• rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ve specifically put parentheses to leave the hypothetical situation where I’d like to see answers as the last paragraph without them.

    I’ve literally explained how with property you get a mechanism for communal cooperation without hierarchy.

    • jorp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      You don’t seem to differentiate private property and personal property and also I learned long ago not to bother debating with ancaps because the rational ones tend to un-cap themselves on their own eventually

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The difference would exist in a world where you have a mediator making it. How would you differentiate them without such?

        Say, I have a longbow, a tunic, leather pants and shoes and arrows on me and a piece of cloth I sleep on. Is that piece of cloth personal or private property? Say, for me they are all the same, but somebody near me needs that cloth. I say no, because I need it too. They say I’ll be fine with half of it. I say no without disputing whether half of it is enough for my needs. Who’s right?

        EDIT: Ah, also I’ve already, as you say, “un-capped” myself like 10 years ago, being tired of the emotional component of ancap, and was trying to be realistic and open to new ideas and such. I don’t regret it, I’ve learned a few more things, it was cool and all.

        But in the end realized that what I have is simply an evolution of ancap. Even when I’ve been reading Trotskyist articles and imagining ways to build that. Thus I’m calling myself ancap.

        The only things comprising ancap are moral constraints, all the rest is good until it doesn’t violate them. Say, ancaps are fine with ancom communes existing and interacting between each other in pretty ancom ways. The only situation where ancom won’t be a valid ancap is when ancoms prevent someone from leaving their heaven if that someone wishes so or try to conquer the neighboring Ancapistan for agricultural land.

        • jorp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what private property is. Also I’m not sure if you understand exactly where capitalism begins and ends compared to other concepts like money, trade, and markets.

          The gap there is again the concept of private property and how economic production capability is owned and operated.

          It’s shocking to me how much trouble people have imagining non-capitalist systems, propaganda has successfully conflated the idea of capitalism with economy, and with freedom. You’re more a victim of that than anything else, so no hard feelings.

          Anarcho-capitalism is a contradictory ideology and there’s no way to reconcile those two things together. Capitalism must be rejected in any egalitarian society.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what private property is.

            That’s damn certain, I’ve only seen any discussion on the possible separation of such 1) in Russian language, 2) it’s specific to your ideology, so requires clarification of terms.

            Also I’m not sure if you understand exactly where capitalism begins and ends compared to other concepts like money, trade, and markets.

            Same with this. People mean all kinds of things saying “capitalism”. It requires clarifying which exact meaning you are using.

            It’s shocking to me how much trouble people have imagining non-capitalist systems, propaganda has successfully conflated the idea of capitalism with economy, and with freedom. You’re more a victim of that than anything else, so no hard feelings.

            Well, no hard feelings, but when I try to extract specific statements from this sentence, I get none. A bit similar to the Imperial ambassador’s words from “Foundation” book.

            Anarcho-capitalism is a contradictory ideology and there’s no way to reconcile those two things together. Capitalism must be rejected in any egalitarian society.

            Anarcho-capitalism does not necessarily involve capitalism (depends on the definition of that). It’s a name that stuck.

            • jorp@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yikes dawg how does one communicate with someone whose ideological landscape is full of missing definitions and contradictory definitions? There’s a lot to untangle here and I’m not willing or able to do that for you. I can only suggest reading more anarchist sources. I typically share this one as a decent conceptual intro https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works although I don’t agree with everything it says.

              I’m finding it difficult to be talking to an “anarcho-capitalist” who doesn’t seem to agree or identify with either anarchism or capitalism nor have confidence in their understanding of the terms.

              Maybe don’t be so quick to label yourself, let your mind explore without the baggage of assuming what you are a priori.

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yikes dawg how does one communicate with someone whose ideological landscape is full of missing definitions and contradictory definitions?

                That’s not what I’ve said. I’ve said that your definitions are subjective to your own ideology. Thus they require clarification when used.

                There’s a lot to untangle here and I’m not willing or able to do that for you. I can only suggest reading more anarchist sources. I typically share this one as a decent conceptual intro https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works although I don’t agree with everything it says.

                I’ve read Kropotkin. For everything good, against everything bad, no specifics, no mechanisms, and how animals don’t hurt each other for power (in fact they do).

                I’m finding it difficult to be talking to an “anarcho-capitalist” who doesn’t seem to agree or identify with either anarchism or capitalism nor have confidence in their understanding of the terms.

                I’ve even explained to you how ancap is just a common name and what the ideology called that actually is. That your brain skips anything you don’t expect from this conversation is your own flaw, sorry.

                Maybe don’t be so quick to label yourself, let your mind explore without the baggage of assuming what you are a priori.

                That’s amazing.