2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

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.

1
bluewhiteandred 1 point ago +1 / -0

What if they pay for their own imprisonment

2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

"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.

3
bluewhiteandred 3 points ago +3 / -0

probably not and probably just a distraction from more important issues like election fraud

1
bluewhiteandred 1 point ago +1 / -0

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

1
bluewhiteandred 1 point ago +1 / -0

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

2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

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

2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

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

2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

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.

2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

hierarchy is ok, but hierarchical organization doesn't require a State

I can also try to answer questions or objections

2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

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

1
bluewhiteandred 1 point ago +1 / -0

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

2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

same with anprim

2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

and at the bottom some go back to authoritarianism

1
bluewhiteandred 1 point ago +1 / -0

selling yourself is consentual and thus not slavery tho right

2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well again, either those people are RINOs or they may actually believe in smaller government but aren't living those values (or there are people who actually believe in smaller government like minarchists or Constitutionalists but they don't see how ancap-ism is kind of like a form of minarchy).

The people who aren't living those values but believe in them could be walked through how some policies they've knowingly or unknowingly supported could be damaging to them.

3
bluewhiteandred 3 points ago +3 / -0

thanks for giving more insight on the issue, although that would still be just as much a problem for the free market to deal with since it was private companies that caused the problem

Having a farm like that is a danger to the surrounding community just like having nuclear weapons is (like I think I mentioned in the OP), so I guess really it's an open conversation whether there's a government or not, we need to either have defenses in place for a natural disaster that could release certain animals into the wild, or encourage such farms to have certain security practices in place to make sure they don't escape.

2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

u/NullifyAndSecede gives the correct answer

I'd add that, the owners would likely decide to ban it if it became too costly or a problem; either customers who use the road service would be willing to pay more maybe in insurance and taking the risk (if there were more crashes that resulted from allowing it), to allow people to drive intoxicated, or if they would not the road owner might then end up banning "drunk" driving

There is a difference between choosing to take a stand for freedom regardless of costs on one's property (in which case, drunk driving might be seen as something that must be allowed, as otherwise this is taking away others' freedom) versus having the freedom to set whatever rules you think are best on your property, both of which are compatible with libertarianism (some people might argue the latter position is not, but then to prevent people from enforcing rules on their property they would have to likely use force to prevent them, which would not be libertarian)

4
bluewhiteandred 4 points ago +4 / -0

neocon RINOs are probably a lost cause

Republicans for limited government, Constitutional and American freedom, only need to take those ideas to their logical conclusion to arrive at ancap (they would simply need to understand how government infringes on personal freedom and be able to visualize how "ancapistan" could function in theory without a need for infringement on personal freedom by government)

As far as defending conservative values, each institution in "ancapistan" can be encouraged to adopt policies against things like abortion or other vices - just as a government being large isn't inherently liberal or conservative, nor are governmental entities being small that way either, but liberals and conservatives compete to have their values enforced through the governmental entitites (this might appeal to some neocon RINOs)

does this cover it?

2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

needs to be fun

we have some fun memes

it's a start

2
bluewhiteandred 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exotic pets are less likely to be an issue since they are less likely to find breeding partners.

well, like in florida don't they have problems with pythons which are an invasive exotic pet that got in to the wild?

So this was one idea I thought of, as a problem that free markets might allow to happen, but maybe freedom to develop defense against this problem also might be created

A key thing to keep in mind is that voluntaryism/anarcho-capitalism is NOT a utopian vision

of course, was just wondering if anyone has thought about this issue before. It's not like the government's regulations prevented the python outbreak in Florida either

1
bluewhiteandred 1 point ago +1 / -0

just like there is private security at a mall or university, police companies would likely form to be a less expensive way to diffuse conflicts. Certainly a gun can help for self defense in certain situations, while in others police might be an easier or simpler choice.

1
bluewhiteandred 1 point ago +1 / -0

yes, to note: a State doesnt guarantee social cohesion (examples: states that devolved into chaos and no rule of law like with civil wars). Similarly there could be social cohesion in the absence of a centralized State (various separate governing companies/agencies still exist to provide that check and balance). I argue minarchy and anarchy (in the context of ancap-ism) may be very similar in practice in how they look and operate. Social cohesion becomes rational to avoid the heavier losses of violent conflict: people voluntarily agree to abide by many of the laws that commonly exist under centralized States.

1
bluewhiteandred 1 point ago +1 / -0

explain more of why you disagree if you'd like

view more: Next ›