Are ancaps right about everything?
#1
When I was small child I was ancap. Then I got older and was more of a moral relativist and a "realist"/nationalist/monarchist thinking that there would always be some sort of state, but that a right wing monarchy would afford the most virtue and liberty. Like moldbug.

But why are we not all anarchists again? Just so people don't sneer at us?

The communist State (all States are communist in current year) is nothing but a massively value-destroying parasite and it seems that all states decay into communism considering that there is hardly any Good states in current year (maybe you could make the case for El Salvador or Russia) and 200 communist ones. Is this wrong?

Like I have said before, if you don't value maximizing liberty then you are a race traitor because you think that your family and friends should be forced to follow the laws of and pay tithes to a parasitic abstraction. It seems cucked to say "well it's not as bad if it's a right wing nationalist monarchy with a constitution", compared to purely being an ancap. Death to statists.

[Image: https://i.ibb.co/B6nv5Fg/image.png][Image: https://i.ibb.co/5905QGG/image.png][Image: https://i.ibb.co/hBJ7hR1/image.png][Image: https://i.ibb.co/v35bxfm/image.png]
#2
All of the worlds governments are nothing but pernicious parasites without 0urGuys in charge. There is little to argue in defense of the State when all the proposed benefits are overshadowed by its crippling destructive influence on man today, yet the Beauty of the Dream of the State is Supreme. To be the Sovereign of a Commonwealth and weird god like power to shape society and the world, is there no Greater Pleasure? For Multi-Generational Eugenic programs to produce the Overman and Inter-Galactic colonization Projects the centralization of power is necessary as although lower creatures can be Enslaved and forced to do your bidding the Aristocratic Genius can not be treated in the same way and only through cooperation can his talents be utilized. The problem of a Project continuing past one’s own life also is bothersome. For these Complex Projects to be possible some rights and privileges must be set aside for the geniuses and some kind of structure and order must be in place to over look the project so they be proceeded past a lifetime in an orderly fashion. The Absolute Power of the State is necessary in order to Shape society to be capable of handling these projects. This is what a State should be for, this is the Supreme Beauty the Dream called The State Presents us with. If not for these Reasons then the State truly is useless and should be discarded in the Trash Can without a second thought.
#3
1 dollar.
#4
You are an anarcho libertarian in the presence of the eternal jew parasite because he will always beeline towards your collected works and try to tap the largest flow. The scaffolding he'll erect to do this will follow his ambition to skim, you must prevent. And as a minority population, he will always appeal to the state, and build it up as a mechanism of control.


But on a serious note, to answer your question, it's because the whole is prior to and comes before the part. And the logic used to advocate for anarcho anything argues against the whole. You can do this against your enemy, if you want (but it's not like he'll listen). But if you internalize this logic among your own side, it's game over.
You need to argue for a whole first, with a first question of what that will be. An advisable answer is that it's your people. Anarcho's take all parts as simply ontologically given, and expect wholes will materialize when needed. This is totally false.
Firstly, these nutjobs will never be in control of any kind of territory because you can't displace a whole now present (and in control) with a bunch of parts. Only a whole can displace a whole. Or you can target a whole and subject it to incoherence and entropy and break it apart, rendering it into pieces and thus at disadvantage to your whole. But that's all happening within that opposing whole, and speaks nothing to your own condition.
If you want a homestead, you need to start with a whole that contains that idea. it's advisable to make your whole your people, which is to say blood. But even a metaphysical whole will defeat a bunch of parts.
#5
I personally am very sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism as I was also a libertarian in my youth.

Any decent political theory is ultimately concerned with power maximization problems. The short answer is that no, it is not necessarily cucked to be a statist. While in the aggregate, an individual must cede some or all of their sovereign power to a state by the very definition of such an entity, it is conceivable that an individual within the governing apparatus of the state has more power than he would otherwise as an individual. For a simple example, an aristocrat owes a duty of loyalty and military service to the prince, but is otherwise given the legal authority to rule a fief with all of the privileges and profit that this affords. This is more than what he would attain under conditions of sovereignty, so it is possible to solve power maximization problems within states.

The longer answer is concerned with political realism, which is to say that there is irrationality, ambiguity, and unpredictability within all human action. By definition, anarcho-capitalist conditions emancipate the individual from any sovereign state and therefore confers sovereignty back into his hands, so when talking about the individual in Randworld it is equivalent to speaking as if every single person ruled a country that concerns exclusively their own property. So, being a realist, I cite the problems that have been traditionally applied to states in the field of international relations.

In the international system, there is no universal rule or order by which states need to abide, so in order for states to get anything done there is a need to rely on their own power or that of their friends. As for anarcho-capitalism, the obvious parallel is that security arrangements are dependent on the individual subscribing to a defense service or purchasing firearms and ammunition for themselves. This problem is fairly simple, so I won't dwell on it in its own right. There is, however, the epistemic problem. The state of one country has no special insight into the intent or the precise power of another state, so there is a necessary ambiguity as to the outcome of any conflict. War is a possibility if the destructive capability of the opponent is underestimated. It also is responsible for the problems associated with peace treaties, as there is an issue of commitment: it is impossible to tell for certain that the opposing party will continue to abide by the agreement, and the results of a shift in the balance of power will influence its willingness to do so. The parallel in private society is the contract, which is essentially the lifeblood of business. If there is no legal order to guarantee that a contract will be fulfilled then it is difficult to conduct business.

Of course, it's impossible to say if the private production of force will make up for the inefficiencies associated with uncertainty, or if it will at least be more efficient than the barriers imposed by states. But there is a more serious dilemma when it comes to the production of force. In order to have individual sovereignty, you need an offense-defense balance strongly favorable to the defensive in order to guarantee sovereignty on such a small level. On the other hand, contract enforcement requires a strong offensive balance to apprehend the offender. I don't think this is something that can be easily resolved.

Other than that, there are still problems with positive and negative externalities, which I'm sure you know of. Jim writes that people will simply have to cope with the underproduction or overproduction of these goods, which I find unsatisfactory. Rather than deal with all of these assorted problems, most people throughout history have found it expedient to cuck to the state.
#6
I recall the timeline essentially being that ancapism was usurped by wignats sometime around 2017...on the basis that ancapism and individualism itself were contradictory to white racial consciousness collectivism...you can still see residual arguments from this time period come up from AFers when they criticize BAP, clearly poached straight from wignat dogma. Now that white racial consciousness collectivism has been shown to be somewhat of an idiot magnet I think there is lots of room for 'bert ideas and individualism to regain ground in the right (and have). I think ancapism is viewed best as a repeal of the "tyranny" portion of anarcho tyranny...the worst of criminals already get to do whatever the Sam Hill they please and a pretty considerable portion of what perpetuates that is the normie morality of "you just can't hurt people or ruin them! You just can't do that!". 

The part of ancap where there is absolutely no pity or remorse shown to losers and undesirables and parasites is very attractive and something that needs to be instilled more into the productive members of our society. Parts like the NAP and even molyneux's Universally Preferrable Behavior and what libertarians were saying in the 2016 election represent the weaknesses of ancaps/berts and ultimately I think it's better off staying simple and not trying to define the ideology or create constructs like this. Those attempts always rapidly devolve into ways of justifying homosex and other illnesses.
#7
1. Take over a territory by force.

2. Extract taxes from that territory.

3. Pay your forces with those taxes.

4. Make concession to the governed so that they do not form their own force or ally with a rival force.

5. Repeat.

As long as this strategy works better than any competing strategy, and it very certainly does, anarchy is not possible. The closest that will come to anarchy is a number of small states or warring factions, and these always find their equilibrium eventually as larger units.

If you want "permanent faction war", the closest thing to long term anarchy, perhaps the best course of action would be to advocate significantly lessened restrictions on mercenaries. If mercenary activity is deregulated, and this becomes an entrenched industry in the foreign as well as domestic market, you would have a more decentralized distribution of power. There would "always be someone to appeal to" to get done whatever you want to get done.

However, the government would still have to maintain a hold on its territory, or else the mercenaries would simply take over according to the aforementioned "five step model", and become the government.

In short, if you want sustainable "anarchy", you want a functioning government with a strong mercenary interest group which is capable of serving individuals, companies, corporations, etc, pursuant to certain regulations.

This may be called "anarchy-lite", or "Cyberpunk 2077 in real life". 

This would be an interesting system, not just for its economic effects. Obviously, armed bands of mercenaries are more likely to serve as a springboard for revolution than the typical citizen or unpaid militia group. As such, the anarchy-lite system would constrain the government, at least until the mercenaries form a cartel to influence it in one particular direction.
#8
(12-31-2022, 08:30 PM)a system is failing Wrote: The part of ancap where there is absolutely no pity or remorse shown to losers and undesirables and parasites is very attractive and something that needs to be instilled more into the productive members of our society. Parts like the NAP and even molyneux's Universally Preferrable Behavior and what libertarians were saying in the 2016 election represent the weaknesses of ancaps/berts and ultimately I think it's better off staying simple and not trying to define the ideology or create constructs like this. Those attempts always rapidly devolve into ways of justifying homosex and other illnesses.

The problem is with any attempt to construct a rational system of ethics. You cannot Lawgic your way into cooperation, justice, or good government... it must be the product of an arrangement which carefully works around man's passions and personal interests to the benefit of the ingroup. See the Lawgic of the invisible hand as compared to impotent moralizing about small gubmint.
#9
How is it saying "the government is a parasite and everything they do is bad" more impotent than saying "we need another Stalin to institute Catholic speech codes, eat the rich, and crush pedophiles under tanks"? Libertarians are very potent. Actively crushing it with bitcoin and other courses of action in their personal lives.
#10
(01-01-2023, 05:33 PM)BillyONare Wrote: How is it saying "the government is a parasite and everything they do is bad" more impotent than saying "we need another Stalin to institute Catholic speech codes, eat the rich, and crush pedophiles under tanks"? Libertarians are very potent. Actively crushing it with bitcoin and other courses of action in their personal lives.

It's not about what you say, it's about what you can do. In terms of personal power, the aristocrat > the free burgher > the serf.
#11
(12-30-2022, 09:53 PM)BillyONare Wrote: Like I have said before, if you don't value maximizing liberty then you are a race traitor because you think that your family and friends should be forced to follow the laws of and pay tithes to a parasitic abstraction. It seems cucked to say "well it's not as bad if it's a right wing nationalist monarchy with a constitution", compared to purely being an ancap. Death to statists.

If the debate were between the GNCstaat and ancapistan this would be apt, but comparing reality to hypotheticals is unfair, the real world is never as good as fantasy. I think a plurality, if not a majority, here is an agreement that an anarchist society would advantage the natural elites (read: whites). The problem with that is that the idea of a truly stateless keyedanarchie is that it is Gay Luxury Space Communism level delusion to put it to practice. A white anarchist warlord state might be based but not when it gets neck-stomped by some East Asian centralized state that can throw a billion bugs into a meat grinder. The closest society you could attain would be something akin to Chinese warlordism, which would arguably be worse for the destruction of White Animus than GNC.

(12-31-2022, 08:30 PM)a system is failing Wrote: Now that white racial consciousness collectivism has been shown to be somewhat of an idiot magnet I think there is lots of room for 'bert ideas and individualism to regain ground in the right (and have).

Absolutely true, even if its not from people overtly identifying with libertarianism. There is still a significant mental block within most of /ourguys/ on identifying with any part of libertarianism because of how fundamentally cucked every single public libertarian is. Besides maybe Ron Paul, all libertarians inevitably fall into the fags-with-guns-defending-weed-farms bottomless pit. As you say:
(12-31-2022, 08:30 PM)a system is failing Wrote: Those attempts always rapidly devolve into ways of justifying homosex and other illnesses.
This is my personal gripe with them, anyway. All PHAGS, at least rhetorically. There is a glimmer of change though.

[Image: https://i.ibb.co/g3jXgdz/9d9.png]

(01-01-2023, 05:33 PM)BillyONare Wrote: How is it saying "the government is a parasite and everything they do is bad" more impotent than saying "we need another Stalin to institute Catholic speech codes, eat the rich, and crush pedophiles under tanks"? Libertarians are very potent. Actively crushing it with bitcoin and other courses of action in their personal lives.

The occasional internet cowboy getting crypto rich a good ideology does not make. Most billionaires are libtards, it isn't proof of the virtue of their ideology. Libertarian's strength comes from the presupposition of governmental distrust that typical Rechudlicans lack. This is why compared to other factions on the right, libertarians have done very well making parallel systems like cryptocurrency. Most libertarians & ancaps aren't based like you, Billy. Most of them believe in the constitution and the NAP. The average ancap doesn't want Total Aryan Victory.

You are right though, it's not impotent to complain about the government, its actually a very useful heuristic for injecting our ideas into normgroid thought. Hating the government is more publically acceptable if it's framed as hating all government for ideological reasons, as opposed to hating the government because its GNC. A big mental block for norms is the idea of opposing the state in ALL forms, including controlled opposition. Getting them to agree with the premise of limited government is good because it makes people we hate weaker, simple as.
#12
(01-01-2023, 05:33 PM)BillyONare Wrote: How is it saying "the government is a parasite and everything they do is bad" more impotent than saying "we need another Stalin to institute Catholic speech codes, eat the rich, and crush pedophiles under tanks"? Libertarians are very potent. Actively crushing it with bitcoin and other courses of action in their personal lives.

How is bitcoin or any crypto challenging or crushing state power? Crypto seems to mostly be another investment asset that people exchange for fiat currency at increasingly regulated and monitored exchange/trading sites. Crypto used in transactional services seems mostly secluded to black markets like buying drugs or illegal services, sure you can use crypto to buy legal things but the volatility in their value along with the fact they're more so used for investment dissuades most from utilizing them in that way.
#13
There's no real decoupling of oneself from the System as long as the commodities you're hedging as a means of such are premised upon the value of a currency on the order of the USD.
#14
Anarcho-capitalism seems to be one of the few political strains today that can manifest any 'naive' utopian idealism. I think AnCap is held back by its association with the Austrian school and might have much more potential if it could be somehow wedded to a left-heterodox school like Social Credit, Post-Keynesianism, or Marxian economics instead.
#15
They might come correct in some ways under the context of a State that actively seeks to eradicate the culture/personhood of its own body polity, otherwise they just comprise another font of Edgy Liberalism a la "Social Democrats".


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)