i generally agree with all of that, although i have concerns about decentralizing the US govt too much

I find arguments like this equivalent to "You're already a feminist, you just dont know it yet". When you're talking about voluntarism and ancaps, you arent talking about people who want there to be no rules between people, you're talking about people who want every level of that to be voluntary interaction between parties, with the threat of force acting as a deterrent for breaking the NAP. If you want to call that low-form government that's fine, but it doesnt break the concept of Ancapistan. You're just shifting the goalposts away. Ultimately the lake is still controlled through land ownership and concensus between land owners. There isnt a third party that demands the lake be used in a different manner, despite not living on or near the lake, and not actually being in ownership of it. Further, the "most powerful property owner" argument isnt really absolute. If you own 2 guns and everyone else owns 1, you're not going to take over the country all of a sudden, despite being the person with the largest arsenal. There's definitely a threshold, over which someone could start fucking things up for those around them, and I think this does bring us to the point where Ancaps will complain to minarchists/classical liberals/etc about upkeep despite that being a function of their system (and all other systems) as well.

Further, the implication that Ancapistan has to be brought about by revolution is false. There are already a multitude of nonviolent attempts to create libertarian sectors (seasteading was a big one that didnt seem to go anywhere, but AFAIK Free State is still trucking), and really Ancapistan is just a couple steps further than that (I just dont prefer it, as I would rather choose what the state looks like and do upkeep from there. I'm also not opposed to some very limited state functions beyond the usual "monopoly on force")

I mean, the fact that the concept of the state exists in every great civilization seems to be a testament to the fact that hierarchal states will always develop, and that the lack of that hierarchal structure is a vacuum and a condition of non-development. Feudalism developed in both Europe and in Asia. Democracy developed in various forms in Ancient Athens and again in Ancient Rome. Hell, even tribes historically have Chiefs or Elders. None of these things were formed from the eternal abyss of pre-history. Concepts of property, and punishment for theft of said property can be rather safely assumed to have been the root of the development of civilization.

My argument is less of a 'You're already a Statist, you just don't know it yet', and more of a means of pointing out that the development of -a- state is the natural order of things. That first phase towards more liberal societies does not begin with a liberal first step. Generally it takes the form of a monarchy, or a dictatorship. At some point, it becomes bloody revolution, as it has historically. No state dies peacefully. Given these points, it strikes me as a rather gory path to push for a reset to the evolution of civilization that Anarchy explicitly demands.

[For Citation, see Code of Ur-Nammu]

How does it work for anarchy to exist is there is no longer any common sense... like anything goes?

it's going to be either idiocracy or the orville: majority rule

For anarchy to work on a world scale, everyone would need to be part of the same cult

Which is also one reason why socialism and communism doesn’t work.

that, and the fact that socialism and communism are inherently flawed, stupid and evil.

in theory they sound nice, in practice they don't work

This is why those ideologies thrive in an environment where it doesn't matter if it doesn't work (academics etc)

they don't even sound nice in theory.

what's nice about "it does not matter how hard you work you will never get rewarded for it"?

and "it does not matter what you *want* to do, because you have a responsibility to do whatever will most help our society"

one could go on for hours with all the things that do not even sound good in theory.

then again... once we have replicators and phasers i'm fine with it 😄

well it sounds nice when you put it "Everyone who works will be able to afford everything they need, and not live in poverty

sugarcoat it

Yeah, it looks really good on first glance, you realize it's unfeasible with just a little bit of thought, and then you're thankful it's so unfeasible after thinking more about the implications of living under communism.

But I'd argue that the whole 'stateless society' concept is why communism 1. is deceptively attractive to people who think it's not ultimately authoritarian, and 2. the main reason it ends in dictatorship. It's why Social Democracy, admittedly, works a fair bit better than communism-minded socialism.

Social Democracy is generally the same as communism minded socialism

You just exchanged the means of production,
With the means of sustainance,


Basically,
Instead of redistributing resources,
You redistribute money to pay for those resources.

It's an enhanced form of statism, as opposed to a freefall of anarchy that leads to harsh totalitarian statism

Basically it cuts out the middleman. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying it's slightly more stable.

~~STATISM, MORE LIKE SATANISM~~

~~My brain's too non-focused to weigh in, just making a funny, carry on~~

It's pretty stable as far as systems go.
Most people (Especially younger people) who say they're communist have in mind the stateless, or at least kind of libertarian concept of it. Not Stalinism.
There are a few stalinists out there though. They vary from stupid to malicious. Seem to be in the minority from what i can tell, as least in north america.

I think i can safely call people who want political prisoners and gulags to be a thing 'malicious'

I dunno

Just call them political tenants and political residents and it sounds a lot better

The holocaust did happen but Israel is really milking it for international support

The African Slave Trade existed in Africa before American the AA's are milking it in America.

Inconvenient facts.

a bigger inconvenient fact is that the term slave comes from enslaved white people,

the "Slavs" from eastern europe

so they literally appropriated white terms! 😮

If the N word was invented by white people, are black people who use it culturally appropriating it?

yes

You were damn fast on that, herr doctor.

every time they wear beads and use a mirror they're appropraiting white culture

We sold those "shinies" to tribes so they'd capture our slaves! 😛

@RyeNorth thats what she said 😦

Oh. :(

so i reported her to ICE and she's now back in Mexico! 😉