Can ancaps ever recover lol?

So, what's the difference between a landlord exercising an exclusive monopoly on violence over a territory and collecting rents from a state doing so and collecting taxes?

>demands he accept reality
>posts Hobbes

Maximum overkek.

Not that guy, but Hobbes wasn't right either. The very existence of society suggests we can overcome our short-sighted egoism and take a more enlightened form of egoism that's conducive to a social existence. Spinoza > Hobbes.

Hey now. not even Communists think that. Even the Council Communists believed political organization and enforcement would be necessary.

Hobbes wasn't right int he sense we need a fucking King, but his is right we absolutely require a state and laws need to be obeyed because the archeological evidence suggests that before we had those we killed each other at LOT. Hell, large urban areas today still have problems properly policing the behaviour of the population because there's simply too many people to keep track of. These ancap memelords think if you just get rid of the cops and take away any universal apparatus for punishing criminal acts that somehow there won't be chaos int he streets.

Ancaps are basically the only political ideologists that propose a complete absence of such a device (aside from post-left anarchists, who don't propose a wholesale society either, instead living within the underbelly of a greater society). They suggest that the the egoism of business owners will keep us from each other's throats, and it's fucking absurd. Even the individualist anarchists were quite happy to suggest that we should have a means of reprisal against "criminal" elements (though they perhaps didn't use that term).

Anarcho-capitalists are a special sort of idiot, politically speaking.

I would argue all anarchists fit that bill. The real difference is what kind of 'repressed true nature' will spring from this lack of authority. Ancaps think the contracts and mutual agreement/benefit that underlies a capitalist economy would just run everything. Ancoms think everyone will become completely selfless communal beings. Etc, etc, etc.

You reap what you sow, governments are just society's crop rotation, technological progress, etc.

I would counter that you're overlooking the complexity of their theories. Most anarchists advocate various forms of revolutionary device (the platform of platformism would be a good example here, as would the unions of anarcho-synidicalism) as a means of policing. While they avoid the basic terminology of state-centric ideologies, the idea of a legitimate means to use social violence for the upkeeping of peace within society remains. The basic idea is damn near a semantics consideration on its differences between these devices and the state, and ultimately the concern is making them more bottom-up rather than top-down. So the concern is less "should there be a government?" and more "how involved should the people be in the affairs of government?" and represents an extension of the same thought process that lead the rise of liberalism.

Anarcho-capitalists are pretty unique in that they advocate the wholesale dissolution of government as we know it, and instead creating a system of micro-fiefdoms dominated by the basic values of absolutism, only without the Hobbesian idea that the government has a reciprocal duty to the citizenry; in short absolutism without the good points.

That picture is retarded, and I'm not even a libertarian, let alone an Anclap.

Giving the government credit for market inventions simply because the government builds infrastructure, is facetious.

Public investment has been a huge catalyst in innovation, this is undeniable historical fact.

If their concern is not "Should there be a government?" and their answer is not "No" I don't really know why I or anyone else would call them "anarchists" since the lack of a monopolistic societal power structure is core to attaining a state of anarchy.

This might just be me being a puritan, but in my mind if your "anarchist" sub-ideology basically replaces the state with something else that isn't int he same mold as a traditional state but serves the same function, it's not really anarchy is it? It's just a new form of governance. I think a lot of "anarchists" only hate the modern concept of the state, not the idea of governance or societal control in general. In my book, that means they're not actually anarchists.

Whereas, someone who tells me that they want to destroy the government and all capitalist institutions so that people are then completely free to live out according to their "true" altrusitic nature (so, actually "anarchic" anarcho-communism), that's anarchism. That's believing in a lack of governance. It's completely delusional of course, but that's beside the point.

>Giving innovators of all types immense funding they would never receive via private organizations doesn't produce results
You sound as dumb as a libertarian.

Yeah, and I didn't say it wasn't a huge catalyst either, but Bill Gates is still responsible for the things he is in fact responsible for, regardless of whether he used a public road, or DARPA used tax money to create advanced micro-chips in the 60s.

Every single person today lives with in a society that is driven by coercion and compulsion both legally and socially, that doesn't mean the shit they innovate and create isn't theirs and belongs to some constantly degenerating bureacracy.

It may not belong to the government but without their spending do you think you'd have half of the medical research or technological funding we have today? No, we wouldn't.

I hope you understand that this is like saying that the Catholic Church created the Sistine Chapel and built the Statue of David and not Michelangelo.

>If their concern is not "Should there be a government?" and their answer is not "No" I don't really know why I or anyone else would call them "anarchists" since the lack of a monopolistic societal power structure is core to attaining a state of anarchy.

Think of it like how liberals claim to want liberty but don't have absolute liberty. Proudhon called in anarchism because it represented a system that was "an" "archons" in so far as everyone (or close to) took part in being the archons.

>It's just a new form of governance.

This would be correct. But the fact is that social organization is important. A society needs to preserve its existence, and organization is a requirement.

>In my book, that means they're not actually anarchists.

Which is what a lot of ancaps say. But the fact is, the social-anarchists made it to the word first and so get to dictate its terms, and in theory anarchism represents a more free and egalitarian mode of society than liberalism.

>Whereas, someone who tells me that they want to destroy the government and all capitalist institutions so that people are then completely free to live out according to their "true" altrusitic nature (so, actually "anarchic" anarcho-communism), that's anarchism. That's believing in a lack of governance. It's completely delusional of course, but that's beside the point.

That's what a lot of people take from the ideas behind the ideology, looking at Bakunin's criticism of the state, or the basic ideals behind anarchism and stretching them beyond the actual bounds of the theory. But it's not really what you'll find if you read into the theories themselves. I'm not an anarchist, but I'd recommend reading into their literature to get a better view of the theory behind the ideology. Good thinkers to start with would be Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin.

If he wouldn't have accomplished those things without public investment, then those achievements belong equally to those devices.

Michelangelo never would have done those things if it wasn't for the Catholic Church. People would still have creative energy, but they wouldn't spend it on the same things they did if the previous steps weren't already there. It's like saying you could send the Wright Brothers back to 500 BCE and expecting them to build an airplane because "historical evidence shows they do indeed have the knowhow".

Absolutely retarded statement.

Nope, but the church absolutely deserves part of the credit for those creations.

>arguments: 0

>People would still have creative energy, but they wouldn't spend it on the same things they did if the previous steps weren't already there

Yeah, but that's not what you're saying. You're saying that creative energy basically doesn't exist if the State doesn't create the conditions for the existence of people's creativity.

Which is pretty retarded, considering the fact that buying a canvas and paint doesn't require state intervention into the market.

Would those things have been created without the help of the Church?

Probably not, given that they were literally commissioned by the Church.

But that doesn't mean Michelangelo isn't responsible for their beauty and creativity, because he is. If they gave some other retard money to do it, it wouldn't be as beautiful as it actually is.

So while I agree to some extent that states have been key, at least throughout history because of their authoritarian nature, in the development of the arts and creative production, it's not like you can just throw money at anyone and get what you want. You actually have to throw money at the right people, at exactly the right time and place.

No one is claiming that these figures aren't responsible for these creations, just that their achievements are partially owned by the organizations that were necessary for them to happen.

>No one is claiming that these figures aren't responsible for these creations

Yes they are. That's literally what this memepost does.

No it isn't. Steve Jobs didn't invent the fucking transistor and the state absolutely does prop up the image of capitalism as ancaps see it.

Well I've never heard of anyone claim that Steve Jobs invented the transistor anyway, so at any rate it's just memeing with strawmen.

Libertadianism is the only political ideology hated by both the left and the right.

It's an exaggeration, so on those grounds it is a strawman. But there are seriously no shortage of right-libertarians that do everything they can to downplay state involvement in innovation as a means to make their ideals look favourable.

Yeah, and I know why they do that, because they admire and value personal responsibility and actual hard work.

I know it's hard to imagine that they have anything but evil intentions and just want to crush the lower class with their power and privilege, but you should be able to have a worldview that is more nuanced than that of a 19-year old social science major when you're perusing this board in your leisure time.

No, I'm saying the state creates an environment in which creative energy can be expended efficiently.

You seem butthurt. They do it because they selectively deny anything that contradicts their position, and emphasize things that support it. It's basic confirmation bias. They may not want to suppress those lower on the social ladder, but that's the eventual outcome of their neo-feudalistic ideals, and they're rooted in a fundamentally childish understanding of politics and history.

>it's okay if they're serial liars, as long as they believe they're doing the right thing

Libertarians should be gassed desu