The Official, State-mandated FAQ by LibSocs for "An"Caps

[Hierophant]

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhbvr2gz_506v2f83dh

[Hierophant]

Any ancaps want to comment?

[Brad Reddekopp]

Only that I don't find the answers very compelling. However, I don't really care enough about it to go into any depth on it.

[Sparx]

Having read the FAQ, I think I'm fully sold on Mutualism.

[Hierophant]

Only that I don't find the answers very compelling. However, I don't really care enough about it to go into any depth on it.

Because you have no counters to the answers! You are cornered, ancap. Nowhere to run.

[Nokes]

I would've liked to see an expansion on why usury is morally wrong. Added to that the next section about voluntaryism seemed to lack explanations as to why usury can't be voluntary. Though I understand have tried to keep the article concise.

The abandonment issue still gets me because I tend to think it's mutualists who are much more loosey goosey on the issue.

Lastly I thought some of the arguments were knocking down strawmen but good strawmen...if you know what I mean. I think just like the wider libertarian movement anarcho-capitalism has some wildly differing views on exactly what constitutes ancapism and what stuff is just extra shit piled on top.

Other than that I thought it was a good article.

[Brad Reddekopp]

Only that I don't find the answers very compelling. However, I don't really care enough about it to go into any depth on it.

Because you have no counters to the answers! You are cornered, ancap. Nowhere to run.

Maybe. I think it's more likely that I just don't care enough to make the effort to get into it.

On political issues generally, I tend to swing between outrage and cynical apathy. I'm thinking that I should cultivate the apathy more.

[Dadalama]

it's... workable
I don't hold the idea that renting out goods is illegal. And anyone would have abandonment and owning tracts of land that huge to be distasteful.
But you know, I'm against the NAP because "aggression" can mean different things to different people. And to be against it as a society would mean that there'd have to be a forced context on what makes aggression aggression. For example I'd consider it aggression that people were pouring large deals of toxins in the ground water regardless of whos property it started on. So, for me, it would be self defense to kill them if I couldn't reach them any other way. That puts me way further at odds with the ancaps then "renting is exploitation" and "job hierarchies are still hierarchies". I mean really, what makes you think you're not still one of us?

[Brad Reddekopp]

I mean really, what makes you think you're not still one of us?

I was never a mutualist. I've never been necessarily opposed to hierarchies; I think they're inevitable. I think that equality is just pretend.

I care less and less about property theory these days. If an anarchist society does develop (maybe one day but probably not in my lifetime -- I'm not delusional enough to live in hope), ideas about property and such will sort themselves out, I think, without the theorists having much to say about it.

More important than property theory, etc., is the means of getting to anarchy. In that regard, I think there are some interesting ideas in agorism.

[Dadalama]

I mean really, what makes you think you're not still one of us?

I was never a mutualist. I've never been necessarily opposed to hierarchies; I think they're inevitable. I think that equality is just pretend.

I care less and less about property theory these days. If an anarchist society does develop (maybe one day but probably not in my lifetime -- I'm not delusional enough to live in hope), ideas about property and such will sort themselves out, I think, without the theorists having much to say about it.

More important than property theory, etc., is the means of getting to anarchy. In that regard, I think there are some interesting ideas in agorism.

yeah but the point I was trying to make is property theory seems so minor of a gap between the two types and that's the only real difference between mutualism and free market anarchy.

And I agree I think all this ismism is a thing for hobby philosophers. And yeah as far as getting things off the ground agorism seems to be the most likely that would actually do it.

[Hierophant]

The idea of agorism bringing about a revolution is mental masturbation at best.

[Dadalama]

The idea of agorism bringing about a revolution is mental masturbation at best.

Better than blowing shit up.... maybe not as satisfying (I know that from experience, living out in the country has a few hidden perks xD) but definitely would be more effective.

Or just uhhhmmm I dunno, continue to provide services despite the government. Kinda like they did in Somalia? Yeah the cities had it rough but the rural areas barely noticed Siad Barre was gone.

[MustangGT]

The idea of agorism bringing about a revolution is mental masturbation at best.

So what method or strategy would you propose as a means to bring about an anarchist revolution?

[Hierophant]

Social evolution, one mind at a time.

[MustangGT]

Well thats certainly viable, but why do you hold that direct action (agora) is not another viable route - even a complimentary one to the "social evolution" you mentioned?