How do you do an ancap character Veeky Forums?

The chaotic neutral part represents his inconsistent and contradictory beliefs and his unpredictable nature, right?

Thanks. I was agreeing with you, for what it's worth.

>>violating the NAP all the time
>Doesn't really fit.
No, no, you see, it's not aggression when THEY do it; they're just responding to aggression from other people!

oh, thanks user

Play Chaotic Evil.

Play Chaotic Evil, but present yourself as if you're Lawful Good, and act offended when you ping as evil to spells and magic items.

Oh come on. That smoke in the mothers face would have clearly been an NAP aggression and she had every right to use self defense to protect her child.

So Andrew Ryan?

Chaotic neutral, use excessive force for everything, but never make the first move. Buying and selling whatever you want to whoever you want is top business, no backsies. Don't adhere to anything anyone says you should do, unless you were already doing it.

So they should go on welfare?

Play a Bard

>but never make the first move
Social aggression is still aggression, user :^)

As an ancap this is beautiful.

HOPPE/10

>Hoppe
>not Hobbes
>not being superior statist ubermensch
Enjoy your brutish, nasty state of nature, bruv

How do you play a proud ANTIFA character?
Protip: LG Paladin you stupid fascists.

enjoy your unaccountable hypermonarchy

>implying the plebes are any better

This made me kek

Lawful statist detected

Could be anywhere on the Chaotic side of things, I don't doubt there's a few freedom minded business owners who act with integrity. But still, definitely the chaotic types to the last of them. Otherwise, I don't know what to say, it'd just be any character that didn't believe in government (but still believed in private ownership of capital producing property). There's any number of backgrounds that'd make for a person like that.

Anti-Paladin that somehow never noticed he fell.

How do you play a communist character, Veeky Forums?

Source:
newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department

Everytime you fuck up you say "I was never really a true marxist"

Robin Hood with mandatory conscription.

I made a few characters like this, my favorite being a Black Crusade one

Play as an Iceland-era viking.

>that shit
>implying
+3 int +1 cha -2d4 wis

Substantial penalties to INT and CHA

You mean LGBT Paladin

>In a regular, cozy town everyone goes about their daily business
>An old lady, on her way to feed the ducks like she does every friday morning, happens upon a rugged looking beggar
>"Spare change for the poor, ma'am?"
>Because the young man reminds her of her own son, the old lady reaches into her purse for a few silver pieces
>In that moment, a Dark Knight squeezes her wrist until her bones shatter
>"The Free Market will fix it!"

>An old, dying man of great wealth and prestige decides that his last wish is to set his slaves free
>The now freemen and -women personally thank their master before leaving
>About half an hour later, they're dragged to their master's residence in chains by a Dark Knight
>"The Free Market will fix it!"

>In his palace, the king is debating the status of the realm's economy with his most trusted advisors
>One of them proposes minting more coins, to both bring more money into circulation and honor the king by putting his name and face on the back of every coin
>Suddenly a gauntleted hand punches through the wall and snaps the advisors back
>A muffled "The Free Market will fix it" can be heard from the other side of the wall

>The identity of this Dark Knight is as of yet unknown, but he's widely referred to as "The Invisible Hand".

...

Charge people money for everything, complain when they want free help, and expect everybody else to do the same.

>Charge people money for everything

Like a member of the mafia who targets people for breaking with ideology rather than not paying them

As a militant Chaotic Poor (Good) character

Sounds like the life of a Ferengi.

Why do people who mock libertarians on the internet never actually know what libertarianism involves?

I was wondering how would one get healthcare in ancap society. And I think this fine lady might be the answer.
>Any treatment is a possibility as long as you have the money, you get exactly what you asked for, to the letter.
>Free treatment is also an option, but it might be a bit experimental or come with side effect. You basically compensate by volunteering as a test subject.
>Owns a mansion, including bodyguards, that's her property and sovereign domain, you better not interfere unless you're customer.

Or something like GeneCo from Repo! The Genetic Opera.

The only time I've played Chaotic Neutral it was politically. I kept trying to explain to peasants how the state was abusing them, used alchemy to make spray paint to leave tags on buildings, blew up a few government buildings, etc

Because the more you analyse libertarianism, the more retarded it gets.

I think it's just americans that think anyone that isn't part of their two-party scam of a democracy isn't a serious movement.

Isn't the relative value of emergency treatment pretty much infinite in a life or death situation for someone though? Well assuming you don't have a friend there with a gun to the doctor's head anyway

Because Gary "They are not illegal immigrants, they are proud undocumented heroes" Johnson is the biggest buffoon in the election and is the face of modern American libertarianism.

And because all lolbergs just bitch about both sides of the aisle without presenting any sort of plan to actually improve things. At least sjw have some sort of plan, even if it is half-assed and short sighted.

Threat of violence violates the NAP, doesn't it?

The US libertarian party is mainly batshit insane ancaps so people think libertarianism = batshit insane anarcho-capitalism

That's why you arrange a life insurance.
The insurance company gets to coldly and heartlessly negotiate acceptable price for saving a human life based on how much you're willing to pay monthly to sleep soundly.

Yeah, that's one possible interpretation.
But you gotta work with supply vs demand. If you price something so high no one will ever want (or be able to) buy it you might as well not sell it at all. As a doctor I'd imagine you want to sell some healthcare at least sometimes.

But calculating monetary value of human life is always tricky question. I've seen some insurance company calculation that put it at apox. $700k on average, but I don't have the link at hand.

>The insurance company gets to coldly and heartlessly negotiate acceptable price for saving a human life
You know life insurance companies pretty much work on betting how likely it is you die, right?

So does state pension system (if your country has one).

Because they are people, individuals.

You are nothing but a meme

no, state pension relies on assuming some guy is gonna cover your contribution in the future.
The only difference mortality rates have is how big your share of the bonus cash is.

Denounce revisionists* and build bunkers**

*Every single person, animal or inanimate object other than you is a revisionist
**Ideally the number of bunkers should be equal to ∞*10

...

Get real jimmy-rustled about people who have power due to wealth (it helps if the BBEG is one of them).

...

I am playing one as cleric of Waukeen. True neutral alignment. I believe in chaotic ideology, but i am pretty lawful at core. I believe in order, but spontaneous one, formed from bottom.

1st and 2nd examples are exactly how The Free Market fixes things.

In 3rd story... Coins are just pieces of gold. The picture on it, the seal (i dont know proper word in english) just states, that certain authority confirms this piece of gold weight X. So, minting more coins of same weight from existing gold is no real problem to an/cap paladin. Lessening amount of gold in coins, however... Now, that's a different story.

Anyway, nice post.

Because actual people in real life say the things we mock libertarians for.

And since you have no chance in hell of actually regulating who gets to call themselves a libertarian you have to deal with "allies" who spend their days saying things that make you look bad.

You're forgetting the convenience value of being able to use money instead of bartering live chickens. Making it possible for poors (read: people who don't have gold coins) to participate in the market by increasing the availability of currency is clearly a bad thing.

>man agently chooses to free his slaves on his death
>they are mostly domestic or skilled laborers who can now freely sell their sweat on the open market
what's wrong with this?

>anarcho-capitalism
What a spook

>not being a hyper-egoist statist
There shall be a state because I will it so
There shall be a leviathan because I will it so
You are all my property
You are all spooks

Nothing.

>In 3rd story... Coins are just pieces of gold. The picture on it, the seal (i dont know proper word in english) just states, that certain authority confirms this piece of gold weight X.
>rolling a 1 on a knowledge (history) check

>+2 CHA

Hilarious joke, user

Enlighten me, then.

It's a great excuse, innit.

The surplus value created by their labor will still be expropriated by the ruling class, whether they are feudal kings or merchant kings. The only thing they have been granted is the illusion of freedom.

You will be a tinkerer.

Systematically eliminate the little shits trying to fuck with your workshop.

Then build something with the 'Superpower' attribute.

We're getting very close to satire here

Most people are too afraid to have a reasonable discussion about socialism. The common responses are all squid ink.

Because libertarians don't even know what it means anymore.

Don't forget
Gooby Gary "Guns need to go" Johnson

>Communism doesn't work
>"REEEE wrong communism"
>Wow you people say that a lot
>"REEEE no we don't"
I've seen this countless times. It's not satire, and you just fulfilled the next thing that happens now when people point out that it always happens.

>Eclipse phase

The state capitalism that existed in the USSR and other pre-industrial societies was an attempt by socialist movements to industrialize, create a proleteriat class in their post-feudal nations, and create the historical conditions in which the transition to socialism would have become possible. Your insistence that the USSR was "actual communism" (it wasn't even actual socialism) is nothing but your refusal to understand what socialism is. Nobody is changing any definitions; you're just insisting that the easily-defeated socialist strawman is the only version that can be considered because you're too afraid to confront the real ideas presented by socialists.

Anyone here read this?

tor.com/2010/08/11/the-fermi-paradox-is-our-business-model/

How would you describe the humans in this story?

>The state capitalism
Oh boy, here we go with, "It doesn't count because it wasn't the perfect interpretation"

Well the perfect interpretation of communism won't actually ever work as any sane person can tell you.

You can never name a communism that was actually communism, but you'll insist that it works.

Socialism isn't communism, doesn't have a real place in a conversation about pure communism, but communists will always bring it up because it's more palatable. (Notice how you were the only person to bring it up)

>your refusal to understand what socialism is
And you called me a strawman.

> was an attempt by socialist movements to industrialize
Funny how often that's said, oh, "it was just meant to be a precursor", yet when people point out the Nazis were, by their own words, attempting the same end goal, no one sane would claim that Germany wasn't a true fascism.

I don't mind having a conversation about socialism in which you think that it is a bad idea, but you can't expect to be taken seriously if you know literally nothing about the ideas you criticize.

>It doesn't count because it wasn't the perfect interpretation

That's not what I said. Socialism is an economic mode of production with many possible implementations, but one requirement for something to be an implementation of the socialist paradigm is that capital is not owned by a ruling class (whether private individuals or the state), but by the people themselves who make economic decisions democratically. That wasn't the case in those nations that you claim were communist.

>Well the perfect interpretation of communism won't actually ever work as any sane person can tell you.

You can't even tell me what "communism" actually is, much less why it is necessarily impossible to implement (a statement which takes on a large burden of proof). Communism is not capitalism plus state control - class relations and the mode of production are fundamentally different. Work and society in a socialist society are as different from capitalism as capitalism is from feudalism.

>You can never name a communism that was actually communism

"Communism" is a far-future situation in which the people organize themselves without the existence of state or class. It's not intended to be something that can be immediately implemented without a long period of socialism.

>Socialism isn't communism

Of course - communism is the situation to be worked towards by socialist societies in the standard interpretion of Marxist socialism.

>And you called me a strawman.

I said you refuse to engage with anything but the strawman version of socialism. You aren't interested in understanding the idea, you just want a misrepresentation of socialism that has nothing to do with the actual ideas being discussed so you can hit it until the conversation is over.

Different user, you're full of shit. If we're analyzing a Marxist version of socialism [which generally speaking is the case], a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a necessary stage in developing a socialist society.

Now this doesn't have to be a literal dictatorship, but it DOES have to be the working class/ruling class, or more specifically its vanguard, forcibly taking power from the bourgeoisie and engaging in a socialist platform. Social services, redistribution of wealth, the consolidation of the means of production into the vanguard, and so on.

The idea that every socialist country just didn't read Marx is asinine and insane. The idea of socialism in a democratic context, in which the bourgeois can participate, is a contradiction in terms when it comes to communism.

The workers MUST seize the means of production and dismantle capitalism, whether that be through literal dictatorship of the vanguard or democracy limited to the proletariat. The point is, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, etc didn't pull their political philosophy out of their ass. They were socialists, plain and simple.

The USSR followed Marx's instructions very specifically, with the only exception being that worldwide revolution was replaced by "communism in one country". To call them anything but socialists is nonsense.

>working class/ruling class

Ruled* class, not ruling

>I don't mind having a conversation about socialism
Talking about Communism, but go on.

>Socialism is an economic mode of production with many possible implementations
Yes, there are many variations, and most people would say there's no one exact version.

>socialist paradigm is that capital is not owned by a ruling class
Well it's a bit less cut and dry than that. but yeah sure, let's go with that because we were never even talking about socialists.

>That wasn't the case in those nations that you claim were communist.
Ah, so you'll be using the terms interchangeability, probably at convenience.

I see so "It wasn't communism" is followed by "because it's not socialism" Which though isn't the held belief, but go on.

>communism is the situation to be worked towards by socialist societies
But you were saying it wasn't communism because it wasn't a socialism? But you're saying socialism can only come from communism.

Again, how was I wrong in the first place? I said that communists will always say "Not true communism" and you did just that

>"dictatorship of the proletariat" is a necessary stage in developing a socialist society

Yes, according to traditional interpretations there is a transitional period in which the new social relations are constructed; this was true for the bourgeois revolutions as well. However, "dictatorship" is not meant to be read the way that you seem to be indicating - this is simply highlighting the change in class relations, not implying brutal authoritarianism. Our present capitalist system would be called a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", in other words.

>The idea that every socialist country just didn't read Marx is asinine and insane.

Clearly not what I said. I referred to the historical conditions of the countries in which socialist revolutions have been successful thus far, not their interpretations of Marx.

>The idea of socialism in a democratic context, in which the bourgeois can participate, is a contradiction in terms when it comes to communism.

There is no bourgeois class in a socialist society because there is no private ownership of capital.

>The workers MUST seize the means of production and dismantle capitalism, whether that be through literal dictatorship of the vanguard or democracy limited to the proletariat.

No, that wasn't the problem. The problem was that the historical conditions necessary to transition to socialism did not yet exist in post-feudal Russia, China, Southeast Asia, etc. These societies had not even experienced capitalism or industrialization yet.

>The only time I've played Chaotic Neutral it was politically. I kept trying to
It's not really a bet. Their sales numbers are high enough that they pretty much know how many people are going to die from sheer statistical analysis.

Effectively, it's more like they're the service provider for a collective money saving effort - aside from the vast profits they ladle off the top, of course.

>we're not talking about socialism, we're talking about communism

This tells me you don't understand the first thing about either. Go read that guide and learn something about socialism. "Communism" as a term for an actual movement distinct from socialism did not even exist until the split between evolutionary and revolutionary socialism and the success of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Socialism and communism as an ideal are inextricably linked. What you know of as "communism" the form of government was a series of decisions made by a particular socialist movement in response to the historical conditions faced by one society. Stalinism or Maoism are not the only real forms of socialism that can exist.

i feel like this poster was made by Dennis the Constitutional Peasant

>socialist revolutions have been successful thus far
And which of those exist or existed that weren't incredibly small in scale and existed for any extended period of time? I know there's a couple that lasted a few months that were extremely small.

Take it to /pol/

I addressed the point that it need not be a literal dictatorship, but it must be one in which the bourgeoisie do not participate. You say there would be no bourgouise, and you are right, but only after a successful violent revolution and vanguard is set up and has seized the means of production.

The idea of the workers democratically controlling the means of production, directly, before the bourgouise as a class have even been eliminated is ridiculous. There is a reason most socialist countries were structured in the way that they were.

Secondly, while you are right that many of the countries that became socialist were not yet capitalist, that does not alone explain why they failed.

They failed for the same reason all socialist countries fail, which is that they fail to properly incentivize people, and far more importantly, because central planning of the economy even at the most local of levels is extremely inefficient. The Soviet Union for instance was rife with surpluses and shortages from where the central planners had made faulty predictions.

Only an open market and the concept of price allows for the efficient allocation of goods and services The inefficiency caused by trivialities in capitalism are as nothing compared to the structural inefficiencies of a centralized economy.

>This tells me you don't understand the first thing about either.
>"REEE you have to use terms only in ways that I deem are right"

>Communism" as a term for an actual movement distinct from socialism did not even exist until the split between evolutionary and revolutionary socialism
Yeah, but according to Marx there still needed to be an in-between period, I mean he wasn't that retarded after all,

Although you seem to be in a weird position, you allow yourself to use communism as a distinct concept as well as just another term for socialism, so maybe you should heed your words first, or at least only use one meaning of the term. I guess if you believe in something as stupid as socialism you need some serious doublethink.

>Stalinism or Maoism are not the only real forms of socialism that can exist.
In the sense of actually being possible? Yes.

Then the insurance company decides they don't like you and don't actually pay anything, the doctor kills you for not paying, you are dead and nobody cares.

Sounds like a great idea!

It's retarded because people fail to recognize that a fair and free market only works when backed by the threat of violence and loss of freedom by an entity so much more powerfull than everyone else that you have to take the threat at face value. Maybe you could set something like that up and then pay them a fee to keep this running, oh no wait, this is literally government....

That doesn't really matter when you are dead and nobody is going to ever find out.

Who is going to enforce the NAP?

>Yeah, but according to Marx there still needed to be an in-between period, I mean he wasn't that retarded after all
>he wasn't that retarded

Other than getting the fundamental aspect of what creates poverty entirely wrong, sure.