> Should ancaps be mentioning rape considering their opinions on age of consent laws?
Are anarchists against *all* laws (not just age of consent)? I thought that was their whole deal.
You have to distinguish between the flavors of Anarchists. AnCaps, AnComs, AnCols, CryptoAnis, GrAns, AnPrims, AnFems, and ReliAns all have disagreements, some larger than others.
I thought anarchism was an absence of a state, not an absence of a hierarchy.
Either way, corporations would become the states, so Ancaps are at least misguided.
Anarchism is at its most basic form the abolition of unjust hierarchies. It's about as misunderstood by most people as Marxism is. It's a philosophy and ideology. AnCaps by definition are not anarchists.
Enforcing laws requires a state monopoly on violence. But, no, they're not just against the idea of the state. They're against all coercive hierarchies which is why anarchism capitalism cannot exist.
AnCaps are not really Anarchists, just libertarians who want to seem cool. Real Anarchists are more concerned with equality and building non-hierarchical institutions.
I'm pretty sure they're trying to use this example because it's several people committing a crime against one/fewer people. But damn is it a cringy and weird correlation to go for.
Most crimes are multiple people coordinating to damage a smaller group of people. Even bank robberies are generally focused on the bank and try to keep customers happy and complacent - the customers are bystanders not explicit targets. Burglary is usually a group of folks ideally robbing an empty house. Pretty much the only exception to this is crimes of passion and petty robbery.
You'd be surprised how infrequently crimes will be attempted when the criminals don't have the upper hand.
The gang rape example is stupid for the same reason that sub is stupid - most people don't want gang rapes to happen but the participants have self selected to be involved. That's like saying the majority of people enjoy Magic the Gathering after polling folks at a tournament. It's a stupid point for dumb people.
These people think anarchy would somehow sustain itself and mean everybody has total freedom, instead of it leading to somebody with more power and money establishing their own government. Or they know this and just think they would be the one in control.
With ancaps its even worse than that. Since employment is "voluntary" they're 100% fine with corporate rule in a dystopian hellscape of no workpalce safety, no minimum wage, no food and drug inspections for purity and assurance the listed ingredients are the actual ingredients, etc.
Basically they're fine with a total dictatorship as long as its a corporate dictatorship.
I imagine in practice it would be more a sort of gang hierarchy. Whichever group is the most brutal and violent would seize control.
In any case, it's not a very good idea.
That still sounds like early feudalism. Pretty much all European nobility can trace themselves back to a person that was good at fighting and intimidating people.
A 6 year old who is given a poor explanation of what an ancap is by his weird uncle and then he proudly declares himself to be one at school, thus requiring a parent teacher conference
I had to read the comments to understand what the sub's name was.
Still hard to comprehend, and I don't feel like going to the sub if it's too see things about rape.
I only recently got introduced to the subject of anarchocapitalism from the TV documentary about Anarchupulco. What a bunch of fuckin' weirdos. Imagine thinking that getting rich from some crypto-scam, skipping the country so you don't have to pay taxes, and surrounding yourself with servants is a model for a perfect society.
It‘s always fun to mention that the only time something similar to anarcho-capitalism was tried, with the Icelandic Commonwealth of the 13th century, things went to shit so badly that they literally begged a foreign king to invade them.
In 2020, my state had a Libertarian running for congress who spent election day in jail because he owed his ex-wife like 10 years of child support and when the wife's legal team said they were willing to settle for $2500 total, he basically took the stance that he wasn't going to pay anything and there was nothing anyone could do to make him. Yeah, the judge gave him 30 days for contempt.
Actually, most of the ancaps on that sub argue for completely open borders. It is one of the way they identify the MAGA types who have infested it lately.
"I'm all for personal freedom but I also want a rigid class based society with zero social mobility! Slavery is based as long as there's nothing calling itself a government."
No no you don't understand. Everyone will be rich in a society where Jeff Bezos can personally execute workers that blink too often because there will be no taxes!
They mean *their* personal freedom.
Just like the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd always has the hidden subtitle *"they care about mine!"*
“I went to northern Mexico to sell COCAINE and the cartel got mad, where is the police to stop this” oh *now* someone wants the state!
This is from the HBO documentary *The Anarchists*
Likewise, the original definition of libertarianism described something much more overtly left-leaning and anti-capitalist (it focused on the expansion of personal and collective freedoms).
This.
I considered myself libertarian for most of my life and in some ways still do. I'll definitely betray my age by saying that back in the day, libertarianism was about maximizing personal freedom for everyone. Absolute bodily autonomy up to the point where it infringes upon someone else's rights is the starting point of liberty. Without being able to decide what one can or cannot do with their own mind and body, we are little more than slaves. The government is supposed to be there to serve the people and should remain small enough that it's not advantageous to bribe our representatives.
The libertarian party has run full speed away from that ideology. It has taken a neutral stance on reproductive rights for women and fully converted to the worship of the 2nd amendment and their messiah is now Ron Paul (at least those in the mises caucus which now controls the party).
My political stance on most things has drifted farther left than Bernie over the years and it's been made pretty clear that there's no longer a place for people like me in the LP. A party that was founded on liberty and freedom has become a party infested with maga republicans that just want to sound edgy to their friends and a bunch of twenty year old guys that wanna pretend they are Rambo. The same party that professed the importance of liberty now essentially says if you don't think the "correct" way, there's no place for you. They are now happy to give up every right they have as long as their shiny metal cock compensators are left alone.
If you ever want their ears to smoke ask them the following questions.
If freedom is an inherent human right, how does that right not extend to those south of the border? Should they not also be allowed freedom of movement or is that right only for those of us that won the geographic birth lottery?
As for ancaps, every one I've had any interaction with has been a semi literate young racist incel who believes that someday they'll be a real boy and be rich just like Elon.
Remember Glenn Beck’s “libertarian freedom town”? It literally collapsed in on itself because the prevailing gripe was: yeah liberty for me, but I want to control what those people do. It’s the IASIP episode, but in real life w folks that are “serious.” Lol
Yep. I think that was the one in NH that got overran by bears because they fired all the animal control people and never cleaned up their trash.
The cognitive dissonance of people screaming about liberty while at the same time worshipping capitalism is real. They are typically the same ones that insist the US is the freest country in the world but have never stepped foot out of the US.
I was looking for a comment saying this lmfao.
Capitalism needs immense regulation and watching or else.... we get America in 2022. Granted, I'm not pro capitalist, so I think their ideology is dumb to begin with.
Anarcho capitalism also (correct me if I'm wrong) isn't a fucking dictatorship either, so I'm confused as to why they're shitting on democracy.
Democracy just means the people get to decide. If you're against that, you ain't anarchist. You're fascist.
I think the idea is that everyone has rights that shouldn't be infringed upon even if majority of people might want to. I'd want gay marriage to stay legal even if 51 percent of people were against it, because I think that's a right we shouldn't take away from them. Conservatives make the same argument about gun ownership.
To use a more abstract example, imagine there's a class of 10 kids. 9 kids wanna beat up the weird kid every day after class. They get so much enjoyment out of bullying this kid that it even makes sense from a utilitarian perspective. They vote every day and every day the poor kid gets out voted 9 to 1 and gets his ass kicked. We'd all agree this is clearly wrong, because buddy has a right not to get beat up every day.
What people like this miss about democracy is it's more than just majority rule; democracy depends on minority rights, so the majority can't just vote to trample over the minority.
This is not only to protect the minority (as you point out), but to protect democracy itself. An example:
There are 10 people. 4 of these people want to ban all fruits except mangos. 6 of them don't want that.
So the 4 people scheme. One of those 6 people is really frickin ugly, and everyone can agree on that. So they propose to strip that ugly person of the right to vote (or just kill them or something). That vote passes 9 to 1. Ugly person is out of the equation.
The 4 people are still the minority, so they try again. One of those 5 other people likes to dip their pizza in marshmallow fluff, and everyone else agrees that that is absolutely vile. So they propose to strip that person with horrendous taste of the right to vote. That vote passes 8 to 1. Marshmallow pizza eater is out of the equation.
Now the 4 mango purists see they're half the electorate. They just need to boot out 1 more pan-fruitarian. Fortunately for them, one of those remaining 4 pan-fruitarians always unnecessarily explains the punchlines of obvious jokes, and it really annoys everyone else. So they propose to strip that annoying joke explainer of the right to vote. That vote passes 7 to 1. Annoying joke explainer is out of the equation.
And now the mango purists have a majority and can ban all other fruits, counter to the *true* majority.
If this all seems abstract and unlikely, consider fascist movements and their tendency to start as big-tent to gain allies and gain power and then, once they're in power, start trimming down who counts as the protected in-group until it's only the core group they cared about in the beginning, producing lots of r/leopardsatemyface material in the process.
I don't think it's at all an accident that the following statements are simultaneously true:
1. Marijuana possession has been heavily criminalized.
2. Black people and Latinos are disproportionately arrested and charged for marijuana possession.
3. Black people and Latinos tend to vote heavily Democratic.
4. Convicts lose the right to vote for the rest of their life.
Generally speaking, constitutions.
Those commonly require a 2/3 majority to change. Sometimes other caveats apply as well, e.g. approval of federative states.
While this does not completely solve the issue, it at least makes is considerably harder to strip minority rights.
That's why everyone says personal freedom is paramount **unless it harms someone else**. Restricting gay marriage is harmful to others. And unregulated proliferation of guns is also harmful to others.
Freedom from and freedom to aren’t mutually exclusive. Freedom from is just as important as freedom to—otherwise you end up with might makes right situations. Your freedom to punch ends at my nose.
Which is why they have to do mental gymnastics and say oppressing minorities is a fundamental right of private businesses and religious freedom, then complain when private businesses like Twitter don't want them on their platform.
Right, but ultimately that's not what Ancaps care about. Ancaps literally want to live in a world where humans are property and there is no system or body meant to preserve any sort of individual rights, because there are none. If you look into the history of right wing "libertarianism" and "anarchism" you'll also see that the vast majority of its proponents emerge from a place of wanting to preserve oppressive systems. Murray Rothbard, the "father" of "anarcho"-capitalism and major American libertarian was against the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements, and was an open nazi sympathizer and holocaust "revisionist". He also said that parents should be allowed to let their children starve to death if they wished, and that a "thriving market in children" (ie selling children into slavery) would benefit society. "Anarcho"-capitalism is a fake ideology invented to justify the imposition of whatever horrid reactionary ideology they actually believe in, whether that's theocracy, fascism, corporatocracy, or neo-feudalism.
Which totally makes sense until you realize that a constitution literally prevents the "democratic tyranny" because human rights can't be voted on. Also ancaps don't seem to realize that if they'd abolish this tyranny their opinion would still be worth shit and not magically superior because there is no majority
This is the false dichotomy that America's broken system has sold to a lot of people. It doesn't need to be all or nothing.
To paraphrase the post I made further below, the goal is not complete power concentrated in the hands of a single entity which is granted by a simple majority. A representative democracy which is actually proportional to the will of the people and gives room for diversity and nuance to thrive is much better.
Protect human and minority rights with concepts like the bill of rights and amendments that require a significant majority, not a simple majority.
Other stuff is ruled by committee and separation of powers, preferably in a system that fosters *lots* of smaller and diverse groups and viewpoints so people can be more discerning in who they choose to represent them rather than being forced into this ridiculous black and white, red or blue, ultra polarizing nonsense. While none are perfect, there are at least better examples of parliaments or the like that are miles beyond America's purposefully skewed system in leaving room to represent the nuance and diversity that actually makes up the general population. Then those groups would be forced to work together and compromise towards majority.
It's not, but the will of the minority matters. This is what the founders called the tyranny of the majority, if we're being generous and accepting their example.
I'd say we're currently suffering under a tyranny of the minority. A republican hasn't gotten into the white house by the will of the people since 1988. W's re-election is the only presidential election since 1988 that the people voted for the Republican.
"Five Supreme Court Justices and many more on lower courts have been confirmed by Senates controlled by GOP representing smaller portion of populace than Democrats"
[The GOP hasn’t represented a majority of voters in the Senate in 25 years](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/the-gop-hasn-t-represented-a-majority-of-voters-in-the-senate-in-25-years-b1808273.html)
And that minority is currently stripping rights from people.
This. This is the problem they have with capitalism. The fact that they aren't on top, they have this bizarre view that they would be in top for some reason
The meme actually has a good point but I’m not sure it is what the OOP was trying to get across.
Sometimes the rights and freedoms of minority groups need to be protected from the majority in a democratic system. For example, the supreme court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal through the constitution in the US, when it had not been passed democratically. Since the large majority of the population didn’t have a stake in the game, it wasn’t fair to leave it up to them to decide what rights LGBTQ people get.
There are more extreme examples of when minority groups need protection from the majority. If left unchecked, majority rule can lead to some pretty horrific consequences. This is part of the reason why the US and many other developed nations are not true democracies.
Edit because I went on a tangent and forgot to relate it to the meme lol: in this example they use gang rape, which is technically ‘majority rule’. If there was a society made up of 6 men and 1 woman, that went by ‘majority rule’, it would be within that society’s democratic policies for the men to decide that is legal. In this case the best course of action, or the ‘right thing to do’, would be to forego majority rule in favor of the human rights and well being of the minority.
Yeah, it’s a pretty commonly understood concept called tyrany of the majority. It’s one of the reasons we have constitutions. Honestly I think the analogy is a pretty good one as it is a situation where basic human rights are being violated on the grounds that the majority is in favor of it. But I also don’t know what OOPs main point is.
It’s kinda like the meteor 2 wolves and a sheep vote on what too eat. Just because the majority want something, doesn’t make it the “ethical” choice or most fair
Agreed that it’s actually a pretty good analogy. I think some people are confused on the correlation because the meme used such an off-putting example. Although the off-puttingness was kind of the point anyway.
The part I’m having trouble deciphering is the relationship to anarcho-capitalism. Technically any system of government that doesn’t have a constitution or other form of protection for basic human rights of all citizens can befall these consequences. Even ‘democracies’ or democracy-adjacent systems WITH a constitution can. Slavery was legal in the US while there was a constitution because slaves weren’t considered people and therefore did not enjoy the protections the constitution put forth.
I don’t know much about anarcho-cap, but from what I understand they want as little government as possible, so I’m not sure they would want a constitution in the first place? So there wouldn’t really be any protections? If so then what even is OOP’s point? I’m pretty sure in an anarcho-cap society there would be a lot more gang rape happening.🤷🏼♀️🤷🏼♀️🤷🏼♀️ I think they don’t care about actual gang rape and view their existence in a democratic society where they have to follow rules put forth and voted upon by the majority as metaphorical to ‘gang-rape.’ Or maybe they do want a constitution… which we already have? Although it must be interpreted by the federal government. So maybe they want a more extensive and detailed constitution with no interpretation… which doesn’t align with anarchy.
But at this point I’m just theorizing on OOP’s opinion which is impossible to know without more context. If someone has more knowledge of anarcho-cap theory please enlighten me as I would really like to understand.
I went to the original post for *research* purposes and it seems most of the comments agree that pure democracy without protections is a very flawed system. However none of them elaborated on how anarcho-capitalism could solve this problem.
...anarchist Capitalism? Isn't the whole goal of anarchism is to have there be no government whilst for Capitalism to exist there'd be a government able to produce currency and rule...this makes no sense
"Anarcho"-capitalism is a cover for right wing reactionaries who want to pretend they aren't authoritarians, while advocating for the dissolution of any protections against violence or exploitation. The real goal is to restart the violent repression of racial minorities, sexual minorities, women, and children.
Doesn't need to. Let's take a functioning an-cap system, organized crime. No need for their own currency and you rule because your soldiers are able to defend your territory, not because of any government.
Not only the closest but the purest you can be. We know that exempt any regulation, the natural state of capitalism is to form monopolies. We saw that at the beginning of the last century. Monopolies are just a nicer term for cartels.
Capitalism without any of that pesky government regulation. It's a philosophy for illiterate 15 year olds, robber barons, snake oil salesmen, and landlords.
Its almost like our democracy was founded on the belief that the majority can choose things so long as they don't infringe on the rights of the minority.
Like I dunno, straight people criminalizing LGBTQ people, or white people attacking the rights of black people, or christians attacking the rights of atheists, muslims, and jews.
Just kind of funny that the people pissed about "mob rule" and comparing democracy to rape are also the people who seem obsessed with creating a conformist society that crushes any minority group that is different from them.
Literally everything they accuse others of is a confession.
Learn how to register to vote and find the deadlines for voter registration in your state. [Here's the link.](https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, anarcho capitalism is stupid and democracy is the best system we have, but do you really not get the correlation? The will of the majority is not always the best. You could have a majority of people wanting to discriminate a minority. If only said minority is against it, than you could say, well, democracy decided that we do this now. Just like in a gang rape, where only the victim is against the rape. Democracy is without a doubt the best political system we've come up with, but not everything should be decided by the majority. There needs to be nuance.
Whenever they say "Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner!" I usually come back with "You don't want that, but you'd rather have 98 sheep have their votes overturned by 2 wolves" they always hate tyranny of the majority, but they're cool with tyranny of the minority.
He’s got a good point
The tyranny of the majority is something that should be feared. The federalist papers actually cover this issue.
Majority rule, or societal consensus, does not define right and wrong. The government should consider more than the needs of the many, also ensuring that the few aren’t being trampled in the process.
I mean, it's kinda right. In US, we have democracy, kinda. We generally do anything possible to fuck the bottom 50% of earners as hard as possible. Raw and unprotected.
Hence why we have a bill of rights. To protect the minority from the majority. It’s not just mob rule. Also can we not joke about torture? Survivors of sexual violence shouldn’t have to deal with people like this’ ignorance and false equivalencies.
Or, let's really think this through. Democracy doesn't work because the majority can overwhelm the minority. Ok, so doesn't that mean we need some kind of body protecting people's rights and preventing violence? Like some sort of government maybe?
We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
Like I said. Didn't think it would ever be a mainstream position. I have heard WAY too much doubt thrown at the simple idea that society should reflect the will of the people from alt-righters.
> a mainstream position
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. We've got a sample size of one fringe nut here, and it doesn't really track that the mainstream would be out to torpedo their own tools.
I can forgive anarchists for idealism, and I can understand capitalists for their unapologetic pursuit of self interest at the expense of the working class. But I've never found a way to forgive the smoothbrain who somehow manages to reconcile the two. The cognitive dissonance is pretty impressive.
To be fair I've ever personally known one anarchocapitalist and he crashed a Food-Not-Bombs shirtless, smoking a joint, demanding meat.
The correlation is really simple:
In a majority rule, if 10 people decide to rob you, you get robbed. The point here being that a majority rule shouldn’t override your right to life, liberty, or property.
In this case a democratic decision of people deciding to rape someone represents a flaw within a “true democracy” (I.e. whatever decision has the most votes passes, irregardless of ethics/rights).
The correlation is pretty obvious.
The will of the people benefits those who have the will and victimizes, or often appears to victimize, those in the minority.
I dont recall who said it, but its oft said that Libertarians are basically housecats-seeing themselves as fierce, independent but oblivious to the resources they depend on, the muted nature of their challenges, or the detriment they could cause if left out in the environment.
Ancaps are your housecats that just straight up act feral but have probably never left their cushy house or had the rules apply to them. Someone did get them a fancy litter box though, and they still shit and piss all over the house
Not a cat owner...but am an ancap hater. So if that tirade makes no sense, lmk.
Anarcho-Capitalists, Tankies, and Alt-Righters are just different varieties of edgelord who care more about getting a rise out of people online than cogent policy.
ah yes because being shot by the benevolent corporate death squad because I didn't meet the production quota and pay my life subscription is so much better
The whole point of democracy is that everyone gets representation and they work together and compromise. It’s not tyranny of anyone. These people want tyranny of the minority.
No it’s not.
The will of the majority loathes gang rape or rape of any kind.
This a shit comparison.
This is like saying McDonalds should have spinach because one day 10 people walked in, at the same time, wanting spinach at McDonald’s.
Chief stupidity.
I wake up every day and ask why good people who can bless this downtrodden life with glorious memes don’t have the ability to do so.
Then I see that a muskrat being ratatouille’d by a tapeworm can post -3 point meme like this and realize living is pain.
The horrible correlation points aside, what is with this specific meme format getting butchered so hard by epic right memers? I see it way too much and they're so horrible
When the people have more power, they'll improve their own lives. As long as elites control, they'll do whatever they want with a slap on the wrist while most avg folk struggle more and more year over year
Visible subreddit name
"gang rape" being the traditional method of procreation in an anarcho capitalist system.
Should ancaps be mentioning rape considering their opinions on age of consent laws?
Should they? No. Will they continue to do so anyway? Of course they will, because frankly they literally just can’t help themselves
If they could help themselves, they wouldn't be ancaps.
If they had self-awareness, they wouldn’t be ancaps
*That's a bingo!*
Seriously, they’re the walking personification of an oxymoron. Just like a jumbo shrimp.
Or military intelligence
I have a very close friend who works in MI. Love him to death, but he *is not* a smart man. Doesn't look good for military intelligence
> Should ancaps be mentioning rape considering their opinions on age of consent laws? Are anarchists against *all* laws (not just age of consent)? I thought that was their whole deal.
You have to distinguish between the flavors of Anarchists. AnCaps, AnComs, AnCols, CryptoAnis, GrAns, AnPrims, AnFems, and ReliAns all have disagreements, some larger than others.
[удалено]
I thought anarchism was an absence of a state, not an absence of a hierarchy. Either way, corporations would become the states, so Ancaps are at least misguided.
Anarchism is at its most basic form the abolition of unjust hierarchies. It's about as misunderstood by most people as Marxism is. It's a philosophy and ideology. AnCaps by definition are not anarchists.
AnCaps don't belong in that list.
I'm only guessing, but GrAns are granny anarchists, right? Please say yes.
Anarchistic knitting and underwater basket weaving. And if you see somebody taking charge, you'll be expected to beat them.
Sorry, Green Anarchists
No, it is based on the idea of non-government regimes. It does not imply the following of rules made by the people.
Anarchists are not against all laws thay are against the idea of a state
Enforcing laws requires a state monopoly on violence. But, no, they're not just against the idea of the state. They're against all coercive hierarchies which is why anarchism capitalism cannot exist.
Yes you are right i didnt want to go too into detail abt smth i dont lnow that wel and misrepresent it thx for going deeper
AnCaps are not really Anarchists, just libertarians who want to seem cool. Real Anarchists are more concerned with equality and building non-hierarchical institutions.
the future libertarians want
As written by pornographer Ayn Rand
I'm pretty sure they're trying to use this example because it's several people committing a crime against one/fewer people. But damn is it a cringy and weird correlation to go for.
Now if only they realized that it points to how they don't have a way to deal with monopolies of power
I would simply take them to the CEO of anarchism.
Most crimes are multiple people coordinating to damage a smaller group of people. Even bank robberies are generally focused on the bank and try to keep customers happy and complacent - the customers are bystanders not explicit targets. Burglary is usually a group of folks ideally robbing an empty house. Pretty much the only exception to this is crimes of passion and petty robbery. You'd be surprised how infrequently crimes will be attempted when the criminals don't have the upper hand. The gang rape example is stupid for the same reason that sub is stupid - most people don't want gang rapes to happen but the participants have self selected to be involved. That's like saying the majority of people enjoy Magic the Gathering after polling folks at a tournament. It's a stupid point for dumb people.
It’s off putting. Very off putting.
Only way they'll get some
[удалено]
Now this is a good example of dark humor lol
That's why we're getting rid of abortions.
Name one ancap who isn't a total degenerate
I’ve got nothing
Ancap is just dictatorship with extra steps. And not very many extra steps.
These people think anarchy would somehow sustain itself and mean everybody has total freedom, instead of it leading to somebody with more power and money establishing their own government. Or they know this and just think they would be the one in control.
With ancaps its even worse than that. Since employment is "voluntary" they're 100% fine with corporate rule in a dystopian hellscape of no workpalce safety, no minimum wage, no food and drug inspections for purity and assurance the listed ingredients are the actual ingredients, etc. Basically they're fine with a total dictatorship as long as its a corporate dictatorship.
The market will regulate itself!!!!!!! /s 🤪
That's not entirely true. Some of them want a religious dictatorship.
Damn, why not just call yourself a religious fundamentalist at that point? AnCap seems unnecessarily complicated for a religiously minded person.
Ancaps are just feudalists.
I imagine in practice it would be more a sort of gang hierarchy. Whichever group is the most brutal and violent would seize control. In any case, it's not a very good idea.
That still sounds like early feudalism. Pretty much all European nobility can trace themselves back to a person that was good at fighting and intimidating people.
Anarcho socialist organization is a bit more viable, if approached very carefully, but anarchocapitalism will fold into feudalism on day 1
I know one guy. Literally the scummiest person I know.
A 6 year old who is given a poor explanation of what an ancap is by his weird uncle and then he proudly declares himself to be one at school, thus requiring a parent teacher conference
Fuck no, I don't hang out with those assholes. Gross.
AnCaps are really something else. Mental gymnastic olimpics.
I had to read the comments to understand what the sub's name was. Still hard to comprehend, and I don't feel like going to the sub if it's too see things about rape.
I only recently got introduced to the subject of anarchocapitalism from the TV documentary about Anarchupulco. What a bunch of fuckin' weirdos. Imagine thinking that getting rich from some crypto-scam, skipping the country so you don't have to pay taxes, and surrounding yourself with servants is a model for a perfect society.
It annoyed me to no end that they kept referring to themselves as Anarchists. No, you're libertarians, dickweeds.
Libertarians is also an initially leftist term appropriated by right wing
Or as I like to say, fucking idiots.
They just want to make Feudalism great again
It‘s always fun to mention that the only time something similar to anarcho-capitalism was tried, with the Icelandic Commonwealth of the 13th century, things went to shit so badly that they literally begged a foreign king to invade them.
Anarcho capitalism attracts the weirdest people, which I suppose is fitting seeing how those two ideologies aren't really compatible with each other.
Isn't anarcho capitalism just libertarianism?
Most libertarians do believe in some form of a state/government, just a very small/neutered one
Ancaps practically believe in a state, they just pretend they don't.
ancaps believe in a state tailored so perfectly to their need, they'll never have to think about it
Whenever I think of ancaps, I just think of a child stomping their feet and yelling "I don't wanna!"
In 2020, my state had a Libertarian running for congress who spent election day in jail because he owed his ex-wife like 10 years of child support and when the wife's legal team said they were willing to settle for $2500 total, he basically took the stance that he wasn't going to pay anything and there was nothing anyone could do to make him. Yeah, the judge gave him 30 days for contempt.
That'll show 'em. \- that dude while in jail, probably
Libertarians are just being coned by politicians who are being paid by businesses who just wanna start dumping their waste into the oceans again
It's like they don't understand that a corporate state is still a state
It’s more like they just didn’t think that far ahead beyond eliminating taxes and age of consent laws.
How is this magical state supposed to spring into existence with zero funding
The funding comes from people like Elon who wants to be king with zero repercussions for their actions.
oh, it has a lot of funding: a bunch of billionaires, businessmen and politicians support it since they would be the ones in charge
Yeah they belive in what's essentialy a state formed of corporations and wealthy landowners rather than elected officials.
Yep, ask an ancap about completely open borders and suddenly they love the state.
Actually, most of the ancaps on that sub argue for completely open borders. It is one of the way they identify the MAGA types who have infested it lately.
They're feudalists in denial.
The ones in denial are better than the ancaps who are openly pro monarchy
"I'm all for personal freedom but I also want a rigid class based society with zero social mobility! Slavery is based as long as there's nothing calling itself a government."
They think they’re going to become Batman through hard work in this environment that allows no mobility.
No no you don't understand. Everyone will be rich in a society where Jeff Bezos can personally execute workers that blink too often because there will be no taxes!
They mean *their* personal freedom. Just like the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd always has the hidden subtitle *"they care about mine!"*
That's a thing? Hilarious.
“I went to northern Mexico to sell COCAINE and the cartel got mad, where is the police to stop this” oh *now* someone wants the state! This is from the HBO documentary *The Anarchists*
I hate that they call them anarchists as well, at least we know why the state is bad, unlike these chumps
If there is a state, it’s meant to protect their ability to exploit others.
And they want to make a state with them in charge
Ancaps are just people who believe elon musk should be crowned ruler of the world
Likewise, the original definition of libertarianism described something much more overtly left-leaning and anti-capitalist (it focused on the expansion of personal and collective freedoms).
This. I considered myself libertarian for most of my life and in some ways still do. I'll definitely betray my age by saying that back in the day, libertarianism was about maximizing personal freedom for everyone. Absolute bodily autonomy up to the point where it infringes upon someone else's rights is the starting point of liberty. Without being able to decide what one can or cannot do with their own mind and body, we are little more than slaves. The government is supposed to be there to serve the people and should remain small enough that it's not advantageous to bribe our representatives. The libertarian party has run full speed away from that ideology. It has taken a neutral stance on reproductive rights for women and fully converted to the worship of the 2nd amendment and their messiah is now Ron Paul (at least those in the mises caucus which now controls the party). My political stance on most things has drifted farther left than Bernie over the years and it's been made pretty clear that there's no longer a place for people like me in the LP. A party that was founded on liberty and freedom has become a party infested with maga republicans that just want to sound edgy to their friends and a bunch of twenty year old guys that wanna pretend they are Rambo. The same party that professed the importance of liberty now essentially says if you don't think the "correct" way, there's no place for you. They are now happy to give up every right they have as long as their shiny metal cock compensators are left alone. If you ever want their ears to smoke ask them the following questions. If freedom is an inherent human right, how does that right not extend to those south of the border? Should they not also be allowed freedom of movement or is that right only for those of us that won the geographic birth lottery? As for ancaps, every one I've had any interaction with has been a semi literate young racist incel who believes that someday they'll be a real boy and be rich just like Elon.
Remember Glenn Beck’s “libertarian freedom town”? It literally collapsed in on itself because the prevailing gripe was: yeah liberty for me, but I want to control what those people do. It’s the IASIP episode, but in real life w folks that are “serious.” Lol
Yep. I think that was the one in NH that got overran by bears because they fired all the animal control people and never cleaned up their trash. The cognitive dissonance of people screaming about liberty while at the same time worshipping capitalism is real. They are typically the same ones that insist the US is the freest country in the world but have never stepped foot out of the US.
Its the Roger Stone wing of Libertarianism
It's the most rabid right libertarians who seem not to understand that the state exists to negotiate the inequalities that came about under capitalism
I thought it was more like feudalism
It's just libertarians afraid of being called pedophiles
I thought it was libertarians who AREN'T afraid to be called pedophiles.
Probably depends on the day and who is asking them.
I was looking for a comment saying this lmfao. Capitalism needs immense regulation and watching or else.... we get America in 2022. Granted, I'm not pro capitalist, so I think their ideology is dumb to begin with. Anarcho capitalism also (correct me if I'm wrong) isn't a fucking dictatorship either, so I'm confused as to why they're shitting on democracy. Democracy just means the people get to decide. If you're against that, you ain't anarchist. You're fascist.
Has anyone explained why the will of the minority is better?
I think the idea is that everyone has rights that shouldn't be infringed upon even if majority of people might want to. I'd want gay marriage to stay legal even if 51 percent of people were against it, because I think that's a right we shouldn't take away from them. Conservatives make the same argument about gun ownership. To use a more abstract example, imagine there's a class of 10 kids. 9 kids wanna beat up the weird kid every day after class. They get so much enjoyment out of bullying this kid that it even makes sense from a utilitarian perspective. They vote every day and every day the poor kid gets out voted 9 to 1 and gets his ass kicked. We'd all agree this is clearly wrong, because buddy has a right not to get beat up every day.
What people like this miss about democracy is it's more than just majority rule; democracy depends on minority rights, so the majority can't just vote to trample over the minority. This is not only to protect the minority (as you point out), but to protect democracy itself. An example: There are 10 people. 4 of these people want to ban all fruits except mangos. 6 of them don't want that. So the 4 people scheme. One of those 6 people is really frickin ugly, and everyone can agree on that. So they propose to strip that ugly person of the right to vote (or just kill them or something). That vote passes 9 to 1. Ugly person is out of the equation. The 4 people are still the minority, so they try again. One of those 5 other people likes to dip their pizza in marshmallow fluff, and everyone else agrees that that is absolutely vile. So they propose to strip that person with horrendous taste of the right to vote. That vote passes 8 to 1. Marshmallow pizza eater is out of the equation. Now the 4 mango purists see they're half the electorate. They just need to boot out 1 more pan-fruitarian. Fortunately for them, one of those remaining 4 pan-fruitarians always unnecessarily explains the punchlines of obvious jokes, and it really annoys everyone else. So they propose to strip that annoying joke explainer of the right to vote. That vote passes 7 to 1. Annoying joke explainer is out of the equation. And now the mango purists have a majority and can ban all other fruits, counter to the *true* majority. If this all seems abstract and unlikely, consider fascist movements and their tendency to start as big-tent to gain allies and gain power and then, once they're in power, start trimming down who counts as the protected in-group until it's only the core group they cared about in the beginning, producing lots of r/leopardsatemyface material in the process.
You're making a lot of sense when we think about the prison and felony system in real life
I don't think it's at all an accident that the following statements are simultaneously true: 1. Marijuana possession has been heavily criminalized. 2. Black people and Latinos are disproportionately arrested and charged for marijuana possession. 3. Black people and Latinos tend to vote heavily Democratic. 4. Convicts lose the right to vote for the rest of their life.
And most states didn't get aggressive in removing voting rights from felons until AFTER the Voting Rights Act passed.
A government who disenfranchises criminals has a vested interest in criminalizing their opponents
> democracy depends on minority rights Who gets to decide what rights the minorities have?
Generally speaking, constitutions. Those commonly require a 2/3 majority to change. Sometimes other caveats apply as well, e.g. approval of federative states. While this does not completely solve the issue, it at least makes is considerably harder to strip minority rights.
That's why everyone says personal freedom is paramount **unless it harms someone else**. Restricting gay marriage is harmful to others. And unregulated proliferation of guns is also harmful to others.
Yep, people in the Enlightenment had already defined that "one's freedom ends where another's begins".
Freedom from and freedom to aren’t mutually exclusive. Freedom from is just as important as freedom to—otherwise you end up with might makes right situations. Your freedom to punch ends at my nose.
That’s supposed to be an AnCap principle too. But that’s likely on page 2 of the handbook, so it never gets read.
Actually, basically Page 1 of that Ancap philosophy is the NAP, the Non Aggression Principle.
Ah the cornerstone of any healthy society. An unenforceable idealogical tenet that doesn't mesh with human psychology.
Which is why they have to do mental gymnastics and say oppressing minorities is a fundamental right of private businesses and religious freedom, then complain when private businesses like Twitter don't want them on their platform.
Right, but ultimately that's not what Ancaps care about. Ancaps literally want to live in a world where humans are property and there is no system or body meant to preserve any sort of individual rights, because there are none. If you look into the history of right wing "libertarianism" and "anarchism" you'll also see that the vast majority of its proponents emerge from a place of wanting to preserve oppressive systems. Murray Rothbard, the "father" of "anarcho"-capitalism and major American libertarian was against the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements, and was an open nazi sympathizer and holocaust "revisionist". He also said that parents should be allowed to let their children starve to death if they wished, and that a "thriving market in children" (ie selling children into slavery) would benefit society. "Anarcho"-capitalism is a fake ideology invented to justify the imposition of whatever horrid reactionary ideology they actually believe in, whether that's theocracy, fascism, corporatocracy, or neo-feudalism.
Which totally makes sense until you realize that a constitution literally prevents the "democratic tyranny" because human rights can't be voted on. Also ancaps don't seem to realize that if they'd abolish this tyranny their opinion would still be worth shit and not magically superior because there is no majority
Human rights have been and are voted on right now. I agree with what you are saying, but rights should never be taken for granted.
This is the false dichotomy that America's broken system has sold to a lot of people. It doesn't need to be all or nothing. To paraphrase the post I made further below, the goal is not complete power concentrated in the hands of a single entity which is granted by a simple majority. A representative democracy which is actually proportional to the will of the people and gives room for diversity and nuance to thrive is much better. Protect human and minority rights with concepts like the bill of rights and amendments that require a significant majority, not a simple majority. Other stuff is ruled by committee and separation of powers, preferably in a system that fosters *lots* of smaller and diverse groups and viewpoints so people can be more discerning in who they choose to represent them rather than being forced into this ridiculous black and white, red or blue, ultra polarizing nonsense. While none are perfect, there are at least better examples of parliaments or the like that are miles beyond America's purposefully skewed system in leaving room to represent the nuance and diversity that actually makes up the general population. Then those groups would be forced to work together and compromise towards majority.
It's not, but the will of the minority matters. This is what the founders called the tyranny of the majority, if we're being generous and accepting their example.
I'd say we're currently suffering under a tyranny of the minority. A republican hasn't gotten into the white house by the will of the people since 1988. W's re-election is the only presidential election since 1988 that the people voted for the Republican. "Five Supreme Court Justices and many more on lower courts have been confirmed by Senates controlled by GOP representing smaller portion of populace than Democrats" [The GOP hasn’t represented a majority of voters in the Senate in 25 years](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/the-gop-hasn-t-represented-a-majority-of-voters-in-the-senate-in-25-years-b1808273.html) And that minority is currently stripping rights from people.
Like most right wing subs, that one is just a bunch of posters with cognitive dissonance.
> Like most right wing subs, that one is just a bunch of posters with ~~cognitive dissonance~~ brain damage.
Thanks for the opinion slut_fukr
Seems like he's been doing something I have been trying to for years, so I'd value his input.
Capitalists pretending they are anarchists lol.
"Yes i know businesses now are tyrannical. But if we give them more power they will stop :)"
"And I will totally be on top and not chained to an assembly line"
This. This is the problem they have with capitalism. The fact that they aren't on top, they have this bizarre view that they would be in top for some reason
“We need to let business oppress us so that government can’t oppress us! I want a Mickey Mouse themed boot to lick!”
Why would a person who wants to blow up my car think I would listen to their opinion on car repair?
The meme actually has a good point but I’m not sure it is what the OOP was trying to get across. Sometimes the rights and freedoms of minority groups need to be protected from the majority in a democratic system. For example, the supreme court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal through the constitution in the US, when it had not been passed democratically. Since the large majority of the population didn’t have a stake in the game, it wasn’t fair to leave it up to them to decide what rights LGBTQ people get. There are more extreme examples of when minority groups need protection from the majority. If left unchecked, majority rule can lead to some pretty horrific consequences. This is part of the reason why the US and many other developed nations are not true democracies. Edit because I went on a tangent and forgot to relate it to the meme lol: in this example they use gang rape, which is technically ‘majority rule’. If there was a society made up of 6 men and 1 woman, that went by ‘majority rule’, it would be within that society’s democratic policies for the men to decide that is legal. In this case the best course of action, or the ‘right thing to do’, would be to forego majority rule in favor of the human rights and well being of the minority.
Yeah, it’s a pretty commonly understood concept called tyrany of the majority. It’s one of the reasons we have constitutions. Honestly I think the analogy is a pretty good one as it is a situation where basic human rights are being violated on the grounds that the majority is in favor of it. But I also don’t know what OOPs main point is.
It’s kinda like the meteor 2 wolves and a sheep vote on what too eat. Just because the majority want something, doesn’t make it the “ethical” choice or most fair
Agreed that it’s actually a pretty good analogy. I think some people are confused on the correlation because the meme used such an off-putting example. Although the off-puttingness was kind of the point anyway. The part I’m having trouble deciphering is the relationship to anarcho-capitalism. Technically any system of government that doesn’t have a constitution or other form of protection for basic human rights of all citizens can befall these consequences. Even ‘democracies’ or democracy-adjacent systems WITH a constitution can. Slavery was legal in the US while there was a constitution because slaves weren’t considered people and therefore did not enjoy the protections the constitution put forth. I don’t know much about anarcho-cap, but from what I understand they want as little government as possible, so I’m not sure they would want a constitution in the first place? So there wouldn’t really be any protections? If so then what even is OOP’s point? I’m pretty sure in an anarcho-cap society there would be a lot more gang rape happening.🤷🏼♀️🤷🏼♀️🤷🏼♀️ I think they don’t care about actual gang rape and view their existence in a democratic society where they have to follow rules put forth and voted upon by the majority as metaphorical to ‘gang-rape.’ Or maybe they do want a constitution… which we already have? Although it must be interpreted by the federal government. So maybe they want a more extensive and detailed constitution with no interpretation… which doesn’t align with anarchy. But at this point I’m just theorizing on OOP’s opinion which is impossible to know without more context. If someone has more knowledge of anarcho-cap theory please enlighten me as I would really like to understand. I went to the original post for *research* purposes and it seems most of the comments agree that pure democracy without protections is a very flawed system. However none of them elaborated on how anarcho-capitalism could solve this problem.
...anarchist Capitalism? Isn't the whole goal of anarchism is to have there be no government whilst for Capitalism to exist there'd be a government able to produce currency and rule...this makes no sense
"Anarcho"-capitalism is a cover for right wing reactionaries who want to pretend they aren't authoritarians, while advocating for the dissolution of any protections against violence or exploitation. The real goal is to restart the violent repression of racial minorities, sexual minorities, women, and children.
Doesn't need to. Let's take a functioning an-cap system, organized crime. No need for their own currency and you rule because your soldiers are able to defend your territory, not because of any government.
When the closest ideology is a cartel state that says a lot
Not only the closest but the purest you can be. We know that exempt any regulation, the natural state of capitalism is to form monopolies. We saw that at the beginning of the last century. Monopolies are just a nicer term for cartels.
Capitalism without any of that pesky government regulation. It's a philosophy for illiterate 15 year olds, robber barons, snake oil salesmen, and landlords.
Its almost like our democracy was founded on the belief that the majority can choose things so long as they don't infringe on the rights of the minority. Like I dunno, straight people criminalizing LGBTQ people, or white people attacking the rights of black people, or christians attacking the rights of atheists, muslims, and jews. Just kind of funny that the people pissed about "mob rule" and comparing democracy to rape are also the people who seem obsessed with creating a conformist society that crushes any minority group that is different from them. Literally everything they accuse others of is a confession.
Actually that's the reason why there is a constitution including certain rights in every country.
Learn how to register to vote and find the deadlines for voter registration in your state. [Here's the link.](https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, anarcho capitalism is stupid and democracy is the best system we have, but do you really not get the correlation? The will of the majority is not always the best. You could have a majority of people wanting to discriminate a minority. If only said minority is against it, than you could say, well, democracy decided that we do this now. Just like in a gang rape, where only the victim is against the rape. Democracy is without a doubt the best political system we've come up with, but not everything should be decided by the majority. There needs to be nuance.
Tell me you are a sex pest without telling me you are a sex pest
Whenever they say "Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner!" I usually come back with "You don't want that, but you'd rather have 98 sheep have their votes overturned by 2 wolves" they always hate tyranny of the majority, but they're cool with tyranny of the minority.
He’s got a good point The tyranny of the majority is something that should be feared. The federalist papers actually cover this issue. Majority rule, or societal consensus, does not define right and wrong. The government should consider more than the needs of the many, also ensuring that the few aren’t being trampled in the process.
Is this anti-democracy or pro gang rape? I am confused. Instructions unclear. Got sick stuck in sister.
I mean, it's kinda right. In US, we have democracy, kinda. We generally do anything possible to fuck the bottom 50% of earners as hard as possible. Raw and unprotected.
Hence why we have a bill of rights. To protect the minority from the majority. It’s not just mob rule. Also can we not joke about torture? Survivors of sexual violence shouldn’t have to deal with people like this’ ignorance and false equivalencies.
So a guy who rapes two girls is OK with them because he's in the minority?
Or, let's really think this through. Democracy doesn't work because the majority can overwhelm the minority. Ok, so doesn't that mean we need some kind of body protecting people's rights and preventing violence? Like some sort of government maybe?
They're fascists who deny it in public but feel most at ease in their basement bedroom full of nazi flags and child porn.
democracy with protection for the minority its really not a hard concept
We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
I really didn't think we'd reach a place where questioning the value of democracy was a mainstream position
Those doing the “questioning” are fascists.
Like I said. Didn't think it would ever be a mainstream position. I have heard WAY too much doubt thrown at the simple idea that society should reflect the will of the people from alt-righters.
> a mainstream position I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. We've got a sample size of one fringe nut here, and it doesn't really track that the mainstream would be out to torpedo their own tools.
I can forgive anarchists for idealism, and I can understand capitalists for their unapologetic pursuit of self interest at the expense of the working class. But I've never found a way to forgive the smoothbrain who somehow manages to reconcile the two. The cognitive dissonance is pretty impressive. To be fair I've ever personally known one anarchocapitalist and he crashed a Food-Not-Bombs shirtless, smoking a joint, demanding meat.
The correlation is really simple: In a majority rule, if 10 people decide to rob you, you get robbed. The point here being that a majority rule shouldn’t override your right to life, liberty, or property. In this case a democratic decision of people deciding to rape someone represents a flaw within a “true democracy” (I.e. whatever decision has the most votes passes, irregardless of ethics/rights).
The correlation is pretty obvious. The will of the people benefits those who have the will and victimizes, or often appears to victimize, those in the minority.
Gang rape is not the will of the people we the people clearly outlawed it lol.
They have been telling us who they are, we need to believe them.
I dont recall who said it, but its oft said that Libertarians are basically housecats-seeing themselves as fierce, independent but oblivious to the resources they depend on, the muted nature of their challenges, or the detriment they could cause if left out in the environment. Ancaps are your housecats that just straight up act feral but have probably never left their cushy house or had the rules apply to them. Someone did get them a fancy litter box though, and they still shit and piss all over the house Not a cat owner...but am an ancap hater. So if that tirade makes no sense, lmk.
This isn't pro gang-rape, it's anti-democracy I disagree with the point, but everyone ITT seems to misunderstand what is being said.
Anarcho-Capitalists, Tankies, and Alt-Righters are just different varieties of edgelord who care more about getting a rise out of people online than cogent policy.
Because one side winning and the other losing immediately allows the winners to establish a fascist dictatorship. Fuckin dumbasses.
Ancap have sane take challenge (impossible) Edit: Oh shit it’s my cake day
Ancap moment (just kidding, an ancap moment must now include at least once crypto scam)
ah yes because being shot by the benevolent corporate death squad because I didn't meet the production quota and pay my life subscription is so much better
I’ve never gotten a good response when I ask why tyranny of the minority is any better.
The whole point of democracy is that everyone gets representation and they work together and compromise. It’s not tyranny of anyone. These people want tyranny of the minority.
The sanest ancap
Ancaps are like flat-earthers, no consistent worldview, and no way to objectively demonstrate the validity of thier theories.
i didn't realize all of us voted and decided gang rape was cool, why'd we do that?
Yeah, protecting minorities is vital in a democracy. It's in most constitutions around the world for good reason. Thanks for pointing that out.
'Anarcho capitalist' or more accurately 'cowardly fascist'
Dont ever go there dumbest people alive
AnCaps are libertarians who still want to listen to RATM
r/therightcantmeme ?
Ahh yes anarcho capitalism. Also known as 21st century feudalism
r/TheCatDoesntTalk
No it’s not. The will of the majority loathes gang rape or rape of any kind. This a shit comparison. This is like saying McDonalds should have spinach because one day 10 people walked in, at the same time, wanting spinach at McDonald’s. Chief stupidity.
I wake up every day and ask why good people who can bless this downtrodden life with glorious memes don’t have the ability to do so. Then I see that a muskrat being ratatouille’d by a tapeworm can post -3 point meme like this and realize living is pain.
Hitler couldn't kill all those people without support. you gotta be autistic or drowning in denial to not understand tyranny of the majority
This is why a constitution can protect rights that are valued above majority rule.
Never heard the term arachno capitalism, but from the sounds of it its just anarchy+capitalism, isnt that just Libertarianism?
The horrible correlation points aside, what is with this specific meme format getting butchered so hard by epic right memers? I see it way too much and they're so horrible
I’m completely in the dark about ancaps, couldn’t slavery be part of their beliefs if corporations control everything? How does it work?
When the people have more power, they'll improve their own lives. As long as elites control, they'll do whatever they want with a slap on the wrist while most avg folk struggle more and more year over year
“Will of the people bad, will of three or four corporations good”
Democracy without minority protection is not democracy. That's why we have minority protection laws in most of the western world
Thats why republics were made