You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Waking People Up To Their Own Slavery and Brainwashing with Larken Rose
is dangerous to the Ancap community
How or why?
Can you give an explanation?
He wants to program people with an ineffectual ideology
I don't see him program people with and ideology.
Could you explain how.
destroy the dream of pure natural law
Dream? Pure?
Could you explain how some individual can destroy natural law?
For me it sound like saying something like; "He is destroying the dream of pure gravity."
Peace
He's a sophist and an outrage farmer - his arguments make ancaps look ridiculous. Look at his debate with Lauren Southern, for example. He's influencing the Libertarain culture, giving it toxic, hardline aspects that repel everyone who isn't already an ancap or a trendy "Bitcoiner" (not that crypto is bad, obviously, but you know the type). Not only that, but a lot of the arguments he makes are illogical from a strategic point of view - why I said "ineffectual". You can't break gravity, but you can break natural law. Hence, it is a dream that must be achieved.
From what I know Lauren Southern said she's National Socialist I personally heard her identify in real live as such. And last time I checked she's a socialist (collectivist) and a nationalist.
A lot of libertarians are not ancaps either but minarchists a.k.a. a statist
Ancap first concern is morality(for him or her personally) not strategy or practicality.
And also someone who call's him/herself ancap can call oneself an ancap and not be an ancap. You can find out by what he/she is doing, or what he/she is advocating for, if the human being is a principled ancap/voluntaryist.
To give an example, I can call myself a vegetarian but if I eat steak every day, or advocate for the bio industy, people could clearly see i'm not vegetarian. ("vegeterian law" does not care if I "break" it)
I can call myself ancap also but if i don't care about right or wrong as soon as I need or want something, I use threads and violence (myself or via the state or another group) With the justification/excuse that it must be done this way because "practical" or "strategic" or "needed" or "wanted", then I'm clearly not an ancap/voluntaryist.
Natural law or the Non aggression principle does not care if I "break" it to be in effect.
So it may be practical or strategic, to use other people who use threads and violence, to get what you want or need, but then you are "breaking" natural law.
Natural law is not something that is achieved in the future.
You align with Natural Law or you don't. (The wanted effects of natural law in reality I should say)
The more people know what it and try align with it/work according it, the better it will be for freedom and peace.
But natural law can never be made in a law by man on paper and enforced ( be mandatory) If man would do that he would just have shown he does not understand natural law and he would by doing that have "broken" natural law.
Natural law is now in effect and has been always and will always be. It's a principle and the principle does not care how many people know it/live by it or not. Just like gravity you can try to "break" the law of gravity, experiment with it, make mistakes, but gravity does not care if you jump out of a plane without a parachute to "break" it. It's just in effect and you can try to understand it and use it's principles to get wanted effects.
Just as you can study and know Natural law to get the effects you want, which could be freedom for instance.
She is definitely not a national socialist..... And even if she was, she had far better arguments than Larken, who was just trying to get cheers from the crowd the whole time to supplement his bad ideological arguments. You're claiming I'm not a real ancap because I have a different interpretation of some aspects and don't conform to the dogma. This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. There is no real discussion. You claim I want to initiate force without any justification for that claim. You don't know my point of view. And on top of that, you're missing the point of what I'm saying on natural law. We have governments, and we have never had anarchy. Therefore natural law has never been actually implemented. At a metaphysical level it always exists, but it is not apparent in the structure of world governance. If it's already here, we already have anarcho capitalism, so what's the point of even being ancap?
We already have anarcho capitalism? Where?! All I see around me is corporatism/fascism. Corporations control governments, and there is not even close to a free market. Everything from trade to fiat currencies are manipulated in favor of the elite. That's not ancap at all. An cap is a free market without any government intervention.
He thought that was what I was saying. It's not what he said.
I was talking about natural law and that it's always in effect. (natural law is not a system or what comes into being only when ancap society is there so that you can say; so now we have natural law.) Maybe I've been a bit unclear, too philosophical or my english vocabulary is also lacking, or all three. lol.
But we certainly do not have anarcho capitalism.
She said herself she is.
Where do I do that?
Do you mean this.
"So it may be practical or strategic, to use other people who use threads and violence, to get what you want or need, but then you are "breaking" natural law."
That "you"is meant as a "you" in general. And that alinea is meant explanatory.
Mostly I put in a disclaimer that You is not meant as a personal you. or I put the you between "" these guys. Forgot sorry.
You don't understand what I've been trying to convey. I'm not saying that all people live according to voluntaryist principles. Most people are born and raised, fully emerged in the cult of statism. And "you" don't get them out easily especially when for them looking to daddy or mommy government seems like the easiest way to solve problems. In a way, they have been raised by mommy and daddy state, to stay like helpless and scared children .
Edit.
If most peole live according to voluntaryist principle then the ancap society will emerge .
It is not that ancap society is implemented by someone or government, and then all people will live according to a system.
I hope you get what I mean with that.
"So it may be practical or strategic, to use other people who use threads and violence, to get what you want or need, but then you are "breaking" natural law."
Being practical/strategic has nothing to do with using people or violence. You're being disingenuous.
"If most peole live according to voluntaryist principle then the ancap society will emerge .
It is not that ancap society is implemented by someone or government, and then all people will live according to a system."
This is an opinion that I disagree with. Everyone can dream, but the actors are the only ones bringing theirs about. Just believe harder! We'll get there someday I'm sure.
"You don't understand what I've been trying to convey. I'm not saying that all people live according to voluntaryist principles. Most people are born and raised, fully emerged in the cult of statism. And "you" don't get them out easily especially when for them looking to daddy or mommy government seems like the easiest way to solve problems. In a way, they have been raised by mommy and daddy state, to stay like helpless and scared children ."
I understand what you are saying. Condescending ancaps drive people away. You are arguing with me over literally nothing. I agree with you on this. What I'm saying is most ancaps are so sure about everything that they disregard all deviation from dogma, even if it is accepted under the framework of natural law and the non-aggression principle. Most just want to stroke their ego, and feel intellectually and morally superior.
The objective is maximized individual liberty. Why complicate things further? You do not rule me. A group of people do not rule me. A monarch does not rule me. As long as I'm not harming someone, taking their property, or scamming them, leave me alone. That's not condescending or unrealistic to demand either.