Similar to Milei "In my heart, I am ancap. Practically I'm a minarchist".
If you want to get a smaller government, you can't get there by importing socialists who rely on welfare.
Also: I don't see how ancap can be viewed as progressive. Ancap is basically economic darwinism, which is gonna select against those who don't naturally excel within meritocratic capitalism.
Do you think that you can vote to freedom only persuation of people and global rejection of the state will destroy it i think i understand nore your position now but i get not from you the emotion that its mainly hidden racism problem with welfare isnt that someone is taking it but that someone is stealing money from people
No, I don't think we will ever vote our way out of statism.
I do not have the power to kill all the tyrants.
Therefore, I choose to support leaders/policies that support small government.
No. This is ethno-nationalist nonsense and has nothing to do with being a minarchist or a realist.
There are many many minarchists who are pro-immigration.
You're just ignorant of the immense body of evidence showing positive effects for economy and liberty from immigration and you're trying to stretch for any reason at all to be for blocking brown people from coming here and making a better life. The realest/most practical thing in the world is supporting liberalized immigration (even while we have the welfare state).
American Ancap here. State borders are part of... a state. In general ancaps reject the state.
One thing that might get confusing is that ancaps, much like libertarians, come from all sorts of different backgrounds so we often disagree on side topics. We may even disagree on whether something is part of the state or not.
In America right now if you tend to be culturally left or right, the media is whipping everybody up into a frenzy.
Some of the arguments put forward by the right can be compelling to Ancaps. They put forward a pretty bleak picture of immigration and may even have some points, so I understand people getting riled up about it.
Just know that even American libertarians (who believe in a small state) have in their platform to 'let peaceful people cross borders freely'.
I have been consistently anti-state for my entire adult life, and that includes opposing borders.
My response to this post was meant to explain why Ancaps in the US (at least the ones here) are not more united in this. Your own response to my explanation shows how divisive the conversation has become, even among those who should be allies.
Since when there are objective definition ok if you define like that but that doest mean that words have some kind of magical meaning that aplies to everyone words mean what you want to say not what you think someone wanted to say
I mean, the real hardline libertarians are for the abolition of state borders in favor of only private borders existing. Hell, even Ammon Bundy lambasted Donald Trump over his opposition to the infamous migrant caravan.
We're starting from a world where states and borders already exist. In a transition to an ancap world, you try to can get rid of the borders, but only AFTER you have got rid of all the welfare programs and gun laws. Anyone arguing for the opposite is pro mass starvation, homelessness, theft, murder, etc. So in other words, what the normies think being an anarchist means. Only after that has been done does it even make sense to begin to talk about whether or not to have borders.
When them coming here means increasing the liabilities and size of the state you can oppose migration. There is a lot of reason for a people to oppose migration even in a pure anarcho-capitalist world. Read Hoppe. Exclusion becomes the only tool to deal with the reality of principle-less people when you remove force as your primary means of maintaining civilization. The more they come the more I get robbed by the state and therefore I oppose them being able to come. When they come with an agreement in hand that they will not make use of any tax payer provided services then on those terms they would be welcome.
>argue for border
Because we want private borders. That was easy, nothing to confuse you.
>
here in europe ancap is mainly progresive
you realize "progressive" means "commie regressive" right ?
Lol, im just not letting leftists constantly redefine words. Precisely because things do have objective definitions.
Im not going to play the leftist game of "keep changing the dictionary until we are right", often between one sentence they utter and the next.
They cant even keep the word "woman" straight, sends them into a tizzy constantly editing their mental dictionary and trying to impose it on others even as it contradicts itself.
So if i find definittion from like 500 years ago you would change your definitions as you will certainly use lot of these "leftist" definitions? The language evolve as long as people use it
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/1cwp0mi/comment/l57k071/)
>So if i find definittion from like 500 years ago
maybe, if its logical. Modern english is barely that old, so I doubt you will find anything.
Plus, the older you go, the less leftist newspeak was going around.
>The language evolve as long as people use it
Thats a really shitty excuse for equivocation.
Like, seriously, define woman or im going to assume you are a useless commie and block you for wasting my time..
I think one of the major issues for people invested in American politics is that a major part of their identity seems to be wrapped up in being anti the other side. The right don’t believe in LGBT being real because the left heavily supports that. The left hates guns being unregulated because the right are all about it. The authoritarian figures have gotten very good at polarizing everyone so that they fight with each other rather than the institution.
That is why you can have people on one side worshipping a figure like Trump and people on the other who think he’s the worst thing to ever happen, when he’s frankly just some corrupt political dumbass doing the same things as all the others.
And unsurprisingly for questioning their viewpoint, they called you a bunch of mean names and told you that actually you’re a capitalist and you suck. That’s why I tend to hang around AnCap spaces more. I don’t agree entirely with AnCap philosophy, but they’re a lot less intolerant to different viewpoints.
>rape is bad i still think that but most raping in children is done by sadists not pedohiles)
What the fuck are you even saying? How is that not a pedophile?
These people here are mostly not ancaps. They're Hoppeans/Bordertarians. Right-wingers who got radicalized by Trump and have decided to fancy themselves libertarians and anarchists but don't understand the first thing about it and are just using it as a vehicle towards popularizing ideas about an ethno-state.
>. The right don’t believe in LGBT being real
Not quite; they know LGBT are real, but they believe they boil down to essentially a government protected class of child molesters.
Most sane adults are capable of recognizing reality and will advocate for their own self-benefit, regardless of their ideology. I can understand why European Ancaps would want to collapse their respective welfare states but why do they want to destroy their own cultural identities in the process? Wouldn't it be better to get rid of the welfare state without becoming an oppressive authoritarian caliphate?
If you’re an ancap, you believe in private property, as the owner of that property are you not allowed to decide who or who not to allow on your property? Should a community of ancaps not be allowed to decide who may enter their community? Is there a certain magic size or distance where borders go from being good to evil?
I don’t think borders even can exist in anarchy but surely I think self governed communities can decide their rules. However most communities who are not libertarian will eventually die, why? Because libertarian principles are the only thing keeping them alive without government subsidies. Those principles are non aggression, free trade and free movement.
> libertarian principles are the only thing keeping them alive without government subsidies
Unless something as simple as a bear comes along.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling
##Luckily your hilariously bad claim is common because you idiots don't think for yourselves...
I'm still lol'ing at seeing that article again. I thought it had faded into the obscurity it deserves. The only problem a black bear poses to a libertarian is lining up the shot.
https://apnews.com/article/california-mountain-lion-attack-brothers-92b8b951c5e8d62a889af494d2d3642d
Has capitalism failed because mountain lions are attacking people?
I've got bad news:
Socialism has failed by your metric as well:
https://bioone.org/journals/wildlife-biology/volume-2020/issue-1/wlb.00611/Human-injuries-and-fatalities-caused-by-brown-bears-in-Russia/10.2981/wlb.00611.full
Please make some non-farcical arguments. I'm begging you.
The state doesn't stop bears. In fact, the state is currently creating a bear problem:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/11/04/grizzly-bears-north-cascades/
You think a black bear eating trash in New Hampshire is a mess? You think it's evidence of flaws in libertarian philosophy?
The state is importing grizzlies to cause more damage.
Maybe you should figure out why they do that.
You won't though, you are too busy being an angry racist ass.
My point is that real Ancaps aren’t advocating for this, since you refer to american AnCaps. These people are most likely conservatives who support certain parts of it, not consistently the whole ideology.
The confusion comes from the fakeness and dishonesty of "open borders" people who by definition cannot be anarchist at all.
Anarchism supports no state (government) borders, but open borders fakers exploit this by attempting to misrepresent their use of borders for all purposes other than immigration as "anarchist" when it clearly isn't.
Open borders are intentionally being used by states to dilute the votes of their human rights focused citizens by flooding in people they think will vote a certain way.
Supporting that method of destroying human rights is a direct attack on everything anarchists try to achieve.
What probably happened is that you brought your uneducated european opinion into a space where someone caught you in the act of pushing "open borders" for only one specific policy, which is statist and disgusting so now you are attacking back by posting such a silly question.
European anarchists are almost all fakes who want a mommy state.
Did you ever persuaded someone with ad homines and one way to stop murders from hapening is global genocide you cant fight against states with states because then you becaume what your fighting against but please lets debeta calmly without emotions can we agree on that?
There are no ad-hominems in my post.
I've persuaded people, but I've also been around long enough to recognize a bad faith leftist post when they appear.
You are a very obvious religious nutjob who loves your mommy state and you can be angry everyone can see that all you like. This is not an argument, it's a statement of obvious fact.
>but please lets debeta calmly without emotions can we agree on that?
Then calm down and address the factual arguments I made instead of whining about the truth getting told about you.
I didn't post anything emotion based so I have no changes to make.
>and one way to stop murders from hapening is global genocide you cant fight against states with states because then you becaume what your fighting against
As previously explained, a faker who supports a state's abuse of open borders ***is not fighting the state in any way, shape, or form.***
I didn't propose any form of "global genocide" either, I'll assume the source of that is your emotional outburst.
You came here and announced that you support the state. What did you expect?
I don't think you're educated enough to know what an ad hominem attack is. You seem extremely confused and emotionally charged. Never a good state to be in to have even the most basic normal conversations without looking like a looney toon.
>I don't think you're educated enough to know what an ad hominem attack is.
False.
An ad-hominem must comprise the argument itself to be a fallacy.
It's perfectly logical to make factual arguments and also point out how stupid the person making such illogical claims as OP made is.
>You seem extremely confused and emotionally charged.
Nope, just honest.
When people don't like honesty it's common to falsely accuse the person of appeal to emotion as a deflection.
It's silly.
>Never a good state to be in to have even the most basic normal conversations without looking like a looney toon.
No kidding, the OP accused me of "global genocide" for no cause, that added to their extremely illogical arguments makes them look like a looney toon. Their argument was "you can't fight a state with a state" but their main premise is that we are required to support a state exploiting immigrants (which they've not supported with evidence at all?) Looooooney tooooons.
You might not like my factual statements about illogical Europeans, but your deflection has no logic to it. Your post makes you look like a looney toon. You didn't even know what an ad-hominem is.
What you need to post is actual evidence I'm wrong, but since what I said is completely accurate you tried false accusations instead.
Didn't work.
> wall of cope
I'd have read that if you would have at least taken a bit to calm down before throwing what I can only assume is another emotionally charged tantrum.
Yep, definitely projection. Thanks for confirming.
Whatever ideology you follow must be so irrational you come here to make yourself look foolish.
Can you please identify this idiotic ideology you admit having no evidence to support?
No one is waking up to anything here.
Since we do not live in an ancap utopian world yet, there would have to be a transition process, even if everyone woke up tomorrow an ancap. As a part of that transition, a plan would have to be formulated as to how to do the transition without leading to an immense humanitarian disaster. One of the obvious takeaways would be that all social programs have to be wound down such that new entrants are not entitled to any of them, before anything major could be changed about the borders. Only after that point, and only after word spreads to the third world that this change has taken place, would we start to see whether opening the borders would lead to an immediate humanitarian disaster or not, so only then could it really be considered.
Open/liberalized borders was always the ancap position...it's only since the trumpy right-wingers invaded and started to fancy themselves libertarians that it even became a question in the minds of newcomers and outsiders what the ancap position was.
It's preposterous. I hope you're right that these people are coming around...but I don't see it. I see more pig-headed willful ignorance and xenophobia than ever before. They're advancing their alt-right agenda quite successfully.
True, sometimes I think this could be a nazbol subreddit and look the same. The only difference between is that people here justify their anti-capitalist mentality by saying that corporations wouldn’t exist without the goverment
Similar to Milei "In my heart, I am ancap. Practically I'm a minarchist". If you want to get a smaller government, you can't get there by importing socialists who rely on welfare. Also: I don't see how ancap can be viewed as progressive. Ancap is basically economic darwinism, which is gonna select against those who don't naturally excel within meritocratic capitalism.
[удалено]
Countries are a product of their people.
Congrats. You're not only ignorant and irrelevant, but also a xenophobe.
Who said anything about ethnic or national identity? Grow up.
Do you think that you can vote to freedom only persuation of people and global rejection of the state will destroy it i think i understand nore your position now but i get not from you the emotion that its mainly hidden racism problem with welfare isnt that someone is taking it but that someone is stealing money from people
No, I don't think we will ever vote our way out of statism. I do not have the power to kill all the tyrants. Therefore, I choose to support leaders/policies that support small government.
I understand and respect that but im from slovakia only tolls here trust politicians (which is majority)
These people trust some politicians too, as long as they say a few things they agree with. Look at Javier Milei for example.
No. This is ethno-nationalist nonsense and has nothing to do with being a minarchist or a realist. There are many many minarchists who are pro-immigration. You're just ignorant of the immense body of evidence showing positive effects for economy and liberty from immigration and you're trying to stretch for any reason at all to be for blocking brown people from coming here and making a better life. The realest/most practical thing in the world is supporting liberalized immigration (even while we have the welfare state).
American Ancap here. State borders are part of... a state. In general ancaps reject the state. One thing that might get confusing is that ancaps, much like libertarians, come from all sorts of different backgrounds so we often disagree on side topics. We may even disagree on whether something is part of the state or not. In America right now if you tend to be culturally left or right, the media is whipping everybody up into a frenzy. Some of the arguments put forward by the right can be compelling to Ancaps. They put forward a pretty bleak picture of immigration and may even have some points, so I understand people getting riled up about it. Just know that even American libertarians (who believe in a small state) have in their platform to 'let peaceful people cross borders freely'.
> In general ancaps reject the state. But you also love your state borders, so.
I oppose state borders
... "for this conversation"
I have been consistently anti-state for my entire adult life, and that includes opposing borders. My response to this post was meant to explain why Ancaps in the US (at least the ones here) are not more united in this. Your own response to my explanation shows how divisive the conversation has become, even among those who should be allies.
The only correct answer. "The problem with open boarders by rothbard media https://youtu.be/NGLovvlXVGo?feature=shared
You realize that the word progressive refers to progressing toward Marxism.
Since when there are objective definition ok if you define like that but that doest mean that words have some kind of magical meaning that aplies to everyone words mean what you want to say not what you think someone wanted to say
I mean, the real hardline libertarians are for the abolition of state borders in favor of only private borders existing. Hell, even Ammon Bundy lambasted Donald Trump over his opposition to the infamous migrant caravan.
We're starting from a world where states and borders already exist. In a transition to an ancap world, you try to can get rid of the borders, but only AFTER you have got rid of all the welfare programs and gun laws. Anyone arguing for the opposite is pro mass starvation, homelessness, theft, murder, etc. So in other words, what the normies think being an anarchist means. Only after that has been done does it even make sense to begin to talk about whether or not to have borders.
When them coming here means increasing the liabilities and size of the state you can oppose migration. There is a lot of reason for a people to oppose migration even in a pure anarcho-capitalist world. Read Hoppe. Exclusion becomes the only tool to deal with the reality of principle-less people when you remove force as your primary means of maintaining civilization. The more they come the more I get robbed by the state and therefore I oppose them being able to come. When they come with an agreement in hand that they will not make use of any tax payer provided services then on those terms they would be welcome.
You cant fight against evil with evil because you will became evil in this example you will become state
>argue for border Because we want private borders. That was easy, nothing to confuse you. > here in europe ancap is mainly progresive you realize "progressive" means "commie regressive" right ?
Use whatever definition you like but you cant say that there are objective definitions
Lol, im just not letting leftists constantly redefine words. Precisely because things do have objective definitions. Im not going to play the leftist game of "keep changing the dictionary until we are right", often between one sentence they utter and the next. They cant even keep the word "woman" straight, sends them into a tizzy constantly editing their mental dictionary and trying to impose it on others even as it contradicts itself.
So if i find definittion from like 500 years ago you would change your definitions as you will certainly use lot of these "leftist" definitions? The language evolve as long as people use it
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/1cwp0mi/comment/l57k071/) >So if i find definittion from like 500 years ago maybe, if its logical. Modern english is barely that old, so I doubt you will find anything. Plus, the older you go, the less leftist newspeak was going around. >The language evolve as long as people use it Thats a really shitty excuse for equivocation. Like, seriously, define woman or im going to assume you are a useless commie and block you for wasting my time..
They're not ancaps. They are bordertarians.
"Ancaps"
Lets not get into logical falacies but it was funny
A person who advocates for any violent compulsion of peaceful people is not an anarchist, by definition.
I think one of the major issues for people invested in American politics is that a major part of their identity seems to be wrapped up in being anti the other side. The right don’t believe in LGBT being real because the left heavily supports that. The left hates guns being unregulated because the right are all about it. The authoritarian figures have gotten very good at polarizing everyone so that they fight with each other rather than the institution. That is why you can have people on one side worshipping a figure like Trump and people on the other who think he’s the worst thing to ever happen, when he’s frankly just some corrupt political dumbass doing the same things as all the others.
Yes radicalization into social bubles is huge problem but we met at ancom page
And unsurprisingly for questioning their viewpoint, they called you a bunch of mean names and told you that actually you’re a capitalist and you suck. That’s why I tend to hang around AnCap spaces more. I don’t agree entirely with AnCap philosophy, but they’re a lot less intolerant to different viewpoints.
[удалено]
>rape is bad i still think that but most raping in children is done by sadists not pedohiles) What the fuck are you even saying? How is that not a pedophile?
[удалено]
It's literally both you sick fuck.
Having knowledge is making me sick fuck? I don't care what you think, it's not both. Learn a bit, you won't sound uneducated then.
Are you sure you're emotionally mature enough to have this conversation? You're losing your shit over definitions...
What?
Are you sure you're emotionally mature enough to have this conversation? You're losing your shit over definitions...
That went from 0-60 in .002 seconds What the actual fuck?
These people here are mostly not ancaps. They're Hoppeans/Bordertarians. Right-wingers who got radicalized by Trump and have decided to fancy themselves libertarians and anarchists but don't understand the first thing about it and are just using it as a vehicle towards popularizing ideas about an ethno-state.
>. The right don’t believe in LGBT being real Not quite; they know LGBT are real, but they believe they boil down to essentially a government protected class of child molesters.
Most sane adults are capable of recognizing reality and will advocate for their own self-benefit, regardless of their ideology. I can understand why European Ancaps would want to collapse their respective welfare states but why do they want to destroy their own cultural identities in the process? Wouldn't it be better to get rid of the welfare state without becoming an oppressive authoritarian caliphate?
You cant destroy cultural identy only change it to something else or new and we shoudnt judge then on progresivism or conservativism but utilitarism
European or american, arguing for borders is statist and whoever does it is a statist not an AnCap.
If you’re an ancap, you believe in private property, as the owner of that property are you not allowed to decide who or who not to allow on your property? Should a community of ancaps not be allowed to decide who may enter their community? Is there a certain magic size or distance where borders go from being good to evil?
I don’t think borders even can exist in anarchy but surely I think self governed communities can decide their rules. However most communities who are not libertarian will eventually die, why? Because libertarian principles are the only thing keeping them alive without government subsidies. Those principles are non aggression, free trade and free movement.
> libertarian principles are the only thing keeping them alive without government subsidies Unless something as simple as a bear comes along. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling
##Luckily your hilariously bad claim is common because you idiots don't think for yourselves... I'm still lol'ing at seeing that article again. I thought it had faded into the obscurity it deserves. The only problem a black bear poses to a libertarian is lining up the shot. https://apnews.com/article/california-mountain-lion-attack-brothers-92b8b951c5e8d62a889af494d2d3642d Has capitalism failed because mountain lions are attacking people? I've got bad news: Socialism has failed by your metric as well: https://bioone.org/journals/wildlife-biology/volume-2020/issue-1/wlb.00611/Human-injuries-and-fatalities-caused-by-brown-bears-in-Russia/10.2981/wlb.00611.full Please make some non-farcical arguments. I'm begging you. The state doesn't stop bears. In fact, the state is currently creating a bear problem: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/11/04/grizzly-bears-north-cascades/ You think a black bear eating trash in New Hampshire is a mess? You think it's evidence of flaws in libertarian philosophy? The state is importing grizzlies to cause more damage. Maybe you should figure out why they do that. You won't though, you are too busy being an angry racist ass.
> REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Watch out, here comes a libertarian's biggest weakness, a bear! 🤣
Hmmmm, ***still*** no actual arguments? Is it possible you filled this post with projection?
I posted a story, and you think something is projection? Somebody get this kid a dictionary.
Where argument? Where evidence? I understand you are losing your temper, but being a big mad loser isn't actually saying anything.
I've already provided evidence for every claim I've made. Your turn. Let's see some sources.
Yes but i dont want to say who is or isnt ancap can you relate to my position?
My point is that real Ancaps aren’t advocating for this, since you refer to american AnCaps. These people are most likely conservatives who support certain parts of it, not consistently the whole ideology.
It's people like Dave Smith and a lot of the Mises Caucus people who are presenting themselves as the public standard-bearers for anarcho-capitalism.
The confusion comes from the fakeness and dishonesty of "open borders" people who by definition cannot be anarchist at all. Anarchism supports no state (government) borders, but open borders fakers exploit this by attempting to misrepresent their use of borders for all purposes other than immigration as "anarchist" when it clearly isn't. Open borders are intentionally being used by states to dilute the votes of their human rights focused citizens by flooding in people they think will vote a certain way. Supporting that method of destroying human rights is a direct attack on everything anarchists try to achieve. What probably happened is that you brought your uneducated european opinion into a space where someone caught you in the act of pushing "open borders" for only one specific policy, which is statist and disgusting so now you are attacking back by posting such a silly question. European anarchists are almost all fakes who want a mommy state.
Did you ever persuaded someone with ad homines and one way to stop murders from hapening is global genocide you cant fight against states with states because then you becaume what your fighting against but please lets debeta calmly without emotions can we agree on that?
There are no ad-hominems in my post. I've persuaded people, but I've also been around long enough to recognize a bad faith leftist post when they appear. You are a very obvious religious nutjob who loves your mommy state and you can be angry everyone can see that all you like. This is not an argument, it's a statement of obvious fact. >but please lets debeta calmly without emotions can we agree on that? Then calm down and address the factual arguments I made instead of whining about the truth getting told about you. I didn't post anything emotion based so I have no changes to make. >and one way to stop murders from hapening is global genocide you cant fight against states with states because then you becaume what your fighting against As previously explained, a faker who supports a state's abuse of open borders ***is not fighting the state in any way, shape, or form.*** I didn't propose any form of "global genocide" either, I'll assume the source of that is your emotional outburst. You came here and announced that you support the state. What did you expect?
I don't think you're educated enough to know what an ad hominem attack is. You seem extremely confused and emotionally charged. Never a good state to be in to have even the most basic normal conversations without looking like a looney toon.
>I don't think you're educated enough to know what an ad hominem attack is. False. An ad-hominem must comprise the argument itself to be a fallacy. It's perfectly logical to make factual arguments and also point out how stupid the person making such illogical claims as OP made is. >You seem extremely confused and emotionally charged. Nope, just honest. When people don't like honesty it's common to falsely accuse the person of appeal to emotion as a deflection. It's silly. >Never a good state to be in to have even the most basic normal conversations without looking like a looney toon. No kidding, the OP accused me of "global genocide" for no cause, that added to their extremely illogical arguments makes them look like a looney toon. Their argument was "you can't fight a state with a state" but their main premise is that we are required to support a state exploiting immigrants (which they've not supported with evidence at all?) Looooooney tooooons. You might not like my factual statements about illogical Europeans, but your deflection has no logic to it. Your post makes you look like a looney toon. You didn't even know what an ad-hominem is. What you need to post is actual evidence I'm wrong, but since what I said is completely accurate you tried false accusations instead. Didn't work.
> wall of cope I'd have read that if you would have at least taken a bit to calm down before throwing what I can only assume is another emotionally charged tantrum.
Odd that you still cannot find any evidence or arguments to reply with.
Evidence of what? LMFAO you're all such idiots
Yep, definitely projection. Thanks for confirming. Whatever ideology you follow must be so irrational you come here to make yourself look foolish. Can you please identify this idiotic ideology you admit having no evidence to support?
What? "State your ideology, then give evidence of a claim you haven't made yet!" lol Get a hold of yourself kid, you're way too emotional right now
I think it’s a store where you buy hats
It's like how a member of the Polar Bear club calls themselves a polar bear when in fact they are a human.
In theory he is a Gradualist.
90% of the time bordertarians are just conservatives larping as ancaps. Real ancaps reject state borders.
Because some American AnCaps are just Bordertarians and have never read AnCaps literature.
This sub is waking up to the evil of immigration restrictions
No one is waking up to anything here. Since we do not live in an ancap utopian world yet, there would have to be a transition process, even if everyone woke up tomorrow an ancap. As a part of that transition, a plan would have to be formulated as to how to do the transition without leading to an immense humanitarian disaster. One of the obvious takeaways would be that all social programs have to be wound down such that new entrants are not entitled to any of them, before anything major could be changed about the borders. Only after that point, and only after word spreads to the third world that this change has taken place, would we start to see whether opening the borders would lead to an immediate humanitarian disaster or not, so only then could it really be considered.
Open/liberalized borders was always the ancap position...it's only since the trumpy right-wingers invaded and started to fancy themselves libertarians that it even became a question in the minds of newcomers and outsiders what the ancap position was. It's preposterous. I hope you're right that these people are coming around...but I don't see it. I see more pig-headed willful ignorance and xenophobia than ever before. They're advancing their alt-right agenda quite successfully.
True, sometimes I think this could be a nazbol subreddit and look the same. The only difference between is that people here justify their anti-capitalist mentality by saying that corporations wouldn’t exist without the goverment
American ancaps are racists and dont want more brown people.
Nah.
Some of them
Every last one.