Ancaps are the biggest political meme of the century...

Hoppe actually explains in Democracy that the libertarian movement just happened to coincide with the anti-war left-egalitarian counterculture of the 1960s. He actually says the reason why libertarianism attracted so many "perverts" (pedophiles, homossexuals, parasites, kinks, etc.) -- and he actually uses these words in the book -- was because people thought libertarianism meant "do whatever the hell you want." He reiterates that eliminating the welfare state and eliminating the forced integration that democracy/anti-discrimination laws would immediately put many bad behavior "back in the closet." Parasites, free loaders, vulgar people, obscene people, drunkards, junkies, alternative life-stylists would have to keep it to themselves at the risk of being physically removed from civilization.

"Whether intended or not, the welfare state promotes the proliferation of intellectually and morally inferior people and the results would be even worse were it not for the fact that crime rates are particularly high among these people, and that they tend to eliminate each other more frequently." (p. 185)

/thread

...

And the inevitable failure of capitalism, as Marx guarantees us, will happen any day now. Just like it has for the past 150 years.

Thanks man, but I'd rather not sign the contract. I can do that, right?

Oh wait, I can't. It's no more a contract than a man with a gun mugging you and giving you an apple in return. "It was a deal!". "We traded!". "Fair contract!".

A contract is not a contract if one of the parties is held at gunpoint by the other and has no option to back out. What that constitutes is theft with benefits.

Your position is covered by the crouching fellow on the right of that image.

>the biggest political meme of the century

Yes, they are. An insignificantly tiny faction that leftists pretend is real so they can trade blog length rants like this for points instead of engaging their actually-existing political opposition.

That's not what's happening. I have no objection to those two doing anything, it's not my business and no one's rights are being violated. The screeching starts when arrogant people such as yourself start violently imposing their subjective opinions on others.

>We do not want a state, also how are these things contradictory

Not OP, but come on. Property is a social construct; it's a set of rights and obligations to a particular object or piece of land or concept that is recognized by society and backed up by the state.

Say you own a guitar. That guitar exists whether or not you own it, or someone else owns it, or nobody owns it. What changes when you own it is your (and everyone else's, for that matter) societally recognized rules to interact with that object.

So because you own this hypothetical guitar, you're allowed to pick it up, move it around, play it, sell it, smash it against a rock, etc. whenever you want to. I, not owning it, cannot do these things, and if I do them in spite of your ownership, you have a set of socially recognized recourses to punish me and recompense yourself. These mechanisms are enforced by some sort of state, which applies the necessary force to enact said recourses.

But if you eliminate the state, you no longer have any broadly recognized recourses. You also probably don't have any actual society that can agree upon what exactly your rights towards property should be. You can't "own" anything, at most only defending or holding onto certain things, backed up by whatever force you or your friends can bring to bear, and as soon as a greater force decides that it wants your stuff, you don't have it anymore.

Yes, because "Dialectic" is such a commonly used, important word in our day to day life, I don't know how we would ever get by without it.

Your entire paragraph is just a long winded ad-homonym

an-cap isn't a system of government, its a philosophy.

Its absurd to think that a community is going to somehow function without a government, but your participation and support in and of that government isn't mandatory.

This is kind of true. It depends on what your definition of a state is, the libertarian one usually goes something like "the organisation with a monopoly on the just initiation of force". Property is definitely the dodgiest bit of libertarianism.

Although there is a certain level to which the argument in your last paragraph can in turn be applied to the state:
>as soon as a greater force decides that it wants your stuff
As soon as a greater force decides its going to overthrow the state's rules, the state collapses. This isn't really a problem which any system can avoid, by virtue of the fact at all rules are on some level social constructs.

>Thanks man, but I'd rather not sign the contract. I can do that, right?

Sure you can, just buy some land, fuck off into the wilderness and become a hermit.

most people who take an-cap seriously are minarchists, which is to say, libertarian extremists. They want the bare minimum amount of government in their life, and its honestly hard to disagree with them once you are on the governments shitlist.

The government can make your life a living hell, and its benefits are usually dubious and invisible.

If I want to sell something to another hermit who also hasn't signed the social contract the government arrests me for not paying sales tax.

>buy some land
Moron here, wouldn't to buy land he would have to sign the contract?

Not in Somalia or Lybia.

*Libya

OP please tell me how Von Mises' policy towards currency easing a differed from Mill?

>dubious and invisible

Heres what you do, my man.

Buy some land, get a hundred people together, and sign into law a sovereign nation living under the US protoctorate.

Then watch as you get fucked raw like an Indian reservation and I'll laugh while you try to keep your community afloat without any government.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations

It worked for silicon valley.

Look at that traffic shitfest.

Are you telling me the benefits are not dubious?

>immanent domain
>traffic clusterfuck
>pollution
>earthquake safety

No drawbacks, though, right?

As a psuedo an-prim, I tend to believe that every innovation has come with a significant drawback, and that drawback is usually worse than the benefits the innovation provides, and only readily apparent after its been implemented.

Are you saying that the road network would be better and more organized if it were up to individuals to construct their own personally-relevant sections of it?

I'm saying we invented flying machines 200 years ago but are for some reason all driving cars.

>that spacing

I'm guessing they're in that stage where everyone can still drive full speed but are close enough together a lane change in the wrong place could trigger a jam.

>we will have an anarchistic society
>in this anarchistic society, people will magically become hardcore authoritans

thats not what i'm talking about. imagine trying to get anywhere navigating that clusterfuck. all somebody would have to do is put up the wrong sign. besides, that pics not taken during rush hour, holidays, or 10-20 years after its built.

>Le Somalia meme
That took longer than expected

It happened once...

The thing about Hoppe is that I genuinely don't see how he calls himself an anarchist. The society of today is literally the natural conclusion of the system he proposes we adopt. Borders, rules in different places, laws that breach the NAP.

not an argument

>the benefits of society
explain how someone throwing me in a cage because I don't want my money to fund pointless foreign wars is a benefit

How do people think the state is necessary? All the functions the state provides are provided by groups of people acting. Why do we need to initiate violence to get groups of people to act? If we need to violently force people to do something, it's probably not something that should be done anyway.

I study politics and philosophy in montreal. Just out of interest i decided to take a class on Marxism and Marx's philosophy since I'd never read anything of his besides excerpts from the communist manifesto for an intro poli theory class.

There's this fucking idiot that i honestly fucking hate so much in that class. He's an anarcho capitalist, like hardcore wont budge. Shows up to class MAYBE every few weeks. Ugly skinny-fat guy who literally shows up wearing clothes that are a whole size too small and picks his nose and wipes it on the desk.When he actually shows up to class, he doesn't bring a laptop or notes. He just sits there chewing his nails and tapping on the desk or drawing pictures of assault rifles and monsters on scrap paper.

Anyways he goes up to the front of the class to do his presentation for the semester one day.. and gives an entire speech about why socialism is wrong and uses every single terrible arguement you could think of, including all of the ones the teacher had literally gone over the week before when we studied arguments for and against marxism. but he didn't come or do the readings so he didn't know.

He says that capitalism isn't the problem, corporatism is the problem, and he says that politicians are corrupt and meddle too much in the freemarket and therefore corrupt the private companies because by existing it gives companies an incentive to bribe them and influence policy negatively... therefore we need to abolish the state and have the purest form of capitalism possible.

Someone literally just raised there hand and was like "the nature of those companies being greedy and negatively influencing policy is not dependent on the existence of the state. and if we abolish the state they would now be unaccountable, giving them an incentive to act greedy. how is that a solution?"

he's so dumb you could literally see him stop as he tried to think of a response but he couldn't and just said thanks "thats my presentation".

corporations wouldn't exist without protection from the state, anyone could enter the market, reverse engineer any product they make and sell them at lower prices

>Dig a well
>nah
>Everybody dies cause there is no well

>Dig a well or I'll shoot you
>okay
>Nobody dies cause there is a well

>stop dumping shit in the river
>nah
>everybody gets sick and dies

>stop dumping shit in the river or i'll shoot you
>okay
>everybody has clean water

personally, i think anarcho anything is pretty dumb.

anachism isn't about tearing down the government, its a personal philosophy. Its basically like saying, "In Jersey, anything is legal so long as you don't get caught."

Rules and laws don't exist in nature. Everything there is the result of reciprocation, you establish guidelines for your behavior based on you're own personal experiences.

Basically, when you are an anarchist, you are saying, "The law doesn't apply to me. I am a sovereign nation unto myself. The only only authority I will respect is my own, the only law I will obey is the law that is backed through force of arms."

saying your anarcho-anything is a contridiction in terms.

All anarcho whatevers are basically trying to say the same thing.

"I own me. You don't own me. I own me!"

Not really no. Even Stirner is not that crude.

Except for anachro-primitivists.

Have you ever driven on a freeway before? Mazes like that are straightforward from ground level. Also, people don't tend to fuck with the signage on freeways because of all the moving vehicles.

Anarcho-anything IS absurd.

Its absurd because every anarchist claims they aren't willing to use force to accomplish their agenda's, when they clearly are. Each claims the other is somehow violating their rights and sovereignty, while simultaneously inflicting their "rights" upon others.

None of these philosophies have anything to do with anarchism, because anarchism isn't pacifistism, it isn't about dismantling the state, and each simply represents a clique of young people who don't want to identify with older and more established factions that they believe have somehow "failed".

Todays youth are so terrified of radicalism and action that they are content to hide themselves behind the black flag of anarchism because they themselves do not wish to act on the individualist principle upon upon which arachism is founded.

No, they are just as dumb as everybody else.

So called anarcho-primitivists are just people who are terrified of joining a radical organization like the Earth Liberation Front and standing on their principles because in truth they support a far more moderate approach towards politics and don't actually want to get involved.

yeah, and the barbed wire they put up doesn't help either

Property comes before the state. Property exists because people have the tendency to defend objects with physical force; this tendency would be there even without a state. What people seem to miss is that the state is what happens when those powerful people decide to allocate the objects they defend to others - if you're going to try to abolish property, what you're really doing is becoming the powerful people who physically defend property and allocates it to other people (in other words, the state), and not really abolishing property at all.

"Anarchism" (which would include property) only really works if none of the physically powerful people allocate their property to other people at all - which, beyond being really shitty, wouldn't be sustainable because those people would go create states on their own to increase their own wealth thereby shutting down anarchism. If you create some sort of framework to stop people from allocating their property to others, that itself would be a state, and not anarchism. So, yes, Anarcho-capitalism is a huge meme, but it's a meme that's closer to what Anarchism would really mean than the "anti-property" Anarchisms that people actually talk about.

Do you listen to yourself when you talk?

Capitalism and the State do no exist in nature, tearing them down, when they've imposed themselves on me (and everyone else) isn't "violence". You're reversing the burden of proof, when you want me to explain why spooky man made systems shouldn't oppress people.

>rights

No such thing in Anarchism. Pure ideology of the state.

>socialists

End you are selves.

Freedom above all.

Yeah?
Then go shoot a cop.

Are you really so unimaginitive, your intellect so bludgeoned into submission, that you can't conceive of a world in which people dig a well so they, you know, don't fucking die, as opposed to needing to be coerced into it? Also, if humans are so stupid, how is it a solution to give concentrated power to more humans to run the show? Are these humans immune from the retarded glee with which the rest of us jump to the grave as a result of dehydration?

Murray fucking Rothbard would even say that what you've outlined there breaks the NAP and therefore you don't need a state to enact your solution. He literally uses the same example.

I am not an AnCap, but fucking hell.

Yeah right.

Why don't you go ask mommy and daddy to buy you a nice new pair of sneakers for me to piss on, funboy?

I voted social democrat. I fear that as radicalism grows in Europe, revolutionary ideologies will displace reformist ones.