thing is ... right has nothing to do with anything about ethnicity... its merely an economical scale

basically what they are... if they are capitalist ... they are auth-right...

the broader political scale takes into consiteration more than economics, whether or not it should is a matter of debate but anyone who has taken a political compass test can assert that more than economical questions are asked

yes, thats for auth and libertarian scales too

which is the social scale

watch the political compass' intro video... it actually explains it all there

most of the time alt righters tend to simply consiter themselves conservitives who arnt neo-cons

the only thing I would say polComp got wrong in my opinion.. is when it said "100% left" means the government would control all services etc .. when really that would be "100% auth, 100% left" .. whereas you could have 100% lib, 100% left where there may not be a government

but although we've had many instances of 100% auth left and right civilisations which went badly... Im not sure there are any examples of "100% lib left or right"

ancaps or ancons?

there wouldn't be because then it wouldn't be a civilization

we havent had many anarchys

it could still be a civ

can't have a civilization without borders really, because how would you define where it starts and ends?

you'd also need to define a scale

inb4 gypsies, thats a stretch of the definition of nation

I suppose the native americans could be seen as 100% lib

native americans had territorys

but, they had their own tribes, a form of government

how big or small can something be

you could have a household or town that is 100% lib, does it count?

the idea that native americans didint beleive in the ownership of land is a myth in many cases and in others its because they had just recently gone through a territorial war

how could they not believe in ownership of land and want their land back?

what the native americas had more issue with was changing the land from what it was into something that it wasent and messing with the ecology they had grown dependent on

like with the railroad or overhunting

perhaps even building settlements seemed strange to them, but they KNEW who's land was the land of different tribes

thats why you found markers made by them

maybe in 30 years muslims will let you have your own bit of land with a casino

even then some historical native americans did create settlements like the ancient missisipians

and everyone south of tex were very much into that land ownership thing like aztecs, maya, and incas

most ancoms that seem reasonible dont think anarchy can be established until we are post scarcity

lol.. perfect "the office" material, that look from kim jong.. https://twitter.com/jonnyshire/status/1006455192315887617?s=20

and ancaps are just insane and want to think they can balance property ownership with human nature and get a result where those who own the most dont eventually own everything and extert authority over everyone

people who dont like government tend to forget whom government is ment to respresent and who will have the least representation when government is absent

most problems of government is when they no longer represent those whom it is ment to represent

or the people whom it represents go insane

(looking at you sweden)

and again... every few hours with this same sh*t.. https://twitter.com/newscientist/status/1006547334308749312?s=20

i wonder if too many people are responding, pointing out their crap

@Arch-Fiend the problem is ancaps is this believe that somehow a persons property is defined only by them. Then trying to come up with a complex set of rules around that. When in reality what is your property is only what you can get other people to agree to is your property. And this is how government, or at least one of a few core reasons, came about.

you need borders, not only to define the state, but because we are neurologically set up to interact with them