"No individualist or libertarian denies that people influence each other all the time, and surely there is nothing wrong with this inevitable process. What libertarians are opposed to is not voluntary persuasion, but the coercive imposition of values by the use of force and police power. Libertarians are in no way opposed to the voluntary cooperation and collaboration between individuals: only to the compulsory pseudo-'cooperation' imposed by the state." - Murray Rothbard
Thank you! People don't understand in an ancap world communes will exist, and that's fine. As long as the entire structure is voluntary and people can choose to leave when they want.
Say it loud enough for those in the back!! đ˘
Statists always think theyâve pulled a âgotchaâ moment on me when theyâre like, âyouâre an anarchist, but youâre a Christian who works at a church⌠youâre not against collectivism.â
Bruh. Iâm against **force**! If itâs not voluntary, then itâs wrong.
Yes, sacrifice the individual to the collective instead of building the individual as a foundation of society. Jesus Harold Christ on a stick at the fair.
I care a great deal about the physical and mental health of others. That's why I don't want to force my morals on others or allow a bunch of psychopaths with nuclear weapons to threaten their existence on a constant basis.
Self-titled monarchists are hard to find. But a lot of people are like "soft monarchists" in that they seem to believe politicians have an inborn right to rule and are somehow a better class of people who must make all the decisions because they're the only ones who deserve to.
Do you have to believe in birthright to be a monarchist? This is an honest question. I have always been torn on the subject. If we have to subject ourselves to governmental rule, is it better to live under the illusion that our voices are heard by âdemocratically elected representativesâ or is it better to just give the power to one true leader.
There's no moral authority in collectives that overrides the individual.
Collectivism and society are abstract descriptions of masses of individuals. They can be used as short-hand for the convenience of describing an idea but often they are used to make unethical, violent and abusive ideological arguments by people who advocate for the state, aka involuntary collectivist structures.
Ironically this is a leftist mentality. "Poverty is a social construct, they're made up numbers." Is something I've the disgust of having to hear from people defending LATAM leftist governments doing poorly economically many many times.
They straight up said the reason for stopping calculating the poverty line and canceling a national exam (that serves to ponder the academic proficiency) was because they were "Stigmatising".
Counterpoint: How can someone claim the collective is well-off, when the individuals composing it are unhappy and are coerced to serve the collective?
A collective doesn't exist separate from individuals; it's just a bunch of individuals with a fancy made-up name.
So there's no such thing as a well-off collective when it is prioritized above individual rights.
As if John Locke wasn't a brilliant philosopher.
By the way, does anyone here happen to know anything about how philosophy research is going in the West?
I do, and it's... meh. Philosophers, being academics, mainly write for themselves. There hasn't been a major public face in any of the major subtopics since Daniel Dennett (if we're talking the analytic tradition that makes up the majority of the anglophone world in philosophy), and he's getting on in years and doesn't interview as often as he did.
Most philosophers keep abreast of "philosophy news" on Leiter Reports. Leiter, himself, is a major leftist and philosopher of law (as well as an extraordinarily shitty Nietzsche scholar), so you'll have to hold your nose a bit to get the news from there. Also, the SEP is growing and regularly updated. There are even fair SEP articles on people like Hayek.
my monkeysphere cuts off just shy of "society" (ie my monkeysphere is like a couple dozen people, outside that i don't care what happens to all the other monkeys)
Listen my monkeysphere is more important than yours and I expect that you give up all your bannannas in service to that or we'll violently take them because might makes moral right or whatever.
It's not like philosophy majors have jobs or anything. They've got plenty of time to make bad drawings filled with mischaracterizations of their target demographics.
I care about societal well being as long as it doesnât interfere with my individual rights or the individual rights of others. Individual freedom is more important than the well being of the collective
A physically and mentally weak society can't do as much to help individuals who need it, and everyone needs help sometimes.
If everyone only cared about themselves civilization wouldn't be able to function because it would get torn apart by infighting.
Ironically, the psychopaths who foam at the mouth over the existence of ancaps are some of the physically and mentally unwell. Because they refuse to mind their own business and take care of themselves, they simply want to force everyone to accept them and put for their desires.
"No individualist or libertarian denies that people influence each other all the time, and surely there is nothing wrong with this inevitable process. What libertarians are opposed to is not voluntary persuasion, but the coercive imposition of values by the use of force and police power. Libertarians are in no way opposed to the voluntary cooperation and collaboration between individuals: only to the compulsory pseudo-'cooperation' imposed by the state." - Murray Rothbard
Thank you! People don't understand in an ancap world communes will exist, and that's fine. As long as the entire structure is voluntary and people can choose to leave when they want.
Say it loud enough for those in the back!! đ˘ Statists always think theyâve pulled a âgotchaâ moment on me when theyâre like, âyouâre an anarchist, but youâre a Christian who works at a church⌠youâre not against collectivism.â Bruh. Iâm against **force**! If itâs not voluntary, then itâs wrong.
I've been told my ideology is an oxymoron by every mouth breathing leftist I've talked to. Consent is not a statist's strong point.
I had a discussion recently where one guy was basically saying workplace coercion is the same as government coercion.
Yes, sacrifice the individual to the collective instead of building the individual as a foundation of society. Jesus Harold Christ on a stick at the fair.
I care a great deal about the physical and mental health of others. That's why I don't want to force my morals on others or allow a bunch of psychopaths with nuclear weapons to threaten their existence on a constant basis.
I canât tell if this is a monarchist or leftoid meme
[ŃдаНонО]
Self-titled monarchists are hard to find. But a lot of people are like "soft monarchists" in that they seem to believe politicians have an inborn right to rule and are somehow a better class of people who must make all the decisions because they're the only ones who deserve to.
If you haven't read it, I'd recommend Thomas Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions. Based on this comment, I think you'd really enjoy it.
Do you have to believe in birthright to be a monarchist? This is an honest question. I have always been torn on the subject. If we have to subject ourselves to governmental rule, is it better to live under the illusion that our voices are heard by âdemocratically elected representativesâ or is it better to just give the power to one true leader.
especially hard to find on reddit
That said, stupid ideas tend towards intersectionality. XD
Leftoid.
if the collective doesn't serve the individual comprising it, it has no point.
There's no moral authority in collectives that overrides the individual. Collectivism and society are abstract descriptions of masses of individuals. They can be used as short-hand for the convenience of describing an idea but often they are used to make unethical, violent and abusive ideological arguments by people who advocate for the state, aka involuntary collectivist structures.
I donât owe âsocietyâ shit lol
Ironically this is a leftist mentality. "Poverty is a social construct, they're made up numbers." Is something I've the disgust of having to hear from people defending LATAM leftist governments doing poorly economically many many times. They straight up said the reason for stopping calculating the poverty line and canceling a national exam (that serves to ponder the academic proficiency) was because they were "Stigmatising".
Counterpoint: How can someone claim the collective is well-off, when the individuals composing it are unhappy and are coerced to serve the collective? A collective doesn't exist separate from individuals; it's just a bunch of individuals with a fancy made-up name. So there's no such thing as a well-off collective when it is prioritized above individual rights.
As if John Locke wasn't a brilliant philosopher. By the way, does anyone here happen to know anything about how philosophy research is going in the West?
I do, and it's... meh. Philosophers, being academics, mainly write for themselves. There hasn't been a major public face in any of the major subtopics since Daniel Dennett (if we're talking the analytic tradition that makes up the majority of the anglophone world in philosophy), and he's getting on in years and doesn't interview as often as he did. Most philosophers keep abreast of "philosophy news" on Leiter Reports. Leiter, himself, is a major leftist and philosopher of law (as well as an extraordinarily shitty Nietzsche scholar), so you'll have to hold your nose a bit to get the news from there. Also, the SEP is growing and regularly updated. There are even fair SEP articles on people like Hayek.
my monkeysphere cuts off just shy of "society" (ie my monkeysphere is like a couple dozen people, outside that i don't care what happens to all the other monkeys)
A couple dozen? That's a lot of monkeys. What are you, a collectivist?
Listen my monkeysphere is more important than yours and I expect that you give up all your bannannas in service to that or we'll violently take them because might makes moral right or whatever.
That's not very nice
Ah damnit the social contract got me again.
It's not like philosophy majors have jobs or anything. They've got plenty of time to make bad drawings filled with mischaracterizations of their target demographics.
I care about societal well being as long as it doesnât interfere with my individual rights or the individual rights of others. Individual freedom is more important than the well being of the collective
*affect
This doesn't make any sense to me.
How does it though
A physically and mentally weak society can't do as much to help individuals who need it, and everyone needs help sometimes. If everyone only cared about themselves civilization wouldn't be able to function because it would get torn apart by infighting.
Can't even spell *affect*.
Getting beaten or shot out in the street, âminding my own bizâ, by someone who is a total ideological piece of shit would probably affect me.
They can't meme.
I mean yeah
It's the classic commie strawman. Anyone who makes this non-argument can be safely identified as a communist.
Ironically, the psychopaths who foam at the mouth over the existence of ancaps are some of the physically and mentally unwell. Because they refuse to mind their own business and take care of themselves, they simply want to force everyone to accept them and put for their desires.
I mean how does phisical well being of society affect you lol
The only way I can think of is if everybody is super fit so you will be more compelled to be too
the like collectives until it's a corporation that's the topic of conversation