Here’s a closer look for those interested:
I really want to laugh at this but one of those freaks is leading an entire nation now, and a significant one as well
I am morbidly curious about how things will go in Argentina but looking back at the track record I can only assume the worst. Though, some people seem genuinely optimistic about their new future so we’ll see. I can’t say I’m surprised at his election considering the trend in the rising far right pretty much everywhere (okay, not everywhere but in Europe and NA mostly).
In the short term, there will be massive investment into Argentina. There will be a spike in gdp, imports and exports.
However, that may not translate better living conditions for the people, as foreign investment does not necessarily mean ownership of the means of production.
Subsequently, in the long term, we will see stagnant real wages for the working class, inflation, a rising wealth gap, and eventually divestment as wages rise high enough to not be competitive, but not high enough to purchase the foreign goods that have flooded the market.
This is because they don’t own the means of production. Any innovation is not going to stay in as theirs or will be out-competed. They won’t be able to access foreign markets because their labour force is pre-occupied serving their masters rather than develop their own means of production.
The cost of exploitation is opportunity cost.
Cool list now tell me what you guys think about an age of consent law
Some shitty book called “Against Politics”
I WONDER WHAT KIND OF POLITICS ARE ESPOUSED BY ANCAPS THAT CLAIM TO BE AGAINST POLITICS?
Important ancap study material
I don’t usually use forums or Reddit, I usually just post comments on Ancap blogs like Molyneux or Cantwell’s blog, but they didn’t seem appropriate places to post my story. So here goes, I just wanted to share this with all of you.
Nov 3 I flew to Europe for a Eurotrip type tour. Not a guide or packaged deal, just going around by myself. I paid for half of the trip with the wages I earned over the last two years, my dad paid for the other half. I am 19, I guess that is normal starting college and all. (Before that I worked for my dad’s company part time, so I guess you could say he paid for all of it, lol).
I did France and then Italy and then Greece next. I am an Ancap so I wanted to see anarchists in these places. Yes, I know they are different kinds of “anarchists” and not really full anarchists like us. I went to an anarchist book store in Italy and it had a lot of English books, but no Rothbard or Ancap. Like I said, I expected that, not a surprise.
I went to Greece, which everyone knows is famous for its revolutionary anarchism, its economic crisis and everything going on right now. Here I found directions for a local anarchist center. I went and didn’t see anybody, but it was covered in graffiti, mostly in Greek so I couldn’t read it. Whatever, I started taking pictures. Then some people came out and confronted me.
This should have been my first warning sign something was not right, because photography is not a crime. They were not violent, but they were not friendly, like asking who I was, what I wanted. They all spoke good English actually. Not uncommon in Greece. I said I was a tourist and an anarchist and I just wanted to take pictures. Then they got friendly and told me I should have asked first (but pictures are no NAP violation so I don’t know why, but I didn’t say anything) and they invited me inside.
We hung out for a while and smoked hash (there is no good dank in Europe as you might find out like in Cali, everyone smokes hash with tobacco which isn’t as cool as it sounds). We started talking about politics and anarchism. I was trying to talk about the state, they were like yeah no doubt the state was bad. But they wanted to talk about capitalism, capitalism this and that. This is when we started to get into a debate.
I told them that what they called capitalism is different from the free market. They said capitalism is free markets. And I said I agreed. That is what I am saying. Real capitalism is free markets. And they said yes, that is what we are trying to get rid of. And I said no, but we don’t even have that right now. We need more free markets. And everyone at the same time was like “nooo” we are anarchists, we are against capitalism. Anarchists oppose capitalism.
And I said but not anarcho-capitalists. Anarcho-capitalists are the anarchists who support capitalism. I had a fanny pack (yeah, lame I know) for my camera and in that I had this yellow and black bowtie (also super lame, it was a joke but I wasnt wearing it). And I said look, these are the Ancap colors, yellow and black, like versus the communist red and black. Well, these guys had a lot of red and black in the building already so I thought they would get it.
I think that is when it started to get a really bad vibe, really tense in the air. The free market thing was funny, we disagreed but I think they thought I was just confused. Everyone was uncomfortable now. Then someone said markets wont work with democracy. And I said exactly, that’s it, democracy is against anarchism. And they kind of agreed, and said yes, we don’t have real democracy, just governments, and we needed more democracy. I said no, we need less democracy, democracy is the enemy. And we need to end democracy to have anarchy. Then they were all like “noooo” again. You know that thing people do in groups when everyone all says “nooo” or expresses some disapproval at the same time.
And one of them said “but we do want to stop democracy” and then they kind of spoke back and forth in Greek. I didn’t really understand it. And they asked me what I meant.
So I said okay, I had the floor, I was going to tell them about ancapism. And I tried to explain to them some Rothbard and Hoppe. I said the natural order in anarchy is that the best rise to the top, the market picks who is the best. They compete and are peaceful. They said what do we want instead of anarchy. I said we want private owners to own their own land and businesses, and to employ people. They said that is what we have now. I said no, it would be even better. One of the guys said it was like feudalism. And I said it is not feudalism.
Eventually one of the guys spoke up and I thought he was Greek, but he spoke English perfectly so he may have not been. He said he knew what anarcho-capitalism was and that we were basically fascists. He asked me if I thought everything should be private. And I said yes. And he asked me if I thought people were unequal. And I told him yes. And that not everyone would have equal rights. I said everyone has the right to own property and not be done aggression against. But that not everyone had to be treated equally by the owners. He said what about immigrants and racism. And I said that would not happen in a free market, but yes property owners could be racist if they wanted to. They had to respect property.
Then he called me a fascist again, and someone else said I was a fascist. And then they basically all started shouting fascist at me, and one of them grabbed me by the wrists. They pulled me out the door, it was up three floors, and basically drug me down the stairs on my back. It hurt really bad and I remember yelling “you’re breaking the NAP” and things like that. “Stop initiating force against me.” Then they kicked me around on the ground in the hallway, before they took my camera and threw me outside. I was crying and stuff, I just sat there. I was in shock because it was so sudden. Looking back there were warning signs though.
I think they felt bad for me and gave the camera back, but when I looked later they stole the memory card with all of my Greek photos.
So they initiated force and theft. They broke the NAP. I knew the left anarchists were not real anarchists, but I never knew they would do something that bad.
I wasnt seriously hurt, just kicked around a little, lots of bruises and little cuts. I am fine guys so don’t worry. Just needed to share.
I said the natural order in anarchy is that the best rise to the top, the market picks who is the best. They compete and are peaceful.
CITATIONS FUCKING NEEDED
Warlords, he mean warlords.
But they compete and are peaceful.
spoiler
By that they mean they form cartels and royal courts that are relatively stagnantly stable because of shared class interest, that instead send disposable poors to fight and die for profit and amusement.
Yeah, warlords, somehow happens every time in anarchy.
“Don’t tell me what to doooooooo” are strong words until someone has some armed henchmen.
Fascinating stuff. really paints a picture of how much these people live in a fantasy. This person honestly seemed to think they could convince a group of Greek anarchists to abandon anarchism with some rousing, John Galt-esque speech.
The bit with the NAP is especially funny, they don’t believe in police, but do believe shouting the magic words will stop people being from ever being violent or exploitative. It’s like the most hardcore liberalism imaginable, where just believing in something loudly enough makes it true.
At first I thought this was your backstory so I opened my heart and tried to tamper down any frustrations I’d have. But reading further I became confused at the weirdly dismissive and almost slightly aggressive language describing the Greek anarchists, by the time I was nearing the end I was even more confused as I sensed no real form of character development and had lost all idea of where this could possibly go. Then I got to the end where you linked the original Reddit post and that’s when I had my “no yeah, that tracks” moment.
In conclusion, those Greeks sound cool and they were correct. Mf was/is a fascist, he literally believes people are unequal and would have unequal rights and thats just peachy to him. Embarrassing. The Greeks went easy on him.
Helicopter Pilot’s Handbook
How compelling, now into the
Mises theories have been proven wrong in practice over and over again. See the people’s republic of Walmart for a summary
What no dialectics does to mfers
slaps roof this curriculum can fit so many crackers in it
deleted by creator
I’d love to see a chart like this for commie theory tbh. Maybe one where you can actually read all the authors’ names lol
interchangeable books
Yeah, interchangeable with banging your head with a rock
I wonder how many of them bootstrapped themselves into learning to read instead of getting one of those damn commie public educations? 🤔
I’m convinced ancaps are a symptom of class struggle mixed with capitalist propaganda.
They know that their class is being oppressed, but propaganda has got them convinced the solution is more capitalism.
That’s an accurate way to thinking about it.
It’s perceived that their intersection comes with privileges that’s natural and not resulting from the white supremacist state. They instead perceive the state to impede their privileges.
But that in itself is propaganda used to justify imperialism and expansion.
If we lived in ancapistan then I’d be the rich powerful one, some how. I am very intelligent
All ancaps basically do the opposite of John Rawls thought experiment in their heads. How would you design society knowing you’d be well off in it
das kapital and the prince at the bottom as if they’ve read either
In that section the upper row are the big scary books that ancaps are afraid to read, and right below them are the books they think are refutations for those specific books, for example for the “Capital” the so called refutations are “Socialism” by Mises and article by Hoppe (literally 12 pages article and marxism destroyed!), for Keynes main book there is Mises again, and hey, they even refute some ordinary textbook looking “Economics” by Hoppe again (this time entire 93 pages, big font). Lmao they even refute a book by Hayek there insert two austrian cult spidermen meme.
I bet i’d be able to find at least half of the reccomended books aboves authors advocating for removal of age of consent laws
https://www.lewrockwell.com/1990/05/lew-rockwell/in-defense-of-child-labor/
lmao the first fucking one, author of ‘Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto’
I quickly reached the expected total amount of -zero- surprise just now.
😂
Those are under the category “refutations”
as if ‘the prince’ doesnt just exactly describe there own ideology lol
I haven’t read it, but from what I’ve seen, “the prince” is just a description of the state, but in history up to the 17th century.
It seems to be a refutation to anarchism in that it documents the necessity of a state to exercise state power to capture, create, and maintain a society.
AFAIK, it doesn’t address capitalism.
what I’ve seen, “the prince” is just a description of the state, but in history up to the 17th century.
Mostly accrute. It was written in the late Renaissance do its the start of the 16th century, early 1500s. But it does mostly describe the state as it is/was. The best scholarship on the book is that Machiavelli wrote it as essentially a job application, and may have been trying to enter the court of the Medici Pope.
There is also some compelling scholarship that book was written out of PTSD from his imprisonment and torture by the Medici govenmrnt in Florence.
Machiavelli was actually a civil servant during the time of the Florentine Republic. The Republic ruled the city at the time when the Medici had been forced out. Later, backed by their French allies (Sister was married to King of France), the Medici defeated the Republic and retook control.
Some time after, a plot was uncovered to overthrow the Medici and a note of conspirators names was found. Machiavellis name was on it and he was arrested and tortured repeatedly. He was to be excecuted, but some kind of saints feat day where prisoners are spared occured and he was released, but under house arrest gor the rest of his life.
This was when he started righting. His primary interest was in politics. He studied politics in a uniquely Renaissance way. Where Dante and Petrach brought back the style and imagery of the Classical Period, Machiavelli was interested in a return of Republican governments and democracy. While the Prince is the most remembered work, he wrote a far more substantial book on the Riman Republic and Classical Democracy called Discourses on Livy which is often overlooked in how influential it was on Elightenment thinkers (Book iv of The Social Contract is basically taken from Discourses).
As for the Prince, the “job application” and PTSD ideas work hand in hand. His idea was to write a book that would describe the actions of States and State actors as they actually are, as opposed to books about how to be a good Christain Prince, which was the prevailing style of the time, despite obviously not being hiw states acted. The idea is that rationally Machiavelli believed this could impress someone to hire him and get him out of house arrest (most likely believed to be the Pope at the time - based on a letter to his friend Vettorio). It is theorized that beneath the surface composing the Prince was a reaction to his torture. It was a way to show that he could understand and overcome the cruelty of his torturers, by understanding their minds and showing in the book the unvarnished way in which they think and act.
I studied Machiavelli and his works quite a bit, so i hate seeing him reduced to the concept of “Machiavellinusm.” I hate that in the contemporary times he’s only really read are talked about by edgelords who think they’d be the Prince in ancapistan. His political thought is actually extremely interesting, especially in the context of the Renaissance and his influence in the Enlightenment is over ignored.
He was also a good playwrite. He wrote well recieved Italian sex comedies which had thoughtful politic subtext
‘the prince’ is attributed to coining one of the three dark triads, machelvallian; when it was written it was considered so absurd people wherent sure if it was a parody or not; it wasnt.
Its essentially what happens when a sociopath colonizer tries to justify themselves, its worth a read.
How is The Prince a refutation of “statism” lol
Ancaps are extremely dumb
The Prince is supposedly the work being refuted by The Politics of Obedience, not the refutation itself. Same with Mises being a refutation of Marx.
Ahhh, that makes more sense but still leaves me wondering why does The Prince need a refutation? The book’s thesis is how to maintain your monarch status. Are there actually monarchist debate perverts out there trying to take on ancaps citing The Prince?
if you look at the broader mass of libertarians, tons of them have really sus monarchist cravings. In Poland there is even offcial libertarian-monarchist-neonazi party in parliament.
What is the name of that Party? So I can read about their stupidity.
Konfederacja Wolność i Niepodległość (Confederation Liberty and Independence - in the true post 1989 Polish spirit of outrageously incorrect party names)
