[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/lit/ - Literature

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:05 UTC+1 No.5018234 Report

So I just came out of a several hour debate with a fucktonne of Ancaps who are part of the Libertarian party and my brain hurts from their fucking stupid, yet they all patted each other on the back for "winning the debate" because I just dropped my shit and left after constantly trying to explain constantly basic economic theory and basic sociology, which they just ignored and continued framing the debate in their own bullshit way and throwing fallacies out like spraying a shotgun, BAM RED HERRING WRAPPED IN A AD HOC, BAM BEGGING THE QUESTION WRAPPED IN FALSE DILEMMA etc etc.
I came with mountains of evidence, they just ignored it. Peer reviewed studies, ignored. Statistical data, ignored. Economic trends, ignored.
They just kept on going back too their absolute bullshit "Capitalism is voluntary barter trade between individuals" (One Capitalism has nothing in common with barter. Two Capitalism is a mode of production. Three this version of Capitalism extracts CAPITAL from the fucking equation) and that private property doesn't involve any form of coercion what so ever because the world is infinite with infinite resources so everyone would have equal access and those who rise to the top will be the best (WHAT?!? WHHHHAAT??!?)

How in fuck do you actually win a debate here? There was nothing I could do, they were literally just arguing absurdities taken to the absolute extreme and then just ignored everything I said while claiming morale superiority because "Their society is non-coercive, your society is" while ignoring that Capitalism is an outrageously coercive system and requires coercion basically on every level and you instantly have coercion once you leverage inequality.

They were so fucking stupid, but somehow, they and their friends are all claiming they "won" because I no longer wanted to waste my time arguing with people who literally REFUSED to refute any of my points or present an argument that didn't involve the most absurd abstractions presented in a complete vacuum.

What can you do to win a debate against such people? I have no fucking clue.

(also just to add, they actually argued that slavery is voluntary and free of coercion)
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:09 UTC+1 No.5018247 Report

I didn't read your post, but a poster of your pic is currently hanging on my wall along with pic related :^)
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:15 UTC+1 No.5018273 Report

I don't know what else you can do, man. If you called out their fallacies and came with data to back up your claims and kept your wits about you then you've done pretty much all you can.
It seems pretty rare that you'd be in an organized debate against a group full of people who don't know basic fallacies and shit though.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:16 UTC+1 No.5018278 Report

are you Russian?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:23 UTC+1 No.5018304 Report

I sympathise, but don't worry about it. All of the energy has fallen away from the ACist movement. They've failed to snowball the way they threatened to a few years ago. What happened is that you talked to a bunch of crazy people and failed to cure them. There's no shame in that.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:23 UTC+1 No.5018306 Report

Post your arguement
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:31 UTC+1 No.5018344 Report

I highly doubt any AnCap argued that "slavery is voluntary and free of coercion"; slavery is the exact thing anarcho-capitalism is against.

To me, it sounds more like you had a petty internet fight with some AnCaps, didn't understand their arguments, made yourself look like a dick, and now you've come here to have a bitch and cry about some people that made you look dumb.
Pls provide screencaps of said debate, and then you'll have some credibility here.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:32 UTC+1 No.5018348 Report

Nope, everyone told me my blank walls were creepy so I bought some posters to fill them. I don't have much personality so I selected them based on the designs that appealed to me most aesthetically, rather than any personal connection I had with their content.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:33 UTC+1 No.5018349 Report


Sadly it wasn't so much an "organized" debate with a moderator and such, but a public political debate in a public forum.
The reason I am worried is because their abstractions which then they generalized to the absolute extreme were easy to swallow by the public, while I was on the back foot trying to explain power relations, social relations, economics.

They would pose "Absurdity presented in an absolute vacuum" I would reply "In that case yes, but that is a total ideological abstraction presented in a vacuum and has no application in the real world", they would then go "YOU JUST ADMITTED WE ARE RIGHT *generalize vacuumed abstraction over all of society*", I would then try to explain that makes no sense because of social and productive relations which I myself had to try explain in a short period.

I would have loved for it to have been recorded
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:35 UTC+1 No.5018358 Report

The base point of the AnCap movement is "everyone should be free to live their lives as they see fit; people should be free to earn money and succeed financially as they see fit, without being forced to give up their hard earned wealth to others who don't want to work as hard."

What the fuck is so bad about that?
It's basically just "do what you want without harming others, be as successful as you can be"
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:36 UTC+1 No.5018368 Report

Why do statists hate freedom?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:38 UTC+1 No.5018378 Report

>I highly doubt any AnCap argued that "slavery is voluntary and free of coercion"; slavery is the exact thing anarcho-capitalism is against.

Explain then how:
"Someone who has absolutely nothing, has to take a job where they get paid no wage, but are fed barely subsistence level to survive and are put in shelter, is entirely voluntary, because that person can choose to die if they didn't take that job"

That is slavery dude. Also it's again a complete fucking retarded abstraction, because it entirely ignores POWER RELATIONS behind such a structure and such things as being forced to keep working because the land owner has a monopoly on violence through his private army.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:38 UTC+1 No.5018381 Report

because capitalism is inherently coercive. I have never met an ancap who didn't present an arguement that alkso managed to counter the structuralist perspective and without being willing to do that you're deciding to willfully ignore sociology and the entirety of the social science, which I think is at least intellectually dishonest.

I can empathize with OP, it's really annoying to argue with someone who is unwilling to take the debate to the next level and just rests on simple generalities in a complex world.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:39 UTC+1 No.5018387 Report


Because it ignores every social, material and power relation behind Capitalism.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:41 UTC+1 No.5018390 Report

You aren't really free until you de-spook yourself from capitalism.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:42 UTC+1 No.5018397 Report

How is it slavery when you yourself said they have a choice?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:43 UTC+1 No.5018402 Report

What alternative promotes individual freedom like capitalism?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:45 UTC+1 No.5018410 Report


Their choice is to die or to be forced to work for nothing.

Hmm great choice. Suddenly violent coercion isn't coercion anymore.

"You have a choice to die by my gun or work as a slave. totally free choice, no coercion at all bro"
& 06/16/14(Mon)03:45 UTC+1 No.5018411 Report

It sounds like you mired yourself with facts and depth. People don't want to be informed, they want entertainment. Do what Hitchens did and mask your arguments with jokes.

I can picture you sperging out on the lectern. It would have helped to have some style instead of just peacing-out at the end and letting them win by default.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:47 UTC+1 No.5018421 Report

So it is more free for a state to support them by taking money from successful people by coercion? Ever hear of negative freedom? The freedom to fail?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:49 UTC+1 No.5018427 Report

Egoist anarchism.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:51 UTC+1 No.5018431 Report

Already debunked.

Also demonstrate the validity of absentee private ownership as a human right.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:51 UTC+1 No.5018433 Report

Isn't that the same as anarcho-capitalism?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:51 UTC+1 No.5018434 Report

But that implies that there are unlimited resources and that those that do exist or at least the majority aren't under control of another.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:53 UTC+1 No.5018438 Report

You think sound arguments and facts win debates? Look at what politicians do. Do politicians win public debates with sound and valid reasoning? No. You have to win over your audience emotionally not logically. Against ancaps, call them racist or sexist or something personally insulting about ayn rand
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:53 UTC+1 No.5018439 Report

There are no human rights. They're made up.
So you think you should be given some means of production? You entitled cunt.
>mfw lefties show their true, entitled faces
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)03:54 UTC+1 No.5018443 Report

they're working for food. are you dumb?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:01 UTC+1 No.5018471 Report

>because capitalism is inherently coercive

I've never actually seen a good argument for this statement. Let's say I agree with you that how capitalism is implemented today, it is coercive (corporatism, with government enforcement). But lets forget about how its implemented today, and focus on the AnCap wet dream: An anarchist society of voluntary transactions. In such a society, some types of firms would naturally be more efficient than the rest. I see AnCapitalism as stating that Capitalist firms (investor owned) would be more prevalent in such a society than Socialist firms (worker owned). But in an anarchist society, both are permissible.

I think any AnCap who says that a socialist firm would be impermissible in their dream society is holding contradictory beliefs. Anarchy, by definition isn't possible if there is some governing force preventing socialist firms from rising up.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:02 UTC+1 No.5018473 Report

>there are no human rights
But I thought anarchistic capitalism rests on the "right" to make a living however you want without bringing harm to others as previously stated in this thread.
And I never said I was entitled to a means of production, only that coercion exists.
>actually using that
It's even ironic seeing how I'm actually right-wing.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:04 UTC+1 No.5018476 Report

>An anarchist society of voluntary transactions.

Not even worth debating because you have just abstracted away every single social and productive relation behind Capitalism.

How can your society be "anarchist" when it's hierarchical strictly across wealth lines which are held by private class monopoly on violence?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:05 UTC+1 No.5018483 Report

The less you say, the better. Focus more on proving the opposition is stupid than on speaking what's correct
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:06 UTC+1 No.5018486 Report

>arguing politics


>arguing with people in general


I understand proseltyzing your views. I understand keeping your views to yourself. What I don't understand is debating them with others - the only time good things come from this is when somebody correctly uses the Socratic method BUT NOBODY UNDERSTANDS THE SOCRATIC METHOD. Otherwise it's just a verbal fight, a dickwaving contest so that you can say "lol I win" at the end. Pointless unless you like competition and sly argumentation.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:08 UTC+1 No.5018495 Report

This, it's only useful if you're going to influence the political framework, but we haven't seen anything like this since the founding fathers.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:11 UTC+1 No.5018503 Report

No, anarchism is waiting for mankind to evolve into a sort of above-man. An above-man is entirely rational and can see the futility of violence, governance and coercion.
It's the natural hierarchy, the only way to stop it is by governance and coercion.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:15 UTC+1 No.5018513 Report


people shouldent be able to influence the political framework anyways.

in todays day and age, they dont, but not because they are necessarily barred from doing so, but because there is no risk to them doing so. which is to say, the 'voting public' is better understood as an extension of those that manufacture consent.

freedom of opinion can only exist when your opinion doesnt count.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:17 UTC+1 No.5018522 Report

>the only way to stop it is by governance and coercion
Which is the point of a pragmatic government, to counter-act nature.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:19 UTC+1 No.5018527 Report

Why is nature so bad? Why are you afraid of failing, because it makes you try?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:22 UTC+1 No.5018532 Report

Not commenting on the rest of your post, but I probably agree that anarchy is the future. I don't think governance will be able to keep up with the ability of technology to thwart governance. At the very least, a one system government seems increasingly unlikely if Humanity every manages to get off this rock.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:22 UTC+1 No.5018535 Report

Why is nature good?
I never said I was afraid of failure or a system that allows you to fail.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:29 UTC+1 No.5018558 Report

Pro-tip: any system has you battling nature
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:30 UTC+1 No.5018563 Report

You sound like a healthy, high functioning autist
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:31 UTC+1 No.5018565 Report

Nature is good because it is free. We shouldn't need majority elected leaders dictating how we can live.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:32 UTC+1 No.5018571 Report

But nature creates a hierarchy, which is inherently not free.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:36 UTC+1 No.5018586 Report

From my perspective as someone studying Psychology, a lot of these Libertarians and An-Caps seem to be "Reason-fetishizers", they are sort of arch-Rationalists who implicitly believe that the "logical" ideas that exist inside their heads are more real than actual empirical reality, a belief made explicit by the Austrian School's promotion of logical propositions over empirical evidence.
Many of them seem to be good examples of Jung's Introverted Thinking psychological type (INTPs and ISTPs). A neurotic person of this type who has cut themselves off from their auxiliary sensation or intuition functions is incapable of being reasoned with using empirical data, because all sense-data is forced to fit inside their preconceived ideas.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:36 UTC+1 No.5018587 Report

It is free, it was created freely by free and voluntary transactions. What is not free is artificially prohibiting the upward and downward movement of people financially.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:38 UTC+1 No.5018590 Report

>Hello, /lit/ I just came out of a debate with a bunch of people who actually label themselves as complete simpletons who have no idea of reality and I was quite upset with their stupidity.

You are the reason Ancaps exist, they believe that their ridiculous utopia will weed out stupid people who get themselves into trouble because they don't recognize danger. First of all, your values and perception of the world are completely different from these people. I can assume that you think the death of a massive amount of innocent people would discredit an ideology. There is no way of arguing that applied Anarcho-Capitalism would not immediately result in death and suffering. Anarcho-Capitalists therefore value death and suffering. It is viewed as the consequence "inferior" people deserve.

I'm not quite so extreme, but I believe that you are deserve all the frustration and wasted time you earned from giving anarchists of any strip, the time of day.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:41 UTC+1 No.5018594 Report

>free and voluntary transactions
That isn't even a part of nature, and and upward and downward movement is a property of a hierarchy, which is inherently not free, what do you not understand about this?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:48 UTC+1 No.5018614 Report

How are free and voluntary transactions not natural?
Why is hierarchy not free when I just demonstrated how it is?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:53 UTC+1 No.5018625 Report

You never proved how they are natural, but I'll tell you why, because if they are "free", then they can't be a part of nature since nature is a hierarchy, which cannot be free, even if it gives you a choice because you are forced to make a choice, and by forcing you it is inherently not free. Th e whole point that you're missing is that you're not free with any system.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)04:59 UTC+1 No.5018636 Report

You think just because one option is objectively better than the other that there is no choice. But nature doesn't change no matter what option you choose. You can work and live, or not work and die. Nature must be free, because the natural state, uncontrolled, exists without intervention, like a free market.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:02 UTC+1 No.5018642 Report

>You think just because one option is objectively better than the other that there is no choice.
I implied the exact opposite.
>You can work and live, or not work and die
That's a choice where you're forced to choose, so there is no freedom.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:07 UTC+1 No.5018653 Report

Well, actually, not working is just the privation of work. So choosing not to work and not doing anything (not choosing) are different but have the same result.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:09 UTC+1 No.5018659 Report

The delay of making th choice, in this case work, is not the removal of choice, it still exists and you're still forced to make it.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:10 UTC+1 No.5018662 Report

No they aren't. If they were just working for food they would just start farming, too bad all the land is owned by the capitalist class.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:12 UTC+1 No.5018670 Report

Youre one of those fags who thinks because his lettuce is "all natural" it is better than other lettuce.
Cant tell if baiting or not from how stupid your argument is.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:13 UTC+1 No.5018671 Report


You have to use jokes and metaphors and anecdotes when you're debating. Like an anon already said, debates that are tried in a public forum and rely on public response require that you be charismatic and entertaining. Facts are useful in essay or research paper form, but in these kinds of debates you have to think not only of the facts, but of effective ways of communicating these facts.

>wage slavery

You should have stated that. I thought you were talking about actual slavery. To not work is not certain death in the free world anyway. It's a stupid argument. I see where you are coming from, but if that is how you argued against wage slavery, then I can see why you lost.

I just want to say, though, as a classical liberal (I'll usually say libertarian because the term liberal has been so perverted in the United States that no American will know what I'm talking about if I say classical liberal), I wish American brand of libertarianism would just die. They make libertarians elsewhere look like morons.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:14 UTC+1 No.5018675 Report


AnarchoPac just rips apart the Ancap debating style here.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:17 UTC+1 No.5018686 Report

No, to delay the choice long enough is to not make the choice. Choosing not to work is just the formal acceptance of not choosing. When it is accepted that you will not work you forfeit to nature and are, thus, exercising negative freedom. The freedom to starve to death by not making a decision.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:18 UTC+1 No.5018694 Report

No, I'm simply stating that it is better to be in control of your self than to be controlled along with nature. Personal freedom also entails natural freedom.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:21 UTC+1 No.5018699 Report

>Any anarchism
Get a load of this guy!
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:22 UTC+1 No.5018705 Report

OP's mistake is:

1. Believing that dry facts are going to win a debate with human beings.

2. Believing that politics/ideology/theory isn't all inherently idealistic and biased in some way. You say "basic economic theory" as if only one theory has ever been utilized and there is one basic theory that is proven and obvious. Studies and facts are good for supporting your arguments, but it's not hard to find legitimate peer-reviewed studies and facts that will say the opposite of anything yours say. Intelligent reasonable people have disagreed since the dawn of time over what is right or true or what is valuable, because if you trace any theory or ideology down to its roots, you will encounter an assumption about morality or people that is its foundation.

Look at a philosopher like Peter Singer. He has one of the most rigid and logical worldviews of any philosopher working today. Every belief he has is rooted in his brand of preference utilitarianism. Because he believes so much in this system, every decision he makes is right or wrong according to the basic principles of preference utilitarianism.

But plenty of people don't believe that preference utilitarianism is the key to an ethical life. And that's okay, because while Singer's individual beliefs may be based on rigid logic, the assumption at the heart of it is just that, an assumption.

There is no one right way and everyone who disagrees is a moron. There's just consistency and articulation.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:24 UTC+1 No.5018709 Report

Only retards debate retards.

>someone studying psychology
>Jung's Introverted Thinking psychological type

Must be community college.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:25 UTC+1 No.5018711 Report

By choosing not to work you are making a choice, the choice not to work. Choosing an option is a choice isn't it? You can delay until you die, but then that would be the same as choosing not to work, since you have done no work. The choice still exists and you made a choice, you cannot break free of this choice, therefore you are not free.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:27 UTC+1 No.5018717 Report

Just because two choices meet the same fate does not mean they are the same choice. You can chokse not to decide, by avoiding positive acceptance that you will do no work. But that is different to saying you may or may not do work.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:28 UTC+1 No.5018721 Report


Yeah I think I understand this and it's why I felt like I "lost" the debate, because I just couldn't get my view and point across because I was always on the backfoot.

Funny you brought up Peter Singer, one of my best friends (who working on artificial intelligence at the ANU) is literally doing 1 on 1 project with him right now.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:33 UTC+1 No.5018736 Report

>You can chokse not to decide
Which is a choice, you CHOSE not to decide on that choice, what's so hard about understanding that, you made a choice. You are forced to make a choice at some point, so since you are forced, you are not free.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:37 UTC+1 No.5018748 Report

You are not forced by anyone but yourself. To eliminate choice is to eliminate freedom to fail. Choice exists for everyone except the mentally invalid. That is why I would not refer to it as choice when you choose to abstain from choice, that is paradoxical. Rather it is the absence of choice.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:38 UTC+1 No.5018754 Report

I really have to object against the "it's not really voluntary if the only other option is starvation" line of reasoning here. I do think that it is a form of coercion, but it's still about as free from coercion as you can possibly get.

The only way to completely eliminate "work or starve" situations would be to guarantee that absolutely *everyone* gets enough to live by even if they just sit on their asses being lazy mofos all day. Which naturally means taking food away from other people.

It's not a solution I oppose, but it does involve a hell of a lot more coercion than the ancap model.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:42 UTC+1 No.5018760 Report

First of all this looks like a great thread, so thanks for that OP.

I suggest you read Schopenhauer's "The Art of Always Being Right", learn to use those persuasive techniques, then kick their shit in next time. Or better yet, read the book and then stop arguing with retards. They did exactly what ol shopalop described, came out the winner due to mere obstinance, while you're stuck with all your facts and evidence and obvious correctness mad as hell.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:43 UTC+1 No.5018763 Report

>You are not forced by anyone but yourself
If you delay the choice it eventually is made for you, the decision is forced upon you.
>To eliminate choice is to eliminate freedom to fail.
Yes you are given the freedom to fail, but it isn't complete freedom, there is no complete freedom in any system. If there was I wouldn't be arguing this and would simply point you to the magic utopian system that grants complete freedom.
>I do think that it is a form of coercion, but it's still about as free from coercion as you can possibly get.
This is exactly where I'm getting at.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:45 UTC+1 No.5018770 Report

I think the salient point here is that positive freedom doesn't actually exist. Freedom to do things is a perversion of freedom from the things that would have stopped you from doing said things, and that only exists in degrees.

The system that could be considered 'most free' is whatever system alleviates the most want. You create more freedom giving a poor person a hundred dollars than you do giving rothbard a hundred dollars, because you free him from far more needs and wants that way, which creates exponentially more, lets say, positive freedom, as a result.

This system would logically have to have a wealth cap to function, because past a certain point earning wealth gives you very little freedom from want, whereas redistributing that wealth can yield far more potential freedom.

And whats all this nonsense about nature? Fuck nature. Nature is a blind, dumb, directionless force with no empathy whatsoever. It simply is, sometimes it can be profound and admirable, sometimes it gets in the way, appealing to it is nonsense, especially since you have to draw some arbitrary line between Nature and Not nature, and fall right into the same fallacy the stoics did.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:48 UTC+1 No.5018776 Report

>because the world is infinite with infinite resources so everyone would have equal access and those who rise to the top will be the best

You don't even know what you're arguing against so of course you made a fool of yourself.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:48 UTC+1 No.5018777 Report

Freedom is not utopian. Utopian would be a free world sans scarcity. You're associating freedom with only positive freedom. I can agree that nature may be interpreted as coercive, but nature itself, in a free system that does not control nature, is a feelingless entity like a free market. To work or starve is the body coercing the mind.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:48 UTC+1 No.5018779 Report

That's exactly where I'm getting at here >>5018763
There is no system with complete and total freedom.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:51 UTC+1 No.5018785 Report

A wealth cap limits the freedom to earn, not to mention the economic ramifications. Redistribution is coercion. That is tyranny. To give people money is limiting the freedom to fail.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:52 UTC+1 No.5018787 Report

>Freedom is not utopian
I assumed that freedom would be the center of a utopian society for an ancap.
>I can agree that nature may be interpreted as coercive, but nature itself, in a free system that does not control nature, is a feelingless entity like a free market. To work or starve is the body coercing the mind.
>To work or starve is the body coercing the mind.
Exactly, there is still coercion, not freedom.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:53 UTC+1 No.5018791 Report


All I'm getting from this is "I think positive freedom is more important than negative freedom and I'm willing to sacrifice the latter to achieve the former".

Which is ok and all, but don't give me this crap about what "real freedom" is when you can clearly see the distinction.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:55 UTC+1 No.5018798 Report

An AnCap society would not be utopian, as negative freedom still exists.
That is your coercion on your self. To control that would only limit your individual freedom
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:55 UTC+1 No.5018799 Report

>how come people HAVE to fall down every time they jump up? This proves that they are not really free at all!
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:57 UTC+1 No.5018804 Report

Yes and since there is still coercion you do not have complete freedom.
Yes that is ht I'm saying, not even joking.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:58 UTC+1 No.5018805 Report

The Positive Freedom you get in an unregulated system is far and away dwarfed by the negative freedom you get in a redistributive system.

Ten percent of the population must give up the ability to make obscene amounts of money they can't even pragmatically use to create untold freedom from want, which will then properly manifest itself as freedom to do.

Furthermore, coercion is a nonfactor, because you are coerced by needs no matter what. Limiting coercion is not feasible because it permeates the very foundations of our existence. To will is to react to coercion.

And Freedom to fail? I think you need to throw off this Free Will nonsense, because if someone is going to fail in your system they would have always failed in it. This safety net doesn't have to include the five percent of the population that doesn't want to work, they're a nonfactor too.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:58 UTC+1 No.5018807 Report

Ancaps understand that nature places demands on the individual and establishes inequality amongst many individual. This does not refute any of their reasoning. It is actually irrelevant to a discussion with them.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)05:59 UTC+1 No.5018814 Report

>The Positive Freedom you get in an unregulated system is far and away dwarfed by the negative freedom you get in a redistributive system.

I'm pretty fucking sure you are mixing up positive and negative freedom here
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:01 UTC+1 No.5018818 Report

Then why was OP shitting himself over the people he was arguing against not understanding that?
That's the entire reason why this conversation chain started.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:01 UTC+1 No.5018820 Report

Negative: Freedom from
Positive: Freedom to

Nope. Egalitarian distribution of wealth eliminates more freedom from want.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:01 UTC+1 No.5018822 Report

Again, someone who does not understand the Ancap position.

>far and away dwarfed
According to Ancaps value is subjective. This is more or less understood by common everyday interaction and exchange. So you cannot actually make this claim unless you can either prove that value is objective, or unless you can prove to the individual ancaps in question that their subjective valuations hold this to be true, even then it wont apply to all persons.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:02 UTC+1 No.5018823 Report

Then you can never be free until they put your brain in a robot, because even a jar would make you dependent.
Why should an individual be forced to give up their earned wealth for the good of the incapable?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:03 UTC+1 No.5018830 Report

I honestly cannot understand what OP is even arguing about because it sounds like he has close to zero understanding on their philosophy. If I had to guess, OP is shitting himself because he somehow thinks this fact invalidates the theory? Or creates some contradiction.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:04 UTC+1 No.5018833 Report

>Then you can never be free until they put your brain in a robot, because even a jar would make you dependent.
No you'll never be free and the moment where you began to have no freedom occurred when you came into existence.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:04 UTC+1 No.5018835 Report

Freedom from want ought to be satisfied by the individual rather than limit their independence by a state supporting them.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:05 UTC+1 No.5018838 Report

I don't know either, I didn't even start this whole conversation chain, I just locked it up.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:05 UTC+1 No.5018839 Report

Then kill yourself and be free of earthly limitations.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:06 UTC+1 No.5018843 Report

>Nope. Egalitarian distribution of wealth eliminates more freedom from want.

Technically true, just not how the question is usually framed in political philosophy.

You take money away from people, thus limiting their negative freedom FROM coercion; you give it to other people, granting them positive freedom TO achieve certain goals.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:07 UTC+1 No.5018848 Report

Even that's debatable but I'm not opening that can of worms.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:07 UTC+1 No.5018850 Report

>Why should an individual be forced to give up their earned wealth for the good of the incapable?

Because wealth is a byproduct of society and the value of labour is determined by society. This is simply valuing the labour of the ultra-wealthy at a lower value than it currently is and valuing the labour of the lower echelons of society higher.

Its an arbitrary system either way.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:11 UTC+1 No.5018855 Report

If you define freedom as a 'positive'. If being free means 'being able to do any particular thing', then yes you will never be free. This isn't actually arguing against anyone though because ancaps agree with this sentiment.

However because they believe that freedom exists, and take this axiomatically, they suggest that this 'positive' conception cannot be the determination of that quality which makes us free. So instead they define freedom 'negative', freedom from a thing. I'm sure it has been said in the thread, I am sure you've heard it before. Specifically, freedom from coercive forces, aka initiation of force against one's person or property. So yes, depending on how you define freedom you can be free.

You are free to disagree with the premise 'freedom exists' but there are extremely practical reasons to believe it does. Even if, in reflection, you believe it doesn't exist I'm sure there is a disconnect between your logos and bios in this regard; meaning, you live as if you believed it did exist.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:19 UTC+1 No.5018872 Report


Why must wealth be related to the value of your labor?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:21 UTC+1 No.5018878 Report


Just remember for next time to: find out how to communicate your fundamental beliefs*, find out how to put arguments or facts into anecdotes or jokes or communicate them in ways that are both entertaining and easy to relate to, and don't be afraid to do engage their arguments on their terms (and point out flaws that stem from their fundamental beliefs and also counter examples as to why their examples are faulty or, at the very least, show that there are alternative views - which may weaken their view in the audience's mind).

*On the subject of Singer: plenty of people pull apart or take issue with Singer's individual statements or beliefs, but there's a reason why special interest groups that take issue with him have policies of not engaging him in argument. Singer's overall worldview is almost too logical and he has a way of making people who base decisions on emotion (abortion, euthanasia, disabled people) look unintelligent. Of course, there are always going to be people who disagree with Singer regardless and find him unsympathetic, but I've rarely seen anyone successfully attack his underlying worldview, even if they have a good case against his individual beliefs. It's hard to attack his stance on infanticide and support his stance on poverty or animals because they are tied together. This kind of consistency (and the ability to articulate it well) is what will help you in debate.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)06:26 UTC+1 No.5018883 Report

No, labour is valued by skills and demand/supply for said skills.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)07:22 UTC+1 No.5018975 Report

How is the choice between life and death less coercive than the choice between taxation and legal prosecution? We're talking about conditions which define the limits on the entire lives of a whole class of people.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)07:28 UTC+1 No.5018986 Report

Because the state is superfluous, nature is not.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)07:38 UTC+1 No.5019006 Report

Society and the State, as the tendency to centralize power in society, are humanity's nature. They are not superfluous. Anarchy is not natural.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)07:43 UTC+1 No.5019015 Report

As society becomes smarter, which won't be long if this growth continues, we will no longer want, or require, to put our lives in the hands of a state. We will become our own masters.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)07:47 UTC+1 No.5019025 Report

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

Sorry 4chan, but in terms of having a political, psychological, sociological, cultural, conversation, it's completely fucking pointless with most of you.

Same with reddit. When you get a bunch of white males aged 16-22 mostly, you get all their shitty reasoning, biases, and myopia.

OP, you can make the best arguments in the fucking world it wont matter. Debating publicly is even worse because people want to "win", it becomes a social thing, rather than purely intellectual.

If you want to change minds, talk to people one on one in person, without others. 4chan should be the ideal place because it's all anonymous so you should see people changing their minds to superior arguments, but no, personal bias and ignorance abounds.

/lit is the smartest board on the chans, and still full of dumb cunts I'm afraid. You reading this, statistically speaking, are a dumb cunt.

Not all of you mind you, but most of you are just like everything, subdued by propaganda and confirmation bias.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)07:48 UTC+1 No.5019029 Report

crazy people can't be argued with because they live in their own world. they only listen to their fellow crazies, only read opinions that back them up and support each other's delusions. libertarians, /pol/, PUAH, MRA, tumblr and Stormfront, they all spend their intellectual lives in an echo chamber and feels threatened whenever dissenting arguments are heard.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)07:52 UTC+1 No.5019038 Report

Do you want 50 year old niggresses or something? All that matters in a debate here is the facts, that's the good thing about anonymity. If you're having trouble arguing with people you're either stupid or you're arguing something you don't know enough about.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)07:53 UTC+1 No.5019043 Report

Not that guy, but arguing on 4chan almost never works that way.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)07:53 UTC+1 No.5019044 Report

>wants to be taken seriously

my sides r in orbit
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)07:54 UTC+1 No.5019046 Report

You're totally right, proof>>>>>>>5019044
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:01 UTC+1 No.5019058 Report

It does for the people watching from the outside. If one person presents facts and the other is a retarded feelsy rebbitor babbling about coloured people then there is a clear winner.
Go back to tumblr, you autist.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:04 UTC+1 No.5019060 Report

Yes, only an idiot thinks that an argument here is between two people. More than likely you are not going to be able to convince someone who cares enough to post in a debate with you; you're arguing for the lurker who doesn't actually care or know enough to join in but who is willing to look for the best idea.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:06 UTC+1 No.5019066 Report

I like how your example was inherently /pol/. And anyway, I've seen people on 4chan with absurd reddit viewpoints (that it has to be said I disagree with, before you get all gb2 etc.) argue their case much better than the people you're assuming "always present facts", and funnily enough, they just get told to fuck off back to reddit instead of engaged, or drowned in generalities that avoid the central thrust of their opponent's argument.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:09 UTC+1 No.5019072 Report

"babbling about coloured people "

>racist shithead

u wot m8?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:11 UTC+1 No.5019078 Report

Simple test of reddit bias.

Has it ever accepted any argument no matter how reasonable, logical, that says that maybe, just maybe, women are oppressed in certain key ways.

Even mentioning it starts a shitstorm.

This idiot thinks it's just two parties presenting facts, as if personal bias doesn't enter the picture.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:15 UTC+1 No.5019085 Report

Nature is no less superflous and fluid than anything else, its also arbitrarily defined.

The only things that aren't superfluous are the transcendent laws of nature, the laws that would be there 'regardless of the objects they act on existing or not existing', as Husserl put it. Things like causality.

Everything else within that sphere is subject to change as the situation demands.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:17 UTC+1 No.5019088 Report

That's what tumblr and reddit call non-whites.
I've only seen the opposite.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:21 UTC+1 No.5019101 Report

Then you really haven't been paying attention. I'm not out to demonise your idiocy in particular, mind. There's a lot of stupid 'muh feels' bullshit, like you said, coming from people who don't really have factual reasoning behind their generically left-wing beliefs. You're right there. And there's a lot of stupid 'fuck off back to reddit' bullshit from people like you who believe in their own politics with an absurd zeal (so therefore the other is from reddit or tumblr, not understanding the objective truth as you do, and so on). The point is that debating anything on here is shit because very few people want to debate, they want to win a debate.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:23 UTC+1 No.5019102 Report

Exactly, back to my point, the only way to win is not to play at all.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:26 UTC+1 No.5019111 Report

If you can't look past the personal attacks then you're doing it wrong. I can call you a faggot at the end of every post, but when the post has substance it is irrelevant and to complain about it is to indulge in the same feels bullshit that you derided.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:28 UTC+1 No.5019121 Report

You're also probably 18, and not very bright, so there's also the possibly of just wasting one's time arguing with close-minded imbeciles.

Or getting side-trolled.

Level up idiot, can't you see my reason?
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:30 UTC+1 No.5019123 Report

>How in fuck do you actually win a debate here?
Get a job
Join the union
Organise to win

cf: Thesis 11
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:31 UTC+1 No.5019129 Report

Human beings are social animals. The identity of an individual person has its origin in the established and developing relationships between himself and the others around one. The construction of the Ego by means of language, the medium of interpersonal relations, is evidence of this fact. The imperative for human beings to engage with society may not have always been necessary: In the right environment it is in fact possible for one to provide for oneself totally, to build one's own shelter, and secure one's own nutrition. However, you must not have this kind of condition in mind. You speak of growth, and already you have in mind the social human. Not only is cooperation necessary between the sexes to continue the species, but progress itself, via the efficiency of specialization, is a result of the development of social forms. The social system has power in itself that endures the vicissitudes of its constituency. Have you ever been the master of your own maintenance? Have you ever made your own bread? Built your own home? You, as you know yourself, as all, as an individual, are emergent phenomenon of millennia of human cooperation.

The state is a consequence of the same specialization that makes the rest of society work. Politics as a profession--this has been the norm in western civilization since at least the Greeks. Men like Marcus Aurelius have always been exceptions. What successful society has ever been governed as a rule by amateurs? Societies have a life of their own that cannot be reduced to the lives of their constituents. Events like the White Flight in America for example have real and serious economic and geographic effects, but who is responsible? One man who moves his family to the suburbs could give any number of plausible reasons for his decision. But people have behaved similarly at the individual level at all stages of history, and any individual explanation will ultimately be insufficient for an understanding of the particular historical event. Abstract events which take place over large measures of time and space require explanatory terms of the same breadth. For whom is it to understand such phenomenon? To leave such things to chance is dangerous. Power structures in equivalently grand terms are necessary to preserve the sociological order on which the advance of progress depends.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:32 UTC+1 No.5019131 Report

But often these posts don't have substance to them. You understand that I'm speaking in general terms rather than absolutely here, but by and large when someone is told to fuck off back to reddit that usually is the whole of the argument leveled against them. From what I've seen left-wingers tend to present feebler arguments (excepting the commies, the only people with as much "evidence" to throw about as the right), but right-wingers get much more personally invested (amusing given their thing about 'whining leftards') often at the expense of what they're saying. And after ten posts or so it devolves into NO U insults on both sides anyway, with the odd argument maybe surfacing at intermittent moments.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:37 UTC+1 No.5019140 Report

It doesn't matter who you're arguing with. If you can only try to pin people to certain groups and strawman them then you're as bad as the people you're against.
I bet you're a 20 year old university arts student who thinks they are very smart. You've always tried hard and made decent grades, but you can only regurgitate information. You claim to be open-minded, but you don't tolerate opinions against yours, not based on facts, but on principal. You probably read Marx un-ironically and vote for the traditional left wing party in your country because they support socialism and immigration.
That may be as wrong as your attempted caricature of me. I hope so, because that would illustrate my point much better.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:39 UTC+1 No.5019149 Report

Well, I don't know what you've seen, and I'm not responsible for others.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:41 UTC+1 No.5019152 Report

The absence of a state does not limit voluntary exchanges, it fosters them. I pay someone to build a house, because he trained himself in that field. The someone can pay me for my work, which required training, in plumbing.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:44 UTC+1 No.5019162 Report

>read Marx
>vote for left wing party
>support immigration

I hate when people do this.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:46 UTC+1 No.5019167 Report

lol that's kinda a funny thing you did there.

>I'm correct if you are as I say you are, but if you are different, than I'm even more correct.

The rhetoric of stupidity has an undercurrent of conniving genius.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)08:52 UTC+1 No.5019177 Report

If you've missed the point as much as your post says, then you're not as smart as you think you are.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)09:00 UTC+1 No.5019191 Report

Why would anyone want to live in the Ancap world, it sounds absolutely horrible. There would be mass starvation and death, most of the working class would be forced into slavery. There is no explanation of how the state doesn't rise again or how the "Capitalist" class won't have a monopoly on violence.

It just sounds like an absolutely more brutal version of our modern world, except probably 99% of modern amenities wouldn't exist anymore because everyone would be under the thumb of warlords with pretty much no rule of law.

At least Anarcho-Communist society sounds functional and nice to live in.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)09:04 UTC+1 No.5019198 Report

This is an absurdly reductive view of society. Human beings are not simply generated fully formed from test tubes and stored neatly in individual compartments for their time of use. The education of child is a messy, messy affair. The dedication, commitment and self-sacrifice necessary for a parent to create another functional human being who won't freak out and destroy the delicate machinery of human society is extreme, and in fact requires a great deal of irrationality. What a parent does to further the cause of his family is what we must all do for each other in a great society. This language you use, in which all parties get exactly what they deserve without commitment or loss of freedom simply has no connection with reality. Even if we could magically reset history to clear the blood debts of millennia, your world is unimaginable. Add to that the great bloody corpse of history we have tying us down, and ancapitalism is nothing but an obscene fantasy the lucky enjoy to attribute their fortune to their own merit rather than the chaos of fate which has spared them.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)09:06 UTC+1 No.5019207 Report

>First, we may say that the parents-or rather the mother, who is the only certain and visible parent-as the creators of the baby become its owners. A newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense. Therefore, either the mother or some other party or parties may be the baby’s owner.

>the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. - Rothbard Natural Rights

Daily reminder that Ancaps believe that raping, killing and selling babies is totally fucking fine.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)09:06 UTC+1 No.5019208 Report

Except, if anarcho-communism actually works, which it probably wouldn't, it could be done voluntarily in the more general free (aka Anarcho-capitalist) society. When you say
>more brutal version
you show just how 'over your head' the opposition's point is. There is no way in which societies will have to function economically or socially, voluntary communes can form in otherwise anarcho-capitalist places.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)09:07 UTC+1 No.5019210 Report

Yeah, unless you disagree with the collective.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)09:09 UTC+1 No.5019216 Report

>Except, if anarcho-communism actually works, which it probably wouldn't

Tell that to the Libertarians of Catalonia and Aragon who had a fully functional society with productivity shooting up, before they got crushed by Geo-Political forces.

>it could be done voluntarily in the more general free (aka Anarcho-capitalist) society

Explain fucking how, oh wait, just abstract away every social and class relation in Capitalism! Just extract away the physical world!

>you show just how 'over your head' the opposition's point is. There is no way in which societies will have to function economically or socially, voluntary communes can form in otherwise anarcho-capitalist places.

All this shows is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or basic Econ 101.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)09:10 UTC+1 No.5019218 Report

The only part of anarcho-capitalism you would notice is the lack of taxes and no elections. The rest is only noticeable at the top.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)09:14 UTC+1 No.5019229 Report

>muh we cannot do what we want to do in a voluntary society because other people do not want to do it with us when given the choice...muh social and class relations oppressing us...muh no true choice is a choice in this oppressive capitalistic regime...muh thank god we're in 'late capitalism'

Guess people don't want to live in your dumbass utopia given the choice. Or wait, is it that you only have choice when there is 0 sacrifice for it on your end? Good one.

I don't need to look at Catalonia and Aragon there are countless examples of medieval anarcho-communists, fully equipped religious zealots, discussed at length in Pursuit of the Millenium; they had some excellent ideas, sike.
Anonymous 06/16/14(Mon)14:22 UTC+1 No.5019764 Report

>Why do statists hate freedom?

because of pic related
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)00:00 UTC+1 No.5021393 Report

>"You have a choice to die by my gun or work as a slave. totally free choice, no coercion at all bro"
You're switching between wage slavery and actual slavery whenever it suits your argument. That's an equivocation fallacy; you're no better than them. Kindly get fucked.
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:14 UTC+1 No.5022823 Report

I agree.

I get the sense that op may have been doing doing the same shit he hated in the opposition. NAP is a fundamental tenant of ancap is it not?
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:25 UTC+1 No.5022841 Report

Wouldn't this be a violation of NAP property rights? I'm new to the subject of ancap so I have no allegiances on what is definitive, but it seems that just because a child is incapable that doesn't mean it loses property of itself. If anything wouldn't the parent owe some sort of debt for creating it?

It's not like the child had a choice in existing. There is reasonable obligation there. Imagine if you caused an adults retardation. Sent them back in time and made them start over like a child. I would think that you would owe them the restitution of rehabilitation. Well seeing as the kid was just fine not even existing before you came along pay up.
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)10:44 UTC+1 No.5023223 Report

>Mah NAP!!!
oh boy here we go. The most incoherent, bullshit idea in the history of the world people!
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)10:53 UTC+1 No.5023239 Report

It was just a question.
And I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem logically consistent.
I said I'm new to this whole sphere so I don't have the ideological investment you seem to be implying.

>calm the fuck down you fucking hypocrite.
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)11:06 UTC+1 No.5023261 Report

The NAP is a complete load of fucking bullshit and is just a handwave that AnCaps/Libertarians use when anybody points the obvious out about Capitalism or any of the actual productive relations in the system.

"Oh that won't happen because of the Non-Aggression Principle!"

The NAP is a complete and total load of utter bullshit and is in direct contrast with the most basic tenants of Capitalism. So not only do Ancaps claim that all humans are naturally dominant to heirarchy.. but we are all competitive... that means the NAP flies straight in the fact of the Ancaps own bullshit absolutes on "human nature."
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)11:08 UTC+1 No.5023265 Report

This is how most dumb people debate. Try to bring you down to their level and then win on experience.

This is why Democracy sucks
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)11:21 UTC+1 No.5023303 Report

> anybody points the obvious out about Capitalism or any of the actual productive relations in the system

Could I have am example?
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)11:23 UTC+1 No.5023306 Report

What are the most basic tenants of capitalism.
>please excuse my pleb
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)11:36 UTC+1 No.5023329 Report

Capitalism is a mode of production where the means of production is owned privately by the Capitalist class, with workers working for a wage within the system to produce commodities for sale market so profit can be achieved.

The actual term CAPITALISM comes from the fact that in Capitalism, trade MUST be unequal to achieve CAPITAL. Capital being the surplus value gained from uneven trade.

Capital in modern economic terminology means just any productive asset, but this isn't really the proper, original useage of the term. Capital for the most part until modern economics (1970s/1980s) always meant the surplus value from uneven trade.

AnCaps version of Capitalism, just eliminate Capital from the equation, thus what they are talking about isn't really Capitalism. In fact, the AnCap society in my understanding, actually matches more many of the ideas of Distributivism, where everyone owns their own private property (means of production) and produces their own stuff, which they exchange largely in barter.
While this makes sort of sense at face value (just one example, you would expect a Taxi driver to own his own Taxi, but this isn't the case largely in Capitalism where a private owner/owners own the Taxi company and then hire workers to run and largely manage the business while the owner extracts surplus value) It largely ignores social and productive relations within the system. Capitalism is inherently antagonistic and these antagonisms result in antagonisms which generally play out as violent coercion or aggression within the system.

Capitalism may be utopian when you just magically ignore such antagonisms, but how it plays out in reality is entirely different.

The entire point of Das Kapital by Marx was to point out all these contradictions and he hoped people would come up with ways to overcome them, this is why today we have different political groups such as Social Democrats, Communists, Socialists etc etc who all have their way of trying to overcome such antagonisms. Social Dems try balance them out with interventions, Socialists and Communists and Anarchists believe the entire system must be overthrown and a new system must be built where such antagonisms and contradictions do not have the possibility to manifest.
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)11:52 UTC+1 No.5023377 Report

OK, if it's not even traditional capitalism I don't see the problem so much, but I can see how you might be upset by the lack of distinction.

So saying I had a lean on the anarchy side of things, motivated by a belief that any government is inherently non-voluntary (cohesive) what kind of alternatives could I look into.
Our is detecting a monopolization of force somehow me just NAP hand waving.
(I'm not trying to be condescending really, it's obvious you know more than me on this subject only I do think the initiation of force is wrong and have had no other palatable alternative posed to me)
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)11:54 UTC+1 No.5023384 Report

Fuck me I meant (coercive) fuk auto correct.
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)11:56 UTC+1 No.5023397 Report

Also... *or is proclaiming a monopolization...
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)12:07 UTC+1 No.5023435 Report

No, specially not today when money barely exists physically, only conceptually
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)12:10 UTC+1 No.5023446 Report

You do realize that there are people who are NATURALLY disabled, right? And you do realize that whoever has the biggest reserve of any natural resources has a clear advantage, right?

And as most anarchist theory will tell you, the aim of the state is PRECISELY to defend private property. AnCaps are fucking deluded if they think otherwise.

Take the current riots in Brazil, for example: the state is acting AGAINST the civilians IN FAVOR of private owned property. And if you think that's exclusive to third world, well, there is always the Battle of Seattle to remind you how your country works
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)12:19 UTC+1 No.5023465 Report

>be AnCap
>talking with other Anarchists
>they are all left-wing
>Either syndicalists or communists
>They say AnCap is an oxymoron
>I say any form of Anarchism except AnCap is an oxymoron
AnCaps and other Anarchists just don't get along.
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)12:21 UTC+1 No.5023470 Report

>Have friends ranging from crazy discordianist absurdism to near state socialism
>We can all talk about politics without creating much comotion between ourselves
>No one can speak to a AnCap without raging
oh gee. I wonder whose problem it is
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)12:28 UTC+1 No.5023491 Report

It's impossible to build a society without any form of coercion, there must be some form of coercion involved for society to run (even Democracy is coercive in some way)

AnCap society doesn't really make sense because it's presuppositions are developed in their own little vacuums. This makes AnCap make sense in these little scenarios, but it doesn't make sense when everything is brought together, because of material, social and power structures come into play on top of each other. Heard of the butterfly effect? pretty much like that, but on a society wide level.

There are several Youtube philosophy channels that go out of their way to debunk the philosophical underpinnings of AnCapism and Praexology, but I don't think they are really needed. Anarcho-Capitalism can be demolished with basic sociology and economics:

This is a really good debunking of AnCap thought through economic and social theory. While you might think it's bias because "Marx!" he doesn't actually bring up Marx's theories until the very end of the video, which you can skip if you want.
If you want to see more actual debunking of AnCap philosophy check out Anarchopac or PhilosophyLines on Youtube.
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)12:38 UTC+1 No.5023510 Report

A million flies can't be wrong. Eat shit.
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)12:40 UTC+1 No.5023512 Report

ancaps are honestly some of the stupidest people on this planet but what do you expect when they dogmatically take a holocaust denier's word as fact
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)12:44 UTC+1 No.5023522 Report

>ancaps are honestly some of the stupidest people on this planet but what do you expect when they dogmatically take a holocaust denier's word as fact
Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)13:05 UTC+1 No.5023569 Report

Much to look at now.
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.