/lit/ - Literature

>>21052793
I see where you made your mistake.
At the start it should read
>be liberal
To be an anarchist we’d follow a path more like
>join friends and community to determine best practices.
>allow property (personal) for the resident, abolishing mogul/royalist property (private)
>end up with a series of democratic autonomous communities
>segment specialized authorities. Such as transportation and defense.
>protect general perimeters from roaming bands of fascists

You’re not a deep thinker. I wish you were just trolling, but probably not.

>>20707777
Everybody else knows

>>19513406
You have no sense of humor.
>>19513456
Yesh, you’re scared alright. Look, the past is passed. Enjoy what was more than what we’re getting now. Fine. No one minds. Just stop bitching. You can do better? Do it.
>>19514053
It’s a parody of Baroque >>19513436 and those old Frazetta movie posters. It’s hilarious.
>>19514151
And how do we interpret this sick sad world? (Pic)
You worry about soul and continue to praise the spirit of money, while we try to warn that the material world is going to kill us permanently dead if we don’t change our ways. It’s weird how the capitalists have you defending them so.
(Don’t take the comment personally. You’re an archetypal anon to everyone)

>>19143556
Some men with guns will take a rival form of payment (bitcoin, land, slave trade). The scenario then comes new men with guns.
New billionaires, and Liberalism 2.0 Free Market Boogaloo begins.

Next question though. Sounds outlandish, I know. Other men with guns in the secret services will try to shut the internet down, blaming solar flares probably

>>19045147
Jew boy loved his Dixiecrat neoclassical liberals. Probably under the impression they wouldn’t want old chattel slavery back, and would settle for corvée. Imagine that. Orphans serving corvée. Once they get “too old” they set em free.
Liberal paradise, hu?

Yes, I have a problem with Rothbard.

>>18946499
>Liberalism’ll do it. This time just pretend there’s no state

>>18595128
That’s just liberalism in between states, anon.

>>18361263
Liberals are not anarchists even if they believe they can do things without government
We’ll see them try, use bitcoin and everything. But it won’t be very accommodating to the working class of their fiefdoms

Basic socialist pessimism

>>17938148
The Phrygian cap? That’s a symbol of freedom. Liberalism doesn’t free anything but capital. I swear, if bitcoin can help destroy banks, we shouldn’t let it survive much longer than that or we’ll have techno-feudalism ruling us till extinction.

>>17801568
And this is?

>>17675245
Has he said why he thinks they’re braindead?

>>17341201
>your initial diagnoses was overly simplistic
Single words are usually simplistic. It is a prompt for one to think over. But you have questions.

Art is alive and well, in the hands of artists of various sorts, but also in the hands of hacks, the simple stenographer kinds of artists. They do thrive in prosperous times and places. Venice was the hub of early capitalism and a lot of their art is mostly forgotten, only the best survive the centuries. Today we see art in even greater complexity and depth. The inventiveness bothers a lot of the trads around here, but I don’t deny that there’s tons of commercial garbage made by those same stenographer types, just trying to make a buck.
We notice the theme of distress in some contemporary art don’t we?

Damn. Forgot pic

>>17110199
Yeah. It may not work, hu? Better stay at home, wear that mask, do as the new dictators say and wait for extinction event

Most Americans want Medicare for all and a UBI for at least the length of the pandemic. They get a $600 check tho.
We want a big change. Can’t deny it

>>16273348
>ts precisely the utopian shit that "anarchists" want that needs to be provided by a dictatorial state
You confuse Lenin and Bakunin. Yes, I know the old saw about all that shit they need a state to protect and enforce. They think it’s all mutually agreed to contracts and private security guards are okay, totally not coercion. Not fooled.

>>15864932
It is an inherently political sub-genre. Sorry

>>15864940
A wild post of disjointed non-sequiturs appear
What are you smoking?

>>15864977
Sure. Fiction vs reality. I certainly don’t want it like this.