10000 IslandsBoard

Ferte wrote:

4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357 4357

Please don't spam

This message is brought to you by the Armadillia Midnight Stupid-Post Comitte...
Do YOU want yellow gyms?
Well, fear not, For I have invented the (patented) Paint Lifter!
Every time someone fails to lift more than 130kg they are covered in yellow paint!
This is sure to make the gym yellow, right?
Right?
*Sigh*
*Walks away*
*Opens door*
*Closes door*
# We are having some... technical difficulties... # *Billy! Get back ‘ere!*
Goodnight!

I’m sorry I haven’t been active

Aprait wrote:

Just legalised capital punishment. This is going EXACTLY according to plan.

just banned criticism of the government, marriage and decriminalised slavery in this puppet and also mandated child labour in my ancap puppet.
VERY happy right now i love oppression

Libraziland wrote:

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.

Wouldn't be the first time that the adherents of an ideology completely miss the point of that ideology in favor of attacking those that are against it.

Libraziland wrote:

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) [1], as soon as you violate them [2], 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 [3]. If you, for example, kill someone who's innocent, anyone else can kill you without repercussion. Is THAT "an attractive option" [4]? 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 [5]. 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.

1: Which are? And what if someone doesn't agree with the NAP? Can its terms be changed? What do you do when two people disagree about what the NAP actually is?
2: Who determines whether someone violated the NAP or not? Cops wouldn't exist in an anarcho-capitalist system. There would be no criminal justice system except the one literally bought and paid for by the rich and powerful.
3: Who mobilizes society? The real world isn't a comic book. People don't show up to fight crime for the hell of it, they have bills to pay and families that will go hungry if they don't come back. And again, who determines whether or not a claim of NAP violation is true or not?
4: I don't see how it changes anything, so it's not any less ideal than the alternative. The entire point of anarcho-capitalism is that there's no central authority whatsoever that isn't a corporate board of directors. If someone tries to kill you, either you can defend yourself or you can't. You might have this amazing pipe dream that everybody would uphold the NAP because it's the right thing to do, but the fact is that anarcho-capitalism is essentially built on the idea that everyone should have the ability to do whatever they want if they have the means. Some people probably would fight to defend the NAP, but even if they have perfect information about who actually did violate the NAP, there's no way that society as a whole would actually care, because the vast majority of people would be working to benefit themselves. Getting killed in the name of an ideology that you may or may not even believe in does very little to benefit you.
5: Based on whose moral standards? Yours? Your moral standards do not apply to everyone. No one's do. That's why we have laws.

Libraziland wrote:

>mandated
>ancap

Choose one

Unless you're saying that private businesses should be abolished or turned into unions (which you aren't, unless you're a communist or a syndicalist), the leadership of those businesses will be able to mandate things. There's no contradiction.

Ancap? Check.
Socialist? Check.
Yep... it's debate time.

Libraziland wrote:

Might wanna correct that typo if you want people to participate...

There isn't a typo.

It's October everyone! You know what that means?
SpOoKy ScArY sKeLeToNs

Shy Guyia wrote:

dont u mean spooktober

It's Cocktober

Valentian Elysium wrote:

It's October everyone! You know what that means?
SpOoKy ScArY sKeLeToNs

They say spooky memes are dead.
I say that's the point.

Libraziland wrote:

>mandated
>ancap

Choose one

I had a poor choice of words there. It's more like I allow companies to use child labour. I don't mandate it, it's just that in the anarchic paradise of Ancap paradise grahnol, corporations have free reign over pretty much anything which includes child labour so that they can appease the competition which by the way, as expected in an ancap society, includes defence, courts, law enforcement, roads, infrastructure and more. So many choices in that ancap paradise.