Do you agree?

If they're not libertarians than they've already violated the NAP by not considering property sacred.

literally no true scotsman
also, lolbertarians=/=ancaps

this is a fake quote anyway, and threads like this should be deleted
If you want a discussion, post a thread like:
"I'm x, debate me"

lolberts actually think this

Well, of course it can! My oxygen is priced so cheaply, the homeless can afford it!

assuming they enter a completely voluntary contract to work in my factory for lodging oxygen for the next 50 years

lefty user actually quoting a post about rights without stirner spam

Anyone who voices disagreement or opposition to capitalism is a potential thief, murderer, or terrorist. By expressing anti capitalist sentiment, you are calling for future violations of the NAP which makes you an aggressor to other people and their property. The just and reasonable answer to bloodthirsty freedom hating order hating agitators is a prompt bullet to the head.

Expressing anti capitalist sentiment is a violation of the NAP in itself.

expressing propertarian sentiment is a violation of NAP
(i'll kill anyone who tresspasses/disagrees that objects are an extension of my self)

I did a little googling and it's basically a real quote (though the translation there isn't too good), it comes from "Táctica y Estrategia de la Revolución Latinoamericana", original Spanish version at archive.is/KEYDS – the quote is on p. 11:

In the Engish "Che Guevara Reader" it's translated on p. 304 at archive.is/zkbjS like this:

My, my. What a stupid little communist you are.

NAP is circular reasoning, because you must use aggression to ward off those who dissent to your idea of property.

Back to /liberty/ with you.

Nice try there, commie. I'd only use aggression against violators of the NAP and thus only people who are directly threatening me.

Don't conflate us with you. Ancaps want to leave everyone alone. "An"coms want to use force and violence to steal from the wealthy. Under voluntarism, you don't get hurt unless you're already hurting someone or their property.

Exactly it's circular logic. Let's say the workers try to seize their property, they all work it and are all dependent on each other and don't think it's right for you to have sole ownership of their surplus product.

The result? You have to use aggression. So to be "anarcho"-capitalist requires the elimination of all who don't conform to your concept of property.

Your mere existence is a violation of the NAP. Your argument is irrelevant and invalid.

Is that Sam Hyde

They're already violating the NAP, I'd call the guards to gun them down.

Which leads me to my first point: a society adhering to the NAP requires the execution of dissenters which is an act of aggression itself.

You mean self defense.

holy fuck, I'm dying

Let's say the worker's collectively build something, but one guy thinks he put more labor into it. How does he prove it? Also, nuke his home, y/n?

The workers might of built it, but they don't own it.

Poor families rising up to seize collective ownership of finite resources that serve as the act means of subsistence for them, might consider those same resources being withheld from them because they lack an arbitrary amount of currency to be an act of aggression.

Then he'll be rewarded with more compensation. He's still not entitled to have full discretion over everyone's share.

I'm not a posadist.

Yes, and they'd simply be wrong.

Great job OP for bringing out all the tankies and ayncraps.

reread that.
so he's clearly implying a case where capitalist nations are the aggressors in nuclear war
distasteful, but understandable reasoning. Saying he is in the wrong is begging the question, as he is wrong if socialism is wrong and capitalism is right. if capitalism, however, causes death (property by definition necessitates murder), then che is correct here.
so the quote is sourced, but if you don't want to be accused of faking quotes, post the actual quote

Your ideology is a mess and private courts are one of the most retarded ideas I've ever heard in my entire life.

property is a violation of human rights
the right to not have violence used against you because someone hallucinates that they've soul-bonded to an object

How much more compensation? Out of whose shares? Who gets the last word? What if they can't agree?

Wow…

That quote really brings out the violence obsessed nature of socialists. Praising this murdering pig should result in forced expulsion if not death.

...

violence is good when used against capitalist shitters

Wrong. Property is a natural right we are all born with to pursue and protect. Property is prehistoric and has been around since the dawn of humanity.

You could say the capitalist has broken the NAP by exploiting workers?

this was my first post, I purposefully made it so obvious that everyone should of known it was a joke. Then this guy>>864811, possibly inspired by my post, makes another painfully obvious joke post. I then follow up with an even more ridiculous post, and then I'm done. Then I learn that someone's actually so fucking retarded that they thought I wasn't joking. Then I just had a bit of fun.

Jesus H Christ, people. Ya'll need lessons on identifying bait or some shit.

Didn't see the first one and the second post isn't something we haven't' seen ancaps say before.

I refuse to believe you're this bad at identifying bait.

I didn't see the oxygen post but the second post sums up Love Life Autism.

Wrong again, stupid wrong. The capitalist has given the worker a voluntary deal that he could leave at any time. This is neither "aggression" nor exploitation you entitled millennial fuck.

This isn't even bait, it's just a guy making fun of ancaps.

...

primitive communism (no private property, resources distributed by need) is the 'natural' state of humans.
study anthropology

also read zizek

There's no ancaps here. Do you still think you're talking to propertarians?

OH GOD IT KEEPS HAPPENING

depends how many millions we're talking. 3 million people died in the Bengal Famine. South korea massacred 200,000 people in 1950. the Nazis killed in excess of 30 million people.
So yeah, a couple million isn't worth that much historically. I'd say the expedient victory of socialism isn't worth 1 billion atomic victims, but if it's like 20 million? I don't expect a global war to kill less than 20 million conventionally.

I agree unironically, as long as it's less than half of the population.

Well idk maybe that's just my inner liberalism speaking that I need to combat.

Reminds me of Rousseau's "On the Origin of the Inequality of Mankind"

are you saying I'm being trolled
also

lets say me and my friends start a worker owned buisness, we grow to the point where we steal workers from underyou

wat do