Ancaps are corporate feudalists who want a cool sounding name.
Flippanarchy
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
As if corporate feudalism wasn't cool enough. Sounds cyberpunk as hell
Of course you have no right, he makes a big point about talking about the difference between slavery of the protected (which would be met with aggressive response from the private security they pay for) and slavery of the unprotected (aka poor, and thus are not paying private security to not be enslaved) which is apparently acceptable.
Ah, but is he currently paying for said expensive private security?
If they reply, I imagine it will be some hog wash about the NAP (non-aggression principle). Which in short is a honor code they expect everyone to abide (currently not possible because government). It is a rather odd claim for the ancaps I think. They are saying something about solidarity and no one will want to work with an abuser/slaver. They will also deny that Ayn Rand's objectivism is distinct from their ideas, but interrogating them shows its not. So they have an appeal to solidarity, but the selling points of their ideology are selfish motivations. Historically that means there will be plenty who find their selfish interests are to side with an abuser/slaver/colonizer. Id compare them to a religious fundamentalist that just found some contradictions in the bible and is working on the apologetic.
That last paragraph was a wild read
For real. Sometimes its hard to tell if its a 4chan type being edge, but the whole things is a bit too candid to be a troll.
Sweet mother of fuck just blatantly desiring/justifying slavery is..wild.
“I dream of a world where I can enslave the poors with no consequence” essentially.
Oh, so you would prefer abolitionists running arouns being mean to you?
Well I guess we now know what kind of idiot starts their manifesto with abandoning any form of morality
Nothing is wrong with capitalism; but the current crony capitalism doesn't provide enough opportunities to be the boot
ancaps in a nutshell
I'm not gonna read whatever weird BS that came from, but I do think its entirely possible to have a coherent and attractive worldview without morality. If you want to make any sense to normal people, you have to replace it with a belief system that emphasizes community service and the common good. In the end, if it works, it winds up looking just like morality with objective foundations.
community service
Like... Like they make you do when you did a misdemeanor?
common good
Filthy commie!
I feel likeeither we're not working with the same people, or youre working with entirely hypothetical people.
Community service as punishment is meant to link you back to your community. Where you live. Where you presumably shat. Go clean that up. We live here.
The common good includes oneself. The tragedy of the commons is only possible when its "somebody else's problem". When that's "my park", you clean up the shit.
Yes, people are problematic and largely prone to shitting in the park. They have to be taught. It's not easy.
I find, when you deny people bathrooms, they shit in the street. Or park.
When you don't do that, they're a lot more civic minded about things.
Yes, everything youre saying is rational and i see no faults.
But that's the problem. It's rational. Have you ever met a people? They're largely petty bundles of excuses and tribal loyalty buffeted by winds of propaganda enforced myopia and delusional coping mechanisms. Rational self interest isn't a huge factor in how most people live or behave. It is, in fact, vanishingly fucking rare.
I know. I used to shit in the park. Nice to meet you, friend.
Don't shit in the park when there's a perfectly good wal-mart around.
Hey, there's a place for a bit of anarchy in any society. Grease the wheels of change.
I'm discussing shitting in the park with the perilous out-house ~~guy~~ (lol. person.). Lemmy moment.
Not a guy, and outhouse perilous is a philosophical concept.
buncha moral philosophers nobody’s read said stuff about moral philosophy
:]
Never heard of it. My name has a meaning too. Won't bother to explain.
Okay it's a concept i nade uo, but it's about everything being kinda shit.
but morality is a fundamental part of getting along with others, it's necessitated by the fact that you don't want to be stabbed in the gut, thus gut-stabbing is bad.
if someone doesn't agree that gut-stabbing is reprehensible, then you know they might stab you in the gut, thus you have a very big incentive to tell them to eat shit and stay the fuck away from you.
But that's not morality, that's self-preservation. It's morality if you don't do it because it affects others in a negative way, it's self-preservation if you don't do it because you don't want negative consequences for yourself.
I guess we can only truly measure morality where there are no consequences for one's actions. That's why it usually goes out the window for rich people.
I don't think this is real or helpful towards understanding the world. The measure of morality is the shape of your life after you practice it. Your impact on others. Morals are about things that matter. You've come quite near to postulating that they don't matter. I cannot support this view.
Even old fashioned anarcho-monarchists are closer to anarchists than ephebophiles. (Please use the correct name for their ideologies)
“Whenever anarcho-capitalism is mentioned to me in conversation, it’s usually followed by repealing the age of consent.”
- SsethTzeentach
Capitalist libertarians still want a (mimimal) state, so they can call the cops to protect them and their underage wife
Well, harem. Their underage harem.
They want only the violence the state has to offer.
I fuckkng despise how ancaps have completely coopted the term "libertarian" in the US, to the point where they are synonymous to most.
Nowadays every time someone says they're a libertarian, I ask them about Mexican immigration. You're not a True Scotsman if you aren't even from Scotland.
There is the kind of old fashioned version whos wrong and crazy but not too much of a bigot and fun as hell if you can put up with how creepy they are.
Most who identify as ephebophiles these days aren't that guy, though.
I don't think true libertarians have good ideas, but its also not unusual that the libertarian party is largely for republicans that are brand aware as they say.