What would a layer of the Abyss based on Ancap ball memes, NAP violations, and "everything is an NAP violation...

Technically people have a right to be free from mental, emotional and physical violence.

And who is going to keep that in check and write down the specifics?

The government?

Would Anarcho-Communism be Nine Hells or the Abyss? I could see the Hells because Communism is extremely lawful and collectivist, but the Abyss because of the anarchist aspect and the fact that in absence of a strong central source of coercion (lolrite), the coercion necessary to maintain the society would exist mostly on an individual, impromptu, mano-a-mano basis

>people have a right
>rights
Spooky post.

No, they have a right to be free only of physical violence. Trying to regulated "mental, emotional" violence is proto-totalitarian collectivism and incompatible with life in a liberal democracy

Goddamn, uh, right. Either we maintain a state that regulates social behavior as little as possible, or I'm going full-Stirnir, Illegalist "life to the knife" in revenge

If the NAP is based on a right to protect ones ownership and protect oneself but there are no rights how does the NAP exist outside the mind of a governing body?

Yeah well as an anarchist I don't have to follow by your laws unless you enforce them, then you become the government.

Nah, the abyss would be pure anarchism in the abyss, theres no rules or ideas of rights, its the mighty do whatever they want and tell the lesser what they want, unless they kill the.

That's literally what we're discussing, a fantastical implementation of an ideology that actually has "anarcho-" in the name.

Please learn to read before posting on Veeky Forums in the future.

... Soooo Ancap?

Nigga he didn't ask if it would be okay with canon D&D Abyss, he just asked what it would be like.

I'd argue it'd have to be in the Nine Hells since anything in the Abyss wouldn't give a shit about the NAP. It's just that the outcomes of NAP violations that Ancap-balls usually have are taken to the extreme with no consideration of using equal force. It would pretty much just be trigger happy cunts using NAP violations to justify their use of force against their competitors.
>These guy stepped foot on my property and stepped on my flowers
>Time to buy mercs from McDonalds to kill his family

In this kind of situation, things would likely revert to a tribal style thing where if one person starts enough shit, eventually all the people around him just won't fucking talk to him or off the fucker

>Yeah well as an anarchist I don't have to follow by your laws unless you enforce them, then you become the government.
>as an anarchist
As a nationalist I will kill you in spite of the laws (unless you're an Anarcho-Capitalist in which case you're just kind of cute), governance thereafter is an open question
Also the NAP is an arbitrary social construct like any other

Question to any theoretical AnCap unicorns here, how do you feel about anarcho-commies and revolutionary anarchists?

Nah, ancap would mean theres value put into... well value, we're talking pure chaos.

It would be extremely shitty, lawless and full of people killing eachother for petty things.
The abyssals would live in caves or holes, mud houses at best as destruction of others property for the craziest bullshit and too vent anger. Also no roads.

That's actually exactly why they'd use the NAP in the Abyss. It's a bizarre parody of a legal/moral system, and the kind of society that would fit tanar'ri just fine. I can already see a vrock calling somebody a fucking statist because they try and stop the vrock from buying puppies to torture among the viper trees.

Anarcho-*Communism*, user, *Communism*.

>As a nationalist I will kill you in spite of the laws
I mean you being a nationalist doesn't matter, since every tribal warlord will cut your throat for not bowing to him.

The not following the law to kill me is to be expected, its anarchism after all. I'll just have to kill you first and then make your "nation" shit.

Simple enough.

The entire concept relies on the idea that humans tend to avoid conflict with one another, and indeed, should.

However, violent conflict as an inherent part of the human condition, and the idea that people will simply work together on a large scale without any rules to force them to do so is foolish beyond belief.

It's simply the ideal system of a person totally out of touch with the real world.

If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money, isn't that a violation of the NAP?

The NAP doesn't exist as an actual thing, its more a name for "I want to kill you now."

So yes, it violates the NAP.

His half of the blanket is his property, she's stealing his property which he has a right to protect.

>I mean you being a nationalist doesn't matter, since every tribal warlord will cut your throat for not bowing to him.
We're the biggest and baddest tribal warband
>The not following the law to kill me is to be expected, its anarchism after all. I'll just have to kill you first and then make your "nation" shit.
Ah, the laws of nature in action. What more could we ask for? Nothing; no one ever could

If that's the case then people are constantly violating my NAP as I daydream about cutting open nearly every person I see.

The bigger the warband, the lesser the value of the peon.

Also its probably gonna demand you follow its rules and orders under the threath of death, human nature leaning towards hierarchies and all that.

Reminder that Moot and Hiromoot both lets several police and secret services archive and look into these.

>As a nationalist I will kill you in spite of the laws
I'm an autototalitarian, I am an iron fisted regime of one, oppressing a cowering populace of the same. There is no law in this hypothetical jungle, so your spite is in vain, ally it with my own, that we might violate international code upon the aforementioned anarchists, my fellow nation.

>Anarkiddos

>-277 points

>The bigger the warband, the lesser the value of the peon.
The weaker the warband, the lesser the chance the sheep remain alive or self-directing
>Also its probably gonna demand you follow its rules and orders under the threath of death, human nature leaning towards hierarchies and all that.
Exactly. Imagine if a military unit didn't demand soldiers follow its rules and orders under the threat of death. Hilarious

Also if my faction was defeated but I lived I'd become a freebooter and keep robbing and killing true-believer anarchists until I died

kek. This is like the US conservative bloc of libertarians and nationalists

Oh please, I must already be on so many of their watchlists that at this point it would be an an achievement to get on another.

>Exactly. Imagine if a military unit didn't demand soldiers follow its rules and orders under the threat of death. Hilarious
Yeah but you wouldn't be a soldier, peon.

>Nah, ancap would mean theres value put into... well value, we're talking pure chaos.
That's Limbo fuccboi

>Taking pride in being controlled
Lel, true anarchist right there.

that would be the assumption going into a conflict with nationless nationalists like yourself, and the reason that defeating your dear faction would happily involve killing every man, and hunting survivors down like dogs.

In the hypothetical ideology playground the pragmatist is king.

I think of myself more as a monarchist.

>Taking pride of being unfavored by the monarchy
Lel, real monarchist right there.

>I could see the Hells because Communism is extremely lawful
That's Socialism. Communism and anarcho-communism are the same thing.

Cute, sheep
I'm sure your philosophical faction possesses overwhelming martial might
Actually it doesn't because anarchism is one of the most weak-sauce ideologies in history, which is why they got BTFO not only in Finland, Spain, Germany et al, but even in the Soviet Union! hahaha. The only reason they're even on the scene right now is that they're the only white leftists who enjoy committing crimes (ancaps are excluded because they don't affect reality), the rest being gigantic pussies too busy being exploited by the underclass

>this boot is my owner and that is good because he is named himself (((the people's government)))
-Statist

To clarify what I mean by weak-sauce, I mean it's not actually that motivating. It can motivate people to commit crimes and maybe form little bandit groups like in the Soviet Union and Spain. But taking risks equal to what a commie, nationalist or Muslim would take? Please
"One can cross a river on a log, but not on a splinter." - Dos

>Cute, sheep
But you are the sheep, clinging to a government because they say they agree with you, lying to you as they leash you. Especially since everything that nation stood for is statist and unfree as fuck.

I am free, are you?

I think I'd prefer if the king was simply a poor, inbred creature preoccupied with toy trains and fish bait, sitting on the throne merely so that no one else would get the idea. Also, give him a gun and the right to shoot any advisor or member of parliament that he pleases.

*Dostoevsky reformed-nihilist character

Well communists prefer their leader as fair sharers and capitalist prefer them making money, but thats an utopia.

MY ANCESTORS ARE SMILING ON ME IMPERIALS

CAN YOU SAY THE SAME

>basement dwelling first worlders who rely on thousands of products from across the world and the protection and services of others around them
>I'm an island unto myself don't oppress me reeeeeeeeeee!

/everypostinthisthread

>I'm sure your philosophical faction possesses overwhelming martial might
>Actually it doesn't because anarchism is one of the most weak-sauce ideologies in history
>Pragmatism is Anarchism
What did he mean by this?

>Implying its not shitposting falseflaggers falseflagging falseflaggers
Truth to be told, I like working piping, roads and water that doesn't actually contain tons of chemicals. Thank god that we're only gotta worry about an idiocracy and not a full blown shithouse.

I have nothing but contempt for 90% of the government but not 90% of my people. I'd break the laws to achieve my ends and I'd become something equivalent to an illegalist anarchist failing that
>Especially since everything that nation stood for is statist and unfree as fuck.
Not the USA, though maybe in Sweden or Saudi Arabia or wherever you're from. You may think otherwise because you refuse to think of the state of a given country in the context of world history, its national history or the relative position of its laws with respect to other nations currently existing

I wonder how long it will take him to realize that the exact same thing is true for communists...

I have a slightly different interpretation of [philosophical work] to you.

In either case, it would do us a lot of good to return to proper names. King Donald and his hoodlums, and so on. It should be illegal to speak of the government as an entity with thoughts, feelings, and goals or otherwise write it with a capital G. Offenders should be locked up or publicly shamed for a considerable amount of time, and later, if unwilling to conform, executed.

>Not the USA
HAH, rich. Being controlled is your blood, there are no free americans and the culture demands servitude to the master.

I think we should execute people for wrongthink, of course they should follow my idea of rightthink.

Looking at the victors of the 20th century Western civil conflicts, siding with nationalists is pretty pragmatic
Germany: Commies/anarchists btfo
Finland: Commies/anarchists btfo
Spain: Commies/anarchists btfo
Italy: Commies/anarchists btfo

The only countries where there was armed struggle and commies won were in fucked up, ignorant/collectivist Eastern nations such as Russia and China

That said, if there is no serious civil strife (such as in the USA or Britain) of course it's better to go into business than joining a bloc

Also for anarchists ITT, I cannot imagine a more defenseless nation than an anarchist nation

you're a real student of Hesiod, ain't you.

>"HAH, rich. Being controlled is your blood, there are no free americans and the culture demands servitude to the master."

>this is the enemy's level of thinking
Well actually, I'm sure a few people who are on your side are cringing

do you feel like you're winning an argument? Do you know what pragmatism is? Do you just post responses to what you imagine the posts you link are about?

Pragmatism is not anarchism, and a pragmatis nation is not defenseless.

You literally cannot prove that you are a free people that bows to another nation.
And no, the past cannot be used, the past is the past. Only the actions of the people now matter.

I'm mostly taking the opportunity to speak obliquely to anarchists right now because you have delusions of grandeur and are irrelevant
I've read the Prince, very good book

>You literally cannot prove that you are a free people that bows to another nation.
ok kid

Wait, what's with the parens? Do AnCaps have a thing about jews?

You mean siding with a faction actively and aggressively funded by the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world is pragmatic. That it chiefly supported hard-right 'nationalists' often comprised of former fascists is not because these are good allies for them - they were often reckless and self-destructive - it is simply that when your enemy is half communism and half your own paranoia, it is much easier to self-justify allying with them rather than militant socialist groups.

>Anarchists are real and not just a social construct like the tooth fairy
>That anyone actually meant what they wrote in this thread.

Since when do Anarchists win wars?

What.

Is...is there a translation service on Veeky Forums for this shit? Is this what reading /pol/ is like?

You know, I was kind of wary of the entire 'AnCapistan as a layer of hell' thing OP proposed but y'all dipshits are doing a great job of showing me how this would work.

I 100% need to run this for my group at some point. Angry Vrocks and Nalfeshnee with pikes glaring at the PCs as they walk by their shitty flowerpatches and balors bitching to each other about who has the biggest dick while refusing to violate whatever the fuck a NAP is.

mostly I'm laughing cause he's still insisting I'm pretending to be an anarchist instead of pretending to be a Machiavelli fanatic. His nationalists will die to my Florentine cyborgs, the republic shall rule the meme-o-net.

>You mean siding with a faction actively and aggressively funded by the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world is pragmatic.
Of course. I wouldn't be a nationalist for just any country :^)
It's also true that guys who are too crazy can be bad for the cause. I'm a nationalist but I never said there wouldn't be strife between nationalists eventually, too, or that there wasn't in the 20th century
Still, nationalists slaughtered pinkos in Spain, Indonesia and a few South American countries and got to hold on to their takings for several decades.
Anarchists are real but not real strong. I'd take pleasure in killing them but I wouldn't take them seriously as anything but bomb-throwers, as always. A weed, just a particularly ugly one

>Since when do Anarchists win wars
>Pragmatism is still somehow a form of anarchism
What did he mean?

>Since when do Anarchists win wars?
This
>Is...is there a translation service on Veeky Forums for this shit? Is this what reading /pol/ is like?
He was joking and that was hilarious
>You know, I was kind of wary of the entire 'AnCapistan as a layer of hell' thing OP proposed but y'all dipshits are doing a great job of showing me how this would work.
Not an ancap but anyways you'd like Planescape

Shut up idiot you're not the only one who's read Machiavelli and Machiavellians have/can/will exist(ed) in any and every political faction so no one's going to talk about "pragmatists" unless they want to toot their own horn as some kind of mustache-twirling mastermind

yeah, and we're just freeform roleplaying ideological dick waving in some vague lawless wasteland, and one upping each other by saying 'my band of territorial, ideological ruffians can beat up your territorial, ideological ruffians because my ruffians are meaner and more effective'

so its not wrong to say that the Machiavellian faction will beat the non-machiavellian factions.

You're just jealous I beat you at makebelieve, and you can't say I'm shitposting because we're all shitposting.

ok kid

The NAP requires herd enforcement to function and not simply have the situation devolve into neo-feudalism. Unfortunately herd enforcement is essentially impossible as not enough people will enter into violent conflict to defend the NAP.

We can see similar situations occur in south and central america regularly as examples of herd enforcement via violence in a vacuum.

Another is the how Anarcho-capatilism deals with children. There are two main branches. Children are property or children are self actualized and treated the same under the law. For the first I can bash my own child's head in on my property and it does not violate the NAP and thus any effort by you to stop me violates the NAP. If the other is true I should be able to engage in dialogue with a child to exchange some compensation for sex acts, you trying to stop be violates the NAP.

You either let child murder be come up ok or let pedophilia come up ok.

Pedophilia is OK.

Too easy.

this is me. Now tell me its nothing personal. It'll be almost just like we're posting on Veeky Forums

>>I wonder how long it will take him to realize that the exact same thing is true for communists...
Well sure it is. What's your point? Communism is just as dysfunctional and impossible form of government as Ancap.

>The NAP requires herd enforcement
AnCaps imagine that there will be private defense agencies which would defend people's rights for monetary compensation.

Of course, why these agencies would only protect againts violations of the NAP and not say, radical muslim men's right to not have to look at or speak to women they've never been able to answer.

Nor do I think I've ever been given an answer to what would happen in the hypthetical situation that two people's defense agencies came into conflict with one another due to incompatibilities in the rights they try to uphold. My best guess is open warfare.

>criminalize arrangements of pixels because oh won't you please think of the children
Weakest fucking argument in any debate ever. Rape is already illegal; that's enough regulation anyone needs.

Pornographic drawings of children are already illegal in several countries.

Two people have claimed the NAP has been violated and that they require the other party to be dealt with. They both pay for a PMC service. How does this situation resolve?

A large company with resources contacts with a PMC. They use this PMC to violate the NAP and force people into a police state situation under company rule. The people they oppress do not have the resources to hire a larger PMC organization. How do you stop a situation like this from developing?

You need the use of some form of court system for a civil case. How does this situation resolve in a manner that does require the threat of violence to enforce, thus violating the NAP by attempting to enforce an arbitrary private court ruling?

AnCaps imagine that both parties would agree on a judge beforehand that they both trust to come up with a just verdict and sign a contract to adhere to it no matter what it is. No idea how they imagine the situation would be handled if both parties can't agree on a judge, or if one refuses to adhere to verdict regardless, or afterwards claims the judge was bribed and that the verdict therefore is void.

Exactly. The focus shifts from protecting children to punishing people for thoughtcrime. That's no slippery slope; that's one single step from "photos" to "depictions". "Muh chilluns" is one bad joke that just doesn't end.

>They use this PMC to violate the NAP
ancaps say the other PMCs will stop this from happening, because the market will incentivize respect for the NAP, instead of incentivizing the will of the highest bidder.

that was the point

theres also talk of subscription to judicial services, and the service providers you and your opponent subscribed to settle things between them.

>"Muh chilluns" is one bad joke that just doesn't end.
This is the main reason I believe women suffrage was a mistake. No other argument is less cogent and yet more prone to abuse.

>>AnCaps imagine that there will be private defense agencies which would defend people's rights for monetary compensation.
What happens when defending people's rights isn't profitable?

What happens if ancap land has to get into a fight with fascist or communist ancap land? That indoctrinates people to fight and die for the state, and uses conscription and taxation to continually make new armies for high intensity warfare?

There's no situation on the planet where it'd be profitable for a PMC to fight a multi million man industrial warmachine.

That's a dangerously retarded position to take. I hope no one actually believes that. PMCs will contract with whomever has the most resources to offer them, as they do already in nations with weak governments.

The question is what if two subscribe to different services, or one does not subscribe to a service.

>What happens when defending people's rights isn't profitable?
Supposedly, people who can't pay for the service would get no protection and would have to settle things on their own.

>What happens if ancap land has to get into a fight with fascist or communist ancap land?
Dunno. The AnCaps can probably not answer that.