What else makes sense ? And how does ancap not make sense ?
Idk I'm too lazy to write complex shit now
What's that?
That some app? Any hot foids there?Wizz
No tbh it's like OLD but for people under 18
Age of consent is 15 in my country, I don't care
Nono its market socialism trust me bro
the joke is that market socialism is retarded
Failed in Yuga
@heightmaxxing why are you sending this pic of you to psychomandible? You showed me yourself in confidence you told me.
Sorry bhai I needed the money
I wish I could take credit but it wasn't me
please tell who bestowed upon you this transcendent knowledge of political ideologies
Don't worry bhai. It just a photo i would never cheat on you IRLHow could you?
My dad and hans herman hoppe
No argument
Interesting. Should check him out. (hans herman hoppe). What does he think about monarchism?
did you read anything he’s written or see a clip of him on tiktok jfl. please read locke’s second treatise
what does an anarcho capitalist think about monarchism? are you mentally challenged?
It's a question. I wanna see his arguments against it, retard. A lot of communities which have good knowledge about politics and this stuff consider monarchism as the best.
Better then democracy
I've never seen him on tt
he’s a pro monarchist libertarian because he’s an idiot. No respected intellectual who is a libertarian or a normal person respects him. monarchists in the big 25 are just larpers who want to be serfs
He's not pro monarchy nigga, he's also one of the most respected in the libertarian space
He's not pro monarchy nigga, he's also one of the most respected in the libertarian space
if you can’t understand the subtext of these shit tier intellectual psuedo-libertarians who endorse monarchic systems over democracy to cater to anti-intellectual larpers you're cooked. The endorsement of monarchy over modern democracy is straight delusion. When so called libretarians endorse even more regressive systems of government, it only harms their supposed cause. Not to mention libretarianism is stupid anyway.
libertarian who advocates for straight fascism in excluding undesirables (mainly his political opponents) in society. JFL
How is it delusional? It's like being a renter versus a owner, renters while preserving the home will not try and make it better as they understand they aren't the owner and there fore any advancement they do make will be lost later on whilst the owner has incentive to make the home better as they will reap the long term benefits of said advancement and will also pass the benefits to their offspring.
Do you seriously think freedom of association is fascism? You also ignore that this is in broad context of covenant communities where you can selectively pick who you'd like to associate with and who you'd like to ban. If a nazi wants to nazi then he can make his own nazi community and see how it works out, but the other communities should have the right to bar nazis from joining their own communities.
ancap is fucking retarded capitalism requires rules so companies dont abuse their power . and anarchy literally means not following said rules
You have so much to learn
looksmax.org
Sorry for the late reply, went to class, transcribing this from what I wrote in my notebook:
Because private property still depend on certain rules made by a bigger institution like the goverment, in anarchy there's no such thing as rights or private property or even common property, in anarchy there's no way to defend someone's personal property as there's no laws either. I suppose in ANCAP as there's no moral laws, the institutions who decide what to do with people will be managed by private companies such as private security, clashing with other companies as well. In current democracy if someone disagrees with certain social laws they have no other choice to accept it, democracy = rule of the majority. Trying to make democracy multicultural fails as people live together and we can't have contradicting laws for different "types" of communities, it will lead to social conflict as the time goes on. Classic republicanism is the way to go, a more critical approach of democracy leads to socialism but not communism, the most contradicting ideology: "private property" but goverment controls what companies can produce or how much they produce, what to tax and what not.
this is solved by enshrining basic rights and liberties which supersede the rule of the majority. The exception to my previous argument about contracting is that one cannot contract away their natural rights, only their contractual ones. Social laws cannot regulate an individual to the point where it infringes on their natural rights, but it is perfectly permissible for laws to be against an individual's own belief otherwise. Government will not naturally satiate every persons individual will, because if it could, there would be no need for government. Consenting in the social contract mean you consent to sometimes be governed by rules you disagree with. This is perfectly permissible as long as you can leave the contract by leaving the governed area.
For example?
What natural rights are you talking about, did you know the idea of natural rights aka divine rights for being human come from the catholic church way before Locke in England? The idea that all humans are born equal.
Nobody has consented, no one ever did. The governent made a social contract, specially within the enlightement moral values from the modern era. And there's no way to leave the contract because every area on this planet belongs to a certain country even Antartica and the oceans and now the fucking outer space.
You are damm right
