Anti Statism (An Caps/mutualists)

Reporting in,
 also do any of you have any ideas on defense in a stateless society? The only convincing thing Ive heard is that people to be part of the society's law they have to subscribe to a PMC/PMF and that could solve the free rider problem for the most part.

It depends on the society. AnCaps totally disregard the ethics of anarchism by proposing an authoritarian force to protect private property.

Anarchism is an intellectual ideal which cannot be achieved in reality. No anarchist has ever presented a compelling case for how an anarchist society could ever exist.

>>3
The Conquest of Bread, by Peter Kroptokin, provided a pretty compelling case for anarchism in my opinion.

>>2
Its not really that they are Authoritarian for doing so but it is necessary until states finally break down.
Basically;"Its not authoritarian because we are authoritarian, its that way because states are authoritarian." Anti-statists are just responding to the state.
In the possible future when all states break down, then defense might not be a requirement anymore or if technology makes it obsolete but for now its necessary for the stateless society to survive.
>>3
Actually anarchy existed before states and religions did, religion then caused the first states to form and thus ultimately caused what we have today.

In a couple of hundreds of years from now when states have broken down i believe people will say the same thing about statism and how a state was an intellectual ideal that can never be achieved in reality.

>>5
Cont.
The only thing keeping the state alive is ignorance.

Anti-private property anarchists don't believe in renting or volcanoes.

Ancaps are the truest of bros.

>>7
Volcanoes?

>>5

Unfortunately, you can't roll technology back to the paleolithic era and make everyone hunter gatherers. The cat is out of the bag now. Farming is going to happen, and with farming there has always been surplus allowing for specialization and the state. Gods and Kings, Priests and Warriors. The State.

>>9
Im not saying we should go back to hunter gathering, and you assume that farming caused statism. How does farming cause people to believe in gods? Someone at some point in time assumed authority by claiming some kind of divine right and fooled the people into power. Gods and kings only exist as i said because of ignorance, by themselves they have no power, its only due to the ideological control they have that causes them to have "authority". Warriors? rulers cant rule by force alone they NEED an ideological structure or else the people just overthrow him.

>>10

See, I'm an anarchist in some sense, or at least anti-statist. However you're arguing that nothing need be in place to prevent statism and theism. Your argument relies on a magical 100% perfect education to your way of thinking with not one single dissenter who will exist at any point in time. It relies on no religion as a given, to prevent the rise of homicidal sectarian militias; it relies on no disputes over land or resources which might lead to war and then to conquest and enslavement and coercion; it relies on no hereditary wealth building up into inherited kingdoms.

Anarcho Capitalism is only the biggest mental diarrhea of anarchism. It's far from the only massive ideological failure. The communists tried to (and are STILL trying to in China) create a society of 'perfectly educated' citizens who will 'allow a transition to a socialist society,' and predictably they failed because even attempting to educate anyone to any idea, even if it is purely and completely benign in all senses, would require a malignant and statist entity to deprive people of their freedom in the process of educating.

Anarchism and socialism are completely impossible if they rely on education and good will to keep them from collapsing in on themselves, because then it just takes one troll to topple the whole mess. It seems that only the wicked machinations of corporatism and statism are stable enough to hold true to their ideologies. That doesn't make them right; wicked usually prevails in a world populated by wicked people, but I have yet to see a system proposed for either socialism or anti-statism that isn't completely lacking in reality.

>>11
>However you're arguing that nothing need be in place to prevent statism and theism.
Statism would be prevented because all the people in a stateless society at first would require some sort of idea of what it means to live in a stateless society. Theism is not a problem if the people are "liberal" in their religious beliefs and don't wish to impose those beliefs on others. In terms of defense, as i listed above at first a stateless society would need to keep a standing army from some sort of DRO/PMC/PMF to prevent invasion from a state.

>100% perfect education to your way of thinking
It doesnt take much to realize that the people ruling our current society dont have a legitimate claim over the things they claim they do.
In fact i think that NOT sending your kids to school or church helps them see this alot easier, because the only reason so many obey is because they get indoctrinated.

People wouldn't tolerate religious extremism BS and would get rid of it ASAP, remember these people are armed.
There would be DRO's to solve disputes and land would be defined as what the "intersubjective consensus" of people think property is. War is expensive and states are only able to wage it so easily is because they have a: Tax Base, Federal Reserve, ideological control over people, and can push those costs to the future generation.

>Anarcho Capitalism is only the biggest mental diarrhea of anarchism.
Nice opinion there.
>The communists tried to (and are STILL trying to in China) create a society of 'perfectly educated' citizens who will 'allow a transition to a socialist society,' and predictably they failed because even attempting to educate anyone to any idea, even if it is purely and completely benign in all senses, would require a malignant and statist entity to deprive people of their freedom in the process of educating.
Only thing is that they arent educated and like i said before not much education is needed to realize what states are, in fact i bet some people could use "deeducation" even more.

>That doesn't make them right; wicked usually prevails in a world populated by wicked people, but I have yet to see a system proposed for either socialism or anti-statism that isn't completely lacking in reality.
Saying that it doesn't work in "the real world" is a retarded claim and only serves to avoid actually having to debate the topic itself. You aren't the only one living in "the real world" and just because you have an interpretation of what "real" is doesn't make it a fact.

"Appeal to “reality” which is common among stupid people. The first sign of a pseudo-intellectual is that they talk about being a “realist” and “living in the real world”. When arguing about stuff, you’re arguing about the real world, Everyone is trying to model the real world effectively."

And you're writing my arguments off by calling me a stupid person and a pseudo-intellectual. A worse demerit to you than your claims are to me.

By the way, do a > and then a space to quote on the BBS. Makes things easier to read.

Your arguments are admittedly relying upon the education of people, and their goodwill. You completely ignore the possibility of powerful people with malignant intentions. Your anarcho capitalist society guarantees the rise of billionaires who control vast quantities of property and employ vast numbers of people. In the absence of the state, a single wicked individual could cease to conquer by economic means and start conquering by direct theft and coercion.

Further, your "Dispute Resolution Organizations" are just a pretty new term for private police, AKA armies for hire to the wealthy who can then extort taxes and re-establish the state.

In your retarded AnCap society, the wealthy and the religious will take the reigns of power before breakfast the day after it's established. Priests and kings all over again.

Clearly, we have nothing to talk about since you are completely disconnected from the consequences of your ideology. You attempt to insulate yourself from this by calling anyone who calls you out on the obvious implications of your own solutions as pseudo-intellectual morons. And that is why AnCap being mental diarrhea is fact and not opinion.

You lose, sir. You get nothing. Good day. Etc.

>>13
>You lose, sir. You get nothing. Good day. Etc.
Oh so this is about winning to you, okay.

>>14

Sure, whatever floats your boat.

Anybody else here seeking to find truth rather than than play games?

>>16
There are winners and lowered in a debate. Guessed which one you are

>>17
>lowered

lol dyslexia

>>16
me

What's the truth then...

>>17
Thats why i dont debate, people only want to win and not seek the truth or they think winning is finding the truth. If you value winning so much then you are no better than a politician.

The examples that
>>13 provided are ignoring my main point that once people lose their ideology of the state or are born without one then the potential "monopolies or disasters" are mostly not possible. Even then sustaining the monopolies through force will not last, history has shown this through revolutions and even then people would be more skeptical after abandoning the state.
But of course he misses the point and assumes a new state ideological structure will emerge. I cant argue with someone that's that ignorant, arrogant, and wants to call a cat a dog.

>>19
The truth is that truth exists.

I was just fishing for some ideas for defense since the free rider problem in a stateless society does pose a problem.

>>21
free rider problem
You could look to the cotton plantations of the deep south in the early 19th century for inspiration.

>>21
People have many misunderstandings about the free market. The basis for the free market is not money, market forces and price mechanisms, the basis is individual freedom, the actual structure that forms is seperate from the free market, it is due to the very nature of the universe more than anything else.

So any planned economy shouldn't be afraid of using the tools that were invented in the free market, you could easily emulate the price mechanism, you can provide a bare minimum spartan but healthy existence for everyone and people can earn the luxuries and conveniences of life by working, with a small proportion deducted to pay for the spartan bare minimum.

>>17

I'm never posting from a phone again.  There's always some word which gets changed and I don't notice it >_<

>>20

Winning a debate is about seeking the truth.  Quit being a whiny bitch, who ever finds the most evidence and puts up the best argument is the closest the to truth.  If you still think your opponent is wrong it's up to you to prove it.

>>25
Presidents "win" debates all the time do they tell the truth?

Ad Hominem-abusive

I did prove it but sometimes i cant help it if my "opponent" doesn't want to play fair.

>>22
How do they relate?
>>23
Is that Anarcho-Communism/ Voluntary Communism?
Dont the "tools" of the market change all the time?

So, the consensus here is that anarcho-capitalism is moronic, right?

>>28
yeah

>>28
Is that the inter-subjective consensus or just a 51% vote consensus?

>>28
So the consensus in 1000 AD was that the Earth is flat, right?

>>31
No. The world as a whole knew the world was round for thousands of years before that. At least nations that had sailors understood this. The flat world theory is a romanticized view of our ancestors world view.

>>32
That doesn't affect the point I was making.

>>31
Awshitnigga5starpost.jpg

>>33
I wasn't addressing it.

>>1
it wouldn't work

libertarianism is fucking dumb

>>36
Statism is fucking dumb

Disagreements are inevitable, so we will always need a way of resolving disputes.

Anarchism is illogical for this simple reason.

>>38
Then what is logical then?
If you're a statist:

So your solution is to impose a contract BY FORCE on people that allows the majority to impose their preference on the minority, while the minority pays for the costs of the very laws they disagree with.

Yeah that sounds swell.

>>38
Also just because it "resolves disputes" doesn't give it automatic legitimacy over unused plots of land.