Is there an ancap-core? I'd like some must-read recommendations, please

>anarchy
>capitalism

choose one

>Helicopter pilots handbook

...

Part 1 for anyone interested

>rules of politics
top kek

this is the most profoundly shitty list I've ever read

Know thine enemy

name one current nation without degeneracy

This is garbage

90% of part 1 is unecessary
and you're missing all the foundational works of each ideology in part 2

I was reading Herbert Spencer "Man against the state". He is known as the social darwinist boogeyman but in an evolutionary biology book I found that he actually wasn't. He was against colonization and slavery if memory serves me well.

From the looks of it he could be proto-ancap but I wouldn't know since I haven't finished his essays yet.
Anyway wanted to mention him since he has become so obsecure but potentially interesting.

>Read Foucault's Pendulum
>realize the utter failure of attempts to create a narrative to control life
>drop nationalism altogether

That's a good list

Yes there is.

If you conflate his liberalism with his social darwinism you'll see there's no other option but neo-imperialism for him. He's against outright colonization / political domination but not against economical domination (which is the position you'd expect from a XIX century englishman, tbqh)

pt2

Have you read him? I read only a tiny part and if I am honest I found it a bit dry. But I wanted to continue eventually. What is your complete verdict on him?

David Friedman and Bryan Caplan both have pretty interesting blogs. Never read any of either one's books though.

>no Konkin

Solzhenitzyn's In the First Circle might tickle you just right because it rips the Soviet system apart.

It can be clumsy, though.

I hope you realize the Greeks raped boys for pleasure when they weren't creating modern civilization.

>rape
>little boys
>applying modern social morality to ancient civilization
lol, were you trying to make a point?

Most ancap books are terrible Ayn Rand-style shrieking about "Private Property! I'm a genius, so no government should mess with me! Blablabla".
David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom is a nice exception. Adam Smith isn't good for ancaps (he argued for free markets, but also for control of content).

Most left anarchist also just shriek when they hear ancaps: "Racist! Soldier of the 1%." I only know Chomsky who said a little (but not much) more than that about ancaps.

If you want the 'royal road', read Scott Alexander's Non-libertarian FAQ, then read the responses at the end.
slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/

>ancaps

I'm sure Eco's rolling in his grave by being co-opted by your idiots

this thread is about anarcho capitalism and not just some vague understanding of capitalism thread

Also I'm glad Capital is on that shitty list for people who wear suits everyday to school

Someone give me a quick rundown on this ideology

the state is bad, mmkay? let the market run society....

...

Doesn't sound so bad if you put it that way

>Jesús Huerta de Soto

Good chart.

the only thing that will cost is your health insurance once i drone bomb your house

An ideology that memes accurately represent.

Wtf is ancap

This is a great reading list if you want to become an argumentative faggot with no concrete knowledge or understanding.

It's a discredited economic philosophy that only survives on the internet because some jerkoffs watched a couple YouTube vids and became econ experts.

...

...

>Spengler and Cioran
>"Right-Wing Socialism"

Either a crucial misreading or a cruel joke.

>ancap

>an ideology that memes actually represent
So, I guess you have actually read any ancap literature and ancap theory to know what the ideology is.

Basically the privatization of everything.

HAHAAAHAHJAAHAHAHAHAAHA

Damn right

>most of our economy is ultimately based on slave labor and sweatshops
>everytime you give businessman the opportunity they'll end up fucking up the environment as much as possible

I honestly don't get ancaps. I don't see how can you give a look to our world and say that absolute privatization with no statist mediation is the solution.
I really don't see it, and if you come to that conclusion through a principled reasoning, the reality of the world should just discredit those principles themselves.

Basically the only true moral institution is property, which is derived from the self-ownership principle. Anarcho-Capitalism is basically the application of that basic truth on society. The result being a society free of governments and the aberrations they create ( corporations are one example).

>government is there
>corporations lobby it

>government is not there
>corporation blackmail the general population by withholding a monopoly

Maybe (maybe) the problem is not government... maybe (maaaaaybe) the problem is the system that creates corporations.

That's probably because you're not a selfish hedonist, as is required to be an ancap. Why give a fuck about the environment when I can just get whatever I want however I want by force without having to justify my actions or ensure it benefits anyone else?

Alternatively you have the even worse group of people that think unregulated production will magically have incentive to protect the environment at the expense of profits despite the entire history of civilization proving otherwise.

Because you think ancapistan will be modern day society as we know it but without a state. THAT would be a disaster. Our Society and the state grew alongside one another. We never proposed to outright end the state, because another state would immediately pop up. Society would be forced to rebuild a government because it is already structured that way and it would arguably be the best way to prevent a total collapse.

Basically don't destroy the government to build a free society but build a free society to destroy the government.

There's a lot of ways to do that, basically we offer alternatives to government institutions and make them so widespread that governments will slowly lose all their power. Technology helps us get there, that's why there's so many ancap and libertarian societies in Sci-fi.

No.. corporations are a legal fiction, this is business 101. Their legal liability is granted by the state, and they get away with murder because of it. An ancap society would be much more horizontal than you think.

>corporations are a legal fiction, but not property itself

>Why give a fuck about the environment when I can just get whatever I want however I want by force without having to justify my actions or ensure it benefits anyone else?

That's compatible with hedonism. What if I genuinely want to live in a clean, green world? To me that is priceless, much more than a shitty Ferrari or a shitty 5000sqm villa.

>Alternatively you have the even worse group of people that think unregulated production will magically have incentive to protect the environment at the expense of profits despite the entire history of civilization proving wrong

It's not the ultimate solution, but you still have to admit that it is a limiting factor. Your option is not an improvement, unless all you care about are meaningless material possessions.

This sounds to me as utopic as actual late stage communism. It sounds like shit we'll get in 4000 years from now if we manage to survive that long.
Does it make sense to talk about it nowadays? Look at our society: how far are we from such an ideals? It would make more sense, at this point, to adopt causes whose continuum can be traced up to ancapistan.

Property is derived from the self-ownership principle, arguing against it is self-contradictory.

Praxeology 101

>No.. corporations are a legal fiction, this is business 101. Their legal liability is granted by the state, and they get away with murder because of it. An ancap society would be much more horizontal than you think.

Corporations would have a monopoly on force in ancapistan, and we already know that the consumer does not care about atrocities committes by them.
Chiquita, Nestlè, Apple, these are literally memes representing corporative exploitation, ranging from slavery to murdering to heavy pollution. Literally everyone have known about them for decades now, but they're still going on, strong as ever. Why would this change in Ancapistan?
If anything these corporations would have even more blackmailing power and less restrictions: they certainly would be more powerful.

Also you can see examples that are still not exactly anarcho-capitalists but are almost there: all of these corporations have usually their production lines in third world countries, where governments are to the point of non-existence.

Most of our thoriun is mined by children in Congo: shouldn't that tell us ANYTHING about the nature of this system?

>This sounds to me as utopic as actual late stage communism.

Yeah well talking about actual ancapistan is pretty pointless, who knows how that will pan out. The best trajectory is to focus on bringing down the pillars of the state one by one.

Intellectual property
Fiat currency
Corporate power
Monopoly on utilities

>Why would this change in Ancapistan?
Because they would be liable for all the damages they do, and there would be plenty of people with guns that would love to help make those claims a reality if they got a piece of the pie. It wouldn't be feasible to be shitting on everyone as much as corporations do now.

Also (failed states/corrupt states) =/ ancap

>What if I genuinely want to live in a clean, green world?
If that's true then why would you advocate for a system in which you have 0 control over the environmental destruction caused by big corporations? The impact an individual has on the environment is minimal, and you certainly don't have the impact to persuade a corporation to stop ruining the environment, so the only solution is to enforce some kind of regulation that forces them to not fuck up the planet. But there goes the ancap utopian dream.
>It's not the ultimate solution, but you still have to admit that it is a limiting factor.
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that simply hoping corporations will want to protect the environment at expense of their own profits is a viable solution?

>Because they would be liable for all the damages they do, and there would be plenty of people with guns that would love to help make those claims a reality if they got a piece of the pie.

Then why does this not happen in third world countries were weapons are available? Want to know why? Because corporations are stronger and mercenaries are a thing.

You're imagining a system in which perfect justice is achievable (and said perfect justice would be what makes everything work). I don't trust people that much, nor I think people are interested that much about these things, and this dedication would be literally the only thing which could make this system work.
What if even in ancapistan people will just go "eeh, what can you do about it? Go against their thugs?" or maybe going to trajectories to justify child labour, which is already happening in many ancap circles.

If communism is too far from our human nature, anarcho capitalism is too accomodating for it. I don't think it's propedeutic for the propagation of tolerable lives among the general population. Everything that may scare me (monopolies on necessities, private monopoly on violence, a complete disregard for human's and environment's health, abherrations such as cohercive slavery and child labour) is perfectly feasible wiht any incarnwtion of anarcho-capitalism that is not as ethical and principled as the one you're imagining.
I'm up for debate though, I'm really interested in what you've got to say.

I'm not arguing for anarcho-capitalism, I'm arguing against it.
This was my first post

>If that's true then why would you advocate for a system in which you have 0 control over the environmental destruction caused by big corporations?
That was my point.

>I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that simply hoping corporations will want to protect the environment at expense of their own profits is a viable solution?

The limiting factor in this case would be regulations, more in general a government with the monopoly of violence.
So far it has not been perfect, but one should also admit that this was the main limiting force to these harmful practices.

>Then why does this not happen in third world countries were weapons are available?

Because the governments in those countries are protecting these corporations? And these corporations are backed up by first world countries? You're basically standing up to NATO if you stand up to a corporation. Their governments won't do shit because they are corrupt and the global community of states sees that as the only legitimate way to deal with the problem.

So no if you keep comparing ancapistan with third world countries then you're thinking about this all wrong. Not to mention corporations would not be able to enforce stupid bullshit like intellectual property. That alone is a huge blow to their capital. Our whole state system is being shaped to subsidize corporations and they have never been as big and powerful as they are now.

I have to go to work and then sleep. Sorry guys, this has been good though. Not even the ancap subreddits have this level of conversation. See ya in like 12 hours.

Okay, that explains the confusion. I'm arguing against it as well.
>So far it has not been perfect, but one should also admit that this was the main limiting force to these harmful practices.
Yeah we're definitely on the same page. I'm not sure if I'm having a stroke or what.

Yeah, but the problem with that line of thinking is that you don't own yourself, you simply are yourself.

If self-ownership and it's corollary homesteading, is correct, why doesn't the Atlantic Ocean become mine if I pour a can of tomato sauce in it?

brb gonna go bang on a trash can for no purpose

kek

Do you not see that corporations and the modern national state are just two sides of the same coin? They are both hierarchical power structures hat soly exist to protect and facilitate the reproduction of capital. You guys always pretend that getting rid of the state gets rid of illegimate power structures. But If you strip away the official national state you get quasi-state like structures. It's already happening in countries like Russia, the mafia (which is just an illegal corporation) and the megacorps run by the oligarchs, are becoming the new state. They don't need fucking NATO.

Oops, I was mean to reply to

I think he included it as an example of good literature and a "don't too retarded and become /pol/ worshipping a frog god"

*barfs*

Define "own" nigger.

And I hope you don't complain when I take all the things around you since no one owns them.

Literally this.

Your entire philosophy is a joke.

I wonder how ancaps (that aren't just authoritarians with a hard-on for markets) square their alliance of convenience with actual authoritarians that view markets as vectors of vice and ``````````degeneracy'''''''''''''' and have stated plans to permanently cripple market freedoms in order to prop up their ethnostates.

I mean just look at c.h.u.d.s like . Ancaps are in his way of destroying freedom of contract (muh usury) freedom of speech (gotta suppress "toxic cultures") so he can artificially inflate the wages of uneducated whites that demand the government give them a high-paying job and a pension and free healthcare.

They want you ancaps dead. Why continue to give them aid? Choose 1776 over 1488 for once.

name (1) government that protects capitalism

I used to be an ancap, and I'm not anymore, however the argument that ancap is somehow an oxymoron or not "true" anarchism is false.

I went to a pan-anarchist meetup some years ago (don't laugh) and holy fuck did I get a bunch of flak for being an ancap. I think 90% of the people there were syndicalists, and the others anarcho-communists.

...

...

Every government that protects private property "rights" aka all of them.

...

...

You got flack because everything about it is a joke. Anarchism was meant to get rid of heirarchies that had power over peoples quality of life, which is exactly what capitalism forces people into. The guy who proposed and came up with the name, Rothbard, even said its not anarchism and he only named it that and appropriated the word Libertarian to piss off leftists.

no government protects property rights further evidenced by the fact that you cant name one

Yeah, and I sort of knew that at the time. I was using the definition of anarchism being for a stateless society, rather than a hierarchy-less society.

It's semantics really, but it shows how important definitions are.

To be fair, I've met ancaps that are genuinely opposed to all forms of statism and they're much more cordial than the spate of edgy teenagers using anarco-capitalism as a meme ideology to advocate state-sponsored murder

States arent the only type of abusive hierarchy, and you would have to want to get rid of all of those to be an anarchist. You can't call yourself one if you just want to get rid of one.
>no government protects property rights
???
If the workers of a Walmart decided to tell their bosses to fuck off and run everything according to workplace democracy you don't think Walmart would just use the police to kick them all out of the store and hire new people?

>States arent the only type of abusive hierarchy, and you would have to want to get rid of all of those to be an anarchist. You can't call yourself one if you just want to get rid of one.
Again, it's semantics. I was (previously) using a definition different from theirs, so there was a misunderstanding.

No one would argue against removing abusive hierarchies, but I think you and I would disagree on what qualifies as abusive. I still very much agree with many ancap points, I'm just not full out an ancap anymore.

protecting the interests of one group of people is not protecting "property rights"

property rights are a principle of natural law (or, more modernly, praexology) that must be applied equally to all people

principles that have exceptions aren't principles at all but a thinly veiled veneer masking egoist consequentialism

the US doesn't protect property rights (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London)

What an idiotic post. All you're really saying is "for the most part the government protects property rights, but there's cases in which people aren't protected or are treated unfairly, therefore the government actually doesn't protect property rights AT ALL!"
>natural law
>law
>property
ok my dude

>this is the principle by which i act
>except when i dont want to
>but i totally operate by that principle

if you aren't consistent in your principle then youre just an egoist trying to convince others that youre principled

also you have no argument other than "nuh uh i don agree but i don have 2 explain y"

I'm not pretending to be principled, I'm just me. No one can 100% abide by a code of principles. What I'm trying to say is, for the most part, the state does protect private property, even if it's unequal, and the same consequences of poverty and exploitation would exist if the system of capitalism was made pure in that property rights were protected 100% equally. Small impurities in the system won't fix that the entire principle of the system is flawed and leads to horrible shit.

You actually don't know anything about how laws work, do you?

>protecting the interests of one group of people is not protecting "property rights"

Well it is when "protecting the interests of one group of people" is a euphemism for defending people's property with force moron.

Corporations are fundamentally legal entities and cannot exist without a state. With no authority to enforce contracts or determine ownership rights people cannot trust those they are doing business with. An ancap society would either resurrect the hierarchy of the state in some form or regress into feudalism

It seems bound to end up like one of those bizarre political fads that were popular in the early twentieth century, like the Social Credit movement.