/lit/ - Literature

If they were good philosophers or writers they wouldn't be Anarcho-Capitalists.

>>4985813
*tips fedora*
M'statist.

>>4985809
pls more of these

>>4985821
You assume too much about this anon.

But is that because you assume an anarchic-capitalism society won't spawn an oligarchy in the place of this one?
Why are you so thick-headed anon?

>>4985843

>>4985846
Why did you take that gender studies course over economics, anon? There is no protectionism in a free market

>>4985847

>>4985856

>>4985809
Just go to mises.org OP

>>4985809
Read everything again in the original language, then laugh at how the translation misinterprets the the piece.

>>4985862

>>4985869
But English sucks to read, I only use it on here.

>>4985809
Y'all nay sayers would be interested in David Steele's study on Marx and the Austrian School (as a Marxist), constructive critique in both directions and compelling arguments for revision.

AnCap is a terrible name, just think of it as self-ownership anarchism

>>4985881
What about just saying individualist free marketeer?

none of them are good. here are some criticisms of them from actual anarchists and libertarians

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/lba.html
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html

>>4985910
Other anarchists aren't anarchists. By opposing natural hierarchies as well as the voluntary free exchange of individuals (the market) they become a coercive force in of themselves. Communists can exist in an AnCap society, but not the other way round.

>>4985809
>>4985847
>>4985856
>>4985873
>>4985880
Any more of these?

>>4985948
I only have this one left >>4982617

>>4985821
>>4985851
Jesus Christ, you're an idiot. This is like saying, "There is nothing wrong with my utopia, because it is a utopia." Capitalism is all about winning and surviving. Not necessarily producing the most or best goods. So the organizations cheat to make things easier and form organizations and oligarchies. It's just a natural part of the process. The state and the companies are practically one and the same. They feed each other. On this board, we actually have discussions and think. I know it's new and there is a bit of a learning curve coming from /pol/ to shitpost here.

>>4986019
I think your problem is that you don't know the difference between corporatism and Laissez-Faire market capitalism.
What I also find disturbing, statist, is that you claim the state influencing business causes monopolies, but your response is to give the state more power. You also like to use personal attacks.

>>4985919
Fixed that comic for you. No need to thank me, abandoning your neofeudalist ways is more than thanks enough.

>>4986044
Autism.jpg

>>4986044
>There are no police because there is no state, and without a state there is no private property"
Then the other guy pulls out a gun and becomes the "police".

>>4986044
This is just stupid, the owner who had his food stolen has the right to defend his property, so the thief would be neutralised. There are also private protection agencies. I don't see how private property would not exist, will everyone just share or do you find people to be so irrational and primitive that they would descend to senseless violence without the threat of a state administering punishment.
There is nothing wrong with the first panel, the worker is a willing and able participant in the exchange of labour for monetary goods, he can negotiate his own contract.

>>4985851
I took no courses. The free market will lead to the same, though probably worse dystopic oligarchy. The rule of wealth. That same old story all over again.

>>4986040
There you go assuming again.
Real anarchism is the only way. You advocate a sham.

>>4985967
Godjeez. I hope you all know these damn things to be jokes.

>>4986075
Oligarchies cannot form without the state and its socialist protectionism.

Is anarchism a sham just because you say so?

>>4986059
>>4986065
>I will defend it with muh gunz

Then it isn't private property anymore and it isn't anarcho-capitalism. It is your brute force versus the brute force of others, aka Egoist-Anarchy.

>private protection agencies

In the real world, we call those "armies" and "police," and we call the people who control them "the government." Hence the word "neofeudalism."

>>4986075
"REAL ANARCHISM"

Hahaha. Just go read some Arendt please.

>>4986085
It is private property, like a car or bucket. I own it.
>protection agencies don't exist irl
How naive are you?

>>4986040
No, your problem is you are making a distinction without a difference. Power structures naturally desire stability and attempt to reject the pressures of truly free market (if such a thing could ever really exist). The ones that play by the rules disappear while the ones that cheat remain.

The system inertially pushes towards such a state of being. Some of this cheating involves the state. Some of it is completely independent of the state. However, in a system that allows these organizations to gather so much power, there is very little one can do to stop them from this cheating. With kind of consolidated power, they would most likely recreate the state in their preferable image. I never said anything about my vision of how society should organized and yet you still attack the boogey man of the leftist.


You gave up the right to keep personal attacks out of this the moment you posted the god damn fedora meme. I wasn't the first poster who called you thick-headed so I still hadn't contributed my evaluation of your stupidity.

>>4986092
So from reading Arendt, you'e going with the self contradictory anarcho-capitalism?
I think you misread her.
In small doses I am trying. Hard to just jump into 20th century philosophy without the basics.

>>4986098
How can they cheat? They are dependent on consumers. You would be allowing them to cheat.
How would they achieve anything close to the monopolies they have now with out protectionism? The reason they have it in the first place is because they are unstable.

>>4986096
>I own [things]
>calling others naive

Toppest of keks.

A feudal lord owns land, he allows serfs to work on it in exchange for rent, and he uses this rent to pay a private army who keep the serfs in line and keep the other lords off his junk. When he dies, he passes his land on to one of his children (whichever of them manage to gain control of the treasury in order to keep paying the private army).
There is no difference between a feudal lord and an anarcho-capitalist.

The distinction between private (body guards, private detectives, mercenaries) and public (police, soldiers, mercenaries) agencies only exists as long as the public agencies exist to enforce this distinction by having priority over the private agencies.

>>4986109
Yes, they are dependent on consumers. However, in order to take any sort of organized action against such entities, people must logically gather together and organize. Most libertarians and ancaps will admit this, but they never go too deep into this plot hole in their narrative of the economy. The organized people most likely will then use their social and physical power to exert their will on the companies. Not only that, but they most logically would take a poll and figure out what direction most of the people in the organization want for their society. Ta-da. A basic social democracy has been formed. The government is supposed to be the organized will of the people (at very small level at least). If you can't figure out how companies might take their profits and form military or some other coercive force to establish a monopoly on their own, you're just delusional.

>>4986108
>So from reading Arendt, you'e going with the self contradictory anarcho-capitalism?

No you dingus that's not what I'm saying at all. Just read some Arendt, Habermas, and Rawls. Just read more. Holy shit.

>>4985869
This guy's a major faggot and thinks Nietzsche was against violence because "the ubermensch is capable of Divine reason and therefore wouldn't be violent and act in an immoral fashion"

>>4986134
If feudalism is free, like anarcho-capitalism, then why is it a bad thing? You also state it as if feudalism is an insult, without backing that up with /why/ it is bad. Unfortunately, though, feudalism involves state powers, so it is not an anarchist society, especially when protectionism and taxes exist.

>>4986138
So you are saying the people would create a coercive force to crush freedom? Why would they destroy themselves like that? It would economically cripple the society.
If the people organise against businesses the business will leave, even though the people can use the market forces naturally to receive higher wages and benefits.

>>4986085
>It is your brute force versus the brute force of others

Yeah, it is. Which is the next natural step, anarchy is nice for the whole five seconds it lasts until someone realizes they can just take anything they like. Not just what they need.

It could've been either of those men using a gun, for all the difference it makes.

>>4986146
Why would the usurpers of God and highest beings engage in the irrational action of violence?

>>4986140
I am. I think you read too much into the words "real anarchism"

>>4986161
>irrational action of violence
Hunh, for all that people detest violence it sure works well in practice.

>>4986167
That doesn't make it rational. It is animalistic, meaning it is beneath humanity, as humanity can use reason and intelligent thought to find what is right.

>>4985847
>>4985856
>>4985862

these are mostly based on Robert Anton Wilson, who shifted between libertarianism and individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism isn't the same thing as anarcho-capitalism, but he sorta respected Rothbard

>>4986171
I'm playing with my dick right now you fucking autist

>>4986180
Yes, that is because you are not ubermensch, so you can't see the futility of your actions.

>>4986171
Reason is using your intellect to determine the best route to your goal. Sometimes that route is bashing someone's skull in. Sometimes it's convincing others that their skull will get bashed in.

Every commandment of what is "right" tends to devolve to "if you don't understand at all, then understand your skull will get bashed in if you do not obey". Those that don't, well those don't stick with people as well.

>>4986187
Unfortunately, blue pill, what you fail to understand is that violence is the refuge of the stupid. If you cannot convince me that your position is correct you are probably wrong. That is why you would want to 'bash my skull in'. You can't handle being wrong so you want to force others to adhere to your stupidity. It is animalistic, and far from ubermensch behaviour.

>>4986184
>Nietzsche's ubermensch doesn't do "animalistic things" because he realizes the futility of them
You are one autistic fucktard

>>4986019
>Capitalism is all about winning and surviving. Not necessarily producing the most or best goods. So the organizations cheat to make things easier and form organizations and oligarchies. It's just a natural part of the process.

Lol. I know that /lit/ has a hard on for all things Marx, but you are worse than most lolbertarians.

>>4986196
You shouldn't even be allowed to read

>>4986204
>>4986200
Ad hominem, the violence of the internet. Where the stupid are shown their inadequacies.

>>4986211
are you a troll or just a redditor?

>>4986219
More ad hom. It really frustrates you to have your malformed opinions revealed for what they really are, doesn't it?

>>4985881
I call it Market Feudalism

>>4986148
Feudalism is free for the feudal lords, which is about .0000001% of the population. It is not anarchy because it retains hierarchy, and is therefore not free for anyone who isn't on top. That is why, in the context of a discussion about anarchist theory, an accusation of feudalism would be a bad thing. Just like accusing others of being "Social Democrats" or "Fascists" or anything else would be a bad thing in a discussion of anarchy. If you're a fascist, claiming to be a fascist, then ok, you're a fascist, and the question will be (has been) decided on the battlefield. If you support what amounts to no more than feudalism, and you're claiming to be an anarchist, then it is possible that sufficient argument about theory might convince you to change your tune.

As for "state powers," I already explained it. The power of a capitalist owner is only private while there is a government standing over his shoulder to enforce a difference between the private and the public. Without a higher power limiting him, the capitalist becomes the government, because he is the highest power present. The government does not have any magic (black or white) on its side. It is no more than the unrestricted user of force present in a system (has a monopoly on violence).

>>4986160
First of all, I would disagree because the problem with anarchy is not "how do I keep people from trying to lead," but, "how do I keep people from trying to follow." Imagine a desert island populated by 50 Hitlers. Every Hitler immediately declares himself Fuhrer of his own tiny section.
Sure, this island may have occasional alliances or man slaughters, but these will all be short term. On the whole, every Hitler will be in it to win it for himself, personally, and also watching his back because he never knows when Hitler might be sneaking up on him. The result will be an equilibrium, with every Hitler who doesn't die in the first month settling down to watch the others. They each will take only what they need, because taking any more will get them Blitzkrieged by the other Hitlers.

The other place I would disagree is that this is about anarchist theory, and whether anarcho-capitalism is workable as anarchy. If you disagree with anarchy on principle, then there isn't anything to be said one way or another. You gotta do what you gotta do, man, and it is your choice.

>>4986223
No, I mean, you actually misinterpret Nietzsche in such a gloriously wrong way that it's amazing. The whole point of his philosophy was that he hated the shit out of nihilism and the idea of not doing any of the fun things in life "because life is fleeting"

It's actually insane that you can believe that about Nietzsche, man

>>4986234
Anarchy can not do away with hierarchy without assuming statist style control over the market (the voluntary exchange of equally free individuals) and over the distribution of wealth.
A business only needs to protect its own property and interests, the government polices everything. If a business tried that they would soon be out of business, by destroying their own demand.

>>4986247
How does his nihilism contradict anything I have said?

>>4986196
>blue pill
Ahaha... I forget some people take that crap seriously.

Enjoy your X-Pill roleplay, I'm not your fantastical adversary but just a guy pointing out how inflated your sense of "humanity" is along with your ego which you've invested in it.

People are animals too, including you, that's why violence and all other "physical" things like hunger and sex work. If you were any different, you'd have gone full aesetic out in a desert cave somewhere instead of posting on 4chan.

>>4986252
It doesn't, what you've said is basically nihilism. Nietzsche hated nihilism

>>4986254
Ah, the naturalistic fallacy. It is now oh so common from this generation. What you fail to see is that the human race, which is capable of rational thought and knowledge, is far superior to the beast for that very reason.

>>4986255
Nietzsche, as an Atheist, had to be a nihilist. But that position has nothing to do with anything I have said. I bet you think Nietzsche was some Ragnar Redbeard type social Darwinist, nationalist. lmao

>>4986262
Not 'till they're incorporeal they're not.

Good luck with that.

>>4986267
You think animals are as intelligent as humans? Is this you? Because you're a tard.

>>4986272
I didn't say that.

But then again, this is you here:
>>4986266
>Nietzsche, as an Atheist, had to be a nihilist

So... I can see you you could think something that ridiculous.

>>4986201
This is far from controversial though, even among those who support capitalism. You really don't know your economic and game theory do you?

>>4986276
>an Atheist can believe that there is intrinsic meaning to the noumenal world

Some of these are economists but whatever

Kant
Rothbard
Mises
Bastiat
Friedman
Rand
Hazlit
Hayek
Stefan Molyneux

>>4986266
>Nietzsche, as an Atheist, had to be a nihilist.

Now you're just fucking trolling.
And I'm saying that as someone who hates Nietzsche and all his stupid shit about amor fait and eternal recurrence and what not.

The stache-master might have been a bitter weakling who hated asceticism because his chronic physical health left him unable to fast, and he may have been too chicken shit to live up to his own doctrine and kill himself when life became too much of a burden for himself and those around him, but he was not a nihilist.

>>4985809
>Kant
since when did he support robber barons?
your whole thread is shit. fuck you OP

>>4986297
Oh, so he wasn't really an Atheist, then?

>>4986293
>If

stopped reading there

>>4985809
moar tinfoil darcy comics please

>>4985809
Why is /lit/ so unusually bad today? Are we being raided by /pol/?

>>4986302
I don't think he supported Jewish mis-representations of capitalism so you can enslave all gentiles as shabbos, kike.

>>4986285
Noumenon≠Diety

>Relying on reaction pics for emotive impact
>No force of argument
>Flawed definitions
>False equations
>Believes he is enlightened with his reasoning

Dude, you are the animal who needs violence to live.

>>4986315
No, judging by your posts you are. You twist Nietzsche, deliberately or not I cannot tell, to suit your angsty rebellious nature. You either don't understand nihilism or Atheism. But I suspect, as he got older, Nietzsche struggled to keep his Atheism.

>>4986266
>I bet you think Nietzsche was some Ragnar Redbeard type social Darwinist, nationalist
That was literally me you talked to on /pol/ the other day, faggot
Do you live in New York? I think we might be friends in real life.
>Nietzsche, as an Atheist, had to be a nihilist
This is completely false. Ragnar Redbeard was an atheist, too, you know.

>>4986321
>Nietzsche struggled to keep his atheism.
Not even apart of this thread, but I want to meet you in real life so I can make you suffer. Suffer and then die. You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

>>4986248
>Anarchy can not do away with hierarchy without assuming statist style control over the market (the voluntary exchange of equally free individuals) and over the distribution of wealth.

As I explained with my example about the Island of Hitlers, yes, it can. Or you could read Stirner. All Anarchy requires is that everyone in it quits sacrificing themselves to ideas. Private property is one such idea.
Will there be short-term alliances? Yes. Will there be man-slaughter? Yes.
But, at the end of the day, genuine selfishness would completely do away with hierarchy, capital and government. Why should I wait for my boss to give me a paycheck when I can just seize the means of production and make what I want?

>A business only needs to protect its own property and interests, the government polices everything. If a business tried that they would soon be out of business, by destroying their own demand.

If this were true, there would be no such thing as lobbyists or outsourcing or union busting. Going back to feudalism, it is like claiming that the feudal lord has no interest in keeping the peasants in line.

>>4986293
This. Thank you.

Anarcho-Capitalism just replaces God and the divine right of kings and the catholic church with money and multi-national corporations.

>>4986330
No, I live in Tasmania. And Redbeard was, as far as I can tell, a nihilist. But there is no point arguing this again.

>>4986321
>Nietzsche was a nihilist
hurr durr duhh huhuhhuhuhh durrrrr huhhhhhhh

>>4986338
Either he was or he wasn't an Atheist.

>>4986321
He did use to dance, and called it is his one concession to spirituality.
The singing Socrates and the dancing Nietzsche.

>>4986335
Have you read Will to Power?

I got the impression Nietzsche didn't care whether God exists or not.

>>4986343
Yes. Have you read Human, All Too Human?

>>4986341
You can be an atheist and not be a nihilist, that was the whole point of Nietzsche's work. He wrote for exactly that purpose

>>4986321
>You twist Nietzsche, deliberately or not I cannot tell, to suit your angsty rebellious nature

This is pretty rich. Especially since I'm hardly even talking about Nietzsche, but merely correcting your terms.

>>4986351
I fail to see how you have come to that conclusion. How can an Atheistic attest to intrinsic meaning?

>>4986353
#YOLO

>>4986351
Its not about some wonky absolute meaning, the nihilism Nietzsche diagnoses in Europe is a result of the breakdown of Traditional structures and values started by The Enlightenment (and to a lesser extent Humanism).

Nietzsche could very well be called an Existential Nihilist, and that plus his exploration of the idea of transcending this limitation and creating new values is why he often gets dumped in with Existentialists.

Existential nihilism itself wasn't his particular focus, and is really a contingent part of every intellectually honest worldview, seeing as that whole God thing is nonsense.

>>4986379

>>4986384

>>4986389
>thinks I am a Christian

>>4986303
Nietzsche's philosophy was based on the affirmation of life, not nihilism.
Nietzsche suffered from syphilis and/or brain tumors throughout his life, was hated by his contemporaries (and even his friends said that Thus Spake Zarathustra, his pride and joy, was a load of gibberish), and then he damn near went blind. The eye sight issues forced him to use a primitive form of typewriter that was not only poorly designed, but the specific one he was sent had factory defects that made it just a cunt's hair better than useless.

If he'd been a nihilist, he'd have lived up to his comments on suicide and offed himself before becoming a living embarrassment rotting away in his sister's attic and being used to support proto-Nazism.

Nietzsche's philosophy, like I said, was an affirmation of life and vitality as positives, because that was the only way he could justify living. If he'd believed in a god or anything outside this existence, then he'd have believed in an afterlife, and then he'd have gone on to it decades earlier. We're talking about someone who's refrain in Ecce Homo is the self-pitying "Has anyone understood me?"

Nietzsche was an atheist, yes, but he was not a nihilist. If he had been a nihilist, he would have written maybe the Birth of Tragedy, but he'd have done himself in before he produced the output that made him famous.

>>4986379
>the nihilism Nietzsche diagnoses in Europe is a result of the breakdown of Traditional structures and values started by The Enlightenment

Western Society has been nihilistic since the birth of metaphysics with Plato. Read more Nietzsche and Nietzsche commentary.

>>4986392

>>4986392
>those legbeards in the back

Is this like bleppit high?

>>4986379
>Existential nihilism itself wasn't his particular focus, and is really a contingent part of every intellectually honest worldview
That's a laugh.

>>4986393
None of what you said indicates how you came to the belief that Nietzsche saw intrinsic meaning in life, believed there to be objective morality or disagreed with any form of nihilism. Are we thinking of the same Nietzsche who questioned Kant's assertion of the non-material world?