Post

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

You must be meeting different ancaps than me. Every time I have a serious conversation with one, one of the first things that happens is that the ancap makes a thinly (or non-) veiled statement that Pinochet was right to kill the opposition because that opposition happens to be left-wing.

I'm not "meeting different ancaps", I AM ancap, and if the people you're talking to say killing anyone for their political ideology is right, they may be for the free market, but they are definitely not ancap, as I said bedore, this goes directly against one of our core principles.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

It also doesn't exactly help that the ancap ideology does absolutely nothing to actually protect people, since the core philosophy is that rich people should be allowed to do whatever they want with no meaningful limitations on their power (the NAP, for instance, only makes sense if the person being attacked is more powerful than the person who attacked them - if the situation is reversed, then the victim has no means of defending themselves, and so attacking them to steal their stuff becomes an attractive option).

This is not true, and comes from a very biased perception. Everyone should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they don't violate the universal rights (NAP), as soon as you violate them, you relinquish your own, I.E. if a rich person attacks someone, they are subject to retaliation not only from the person who may be armed, but by society as a whole. If you, for example, kill someone who's innocent, anyone else can kill you without repercussion. Is THAT "an attractive option"? I'm all for debating anything political and being entitled to your opinion, but I'm very against portraying any ideology as inherently evil unless it directly advocates for something bad. I may be strongly against socialism, but it would be very disingenuous of me consider it evil, because although I think it's harmful, it doesn't advocate for direct harm, such as genocide.