NationStates

I would say, out of all the extremes, Ancap is the world I’d be happiest to live in, so I’d say it’s a bit based.
But what are your thoughts?

It's silly because it's not anarchy. Property rights, historically speaking, are enforced by the state.

I don't know, but the threads sure have been lately

It's more of a meme than AnPrim is.

Sundiata wrote:It's silly because it's not anarchy. Property rights, historically speaking, are enforced by the state.

Exactly, which is why it’s the one I’d be most delighted to live in.
Communism and fascism are out of the question, don’t even need to say why.
And so is Ancom, since it’s actually anarchy, and anarchy is a no-go from me.
But Ancap isn’t real anarchy, and it also doesn’t have a super oppressive state.
The idea of Ancap is so weird that it just because libertarianism, and I can live with that.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:It's more of a meme than AnPrim is.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a bad ideology.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:But Ancap isn’t real anarchy, and it also doesn’t have a super oppressive state.

Yes it does. If it doesn't who enforces property rights? Capitalism doesn't work without a state.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:I would say, out of all the extremes, Ancap is the world I’d be happiest to live in, so I’d say it’s a bit based.
But what are your thoughts?

It's been tried, it was called Kowloon Walled City.
"Anarcho capitalism" essentially means rule by organized crime.

An Ancap society would definitely be far from a utopia. It would very quickly devolve into two classes: the 1% who own all major business and control the economy, and thus the entire nation, and the workers who, without state regulations, will just be faceless, nameless fodder for the industrial machine. People not born into a rich family will likely never break free from the working class, and simply slave away until they perish. I doubt the life expectancy of an Ancap society would be far past 30. But hey, imagine the GDP!

Sundiata wrote:

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:But Ancap isn’t real anarchy, and it also doesn’t have a super oppressive state.

Yes it does. If it doesn't who enforces property rights? Capitalism doesn't work without a state.

I know, that’s what I said.
It would have a state, but it would be a small one.
You didn’t listen, did you?

Belands wrote:An Ancap society would definitely be far from a utopia. It would very quickly devolve into two classes: the 1% who own all major business and control the economy, and thus the entire nation, and the workers who, without state regulations, will just be faceless, nameless fodder for the industrial machine. People not born into a rich family will likely never break free from the working class, and simply slave away until they perish. I doubt the life expectancy of an Ancap society would be far past 30. But hey, imagine the GDP!

I’m aware, but I still believe it’s the best ideology out of all the four extremes.

Odreria wrote:It's been tried, it was called Kowloon Walled City.
"Anarcho capitalism" essentially means rule by organized crime.

That’s very interesting.
But the same would happen in an Ancom society, except perhaps even to a worse degree, where instead of having organised crime, we just have crime. People roaming around the city, breaking into houses, stealing from each other and murdering people. Where Ancap would turn into different mafias, where there would still be murder and crime, but not chaos.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Belands wrote:An Ancap society would definitely be far from a utopia. It would very quickly devolve into two classes: the 1% who own all major business and control the economy, and thus the entire nation, and the workers who, without state regulations, will just be faceless, nameless fodder for the industrial machine. People not born into a rich family will likely never break free from the working class, and simply slave away until they perish. I doubt the life expectancy of an Ancap society would be far past 30. But hey, imagine the GDP!

I’m aware, but I still believe it’s the best ideology out of all the four extremes.

Are you aware that we do not live on a political compass

No.

Odreria wrote:

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:I’m aware, but I still believe it’s the best ideology out of all the four extremes.

Are you aware that we do not live on a political compass

Yes, but this thread is about the best of the four extremes.
Let me hear, what do you think is best?

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Yes it does. If it doesn't who enforces property rights? Capitalism doesn't work without a state.

I know, that’s what I said.
It would have a state, but it would be a small one.
You didn’t listen, did you?

If a state exists under anarcho-capitalism to enforce property rights then it's not anarchy.

Anarcho-capitalism just doesn't not work, the premise it's based on is nonsensical.

Sundiata wrote:

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:I know, that’s what I said.
It would have a state, but it would be a small one.
You didn’t listen, did you?

If a state exists under anarcho-capitalism to enforce property rights then it's not anarchy.

I know, that’s what I said.
You really didn’t listen, did you?

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Odreria wrote:Are you aware that we do not live on a political compass

Yes, but this thread is about the best of the four extremes.
Let me hear, what do you think is best?

Lovecraftian theocrat.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Sundiata wrote:If a state exists under anarcho-capitalism to enforce property rights then it's not anarchy.

I know, that’s what I said.
You really didn’t listen, did you?

Why support a contradictory political ideology that doesn't make sense?

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Sundiata wrote:It's silly because it's not anarchy. Property rights, historically speaking, are enforced by the state.

Exactly, which is why it’s the one I’d be most delighted to live in.
Communism and fascism are out of the question, don’t even need to say why.
And so is Ancom, since it’s actually anarchy, and anarchy is a no-go from me.
But Ancap isn’t real anarchy, and it also doesn’t have a super oppressive state.
The idea of Ancap is so weird that it just because libertarianism, and I can live with that.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:It's more of a meme than AnPrim is.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a bad ideology.

the only difference between Anarcho-Communism and Communism is the means of achieving communism, a stateless, classless, moneyless society built upon collective ownership of the means of production.
Ancoms aim for education and radicalization of society untill they can pull off an insurrection to rid themselves of the state. Gommies aim to radicalize and educate enough people to pull off a revolution to establish a vanguard state who's aim it is to safeguard and spread the revolution - when class has disappeared the state's function is supposed to be fullfilled and therefore will disintigrate.

The difference of both can be easily explained with as what they think the state is:
Anarchists: "The state is a monopoly of violence used by the owning classes to oppress the working classes."
Communists: "The state is a monopoly of violence used by the owning classes to oppress the working classes."

Sundiata wrote:

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:I know, that’s what I said.
You really didn’t listen, did you?

Why support a contradictory political ideology?

I don’t support it, I’m saying that it’s the best of all the four extremes.

Odreria wrote:

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:Yes, but this thread is about the best of the four extremes.
Let me hear, what do you think is best?

Lovecraftian theocrat.

The more extreme, the more I believe!
(Yes, that was a petty attempt at a rhyme.)

also, no, oppression, extremst exploitation and slavery at the hand of corporations in a corporate monarchist system is not based.

Armeattla wrote:

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:Exactly, which is why it’s the one I’d be most delighted to live in.
Communism and fascism are out of the question, don’t even need to say why.
And so is Ancom, since it’s actually anarchy, and anarchy is a no-go from me.
But Ancap isn’t real anarchy, and it also doesn’t have a super oppressive state.
The idea of Ancap is so weird that it just because libertarianism, and I can live with that.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a bad ideology.

the only difference between Anarcho-Communism and Communism is the means of achieving communism, a stateless, classless, moneyless society built upon collective ownership of the means of production.
Ancoms aim for education and radicalization of society untill they can pull off an insurrection to rid themselves of the state. Gommies aim to radicalize and educate enough people to pull off a revolution to establish a vanguard state who's aim it is to safeguard and spread the revolution - when class has disappeared the state's function is supposed to be fullfilled and therefore will disintigrate.

The difference of both can be easily explained with as what they think the state is:
Anarchists: "The state is a monopoly of violence used by the owning classes to oppress the working classes."
Communists: "The state is a monopoly of violence used by the owning classes to oppress the working classes."

Neither are really my cup of tea.

Yes and it is the only true Anarchism

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Why support a contradictory political ideology?

I don’t support it, I’m saying that it’s the best of all the four extremes.

Why should the state only enforce property rights instead of provide healthcare to its citizens, military defense, or basic infrastructure?

This is a terrible idea.

Gamers Rise Up Land wrote:Yes and it is the only true Anarchism

It's not anarchism, it's a plutocratic joke.

Odreria wrote:

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:Yes, but this thread is about the best of the four extremes.
Let me hear, what do you think is best?

Lovecraftian theocrat.

Highly based