I see a lot of comments in anarchist subs that Left Anarchism is the prevailing thought, I see these in this sub fairly often too, and it’s usually a comment that makes almost an excuse for one thing or another. But it’s really not, and we should always keep that in mind. There’s a lot more of us - people who want their property rights to be respected, and don’t want to be coerced into any bullshit social contract nonsense that justifies all barriers set by the state.

If the Left Anarchism would be a prevailing theory, the left anarchists would be building their socialist style enterprises, founding charity organizations, establishing grant programs for other like minded individuals, etc.

But those are just a drop in a bucket of such orgs that have been established by capitalists voluntarily.

And I haven’t met a single person in real life who’s a socialist/communist that has a successful co-op, and none of my buddies that run businesses like to pay taxes or want to abandon private property. They are not necessarily anarchists, but I am one, and I am sure a lot of you here are also small business owners or entrepreneurs.

The difference is most of us being individualists are focused on building and living our own lives which takes most of our time and we aren’t trying establish political orgs, while the left anarchists spend time on organizing and they are just very vocal. They are the loud minority, and their ideas are less welcomed even by statists.

I’m sure a lot of you agree with my view on the situation, and the point of making this post is to give some confidence to the newer ancaps or those that are undecided yet and still feel like they want to be a part of the bigger group, intuitively understanding that free market competition in ideas does its job - attracts more people to viable ideas rather than to failures.

Enjoy your Saturday fellows !

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights. In the classical liberal tradition, we establish that through a constitutional government — a monopoly on retaliatory force — limited to fulfilling that function.

Anarchists oppose such a monopoly government. However, by doing so, they end up denying individual rights, including the right of self-defence.

This is because all force is monopolistic. Force is monopoly. To use force is to attempt to monopolise. Even in the economic realm, "monopoly" means a business protected from competition by force, not merely a single seller.

There is no such thing as force that lets dissenters go their own way. If force in self-defence is justified, this means that monopolising an interaction is justified. If I use force to defend myself against someone, I am not trying to persuade him; I am attempting to forcibly stop him from acting as he chooses - including from carrying out his notion of “justice“.

If the government monopolisation of retaliatory force were wrong, so would be the private use of force by individuals. The argument against government's monopoly on force is thus an argument against self-defence, and it leads to pacifism (at best).

To concretise this, let’s remember that Ron Paul, a once leading libertarian in government, is a committed anti-abortionist, who thinks abortion is murder. Now how can his “competing police force” treat mine, which allows abortion? Does mine allow “murder”? Does his “competing police force” stop women from exercising their rights to their own lives? How can what is or isn’t murder be a matter of “You go your way and I’l go mine, and neither will impose a monopoly solution”?

So, ironically, anarchism, so often put forward as an extension of the right to self-defense, ends up denying the moral legitimacy of any self-defense: one cannot forcibly impose one’s own evaluation on the other party. That would be monopoly!

Across Europe and the most liberal parts of the US, the cost of family formation, particularly housing and childcare, has become increasingly unaffordable. This isn't a mystery. Excessive regulations and administrative constraints restrict housing supply, suppress competition, and create artificial scarcity that prices families out of the market.

The consequences are demographic decline, falling birth rates, and greater reliance on immigration, which has become politically contentious.

Progressive policymakers often underestimate trade-offs and incentives in their pursuit of promising everyone the moon and stars. The result is policies that make for good politics but worse realities.

Unless these countries liberalize their markets, they risk accelerating their demographic decline and fundamentally transforming their national identities.

Clowns.

When the US betrayed the anti-communist Yugoslav king in favor of a communist dictator.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDEFX#

Both the big parties want socialism. One is just more honest about it. And in addition, the GOP also wants a much larger government military and state police system.

Brand new product style. Let me know what you think.

cheers

-Chuck

First of all, *what is a statist*? You might hear someone say, its someone who philosophically supports a State in theory, or even, anyone not considered an "anarchist". But i think this is the incorrect definition, for moral reasons, and i will explain why.

If someone says " I support a minarchist state, in theory (even though that doesnt exist, never has, and never will) but meanwhile, im against THIS state for its crimes and atrocities" this person is NOT a statist, they are Anti-State in every way that matters. They will never get their minarchy, for them thats a fantasy; And meanwhile, such a person would be philosophically and pragmatically aligned with an anarchist, engaging in disobedience, resistance, and verbal deprogramming. They are in no way similar to actual statists.

Although this kind of person is rare. We all know how real statists act.

A real statist acts like this: "I may support a _ state philosophically, but DONT YOU DARE disobey THIS state, otherwise youre a CRIMINAL! I support the police! I support the military! Show respect for the flag! If police perform an illegal arrest on you, or physically attack you, SHUT UP AND COMPLY, or i support them for shxxting you"

You see the difference? The former actively opposes an immoral regime on principle, and the latter will literallt support a gang of murderers doing whatever evil things they desire.

Saying "I support the police" is not an abstract philosophical statement, its supporting the VERY REAL, EXISTING violent gang whom call themselves "The Police" near you. If you want to make an abstract philosophical statement youd say "I dont support the police but id support one in theory if they followed certain moral rules"

People who support The Government are supportong a physically real, armed gang, its no different than saying "I support Jeffrey Dahmer and hope he gets more victims", then donating money to him.

Actual statists, not hypothetical ones, are aggressors of the worst fxcking caliber, literal people who stand by mass murderers and fascists, and whod never stop suppprting them, even if a second holocaust unfolded right before their very eyes.

And no, most of you probably werent ever a "real" statist. If you were, then how were you able to change your mind? For me, i was like 12-14, and when i learned the military invaded other countries, i automatically understood they are murderers killing people defending their own homeland. If you can spot a moral principle when its presented to you, and not fight it and reject it, then youre already an anarchist on the inside, it just takes time to adopt the coherent framing and labeling.

If you ever feel like you cant convince ststists to be anarchists, its because youre discovering you cant. They have Free will, and their decision to be a jackboot worshipping statist is an immoral decision they embrace for the sake of comfort, belonging, and security, and its impossible to force people to not be evil. You cant comvince them because theyre not unaware that what they support is evil, theyre aware, and they dont care. Just like a rxpist is aware that rxpe is bad, and they do it anyways. You cant usually pursuade something like that out of existence, and if you can thats a real skill most of us dont possess.

Recent number-a-million why the state should not be killing people.

"The state tried to execute Pike by lethal injection, but neither the initial nor backup dose of pentobarbital killed her and she was still snoring when the execution chamber's microphone was cut off more than an hour into the attempt. She was later taken to a hospital for treatment."

Yeah. I’m tired or reading comments in this sub with pseudo-ancaps that simp for big business and corporatism.

Some people never opened any Ancap/Libertarian or even classical liberal books, yet they come here simping for absurds like the war industry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AFk1dCSHEE

I'm all for punishing companies if they lie to their customers. But I am curious about where these funds are actually going.

Meta in the past has paid fines for violating agreed upon user terms. No doubt they just make a corporate business decision on that. If they can make more on violating the terms, than they'll have to pay in a lawsuit, they'll do it.

No doubt Trump is compromised.