Why Ancaps are so stupid in general? they want anarchism, but with hierarchical system so called capitalism. Hence...

Stop posting.

No there aren't.

They're some sort of brand new experiment in counter-intel. Usually, inimical groups get fed with counter-intel, disinfo etc. Libertarians, by constrast are nothing but counter-intel and disinfo. Subversion without there even being something to be subverted in the first place.

Hi I heard someone wanted to deebate or ask stuff.

I'm here so shoot.

Because all Ancap was created to excuse pedophilia and child sex slaves.

This guy gets it. Ancaps are just spooked, like most people are.

Ancaps are the worst kind of stupid: the kind of stupid that thinks it's smart.

this tbh.

so reddit stupid

are you an ancap?

Actual anarchist here, other guy is right, you're being retarded. .pdf related is a book discussing some of our political theory. Please give it a read before making any more unfounded assumptions.

fascists and ayncraps are retarded by default because their "theory" is a load of shit. When communists are retarded, it's because they either didn't finish Kapital or went full revisionist; it's not the theory that is wrong.

ye.

I guess so.

I like small af governments and I'm all for economic freedom.

the less gov and the more economic freedom the better.

Like looking into a mirror

Who do you agree with the most in politics? Name a person.

I should add this could mean philosophers or e-celebs too

Ancaps are actually pretty smart, at least in raw Autism Level. Problem is, it's just mean more power to rationalize anything and invent unworkable complex system to fill the holes of absurdity (lol NAP).

But, Holla Forums, that a problem you suffer too, with your, "all theory, no examples to fall back on, cover problems by revisionism". And to be honest, it befall any nerd-based ideologies. It's high abstraction disease.

...

t. brainlet who has never read Adorno

A person?
Only one?

Is hard to say because I like some personalities that are ancap but I often disagree with their views.

For example, I like mrdapperton in youtube but he's is a dumb mother fucker a lot of the times.

I don't think I have any e-celeb I follow as ancap but I follow the skeptic(tm) community if that counts.

The closest I think would be some Institutes I like, like I follow the Cato think tank. I know i know think tanks are shills yada yada but they usually have a lot of good points and interesting view points.

Other than that I don't follow anyone as ancap , I mostly just talk to the left right and center and read Wikipedia and wathever books they recommeND.

To add on to this, a key aspect of "cultural marxism" was a critique on how capitalism was destroying European (and global, for that matter) culture by commodifying it, leaving nothing sacred. Adorno was so hardcore into it that he viewed even JAZZ as an attack on traditional culture.

The roots of "its communists who wan 2 destroy culture 4 no reesin!" actually come from Hitler's "cultural judeo-bolshevism", hence why this fag has had people laughing him out and assuming he's a nazi.

-Which do you consider more important, the wellbeing of the general population, or upholding people's claims to ownership of property?
-Would you agree that business owners will generally attempt to minimize their operating costs (including the wages they pay their employees) and that the few who don't will eventually be outcompeted by those who do?
-Would you agree that someone who already owns a great deal of wealth will have an easier time obtaining more by investing some of it, compared to a worker who has to spend a much greater % of their wealth just to meet their biological needs such as food and shelter?
-And if you agree with the previous two statements, would you also agree that would mean more and more wealth and property would end up concentrated in the hands of a small few?
-What do you expect to happen when the majority of labor becomes automated but the majority of the property is privately owned by a small handful of people? Should the majority of the population be expected to just lay down and die?

How exactly would you define "economic freedom"?
Would you agree that the US had much greater economic freedom in the late 1800s and early 1900s compared to the mid 1900s? And in which of those periods would you consider the population to generally be more prosperous?

1-I believe those two concepts are not strongly attached to the other, like second class citizens like kids do not own most of what they have and be fine, and people that are wealthy can still go trough tough situations, "well being" and "owner ship of property" can encapsulate a lot, but if there is a situation the well being of a group that would be negativity affected by the ownership of X happened, then I believe the owner has the right to own that thing but just as well the people affected has the right of fighting back trough whatever mediums they have (either by court and self regulating free market if its an entity that devolved into corporatism, trough militia if its a dictator, etc).
I believe in concepts like NAP or MAD where people will try to work together for the mutual benefit of not getting killed, to avoid Poking the Beehive.

2-Yes and no. I believe on the agency of the worker as well, where he can say "no this fucking job sucks and the pay as well, I'm off". There needs to be a balance between the employee needs and the higher ups.

3-Yes but the worker feeds of the expansion of the elites, whom most likely have more experience managing and investing in those enterprises than others have, and since a lot of those corporations allow their employees to climb up in the corporation they would be able to not only have more wealth then their basic needs require but help make better goods and services and expand and allow more employees, etc. A mutually beneficial cycle.

-Yes and no.
Unfortunately is human nature to follow leaders and seek them (In a very small scale think of the concept of alphas and the man of the house) , so is easy to see why the expansion of anything would mean the ownership of that empire by very few. However rulers need people to rule and employees to assure or make the dictatorship or whatever you want to call it, work better. They depend in those 2 elements and I also belief in the agency of those elements whom can only be pushed so far or they can seek what the current ruler have.

You need to please the people under to make sure they dont go after you.

youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

-That set-up and outcome has a lot of variables.
Here are some outcomes
1-This set-up seems to be pretty similar to the current proprietary software vs free-software interaction, and the current situation has been that free software and proprietary software coexist in a mutually beneficia environment where free software is allowed to exist and some-times be more prominent in different fields of computer software. For example, everyone will laugh at you for attempting to do a proprietary browser, however very rarely you will see people using libre or open office.
tl;dr: the private sectors and the people interact and coexist in a mutually beneficial environment
2-The outcome is socialism, as the machines now do all the work and the humans figured a way of live that way. They only need to work if they want and comercial food like "Monsanto (tm) 2 kilos of instant potato salad (just add water)" is so cheap and abundant everywhere that you don't need to worry about gathering enough money for your biological needs.

Basically to remove regulations or taxations that cripple or affect a company and their workers. example waa.ai/zutk
Unfortunately I wouldn't know about the ancient economic structure of the US, I have little to no knowledge of that since is the first time that I've been asked about that time frame and their economy, so I'll skip that question.

Also sorry if I didnt explain well enough or I dont get across some concept or something, I think I'm getting sick and I feel a lil dizzy.

It's funny how your only counter-argument is "b-but muh Adorno", due to surface features you picked up regarding his professed High Modernist personal tastes.

No one said Marxists have to be internally consistent. They aren't, its fundamentally contradictory and cryptic character is part of why it is so insidious. Propaganda works by appealing to the sensibilities of audience, in this case, for Adorno, it was the established white Western intelligentsia - who were into their haut culture.

His argument was the "schlock", mass entertainment, produced by the Culture Industry (there were actually some great films being produced in this era), of which the upper class art snobs of course looked down upon anyway, was a result of merchandization. On the other hand he complained about DiaMat's "disfigured" art production lines, which anyone with eyes could see was depressing and soulless. According to him it was due to the system being too rational-mechanical, ignoring the visual-imagistic quality of consciousness, which he equated with the "Romantic" side of life.

He was by no means a reactionary of any sort, cultural or otherwise. It's simply equivocation to compare High Culture with culture in general. Marx of course also referred great works of European art and so on.

Adorno had accepted this condition in his precious art as now achieving an irreversible systematicity. His whole theory of aesthetics then is essentially about somehow injecting art with the correct political ideology so as to combat the deleterious effects on the psyche from the deformations coming from the East and West.

Let's look at Negative Dialectics:
He finally launches into some lurid prose about the German camps, the same attention he doesn't give to Communist atrocity (merely complaining it is "repressive" and "a failure"), or really any others.
Yet immediately after the segue into Holo-porn, he declares "after Austwich" all humanity has now had imposed upon it a binding "new categorical imperative" to "make sure it never happens again". As though Kantian deontology is suddenly beyond critique, and as though CAPITALISM itself wasn't enough of an imperative.

How can you call yourself an anarchist and support rulers/dictators? It's a complete oxymoron, the most famous anarchist slogans is literally "no gods, no rulers"

I don't.
I support the idea of micromanaged groups and corporations but I also morally support the right of revolution.
I believe that if a micromanaged group becomes tyrannical the sub rulers or the ruled will overthrow of fight back.
Is a hard concept to imagine if you are a retard like me at explaining but
TL;DR: Micromanaged groups are ok. If the head of the micromanaged group or corporation becomes tyrannical then I will say they have the freedom to try but the ruled also have the right to revolt or lobby or whatever.

But small groups are best at organizing work when they're not managed in detail by some middle manager, but left freely to cooperate as equals. At least this is my experience from working. Or maybe this is what you meant by micromanaged, that the rulers have minimal and almost symbolic power over the workers.
Sure, there's always a struggle occurring between the rulers and the ruled, but if the rulers have the tool of legitimate violence as enforced by law on their side, and the ruled are economically dependant on the rulers, isn't there a great power inbalance that suppresses outright revolt?

who r u quoting

It wasn't that commercialized culture was an attack on traditional culture that was the problem though. It was the fact that is was the eras pop music, and part of the wholesale commodification of culture as such. I mean don't get me wrong, I like jazz, but in some forms it most surely also represents a standardization of culture that I believe Adorno took issue with.

Adorno himself was a composer who wrote in style with the rest of the German early modern composers like Berg and Shönberg. Just listen to the quartet in the link ( youtube.com/watch?v=v5Tc4mXodrI ). It's hardly traditionalism, and quite obviously the kind of stuff the Nazis would've banned for being degenerate.

Every point is either wrong in details or just completely wrong. Take the second point:
1. A misunderstanding of Hegelian dialectics at a conceptual level. Just look at it: "allows for ideas to be formed without concern for contradiction": what hilarious dreck!; "Dialectics were applied.": just total garbage!
2. A misunderstanding of class in relation to (Marxian) dialectics. The thesis-antithesis-synthesis structure was always lacking, even for Hegelian dialectics as it originated in Fichte's system. And even that simple structure is misunderstood.
3. Non-comprehension that differences exist between Marxian and Hegelian dialectics.

Your deleted and misspelled post @:)

Back to r/The_Donald you go!

The problem with ancaps and """libertarians""" is simple: they're immature, childish idiots who due to the Dunning-Kruger effect think that they can fool the entire global population into serving them as their new overlords. Really, it's a complete waste of time trying to argue with them not from a position of power, as their politics are so badly thought out that they should more properly be treated as a symptom of their total mental immaturity rather than statements made by a sapient individual.

See, to this manchild, everything works in terms of parents and children and school yard social dynamics; most of them are so far gone that they don't even pretend that their politics isn't an expression of childhood trauma that occurred due to excessive parental control and/or relentless bullying. Treating them like an enemy is like scheduling a boxing match with an elementary schooler: even though you inevitably win, you should feel ashamed.

I think this tackles more on the organization side, in which is pretty subjective on how an organization should be structured. Is like flavors, but sure, the less middle mans and the more freedom the branches have the better they usually perform.

Just take a look on how videogames were made before and the AAA now, it sounds silly but I'm pretty sure you can see a correlation between firing every fucking developer and make soulless shit and treat your costumers like crap and being AAA, and before when games didn't have big studios and schedules and the programmers were basically their own bosses. You can even see the valve philosophy and manual and how they achieved what they did. Of curse if you go hippy crazy "do whatever u want dood" employee you can end up like tim schafer and company, which I guess is not the fault of the organization and they should force more on everyone but more a lack of common sense.

Yeah unfortunately. Giving the masses the opportunity to make their little land full of whatever the residents and rulers want like a land full of furries or kekistanis or pinnaple-on-pizza holocaust crusader or wathever, the chances that you will have your little north koreans here and there. But I believe every democracy or socialist or right wing entities can devolve into state capitalistic shitholes with a party or dictator that suppresses your rights. In fact you could argue that people like Sweden suffer a soft theocracy around the god of feminism.

I would argue that it isn't fault of the ideology in itself but it can increase the possibilities of communities that are radical in their policies.

If I had to choose an example of how this would play out I would think of the individuality that the united states of america has, where each state basically is their own soft country and can make their laws and are highly individualistic, etc., but on steroids.

Example: commiefornia (mercurynews.com/2017/06/22/california-has-a-travel-ban-8-states-including-texas-are-now-on-the-list/)

tl;dr: I would argue that ancap gives enough freedom to do whatever the fuck a group wants inside their bubble, and that's can be fucking great or really fucking suck.

also sorry if there is rambly and kinda redundant in parts but I'm autistic like that.

You are free to argue against me. change my mind.

Oh, look, it's the paedo sheriff.
You're an ancap, a liar stupid enough to believe his own lies. What you need isn't an argument to dissuade you, but a leather belt to spank you with until you promise to start listening to mama and papa again. Though the rest of Holla Forums is barely above your level, you shouldn't get carried away and think that you can speak with adults on equal terms. Go find a job, that'll cure you real quick.

Kids are generally provided for by their parents, the ruling class has no such attachment to their employees
By wellbeing I mean the general degree to which peoples' needs are being met- currently even in "developed" countries like the US many people don't have reliable access to food, shelter, medical care, etc. And ownership of property, at least under capitalism, isn't terribly difficult to understand- its basically "X person has exclusive access to Y, and anyone else who tries to use it without their permission will face some form of punishment"
In some developing countries, western corporations have privatized and monopolized the freaking WATER SUPPLY. I'm pretty sure that would qualify as negatively affecting the population, but they don't really have any sort of market or legal solution, are you suggesting that when the capitalist system is harmful to the people it would be justified for them to… seize the means of production?
And what about the housing situation in many developed countries? Billionaires buy up a large number of homes in order to manipulate the market and/or launder money and just leave them completely unused, while hundreds of thousands are homeless, would you consider this acceptable?
How is the worker supposed to sustain themselves when they don't have a job or the necessary property to work for themselves? The employer has a tremendous amount of leverage over the employees when it comes to negotiating their wages, and even when the workers try to unionize there will always be some people desperate enough to work as scabs, along with the fact that labor unions have often faced violence from thugs hired by their employers.
Considering the fact that the market inevitably crashes once or twice every decade, generally at the expense of the workers, they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it. They're also perfectly happy to cause tremendous environmental damage in the name of profit, to the point that global warming may eventually render much of the globe uninhabitable in a century or two. Even if you're of those people who believes global warming is a hoax, there's still plenty of more conventional environmental damage as well, to the point that we have freaking lakes of poison in a few places in the US.
Like I said before, most employers would prefer to minimize their labor costs rather than give their employees a raise, and those that don't are unable to compete- just look at how Wal-Mart pays its employees shit wages with zero benefits, and in turn they sell their goods for lower prices than their competitors and ended up wiping out countless competing businesses across the US. Similarly, many businesses would prefer to replace their employees with immigrants or overseas sweatshop laborers who work for less, or simply automate the jobs.

An Ancap World would make a good vidya and you know it

(cont'd)
Spooky. People generally follow leaders because they think its in their self-interest to do so, often in the unpleasant form of "this person won't kill me if I do as they say". Most people would take a better option if they had one available, especially if it allowed them a greater level of self-determination.
The concept of "alphas" in social species came from a flawed study on wolves living in captivity- it was the behavior of a trapped, frightened animal. The study was later discredited when it was discovered that wolves behaved completely different in the wild, generally in a more cooperative sort of way rather than hierarchal. The concept of the "man of the house", at least as its typically used in relation to the "traditional" nuclear family is also flawed in that the nuclear family structure only existed for a brief period in the 20th century.
The goal of the ruling class is to make things work better for THEMSELVES, not so much for the people they rule over.
Typically they only need to please the warrior class (military, law enforcement, etc), they are perfectly happy to leave the working class to die for the sake of profit, just look at things like the contaminated water in Michigan or the recent attempts to cut social programs including healthcare in the US. Once most physical labor as well as the armed forces have been automated, they will be perfectly happy to turn everyone else into soylent green.
The ruling class would still hold ownership of the means of production, and they have proven time and time again that they are perfectly happy to create artificial scarcity in order to make a profit, even for essentials- just look at the pharmaceutical industry.
So would you consider things like the 8-hour work day, minimum wage, and child labor laws to be violations of people's economic freedom? Even Adam Smith, often regarded as the "father of capitalism", said that regulation for the benefit of the worker was a good thing.

Mad Max turned out to be shit, though.

play bioshock

Because it was done by a shit studio and by Ancap I mean the really ridiculous shit that has corporate infighting on a nuclear scale rather than a degraded tribalist system

It's shit and doesn't qualify as there aren't McBurger Mercenaries fighting the Royal Burger Guard

Bioshock was shit, though. Ancaps already said "not true ancapism"in regards to it and they're right; the game's portrayal of the """ideology""" is so shallow, it's bloody laughable.

Sure maybe 10% of the populous, it takes comfort being taken away for people to choose Self-Determination over comfort as people want their comfort back, hence how Trump because President and how Ron and Rand Paul lost and would never win

Its true that most people would be content with a reasonable level of comfort but an increasing number of people don't even have that anymore, and if given the option most people would choose a system that grants them both comfort AND self-dermination over one that only provides the former.