Discussion History Main / HateDumb

Go To

[001] Slate_ Current Version

Changed line(s) 4 from:

If it doesn\'t break the NAP, then by definition the company doesn\'t have the type of \'power\' required to be a state. Also, this is a tangent, but I\'ll take this opportunity to remind everyone that abolition of hierarchy requires hierarchy to enforce.

to:

Changed line(s) 5 from:

to:

If it doesn\\\'t break the NAP, then by definition the company doesn\\\'t have the type of \\\'power\\\' required to be a state. Also, this is a tangent, but I\\\'ll take this opportunity to remind everyone that abolition of hierarchy requires hierarchy to enforce.

Changed line(s) 7 from:

And... Security just wouldn\'t exist in an ansoc area? The use of violence to defend oneself does not require a higher authority.

to:

Changed line(s) 8 from:

to:

And... Security just wouldn\\\'t exist in an ansoc area? The use of violence to defend oneself does not require a higher authority.

Changed line(s) 10 from:

I\'m assuming \'owner of a territorial area\' means land or factory ownership and not something like ownership of a town other people live in, which ancaps obviously don\'t believe in. What possible purpose would that exclusivity contract serve? Who besides the property owner is going to hire defense for that property? This point just makes no sense.

to:

Changed line(s) 11 from:

to:

I\\\'m assuming \\\'owner of a territorial area\\\' means land or factory ownership and not something like ownership of a town other people live in, which ancaps obviously don\\\'t believe in. What possible purpose would that exclusivity contract serve? Who besides the property owner is going to hire defense for that property? This point just makes no sense.

Changed line(s) 13 from:

Including \'justified\' as a qualifier in the definition for an ideology is so dumb. Since \'justified\' is a subjective term, all I really need to say here is that ancaps believe all the hierarchies they support the existence of are justified, therefore they still fit the definition.

to:

Changed line(s) 14 from:

to:

Including \\\'justified\\\' as a qualifier in the definition for an ideology is so dumb. Since \\\'justified\\\' is a subjective term, all I really need to say here is that ancaps believe all the hierarchies they support the existence of are justified, therefore they still fit the definition.

Changed line(s) 16 from:

Assuming self-ownership is included under \'private property\' here; In which case, what this statement boils down to is \

to:

Assuming self-ownership is included under \\\'private property\\\' here; In which case, what this statement boils down to is \\\"Ancaps are not against forceful authorities so long as they do not exert forceful authority\\\". What?

>And finally, are ancaps libertarian socialists, a term which includes all anarchists and a few more ideologies? No, they are not libertarian socialists.

>And when you recognize how anarchism is always form of libertarian socialism, you understand how it cannot be capitalistic.

\\\"Ancaps aren\\\'t libsocs because they aren\\\'t anarchists, therefore ancaps aren\\\'t anarchists because they\\\'re not libsocs\\\". That\\\'s all this segment says.

TL;DR - Please don\\\'t spread misinformation. Ancaps are anarchists

Top