/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>vague because there is no specific leftist ideology I subscribe to, closest being an anarchist, but it faces the same problems of ancap.

Maybe market-anarchist?

>>1812192
That is rather close really. The only specifics I disagree with are with defense, arbitration, and property.

>freedom of the individual
What does freedom look like in concrete existence?

It's really splitting hairs, and the definition of idpol, but it feels worth saying that while voluntaryism and anarcho-capitalism are often used interchangeably, technically only the latter implies a mechanism.
My IRL political meme for the last several years has been "the history books can name it". When we discuss ideologies from the 40s, 50s, 60s or any other decade, we're discussing political solutions and systems that applied to a different world. Sure, there was automation in those days, but it wasn't identical, so an identical system is an ineffective solution… And that's implying that anyone thinks any historical system was flawless even for the contemporary problems it was addressing.
Another meme is "the means justify the ends". And another is "in the grimdark future of the 21st century, a heartfelt conversation with a stranger is a revolutionary act".

>>1812204
The general school of thought among bumblebee-flaggers is that the important form of freedom is to be free from external influence. This is of course contrasted with the freedom to pursue one's desires. The obvious ways these definitions of freedom butt heads form the majority of political debate in some way. One man's freedom to pursue education infringes on another man's freedom to the fruits of his labor (assuming any public education is paid for with common taxation). One man's freedom to enact violent fantasies encroaches on another's freedom not to be subject to violence. And that's before you start talking about animal or property rights… Does a dog have a right not to be beaten? A deer not to be hunted? A tree not to be cut? Where do we draw the lines?
This is usually where religion comes in to offer the answers, "God said the line is right here". But the fact that everyone has yet to unify under a single religion shows that we can't depend on dogma to provide morality. The answer to "what rights does a man have?" has to come from some form of self-evident logic that can readily persuade all men w/o using coercion to convince them.
At the end of things, some form of The Golden Rule is the ultimate solution, but the catch is that it isn't really "Treat others as you want to be treated", it's "treat others as their ideal self would have you treat them". We all know that some people don't know what's best for them… We all know we've been those people. So the real Golden Rule has one ask themself how someone who doesn't know if they're right or wrong treats someone who doesn't know if they're right or wrong…

TL;DR: Just keep doing your best to make your best better.

>>1812204
I'd say a concise way to describe it is anything that does not infringe on my decisions that are independent of other actors.

>>1812242
Stiner was one of my early influences with egoism.
And as you accurately describe, ancap provides a basic framework for the mechanism of how it would work in an aggregate sense.

>>1812242
>TL;DR: Just keep doing your best to make your best better.
>>1812250
>I'd say a concise way to describe it is anything that does not infringe on my decisions that are independent of other actors.
Both of these dont speak about the experience of freedom though. Theyre too abstract.
So lets take the example of the savage.
Is a tribe leader in africa more "free" than a US citizen who lives in a system of control?
Its an interesting question because it brings up the contradiction of freedom as a concept.
Is the homeless man more free because he doesnt pay taxes? Is the single man more free because he has no family to be responsible to?
Here i would draw a distinction between "freedom" and autonomy thus.

>>1812264
>Is a tribe leader in africa more "free" than a US citizen who lives in a system of control?
I think you might be conflating available options with freedom. US citizens have more luxury, resource availability, and technology, but at the core of it, a tribe leader in Africa is more free from government encroachment than a US citizen.
He is free from money, which is arguable freer than most people in the world right now that don't even have the means to hunt, gather, collect and grow their own food.

>Is the homeless man more free because he doesn't pay taxes?
No, he depends on government stipends and the good will of the community to survive, with government harassments in many areas.

>Is the single man more free because he has no family to be responsible to?
Responsibility and freedom are two separate things, and responsibility is a societal concept.
And generally, I'd argue starting a family is a choice made. If there were no external factors, that decision was taken freely.

Familial structures also differ among cultures and across time, some with more or less responsibility.
Extended families still is a popular form of familial structures where grandparents, uncles, aunts, help or take full care in case the father decides not to. Some hunter-gatherer tribes are like packs where the family is the tribe, and the responsibility is shared as members each work to feed the collective. A hunt for a gazelle is more than enough to feed many people, so in this organization, it is not even seen as a responsibility, but rather enjoying the product of labor, in a symbiotic way among people of the tribe.
A similar thing in agricultural societies, where farmers share their harvest excess with their neighbors, either raw or prepared products.

>>1812291
Well my common sense point would just be that our freedom is within our idle speculations of freedom itself. If we're not fighting for our freedom then we are free.
I would also say that in a hegelian way, freedom is the freedom of a system as it collects people in the interface of its Spirit. There is no "freedom" out there, there is only the freedom of a system to us. In the same way, there is the freedom of a married man to cheat, but this freedom is contingent upon his commitment to his wife. So freedom here is like breaking the rules of a game we nonetheless obey.
There is no freedom in abstract space, but in the contradiction of our being in a control system. When the martyr dies for his country he is experiencing the freedom of duty. The same way that an artist who spends years on his masterpiece becomes freed by his labour.
So in short, freedom is contingent, not absolute.

>>1812182
>private states are not states
I found your problem.

>>1812182
Lmao after reading this. You want anarchic capitalism but only in the boundaries of your country so you have a fighting chance to be part of the ruling class instead of being squishes under the boot of international capital like the worm you are.

My line of thought is basically:
1) The most important thing in life is freedom
2) Freedom is the ability to chose from A to B.
3) One cannot chose B if he does not have the means to get B.
4) For that, he needs power, power to change the world as he sees fit.
5) People are not free today, since they live in a system of oppression that limits the true potencial of the masses of knowing their own power.
6) They are so trapped in the system, many would prefeer to live in oppression then in liberty. Most people, unlike anarchist, don't believe freedom is the universal fundamental principle, nor they believe every man should be free. They chose every day to be slaves.
7) Anarchists then, NEED TO IMPOSE FREEDOM.
8) What increases freedom: Control of the means of production to the workers, Knowledge, protection from violence, action. The decision to be free and independent.
9) What decreases freedom: Economic oppression and inequality, ignorance, fear and life under the threat of violence, inaction. The decision of destroying other mens liberty, the decision of giving up freedom.
10) An anarchist fights for freedom, so he cannot allow others to destroy freedom.

IDK if this line of thought has a name, "freedom" doesn't meacn "freedom to do what i want", individual wants are dominated by things much beyond their own "free will"

Opinions?

>>1812336
There was a USA founder who wrote an essay on "liberty" compared to "freedom". Search engines are failing me, another anon may know the essay and author.
Another pair of phrases that get tossed around in this conversation are "positive rights" (the right to have something) compared to "negative rights" (the right to not be forced into something).
A political koan: Is it more important that one man's right to food and shelter be respected, or another man's right not to be taxed?

>>1812866
OP here. Exactly my point.
Geopolitical Economy Report is one of my favorite channels, Ben Norton is amazing, and I agree with much he says, which is why I recognized in order to be truly free, in an ancap way, it would require no state to exist, which is idealist.

I also don't think Millie is in anyway an ancap, and says so just to be edgy. If he was, his first decision would have been to dissolve the state, or at the very least, not whore his economy to Wall Street.

based

>>1813650
Not a contradiction. What is preventing the man to having food and shelter? How would taxes help? You can't eat money.

Also my dear ancap. Have some of my stale memes.

>>1812182
> For the existence of anarcho-capitalism as described by ancaps, it would require no state to exist. At all.

Bullshit. Anarchism only requires YOU to live as if no state exists at all.
As Michael Malice says, anarchy isn’t a system of government, it’s a relationship.
As I see it, we can only abolish the state by growing out of it.

>>1819343
Government is a relationship too.

>>1819345
You’re failing to understand the difference between government and governance.
Every workplace and household has governance.
Government is a bureaucratic monopoly on the use of force.

The fundamental difference is unwilling participants can leave a workplace or household with bad governance. Not so much with government.

>>1819343
That would require a global movement, not a political solution within the statist structure. In essence, making it revolutionary in nature as the contrast between how people want to be governed and how the state wants to govern them conflict.

You can't vote someone into the state to dismantle the state without collective action from within the state.

The global imperialist system that exists today will, by nature, utilize this opportunity if the collective action within a state is used to dismantle the state, so in effect, any method of dismantling the state from within will require it to ironically use the state power to prevent any attempts of capturing the local economy within the borders of the state, and for this state to exist resisting imperialist capture until other states follow suit, which although possible, would take considerable effort over a very long time.

>>1812182
The system that they claim to want is just communism. There is no freedom in capitalism so I'm not sure why they cling to it so hard.

>>1820852
There are a lot of differences between communism and ancap.
Ancap put private property as an unalienable right, while communism rejects it. This is probably the core difference.

Capitalism is a very notorious misnomer.
It is defined differently by many and any even within the same political group.

Free market is probably a better term to fit what they call capitalism, as capitalism is a small part of the free market.
And iirc, Marx saw capitalism, as part of his analysis, as the ownership of the means of production by a capitalist class that does not operate and produce themselves. Marx also saw the free market as inherently leading to capitalist accumulation of the means of production, which ancaps reject. Instead promoting that free market competition with no state intervention would lead to less accumulation as over time, these means of production will be more democratized via entrepreneurs, for example, or whatever ways people organize in the free market.

Ancaps generally see profits as a useful tool of judging the need of a product by a community and part of the aggregate freemarket of creating a decentralized solution to the ECP, while communism sees it as theft by the labor theory of value. It sees the production and distribution of goods are managed communally based on collective need rather than individual profit as the final stage. A moneyless society.

>>1820825
I think we agree to an extent.
The state is collapsing under its own weight and it’s tied its shoes together.
We don’t have to take action to take it down. We have to take action to live without it.

The state needs reverence to survive. Just like religion. When citizens stop believing in the almighty power of the state, it fades away into obscurity.
But antagonizing it is feeding it reverence. Just like feeding a troll.

The fundamental problem with Anarcho-Capitalism is that Capitalists are retarded and only think short-term. The planet is already headed to extinction because of "regulated" capitalism and these retards want to accelerate its and the people's demise letting corporations do what they want.

>>1824251
the planet is fine, its regulated capitalism that funds climate conspiracies

>>1824366
Found the big oil shill

>>1824373
Your whole ideology is funded by oil and energy oligarchs. Go die for the Koch brothers.

>>1824381
still no argument? lmao

>>1824366
>the planet is fine, its regulated capitalism that funds climate conspiracies

ok, you are crazy, i doubt you are OP, you are just baiting, don't you?

>>1824384
how am i wrong

>>1824392
The accumulated data shows that indeed earth is warming up at at a quick rate, and that accumulated heat is causing various change that fuck up the climate. Which you can notice with the increase of frequency and violence of weather phenomenon. The ice at the poles is melting more and more, glaciers are dissapearing, and so on.
Plus for decades, Porky funded the opposite of climate alarmism.
Earth as a rock in the void will not disintegrate from a couple of °C above the average of the previous centuries, nor life will go entirely extinct, however that change is enough to spoil the lives of the billions of hairless apes that lives on it.

>>1824416
so why is it a problem if the earth is warming?
>The ice at the poles is melting more and more, glaciers are dissapearing, and so on.
yet you ignore the ones growing, interesting
>Plus for decades, Porky funded the opposite of climate alarmism.
now they're funding climate alarmism

>>1824420
>so why is it a problem if the earth is warming?
More hurricanes, more heat waves, crops ruined by unusual weather, all of this which can kill people.
>inb4 just live in AC bunker lol

>yet you ignore the ones growing, interesting
There is more melting than growing. Which is causing part of the sea level rising which is also an observable phenomenon.

>now they're funding climate alarmism
>What is greenwashing?

>>1824436
>More hurricanes, more heat waves, crops ruined by unusual weather, all of this which can kill people.
these already naturally occur at different rates every year.
>There is more melting than growing. Which is causing part of the sea level rising which is also an observable phenomenon.
this has always happened

>now they're funding climate alarmism
>What is greenwashing?

glad you agree with me

>>1824439
>these already naturally occur at different rates every year.
The average occurence is increasing, lrn to statistics and trends

>this has always happened
Nope, not that quickly.

>glad you agree with me
My point is that Porky PR stance toward a phenomenon is irrelevant to whether that phenomenon exists or not.

>>1824605
>The average occurence is increasing, lrn to statistics and trends
why does this justify porky's climate alarmism?
>Nope, not that quickly.
so?
>My point is that Porky PR stance toward a phenomenon is irrelevant to whether that phenomenon exists or not.
why should i care about the phenomenon

>>1824641
because it's getting hotter
and hotter
and it's been the hottest year ever recorded
and it's only going to get hotter

>>1824641
You really don't see how more frequent and violent weather hazards, failing agriculture, sea rising, and mass death and migrations resulting from it could affect your surroundings even a little bit?

anarcho capitalism always leads to disaster since it just makes gangsters gangbanger pirates etc legal just look at the 90s to 2000s Somalia

the free market is a scam it always leads to a minority having everything the the majority having very little

>>1824646
thats expected when technology for measuring gets better
wasn't the hottest temperature ever recorded over 100 years ago?

>>1824658
how do you now its more frequent