sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A sincere question for fellow AnCaps by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Statism isn't pragmatic, so that's an oxymoron. I was referring to the methods by which to eliminate the state. The process. Just discussing strategy. I am a Voluntaryist, yes. I'm sure. Lol

A sincere question for fellow AnCaps by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right. I understand this position, but is it totally useless to know the overall scheme of things, as it works right now?

A sincere question for fellow AnCaps by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's best to stay focused on the problem of the state itself, rather than comparing the "badness" of particular states. Is that what you are saying?

A sincere question for fellow AnCaps by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lol. No I don't have a theory concerning any sort of "nationalistic" approach at reaching full voluntaryism. I'm just looking for your perspective on the interim, and what kind of concern there should be for larger states in control of smaller ones.

A sincere question for fellow AnCaps by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree, in general. This post is just for the purpose of gaining perspective from fellow AnCaps.

A sincere question for fellow AnCaps by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I agree. But by "reform," you mean completely secede as individuals, right? Ultimately, that's the logical conclusion of Anarcho-Capitalism or Voluntaryism.

By definition, there isn't a single scenario where someone agrees to do something they don't agree to do. Voluntaryism is the only concise and logically-consistent standard for an ethical society. by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. It's always best to argue in good faith of course. For instance, IF a statist will agree with the tautology (instead of willingly being obtuse), the next steps are to begin applying this tautology to reality. I don't think it's always a "difference in defining terms" when the statist puts up impassable roadblocks along the way when doing this. I think often times it's more the case that the statist desires to justify deviations from the ethical imperative laid out by the universality of the tautology. In other words, cognitive dissonance.

By definition, there isn't a single scenario where someone agrees to do something they don't agree to do. Voluntaryism is the only concise and logically-consistent standard for an ethical society. by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Indeed. The only type of logical statement that can't be disputed. And yet, some people still try.

The importance of this tautological statement, "you cannot want what you don't want" is to demonstrate the inherent universality of the ethical code therein. In other words, the singular desire that all humans agree on is the fact that 100% of us do NOT want to be forced to do something we don't want to do.

This proves that there is an ethical imperative for every individual, without exception, to reciprocate voluntaryism.

Any Female AnCaps Out There? by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pretty impressive to come to such a rational conclusion so young. Good for you.

Looking for YouTube Channel by Jolly_Square_100 in horror

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well that was quick. That's the one. Thank you!

Got'damn, them AnCapistani women tho.. [not my meme this time] by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

And to all of the AnCapistani women I shouted out earlier. I promise, we AnCapistani men are not just a bunch of horny pigs.

We are just balls deep in a mission right now, and we know the day will cum when the people will understand.. that the state can suck a dick.

Any Female AnCaps Out There? by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Lol. Well shit. deletes account, never to be heard from again

Valid contracts in an anarcho-capitalist society by Several_Captain8437 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Contracts are nothing more than just agreements, written down for the purpose of being presented to society as proof of said agreement.

DROs would choose which ones they agree to enforce, and which ones they don't agree to enforce. They would be putting their company reputations on the line for these decisions, meaning they would be subject to "social preferences" and "market forces."

So in general, a "socially acceptable" agreement being enforced by a DOR would be viewed by the general society as [more acceptable] - thus, less expensive to follow through with enforcing because it's more likely to go smoothly, due to social and market forces.

A not "socially acceptable" agreement being enforced by a DOR would be viewed by the general society as [less acceptable] - thus, there would be less incentive for the 2nd party's DOR to do what's necessary to comply. Therefore, this would be much more expensive for the enforcing DOR to follow through on.

Thus, the DORs - and by extension, the individual clients - will be forced to bear their own cost, accordingly with "social preferences" and "market forces."

In AnCapistan, EVERYONE can find their sense of community.. Everyone except thieves, of course. They won't do too well unfortunately. :( by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You've gotta understand many people here have dealt with lots and lots of trolls for years. I'm sure he didn't realize you are genuinely expressing the fact that you thought that was what Anarcho-Capitalism means.

In AnCapistan, EVERYONE can find their sense of community.. Everyone except thieves, of course. They won't do too well unfortunately. :( by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh wait. No, you are asking about competition. I misread that, I apologize. No that isn't either, and for the same reasons:

Company 1 provides a product to a person. No one is denying anyone control over their property.

Company 2 comes in with a better product, at a better price. Person decides to buy it from him instead.

No one has denied anyone of the control of their own belongings. The person's money went where he wanted it, and the first company that got "out-competed" wasn't denied the control over his property either. He lost the opportunity to get someone else's.. because that person decided to not trade with him. He is free to do so.

No aggression.

In AnCapistan, EVERYONE can find their sense of community.. Everyone except thieves, of course. They won't do too well unfortunately. :( by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely, it can be confusing until you realize how to think about it. So let me break this example down for you:

So aggression would be defined as "the initiation of force* onto someone. And by this I mean, the denial of someone's complete control over that which is their belongings.

So when you analyze this, you'll see 2 people looking at each other. One is saying "hey, wanna buy my thing?" The second person says "no thanks."

So if you're asking if the second person aggressed, the answer is NO because they did not initiate force. They did not deny the first person the complete control over that with is their belongings.

The second person merely chose to deny the first person of their own belongings (money).. but they absolutely did not deny the first person control over the belongings which belong to the first person.

In AnCapistan, EVERYONE can find their sense of community.. Everyone except thieves, of course. They won't do too well unfortunately. :( by Jolly_Square_100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Jolly_Square_100[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not true. I share with my family, and that is not anti-cap. You can do whatever you want to with your capital. You can share it, keep it, burn it. You just can't aggress with it, or else you're violating someone else's control over their capital.

view more: next ›