An-Cap Questions (From An An-Cap)…

[tomaszjot]

What I don't understand is why so many people think country is the most complete, finished product. I often hear that we had tribes and from tribes we moved to something bigger, then countries emerged. But the human beings of the past probably thought tribe was something complete, could not think about countries.

 

[scottspfd82]

Why don't all the ancap people pool their money and buy 10,000 acres of land from a government with full sovereignty rights? Is such a thing even possible? How do you even go about creating a tiny country?

Then you could have that one collective that owns the land, with full sovereignty, allow total anarchy or whatever their delusional theories are.

You could get that guy on board who wanted to create the floating cities; at least your idea is far less absurd than his.

At least you would actually be putting your ideas into practice then, instead of these endless forays into theoretical utopias that never go anywhere.

There are plenty of other threads debating anarchy vs. statism. If I didn't make the thread title clear enough, we're talking about An-Cap.

I get it. The State is your religion. You're cool with bankrupting a nation through centralized banking, letting the state rob people blind by exchanging worthless currency for their assets of real value. You want to give up all privacy, you're a fan of slave labor through the prison industrial complex. You love murdering innocent people for the profit of a few through the military industrial complex. You're okay with the fact that every child in this country is born into $500k worth of debt before they can open their eyes for the benefit of a handful of elite today. You're fine with murdering children by remote control. You want someone else to dictate and profit off of every decision you make from healthcare to education. You want a Government monopoly, inflated prices and inferior products over every valuable service in your life. You live for warfare, welfare and bow down to murderous government thugs who live to control people at gunpoint.

I get it. You worship the state. But every time you cheer them on you've got blood on your hands. You're directly complicit in their crimes. And for that reason I have nothing to say to you. There are plenty of other threads you can go to if you want to debate the morality of theft and murder.

Once they shoot you and every other wannabe digital revolutionary, who's gonna be buying those bitcoins then?

Case in point. "They're going to kill people for using an online currency. Go 'Merica."

 

[pewep]

There are plenty of other threads debating anarchy vs. statism. If I didn't make the thread title clear enough, we're talking about An-Cap.

I get it. The State is your religion. You're cool with bankrupting a nation through centralized banking, letting the state rob people blind by exchanging worthless currency for their assets of real value. You want to give up all privacy, you're a fan of slave labor through the prison industrial complex. You love murdering innocent people for the profit of a few through the military industrial complex. You're okay with the fact that every child in this country is born into $500k worth of debt before they can open their eyes for the benefit of a handful of elite today. You're fine with murdering children by remote control. You want someone else to dictate and profit off of every decision you make from healthcare to education. You want a Government monopoly, inflated prices and inferior products over every valuable service in your life. You live for warfare, welfare and bow down to murderous government thugs who live to control people at gunpoint.

I get it. You worship the state. But every time you cheer them on you've got blood on your hands. You're directly complicit in their crimes. And for that reason I have nothing to say to you. There are plenty of other threads you can go to if you want to debate the morality of theft and murder.



Case in point. "They're going to kill people for using an online currency. Go 'Merica."

Don't be infantile. HB made a legitimate point. There is no practical application for anarchism on 7 billion humans. Period. Prove me wrong.

 

[hellblazer]

It'll be quite difficult to do that...

Africans generally do not like white people...

How do you think you got here, Pewep? Those Africans sold your grandpappy to those same white people they supposedly despise. For money.

Why do you think China's military is crawling all over that continent locking down the mineral and gold rights? Because they sold it to them. Money.

If you have enough money, you can do virtually anything. Buying one of those countries is just one example. There's gotta be little islands or protectorates or something along those lines which accomplish the same purpose.

I just highly doubt the same people who bitch in these threads have really done all they can to build their utopia, especially considering the fact they're all supposed to be ballers. That suggests to me they don't really believe in it as much as they profess.

Scott's tampon above starts bleeding when he doesn't even realize it's a legitimate question. If there's any place where this supposed dream could become reality, it's gotta be WF.

 

[scottspfd82]

Don't be infantile. HB made a legitimate point. There is no practical application for anarchism on 7 billion humans. Period. Prove me wrong.

3 questions Pewep.

1. Is it okay to murder?

2. Is it okay to steal?

3. Is it okay to kidnap and torture people?

262 million people have died in democide over the last century. That's states killing their own people, not including wars.

Could anarchy possibly be any worse?

That's my last reply to you in this thread.

 

[pewep]

How do you think you got here, Pewep? Those Africans sold your grandpappy to those same white people they supposedly despise. For money.

Why do you think China's military is crawling all over that continent locking down the mineral and gold rights? Money.

If you have enough money, you can do virtually anything.

I just highly doubt the same people who bitch in these threads have really done all they can to build their utopia, especially considering the fact they're supposed to all be ballers.

Here's why you're wrong my fair skinned friend: I'm not an African American. You should be able to tell that anyway because I think my posts are significantly more lucid than worldstarhiphop's (yes, I don't like "niggas"). My direct ancestors not only fought off white invasion in the south of my origin (successfully and a bit brutally), they also wiped out almost every.single.european from my country mid last century - by force using guerilla warfare against advanced weaponry. Thank Germany for that by the way, and if you want I'll go into details. Not a single forefather of mine was a slave and none of my progeny ever will be. End of story.

As far as I'm concerned, China is on an humanitarian mission in my home country because the amount of money they have dumped into our economy has spurned the complete cleanup of our capital city and an average of 6% GDP growth per year. Sorry, but I don't hate them. At all. I love chinks and probably will for a long time. They don't have as many imperialistic tenancies as my European brothers and sisters.

 

[guerilla]

Thanks, I've learned a lot from Hoppe. I will check this out immediately.

It's pretty good.

I guess the question is how would you see it starting? It's not like the world (or even a country) is going to flip a switch and all of the sudden there's a voluntaryist society. My thinking is that it'd have to start small. Something similar to a Galt's Gulch or maybe a series of independent judiciaries similar to Hong Kong but based on libertarian ideals. Or maybe not.

I don't think about it much. I suppose you could break this down a couple ways.

1. Is this so you can decide what your level of participation will be, and where it will be directed?

2. Is this more of a philosophical inquiry, trying to understand the nature of social change?

I'd agree. But do you have to convince everyone before you can start?

If you want to start in your own life, become financially independent and geographically mobile, and you will be 90% of the way there.

I gave up on changing or saving the world. I am interested in living a good, ethical life and caring for those close to me. YMMV.

 

[pewep]

3 questions Pewep.

1. Is it okay to murder?

2. Is it okay to steal?

3. Is it okay to kidnap and torture people?

262 million people have died in genocide over the last century. That's states killing their own people, not including wars.

Could anarchy possibly be any worse?

That's my last reply to you in this thread.

What does it matter my friend? To be a bit more clear, what can we do about it? If stupid people want to keep doing the same thing over and over no matter what we tell them, what possible impact will rational thought have on them? Yes, I believe humans are stupid. What you should be focused on in an alternative to anarchism that has the same benefits but is under a different name and therefore not as easily recognizable. Look for the same results but through different means. It would take an intelligence much, much greater than mine to even begin to approach that.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

I gave up on changing or saving the world. I am interested in living a good, ethical life and caring for those close to me. YMMV.

One of the wisest things I've seen you post so far.

 

[lukep]

It's gotta be possible. Even bribe an African dictator to give you his tiny country, or buy some island somewhere with sovereignty rights. If you have enough money, you can make anything happen.

1. Scott's right of course; you're a murder-loving savage.

2. To specifically address this point; No, it is not possible for people (not governments) to BUY land with sovereignty intact. You aren't reading enough history.

There are tons of cases of one country buying land from another, like the Louisianna purchase or Alaska... But no one country COULD GET AWAY with selling land to an individual; the other countries simply would not recognize this individual's sovereignty. (And likely steal the land from him.)

You underestimate the thuggishness of states.

I highly doubt you've explored every possible scenario.

I've read enough history to know that the other states would find it very threatening. I can't find a single case of it happening at all in fact, but there are clear-cut cases of countries attacking and destroying people who go to manufacture new land off their shores.

Luke if you really want me to take you seriously, you'll answer my question. I'm all for the idea, but it can never happen. Not in this world.

Lol; Read moar pewep. This is answered many times throughout the body of AnCap literature. My personal qualification would be that it requires an exclusionary environment like a Seastead first to work.

I just highly doubt the same people who bitch in these threads have really done all they can to build their utopia, especially considering the fact they're all supposed to be ballers. That suggests to me they don't really believe in it as much as they profess.

Then you're a fool.

See what Italy did to Rose Island? :angryfire:

We've studied enough to know what we're up against. BRUTE force.

That can only be overcome with education. All AnCaps know this, likely all Anarchists too.

Where Guerilla and I differ is that he seems dead-set on educating the old-fashioned, tried-and-true, super-slow way, and I'm pinning my bets on faster methods like P2P tech and seasteads.

...But the endgame is the same: Educate the useless idiots to see that they are slaves and have had the power, like Dorothy and her damn ruby slippers, to go to a better world all along.

 

[hellblazer]

See what Italy did to Rose Island? :angryfire:

We've studied enough to know what we're up against. BRUTE force.

They built a platform in waters that Italy owned and called it a country. It's not even close.

I guarantee you that you could probably assemble a group of wealthy investors, establish a collective or trust totaling several hundred million dollars or even a billion, and make an "arrangement" with a very small government that needed the cash and didn't have a very big military.

It wouldn't even have to be total sovereignty initially. It could be complete ownership of the land, zero property taxes, zero taxes period, but still some supervision by the nation.

Then eventually, you could make more and more agreements, always with $ incentives, until the two areas were equal in power. Eventually you could make an agreement where you could have your own "security" forces that had responsibility for the land. Other nations would view it initially as a protectorate of the parent nation, growing steadily more and more powerful, until it was its own sovereign area.

 

[pewep]

They built a platform in waters that Italy owned and called it a country. It's not even close.

I guarantee you that you could probably assemble a group of wealthy investors, establish a collective or trust totaling several hundred million dollars or even a billion, and make an "arrangement" with a very small government that needed the cash and didn't have a very big military.

It wouldn't even have to be total sovereignty initially. It could be complete ownership of the land, zero property taxes, zero taxes period, but still some supervision by the nation.

Then eventually, you could make more and more agreements, always with $ incentives, until the two areas were equal in power. Eventually you could make an agreement where you could have your own "security" forces that had responsibility for the land. Other nations would view it initially as a protectorate of the parent nation, growing steadily more and more powerful, until it was its own sovereign area.

HB don't even bother to argue with the two clown brothers luke and guerilla. I've had this discussion..what? I think probably 5+ times. There is NO evidence whatsoever that another organized state would not sabotage, exploit and dominate a state that has no cohesive form of government. Period. History is on my side, biology is also on my side. It can never happen. All it takes is one lunatic with a ton of power and ambition to completely subjugate the residents of the stateless society.

 

[scottspfd82]

I don't think about it much. I suppose you could break this down a couple ways.

1. Is this so you can decide what your level of participation will be, and where it will be directed?

2. Is this more of a philosophical inquiry, trying to understand the nature of social change?

Both really. I'd like to know what people think the first step would be. And depending on the circumstances, there's a good chance that I'd participate.

If you want to start in your own life, become financially independent and geographically mobile, and you will be 90% of the way there.

I gave up on changing or saving the world. I am interested in living a good, ethical life and caring for those close to me. YMMV.

For the most part I agree. I do well enough financially, and I *can* be geographically mobile. But I'm interested in living well and caring about those close to me. And for that reason I'll be sticking close to home for the most part.

Living well is extremely important. That's all you can do.

I go back and forth on changing the world. Or at least having a positive impact. I'm a marketer. I make my living creating compelling messages and persuading people to my way of thinking.

I'm disgusted by what's going on in the world today. I'm fascinated by philosophy, psychology, economics and the positive impact that they could have on the world.

I'm kind of torn lately. I can get by just fine generating leads and customers for businesses. I enjoy it, I'm good at it and I feel that I'm contributing value to the world.

But I've been thinking a lot lately about focusing my attention on spreading these ideas. I think it's important. Or it could be futile. It's like I either need to cut myself off of studying philosophy and economics completely, because it consumes a huge amount of time and energy, or focus my energy on spreading these ideas, because it's something I could get behind 100% and could bring a lot more value to the world.

I really don't know right now. That's a big reason I'm asking these questions, to kind of figure more out for myself and then decide from there.

 

[guerilla]

Food for thought. What if freeing people has nothing to do with land or villages, or enclaves or physical location?

The Matrix was a metaphor for modern human psychological existence in a narrative style but similar to Plato's allegory of the cave.

Start at 4.00

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYyOL6q0pRA]I'm Trying To Free Your Mind - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JarredLv]

All it takes is one lunatic with a ton of power and ambition to completely subjugate the residents of the stateless society.

Only if they agree to it.

 

[pewep]

Only if they agree to it.

You'd be surprised at the kind of pressure a person will experience, and their compliancy, when their children are in physical danger.

 

[guerilla]

Both really. I'd like to know what people think the first step would be. And depending on the circumstances, there's a good chance that I'd participate.

I think you're looking for assurances about the fundamentally unknowable.

That's probably not going to work out to your satisfaction unless you change your expectations.

For the most part I agree. I do well enough financially, and I *can* be geographically mobile. But I'm interested in living well and caring about those close to me. And for that reason I'll be sticking close to home for the most part.

I am helping take care of my parents, but when something becomes a threat to my happiness and well being, it becomes a threat to them too because if I am compromised, they are compromised.

I've moved a lot in my life. Home is where ever you are.

I go back and forth on changing the world. Or at least having a positive impact. I'm a marketer. I make my living creating compelling messages and persuading people to my way of thinking.

Quote by Loren Eiseley: While wandering a deserted beach at dawn, stagn...

I really don't know right now. That's a big reason I'm asking these questions, to kind of figure more out for myself and then decide from there.

I get it. I've spent the last 12 months thinking about this stuff a lot. I don't think there is a perfect answer. And I won't let the lack of answer prevent me from making progress with my other goals in life.

When ideology leads us to misery, I think that means we're doing it wrong.

 

[JarredLv]

You'd be surprised at the kind of pressure a person will experience, and their compliancy, when their children are in physical danger.

So this mythical man with a power monopoly is going to round up everyone's children to extract obedience from what would more than likely be a heavily armed populace?



Sound logic.

 

[pewep]

So this mythical man with a power monopoly is going to round up everyone's children to extract obedience from what would more than likely be a heavily armed populace?



Sound logic.

You've never been in an environment that's experiencing civil war, have you? I have, and my mom was there with me. Her first though: "We're getting the FUCK out of here ASAP!" If someone offered her a way to keep our family safe while everything was going to hell, she would have instantly taken it.

Nevermind the fact that a corporation with a huge capital backing would be able to afford more advanced weaponry than a disorganized band of miscreants. The real problem is the fact that they can bribe, blackmail and force their way into the daily lives of the aforementioned people without any problems whatsoever. As I've said 100 times, history has proved me right and if you want, I *will* go into details.

 

[JarredLv]

You've never been in an environment that's experiencing civil war, have you? I have, and my mom was there with me.

I don't think riots at KFC constitute a civil war.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI]Ba dum tssshhh - YouTube[/ame]

If someone offered her a way to keep our family safe while everything was going to hell, she would have instantly taken it.

By giving into a "lunatic" who would "completely subjugate the residents of the stateless society."

If so then she is a poor mother.