上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 435

[–]halfback910 102 ポイント103 ポイント  (94子コメント)

Many AnCaps quietly espouse the altright in an effort to drive people away from their unconditional love of government.

I disagree with this (ancap here). We ALLOW alt-righters to debate with us in our subreddit just as we allow Communists, Socialists, fascists, democrats, republicans, and anyone else we disagree with. We are not alt-right.

[–]OnTheJobRedditor 43 ポイント44 ポイント  (40子コメント)

I love it too. Try going on /r/socialism to discuss an opposing point of view

[–]halfback910 37 ポイント38 ポイント  (39子コメント)

Or any subreddit moderated by leftists, really.

[–]ujelly_fish 41 ポイント42 ポイント  (34子コメント)

Yeah, like the_donald

[–]GrantZ 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (6子コメント)

To be fair The_Donald doesn't pretend to be a place for discussion. It is a self-declared echo chamber.

6. This is a sub for supporters of Trump ONLY

[–]ujelly_fish 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

How is that fair? Mod rules stifling political discussion actively hurts political discourse.

[–]dsclouse117 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's not a political discourse sub. It's a trump sub, they have discourse sub though, but they aren't that active

[–]ujelly_fish 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's just pathetic. Hiding away all critique is hypocritical when you are so against "safe spaces."

[–]halfback910 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Yes. I hope you weren't being sarcastic. Because... yes, you're correct. They are leftists who do not tolerate dissent.

[–]NFeKPo 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Sorry, are you calling T_D leftist?

[–]halfback910 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (8子コメント)

They are economic and cultural leftists, objectively, yes.

[–]NFeKPo 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I think you are highly mistaken.

  1. Trumps/T_D's MAIN points was/is building a wall and kicking illegals out. "Leftist" do NOT like, approval, condone, whatever word you want to use this activity.

  2. The left go out of their way bending backwards to accommodate muslims. I don't think i need to go over Trumps/T_D stance on this.

  3. The left love ACA/Obamacare. Once again I don't think I need to go over this.

I am failing to see what exactly these two groups have in common other then maybe a few (now fairly common across most groups) points.

[–]halfback910 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Trumps/T_D's MAIN points was/is building a wall and kicking illegals out. "Leftist" do NOT like, approval, condone, whatever word you want to use this activity.

Question, can you tell me Bernie Sanders' border policy? Again... the similarities... MIGHT surprise you. He called open borders a "Koch scheme", for your knowledge.

The left go out of their way bending backwards to accommodate muslims. I don't think i need to go over Trumps/T_D stance on this.

The groups that are collectivizing and being collectivized against do not matter. COLLECTIVIZING GROUPS is leftist. This is why SJWs and alt right are two sides of the same coin.

The left love ACA/Obamacare. Once again I don't think I need to go over this.

I don't think they agree on all issues, but they agree on an alarming number. Protectionism heads up the list.

[–]NFeKPo 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Question, can you tell me Bernie Sanders' border policy? Again... the similarities... MIGHT surprise you. He called open borders a "Koch scheme", for your knowledge.

Bernice Sanders supports the DREAM ACT. T_D does not. Bernie does not want a wall. T_D does. Yes they both believe in securing the borders. But tha'ts my point, they agree on a few things that most people believe. Source

The groups that are collectivizing and being collectivized against do not matter. COLLECTIVIZING GROUPS is leftist. This is why SJWs and alt right are two sides of the same coin.

So basically what you are saying is anyone who forms a collective group are Leftist. This is absurd. Almost everyone in the world is part of a collective group in some way (sports teams, religions, book clubs, gun clubs). In your definition the West Baptist Church is a Leftist group.

It appears to me like you just hate Leftest and you hate T_D. Therefore you have decided that these two groups must be alike.

[–]ujelly_fish 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

How far right are you that you think the_donald is a lefty sub mate??? Still wearing belt buckle hats and reading Calvin?

[–]halfback910 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

They're really left on economic issues. And they're cultural leftists. Identity politics is leftist in concept, it doesn't matter if you hate white people or love white people.

And you have your answer: I'm far right enough that I don't think government should exist.

If you actually sat down and analyzed their economic policies, I'm assuming you're a leftist, you'd come to the conclusion that they're probably a lot like yours. And that would be uncomfortable for you, wouldn't it?

If it makes you feel better, I think you're all idiots who think more or less the same things.

[–]ujelly_fish 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Lmao yes I'm so uncomfortable to agree with the_donald in the sense that yes I would like government to exist.

"Government shouldn't exist" is not a conservative platform. You are actually radically left as you are advocating significant government change.

Hope you enjoy lead in your food, bud.

[–]Polisskolan2 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The traditional left-right spectrum is virtually useless by now.

[–]halfback910 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Significant government change isn't about left or right. That's absurd.

Economic conservatism or liberalism is the degree to which you want the government to involve itself in the economy. I say not at all, which is conservative in the sense that you wish to conserve or minimize government involvement in the economy. r/the_donald wants to involve the government massively in the economy. That is economically leftist and, I daresay, you'd probably find yourself in agreement with them on a large number of economic issues, not the least of which is protectionism.

[–]ujelly_fish 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Alright, well I guess if you've decided on the definitions of left and right by yourself, I can't argue with that.

No shit I agree with them on basic things like "government may actually matter." As a society we've already recognized that. Political debate simply revolves around how government resources should be allocated and how much of them.

[–]kerouacrimbaud 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Idk man. r/conservative is shitty too. Not nearly as friendly to opposing views as r/liberal, for instance.

[–]halfback910 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was thinking more in terms of socialists and communists and SJWs. I've also been banned from conservative subreddits for being too conservative or liberal on the wrong issues.

Mainstream beliefs tend to be okay debating other mainstream but opposing beliefs. It's when ancaps or communists or libertarians get involved that people start banning.

[–]GrabGrabTheHaddock 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (15子コメント)

actually leftists get banned on r/anarcho_capitalism if they disagree too much, it's only neo-nazis who are allowed a free hand - because ideologically ancap is very close to neo-nazi.

[–]halfback910 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (12子コメント)

What? When has anyone ever been banned on r/anarcho_capitalism of ANY ideology? There are numerous leftists that I argue with on r/anarcho_capitalism on a regular basis. They've certainly not been banned. Not that I'd want them to be banned (I wouldn't).

Also how is ancap close to neo-nazi when it doesn't want a state? You're clearly hysterical.

[–]GrabGrabTheHaddock 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (11子コメント)

guess I just whipped this up on photoshop then

https://i.imgur.com/3gwIq0O.jpeg

[–]halfback910 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (10子コメント)

What was the reason given? If this is accurate and there wasn't a very VERY compelling reason, I will be absolutely furious.

[–]GrabGrabTheHaddock 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

I got into an argument with one of the moderators where i pointed out that his views on race and IQ were empirically false and provided citations to a number of scientific studies to back up my claim, the next day I logged in my post was deleted and I was banned.

[–]halfback910 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Do you have screenshots of any of that? Also which mod. Because I am absolutely going to make a fucking stink about this. I also regularly confront so-called "race realists" on that thread and if someone got banned for doing it, I'd like that to be addressed.

[–]GrabGrabTheHaddock 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

yeah it was the moderator "anenome5"

[–]Knorssman 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (2子コメント)

he isn't a mod of /r/Anarcho_Capitalism and he isn't even a race realist

i smell a troll

[–]Pardalean 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

He's trolling. Anenome5 moderates /r/GoldAndBlack which is an alternative ancap subreddit where we're not as welcoming to alt-right trolls. Alt-right trolls aren't huge fans of ours so they pull this crap.

[–]crappycappy 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

...actually leftists get banned on r/anarcho_capitalism if they disagree too much...

Interesting. Can you point to examples?

[–]NESIRGNIK 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (31子コメント)

If you don't see a more clear connection between the altright and ancaps then left wing politics you're delusional. Right libertarians are part of the dissident right; ancaps and altright are natural allies.

[–]halfback910 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (22子コメント)

How? The few economic policies the "alt-right" espouse are leftist. Quashing free trade, forbidding people from doing business with people based on skin color, taxing to high heaven to pay for enormous militaries, regulating "degenerate" uses of property.

You're honestly bolshevists.

[–]Prometheus720 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Just so everyone knows, this fellow os a troll and if you look at his comment history you will see what our ancap subreddit deals with daily.

[–]lizard450 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (5子コメント)

The altright is a group of groups of people. There are libertarians in there... conservatives, white nationalists, and so on and so forth.

Some of the alt right are cool with gay people.. some people from the alt-right aren't.

While there are racist an-caps ... racism isn't part of the an-cap ideal. There is no stance for or against it.

Two things that an-caps are pretty strong on ... which makes the two ideologies mutually exclusive ...

  1. The alt-right is statist. They believe in nations The concept of nations is against the most fundamental aspect of anarcho capitalism.

  2. The alt-right believes strongly in borders. An-caps are blatantly against borders.

[–]ILikeBumblebees[🍰] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is no stance for or against it.

While it's true that it's orthogonal to the particular positions that define anarcho-capitalism (or, really, libertarianism in general), it should be noted that the more fundamental value system that libertarianism is rooted in is one that's deeply individualistic, and as such, the intrinsically collectivist nature of racism makes them effectively mutually exclusive.

There are a few cranks who think that because libertarians defend freedom of speech in absolute terms, and aren't willing to deny even racists the right to express their opinions, they must actually agree with those opinions, but the reality is usually quite the opposite.

[–]NESIRGNIK 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The altright isn't explicitly only white nationalist, but you have to recognize that egalitarianism is a lie at the least to be altright.

[–]ILikeBumblebees[🍰] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

egalitarianism

"Egalitarianism" means a lot of things, and different concepts of egalitarianism often directly contradict each other.

Libertarianism is defined by a kind of moral egalitarianism, i.e. that the same fundamental morality -- both in terms of moral worth and moral responsibility -- applies equally to all. It's for this very reason that libertarians reject the socioeconomic egalitarianism that the left often seeks to establish by forceful intervention.

[–]joshl99 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Also visit /r/goldandblack if you're interested in the topic. :)

[–]TheMarketAnarchist 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Much higher quality content.

[–]halfback910 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We've got the best content, folks. Absolutely incredible. Just ask my good friend, Sean Hannity.

[–]NESIRGNIK 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Read as:

try visiting /r/goldandcuck if you're interested in reading ancap circlejerks with no challenge to the left wing orthodoxy.

[–]SpanishDuke 58 ポイント59 ポイント  (42子コメント)

It's important to add that moderation in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism is extremely low. Healthy debates and honest questions from opposing or different ideologies are welcome.

[–]OnTheJobRedditor 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (40子コメント)

Socialists are more than welcomed to voice their opinions in a respectable manner. Debates are nice and civil usually.

The biggest downside to the light moderation is the fact that the alt right seems to be getting a little to comfortable in the sub

[–]asherp 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is a moderated sister subreddit, r/goldandblack. Most of the content is the same.

[–]GrabGrabTheHaddock 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

debates are not civil at all, almost every discussion breaks down into racist shitposting. you see the n-word about every second or third post.

ancaps are some of the biggest racists on reddit.

[–]OnTheJobRedditor 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Provide examples of upvoted comments from the ancap sub that are racist

[–]newAKowner 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The guy's a troll man. He's been going through this whole thread, screaming racism.

[–]Mylon 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Better than the hug-box of /r/LSC. I think AnCap is even more idealistic than socialism, but all of the supporters I've talked to have been polite.

[–]OnTheJobRedditor 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

LSC has to be one of the most pathetic subs I have ever seen. Socialism subs at least have an ethos behind them, LSC blames everything wrong in their lives on capitalism. The fact that they will eventually have to get a job to survive is more than enough of a reason for them to reject capitalism

[–]Anen-o-me 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

LSC focuses on what socialists are good at: negatively-critiquing capitalism. That's what all of Marx's writings were too--don't talk about what socialism is, just critique capitalism.

Obviously the reality of attempts at implementing socialism have been equally horrific, and they must find ways to avoid thinking about that as well.

[–]Mylon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

LSC (accurately) highlights some of the smaller forms of rent seeking that companies and individuals engage in as capitalism runs out of room to expand and starts eating itself. Like the case of the window repairman breaking windows for job security.

They just have the rule, "This subreddit is a safe space" which is enforced with an iron fist and I make fun of it for that.

[–]clintmccool 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (20子コメント)

The alt-right, comfortable in an ancap sub?

Color me shocked.

[–]halfback910 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (8子コメント)

We mock and confront the alt-right at every angle. I don't see what you're getting at. I can link you to two or three entire threads I've posted that got upvoted to high heaven criticizing the alt-right.

By and large we hate them almost as much as anyone else. There might be a LITTLE bit more sympathy (not much) because they're also political outcasts like us. But barely.

[–]NESIRGNIK 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

/u/halfback910, the same guy who made a post on /r/DebateAltRight saying he would be a member of the altright if we weren't so anti-gay.

[–]halfback910 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (5子コメント)

That's not what the post said lmao. They came into r/Anarcho-Capitalism and said "Come ask us a question!" so I figured "I'll bite." went and asked a question.

The question I asked was, why shit on gay guys because a lot of gay guys would otherwise have a lot to gain from being a part of the movement.

I would never subscribe to a movement that believed in a state, ever. Which, in that thread, they made it very clear that they do.

Link to the actual thread and quote me saying this or shut up.

[–]OnTheJobRedditor 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Ancaps hate it and even created a slightly more moderated sub to get away from them.

[–]NESIRGNIK 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Yep, they wished for the government to construct borders around them to keep out the altright immigrants. They couldn't handle testing their ideas in the marketplace.

[–]Prometheus720 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (4子コメント)

No, they stopped shopping at the store that lets violent thugs and junkies inside to shop at one down the street with mild security. This is private security, something that ancaps have always advocated.

Many of us are subbed to both so we can see both perspectives.

But you're a troll, so whatever man.

[–]TotesMessenger 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]Prometheus720 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The actual ancaps (like me) on the subreddit constantly complain about the altright trolls who come in. We consider it a serious problem and we don't like them. We let them talk, but they often get downvoted because we get to be sick of them. When communists pop in once, no big deal. That's a short conversation. It's the repeat trolls who annoy us.

So no, most of us really dislike the alt-right and have a completely different philosophy. If you've ever read True Believer by Eric Hoffer (and you should), you'll recognize that pretty much all the alt-right former ancaps exist because Trump's movement was more successful in the short term in basically every way, and lots of people just want to change things or be radical. It was a toss up between becoming an ancap or Trump supporter.

Most ancaps are true anarchists who want many of the same things as communists, only with a different method.

[–]ZadocPaetbiggest joystick 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (61子コメント)

Quick question for AnCaps considering what day today is.

What are your feelings on Trump?

[–]fitzdepl 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (43子コメント)

Some ancaps hate him, some support him pragmatically

[–]ZadocPaetbiggest joystick 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (42子コメント)

Could you elaborate a little? Like what are the pros and cons of Trump from an ancap perspective?

[–]halfback910 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (22子コメント)

Hi, there. I am an ancap who despises Trump. I can tell you why I hate him:

1: He's a populist. Populism goes against anarcho-capitalism at its core. Anarcho-capitalism is individuality incarnate.

2: He's incredibly fiscally liberal.

3: He wants a bigger military (I'm against), tighter border control (I'm against), restriction of free trade (I'm VERY against), and expanded surveillance (against).

[–]ZadocPaetbiggest joystick 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Thanks!

Would it be fair to say that the ancap movement has a lot in common with right-libertarians? I ask because it seems like a lot of what you said lines up with right-libertarianism.

[–]halfback910 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Anarcho-Capitalism is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusions. And left-libertarianism is oxymoronic. You don't just get to pick and choose what freedoms you want and be libertarian lol.

[–]Polisskolan2 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Left-libertarianism is not oxymoronic if you are referring to individualist socialist anarchists, like mutualists.

[–]halfback910 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yes, it is. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care. But libertarianism is about ALL freedom. Not just the cool, edgy freedoms you like. If you do not think people should be free to manage their property, their labor, their money the way they want to, you are not libertarian. You do not support all freedom.

If they want to start a voluntary collectivist society, that's another situation.

[–]Polisskolan2 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't understand what you're arguing, I was just making a semantic comment. The word libertarianism has a long history, and already over a century ago, it was used to refer to individualist schools of socialist anarchism.

The main conflict between mutualists and ancaps is the issue of lockean land ownership vs occupancy and use. And it isn't obvious which of the two you should pick if you just want "MOST FREEDOM!"

[–]ILikeBumblebees[🍰] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The word libertarianism has a long history, and already over a century ago, it was used to refer to individualist schools of socialist anarchism.

Yes, we can concede the point that some people have used the term "libertarian" to describe a set of ideals that actually are incompatible in practice, but just because someone actually is espousing a contradiction doesn't make it less of a contradiction.

[–]majorpaynei86 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nothing wrong with individualist anarchists since ancap is similar but may not espouse the same economic policies. But freedom allows for all creeds

[–]Laugarhraun 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Hey there, quick (sincere) questions.

  1. Because radical freedom à la Sartre or despise for the people à la Rand?

  2. Wait, isn't this something that anarcho-capitalists want?

[–]halfback910 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (7子コメント)

1: I suppose mostly column A with like 15% column B. Populism tends to lead to leftist economic policies and I've yet to see a case of populism lead to increased freedom.

2: N-No? We want small government, if any.

[–]Laugarhraun 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

As one of yours neighbour says, from Europe when we hear « liberal » it's way closer to what you call « libertarian », especially regarding taxes.

[–]halfback910 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Most Ancaps tend to be American, so we use American political slang more often than not.

[–]Polisskolan2 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think he/she meant liberal in the American sense, not in the classical sense.

[–]Scrivver 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

American political lingo since the early 20th century (1940s F.A. Hayek mentioned this) associates "Liberal" with "Leftist", specifically collectivist left, so price controls, trade restrictions, tariffs, welfare states, basically any policy that can get in the way of free commerce between individuals is (or was, until the alt-right came along saying the same thing) considered a "liberal" policy. Yes, this is the polar opposite meaning of "liberal" as used elsewhere in the English language, as well as how Europeans and classical liberals like Hayek or Lord Acton might have used the word, but that's how it is. It can definitely cause some confusion when talking to Americans about it! They would be shocked to know that Australia's "Liberal Democratic Party" is their version of the Libertarian party.

[–]Polisskolan2 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a non-American non-Trump supporting ancap, just to be clear about my bias and probable misunderstanding of American politics.

The most common argument in support of Trump seems to be that it's funny to piss off liberals. You also hear people talk about how we're in some kind of culture war that Trump is somehow on our side of. And some people arguing in favor of immigration restrictions because immigrants only want welfare and hate freedom or something.

Personally, I don't find any of those arguments, which I undoubtedly mischaracterized, particularly convincing. Other ancaps (myself included) have many issues with Trump. He wants to build a wall and limit people's freedom of movement in other ways. He is a protectionist who wants to restrict international trade. He wants execute anyone who shoots a cop, regardless of context (many ancaps support shooting cops in self defense). Just like Clinton, he supports high taxes and war. He wants to introduce worse forms of torture. And he generally comes across as a bigoted ass.

[–]HippeHoppe 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The ancap arguments for Trump are/were:

  1. Foreign policy - he seemed to advocate a more restrained foreign policy than Clinton, especially with respect to Russia, and a lot of ancaps feared that Clinton would get the US bogged down in destabilizing conflicts in the Middle East, or intensify US-Russian security competition (risking a total and irreversible breakdown of cooperation or - worse - a war between the world's nuclear powers).

  2. Culture - a lot of ancaps are scared that elements of the "regressive left" are damaging American political culture, but shutting down worthwhile debates, suppressing minority points of view, corrupting the academy, and so on. Trump represents an "f you" to this population.

  3. Immigration - ancaps are split on this, since most things that "immigration" is really just "moving" (and therefore is compatible with property rights and it's wrong to restrict movement). But a lot of ancaps think that, because states exist, immigration imposes costs on other people, who are either (a) expected to pay for the benefits immigrants use, or (b) effected by the political preferences of immigrants (who tend to vote for Democrats, which is to say for economic policies ancaps won't like). Ancaps are extremely divided on this issue, since it's unclear to what degree (a) and (b) are actually true, and whether or not immigration restrictions are compatible with a 'pragmatic' ancap strategy but that's the view, at least.

[–]ILikeBumblebees[🍰] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ancaps are extremely divided on this issue, since it's unclear to what degree (a) and (b) are actually true, and whether or not immigration restrictions are compatible with a 'pragmatic' ancap strategy but that's the view, at least.

The problems with this argument are that:

(a) in a situation of pervasive state intervention, such as we have, anyone doing anything in almost any context is likely to trigger some activity by the state which must be funded by taxpayers. You could just as easily argue that engaging in commerce is unethical in a statist environment, because any commercial activity will cause state bureaucracies to expend additional resources enforcing their regulations. In fact, every argument against immigration from this perspective could easily be applied to intra-migration, and even to people having children.

The fundamental problem in all cases is the state intervention itself, and not the otherwise rightful and innocuous behavior of others that the state merely uses as an excuse -- and the proper remedy is to diminish the existing state interventions, not to argue for even more state interventions to deal with the negative effects of existing ones.

(b) The idea that the state should be permitted to control the composition of society in order to contrive particular political outcomes -- i.e. making people's ability to exercise their individual rights contingent on holding the preferred political opinions -- is a kind of totalitarianism (which ironically resembles the forms of totalitarianism practices by authoritarian leftist states, e.g. the Soviet Union).

Libertarians argue for the state, so long as it exists, to be constituted so as to minimize its capacity to violate people's rights irrespective of what political views are circulating in society. A system that isn't internally constrained enough to resist social pressure to begin with -- but which is also powerful enough to vigorously exclude certain people from participating in society at all -- amounts to a total state governed by mob rule, which is just about diametrically opposed to what libertarians are actually after.

[–]IArentDavid 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

To emphasize another users point, the decentralization of education is by far one of the most important things Trump could do from an Ancap perspective.

[–]asherp 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Ancap here. I think schools should be modeled after startup incubators instead of factories. Parents would invest as much or as little as they want, providing a sliding scale for tuition, but they would get proportional dividends. Teachers would be there to help bring ideas to market. Even if their products never sell, the lessons learned would be invaluable. Instead of a diploma, they would graduate with a resume of projects to be proud of.

[–]tyluy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Ancap here. How do you imagine kids would learn to read in this system? Or basic algebra?

[–]asherp 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

How they would learn depends on the project they are working on. There isn't a set age where a given skill would be required, but different projects would require different skill sets. So if a team wanted to ship a game, some would need to learn a little programing, some physics, some math, some design, etc. That's where teachers/managers would come in. Project-driven teaching means that you learn what you need to learn to get the job done, which is closer to what will be required of them in the professional world.

[–]smorrow 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ancap here. The only way a kid wouldn't learn to read or do basic algebra is if they somehow concluded it wasn't useful. 100% of non-retarded people still illiterate and innumerate by adulthood are schooled, not unschooled. I'm aware of a single semi-counterexample.

At this point we've got about fifty years of evidence practically proving that if you leave people the fuck alone enough, they turn out better in basically every way. Because fifty years is how long Sudbury Valley School has been going. And no, the staff at SVS do not nudge students in "the right direction"; they would view such an act as an insult to dignity if not intelligence. Peter Gray's article "Rousseau's Errors" lays out why (IIRC, and if it isn't already obvious).

The guy you're replying to is wrong in that he thinks you need teachers, which you don't, although maybe they do help, unless you have no choice about associating with them, in which case they do "help" that you would have got for yourself anyway, plus a whole bunch of harm.

[–]Lagkiller 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As far as I am concerned, he is a greatly polarizing figure who wants to remove the established political structure in DC. This is a good thing. If he succeeds in doing so, it opens up the door for people to realize that we don't need a strong (or even at all) federal government. If he fails, then it sows distrust in politics as a force to make change and will make people distrust the system more.

[–]fitzdepl 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

As for some pros:

wants less economic restrictions

Wants to deport illegal immigrants(who are leftists)

Maintains an anti-socialist rhetoric

And Decentralization of education

[–]halfback910 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (0子コメント)

wants less economic restrictions

Huh? He wants to place a 35% tariff on imports, for Christ's sake.

[–]Polisskolan2 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

He wants to deport all illegal immigrants, not leftists. Wouldn't illegal immigrants be less of a problem then legal immigrants when only the latter qualify for things like social security?

[–]fitzdepl 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's what I said, alas illegal immigrants for the most part are leftists

[–]ILikeBumblebees[🍰] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

People who circumvent the state's economic interventions in order to engage in unrestricted capitalism are "leftists"?

[–]RotYeti 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

For a pro, I think he'll delay the collapse of the state which buys us time. Also electing him emboldened more people to disregard the left when deciding what to talk about.

[–]rainyforest 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's not Hillary. Pretty much it.

[–]LookingForMySelf 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I will speak for common opinions held there, not exactly those I hold.

  • Either happy that it's not Hillary or don't see much difference at all/marginally better: this bubble is going to pop anyway.

  • Wall is generally viewed as negative. In general illegal immigration is viewed as positive as long as it is voluntary: no crime or welfare.

  • Taxes on imports are viewed negatively.

[–]jazzmoses 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

IMO what most people consider politics is effectively a decorative surface to the real sources of power (the military, spy agencies, defence contractors, central/reserve banks) and the underlying power structures (hundreds of thousands of cops, bureaucrats, political administrators of various stripes) which form the bulk of the power structure we call government.

Whoever holds the job of "president" has in comparison little real power. The president is effectively a combination of a heavily restricted concession from the authoritarian forces to an expectation of democratic control, with a big TV song and dance to suck people into a managed perception of time. Instead of people being aware of the real power holders. How many people know the names of any military generals or powerful officials in their country? How many are aware of how those officials achieve their positions and how long they stay in their roles?

But these are the people who would take control in a crisis situation. These are the people who, push come to shove, will be in control when guns are being held to your head. They will decide what the people holding those guns will be demanding you do.

Instead of being aware of and concerned about the continuity of these political structured and their utter lack of democratic oversight, people instead become consumed by the drama of the president and their most immediate sphere of political influence. This forms the basis for what I call a managed perception of time.

Instead of continuity of political goals and projects, people are addicted to four year cycles of hypes and lows, one crisis and set of talking points is constantly replacing the next, with talking-head politicians butting shoulders to offer soundbites on the latest set of frightening problems and their potential solutions, none of which are ever clearly articulated and methodically pursued. The last problem is forgot, its logically-crippled "solution" left discarded in the dust, in time for the next problem to be rushed at all over again.

It forms, whether on purpose or not, a thought-suffocating endless barrage of demands to emote in tune with your chosen faction: to succumb to hate, anger, outrage, schadenfreude and all the other myriad thoughtless emotional states of tribalism and groupthink.

The key is to remove yourself from this trap by adopting an independent self-governed and non-crisis-driven political perspective, as a good first step IGNORING bullshit political theatre. People derive power predominantly from the attention others give, your attention is therefore one of your most important tools to effect political change.

The temptation is always to pay attention to what everyone else seems to care about. That is a trap. If you can resist it, you can stop denigrating yourself by empowering disingenuous power-addicted politicians with your attention.

That is in my opinion a key path to dismantling the institutions of corruption and violence we give the label government.

Buying into Trump's importance is like buying into Obama's importance. It's just the next chapter of this TV entertainment. First the friendly courageous charming ethnic president. Everyone glowed with hope while the conservatives roiled in anger. Now the conservatives strike back! The chortling fat chauvinist strides onto stage. We'll build a wall! Liberals scramble to form their own protest movements - not my president! Impeach Trump!

It's all seventh grade drama script shit.

Meanwhile the generals and defence contractors and spymasters are making the same deals, killing the same people with drone strikes, and cutting the same billion dollar checks from the same tax money.

[–]Shiner_Black 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I like Trump for creating wealth in the private sector, but I don't think he will be a good politician. He is funny though, so that's a plus.

[–]ZadocPaetbiggest joystick 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

True. The guy cracks me up!

[–]tinyfrank 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Better than Hillary. Not so good as freedom.

[–]OnTheJobRedditor 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't like him, but I fucking hated Clinton. He did stick it to the establishment and fuck over two politic dynasties, but the man is unfit to lead.

[–]lizard450 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'd think most an-caps don't care about Trump. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

Some might be optimistic about some changes... not worrying about gun rights etc.

Some think it's fucking HILARIOUS... a fucking reality tv star is our president .. if anything makes the statement that statism is a fucking joke it's that.

[–]ZadocPaetbiggest joystick 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Some think it's fucking HILARIOUS... a fucking reality tv star is our president ..

Count me among those. I've been cracking up.

[–]PacoBedejo 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Same. That Bill Whittle predicted it in 2012 is gravy on top.

I was a delegate to my state's GOP convention in 2012. After watching that particular sausage being made, I realized the futility of changing the federal government and firmly believe that the only solution is to decentralize power as much as possible.

So...I'm slightly encouraged to see Trump appointing cabinet members who dislike the agencies they're going into... but I'm not excited, as I'm sure "we" will find new and inventive ways to grow government and debt.

[–]Prometheus720 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's a shitty person for leading a shitty movement. Whatever his goals were, however much false flag activities may or may not have been perpetrated to make him look worse, he made American politics worse somehow.

In a way that's good for my ideology. Examples of states failing so hard are nice in a debate. At the same time though, I think that human lives are more important. I'm only an ancap because I think it would be good for people. There comes a point where that sort of accelerationist idea becomes too toxic to support. If your ideology is meant to help people but you just hurt in the process, you may succeed initially but there will be no point. And your system will most likely be corrupt anyway.

[–]aletoledo 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

SSDD

I remember how everyone was so hopeful about Obama changing the world. Heck they even gave him a medal for it! So it's the same thing all over again.

  • Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

[–]HippeHoppe 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Am not an ancap (am a classical liberal, but a former ancap, and I'm active on /r/anarcho_capitalism). I don't like Trump, but I try to be fair and unbiased in my evaluation of him. He has some serious problems, but oftentimes the criticisms against him are exaggerated or false (people want to get mad over everything he does, to the point where it's hard to tell the difference between real and fabricated stories, big issues warranting outrage and minor incidents open to interpretation, etc.).

[–]Mariokartfever 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm happy that the far left is spazzing out.

I honestly don't support many of his policies though.

It's confusing.

[–]Caltex88 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He sucks, but we hope he sucks less than Obama.

[–]PacoBedejo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd trust Trump to watch my kids for 4 hours. I cannot say the same for Clinton.

Neither of those things has anything to do with the evil conceit of forcibly ruling 330 million people, on over 6% of the earth's surface and negatively interfering in the affairs of the other 6.9 billion people on the other 93% of the earth's surface, via a federal mafia.

[–]john2kxx 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Anarcho-Capitalism is a political ideology most easily described by this image

This meme is satire. It's what we think statists think of us.

And for "most easily described", you sure choose a convoluted one. Was it meant as a joke?

[–]DeAristoi 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Anarcho-Capitalists are also well represented in the autistic community, as you can see from this post.

[–]Polisskolan2 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Autistic ancap here.

Autists are well represented in the ancap community, but the movement is sadly still too small for ancaps to be well represented in the autistic community.

[–]halfback910 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Ancap autist. Can absolutely confirm. Try making a pathos/ethos argument on an ancap. Really, try it.

[–]lizard450 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

An-caps are extremely logical thinkers. The problem that I see they fall into is not really understanding the ideology they are arguing against from the opponent's perspective.

I see this time and time again and it's not just from an-caps. I see it from logical thinkers from the right and from all sorts of people from the left. It's really the crux of miscommunication and why debates don't go anywhere.

[–]halfback910 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It certainly happens. I've found that Ancaps do not, on a fundamental level, understand emotional arguments. To the point of very strongly distrusting them and people who utilize them, sometimes.

[–]lizard450 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Emotional arguments produce nothing of worth, they are dangerous, and should be ridiculed harshly.

If your conclusions are correct then there is an argument to be made based on facts and rational thought. There is no reason to resort to manipulation tactics to get people to agree with you.

[–]halfback910 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed.

EDIT: I was trying to be nice for the normies but I couldn't let you out-autist me.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

[–]SausageMcMerkin 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

All that, and not one mention of the NAP?

[–]genghiscoyne 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm so happy this happened after the election and most of the trumplings left

[–]GrabGrabTheHaddock 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

the most ridiculous shit heap of an ideology known to man

[–]J3by 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (8子コメント)

[–]samsonkeane 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not all Ancaps come from a place of objective ethics. The NAP is a guiding principle, not something akin to a law of physics. Even its own definition is too broad to give precise answers to every possible situation.

[–]J3by 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Relax, we all know this is a strawman

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Here's a summary of the term "Strawman":


A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

[–]ExPwner 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

He's already on the property so there is no moral dilemma.

[–]123xyz123xyz 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Someone needs to jump the train off its tracks to smite that trespassing guy

[–]NESIRGNIK 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You realize this could easily happen in any property based society right?

[–]mrpopenfresh 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Anti-collectivist is a succint way of putting it.

[–]admanah 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Without a doubt one of the most vacuous, unfeasible, and immoral socio-economic and political positions one could take.

[–]L_Iwakura 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

wtf i hate ancaps now

[–]majorpaynei86 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, saying that people shouldn't hit each other nor take their stuff is immoral

[–]alexanderkirkegaard 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Anarcho-Capitalism is a political ideology most easily described by this image of a meme"

Ok.?

[–]properal 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

For those curious about Anarcho-Capitalism here are some resources:

The Gold and Black Starter Pack

[–]weirddodgestratus 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Anarcho-capitalism: For when you read Rand or Rothbard and then literally nothing else ever

[–]admanah 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (10子コメント)

In order to hold such an unshakable belief in the power of the market, to the extent that one believes the market should be absolutely unfettered, would require profoundly insulated intellectual research and confirmation bias. The same is true of any socio-economic and political system that would rely on a single institution as the foundation for the well-being of society.

[–]Knorssman 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

when you say institution, that makes me think of "single organization" like a single government as the foundation for the well-being of society, yet anarcho capitalism is the opposite, with many smaller institutions competing to provide services for the well-being of society

but i guess what you meant was the market as an institution, but i think that is a bit of a mis-characterization because the market can be best described as a process where-by firms compete for paying customers rather than as a monolithic institution

[–]Mariokartfever 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I read some Steinbeck once.

[–]Sitnalta 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (38子コメント)

Being an anarchist subreddit

It's not an anarchist subreddit

[–]texasjoe 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's more of an anarchist sub than r/anarchism lol.

[–]Lethn 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can confirm, got banned from there.

[–]Thac0 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (34子コメント)

Agreed anarchism and capitalism are antithetical to one another. There is no such thing as an anarchist capitalist it's an oxymoron to say so.

[–]majorpaynei86 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

How about market anarchist?

[–]Thac0 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Like mutualists? If there's no private property I'm willing to hear it.

[–]majorpaynei86 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Depends on what you mean by private property.

Ancap support the labor theory of property - commonly termed as homesteading, and abandonment.

This roughly translates into a loose from of use and occupation.

[–]Speartron 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Not an oxymoron.

Anarchy= No State Hierarchy

Capitalism= Voluntary Interaction and Exchange

Combine the two and you have Anarcho-Capitalism. Its not a hard concept to grasp really.

[–]Thac0 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

No hierarchy, capitalism requires hierarchy. Also capitalism requires private property which requires a state.

[–]smorrow 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So where was the state enforcing property rights in the Old West? The people enforced each other's property rights.

[–]Speartron 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Anarchy is no state hierarchy, not no hierarchy at all. Hierarchy is impossible to avoid. Under some form of socialism, someone being healthier then someone else would establish health hierarchy. Having a relationship while your neighbor doesn't? Relationship and love hierarchy. Someone eating one more bite of the bread-line rationed cracker? Consumption-Hierarchy. Hierarchy is the ranking or status of one above another. It's impossible to conceive hierarchy being eliminated-its inherent. Its natural- its inevitable.

Private property is inherent, not requiring a state. It is homesteaded, then it is owned. Private property both in the form of physical property such as land, as well as material property like bread, and virtual property, such as media.

I can enforce private property by myself, my enforcement agency, or my local co-op's militia. If its enforceable based on voluntary action and no-initial aggression, it exists.

[–]Thac0 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

You don't understand the difference between property and possessions.

[–]smorrow 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Anarchism = letting people make their own damn choices = capitalism (but not the fake capitalism we have in the current year).

[–]PresidentCleveland 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The current system isn't capitalism, its socialism. Any form of taxation means there is no private property.

[–]ThatSodomite -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Just like anarcho communist or anarcho socialist?

[–]Thac0 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Those values and systems are not diametrically opposed to the very foundation of anarchy unlike capitalism.

[–]ThatSodomite 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Free trade, free association and productivity are antithetical to anarchy? Unlike the socialist and communists principles of big government enforcement of their ideals?

[–]Thac0 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Socialism and communism don't require enforced anything nor a government you should go read a book. Peter Kropotkin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon are good entry points.

[–]Mariokartfever 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Socialism and communism don't require enforced anything

Then why do all those subs ban people for thinking the wrong way?

[–]GrabGrabTheHaddock 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

they don't. r/anarchy101 r/debateanarchism and r/debatecommunism are pretty decent subs that dont ban people who don't already subscribe to their ideology and want an entry level discussion.

[–]DumbNameIWillRegret 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's not what socialism is, all it is is a lack of private property, which was part of anarchism until ancaps came along. Anarchism is against most hierarchy (some exceptions include family hierarchy and voluntary hierarchy such as personal relationships), and private property (not to be confused with personal property) helps create an employer/employee hierarchy (which ancoms don't view as voluntary because it's a necessary hierarchy under capitalism)

[–]ThatSodomite 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But it is completely voluntary, you can also voluntarily eschew that hierarchy and join a co-op or start your own business. What's not voluntary is forcing people out of those associations is because you disagree with them, which seems to be a theme among other "anarchists"

[–]Speartron 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is an anarchist subreddit.

[–]Demos181 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is no such thing as "anarcho"-capitalist. Capitalism and anarchism are two separate ideals that cannot converge. There are however, individual anarchists, who have a "free market" different than "an" caps, in that they do away with usury, exploitative capitalist property laws, wage exploitation, landlordism, and have property based on occupancy and use.

Anarchists are against exploitation others and aim for a society that is NOT just like this one but with state coercion substituted with private tyranny, as the "an"caps wish.

Edit: Fun reading

[–]NJdevil202 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

5. Without government how will we have roads?

Z3F: Where we're going, we ain't gonna need roads baby. We're talking autonomous drone-taxis.

This was the actual response? Lmao and libertarians think they're going somewhere

[–]dafudged 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (82子コメント)

Holy shit, you guys are Traitors.

[–]Anen-o-me 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (58子コメント)

You should probably read this:

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

No Treason is a composition of three essays, all written in 1867: No.I, No.II: "The Constitution", and No. VI: "The Constitution of no Authority". Any essays between No. 2 and No.6 were never published under the authorship of Lysander Spooner. Lawyer by training, strong abolitionist, radical thinker, and anarchist, Spooner wrote these specific pamphlets in order to express his discontent with the state and its driving power, the U.S. Constitution. He strongly believed in the idea of natural law, which he also described as "the science of justice," which he defined as "the science of all human rights; of all man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".[1] Natural law, as Spooner saw it, was to be part of everyone's life, which includes the rights given at birth: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The United States government also saw natural law to be a good basis for the creation of the Constitution. The preamble itself states the liberties that all American citizens have under the protection of the United States government. Spooner believed that "if there be such a principle as justice, or natural law, it is the principle, or law, that tells us what rights were given to every human being at his birth".[2] This meant that the rights listed under the Constitution were granted to "the people" who Spooner thought to be everyone that was born in the United States regardless of color or gender.

One cannot be a traitor to an illegitimate document that you never pledged faith to.

[–]dafudged 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (55子コメント)

What the fuck. I'm so glad we won because you guys want to destroy the USA.

[–]Gdubs76 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (36子コメント)

Correction:

What the fuck. I'm so glad we won because you guys want to destroy the USA U.S. Governmnet.

[–]Anen-o-me 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Hahaha, first time meeting an anarchist, eh? We want to destroy the government, that's not the same thing as destroying the USA.

[–]dafudged 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I have an anarchy sign tatooed on my arm. I just grew up. Still need to get the tatoo removed.

[–]properal 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (22子コメント)

The American founders were traitors, and proud of it.

[–]dafudged 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (21子コメント)

Tru dat. Remember why they were traitors though, what freedoms they penned as their dreams. Please make sure your paperwork is worth fighting the American constitution.

[–]properal 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (20子コメント)

Consider what little remains of those freedoms and how the American constitution failed to protect those freedoms.

[–]dafudged 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (19子コメント)

They're pretty well in place. I've never once in my life been forced into slave labor.

[–]properal 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That is a low bar.

Americans today live with many of the injuries and usurpations listed as the grievances in the declaration of independence, and at least four out of the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto.

[–]Mashimoto 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even Rothbard opposed privately-owned nukes (on the grounds that they're too indiscriminate to ever be used purely defensively against an aggressor)

[–]starrychloe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Get your locally-sourced non-GMO anthrax here!

[–]Curveball14 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (37子コメント)

Ancap is an implicitly White identity movement. Every user survey they do reveals that ancaps are 98% White.

[–]Anen-o-me 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (21子コメント)

Ancap is an implicitly White identity movement.

Nope, ancap ideology says nothing about race, it is irrelevant.

White identity is an ideological movement. It does not exist within ancap ideology.

[–]jigssaw 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

So ? I thought we are past racism ? Why should color of skin matter ?

[–]123xyz123xyz 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Stop your obsession with identity. No one gives a shit what colour your skin is, or what you like to do in the bedroom, or how many wheels your wheelchair has. Christ, just move on and let the grown-ups talk.