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”.
Ancaps are corporate feudalists who want a cool sounding name.
Well I guess we now know what kind of idiot starts their manifesto with abandoning any form of morality
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!
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.
community service
Like… Like they make you do when you did a misdemeanor?
common good
Filthy commie!
I feel likeeither we’re not working with the same people, or youre working with entirely hypothetical people.
Community service as punishment is meant to link you back to your community. Where you live. Where you presumably shat. Go clean that up. We live here.
The common good includes oneself. The tragedy of the commons is only possible when its “somebody else’s problem”. When that’s “my park”, you clean up the shit.
Yes, people are problematic and largely prone to shitting in the park. They have to be taught. It’s not easy.
I find, when you deny people bathrooms, they shit in the street. Or park.
When you don’t do that, they’re a lot more civic minded about things.
Yes, everything youre saying is rational and i see no faults.
But that’s the problem. It’s rational. Have you ever met a people? They’re largely petty bundles of excuses and tribal loyalty buffeted by winds of propaganda enforced myopia and delusional coping mechanisms. Rational self interest isn’t a huge factor in how most people live or behave. It is, in fact, vanishingly fucking rare.
I know. I used to shit in the park. Nice to meet you, friend.
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.
I don’t think this is real or helpful towards understanding the world. The measure of morality is the shape of your life after you practice it. Your impact on others. Morals are about things that matter. You’ve come quite near to postulating that they don’t matter. I cannot support this view.
I’m more postulating that to actually be moral, you’d need to still be moral when it’s not about being liked or having a better chance of survival. Do good because you want to do good. A system of morality based on “if you don’t act nice, you’ll have a more difficult life” is more of a set of rules being imposed on a person than morality on that person’s part.
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.’
I unfortunately agree that people largely do not adhere to what one might regard as the normal moral code. In fact there are loud voices saying it is defunct. But its still there. We still use it to judge.
These are some of the reasons that I feel one should be open to rebuilding the squishy biz that is morals into something based on objective values. This project has been tackled by much better men, and I have nothing to add. Rene Descartes. Immanuel Kant. Even Friedrich Nietzsche had powerful things to say about reworking morals into something that actually works.
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!
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.
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?
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.
As if corporate feudalism wasn’t cool enough. Sounds cyberpunk as hell
Even old fashioned anarcho-monarchists are closer to anarchists than ephebophiles. (Please use the correct name for their ideologies)
“Whenever anarcho-capitalism is mentioned to me in conversation, it’s usually followed by repealing the age of consent.”
- SsethTzeentach
Capitalist libertarians still want a (mimimal) state, so they can call the cops to protect them and their underage wife
Well, harem. Their underage harem.
They want only the violence the state has to offer.
I fuckkng despise how ancaps have completely coopted the term “libertarian” in the US, to the point where they are synonymous to most.
Nowadays every time someone says they’re a libertarian, I ask them about Mexican immigration. You’re not a True Scotsman if you aren’t even from Scotland.
There is the kind of old fashioned version whos wrong and crazy but not too much of a bigot and fun as hell if you can put up with how creepy they are.
Most who identify as ephebophiles these days aren’t that guy, though.
I don’t think true libertarians have good ideas, but its also not unusual that the libertarian party is largely for republicans that are brand aware as they say.
Ancaps aren’t against violence, they are just against monopoly on violence.
They have no problem with monopoly of violence, as long as it’s “voluntary”, by which of course they mean economically coerced.
They’re ok with other monopolies though.
Yeah it’s just the State’s monopoly on violence they have a problem with, it’s fine if a company does it
On paper, they’re against monopoly, but really they love it.
Removed by mod
Liberals are definitely not leftist.
Depends on subschool of ancaps really. Some ancaps properly despise nonlocal enflated bullshit. I also know anarcho-socialists that are total government boot licking nazis; that’s much less popular in that class than in ancap, I admit.
Anarchists oppose the hierarchy created by government and capitalism alike. It sounds like the people you’re describing don’t really practice the anarchist ethos
It’s very complex academic question we have no answer to. I like to listen to all points of view, even those I do not support and those I oppose, to understand them, thus I have some kind of explanation here.
As I understand that, it’s matter of resource management. There is huge ancap movement to replace monetary market with another form of social consensus, something like multi-money (some tokens to account for various resources and mechanisms to settle imbalances), or reputation engines (giving people with better chances of serving the common good more resources). “Good” ancap comes so close to other reasonable anarchy schools, that it totally sounds sane. It’s a rare thing, often found only among the most educated capitalists and sympathizers.
Then there is just notion of understanding that imperialistic capitalism where resources concentrate in few actors hands sucks, and with better economical education The Free People should naturally resist it. Or die trying, well, naturally.
It is indeed a complex academic problem; yet I see popular ancap bs as theoretically redeemable through education (and practically, yes, I totally agree with the point of this drawing). Things are too screwed now to play these games, but rejecting a point of view altogether is not wise.
I also know anarcho-socialists that are total government boot licking nazis
what? how?
They aren’t honest about their ideology.
Or just ignorant and picking a label that sounds good
Very few people ever believe in anything. It’s mostly tribal allegiance and identity.
Lying, i expect.
they are idiots, happens
like how russians claim that they are traditionalists, but have no real traditions except for those made up in USSR to force order and highest divorce rates. Just imagining themselves
The first time i read “ancap” i thought it meant anti capitalist. Boy was that a fun conversation with the guy that proudly proclaimed to be one.
We should make it mean that.
antcap
🐜🧢
I find ancaps to be in the bigger fantasy land than the ancoms. Their ideas are disjointed from history and reality, nor do they have any good moral motivations (personal greed and profits) for them. I find it funny that they call normal people statist to make fun of them as a religious cult when most of their talking points are a tautology and one cannot question if a capitalist will every use their influence to harm others.
Also DOGE is the most relevant libertarian (inspired by ancap president of Argentina) policy and it sucks
This is local US issue. With your firepower, sure, nothing is local, but yet.
Finnish government is quite libertarian now, - it sucks, as any modern government, but it doesn’t suck like DOGE. It doesn’t suck like most. It’s actually ok-ish, as long as it doesn’t mess things up, and it doesn’t; it doesn’t do much besides allowing more alcohol in supermarkets and forbidding russians to cross the border at will to fuck things up. Borders are bullshit, but then it’s more like front line between us and totalitarian hell here.
Unless your definition of finish libertarianism is about unregulated capitalism you are speaking about something completely distinct.
It is unregulated capitalism. That’s the idea of the ruling party now. Of course, they are very limited in power.
Well I hope they don’t trash your systems under the idea that a private corp will do better for vague ideas about profit motive always being good.
They can’t; government here is mere servants of society. We’ve seen socialists dropping welfare when it was needed, now this libertarian government raised VAT. No matter what ideas drive the party, they actually listen to analytical people doing their math. And of course they’ll be replaced in a few years by some kind of reds (maybe with greens, maybe with something else), similarly powerless, as any government should be.
The only strong power in our politics is Swedish language party that always has 5-10%, any coalition, and just one line on agenda - swedish language. Awesome mockery of serious politics IMO (and at the same time more serious politics than most).
