LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Multidimensional spectrum.

This ^^ A neo-Nazi and an Ancap are both considered "far-right," but the reasoning as to why are different. One believes in market caused hierarchy while the other supports state sanctioned extermination of "undesirables."

I think the idea of AnCap being right wing is weird, considering the vast majority of anarchism seems to be almost exclusively left wing, which is why I find AnCap to be an oxymoron disguising corporatism.

[Kowani]

This ^^ A neo-Nazi and an Ancap are both considered "far-right," but the reasoning as to why are different. One believes in market caused hierarchy while the other supports state sanctioned extermination of "undesirables."

I think the idea of AnCap being right wing is weird, considering the vast majority of anarchism seems to be almost exclusively left wing, which is why I find AnCap to be an oxymoron disguising corporatism.

The difference is rhetoric, I believe.

[Torrocca]

This ^^ A neo-Nazi and an Ancap are both considered "far-right," but the reasoning as to why are different. One believes in market caused hierarchy while the other supports state sanctioned extermination of "undesirables."

I think the idea of AnCap being right wing is weird, considering the vast majority of anarchism seems to be almost exclusively left wing, which is why I find AnCap to be an oxymoron disguising corporatism.

AnCap is absolutely an oxymoron when you take into account the fact that actual Anarchism wishes to do with unjustifiable hierarchies, such as Capitalist hierarchies, which empower the few who privately own the resources and the means of production at the expense of the many and their labor, whereas """Anarcho"""-Capitalism wants to invigorate Capitalist hierarchies.

[North German Realm]

I think the idea of AnCap being right wing is weird, considering the vast majority of anarchism seems to be almost exclusively left wing, which is why I find AnCap to be an oxymoron disguising corporatism.

AnCap is absolutely an oxymoron when you take into account the fact that actual Anarchism wishes to do with unjustifiable hierarchies, such as Capitalist hierarchies, which empower the few who privately own the resources and the means of production at the expense of the many and their labor, whereas """Anarcho"""-Capitalism wants to invigorate Capitalist hierarchies.

When you consider that AnCaps are -probably- the only form of capitalists that actually and unironically want to bring back the very form of capitalism that every anarchist literally took coctail molotovs to fight against is when you realize how non-anarchist AnCaps really are.

_{Addendum: This does not suggest that the 19th century anarchists didn't fight against other forms of capitalism. Well, there were some groups of anarchists who didn't but you get my point}

[LiberNovusAmericae]

This ^^ A neo-Nazi and an Ancap are both considered "far-right," but the reasoning as to why are different. One believes in market caused hierarchy while the other supports state sanctioned extermination of "undesirables."

I think the idea of AnCap being right wing is weird, considering the vast majority of anarchism seems to be almost exclusively left wing, which is why I find AnCap to be an oxymoron disguising corporatism.

Corporatocracy would be a better word. In corporatism, the state is well in control of the companies.

[Torrocca]

AnCap is absolutely an oxymoron when you take into account the fact that actual Anarchism wishes to do with unjustifiable hierarchies, such as Capitalist hierarchies, which empower the few who privately own the resources and the means of production at the expense of the many and their labor, whereas """Anarcho"""-Capitalism wants to invigorate Capitalist hierarchies.

When you consider that AnCaps are -probably- the only form of capitalists that actually and unironically want to bring back the very form of capitalism that every anarchist literally took coctail molotovs to fight against is when you realize how non-anarchist AnCaps really are.

_{Addendum: This does not suggest that the 19th century anarchists didn't fight against other forms of capitalism. Well, there were some groups of anarchists who didn't but you get my point}

But the Gilded Age was definitely the pinnacle of society!!1! Just ignore the fact that they called it the Gilded Age specifically because of the abhorrent abuses of the working class by practically every business owner of the era! It should really be called the Golden Age if you ignore human rights abuses!

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I think the idea of AnCap being right wing is weird, considering the vast majority of anarchism seems to be almost exclusively left wing, which is why I find AnCap to be an oxymoron disguising corporatism.

Corporatocracy would be a better word. In corporatism, the state is well in control of the companies.

I had to look it up again and corporatism is the control of a state or organization by large interest groups. Pretty much the same thing as a corporatocracy it seems. But yeah, pretty much what AnCaps want, nothing anarchist about it.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

When you consider that AnCaps are -probably- the only form of capitalists that actually and unironically want to bring back the very form of capitalism that every anarchist literally took coctail molotovs to fight against is when you realize how non-anarchist AnCaps really are.

_{Addendum: This does not suggest that the 19th century anarchists didn't fight against other forms of capitalism. Well, there were some groups of anarchists who didn't but you get my point}

But the Gilded Age was definitely the pinnacle of society!!1! Just ignore the fact that they called it the Gilded Age specifically because of the abhorrent abuses of the working class by practically every business owner of the era! It should really be called the Golden Age if you ignore human rights abuses!

Freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom, etc.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

When you consider that AnCaps are -probably- the only form of capitalists that actually and unironically want to bring back the very form of capitalism that every anarchist literally took coctail molotovs to fight against is when you realize how non-anarchist AnCaps really are.

_{Addendum: This does not suggest that the 19th century anarchists didn't fight against other forms of capitalism. Well, there were some groups of anarchists who didn't but you get my point}

But the Gilded Age was definitely the pinnacle of society!!1! Just ignore the fact that they called it the Gilded Age specifically because of the abhorrent abuses of the working class by practically every business owner of the era! It should really be called the Golden Age if you ignore human rights abuses!

There are libertarians such as myself who don't look up to the gilded age. I mean, it was a government that businesses used, not one that simply let the economy be. Either way, I'm not an ancap, as I don't think that system would work.

[North German Realm]

But the Gilded Age was definitely the pinnacle of society!!1! Just ignore the fact that they called it the Gilded Age specifically because of the abhorrent abuses of the working class by practically every business owner of the era! It should really be called the Golden Age if you ignore human rights abuses!

There are libertarians such as myself who don't look up to the gilded age. I mean, it was a government that businesses used, not one that simply let the economy be. Either way, I'm not an ancap, as I don't think that system would work.

The problem is that the removal of regulations -especially regulations on labor- (Which is, I think, a point in the manifesto of every libertarian of the right-wing variety) generally leads to the gilded age. Or Dickensian-literature-tier Victorian age.

[Ostroeuropa]

You can fit every planet between the earth and moon, including all the gas giants. But if you lined up all of Jeff Bezos’s dollars from end to end, it wouldn’t fit between the Earth and moon. It could go to the moon and back 34 times.

Capitalism.

[Nakena]

You can fit every planet between the earth and moon, including all the gas giants. But if you lined up all of Jeff Bezos’s dollars from end to end, it wouldn’t fit between the Earth and moon. It could go to the moon and back 34 times.

Capitalism.

At least hes doing useful stuff with it, funding Spaceflight and similar stuff. Though not (yet) as advanced as Elon Musk.

Which will help us ultimatively get to the Moon and beyond.

The ends justify the means in this case.

[Proctopeo]

You can fit every planet between the earth and moon, including all the gas giants. But if you lined up all of Jeff Bezos’s dollars from end to end, it wouldn’t fit between the Earth and moon. It could go to the moon and back 34 times.

Capitalism.

Clearly, we need to reduce the size of dollar bills by a factor of 34.

[Cekoviu]

You can fit every planet between the earth and moon, including all the gas giants. But if you lined up all of Jeff Bezos’s dollars from end to end, it wouldn’t fit between the Earth and moon. It could go to the moon and back 34 times.

Capitalism.

Clearly, we need to reduce the size of dollar bills by a factor of 34.

They are obviously designed to be too big for ants to use, which is completely bigoted. We need to fix that.

[Pasong Tirad]

LWDT says... ant rights?

[Kowani]

LWDT says... ant rights?

Thou shall not question the ants!

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

I think the idea of AnCap being right wing is weird, considering the vast majority of anarchism seems to be almost exclusively left wing, which is why I find AnCap to be an oxymoron disguising corporatism.

AnCap is absolutely an oxymoron when you take into account the fact that actual Anarchism wishes to do with unjustifiable hierarchies, such as Capitalist hierarchies, which empower the few who privately own the resources and the means of production at the expense of the many and their labor, whereas """Anarcho"""-Capitalism wants to invigorate Capitalist hierarchies.

Anarchy is an oxymoron. There's no actual economic system that would support it.

You can fit every planet between the earth and moon, including all the gas giants. But if you lined up all of Jeff Bezos’s dollars from end to end, it wouldn’t fit between the Earth and moon. It could go to the moon and back 34 times.

Capitalism.

Clearly, we need to reduce the size of dollar bills by a factor of 34.

Wrong, we need to burn all the low value bills and bring back the thousands.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

AnCap is absolutely an oxymoron when you take into account the fact that actual Anarchism wishes to do with unjustifiable hierarchies, such as Capitalist hierarchies, which empower the few who privately own the resources and the means of production at the expense of the many and their labor, whereas """Anarcho"""-Capitalism wants to invigorate Capitalist hierarchies.

Anarchy is an oxymoron. There's no actual economic system that would support it.

Clearly, we need to reduce the size of dollar bills by a factor of 34.

Wrong, we need to burn all the low value bills and bring back the thousands.

The problem with anarchy is less economics, and more to the fact that it runs contrary to human nature.

[Hanafuridake]

Anarchy is an oxymoron. There's no actual economic system that would support it.
Wrong, we need to burn all the low value bills and bring back the thousands.

The problem with anarchy is less economics, and more to the fact that it runs contrary to human nature.

People have lived in egalitarian social organizations without any trouble whatsoever, and unsubstantiated claims about human nature is a really poor argument.

[Torrocca]

Anarchy is an oxymoron. There's no actual economic system that would support it.
Wrong, we need to burn all the low value bills and bring back the thousands.

The problem with anarchy is less economics, and more to the fact that it runs contrary to human nature.

Sure, it definitely runs contrary to human nature, if you ignore all the hundreds of thousands of years of countless different human societies that were more or less wholly egalitarian, communal, and non-hierarchical, some of which have come all the way into the modern-day (for example the Bedouins) and others which were created in the modern-day (for example the Zapatistas) in spite of the rise of all sorts of inegalitarian, hierarchical societies.

[Greater Loegria]

The problem with anarchy is less economics, and more to the fact that it runs contrary to human nature.

Sure, it definitely runs contrary to human nature, if you ignore all the hundreds of thousands of years of countless different human societies that were more or less wholly egalitarian, communal, and non-hierarchical, some of which have come all the way into the modern-day (for example the Bedouins) and others which were created in the modern-day (for example the Zapatistas) in spite of the rise of all sorts of inegalitarian, hierarchical societies.

An anarchist society would rely on a wider anarchist world otherwise that society could not guarantee its own autonomy.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The problem with anarchy is less economics, and more to the fact that it runs contrary to human nature.

People have lived in egalitarian social organizations without any trouble whatsoever, and unsubstantiated claims about human nature is a really poor argument.

I'm not talking about egalitarianism, I'm talking about the unfortunate need for some authority to ensure that people play ball. The complete abolition of the state is not feasible. Limiting it, yes, but not complete abolition.

[Torrocca]

Sure, it definitely runs contrary to human nature, if you ignore all the hundreds of thousands of years of countless different human societies that were more or less wholly egalitarian, communal, and non-hierarchical, some of which have come all the way into the modern-day (for example the Bedouins) and others which were created in the modern-day (for example the Zapatistas) in spite of the rise of all sorts of inegalitarian, hierarchical societies.

An anarchist society would rely on a wider anarchist world otherwise that society could not guarantee its own autonomy.

There's quite a few Anarchist societies nowadays that get along just fine without that.

[Greater Loegria]

An anarchist society would rely on a wider anarchist world otherwise that society could not guarantee its own autonomy.

There's quite a few Anarchist societies nowadays that get along just fine without that.

Like who? Those that exist within the safeguards of an existing state?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The problem with anarchy is less economics, and more to the fact that it runs contrary to human nature.

Sure, it definitely runs contrary to human nature, if you ignore all the hundreds of thousands of years of countless different human societies that were more or less wholly egalitarian, communal, and non-hierarchical, some of which have come all the way into the modern-day (for example the Bedouins) and others which were created in the modern-day (for example the Zapatistas) in spite of the rise of all sorts of inegalitarian, hierarchical societies.

I'm referring less to communes and more towards the fact that some form of government is needed. The Zapatistas have a de facto government.