Do you really hate us that much Holla Forums?

I just think private property is ethical because I'm a fan of natural rights. The free market certainly fails in some cases

the main left argument that confuses me is why people dont believe you should be allowed to own a factory and employ workers

Don't hate you, just think you're retarded.

thanks user :)

Someone get this boy a decent critique of Locke. He is spooked to the highest degree.

Anarchists are the OG Nazbols.
- Pierre Joseph Proudhon

- Mikhail Bakunin,

Your obsession with maintaining private property means we are diametrically opposed.
There is no peace between us untill you stop licking your boss' boot.

It's like this user, should meth be legal? Yes. Should you probably do meth? Of course not.
My belief is I can't limit someones freedom, so if I tell someone how they have to run there business, thats hurting there freedom.

I'm not retarded enough to think that will work but the problem is if you make a law around it, you're using force. The problem COULD be solved without force, with a good community backing you, you could refuse to do business with them until they pay there workers more etc.
Ancapistan will probably never come but you should strive to follow the NAP.

Well, so it's a little more complicated than "people shouldn't be able to own factories" tbh. One event that kicked off the transition from feudalism to capitalism was something Marx called primative accumulation. Basically what happened was a small group of people used the state to steal land from a large group of people. This action created a large property-less class of people who had to move to the cities and work in factories to survive. The small class of people who controlled all the property used their property to accumulate more and more economic power all the way up until today.

Obviously the people at the top today aren't the exact same people who participated in primitive accumulation, but the conditions created by primitive accumulation still do exist today. So even if we removed all regulations we still wouldn't have a free market because there's huge firms that nobody can compete with. To actually create a free market we'd have to redistribute property more equally and we'd need to have a healthy commons.

Has this ever happen in the history of capitalism? Besides "responsible consumerism" doesn't change jack shit, climate change is the best example.

Redistribution would require force though right? Isn't there a non violent solution? Couldn't a large group of people band together and persuade others peacefully to not engage with them until they've given back?

It doesn't happen often for sure.
I understand where you're coming from and I guess this is where I'm more idealistic but if you believed in non aggression, wouldn't this be a better solution

I agree and disagree. The problem is that private property does limit my freedom. If I don't have access to the factory that produces chairs how am I supposed to get a chair?
Translating this, only a tiny minority have acces to producing what all of society needs. And the rest are forced to work for a capitalist for a fraction of their worth if they want any of it.

You need to see society on a larger scale instead of trying to make small hypothetical situations (which I've noticed basically every ancap does)

This is basically what socialists have been trying to do for the past 70 years in the west with no succes.

I fucking hate you. You glamourize sociopathy by calling it "teh free market" and think people getting assistance from "da gob'ment" are lazy even though you think a rich kid inheriting a coal mine from his daddy to enrich himself at the cost of hundreds of men's 9-5 labour's a great example of "entrepreneurial spirit".

Don't get it twisted, your N.A.P. *will* be violated and you *are* still getting the bullet too.

Judging by your posts in this thread, I don't hate you, OP. I think you're a bit misguided and just, you know, wrong, but not as retarded as most ancaps and right-libertarians.

Read Marx and Lenin. Oh, and communists have the best aesthetics.

brah your shit is 100000% pure ideology in the zizekian scale.

...

I don't think so tbh. People need food, water, shelter, etc. and unless you can convince a huge number of people to become more self-sufficient they can't not engage with these companies. Trade unions, co-ops, and consumer unions are non-violent market entities that could potentially solve this problem, but the laws we currently have regarding these entities gives them a huge disadvantage economically.

You're not as stupid as esoteric identity calling for privatized nuclear weapons so I don't know, you seem ok for now

But my freedom is being limited, by the fact that my economic conditions force me to take a job where I do NOT receive the full value of my labor.

This is what the entirity of human history is. Violence and force are integral parts of human nature.

Tried that with labor unions and a lot of time strike turned into riots because national guard militias always sided with the factory owner and suppressed the strike.

Oh wow dude, learn to chan.

What If I don't leave tho

hahah why?

You guys get upset about this but, horse shoe theory. This is some pretty Holla Forums shit
also not a rich kid but i do have every console from this gen, does that upset u

You and nazis have some good looking aesthetics.
The ancom flag is way cooler, black and yellow can suck my dick.

If it magically could happen, do you think it's a more ethical solution than the communist solution to the problem?

Depends I guess, if you're being reasonable than it's not a big problem.

redistribution is a meme.
We're for giving the factories to the people who work the factories, that's it.
We don't need to give everything to the government, sell it and then give everyone an equal share of cash, we want to abolish money.
The only violence needed is the violence to repel Porky's hired thugs once he tries to get the factories back.

It doesn't happen often because it can't happen often, the worker's wages tend towards the bear minimum for the reproduction of their labour power.
If you asked the average american prole in the guetto or dixieland to pay and extra 20 cents in every bottle of Coke in order to stop depleting reservoirs in Chiapas they would tell you to fuck yourself and buy Pepsi, and they wouldn't be wrong to do it, they would be acting in their self interest, which is something Socialists advocate.

Yeah, definitely. If we could suddenly change the laws to favor co-ops of all kinds and reversed the privatization that has occurred over the last few decades then I think we'd be able to solve this problem. Corporations have really fucked up the commons and our political system is insanely fucked up, so I don't think it's likely to happen at all tbh.

And even then there's still be the issue that the upcoming economic collapse poses. The financial sector is insanely irresponsible and we're overdue for a recession anyways. Even if we could sort out the issue of economic inequality we'd still have to completely rework the financial system our economy is based on.

Yeah but history is on our side, since anarchism has never been associated with propertarianism until perverted through a targeted campaign by the Kochs and others like them in burgerstan. We don't "hate" you, we just think you're incredibly naive and uneducated

Watch this about Stirner.

youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs

Then read Stirner knowing what to look for.

Fucking lol'd. I like you fam.

Well no, because we are not simply looking for higher wages, we want a classless society. Freedom means nothing if freedom means the choice between coke and pepsi.
To abolish private property through entirely democratic means is a nice dream that a lot still cling to, but I just don't see it happening.

Thanks for answering my questions anons, I appreciate the links
you guys are sweethearts

have a comfy week user :)

wtf, every time an ancap has roamed in here in the last 3+ years regularly using this board, never have they been anything but screechy sosciopathic motherfuckers. You're like the second ancap in a week to engage the board like a reasonable person.

The thing is ancapnon, if you're against the use of violence because it violates the NAP, what you don't realize is that property violates the NAP. Property is an inherently violent idea: it is the idea that you have the moral right to violently prevent someone else from using something you declare your own. This is not necessarily a bad thing, few people will say that it's bad to use violence to protect your body or your house, but property under Capitalism extends much further than that. When Leftists talk about property, we refer to property that the owner does not directly use, but owns so that others (who have to use it) can use it for his benefit. He holds ransom land, houses, factories etc. and tells those that wish and have to use them to pay him a fee, effectively a tax, if they want to use it, and if they refuse, then he will use violence to prevent them from using it, something he has no use for nor cannot use.

Property not only leads to robbery on the level of taxation, it also directly leads to lost of freedom and any meaningful conception of rights. Under Capitalism, rights only exist for the proprietors, because since everyone else doesn't own the property they use, they are beholden to the wishes of their proprietor, and those wishes could include things like the worker/renter not saying certain things, not expressing certain beliefs, not owning or possessing weapons, or even not associating with certain people.

Anarcho-"capitalists", as opposed to "anarcho"-Capitalists are rare, but they exist. After all I use to be one.

I like you user. Ancap thinkers, barring the image that has surrounded Hoppe, seem like actual people full of love towards humanity. Hayek, Rothbard, and most of all Mises are all people that seem genuinely good and sincere in their hope for a better tomorrow. I do not mean they do not have flaws or holes in their thinking, but I can't fault them on their motives. I do however despise the Pinochetfags masturbating to petty dictators, downright dishonest people like Molyneux, and knuckleheads like Steven Crowder and PJW who fawn again and again over how "the left are the real racists" in the much moralizing tone that liberals have blabbered about conservatives in previous decades which fits because the "alt-light" crowd are 100% liberals

I also like visiting /liberty/, the ancaps are the most polite folk there who don't shy away from a debate or from explaining something I don't understand. You have some very smart people at that place. This seems to extend to the libertarian community outside of the internet, but likewise the physical removal fags get a priority IRL as well, like Cantwell, for example, who despite being completely rejected by the libertarian community for his conduct became a sort of a mouthpiece for them.

Love,
user

Exactly this tbh.

Exactly this tbh

Eh, Mises is iffy, you can tell that he knows that he's being dishonest sometimes, even if he's sincerely arguing against something. Rothbard was pretty dishonest too, and he was kinda a cunt about most social issues like civil rights and sufferage and advocated for violence fairly often. Not sure where you're getting this "genuinely good and sincere" shit from. Mises and Rothbard are pretty shite on moral and economic topics. Their ideas have been thoroughly discredited.
Hayek really bought into that shit though, and he was generally pretty compassionate. The guy was for internationalism and against nationalism, and he legitimately believed in most of the good parts of liberalism. And on top of that his economic theory wasn't complete shit too, the guy actually made some decent arguments.

Mostly from their writings on government and the potential of humanity. But I am aware of their unsavory aspects.

Are you a cute girl(male)?

ancap is a sociopathic ideology.

I like to think that most people of any ideology sincerely want to make the world a better place and they think their ideology is the best way to do that and I like those people.

But I do think there are a subset of libertarians who just do not give a fuck and want to make shitloads of money while lots of people they don't care about starve to death. I don't like those ones.

that's not how morality works. read Kant.

Sad thing is though, that these libetarians also think they're making the world a better place by becoming rich. Trickle down etc. Landlords see themselves as benevolent gods providing housing for the plebs.

Fucking kek, I wouldn't leave them with a pet for a weekend, even less a global economy.

Dunno man, most libertarians are run-of-the-mill spooked normies, while a minority are genuine fascist Trojan horses and sociopaths. It's only that your purported ideology, even at the best of times, is even less logical than most.

It's at least more logical than shit like anarcho-communism.

Where there is no state, no money and somehow everyone just get along, unless somebody decides to pay someone else something, then somehow all hell breaks loose.

Because ancaps only concept of freedom relates to business and property rights. It has no basis in the practical reality of human freedom, it's basically just the legal framework of capitalism on steroids. In the same way I dislike a majority of socialists that see socialism as a mere relation to property, as if it's a legal question and not a way to emancipate ourselves in relation to each other

I don't hate ancaps. But while I consider fascism somewhat serious business, I dismiss ancapism and lolbertarianism as simply too ridiculous and inconsequential.

...

Marx didn't say why or how communism is gonna become stateless bro.

I'm guessing this is coming from someone who didn't read any Marx, am I right?

Do elaborate for me, user. Show me the passage.

...

...

So when and how will this happen?

When you stop shitposting and pick up a gun.

Which mean?

Just read the rest of my post?

I'm seeing a big if, not when, or how.

I'm not going to get into this debate now, you asked me to find a passage that proves Marx saw communism as a stateless society, I provided that for you.
Read State and Revolution maybe.

Correcting myself, that's not what you asked and I answered the wrong question. Sorry about that. Still, read State and Revolution.

For somebody that read Stirner you're pretty fucking sp00ked friend

hoppe is alright, we just need to apply the negation of his predicament

basically once capitalism collapses, we must kill everyone that decides to go back, so to speak

From this gen? Why do you need three 400 dollar paperweights, user?