Alright, thanks man.

?ranks

?rank Right

?rank non-nationalist

?rank christian

?rank North American

@Honey Beanger hate to bother you, but what is the fedora tipper role for?

yeah, but does it have political affiliation or is it just cosmetic?

ah, makes sense.

no lib-right rank reeeee

You’ve got an authoritarian rank, but no libertarian role to counter it.

ew no

left bad

Anarcho-capitalist.

Most of us are Christian, actually.

In what way?

on second thought, if you’d like to discuss this we should probably pick a different channel.

Christians shouldn’t advocate the initiation of violence.

For starters, what exactly do you think an ancap is?

The base tenant of anarcho-capitalism is natural law.

Primarily, the right to self-ownership.

Sort of.

Natural law is an easily misunderstood and difficult to explain way to phrase it.

Basically, I think that initiating violence against another person is inherently illegitimate.

What’s so wrong with that? I don’t think it’s okay to initiate force against other individuals.

like i said, “natural law” is a bad term to start with.

it’s too open to interpretation.

I don’t deny that people have used force in the past, I just think that it’s not acceptable to use violence against others unprovoked.

natural law is the term we generally use, how would you define it?

Howdy fella

We should probably move to <#508381442942959616>, so we don’t clog up the main chat for other folks.

The fact that people have done things I disagree with in the past doesn’t make my current opinions invalid.

@Bearer Of The Curse the simplest way we explain natural law is that everyone has the right to own themselves

pacifist?

i want a recreational mcnuke

anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-pacifism are different.

My foundational idea is that all people have the right to control themselves and their property.

Because I find it unreasonable to use violence to control other individuals.

It’s quite simple.

Certainly not.

You can have indirect control without initiating force.

yeah, sure.

what happens if you refuse to get a job?

if nobody takes care of you, ya die.

ladies, please, one at a time.

You’re in a serious discussion chat, and you aren’t part of the discussion.

If someone threatens me with violence, I will use equal or greater force to respond.

the difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-pacifism is that ancaps allow for the defense of yourself and others.

eeech i don’t *really* believe in it so much as most others, but the non-aggression principle is a pretty good base for ancap philosophy.

Essentially anarcho-capitalism is against the initiation of violence, but isn’t against retaliation.

I’m mostly an ancap because it’s the natural conclusion of the “don’t start shit” attitude, if you’ll pardon my French.

I was gonna bring that up.

The early USA was minarchist, which is basically one step above ancaps.

@Krille P. explain a direct threat to me or my way of life that doesn’t involve violence?

So what you’re saying is, the biggest threat to anarcho-capitalist society is people deciding not to be anarcho-capitalist?

What makes you think that?

also one at a time, let’s be respectful of each other’s discussion and make sure everything is addressed.

i don’t know who you’ve been talking to, but i just advocate non-aggression.

if you’d like to object to something i actually believe in, be my guest.

oh no

it’s retarded

get better ideas libtard

Wars are massively expensive, and you’re assuming they’ve got enough soldiers willing to fight and die for someone else’s personal gain.

I find it unlikely that it would be profitable for anyone to put that much of a target on their back.

In general, those who violate the rights of others forfeit their own.

Because the genetically modified children agree to this, and forfeit their rights by initiating violence sure.

although, that brings in statutory discussion and such.

Assuming this protection company is the only organized group in the entire area, individuals have the right to defend themselves from that type of action.

Sure it is, why wouldn’t it be?

if someone is stealing from you, you stop em’.

would you not shoot a home invader?

Congratulations, you’ve figured out how gangs work.

Do you want a medal?

Where do the protection companies get their funding?

What makes that money valuable?

First of all, it’d be very difficult to find willing ‘soldiers’ to carry out violence against innocents.

But what prevents this situation from happening under a state?

By contractually obliged I’m sure you mean that they’ll be fired if they don’t, right?

that’s not how it works

Paying an employee is a voluntary transaction, something that cannot be undone.

You can choose not to make future payments, but that doesn’t undo past ones.

if i choose to stop working for the company, but steal my equipment on the way out, how am i any better than them?

like i said, statuary arguments come in at that point.

i just don’t think it’s okay to use violence to enforce my ideas on others, how is that an incompatible idea?

not exactly but basically

the coca plant was an ingredient, and that’s also the main ingredient in cocaine.

individualism isn’t my ideal, i just don’t advocate unprovoked violence.

that *is* anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is the idea that the initiation of violence is inherently illegitimate.

I’m not a NAP ancap, but yeah that’s a pretty rough description of how it works.

states exist through the use of violence.

i’m plenty real, why are you so violent?

i just want the liberty to defend myself against violence, that’s all.

i quite like Orwell, but not all government is like that.

because the state uses violence

Ancom is an oxymoron.

in what way?

well actually good point

but it’s closer