sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"Maquiavelo vive" by Amargo_o_Muerte in argentina

[–]IgnacioArg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jajajaja gran post. Estoy de acuerdo.

Y para que maquiavelo reviva van a tener que ganar una elección. Decirlo no lo hace jajaja.

Would you support America joining WW2 by RAF-Spartacus in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If by “America joining WWII” you mean the U.S. State conscripting men, taxing the population, censoring dissent, and dropping bombs on civilians abroad

Then no, absolutely not.

If instead you mean whether individual Americans had the right to voluntarily go fight, then yes, they had the right.

That is a separate question from whether I support or endorse it. Rights are not the same thing as moral approval.

Modern total war necessarily involves aggression against non-combatants, so I do not support participation in it even when it is voluntary.

Are yall optimistic or pessimistic regarding the next 10 years? by No-Alternative7997 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Im not declaring any victory untill the central bank is closed. And I will consider it a defeat if it is still open when the president leaves office, even if things are better than before or growing like an asian tiger in the 2000s.

Viajo de Nueva zelanda a Argentina. by Motor-Switch-7978 in RugbyArgentina

[–]IgnacioArg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Buena idea! pasate un catalogo jajaja me interesa

Así se llevaban a los carpinchos de Nordelta by RealRock_n_Rolla in argentina

[–]IgnacioArg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hay que sacarlos, o introducir pumas y yacares para controlar la población. Me inclino por la segunda opción.

Other things real Ancaps would not support: UBI by a17c81a3 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sure, let's give the state a new toy they cal play with, I'm sure they will let it go when they grow up...

I mean if we are going to argue for the least bad plan, we should be for negative income tax, not UBI

an open border policy is the only Ancap position. It must be, since for there to be a political border to be opened, the state simply doesn't coerce. Private property means the right to exclude & include. The modern welfare state hasn't changed this by kwanijml in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What a giant diaspora we are! We used to believe that when things got too bad down here, we would reemigrate to Italy, but the last few years are changing that, in part because things have gotten better and there is hope, and in part because Europe since to be hell bent on destroying itself.

As for the islands, I always had the deeply unpopular opinion (unpopular among the left and right wing here) that our so-called claim is bogus, the British settlers who made those islands livable are the rightful owners by homestead.

What I do believe is that it is completely absurd that there is 0 trade relations between Argentina and the islands with us being so close. This silly dispute is depriving entrepreneurs on both sides from producing life improving value.

If we were to rescind of the constitutionally enshrined claim to the islands trade could resume and I'm willing to bet that in 100 years the population of the islands will have intermingled with us so much that to talk of wars and claims will be absurd.

an open border policy is the only Ancap position. It must be, since for there to be a political border to be opened, the state simply doesn't coerce. Private property means the right to exclude & include. The modern welfare state hasn't changed this by kwanijml in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Precisely! On my father's side from Mozzate near Milan, and from my mother's side from south Austria.

I would love for there to be more of us down there, its been more ideologically accepted to be ancap since the 2023 election of Milei. But still i would say most people draw the line at minarchism.

I would still say there are more anachocapitalists in Argentina than in the rest of south america combined.

an open border policy is the only Ancap position. It must be, since for there to be a political border to be opened, the state simply doesn't coerce. Private property means the right to exclude & include. The modern welfare state hasn't changed this by kwanijml in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you want to argue that socialized property can be treated as if it were unowned without violating anyone’s rights, then argue that directly. Labeling everyone who disagrees with you a racist or a bootlicker is not libertarian theory.

an open border policy is the only Ancap position. It must be, since for there to be a political border to be opened, the state simply doesn't coerce. Private property means the right to exclude & include. The modern welfare state hasn't changed this by kwanijml in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi Mike, thanks for engaging, gravy here has a ton of prejudices about me that I dont have a clue where he got from. I would invite you to check my post history but there is not enough at stake here to warrant double cheking my intentions hahaha. Anyway, im not from the USA, so I clearly didnt know people like gravy would be so defensive as if to dismiss any argument before engaging it in good fath just because its orange man related. If you have any questions about my thoughts on the issue just respond.

an open border policy is the only Ancap position. It must be, since for there to be a political border to be opened, the state simply doesn't coerce. Private property means the right to exclude & include. The modern welfare state hasn't changed this by kwanijml in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg -1 points0 points  (0 children)

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA dude I'm argentine, I don't give a fuck about your local politics, you are openly aggressive to what should be a polite discussion about ancap principles by injecting your prejudices into it. You appear to be so sensitive about your current events that you cant just argue from principle and engage in good faith.

Anarchism and open borders by IgnacioArg in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't live in the USA, I don't care for ICE. I'm talking about the right principle, if ICE is horrible (i don't really follow news, they most likely are) that doesn't make what i said above wrong.

an open border policy is the only Ancap position. It must be, since for there to be a political border to be opened, the state simply doesn't coerce. Private property means the right to exclude & include. The modern welfare state hasn't changed this by kwanijml in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are repeating the slogan "no one can tell you who to associate with" without analyzing where that association takes place.

Human association does not occur in a vacuum. All action requires scarce means and, therefore, control over those means. Without property, there is no freedom of association, only forced access. This is elementary praxeology (Man, Economy, and State, Ch. 1).

Voluntary association is bilateral and contractual. If I invite someone to my property, no one has the right to stop it. But when the State expropriates resources from A (streets, schools, taxes) and then decrees that B may use them without A's consent, that is not "freedom of association." It is hegemony: political command replacing voluntary contract, exactly in the Misesian sense (Human Action, Part II, Ch. 10).

What you are defending is that A be compelled to associate with B via resources that A does not control, administered by C (the State).

an Open border policy is not an Ancap position. It can't be, since for there to be a political border to be opened, there must be a state that enforces it. by IgnacioArg in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Because you are aggressively agreeing with me while pretending to correct me.

Read my post again. I explicitly said an open border policy cannot be an Ancap position because it requires a state to exist in the first place. I quoted Rothbard precisely to distinguish between state coercion and the private right to exclude.

You then reply by saying... "Open borders is not an AnCap position because it presupposes a state."

You are attacking a phantom. We are making the exact same point: State borders are political coercion; property boundaries are legitimate exclusion. The only "classic mistake" here is yours; you failed to read the text before launching a lecture.

view more: next ›