already available to western european countries: It's called eastern europe.

Because refugees don't leave to resettle somewhere else. They escape hell on earth (created by imperialism) to a place nearby, in the hopes that soon enough, their home will stop being hell on earth and they can go back. Kind of fucking hard to do that if you are half a globe away don't you think?

Because there is no need when a bunch of other countries in the region close to Israel are more welcoming and understanding of their situation than the Bibi's playground.

Find better arguments, faggot. Or rather, find arguments in the first fucking place

Lmao are you sure you're not a burger? Nice reading comprehension faggot.

You're way too dumb to rely on calling other people retarded as an argument. We're not talking about some moral retribution you stupid SJW

Syrian refugees have lower crime rates than the native populations.

Why the fuck am I seeing people like this on Holla Forums? I can literally go to reddit if I want to argue with someone who is only going to spew the most basic of the basic surface level politician lines about geopolitics

Seriously, what the fuck is this? Grow a fucking brain you fucking failed abortion

Too bad 90% of the "Refugees" aren't syrian or refugees, and DO have higher crime (in places where it's even recorded at all)

t. not a single argument

...

...

Almost every country on that list has taken in refugees dumbass

Your """"Argument"""" isn't worth addressing, you're spewing propaganda lines that I can read on r/politics

How many did arab countries take compared to Germany?

Germany is more or less the most economically successful country in Europe right now. Why wouldn't a young person want to go there? Eastern Europe is a shithole thanks to capitalism.

[citation needed]

I don't know or care what you read every day on your favorite reddit board

Source?

Great point, I love refugees now

Compared to germany's 600k, turkey took 3mil, lebanon 2.2mil, jordan 1.3mil, saudi arabia 500k, UAE 242k, iraq 231k, and down from there

Considering relevant demographics, resources and population numbers this isn't at all out of the ordinary

This discussion was never about feelings. You can go to tumblr for that. It's about what rational decisions groups make and natural policy derived from capitalist practices.

Germany took a lot more than 600k though
It has 5million muslims right now

Muslims =/= syrian refugees

Same shit

Not really, about half of that 5 million are german citizens with no other countries of origin

You're trying to say it's perfectly fine for this to be happening while admitting they're just opportunists.

Are you supporting them because you want the collapse to come sooner so communism can come or are you just hateful?

why the fuck was this thread derailed into a refugee thread

i thought i had a pretty good post at but everyone's ignoring it and instead arguing about , who brought them up for no reason

I brought it up after the guy said corporations are the ones pushing SJW agenda

Corporations would prefer people to be total "individualists" detached from any and all social connections even without the whole righteousness thing because doing so makes them better consumers

You may have your ideal society in ancapitalism, as long as everyone in it consents to it and people born into it can leave

No. The Ancap's personal army would just violate the NAP (because we all know it's bullshit anyways, capitalism IS imperialism) and take the Ancom's resources.

And who the fuck would want to live in an Ancap world where even using the sidewalk costed money, you could literally be forced to work for nothing until you died from starvation because they held your family hostage until you signed an indentured servititude contract, and the police, firemen and EMTs would only do something for you after signing a stack of paperwork and having funds transferred from your account?

And forbid the notion of you getting injured while on work - no longer profitable? Go die in a gutter, oh wait, that's my gutter, that'll be $5,397,249,975 a minute you vagrant.

Whistleblowing? Who are you going to tell? The news corporation owned by the company you're whistleblowing? Who is going to settle the case? The judge and jury who are employed by said company? Who is going to give you witness protection? The police who get their paychecks from the company that own the region?

Anarcho-Capitalism is perhaps the darkest, bleakest and most hopeless form of existence mankind could ever live in.

So no, I will not coexist with an Ancap. They infringe on my freedoms by demanding that everything cost money. That Lamborghini should be mine just for contributing to society, not because I have accrued enough funds to meet the number on the price tag.

I made no moral claims whatsoever
Mostly indifferent. It sucks for displaced workers and isn't the ideal situation for incoming refugees who would prefer to not be run out of their homes to begin with I'm sure you'd agree. But being mad at refugees for seeking safety and security when available is just being mad at people for working towards their self interest, and makes no sense. And being mad at the capitalist systems that led to that collapse and incentivizes ruling classes to bring in those refugees in the first place is fine, but is a bit like being mad at the sun for setting in the west each day. All I can say is that I believe a lack of capitalism would stop the collapses that lead to refugees from happening, and would stop corporate interests and their state henchmen from pushing for the collapses and the subsequent flooding as it were

I just got a massive erection reading this

But the NAP is upheld by divine will so no one would break it

Well Idk how far your posts go or who was or wasn't you at this point.

I'm mad at the politicians of europe and the people that vote for these policies that allow this.
It just screams of pathological alturism, feels over anything else. There are actually effective ways to help them that don't include trying to integrate a drastically foreign culture that's not going to handle it well.

Where would you get all the resources for this? If you want central planning, youd need a state, and states require police and law enforcement.
Believe in that if you will, but you are not an anarchist.

Well then we're more or less on the same page. I just broadly disagree with anyone who's focus is on "those damn refugees" as if their actions weren't perfectly logical. Any leftist platform that does not include strict anti-imperialism and only virtue signals welcoming to refugees should set off alarm bells to anyone paying attention though.

Node based network for the distribution of goods, resources and services built on the ideal of mutual aid (that's the AnCom's NAP, essentially). It's like what we have now in the west, but with no price tags.

Found your issue right there

It's literally pathological alturism, fetishizing the idea of charity and "help" without any thinking at all

Good thing we have fictional works to explore that sort of speculations.

...

No politics that ignores self interest from any involved parties will ever be tenable. Politics based on altruism and self-sacrifice is a liberal fantasy. On this at least we can agree

You could have just said "i'm autistic" and ended it there. And yes, you might as well be some screeching american liberal yelling about how all the unwashed rednecks voted for drumpf. You're free to conceive of politics in this fashion if you wish but no one will think you insightful and your comprehension of wider geopolitical interactions will remain infantile

what if I told you this is true and forms one half of one of the contradictions of capitalism

That's correct, though? Our only problem with Porky is that he demands a ransom to use a bunch of shit we could use to produce things because he "owns" it. We don't want him to suffer or anything; we just recognize he's financially incentivized to oppose what we want.

Also I might be called a class collaborationist for this but I think there are ways to get around that financial incentive other than just straight up threat of violence. Sense of community, for instance, or rational arguments about how having a strong society and less money can yield a happier life than a weak society and more money.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧porky🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

He's not gonna just stop out of niceness
You need to actually have some blunt violent force behind you to achieve goals in this world

Unironically you're right, no hard feelings overthrowing them for my personal interest.

I don't like how leftypol co-opted stirner as if he's strictly left wing.
Egoism can be used to justify any political and non political belief, as he says himself, you don't have to disown spooks, as long as you are aware they are spooks. Like with love.

Not according to your ecochamber.

From where I'm standing most people ITT aren't relying on moral arguments whatsoever. Just rationally and patiently explaining to you how and why things happen the way they do. If you perceive a moral overtone to any arguments that dispute your own moral axioms that's your own problem and one we can't help.

If that matters anyhow, I actually agree wholeheartedly.

Here you go fam
theconjurehouse.com/2016/11/18/the-stirner-wasnt-a-capitalist-you-fucking-idiot-cheat-sheet/

It actually is controversial. You still haven't shown how hierarchy = government.

I'm not going to read your shitty blog, faggot.

Yeah, I just find it cringey how often he's used here. Was it /lit/ who brought him here or what? He used to be spammed there in 2010-2012

???
I was the one questioning the guy who said that. Maybe next time don't just mass tag everybody to make a point.

It's not my blog dumb fuck

Fuck you

That piece is cited frequently and relies almost exclusively on direct quotes from Stirner himself. The only reason to ignore it is because you're embarrassed to be proven wrong

Stay mad brainlet. Even when people coddle you and feed you information in the most idiot friendly way you still can't understand it. Just kill yourself now and save some time.

That never happened because Striener is strictly left-wing using materialist philosophy, rejecting religion, and opposing hierarchies. If you adhere to Striener, you are a leftist.

Your retarded blog doesn't prove anything, I have read the ego and his own multiple times before you were even a sperm in your dads ballsack

I can cherry pick quotes from the ego and his own to support anything, but his own view you can dismiss his own points, that's how stirner works

He rejects things for his own self but to think that everyone that reads him and agrees must reject everything he rejects is literally teenage idol worship tier thinking. You can choose to believe in any spook and any religion you want if it benefits your own self. Stop being a weak minded retard.

Your fanfiction means nothing to me. If you had a counterargument you would provide it easily enough but you clearly have none

Read the rest of the post you literal animal

Not cherry picked in the sightest. This is a consistent thread throughout his writing. To say that Stirner had no consistent ideas and advocated for nothing is the meme-iest take on Stirner that you learn from teenagers yelling "spook" all the time

I responded to the section of your post replying to me you fucking subhuman autist

Then why are you praising him if you already don't agree with several of the foundational axioms of his beliefs? lmao

Wrong again. If you believe religion is a spook, you don't believe in it, and most religions (especially Christianity) call upon its adherents to be selfless.

Says the blatant sophist.

user who first memed Stirner here: this is pretty entertaining. by all means please go on.

Which is literally what leftypol does all the time.
Also, like I said, you can choose to dismiss many of his ideas and entertain a literal bucket of spooks if it is your own choice and benefits you.

go back to pol

"Pursuing"? What the fuck am I doing? Chasing his ass? I read it because it's an important work that influenced the two most influential thinkers of the last 200 years, Marx and Nietszche.

If I choose to believe in a spook for my own benefit it is my choice, doesn't matter how legit you think this belief is, I can roleplay as the most devout christian in the universe. There's no such thing as selflessness anyhow, this book should have taught you that.

...

The only way to derive a not explicitly anti-capitalist meaning from his writing is to do precisely that

What's wrong with being an animal? Fucking speciesist

wtf I'm a vegan now

You're still an egoist just as well. You still understand the concept of spooks and how to use it.
It's more of a guide to high functioning sociopathy than a communist manifesto.

this to be quite honest, egoism is not really that easy for a regular human. even Stirner himself didn't live up to it.

Marxists co opted him because he's a sort of proto-marxist (even though Marx himself had to disprove Egoism to himself because he understood how hard it BTFOs communism). But really you can do anything with egoism.

The most fucked up manipulator sociopath can get a lot out of this book, more than any communist.

Also I want to add: Egoism/Stirnerism is both ultra nihilistic and ultra anti-nihilistic, depends entirely on what you do with the set of spooks you choose to believe in or disown.

to coexist u must first exist
anarchic societies have never lasted more then 4-7 years max
even eastern bloc socialism worked better and all it was essentially post stalin was state capitalism with a bunch of left propaganda

even if the ideologues could co-exist it dosent mean the ideologies should
there is nothing wrong with anti-sectarianism but its just stupid to collaborate with an ideological opposite just because the ideology calls itself "anarchist"

I'm just saying that a non-sociopath will quickly run into a wall of "spooks" built into his brain by natural selection. Guys who didn't buy into the stories of the rest of the tribe tended to get weeded out, what can you do.

Stirner didn't say you absolutely HAVE to pursue your self-interest at all cost, just that you should be aware of it, and choose to pursue it or not. Choosing to pursue a spook is fine if you are aware of its spookiness but derive pleasure/meaning from pursuing it.

Yeah, although I can see someone who isn't entirely socipathic seeing why some things he believes in are "spooks" and never doubt his belief in them anyhow.

Like with the simple example of love. It's a typical edgy teen thing to say love is just chemicals in your brain, this is a primitive "spook" realization.

After realizing the concept of spooks, everything you do is inherently pursuing your 'self interest' in a sense.

You can use egoism to be the porkiest of porkies, and there's no amount of talking about how stirner was actually a leftist to change that.

I think those guys didn't get weeded out, but instead ruled societies and tricked people.

Depends if you consider early prehistoric human groups anarchists or not.

If you mean innate human behaviors such as altruism they are material as you say and thus not spooks.

The pleasure you get from alturism or the form in which you do it is a spook.

Only the most intelligent ones. Those that could not fake adherence to the spooks of their society/time would indeed be ostracized or even killed.

I think if they actually followed their "non aggression pact" there's a chance it could be possible.

From what I've seen though the NAP only applies to people with the same opinions as them and everyone else gets the helicopter.

True. That's a weird curse. Smart enough to get out of the matrix but too dumb to hide it.

I disagree. The brain is hardwired to secrete dopamine when you follow this kind of instinctual behavior. Neurotransmitters are material. Thus it is not a spook. Now for some removed forms of altruism, such as indirectly helping a cause through alms, those are usually spooky.

Not that user, but at this point fucking everything is material.

Did you read the ego and his own?
Read the section about love.
Same shit.

Well clinical psychopaths can also be dumb. It's just a brain malformation that makes you physically unable to get spooked.

but user.

Calm down. I said "praising". Learn to read, user.

lmao Roleplaying as a thing isn't actually being a thing. If you pretend to be Christian out of a selfish desires, you're not actually a Christian. As evident by your next statement:

Striener and Nietszche were wrong about that. People sacrifice for one another every day, up to and including their own lives. Now, unless we completely redefine "selfless" to acting in way which has zero benefit towards personal interest, the statement "There's no such thing as selflessness anyhow" is factually incorrect.

sage.

What did he meant by this?

I guess even some lolbertardians are fed up with Hans Hermann "Holocaust" Hoppe's autism?

Anything "selfless" is done out of a personal feeling, one sort of it or another.

Corporations control the government. The entire purpose of public education is to condition children into workers.

It's more of a mututal circlejerk above the common people. Politicians are intersted in votes and power and money, corporations are interested in what the politicians power can get.

Distinctions between humans and animals are just a capitalist invention to allow an even lower level class than workers with an entirely separate set of """rights"""

This is a very shallow interpretation of being spooked. Things like religion or culture are obviously spooky, but being someone who ignores everything society and other individuals expect from you doesn't make you non-spooked. A completely amoral porky isn't non-spooked, he's incredibly spooked by Capital. He'll slave away his life, constantly playing a stupid meaningless game, sacrificing everything to win it, just say he can say that he did. Same as a psychopath who constantly fucks with people and refuses to cooperate or act decent, he's spooked by a sense to constantly spite and fuck over people; after all most psychopaths are petty criminals whose maladaptive behavior constantly fucks them over in society. Truly being despooked would be doing the things that make you as happy as possible, and all evidence points to the fact that altruism and general virtuous, non-materialistic behavior are some of those things. The most insidious spooks are the ones that you obey because you think they're in your self interest, because while it's easy to show someone they're spooked by religion or society and are pointlessly obeying it, it's much harder to show someone their shallow perception of their own self-interest is working against their own happiness, their true self-interest.

spooky

Read Stirner's Critics by Max Stirner.

Nah. Power can through. That doesn't means they're not spooks.

If you use "egoism" to justify beliefs then those beliefs are above the ego. Your master is that belief not you, yourself. The owness went out the window for an ideal.

Aka fucking read more Stirner you retard. smh.

Mutualism wouldn't be like that.

We would get along with Anarchy pretty well. Probably potentially better than ancoms.