Why isn't ancap considered "Anarchism"?

Because in ancap there can still exist a socialist city.

>>130410303
>ancap
>exist

Pick one!

File: one dollar.jpg (26KB, 461x354px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 461x354px

DO YOU SUPPORT ME BEING SHOT?

>>130409970
'Anarchism' means different things to different people.

To ancaps, it means no ruling class.
To ancoms, it means no rules.

I.e. there are still rules in ancapistan but they are enforced by social/economic discrimination, rather than by the initiation of force.
But no rules in ancommistan, hence the violent antifa protests.

>>130410609
You've been brainwashed by your sjw government.

>>130409970
anarchism means no rules and no goverment.
with ancap you still have the nap but no goverment.

One is a theory, the other is meme.

>>130411145
Yes, not just me though. Everyone that disagrees with you is brainwashed.

>>130409970
Any sort of volentary anarchy is either a delussion, idiotism, or simply a reactionary mindset based on what's going on in the world. With rise of authoritarian socialism, naturaly anarchist liberalism had to spawn.

Ancaps is considered an anarchy.

Face it, who the fuck would really care about NAP in real world?
Classical libertarian is the way to go.

>>130409970
Not sure, given the etymology of the word, ancap is the only real anarchism.

>>130414465
You need to take a dirtNAP

>>130409970

>>130411019

Ancoms (and their ilk) believe that private property is illegitimate. They simultaneously think that without private property, there would be no state and without the state, there would be no private property.

File: e.jpg (8KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 259x194px

>>130414966
>They simultaneously think that without private property, there would be no state and without the state, there would be no private property.

HAHAHA THE DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS!! That's a fallacy amirite anclapos??

File: ancap is not sustainable.png (127KB, 1086x372px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1086x372px

>>130409970
Because it will always result in a state.

>>130415361
Less of a fallacy, more of a lack of capacity to imagine any way for things to work other than the way they work now.

>>130415361
>That's a fallacy amirite anclapos??

Nobody said it was a fallacy, swedecuck. It's just wrong.

>>130409970
It would immediately form feudalism. Those without capital working for those with capital.

>>130409970
because somehow the free market will make it not shit

>>130416586
>It would immediately form feudalism. Those without capital working for those with capital.

You do realize that feudalism is a direct result of the state curtailing property rights, rite? We use the same statist system of allodial and fee simple titles that resulted in feudalism. The state created it.

>In feudal England a feoffment could only be made of a fee (or "fief"), which is an estate in land, that is to say an ownership of rights over land, rather than ownership of the land itself, the only true owner of which was the monarch under his allodial title. Enfeoffment could be made of fees of various feudal tenures, such as fee-tail or fee-simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffment

In the anarchist society, unlike under statism, owners would have the highest form of title, rather than the fee simple titles they may hold today.

>>130409970
Anarchism is about rejection of the state, also, anarchism alone, isn't related to private property rights or collectivization. So yes, Ancaps are anarchist, a specific kind of anarchist, but an anarchist no matter what.

>>130416453
>>130416506
You guys are fucking embarrassing. Everyone knows he meant that one thing they said contradicted the other. Why else state as your complaint that they simultaneously say two things that do not conflict. You better start backpedaling harder.

>>130417165
This is correct. ancaps are anarchists with a particular moral ideal. They have to argue for the utility of that ideal and feasability of implementing it. A thing that they struggle to do and we mostly hear moral justifications from them, citing ""natural law"" e.t.c. Who cares?

>>130417708
>Everyone knows he meant that one thing they said contradicted the other.
>Everyone
>one swedecuck

Call it backpedalling, but this is what they believe. They believe that the state is the result of private property and that private property is the result of the state.

Go back to sucking your bull's cum out of your girlfriend's ass, faggot.

File: slugprideworldwide.jpg (349KB, 726x536px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 726x536px

>>130418162
Yeah, you are fit to fight strawmen and insult someone's flag while hiding your own. I'm not gonna argue with bugmen like you.

>>130412313
Have fun dodging Achmads grenades

>>130418403
>while hiding your own.

It's not about hiding.

> I'm not gonna argue with bugmen like you.

You started it, faggot.

>>130416841
all voluntary contracts.
feudalism transitioned fron the fall of the roman empire in the west. it was exactly the collapse of the roman state that formed it

>>130418897
>>all voluntary contracts.

>This pattern of land-holding was the natural product of William the Conqueror claiming an allodial title to all the land of England following the Norman Conquest of 1066 and parcelling it out as large fees in the form of feudal baronies to his followers, who then in turn subinfeudated the lands comprising their baronies into manors to be held from them by their own followers and knights.

lurk moar

>>130419095
how was that not voluntary

File: 14570488_10208478935384430_4319167779320956091_n.jpg (46KB, 625x405px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 625x405px

>>130419190
>>William the Conqueror claiming an allodial title to all the land of England following the Norman Conquest of 1066

>>Norman Conquest of 1066

>how was that not voluntary

File: IMG_0325.png (598KB, 946x1680px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 946x1680px

This

>>130419359
he was asserting his inheritance rights to the throne of england via emma of normandy who was queen of england.
oh but you didnt know that did you

>>130409970
It is but they claim not to be

Ancaps are still filthy an*rchists

>>130419715
>he was asserting his inheritance rights to the throne of england via emma of normandy who was queen of england.
>oh but you didnt know that did you

Yawn. This argument will go on forever as we chase down one monarch to another throughout history. You have to prove that all of their claims were legitimate. Tell me they were all voluntary conquests of bloodshed too. At the end of the day, they fail to have claimed legitimate rights under the natural law via the lockean homesteading principle anyway. So, fuck you.

File: 1497734580140.jpg (64KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x640px

>>130419422
>Stirner
>Emotional definition of "man"
Based on his followers, I figured that fucker was a shit-tier philosopher.

>>130419422
Anarchism the word literally comes from the Greek meaning basically "rule by no one"

>>130420137
claims via inheritance are legitimate, or do you somehow dont believe in private property laws

>>130409970
but it is.....
>muh nap

>>130411473
Wrong. It means no rulers, not no rules. Huge difference.

>>130420980
if there are no rulers who made the rules?

>>130420328
>claims via inheritance are legitimate, or do you somehow dont believe in private property laws

Not if the original claims are illegitimate. Besides, at some point property is considered abandoned when not utilized by the legitimate owner and may be homesteaded by the person using it.

>>130421379
>the original claims of the anglosaxon kingdom of england are illegitimate
lol wut

>>130421530
>lol wut

You have to prove they were legitimate to begin with. Don't try to shift your burden onto me.

>>130421739
what do you even mean by legitimate?
how far are you going back here? celtic britannia?

>>130409970
Because An-Commies are faggots.

>>130421940

>what do you even mean by legitimate?

"all voluntary contracts."

They're your words, not mine.

>how far are you going back here?

As far as it takes to find a legitimate claim and then find each and every voluntary exchange which maintains the title.

>>130422180
which title? how far do you want to go back to find the original inhabitants?

>>130409970
Two reasons. One, Ancap relies on a NAP to regulate interpersonal relations in society. Two, anarchism is a real achievable state, while Ancap is nothing more than larping.

>>130409970
because in ancap everyone adheres to my rule set or else...but there is no "or else" because there's no state so just shut up the government is evil etc

>>130422283
>which title?

By "title," I'm simply referring to a claim to ownership that is in accordance with the natural law.

>how far do you want to go back to find the original inhabitants?

Well, I'm assuming since that is as far back as we will have to go, that would be a start, but again, it's going to be impossible since the state in its various forms of monarchy at the time likely didn't come into existence merely through voluntary contract either. My point is that the foundations rest upon quicksand once you start trying to find the natural owners of the land rather than the usurpers that claim alleged titles by force or threat.

>>130422523

I think it's more correct to say that ancap relies on anarchic institutions to enforce the NAP. Your comment seems to imply that an ancap society is a magic fantasy land where people are not assholes.

>>130422773
so everybody, since the original "owners by natural law" are neanderthals in 300000 bc

It confuses me when anarcho-communists say that about anarcho-capitalism. Surely ancap is the ultimate realisation of anarchy.

>>130416441
>Make up laws for no reason
>Collect taxes for your nonexistant laws
>This process creates a state

Comrad Logic

>>130423890
Well I guess we will just have to hope that those with a huge amount of power just use their sense of morality to avoid making more profit...hahahhahahahah

>>130424189

>Well I guess we will just have to hope that those with a huge amount of power just use their sense of morality to avoid making more profit

And that's why we're against modern states. Because that's exactly what they do now.

At least with ancap you would have the option to choose.

>>130424189
Can't you see they obviously benefit from being moral?!? It's in their self-interest. Duuuuh!

>>130424447
you can choose with globalism too

Organize yourselves, migrate en masse to a region, use democracy to get what you want. The fact you don't try to change anything and reply "oh, it will still have X and Y" means you're not serious about what you're saying and you just want something to complain about. And, if that's what you really want, I'd be willing to give that to you. At least, your grievances become justified.

>>130424447
>And that's why we're against modern states. Because that's exactly what they do now.
It's the peoples' duty to hold states responsible for their actions, the reason american governments and all their puppet states are so treasonous is because they don't have a people to be held to account by, they have a multicultural-racial land area. This is an interim period of collapse that you are making your judgements against government on. Which is entirely moot because governments are human nature.
>At least with ancap you would have the option to choose.
how do you figure that?

>>130424866
>Organize yourselves, migrate en masse to a region, use democracy to get what you want.

There are some movements already, yeah. Like the Free State Project.

>>130425001
>It's the peoples' duty to hold states responsible for their actions

True. But there's no point in using the same state mechanisms to hold them responsible. That's why the only way to achieve liberty is through secessionist movements and guns (or any means of defense).

>how do you figure that?

Those wishing full liberty would want so. Thus in the formation of private communities, the freedom of movement (but not the freedom of entry) must be hold sacred.

>>130425021
Good. Move and stop bitching.

>>130409970
Well, in an ancap society, there's still force. Not enforced by the state but by wealthier people and corporations which would lead to a somewhat tribal kind of society with wealthy individuals or groups backed by private security corporations (unless, this security service is already part of the corporation/individual) as the ruling class.

>>130425531

I'll move, and I'll bitch so that you bitch about it, too.

Somehow Ancoms think that they can seize and redistribute all private property, which would obviously have to be done by some sort of state mechanism, and then they think that surely once the state has seized all the property that it will just hand all the property over and then abolish itself...

The political ideology which is both lack of a state (an) and requires a state (com) makes 0 sense.

>>130425529
>Those wishing full liberty would want so. Thus in the formation of private communities, the freedom of movement (but not the freedom of entry) must be hold sacred.
the premise was consolidation of power to the point that corps become micro governments and tax as much as they can get away with, how could you possibly think you can just move away from that?

Ancom = you get one toothbrush, maybe

Ancap = I will trade you my 100 toothbrushes for something to eat.

>>130426387

>how could you possibly think you can just move away from that?

With resistance (guns)

>>130411019
>No ruling class
>No government to regulate corporations
Lmao

>>130426761
so would your ideology then fail (in this scenario at least) if they have superior force? keeping in mind the same reason you dont resist the current government is they have superior force.

>>130427033
>corporations dont exist without states

...woah...

File: 1486819105531.jpg (473KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 1000x1000px

Simply because you cant have anarchy in capitalism, capitalism will rule you and therefore it is not anarchist

File: lolbertarian.png (124KB, 539x323px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 539x323px

>>130412404
>Classical libertarian is the way to go
>libertarian
Anything that has a basis in liberalism needs to go. Are all men created equal?

>>130427220
so do you just call them mafias or what?

>>130414580
Why do swedish people hate ancap more than any other group? I get that swedes have always been socialist, but why push your socialist garbage on us as if it's "the only way"?

>>130427209

They may have the "superior force", but keep in mind that:

a) they would be killing potential tax payers
b) their force might be composed of citizens that "pay" taxes
c) guerrilla tactics can make non-military combatants quite effective (at least that's what Vietnam teaches us)

My point is, as long as people are armed, there are more incentives for peaceful, voluntary transactions than serfdom.

>>130429048
All of those are true under the current situation no? Also in the case of Vietnam they took massive causalities defending their ethnostate and they were already poor.

>>130427458
Of course not, and that's why without welfare, anti-discrimination laws, and (((social justice))), minorities would go back to the state they were in in the 1700's

>>130430128

>All of those are true under the current situation no?

Yes, that's why if people want freedom they must secede. It all depends on how much the people want that freedom, though.

>>130430761
>secede against the state
nearly impossible. in fact i would say it is practically impossible

Once your nation is in anarchy, you no longer have ideological control of it. It's only "Anarcho-capitalism" as long as everyone involved treats it that way. It's not hard to imagine scenarios in which something resembling a government forms for protection.

>>130430761
my point was if people wont do it now, why would it work in ancapfantasyland

File: op.jpg (142KB, 680x709px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 680x709px

>>130409970
Because OP is a faggot

>>130431992

I think the reason people don't do it now is because of leftist indoctrination. Luckily there has been a resurgence of ideas related to freedom.

>>130432310
They won't do it because they have more to lose than to gain.

>>130432619

Because they think they have more to lose than to gain. It's all a matter of perspective and state of mind. Perhaps if the ideas of liberty were propagated in universities and media, the outcome would be different.

Hell, I'm arguing for ancap, but the minarchists have this very same problem.

>>130433002
This seem incredibly naive of you to believe. No one is going to die for these (any) causes based on rationality. It's an evolutionary absurdity to think people are going to risk their lives and livelihood when they don't need to.

File: 1497766810488.png (68KB, 722x681px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 722x681px

>>130431791
governance is not the state, and contracts are not taxes
an cap is the only real anarchy

>>130409970
commie mods. Anarcho communism is an oxymoron, anarcho capitalism is basically just anarchy but you have to call yourself that to distinguish yourself from retarded kids.

File: StopLarping.png (61KB, 643x451px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 643x451px

>>130436752

File: 1404547593159.jpg (78KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x533px

Because of "muh hierarchy".

>>130411019
I always considered AnCom/AnSoc to be the ones that can't really think things through. If you genuinely believe in anarchism, but can think through the implications of any ideal or policy, you are bound to end up going ancap.

This >>130414966 is why. If there is neither state nor private property, how does society determine who operates which factory or manufacturing facility? How do we determine if someone is creating the necessary output to justify being a part of our ansoc society? Is there even a bar for being a part of it? Because if no, wouldn't the result be that nobody really produces abundant amounts of anything?

>>130427220
They'd be replaced with expanded family businesses, which are less cancerous, so I guess that's a win, but there's no checks and balances, and if you want to live under the rule of a benevolent monarch, why go for ancap and not monarchy to begin with?

can we all please agree that standard libertarianism is not the same as ancap?

>>130441807
dude nobody cares about libertarianism anymore