Why are you so traditionalist user?

Isn't capitalism inherently economic freedom? Whoever is the most successful is the one who makes the most money.

What the fuck is transhumanism, by the way?

I'm somewhere between paleoconservative, classical liberal, libertarian, and anarcho-capitalist

...

>The political ideology that I subscribe to is so fringe that if I told anyone in real live what I actually believe >implying I actually talk to people face to face there's no way they would even know what I believe in, let alone agree with my fringe ideology which I have wholeheartedly invested every ounce of my being into

So what's your political affiliation, faggot? What are you, an anarcho-feminist or something?

You can spot the triggered insecure libertarian from miles away.
You're all the same, low IQ, generally young and inexperienced, fresh off the republican bandwagon usually looking to label yourself as something different but remain roughly in your tard bubble.

So what's your ideology? If you're going to sit on your high horse and tell others what's wrong with what they believe, you may as well let us do that to you, too.

FEAR

Altright neo-Nazis are just a very loud annoying minority of crybullies.

...

The main problem with anarchism is that it dwells in a pit of self-projection and willful ignorance of the nature of man.

Primates are heirarchical creatures, as are many other creatures on earth. It provides us with organization and structure that helps us survive against foes that are tougher, quicker, stronger, and more vicious than us. Due to our lack of any biological instruments that can be used for killing and defending ourselves, we must rely on our structure and complex organization to deal with stronger predators. We have realized long before we were homo sapiens that our strength comes from our numbers, organization, and intellect. So in order to survive, we have established communities on varying scales.

Also, very long before we were humans, we realized that those more capable of sustaining said structure through means of communication, tactics, and intelligence should act as the decision makers within our tribes. This is simply putting our faith in those we believe will help us survive and reproduce. This is the foundation of what we know as government.

As we have evolved, we have founded increasingly complicated means of improving our structures, such as the usage of currency, trading, role taking, and seperation of various forms of labor. This is what we know as the societal pyramid. The overall establishment of class and importance based on class.

Our current state as is comes from thousands of years of bred-in instinct that has helped us become one of the most adaptable races on the face of the earth.

And you niggas want to throw all that shit away because you don't like being told what to do. I must say, our ability to form complex ideologies using close-minded, self-projected, anecdotal examples of what we believe can work within a human society has to be one of the greatest flaws of Humanity. It allows ignorant ass niggas that have been kept up in their snug and tidy houses away from reality to establish opinions based on ficticious examples they read in one directional, situationally convinient books that portray simplistic anecdotes of a completely counter-intuitive idea working within a human community. Not only that, they believe that just because they declare themselves to be an example of their ideologies being true, that means that it is universally correct. Max Stirner, im looking at you, motherfucker.

This is just one example of many that acts as a hole in the overall concept of Anarchism, one of the most ignorant philosophies known to man. Can you PLEASE take your shit back to the "Enviornmentally Aware Land of The Exposed Spooks" that is Holla Forums, and stay there.

you havent really argued anything but you have thrown all the pieces on the ground and felt a winner, poor sap

...

your "argument" is shit that is repeated in these threads every time they exist

I'm not sure I have much faith in the whole anarcho-transhumanism thing, but I'm an anarcho-communist.

Untrue. Revolutionary Catalonia was an anarchy before the commies came and fucked everything up, they were able to sustain 500,000 people. The anarchist army in 1919 sustained a population of 103,000. So yes, anarchism does work on a large scale basis.

For those who can afford it.
Which wealthy capitalists make by exploiting the workers. This is basic capitalist critique. Also ayncraps are not real anarchists. A formation of a monetary economy produces rich and poor classes, the rich rule the poor, and therefore is not anarchy.

Nice butthurt edit, faggot. Pic related is the real one. Also
That's the only kind of anarchism, retard. All anarchism is leftist.

Hierarchy is naturally harmful to humans archive.is/gWLmo
What you wrote is a whole lot of defeatist nonsense. "muh human nature" is a social construct you pessimists can't seem to get over.

...

Is there any Agorist or Mutualist around?

seems like a Retarded "An"commie has come.

...

Fuck off pussy. Agorism still libertarian garbage and mutualism still encourages harmful competition over cooperation.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

rekt

literally 3rd world drugfag propaganda scum

...

...

What type of capitalism?

As for free market capitalism . . .
Leftards' fears of voluntary cooperation and competition are pathetic. You all know that you are too beta to compete and too unlikable for anyone to cooperate with you in a free market, which is the reason that you cucks gravitate to socialism.

Espousing your pathetic ideology displays your inferiority to everyone.

No, you won't. Nobody wants to fuck someone with shitty genes, no social skills, and no competitive talents.

Yes, yes it will. So you should give up on your fruitless endeavors and pipe dreams.

In reference to the second image:

I'm a fascist, so I shouldn't be telling you this, but fuck:
I know it was bait, but Jesus Christ, don't strawman.

YOU HAVE TO GO BACK!

In this case you have a nice selection of backup and spam boards to pick from, allow me to post all of them…
>>>/anarcho/
>>>/comemenism/
>>>/sj/
>>>/leftwingpol/
>>>/leftyweebpol/
>>>/freedu/
>>>/ussc/
>>>/leftism/
>>>/polc/
>>>/marx/
>>>/feminism/
>>>/leftism/
>>>/leftyint/
>>>/leftycuteboys/

...

>>>/politics/

...

I believe in the second picture Rothbard was referring to the fact that anarchism used to be a term applied to left-winged groups. This doesn't denounce AnCaps.

As for the second picture, I believe those quotes are being taken out of context. The one on race isn't wrong at all. How is racialist science a act of oppression?

Ayn Rand even said she wasn't a Libertarian.

Again that quote doesn't disprove AnCapitalism.

Also, couldn't an AnCom society exist in a AnCap one?

...

I think if we all try to get along and focus on bettering ourselves we'll attain as perfect a society as we're able too.

yes, there's nothing that would prevent it

however, commies know they can't succeed on their own merits so they need to steal from others

up

So if workers and executives compose an exploitative system, why haven't any of you whining commie faggots started a business based on a commune model?

It is a free market, Keynesian economics bullshit that no one wants aside.

There is nothing stopping you from collaboratively creating building giant commune corporations which should be able to sell superior quality products at a lower price point and still give more to the worker, based on your propaganda.

The reason this doesn't happen is because you're borderline personalities who don't do real work, have no relation to the economic backbone that is the common laborer, and you don't understand management/risk absorption/money pits, you don't understand the time-risk-benefit triangle which is fundamental to all human endeavor, economics and politics aside. You are ignorant children.

Erm, economic freedom is the definition of capitalism. If you look at all this protectionist corporate-government cronyism and call it "capitalism", it's safe to say you don't know the proper definition of the word.

Except that if you've ever even smelled a book on economics, you should know that this is bullshit.

The majority of human interaction is anarchic; you probably don't have a friend who's in charge of your friendships and friend-related activities. You all just sort of work it out. Boom; anarchy. There's no reason that the market can't provide the same services that people depend on the government for.

Basically: "I want to upgrade my body and transcend my natural limits."
I'm cool with them, but if they come for my capitalism, then I've got some cyborg ass to kick.

Oh no, guys! We forgot to think about people when we constructed our worldview about how people live. Yep, never thought of that.
It turns out the tendency of humans to form hierarchical relationships on a voluntary basis somehow means people need to be ruled to survive.
Also, complex organization needs central management for some reason, despite the fact that every natural structure shows that complex structures are organized by individual actions rather than top-down management. No; the creationists had it right. Complex societies never have multiple competing nodes of organization; they're all shaped like pyramids. Can't have self-organized complex pluralistic societies, so you'd better not look at the cases of the principle working out in history.
And self-organization somehow means throwing out things like currency, trade, and division and separation of labor. Can't do that voluntarily, no. Somebody has to be threatened into compliance for that to work out.
It's not like the market is more efficient at providing goods and services than government monopolists. No; central fiat is much more encompassing and effective than consumer satisfaction.
…
That much sarcasm begins to get physically painful. Almost as painful as reading a pesudo-intellectual rant from some self-righteous pedant who hasn't bothered to learn one damned thing about the group of positions he believes himself to be addressing. Even the AnComs (who are grade-A buttfuck retarded) don't believe in throwing away social organization and the structures of modern culture (except money and/or trade; the asshats). Seriously, at least read a pamphlet or something.

Against something nobody here supports. That's called a "strawman".

There's too much assclownery in your post to reply to it all, so I'm going to point out that everything you say here is based on a false definition of capitalism, and since shitpuppets such as yourself have proven utterly impervious to correction, I'm not going to waste my breath. You must know you're wrong, which is why you try to drown out your conscience by shouting so much nonsensical propaganda.
You know what? I ain't even mad. You can go ahead and try out your lefty pinko bullshit but at the end of the day, capitalism will win. Why? Because reality follows truth, and capitalism is truth, which is why it always wins in the long run. That's why you have to work so hard pushing your bullshit propaganda and I'm enjoying a succulent steak.

Agorism all the way, baby.

As reluctant as I am to pathologize the opposition; bingo.

...

Have you ever thought that people do not want anarchism but rather a system that portrays a power structure with a underlying freedom that is not socially acceptable yet makes the system function correctly for all those involved?

Could you elaborate?

Please don't ruin transhumanism with your edgelord bullshit.

quads confirm

Real Anarchists want to Abolish/Destroy the State.

meh anarchism would likely never work… countries with very small populations may work but still wouldn't stop people from trying to gain power through authority.

¨I don’t think anarchism would work with the amount of Negroes and Muslims we have in the Western World to-day. Anarchism, I think, would only work in a homogenous White society.

anarchy is how africa happens

until a couple hundred years ago, africa was almost entirely anarchistic and when that was the case, everyone lived in mud huts and put mud in her hair and probably ate mud

anarchy is how extinction and obscurity happen. anarchy is why africa is terrible.

No, no, no. Negroes is how Africa happens.
They still live in mudhuts there, mate.

noice

total anarchy is the absence of doing

...

...

Authority only works when people recognize it. Noncompliant populations have proven to be un-governable. That's why mass civil disobedience is the most effective means of repelling invaders and toppling regimes.

aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Civilian-Based-Defense-English.pdf

Who, in an unrestricted firearms market, will likely:
1) Shoot each other over stupid shit.
2) Get shot trying to do stupid shit to other people.
3) Quit doing stupid shit to avoid getting shot.

Sounds like a win to me.

You do realize that they had lots of sophisticated, complex societies prior to imperialism? Then the imperialist powers ingrained themselves into the society, and were surprised when withdrawing the institutions people depended upon caused instability. Now, for the sake of these poor savages, they continue to fuck with these societies and supply them with foreign aid in the form of weapons and training, and supplies meant for the common folk but captured by the warlords who got all the weapons and training. No; they've been fucked with and every time they try to build any kind of social order it gets bulldozed by various connected interests. That's not anarchy; that's the chaos of international politics.

Wut?

That's fascinating, actually:
daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_very_different_12/LegalSystemsDraft.html
The Somali legal system is an interesting study in social organization and dispute resolution without a central authority structure. It's a strange synthesis of Islamic law (not Sharia; as explained in earlier chapters) and older Somali customs.

yes, having a state based on ethnicity is sooo un-Gentile!

...

Real Anarcho-individualism is the only coherent philosophy.
You must let go of traditional morality and ideologies to really become free.

yea

Anarchism has not, does not and will not work
why ?
Because the first place to be anarchistic will just be fucking overtaken by the government of another country, the end.

I'm sure my experience interning at McDicks for $0.05 an hour will give great opportunities for the future.

Work is not voluntary if it is required for the continuation of one's own existence.

Hey comrade, if you fix my car I'll give an I.O.U for 3 Gordon-hours of my time.

Sure Gordon. But I think it more valuable to me if I could trade these Gordon-hours to other people for bread.

That sounds reasonable.

And thus the Gordon-hour unit of currency was established once and forever world wide over.

...

Historically untrue:
daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_very_different_12/Book_Draft/Systems/PlainsIndianLaw.htm

And untrue in principle:
mises.org/sites/default/files/Myth of National Defense, The Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production_3.pdf

Armies are really good at fighting armies, and really bad at fighting just about anything else. It's easy to conquer an existing smaller state because it generally has an intact tax system, which you can just capture. Establishing a tax system, as well as legal compliance, is another matter entirely, and one that is easily foiled:
aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Civilian-Based-Defense-English.pdf

It helps when you put some thought and research into it. I understand that your teachers taught you well just why the massive apparatus that signs their paychecks is imperative to life as we know it, but there's more to history and political science than School House Rock.

It actually does. I got hired based on my experience at my minimum wage job. In fact, since minimum wage earners constitute the vast minority of American workers, it seems likely that a lot of people are moving up.

Work is not voluntary in that it takes work to live. It's called "pulling your weight". A job is voluntary in that you chose to pick up that job (and the other party agreed). The job is a solution to your problem of needing to eat, that you were born with. Nobody impressed that problem onto you. You are not a victim. You are fortunate to have the means to address your problem.

That's actually almost exactly how time banks work.
timebanks.org/
They're an interesting practice, but I don't think most specialists would want to participate in such an arrangement because it makes an hour of, say, a doctor's time equal to an hour of the janitor's time. Sounds nice from a "love and harmony" perspective, but that produces some undesirable incentives. To each their own, really. It might make for an interesting economic tool if interfaced with other currencies….

Next you'll post a book written by Marx as proof that communism works, get real faggot.

Funny because I remember videos of a Somali explaining a british reporter how the law means jack shit so he had to shoot the invaders himself to protect his land and then bribe the police.

You are aware that there is a reason why anarchism isn't practiced even in places where it is and was very well possible right ?, Texas/Nevada for instance they could be an anarchistic community but anarchism only works so long until you feel unsafe, I know that you are just anti-establishment and don't take this as condescending but I think you are just not capable of thinking in shades of gray, there isn't either one obsolete or the other, I would totally agree that modern governments are way to big and powerful but abandoning the state as a whole is ridicules, without regulation or a system larger operations wouldn't be possible, how do you expect a mars landing to be possible without a government that funds such things and regulate them a little? And I know your Idea right now would be the free market, but tell me how and why would multiple companies put money together to fly something to the mars not for profit but just for research and the increase of human knowledge ?

...

true

out of curiosity in someof the replies in other threads it has this after the odd one ~ ( you ) ~ as if it was me that posted the reply ..when I haven't even been in the topic??

kys

...

kys

That graphic is laughably stupid.

The "equilibrium" is determined by what? The true and perfect reflection of human nature that is free-market economics? No, it's determined by workers and owners exercising power over one another, and no one plays fair.

I'm talking about the traditional Somali legal system, not the current state of affairs, and I'm pretty sure you knew that but are looking for opportunities to be a prick.

Except that it is, and this has already been demonstrated.

What? If you feel unsafe, you just hire someone to provide safety. Do you really think that in the anarchistic communities throughout history, nobody felt unsafe? Why did they form all those kinship groups and such? Why bother having systems of law (as anarchists do, remember) if you feel unsafe? That's preposterous.

Which establishment? I rather like some of the current establishments. I just don't approve of the ones that operate principally on aggression.

I was raised on "shades of gray"-type thinking. Then I discovered formal logic, and realized that that type of thinking was being grossly overused. "Shades of gray", or continuum/spectrum-type thought is really quantitative; suggesting that two conditions differ only by the magnitude of their characteristics. It does in fact apply to a wide variety of things, but for fuck's sake it doesn't apply to everything. You can't put principle on a continuum, or you destroy that principle. Is it bright or dark? Hot or cold? Easy or difficult? Go ahead with the shades of gray. Is it ethical or unethical? True or false? These sorts of questions demand so-called "black-and-white" reasoning. The world of truth and falsehood is "black-and-white", even though it may be finely checkered and seem "gray" from a distance. The inability to apply binary logic is a cancer of modern thought, and it corrodes the very capacity for principle.

Why? What are you so afraid of happening?

Nothing is unregulated. Self-organizing systems wouldn't be self-organized if they didn't regulate themselves. Markets have proven time and again to be better regulators than central planners (see the Hayekian Knowledge Problem), and they've only screwed up when the central planners were dicking around with them. So yeah, large organizations would still be totally possible.

If there's a sufficient market demand for a Mars landing (that is, if people want to put their money into a Mars mission) then it will be funded. If something wouldn't be funded without the gov't, that means people don't really want it, so maybe it doesn't need to happen right now. That said; SpaceChain is in the works; they're entirely independent of gov't (they're new, so they haven't done much just yet).

I have no idea. Why does Red Bull do that sort of stuff? I mean, the Space Jump, all those records they set; no direct profit in any of those, right? Why do they do them then?
You don't think research and human knowledge are profits? You really don't think that those things are useful and that they improve our lives? Don't you think that the engineering challenge of sending men to Mars is a tremendous R&D opportunity? You don't think the problems they solve will yield useful new ideas and technologies for solving problems back here on Earth? This is generally how corporate R&D works; they attract brilliant minds to new projects and whatever they develop along the way becomes the starting point for new technologies and new products.

"Equilibrium" is more a concept than something that actually happens. It's a hypothetical condition where, in an unchanging market, at a given price, the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded (meaning that the amount being produced equals the amount people want). The thing is, there's no such thing as an unchanging market. Things are dynamic and always in flux. "Equilibrium" is a concept for teaching the idea in a sort of freeze-frame of the economy, but economists aren't suggesting that the market ever actually settles on that.

And you well know that doesn't matter when theory enters practice via politics. The concept of a "market fundamentalist" is more than just a concept.

Look at the idiotic "Laffer Curve". No one knows where the curve actually lies, but over the past four decades it's been used to justify policies that are destabilizing the entire planet.

That's why I'm opposed to those policies. No politics, no policies. Can't force your protectionist bullshit on anyone without a political apparatus.

How is a basic optimization curve "idiotic"? I mean, not only is that solid math, but the data supports it, so….
What are you getting at?

lmfao
insane autists

It's just the two of us. There's no reason to disguise your bumps.

Hitler was a nigress.
Islam is the one true religion.
White people do not exist.

Hey, look, I can say unsubstantiated and obviously false things, too! Too bad my claims aren't in pretty little pictures so people take them more seriously.

First two are me. Third is not.

I mean, you just did, so that's technically true… but if you didn't process that the thing you somehow feel cocky about not understanding actually is substantiated in context, then, I'm not really sure what to say to you. Since I'm a glutton for punishment, I guess I'll try:
"If your best argument against putting out a fire is that another one might start up later, it's safe to say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about."
Now replace "putting out a fire" with "getting rid of the state", and hopefully even you can process that after your third quart of paste today.

Under Rated Post.

...

...

...

Identity/racial/gender /pol or /sjw/ politics get out.

...

...

So, you equate culture with the state, and primitivity with the lack of a state?
And you just selected a grab-bag of persons, many of whom are explicitly not anarchists or even liberatrians, and lumped together everyone who claims to be any kind of anarchist?

Well it seems your programming has been successful; you're incapable of even identifying your opposition. You don't even know what you think you're opposing. It's kind of sad, actually.
You can put boxing gloves on a toddler, but I'm not going to fight him.

MEIN GOTT PURE IDEOLOGY

up

...

...

you get taxed more as you earn more, just under 40% for the higher brackets

Poor can earn those bonuses too

Be more specific

Anyone can invest in stocks, it isn't a "you must earn $500,000 minimum to invest"

Wow, how did you fail understanding the argument that badly?

They're not saying the state is bad, they're saying your philosophy is a failure and will simply lead to another state, only it will much likely be a lot worse than the one we already have.

top kek

Damn those are good pictures. You look like you've been fighting the good fight for a while comrade.

yes?

Socialism is not the same an ancomism; either way that pic is a strawman.

How well did that work out during The Great Depression?

That assumes the private property rights exist though, which is what ancomism campaigns against.

Ok then.

This guy gets it. Egoist anarchism all the way.

Except you wouldn't need to trade any time-tickets because in an ancom society you would still get that bread. Maybe if it were a mutualist society that could work.

here's an example of an ungoverned community in the US en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_City

bump for being an actual useful discussion on Holla Forums

anarcho hungryism

ya

wew

why

mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf

Except that his error occurred at the a priori level, meaning that it precedes observation. A false definition cannot be corrected by evidence. One must correct one's definition for the evidence to have any meaning.
You'd know that if you knew the difference between a priori and a posteriori.

If you're early enough in line, that is.

lol anarvhy

Go to hell

Many rulers is not a good thing. Let there be one ruler, one king.

...

meh

heh

...

hahahaha

moar

...

...

...

Just think how wrong Orwell was, and yet so close.

He was afraid we would become a communist dictatorship where everything is controller with an iron fist, he didn't realize the opposite would happen, each person would be absolutely swamped with useless information and fed custom tailored entertainment drowning their worries away into a sea of bullshit.

What a fucking idiot Orwell was, he didn't get it, he couldn't see the truth, humanity enslaved with soft, comfy nike branded chains, all the freedom in the world with no actual freedom involved.

How is anarchy "freedom" from capitalism? Business-wise it's the most unbridled form of capitalism. There's no protection whatsoever against oligarchs. They're already strong enough in the system we have now, why give them *legal* right to do shitty things?

We must FIGHT the cis white opressor!
BLACK POWER!!

...

fucking DROPPED

...

why??

heh

It's been debunked for years. Even Smith fans know it's wrong.

Supply and demand. Luxuries are more scarce, while necessities are currently produced in prodigious quantities.

That means it's impossible.
Egads! Those dastardly villains have gone and made people happy! The fiends!

True.
…There's no political system in place to allow them to become oligarchs. Every single business that has ever abused its relationship with customers has done so with the assistance of government. No exceptions. Even illegal cartels enjoy the protection from competition that comes from their trade being prohibited; it basically amounts to a tax-funded subsidy.
Without politics, businesses have to compete on the market, and can only get ahead by satisfying consumer demand.
They've been given the legal right to do shitty things by the government. EPA made it illegal for private property owners to sue them for pollution. SEC and FDIC absolved banks of individual responsibility for financial mis-management of funds. Limited Liability law protects executives from being sued for their management decisions. Intellectual property law allows large corporations to prevent new technologies from entering the market and competing with them. FDA stops dying patients from getting life-saving drugs because they might have side effects, and protects big pharma companies from competition. The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement protects big tobacco companies from being sued for damage caused by misrepresentation of their products (in exchange for an annual payment to certain agencies, which they've already issued bonds on, so as tobacco sales go down, their bonds default, forcing them to oppose measures that would reduce tobacco sales). Every instance of corporate fuckery has been enabled by some statute or letter-agency policy.
You name any eeeeevil businessman, and I'll show you how he either wasn't that evil, or he derived his eeeeevil power from the government. Every time.

id rather have a military empire

...

why

this

why not

...

Is this a daily thing now ?

everyday

...

up

up

...

...

...

why not

pick one