Is Anarchy right-wing?

>le all libertarians are right wing meme
Stop.

Left libertarianism exists and is absolutely nothing like what antifa preaches, protip, less state or authority is needed if family units and communal units, like church parishes, are strong and cohesive. By arguing against the family and against religion you cannot be left wing libertarian.

A 1 dimensional line doesnt capture any nuance. Anarchists are left wing.

>>137975664
>Libertarian
>Anarchist
Pick one.

File: unnamed.png (31KB, 415x354px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 415x354px

>>137976325
Libertarian just means concessions to freedom are made to prevent the freedoms of one to transgress another, it's actually the entire ideology of intolerance only to the intolerant.

Anarchists are just against authority in general and the low iq anarchists are chaos seeking nihilists who haven't been fucked in this life enough, so they actually believe their hurt feelings are the only oppression in society.

>>137974909
>Anarchy IS the smallest form of government.
They don't believe in private possession. They think that that if we learn everyone to share, then we could just abandon the rule of law, and everyone would just get along. That is what these superior intellectuals actually believe in.

They have been given free spaces all over Europe to develop this alternative society, and every single time it degenerates into a primitive village of people that enter the city to loot trashcans.

>>137978416
>and every single time it degenerates into a primitive village of people that enter the city to loot trashcans.
Not to mention that these communities have a huge problem with heroin and other forms of substance abuse.

File: IMG_0951.jpg (68KB, 1024x418px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1024x418px

Right wing and libertarian are not the same thing

File: 1619161_10151885210142011_1428951486_n.jpg (55KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 720x540px

As a Gnostic Libertarian let me explain to you what Real Anarchy is. Not the Communist idea of Anarchy.

The Archons are the Rulers, Masters, Lords, Authorities or Principalities over our present darkness.

We Revolt against all these false gods.

>>137981470
Take away Authoritarian/Libertarian & look at role & influence of gov. in terms of Supportive/Utilitarian.

File: il_570xN.750960077_amsq.jpg (103KB, 570x607px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 570x607px

>>137981731
Ephesians 6:12

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

>>137977359
Are you anglo-celtic?

>>137980174

Best one of these I've seen so far. Had me in stitches. :D

>>137974909
I think left/right is a bad dichotomy. I basically just use 'left' to describe everything I don't like - collectivism, big government, anti-theism, moral relativism.

>>137982017
They literally just mean white, that being said there's another study (somewhere..) that actually shows Mediterranean men are the worst off (they also get something similar to antisemitism from the right) and Indian men are best off (they're Aryans to the right and PoC to the left), they might have merged these two groups to pretend the anti white male racism isn't as bad as it is.

Regardless, what I am is of zero impact to my argument. Only white men are experiencing anything even remotely close to real oppression.

Having a culture that glorifies crime or violence is NOT oppression!

>>137974909
anarchy is not a political theory, it is chaos.

if you anarcho-________________ists got your wet dream fantasy, you would be the first ones in the cookpot when dindus turn to cannibalism after their EBT cards stop working.

"anarchism" is the only thing more poisonous than marxism, because it is CONCENTRATED MARXISM, now with more faggotry.

OP's digestive tract contains at least 12 loads of pozz cum.

>>137982986
Not having government goons pretend they rule you =/= chaos.
Your basic personal relationships happen without a government goon directing you - pretending you need those goons around or else hell itself will erupt and swallow the world is a ludicrous and moronic.

File: communists.jpg (211KB, 950x713px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 950x713px

>>137983638
whatever you say communist slave

File: 1371753472577.png (102KB, 752x1668px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 752x1668px

>>137984850
You're the commie here, Borg-san.

>>137985065

>opperate

stopped here

>>137985065
>ancom
Anarchy is about no government, about the non-initiation of force. Using force is an attempt at ruling, an attempt at governing others. The basis of this is self-ownership and, by extension, private property. Self ownership and private property is why imposing your views on someone else is immoral. Communism is inherently anti-anarchist.

>>137975664
> t. A right winger atempting to disassociate himsekf because right wing ideoligies are currently not en vogue.

You are /one of us/ whether want to admit it.

And holy kek, my Captcha was that select the helicopterc images.

>>137974909
No anarchist are just retarded edgy kids

>>137981900
what is the symbol in that pic? I saw it in a dream and can't find it anywhere.

>>137985881
>lf ownership and private property is why imposing your views on someone else is immoral
Nah - I think forcefully imposing yourself on others is immoral because doing so is against the commandments of the Almighty God.
But if there are people who don't believe in ownership (which I don't think in practice there are but one could entertain such a thought) at all on any level, and all live together and don't ever extend their disregard for ownership to anyone else, they cause no problems.

File: horse shoe theory .jpg (110KB, 1000x437px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1000x437px

>>137974909
>libertarians unironically believe monarchism is left wing

>>137986348
People who don't believe in ownership are called commies and anarchism is just communism larping as le freedom

>>137974909
Anarchism isn't left-wing or right-wing. It's just nothing, because Anarchism isn't an actual thing that will ever actually persist among people. No matter what you do or how you slice it, people will form power groups. You can't stop it. You can't force anarchism because once people establish those power groups they can instill their influence on other people and who is going to stop them?

I feel like anarchists just don't understand this though.

File: goonfreak.png (30KB, 300x204px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x204px

anarchism is a specialist according to the anime

>>137986587
How does "government" magically equal communism?
By that notion you're a communist all the time until you're caught in some interaction with your government overlords.

>>137987047
Communism requires overreaching state, it's part of the organization.

State
People

State above the people, anarchism doesn't requires that.

>>137987541
>Communism requires overreaching state
No, it doesn't. People could voluntarily all be commies together. That's not logically impossible.
I don't think hardly anyone would do that, but the fact that I don't think it's a particularly plausible state of affairs doesn't mean that it's impossible.

>>137987047
The notions of communism and anarchism are same, you both want a society with a dictatorship of the common man, both of you want abolition of countries and stateless society, remind me whats your stance on currency

>>137987878
>The notions of communism and anarchism are same, you both want a society with a dictatorship of the common man, both of you want abolition of countries and stateless society
No - that's wrong. What anarchist believes in dictatorship? Anarchists want *THE OPPOSITE* - NO people pretending they rule others.

>remind me whats your stance on currency
I like currency because it makes trade more convenient...?

>>137974909
Right. You know only right wingers can be tyrants right? Thats something these guys will never disclose to you. Theyll say something like no true scotsman fallacy but thats the def tho.

>>137987876
Redistribution of resources require an overreaching state, even if you all choose authoritianism, it's still authoritianism.

>>137974909
>Anarchy IS the smallest form of government.
Actually, there is no government

>>137988447
>Redistribution of resources require an overreaching state
Or it requires people voluntarily redistributing their own resources. Which happens all the time (charity) and isn't by itself communism.
It is possible for people to be commie libertarians - it's just that hardly any people who say they are actually are.

>>137988185
>I like currency because it makes trade more convenient...?
Please tell me what you think makes ancom different from ancap.

>>137988185
You don't understand communism all that well the dictatorship of the proletarian is pretty much the same concept as anarchy

>I like currency
Whose going to issue the said currency, who decides its value

>>137988683
Charity isn't equalitarian, wich it's the goal of communism, you don't give in the meassure of your goodwill, but in an objective amount determined for a qualified group of people, you know like goverment.

>>137988756
Alot. Commies are collectivists and commit to LToV (which is demonstrably wrong) and normal human interactions like paying another person to do something for you is magically oppressive to them, and ancaps don't believe such relations are magically oppressive, but generally commit to a stupid arbitrary principle (NAP).

>>137989301
>You don't understand communism all that well the dictatorship of the proletarian is pretty much the same concept as anarchy
Oh fuck no.
Communism = mob rule with retards hopig the mob rule will stay leftist after the dissolution of the government
Anarchism = Without a ruling entity AKA the non-initiation of force.

>>137989301
>dictatorship of the proletarian is pretty much the same concept as anarchy
Majority rule is not anarchist. "Ruling" is not anarchistic. The etymology of "anarchist" is - literally - "without rulers".

>>137989343
All you said was
>Redistribution of resources require an overreaching state
which I pointed out is wrong. What's your point here? If you can imagine 2 commies being commies and not violating each other, then it's possible for communism to instantiate without a state. That's a brute logical fact.

>>137989469
I don't get it. I ask you for differences between ancom and ancap and you end up thrashing both. Why use the ancom flag if you are thrashing both?

>>137989890
You don't have "communism" with two commies, wich it's our issue here, it's like you tell me, "well in a vacuum this thing will work, but if we take it to any place with oxygen it will blow up".

>>137988683
>or it requires people voluntarily redistributing their own resources
Yup thats what the Dictatorship of the proletarian is all about
>>137989707
>without a ruling government
The final aim of communism
>>137989890
>without rulers
That's exactly what communism promises

>>137990194
If there was a standard anarchist symbol I'd use that. I'm a voluntarist. As it stands, the fact that mousing over the flag just reads "anarchist" has to do for now.

>>137990291
>You don't have "communism" with two commies
So add another commie. You now have three commies. That enough for you? How about 4? 5? At what number is it communism, and at what number is it impossible?
Jesus I hate people like you who can't reason for shit.

>>137989890
If you can imagine 2 commies being commies and then a third guy coming up and blowing them both away for their stuff then its impossible for a communist anarchist state to exist without a mafia forming and oppressing people. That's a brute fact.

>>137974909
Our political spectrum is skewed, it is largely defined by government controls, and it assumes liberalism (the dominant ideology) is the centre. But objectively speaking, the original Left/Right was defined by the pro-revolutionaries and the pro-monarchists; or progress vs. tradition.

Using this method one could reimagine the spectrum with capitalism as the far-left (lol, ancaps incoming) because it is unbridled progress at its core. However, we would have to take into account the whole of an ideology to really place it - meaning not just its economic outlook but also the philosophical, technological, theological, organisational and artistic aspects. The organisational and economic cornerstones only take precedence because liberalism is assumed to be a positive ideal, it dominates the educational system, and it is taboo to discuss theology, technology, and traditional organisational forms.

Effectively, we are caught in a time trap and politics before modernity isn't even considered within the spectrum. But if we step outside of modern politics we can immediately see that all of modernity is far-left compared to the past. Hierarchy and state control aren't very good determinants of the political spectrum, simply because there are many ways to create hierarchies and manipulate people into control without the state.

Liberalism is essentially a creation story in which political control is assumed, and people elect a government of negation, simply because the alternative is worse. The liberal citizen is collectively a master of nature, and individually a slave of himself. All tradition is isolated within the individual and made meaningless. This is aside from the natural consumption of the environment which forces the individual to abandon his traditions if he is to continue on with the social contract. In many ways, this is a much more powerful (and cruel) method of control, because the individual is expected punish himself.
cont'd

>>137974909
it might as well be pure centrixsm

>>137990541
>That's exactly what communism promises
After they kill and steal the property of anyone who dissents. Mob rule is not anarchistic.

>>137974909
No. However, much like your post OP, it IS incredibly retarded.

>>137990704
>mob rule isn't anarchy
But anarchy has a always led to mob rule, you should read into communism

>>137990570
>check the flag options
>there is no anarcho-communist option
>meaning the ancom flag is the default flag for anarchy
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>137990602
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise, so
>That's a brute fact
is a false statement. Good try though!

>>137990704
A namefag AND an anarchist!?

Jesus your family must be ashamed

>>137990888
Nothing you'd call anarchy is what I'd call anarchy.
You literally just think anarchy means Mad Max, which is not what I or most anarchists mean AT ALL when we use the term.

>>137990570
I think my limit it's a working country with no state.

That still calls itself communist, they use the sickle and the hammer and all.

Otherwise no real communism.

>>137990570
>Jesus I hate people like you who can't reason for shit.

Says the guy who can't reason that he was trying to say you won't get enough people on board for it to ever work. The main reason it won't work is because people have different ideals of what is right and wrong, and without a centralised authority, you can't stop people from doing what they want.
Communism holds back the potential of the individual in favour for the slowest, weakest and least able for society, and so stumbles about like a gimp.
It doesn't matter how many people you add to the equation, voluntarism and communism will not every work on a large scale

>>137990895
Yeah it's gay.

>>137991130
So that's how many people? What straw breaks the camel's back? #22,880?

>>137991095
So provide me with a historical context, in theory communism works too

File: questionmark girl4.jpg (180KB, 945x945px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 945x945px

>>137991356
>Says the guy who can't reason that he was trying to say you won't get enough people on board for it to ever work

>>137974909
Anarchy isn't even on that chart.
It's on a different chart titled "Shit stupid people believe".

>>137991434
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZJuaxKPaME
There ya go.

File: 8. Politicial spectrum.jpg (214KB, 1856x887px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1856x887px

>>137974909

>>137990936
Here's my logic buddy:
Communism requires people to not amass capital that would cause inequality that could cause oppression. If someone has the means and the natural human instinct to improve their chances of survival they will attempt to amass resources and power. Therefore communism is impossible unless you suppress natural human instinct and will

>>137991369
I think the other countries does, when they realize that you won't pay your debts and won't produce the goods they need cause you don't believe in the markets anymore.

>>137991954
>Communism requires people to not amass capital
That's not true - they can amass as much capital as they want so long as its use is shared by the people who use it/made it. It's a really stupid "principle" but it's not impossible.

>If someone has the means and the natural human instinct to improve their chances of survival they will attempt to amass resources and power
That's also wrong. Plenty of people have no ambition and seek essentially nothing in life. And those people have existed throughout all time. So your reasoning still sucks dick senpai.

>>137991576
Will you be a part of my orgiastic mushroom eating tribe ?

>>137991369
The one where I stop giving a familial fuck about you and yours.

If it's not voluntary, it's coercive.

>>137992283
So you go from the argument that a state is necessary for communism to exist - which was demonstrated to be false - to an argument that "well someone will come in and beat them up xD".
Jesus Christ.

>>137974909

It's not on the spectrum.

It doesn't know one side or the other, it treats them all as enemies.

>>137991816
Reported for breaking global rule and bumped :)

Anarchy is impossible, as explained earlier
>>137986700

Minarchy, on the other hand, is extreme centrist. It is a mistake at worst or at best to think of "left" and "right" in terms of size of government. "Right" means rewarding the majority or the traditional with special privileges; "left" means rewarding a coalition of minorities and/or traditionally dispossessed with special privileges. Because the far right and far left are both strongly identitarian and collectivist, they naturally both favor big government.

The cause of linguistic confusion is how the Republican and Democratic Parties (and their equivalents in many other countries) divided the populace during the 20th century, when the population was mostly centrist liberals and vaguely rightwing traditionalists. Both needed to get a piece of the first group, so Republicans took classical liberalism (most notably capitalism) and Christianity while Democrats took proper centrism and government expansion. Note that both the GOP and the Dems dropped the centrists in the pre-Trump 21st century; the GOP dropped small government and pushed neoconservative expansion while the Democrats took a hard left approach to social issues.

So no, OP, you're extreme centrist. But you needn't be a pitiful fence-sitter. If one takes the U of the horseshoe and hammers it into a single bar such the the far left and far right are right next to each other (where they belong), you've got extreme liberty versus extreme authority. We need to transcend left and right.

>>137992426
No.

>>137992458
>If it's not voluntary, it's coercive
That's a stupid dichotomy. I don't necessarily voluntarily sleep but sleep's gonna hit me anyway. There are states of affairs that are neither voluntary nor coercive.

>>137974909
Yes anarchy is the most right wing ideology you can possible think of.

Left = collectivist, central planning, common good (which doesn't exist) > individual good

Right = individualistic, decentralized planning, objectivism

Far left ideologies: Facism, Communism, Socialism etc.
Far right idelogies: Libertarianism, Anarchism etc.

>>137992488

>which was demonstrated to be false

Can you provide an example besides a hippie peanut butter commune (which even then has the state, their peanut butter corporation is that state)

>>137992821
I meant to say "at worst or anachronistic at best"

File: IMG_2205.jpg (69KB, 500x527px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x527px

>>137974909
No. You're misinterpreting anarchy = libertarianism
Anarchy implys no one can do what they want without consequence, regardless of morality. Libertarianism punishes those who victimize and cause transgressions by putting the law in their hands. Communism seeks to punish those who defend themselves.
Barry and Hill are going to hang. They're in Canada already. And Canada is compromised.

>>137992375
>plenty of people have no ambition and seek essentially nothing in life

It takes everyone in a communist society to be on board for it to work. If merely "plenty" are ok with it then some will not. If that select group decides to take power in a system where there is not higher power to stop them they WILL succeed. Also I'm glad that your admitting that your principles are stupid. Your making progress to rationality

>>137992973
It's an a priori argument. If you can imagine 2 commies, you can imagine 3, 4, 5, and so on, and at no point can you just magically claim "NO - THAT SPECIFIC NUMBER OF COMMIES THAT WE JUST HIT IS ACTUALLY LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!"
"Impossible" is a pathetically easy thing to dismiss. You want to use the word "implausible" if you want something not trivial to dismiss.

>>137993256
>It takes everyone in a communist society to be on board for it to work
No it doesn't. More productive commies could provide for less productive commies. That's entirely logically possible.

>>137993256
>your principles
I'm not a commie. I'm a radical Christian zealot who loathes government. You're the commie here, bootlicking Borg-san.

>>137993421

>You want to use the word "implausible" if you want something not trivial to dismiss.

The point is: it has not been demonstrated to be false.

Attacking the semantics of a poster as a knock against their logic, is not going to win an argument here.

>>137993795
Then what's with the anarcho-commie flag then?

>>137990613
cont'd
He is a schizophrenic tyrant.

In many ways, the anarchist is like the communist - caught up in the unfinished revolutions which gave birth to modern society. And in this, they are the same as liberals, determined by their negative ideology. They do not affirm an ideal society, they oppose a society, they want to push on with the revolution.

This has always been their strength, they are creative forces of destruction. But it is also their weakness, as they lack positive organisational structure and idealism.

I think that an individual like Bakunin is fairly right-wing compared to most people today: calling out both structural problems and individual groups (Jews), anti-state, extremely anti-communist, for small-group/brotherhood organisation. But there is a lack of political philosophy as a whole, and post-revolution structures, which would be the Leftist side of anarchism. Chaos/order may be a better differentiation than state intervention/non-intervention.

In this sense, anarchism is similar to national socialism as it combines elements of the Left and Right. Jacques Camatte acknowledged this in that the anarchist vision of society was in many ways similar to the Volksgemeinschaft, but unfortunately he never explored it further (probably couldn't due to backlash).

Of course, people like Camatte and Bakunin are a minority. Traditional anarchists, insurrectionists, and primitivists are at the extreme end of anarchism. Heck, the American Situationists wrote a piece called "The Right To Be Greedy" which was essentially pushing capitalist individualism to the extreme. The syndicalists and communists on the other hand tend to be quite moderate in terms of their relations to capital and hierarchy.

Another determining factor in the political spectrum that I think should be considered is the void between the current form and the ideal. If we look at primitivism it has been confronted by the Left in the same way as fascism,
cont'd

>>137993816
>The point is: it has not been demonstrated to be false
????
Yes it has been. The claim "it is impossible for there to not be a state" has been demonstrated as false.

>>137994076
see
>>137990194
>>137990570

>>137993795
What I am saying is that is that A some having to compensate for others is inequality and B if not everyone agrees and there is no government to put them down some people will act up and wreck your whole system.

>>137988683
Thats unrealistic utopian thinking. The only way I could see that working is with a small homgenous community.

>>137974909

Anarchy assumes that people are rational and intelligent enough to rule themselves without an external threat if they step out of bounds and do truly stupid shit.

Precisely why it, like true libertarianism, just can't work. People are fucking irrational and stupid, and most cannot police themselves.

File: 1501910437331.jpg (35KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 615x409px

>>137980174

>>137992846
Rude
Ps
That's the only kind of anarchy you can have

>>137994499
>What I am saying is that is that A some having to compensate for others is inequality
People being different is inequality. Marx never proposed that everyone should be equal, he proposed that stuff should be distributed in x way.

Your B I don't give a shit about. I'm not arguing for utopia, I'm arguing for the most moral state of affairs. The most moral state of affairs necessarily lacks a state, because statism is necessarily evil - statism entails that some people threaten and coerce other people.
I want a state of affairs in which people aren't threatened or coerced, and will argue for it. Me arguing for the best moral state of affairs does not magically mean I'm arguing that nothing bad will ever happen again - Jesus Christ.

>>137995085
Nope.

>>137974909
Anarchy is just another word for war.

>>137994607
Anarchy does not assume that.
Anarchy is a lack of people pretending they rule you or others. That's it. It assumes nothing about how people are at all.

File: laughing.gif (73KB, 675x227px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 675x227px

>>137980174
Holy shit thats the best one yet

>>137992846
You voluntarily sleep every night you don't go on a massive speed and coke binge til death you fucking twat.

>>137974909
anarchy is retarded so therefore it is left wing

>>137995513
No, not necessarily.

>>137995631
Great argument from a great mind. Thanks for posting.

>>137995183
Jesus Christ never said that you phony~!

>>137995699
Is anarchy superior to other ideologies?

>>137991475
>Hurr durr how do I english

>>137974909
Yes, the political spectrum is really Authoritarian (state control over the individual) vs Anarchy (individual control over the individual)

The right left dichotomy is not really helpful any more. You have the KKK supporting the republicans who freed the slaves and fascists claiming to be anti-fascist. The way to unpack the recent cluster fuck is to look at the tactics and see what they are trying to achieve.

The problem is that now left wing want certain things in anarchy (tearing down statues and protests because it helps them) but they also want control over the executive, media narrative, etc.
The right wants smaller governments but control over immigration.

>>137996142
>Inb4 op is a nigger

>>137996142
No; I was arguing that the "impossible" argument is idiotic, which was what the argument he was making. That you want to change what he said to mean something other than what he said because your feels doesn't change what that dipshit actually said dipshit~

>>137996022
Absolutely. God Wills it.

>>137974909
Anarchy is base

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvGA8SAbBGo

>Not the /pol/tarded version of "based" either

File: Lib vs Con.jpg (21KB, 388x335px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 388x335px

Is anarchism the most extreme-right-wing ideology?

Yes, because PURE freedom is anarchy. Our Constitution provides just enough CONTROL to make government work. However, over the past decades there have been major leftist shifts from its origin.

>>137996484

ist that a hierarchy?

toiletseat model.

The only model I follow is the Davids Star model :3

>>137996322
>Yes, the political spectrum is really Authoritarian (state control over the individual) vs Anarchy (individual control over the individual)

The left/right dichotomy is about democracy vs liberty. The right wants democracy even if it results in the taking away of liberal values (like allowing discrimination against people based on their religion or national origin). The left wants liberty (liberal values) like gay marriage or redistribution of wealth even if it goes against the majority of the population. As both sides get hardened, they tend to authoritarianism.

>>137974909
Anarchists fall on both ends of the economic scale anon.
The only thing they have in common is no govt. Anarchists see both communists and nazis as the same beast. What's more they also see liberal and social democracies as the same beast. In anarchism anybody who argues for responsible govt. Will get the bullet regardless of where they stand or how small that govt. Is.

>>137994333
cont'd
most anarchists despise it. And John Zerzan has faced similar confrontations as Jared Spencer. Which brings me to my last point: what is the difference between primitivism and traditionalism?

Primitivism, for all its anti-communism, remains within the philosophy of materialism, and it is ardently anti-theological. Traditionalism is simply the reverse, it is deeply theological, but is anti-materialism and cannot truly comprehend the destructive nature of the modern world. Important here is that the theology remains deeply modernist in form, as its writings are historical documents caught up in the philosophy of the Enlightenment. One might say that it is a form of contemplative anarchism, envisioning a conflict that will not happen in the real world.

So this would mean that contemplation/action is the last form of political differentiation, with the others being order/chaos and tradition/progress. Politics in our age is backwards with ethics and duty following our political ideology. A truly traditional politics requires value and ethic first with the moral outcome creating the political position. This would allow situational decisions based on the three-form-spectrum, where one could go beyond Left and Right as well as the political restraints on time.
MH

>>137996667
Not among men.
God existing would necessitate an unavoidable existential hierarchy in God being greater than all things by sheer virtue of existing.
Anarchy is political relations between humans and nothing non-human. It's why nobody considers raccoons when talking about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of political authority.

>>137995183
>I want a state of affairs where people aren't threatened or coerced

So the vigilante gangs and mafia groups that will spring up in the absence of governmental power will ensure this. You should take a trip to northern Mexico, I hear the kingpins are lovely people there.

>statism is nesisarilly evil

If having a ruling state or government is evil, then it is surely of the necessary kind. You cure is worse than the disease. I understand your concerns, but removing the orderly(ish) government only makes things worse. In sorry.

it's tough to say
"right wing" usually implies minimal or no involvement of government in the economy, and by this dimension anarchism would effectively be on the extreme right

on the other hand, most varieties of anarchism are against private property of the means of production (if not of all property altogether), on the grounds that this creates artificial hierarchies which by all practical purposes mean the same thing as a government -- depriving the sovereign individual from choices re consumption, work, lifestyle, et cetera

reading this thread makes me want to kill myself. You are all fucking retatded. Here ill enlighten you. Rightwing: reavtionary. Left wing: revolutionary. Therefore anarchy is left wing.

but seriously you guys are retarded

>>137978416
>anarchist dont believe in private possession
False.
Ancap do.

>>137997199
>So the vigilante gangs and mafia groups that will spring up
Don't seem to cause as much death and tyranny as government does right now. When you ask yourself "what is the largest and most effective force of tyranny and coercion that has ever existed", the obvious answer is the state goons under the banner of the United States government. Nothing else has ever even come close to the murder and destruction of them, and I really highly doubt the boogeyman of "widout da guvment errybody gun die!"
I don't buy it bootlicker-san.

File: good vs evil.png (20KB, 1443x665px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 1443x665px

Anarchy is theoretical. In reality what you really see in a power vacuum is chaos theory. To say a society can exist without some type of government is retarded. Even motorcycle clubs have a hierarchy. Lord of the Flies-factions, tribalism, etc...

>>137997217
what a strange concept
the french revolution and first french Republic were then left wing movements although they were driven by burgois capitalist interests against the feudal Ancien Regime?

>>137997503
What kind of murder and tyranny are you talking about specifically? I would like some numbers and facts please. Also, are you not to agree that the people of northern Mexico are better off without governmental power in their area. No wonder they are fleeing in droves to the murderous and capitalistic USA.

>>137997518
You can have a club president. That's not against anarchy - what's not anarchy is simply having people threaten and use violence against other people for not conforming to their whims. And that's easy - it happens all the time. It's just sad that in the background you have a bunch of goons who you literally and unironically believe are legitimate in threatening you.

Conservative = Democracy = Majority-Rule
Liberal = Liberty = Minority-Rule

Liberals believe in giving minority groups disproportionate amount of power.

That's really the difference between the right and left.

Check our Fareed Zakaria's Illiberal Democracy

File: yin.jpg (19KB, 576x576px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 576x576px

>>137974909
yes.
it is the most extreme right possible.
total anarchy.

it is impossible to achieve in life.
you would still be governed by natural law and order.

>>137993569
Here's a scenario that could play out. You have this big communist country where their are millions of people and the "final goal" of communism has been reached, no state or a governing body. Now there's the guys growing crops and raising livestock and then there are the NEETs, welfare queens, musicians, artists, dancers, dope fiends etc. who contribute nothing in terms of basic survival. These guys work their asses off and decide not to share with these types anymore. What then, because you can't force them to share? Do you posse up and kill the farmers? Then who would produce the food? That feeling of injustice sets in, especially when it's true. As one pointed out, most of that shit can be seen in hippie communes where everyone is a garbage eating bum because the ones willing to work won't hang around long.

>sage

File: 1502195184252.jpg (110KB, 536x399px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 536x399px

>>137992889
Don't listen to anyone who thinks the left/right dichotomy is authoritarianism/collectivism vs libertarianism/individualism.

>The Left
inequality = oppression and exploitation, it is unnatural and people are economically determined to be either a boss or a slave. The history of humanity is struggle over power, but ultimately is progressive and revolutions are natural.
>The Right
inequality = natural, it is an inevitability or is morally virtuous. People are happier and more content when they are placed on a hierarchy, as nature intended. Preservation is paramount to the survivability of a civilisation.

>>137998010
Wars. Prison state.

If you want to talk about Mexico, there's nothing anarchic about drug lords threatening and killing other people for not conforming to the whims of the drug lords. I can tell you for certain, though, that those drug lords have murdered less people than the United States government.

>>137998366
>and decide not to share with these types anymore
So communism doesn't work when communism stops working.
Woah...
My mind...
Equals....
Blown....

ANARCHO-CAPITALISM is. Regular 'anarchism' is a re-brand of communism.

>>137998962
What's your problem with voluntarism.....?

File: Physically Remove the Socialist.jpg (111KB, 1200x845px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1200x845px

>>137974909

>>137998168
>Conservative = Democracy = Majority-Rule
>Liberal = Liberty = Minority-Rule

continued. From this point of view we can deduce either traits.

If you are a conservative and you believe in majority rule then society Is already to you liking and you don't want to use govt. power to change society hence govt is evil because it has the ability to override your beliefs.

Inversely if you are liberal then you want to use the power of govt to protect certain groups from persecution or discrimination (e.g. gays) and so you want to use the power of govt to assist other people.

>>137974909
are you retard?

>>137974909

Sure, but most "anarchists" only want to end the state in order to replace it with a new state, usually based on collectivism of some kind.

>>137999108
why is it that modern anarchists are really socialists, and modern National socialists are really anarchists?

>>137998522
inequality is a good way to view right vs. left as well. btw I wouldn't say the right believes people are happier when they are oppressed. It seems to be they are more like useful idiots that campaign oppression until they realize it effects them and then become liberals.

>>137999418
Elaborate

>>137998681
Northern Mexico is what your society will devolve into and the Mexicans are eager enough to get the he'll out because it is terrible. Also,

>I can tell you for certain though, that those drug lords have murdered less people than the United States government.

Prove that the US government is murderous. You can understand why I can't take your word.

>>137999742
>Northern Mexico is what your society will devolve into
No - I have no reason to believe that.
If where I lived magically didn't have government tomorrow, virtually nothing would change except people would have more of their own money.
Maybe you live in an urban cesspit and fear that without goons you're familiar with lurking in the background (whose primary job is actually just to rob you) who threaten those dastardly villains who would just go around raping and pillaging everyone else without their presence (an irrational belief that fallaciously assumes that nobody can do what government-paid goons can do), but I certainly don't.

File: IMG_5732.jpg (66KB, 617x589px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 617x589px

>>137981731
>without rulers
So who guarantees the rules (i.e. No murder) are kept in place
>inb4 MUH GUBMENT CORUBTION :DDD

File: download.jpg (18KB, 289x231px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 289x231px

>>137997033
I really wish I could parse out what you are trying to say but you're just not using words properly and don't seem to understand their meaning. It's too bad cause you seem to want to discuss.
Democracy is 51% ruling over 100%. Majority rule over the whole. This means if you are a minority you have to abide by what the majority rules.
Liberty is the allowance of a privilege given by an authority ie the state.
The US is a Constitutional Republic as we saw recently in the last elections ie not majority rules. This type of government limits the administrative government by identifying rights to individual citizens.

You seem to be saying that the right or republicans want "democracy" or in the case of the US a constitutional republic by taking away liberal values. The constitution specifically states that you cannot discriminate against color creed religion etc...

Gay marriage-> marriage is a religious ceremony and not part of the state. The recognition of marriage by the state is solely due to the tax benefits received by married couple as an enticement for procreation ie babies. Nothing stopped any religion from getting people married.

Redistribution of wealth-> This is the confiscation of property by the state and is restricted by the fif amendment of the constitution. Not only it is immoral to steal but it is the root cause of why antions die under communism and socialism example USSR venezuela and everything red.

>>137997853
Yes, that's literally where the term comes from. Revolutionaries sat to the left of the king, Monarchists and supporters of the king sat to his right.

>>137999742
>Prove that the US government is murderous
It has sent and still sends people to murder and be murdered to the tune of millions. Do you believe the wars the U.S. has been involved in have all been holy and just conflicts? Unless you do, you already know your proof.

>>138000230
No one guarantees anything in life. You're literally not guaranteed that you'll continue breathing into the very next nano-second.

File: far center.png (119KB, 1280x818px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1280x818px

>>137974909
Who here /farcenter/

>>138000108
News flash: the majority of the worlds population lives in urban cesspits. Do you not care about them?

>>137974909

Anarchists are anti-state. State =/= government. Anarchism looks to horizontal forms of government that don't have hierarchy.

>>137997075
The tl;dr for all this:
Are you for the Motherland (left) or the Fatherland (right)? Are you for the cult of Persephone or Cronus? Are you for the honour of the living or for the dead?

>>138001149
Not particularly more than anyone else, no. But I really don't think government makes urban cesspits less bad. To the contrary, I think everything government does encourages cesspits. They take people's money, encourage dependency, imprison people for nonviolent acts, intentionally compulse and subsequently fail to educate children, etc etc etc.

>>138000234
>You seem to be saying that the right or republicans want "democracy" or in the case of the US a constitutional republic by taking away liberal values.

Correct and this is the entire problem we face as a nation.

>The constitution specifically states that you cannot discriminate against color creed religion etc...

Not true. The 14th guarantees equal protection under the law and civil rights act against discrimination.

>Gay marriage-> marriage is a religious ceremony and not part of the state. The recognition of marriage by the state is solely due to the tax benefits received by married couple as an enticement for procreation ie babies. Nothing stopped any religion from getting people married.

Last time I checked, GOP controlled states didn't allow gay marriage so yes they were stopping people. Cake situation too, GOP was perfectly fine allowing gay people to be discriminated against by others and even today, not all states protect gay people from being evicted from their property for simply being gay. GOP is fine with all of this and would support said discrimination if they could.

>>137978416
You're thinking of anarcho-communists. The worst anarchists.

>>138000427
Look, the US government has a strict and enforced separation of religion and decisions in the state. Of course the wars are all not holy and just in your mind because they were not declared with your arbitrary religious and social values in mind. Also, numbers?

>>138001685
> Thinking anarcho-capitalism is actually anarchism

>>138001921
>> Thinking anarcho-capitalism is actually anarchism

It's the inevitable result of anarchism. People don't want believe in some chaotic shithole so that power vacuum must be filled with some institution, either govt or corporations.

>>138001695
What the fuck are you talking about?
You asked me to prove the United States government is murderous. The proof is in each and every war they've ever waged. They have literally sent - often forcibly - millions of people to kill and be killed millions more. They want blood because there's a huge industry and ideology that supports "war glory" and arms profiteering. Look at the budget of the DoD, and look what is constantly happening, and type to me with a straight face that you think everything is benevolent and dandy.
You're trying to defend murderous sociopaths.

>>137999418
I discuss this in my long post:
>>137997075
Comes down to the current political order and the reaction. The greater the gap between the current society and one's ideals the more radical those ideals will appear.

As it stands, society has shifted towards chaos, which suits many aspects of anarchism. And hierarchy is antithetical to democracy, so fascism is its greatest enemy.

Much of anarchism has been co-opted as well, ever since anti-Germanism.

>>138001537
Well since urban areas of density are also urban areas of trade, commerce, and development I sure would hope the government would encourage them! Not everyone lives in a low density area that completely relies on everyone else to do the economic and technological development for them. Areas of density get things done, but they also need governenece to ensure someone doesn't burn it all down.

>>138002610
>Well since urban areas of density are also urban areas of trade, commerce, and development I sure would hope the government would encourage them!
Government utterly stifles them. Everything is worse because of government involvement. Literally nothing is better.

>>138002187
Look, the military budget doesn't just pour into guns and troops. Most of it is technological development. For example: the only reason that you can argue with me on this website is because the military created the internet. They also created the encryption algorithms that allow you to post anonymously. Not all wars are moral, but most are necessary. Its a dirty game and the men and women enlisted wouldn't sign up if it were the monstrous immorality that you call it. Next time you see one, go ahead and call them a murderous sociopath and see where that gets you.

>>137986258
Earth

>>138003709
I know exactly what the military budget goes to, I've studied it. The U.S. military is monstrously evil.
If you're going to sit there and try to justify mass murder you can go fuck yourself - I'm going to bed with a clean conscious.

>>138001613
>Correct and this is the entire problem we face as a nation.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. This does not make sense as a statement. Our form of government, a constitutional republic works by limiting government by giving its citizen's individual rights, right to speech in public without harassment or right to have firearms. It also has the ability to offer certain administrative privileges, like issuing drivers licenses. The government does not provide or gives anyone "liberal values". I really don't know what point you are trying to make especially since you seem to think this is a big problem.

>Not true. The 14th guarantees equal protection under the law and civil rights act against discrimination.

*shakes head* you're drunk right?

>The GOP (National representation) didn't support the recognition of gay marriage at the federal level because they wanted to keep the question open for the states to chose. The reason is because many people in their base were homophobic but this never stopped people from getting married if they wanted to. Since a marriage is a form of contract between 2 people, no one in the US that you can't enter into a contract with another person. If you want to argument that you wanted special tax benefits or that you want a higher authority to validate your marriage that fine but personally my marriage is between me and my wife and no one else.

>>138003918
conscience*
Jesus Christ bootlickers gonna lick.

>>137974909
muh toilet seat theory

>>138003918
Then go do something about it instead of arguing with a dipshit on the internet

File: based_image.jpg (57KB, 324x499px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 324x499px

>>138003918
>try to justify mass murder you can go fuck yourself
Says the anarco-communist...
kek

>>138003941
>he government does not provide or gives anyone "liberal values"

That's what 1st amentenate does. It stops got from passing laws restricting religion or speech. Likewise the 14th, 19th, etc. Civil Rights Act, hell even CARB is essentially giving you the right to clean air. You are arguing semantics here.

>The GOP (National representation) didn't support the recognition of gay marriage at the federal level because they wanted to keep the question open for the states to chose

Yes exactly what I said originally. GOP wants majority rule. The people in their states do not believe in gay marriage therefore if they can bring the issue down to a local level then they can get around the pesky part about equal protection under the law and discriminate against individuals because of their religious statues. Again to reiterate, you can be evicted for being gay in most GOP states.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/28/402774189/activists-urge-states-to-protect-the-civil-rights-of-lgbt-people

>>137974909

anarchy is retard-mode

>>138005015
Archived that for you
https://unvis.it/npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/28/402774189/activists-urge-states-to-protect-the-civil-rights-of-lgbt-people

>>137980174
>Dropping dodges on crisis actors
Multiple kek combo

File: faggot toddler.jpg (59KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x333px

>>138005015
Fuck faggots and fuck you.

>>137974909
No. Go study more and don't believe everything a professor or public teacher tells you. Education has been compromised. Ed. is on the list to be purged and reformed.

>>138000564

What sophist drivel

File: slayd04_0.jpg (83KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 720x540px

>>137980174
T
H
I
S

ITS A CIRCLE, NOT A HORSESHOE, THEY ARE HIDING STH FROM YOU

>>138002187
Every state is murderous, you Yanks are a fucking joke to every other country in your planet

We call your kind hippies with private healthcare, you are pure community-destructive idealism from a high-castle position, poisoning the cultural well through invasive propaganda with daddy's (US) money (media conglomerate network)

You pollute the collective unconscious of the whole world to moral grandstand your more achieving brothers, you suck, are a disgrace, a global cancer

File: 43434.png (41KB, 333x337px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 333x337px

anarchism is extreme bottom

>>137999034
unenforceable, rests on implicit psychological domination and emotional hierarchy

>>137980174
perfect chadpost

>>138005015
->liberal values =/= rights under the constitution. It's not semantics. I'm just following what you are trying to argue for. You said the right is using democracy to take away liberal values. The left is also using democracy (political tactics) to restrict liberal values (rights). The very recent example of the charlottesville march. Another is the democratic party trying to take away the right to bear arms or opposing the abolition of slavery.

->The GOP is made up of individuals representing people in their states to the federal level. That is their job. If their states wants them to vote a certain way, that's what they are supposed to do as representatives and legislators. If they know their constituency isn't going to support it, they are under no obligation to vote for laws that their constituency won't support. I think you might be confused about marriage as being something that the government gives. Marriage is not a special privilege, the government can't tell you who you can be with. Again marriage is a religious ceremony and not a right.

getting evicted for being gay is wrong and if this is the case, this should be changed however this is not easy.
In the article, the major problem with changing how gays are discriminated against is "public accommodation". When someone rents an apartment, the 2 people (owner and renter) enter into a contract willingly. If you do away with the freedom of entering into contracts and you force people unwillingly into contracts, this violates contract law which is different in every state but the law can be changed and it should be changed.

What I was trying to say in my original post though is that the left and the right are both authoritarian and anarchic in their own way.

More to come.

>>138010235
anarchism isnt the opposite to authoritarianism

anarchy = "non serviam"

>>138005015
The gay issue you bring up is interesting to illustrate how solutions affect people at different level:

Federal level-> Force individuals to enter into contract they chose not to enter into to provide housing for gays.
This is a quick solution but it is authoritarian because it forces people to do something they do not want to do. This is essentially slavery and it protected in the 14th amendment. Gays being seen equally under the law is also protected by the 14th amendment so this is a case where the government cannot help you unless it is being authoritarian to one side or the other. This is why this decision is better solved at the state level because each community has to weigh in on this question for better or worst. The choice to be moral people has to be given for a healthy society I think.

There is a solution at the personal level though that doesn't require the government and is much better. If a person is homophobic, don't give them money in business and let people know they discriminated against you. This will severely affect their livelihood and status in the community.

Both are bullshit & have never been put in practice so don't worry about it.
Also,the right & left in the American context is different from Europe.

>>138011029
Authoritarian
-> someone rules (you)
Anarchy
-> (you) rule (you)

use more words maybe.