Anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists
Anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists
Transcript
A crudely drawn ms-paint-style comic. The first panel depicts a person with an ancap (anarcho capitalist) mask. The mask is black and yellow, the colors are divided diagonally. The person is saying "statist bootlickers fuck off!" to a boot. In the next panel, they are staring at the boot draw an amazon logo on it with a marker. The last panel shows the person deepthroathing the boot, saying "At least it's not the gubermint [government".
You're viewing a single thread.
Ancaps are corporate feudalists who want a cool sounding name.
Even old fashioned anarcho-monarchists are closer to anarchists than ephebophiles. (Please use the correct name for their ideologies)
As if corporate feudalism wasn't cool enough. Sounds cyberpunk as hell
That last paragraph was a wild read
For real. Sometimes its hard to tell if its a 4chan type being edge, but the whole things is a bit too candid to be a troll.
Of course you have no right, he makes a big point about talking about the difference between slavery of the protected (which would be met with aggressive response from the private security they pay for) and slavery of the unprotected (aka poor, and thus are not paying private security to not be enslaved) which is apparently acceptable.
Ah, but is he currently paying for said expensive private security?
If they reply, I imagine it will be some hog wash about the NAP (non-aggression principle). Which in short is a honor code they expect everyone to abide (currently not possible because government). It is a rather odd claim for the ancaps I think. They are saying something about solidarity and no one will want to work with an abuser/slaver. They will also deny that Ayn Rand's objectivism is distinct from their ideas, but interrogating them shows its not. So they have an appeal to solidarity, but the selling points of their ideology are selfish motivations. Historically that means there will be plenty who find their selfish interests are to side with an abuser/slaver/colonizer. Id compare them to a religious fundamentalist that just found some contradictions in the bible and is working on the apologetic.
Sweet mother of fuck just blatantly desiring/justifying slavery is..wild.
“I dream of a world where I can enslave the poors with no consequence” essentially.
Oh, so you would prefer abolitionists running arouns being mean to you?
As someone who doesn't believe in morality, I approach this purely in terms of power dynamics and evolutionary fitness rather than "right" or "wrong." If you truly can subjugate people by force of the unprotected (by unprotected I mean not paying a protection subscription) and no one resists, that is, in Darwinian terms, simply a manifestation of natural selection
Tl;dr
everything shpuld be slavery; work or die!
Well I guess we now know what kind of idiot starts their manifesto with abandoning any form of morality
I'm not gonna read whatever weird BS that came from, but I do think its entirely possible to have a coherent and attractive worldview without morality. If you want to make any sense to normal people, you have to replace it with a belief system that emphasizes community service and the common good. In the end, if it works, it winds up looking just like morality with objective foundations.
but morality is a fundamental part of getting along with others, it's necessitated by the fact that you don't want to be stabbed in the gut, thus gut-stabbing is bad.
if someone doesn't agree that gut-stabbing is reprehensible, then you know they might stab you in the gut, thus you have a very big incentive to tell them to eat shit and stay the fuck away from you.
But that's not morality, that's self-preservation. It's morality if you don't do it because it affects others in a negative way, it's self-preservation if you don't do it because you don't want negative consequences for yourself.
I guess we can only truly measure morality where there are no consequences for one's actions. That's why it usually goes out the window for rich people.
There you go, starting to establish a new system of beliefs from first principles. You don't have to call it morality, if you don't start from some existing authority. In the end, if whatever belief system you build actually works, it winds up looking very like our existing moral code.
very like our existing
Well, no, because thats mostly fucked up and awful and nonsense and made for oppression.
But it would totally include like 'dont kill people or fuck shit up for no reason.'
Nothing is wrong with capitalism; but the current crony capitalism doesn't provide enough opportunities to be the boot
ancaps in a nutshell
I'm not sure we will ever find a proper cure for cronyism. The beast is multifaceted. On the most familiar side, we trust our friends better, on the uglier side, you have to sate appetites for them to lend power. I see this as our last big trial towards actual Utopia.
The thing is that crony capitalism is just capitalism. If you are a head on the market, if you have some goose that lays golden eggs, you are going to do everything you can to keep it relevant. Abusing systems or outright harassing your competitors included. By ancaps own selling point, "capitalism works because people purse their selfish interests". I often find ancaps debating this to be like a fundamentalist that found some contradictions in the bible and is working out the apologetics. The bible being good and moral becuase the bible says so is a tautology, and so are their ideas around capitalism.
Oh yeah, hands down, no argument on the ancaps. I was just rolling the ball a bit further down the line in my head and couldn't get past 'power corrupts'.
Then I wrote out 3 paragraphs of drivel only to realize that if everyone realizes the agency they have over themselves, the notion of manipulation flies out the window.
Hmh, I think I like it here. A few weeks in and I can already see a clearer path to utopia. Thank you for the inspiration!