Thoughts on Voluntaryism?

I know but it's kinda lame that only thing people use against Voluntaryism are memes and some really extreme situations.

10 hour TEDTalk on "Why do capitalists keep refusing to understand their own ideology?"

You can't if it violates the N.A.P.

Why having a privet property in the first place ?

Why not owning it together with the rest of your community ?

Preventing me from buying all the public parks and converting them into BDSM kiddie-torture gardens is violating the NAP you fucking communist.
PRIVATE SECURITY! WE'VE GOT A COMMIE HERE!

Because I'm not part of the communitiy? In AnCapistan we are all strong independent individuals with entrepreneurship competing with each other, running our own ideas. There is no "communitiy" or "society", it's a meme.

nice meme there, son

how to get workers then ?

By making the conditions for your business the best? If your business sucks nobodoy will work for you and you will fail at running things.
Also, I'm not against worker Co-ops but entire idea of Voluntaryism is to allow other kinds of business to be ran in the same economy.

Capitalism is not individualistic. You've yet to explain why property rights should be given only to the wealthy, rather than the public.
Your fantasy land where the world is made up of 7 billion small businesses will never happen, it's impossible by definition.

It is possible if we are living in a more free society. You don't need to collecetivize everything for things to work properly, you just need to stop goverment from subsidizing big businesses and protecting corporations and the state from manipulating media how they see fit. RIght now we are not free but we can get there.

That will be at the expanse of your project life span, productivity, and spreading power
No capitalist in his sane mind will do it, capitalism own mode of function is against that.

Not yet. But they will have to make drastic changes in order for the system to work.

Like what ?

Let me ask you this: who would enforce what could be private property and what couldn't? Because if the answer is nobody then there's nobody to stop the exact scenario you want to prevent (and not to mention, if there was it would be a state or a private state; either way it's a violation of the NAP.

It's mathematically impossible because of the need for workers. Also because the market would be oversaturated with businesses so many of them would inevitably be outcompeted by the others. It's like an-caps don't understand economics or something.

Giving more autonomy to the workers? Better living conditions? Idk, we'll think of something.
Like I said, I'm not against worker run co-ops, I'd like to see more of them.

Um, majortiy of people maybe? You're talking as if peope would allow some bilionare to buy all water sources and prevent them from drinking it. That kind of scenario would ALWAYS end badly. He'd have to genocide entire population to prevent them from rising up. I'm talking about privatizing some small things like privately run store that sells goods and services or a privately run clinic. I ain't talkig about prvatazing major food and water sources and preventing vast majortiy of people from acessing it. That's just absurd.

In ancapistan the population of workers will be more than the capitalists ?

Pretty positive, because we really should not be fighting each other but instead smashing the state.

and yet thousands die every day because they can't afford food and water
You should look into mutualism user I think it's more aligned with what you delusionally think capitalism could hypothetically be.
The market is freer when workers own the means.

I think capitalists will always outnumber workers but that also depends on the level of automatation. If automation is high workers won't be doing much manual, physical labor so they would have to do something else.
Btw you can be a worker (as in working for someone) and a capitalist at the same time.

sure thing, I'll look into it

Except the conception of the state for anarchists and ancaps is completely different. A democratic commune would be called statist by ancaps because the community would be aggressing against the ancaps ability to manage his property as he sees it. Ancapistan would be labeled as statist by anarchists because it preserves hierarchy and has a privatized state to institute hierarchy. We've got no common goals and helping a collection of autistic closeted fascists is retarded.

t. pure ideology

sorry I meant to say workers will outnumebr capitalists, lmao

Here a crack shows in your ideology so big it can't be ignored
Giving more autonomy to the workers?

So a workers community management ? that goes against everything capitalism is about, for such a thing is an obstacle in capitalism pursuit of profit

Given by whom ?
a company won't do it for there is no profit in there, they can't own lands to feed them selves the capitalists already own it and can't built houses on privet lands

The access to that automation will be limited expansive and monopolized either by companies in that filed by buying each other or colluding.

So the masses will work for the interest of the few ? right ?

Bro if you have any human sympathy with the workers, the builders of civilization, GIVE THEM THE CIVILIZATION THAT THEY BUILT BY THEIR OWN HANDS
You make Ancapism looks even more stupid in my eyes thx

Incompatible with capitalism. If I don't have the option to comfortably opt out, it's incompatible.

I wonder who could be behind this post

My gott

It's a meme. Any system requires a coercive apparatus to function, in he case of "Voluntarysm" that coercion is required to maintain private property. The question then isn't to coerce or not to coerce, but how to use coercion to create the greatest freedom for the greatest number. In addition AnCaps fail to recognize that there are two types of restrictions on freedom, artificial and environmental.

Artificial restrictions are created intentionally by an actor with the intent of restricting freedom. An example would be a state restricting freedom of speech.

Environmental restrictions on freedom are those imposed by, obviously, the environment. An example would be a person not going to school because they can't afford it. This is not technically coercion, because coercion implies somebody is intentionally forcing you to do something, but it certainly still counts as a restriction on freedom.

AnCaps essentially pretend that environmental restrictions aren't a thing, and to make things even worse they completely ignore the possibility of artificially created environmental restrictions. If somebody buys all the water in an area, and then forces people to work for him in exchange for water, he is creating an environment that restricts people's freedom and compels people to do what he wants.

Nonsense. Not only are libsocs' and ancaps' conception of what constitute a "State" different, they fight it for different reasons.

Without a doubt, one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

...

Ancap bullshit.

Sage

top fucking kek

This is about the political "ideology" known as voluntarism, not metaphysics.

Funny pic and saved, but I think someone will understand the need for spaces that approximate public spaces, as in you don't get fined for being there, and you don't need a license or shekkels to hang around.

You could have a voluntary socialist society.
The only punishment for non-violent offenses being banishment. Just pretend the area is a corporation's property, and every person living there is an equal share-holder

Extremely retarded

...