you highlight the issue by acknowledging that tech can improve or deny liberty. so some primitivists I think go all in more on the direction of focusing on technology denying liberty, while most people probably focus on the capacity for technology to liberate.
There may be better places, I always liked the idea of living in Texas, or Florida sounds nice - I'm sure there are other states to consider as well
not taking poll but could have a convo with you about it if you want if you have things to discuss
latest there was a satoshi cruise ship attempt that failed
I remember some kind of blue zones seasteading project that I don't think ended up happening with french polynesia
so the question is how this will be different
also the idea would be to keep things very simple with priority of it being functional, otherwise it's been a hopium dream for a decade or more
Can I gaze at the mountains far off in the west, and the sea down to the east, and declare this entire land to be mine?
yeah, I think they have in mind when people do things like this and then do nothing with the land or experience great profits from it with minimal amount of work put in, which raises questions about the legitimacy of the claim of ownership
to me ancap could be like the government we have right now, just it's not one government but multiple businesses and institutions providing the services government does now
you can be both tradcon and ancap I'd think
This possibly in my mind intersects with a religious philosophy of property - the early Apostles observed at times communalism, rather than communism (voluntarily sharing material objects in common): "And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common." (Acts 2:44)
Augustine on embracing common rather than private property:
- How many thousands believed, my brethren, when they laid down the price of their possessions at the Apostles' feet! But what says Scripture of them? Surely they have become a temple of God; not only each respectively a temple of God, but also all a temple of God together. They have therefore become a place for the Lord. And that you may know that one place is made for the Lord in all, Scripture says, They were of one heart and one soul toward God. But many, so as not to make a place for the Lord, seek their own things, love their own things, delight in their own power, are greedy for their private interests. Whereas he who wishes to make a place for the Lord, should rejoice not in his private, but the common good....
- Let us therefore, brethren, abstain from the possession of private property; or from the love of it, if we may not from its possession; and we make a place for the Lord.
they don't want to get banned so they fearfully toe the line
discord is cringe, they banned the_donald
Under an ideal AnCap paradigm you can't enslave someone against their will.
I guess, but I also think it's possible most people in society will agree that prison is a justified punishment for certain crimes and hence most people will consent to this being the punishment (at least temporarily). I could envision our current system becoming ancap and basically they keep prison sentences that most people consent to because it's just how crime is dealt with somewhat effectively right now.
(I say government because IMO AnCap is still a loosely governed form of state without the trappings of a state.)
I made a post calling it an "UnState" I think. To me it's basically a State, just not centralized (a "decentralized State"?). Anyway, I much think I agree with you here on this, regardless of what words we use to describe it, it's a kind of government but not.
What if they pay for their own imprisonment
"anarcho-monarchy" was previously used as a term expressing indifference towards if there is anarchy or a monarchy, like J.R.R. Tolkien apparently was in to this viewpoint
This use of "anarcho-monarchy" sounds confusing - the people consent to follow someone like a king? That's consensual leadership - sure, he can be called a king, or leader, but it's maybe different from monarchy and redundant to call anarcho-monarchy.
probably not and probably just a distraction from more important issues like election fraud
you are working from dusk til dawn
you still used tech, they want to go even further and think it would be less work which you may be aware of
modern living is not mandatory. At least in the USA. You are technically allowed to live in federally managed wilderness as long as you move at least 5 miles once every two weeks
I'll give you that you can live without some technology, maybe a little bit, somewhere, but it is basically mandatory because if the society that you've gone primitive in (in this case, the U.S.) didn't have technology (like defense systems) then another country could come in and take over. It basically becomes mandatory
I don't understand the reason why society should be primitive.
Ok I think you're just being sarcastic but it's pretty understandable to an extent, technology when it is developed is only temporarily optional, then it basically forces all of society to go along with it - so if you want the freedom to not have to use technology, you'd become primitivist
well I just realized ancaps.win is a separate login compared to communities.win/c/ancaps which allows people who already use the other communities.win to contribute - I kind of knew about this before but anyway the point is that other .wins users could come over to post if they know about the community
as you mention, they need more economics knowledge
they are maybe a little too edgy on some things
I thought they were just critical of consumerism but it seems that .win has developed a culture beyond simply that original shared interest
so my formula would be: patriots.win + consumeproduct.win + ancaps.win + econ knowledge - edginess = BIG .WIN
Pure anarchy isn't the ideal for me.
Well, I think anarcho-capitalism has a different take on what "anarchy" is, so much so that "traditional" anarchists don't even consider it to be anarchist, so feel free to ask questions about specific problems you have with it. It sounds pretty good in theory because a lot of the same problems with the State could exist in ancap, just in different ways, or some of the problems are eliminated maybe with new ones.
For example, some people have argued that government is needed because people are bad and without government they will do bad things. Ancaps have flipped that logic around and questioned why, if people are bad, that they should be put in charge of other people? Won't they abuse their authority if they can to create a worse situation than people being on their own? And if people want to do bad things, and other people want to protect themselves, doesn't that act as a kind of counter-balance that would prevent bad people from doing certain bad things?
So, just because there isn't a central government structure, doesn't mean that private companies and individuals couldn't create institutions to do the things that government currently does. You can do more thought experiments - say a bad guy is threatening a few good people and there is no government. So they could start up a police group with a few guys, to protect against that threat. Either it's volunteer run, a company that people can "subscribe" to to get protection, or a nonprofit, etc. Not forced in to by taxes, and not preventing other people from doing the same thing (which is different from the current system of policing).
Through thinking of how some of these things might play out, we see a kind of "private government institutions" arise, which is not the same a singular government group, just like we don't have one grocery store for the whole country but multiple competing grocery stores. The bad guy is now threatened by this police group, so they likely decide to stop breaking the law, or they might try to just like people break the law when a government exists. It's not a perfect solution to every problem, but the hope is that just like competing businesses tend to produce better products, that these competing government institutions could offer better law, security, etc. than a current central government does.
In the hypothetical scenario where a police group was formed, someone might be in charge (police chief?), someone second in command, and then they might have regular police officers - so hierarchy can naturally form, contrary to the claims of the "traditional" anarchists (and this was one concern you mentioned having I think).
And so on, we could continue the thought experiments to see how different things would work out.
hierarchy is ok, but hierarchical organization doesn't require a State
I can also try to answer questions or objections
libertarians will be stuck right smack in the middle of this battle
what does the left offer a libertarian?
also, I think libertarians are often either conservative libertarian or liberal libertarian so they'll probably pick their respective side
not State socialism necessarily anyway
the "capitalism" in anarcho-capitalism is kind of a misnomer, voluntary actions that seem kind of socialist are allowed too
same with anprim
and at the bottom some go back to authoritarianism
selling yourself is consentual and thus not slavery tho right
if you'd like, explain how you think it works
it would be like saying "monarchy can't work, it would just be tyranny" and yet the UK has a monarchy