>>1481
Are you the russian that posted the post-irony stuff? Anyway, you are pretty intelligent, kudos to you, am glad to have you at our side. I'm the guy that, just like OP, was skeptic about a less serious and offensive approach, but after reading more Hoppe and Meta-Modernism i changed my mind. As an experiment I was able to get one my parents and my grandma and sister to dislike the government already, but not to accept the anarchy part; considering the short time used, post-irony rhetoric is far more useful than simply trying to refute socialism, communism, democracy and etc.. But when the time comes it might be good to have the refutations at the ready, just in case.

>>1539
>Are you the russian that posted the post-irony stuff?
Yes, I'm sure I already pissed off the entire board with my posts about that.

>Anyway, you are pretty intelligent, kudos to you, am glad to have you at our side.
Wow, thanks.

>As an experiment I was able to get one my parents and my grandma and sister to dislike the government already, but not to accept the anarchy part
That's amazing, congrats.

>But when the time comes it might be good to have the refutations at the ready, just in case.
Yes, of course. I think it all has a lot to do with emotional management, because no matter how right you are, if you make the other guy feel stupid or defeated, you are still wrong. There were even studies done on how showing evidence which contradicts someone's beliefs actually makes them more entrenched in those beliefs (the backfire effect), so we really have to be as wise as serpents but innocent as doves, and to be really sneaky in our tactics. There's also a really great book called 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene, which talks about indirect refutation and similar kinds of stuff, an absolute must-read for any propagandist:
https://medium.com/@asandalis/law-9-win-through-actions-never-through-argument-cec9fa4a3e5e

>>1546
That post irony stuff is pretty interesting. Just out of curioisity there's this Russian youtuber with long blonde hair that's libertarian and talks about it a lot. What do you think of him?

>>1550
I like him, he's the hero we need over here, he single-handedly popularized libertarianism in Russia with his Youtube channel and activism, and it's because of his streams/lectures and the explanations of the autists from old 8chan's /liberty/ that I became an ancap myself. He's also where I first heard about post-irony/new-sincerity along with other ancaps shilling the same thing for some reason, prompting me to do my own research on it out of curiosity. This year he's planning on bringing Walter Block to Moscow.

>>1560
That sounds awesome.

>>1560
Why don't we have big popularizers of liberty in the west on youtube?

This guy and that Brazilian guy have helped the libertarian movements there tons.

>>1572
You should talk to ancap guy, he seems to think that "libertarians don't meme hard enough."

>>1583
>he seems to think that "libertarians don't meme hard enough."
Unironically. If you even have to use an ironic meme to attempt to mock the effectiveness of memes, then I guess you're proving my point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izXCk0gT3rw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKl6WjfDqYA

>>1436
>>1432
What if we did a kind of spin on QTDDTOT, where we submit hypothetical Leftist questions / talking points, and have the board come up with counterarguments? Then we can compile a kind of "Libertarian Catechism" of sorts. So to speak.

>>2419
You could do that, yeah. I imagine the left-wing hypotheticals produced by reactionaries would yield more interesting responses than the typical canned leftist arguments.

You want one? Here's one, most are in the pockets of major city governments and actually do fuck all for liberty

It's also utopian af and people who talk a big game about altruism are just self-intrested and are doing it for themselves or the validation of their peer group, and the rest of human beings are just self-intrested but outwardly project it and are non-principled egoists, as per the argument of Hobbesian man-in-nature arguments go. In short people suck and to think they will get along in this arrangement is laughable

>>2419
I have one, a bit memey buy I think it's a decent question.
If a man has no property of his own, how do you kick him off of yours? As it would violate the nap to force him onto another's property.

>>2459
I imagine it would go something like a game of hot potato, until the man lands on a property whose owner doesn't object to his presence, or until he lands on unowned property. Assuming he's willing while escorted off the premises each time, anyways. If he resists, he'd likely get shot.

>>1418 >What are some actual decent arguments against anarcho-communism? >against communism lol The ideology is desgined to be as hostile to freedom and economic activity as possible. Since it robs all producers and forces "equality," there's no incentive, and no reason for anyone to excel. Also, since it's puts power into only a few hands, there's little error correction. Leftist insanity will run wild in such systems.

it requires a special breed of human and once you breed a human into that you've pretty much created a bug it's doable but wrong, like making pugs

>>1418 The fact that you can't have a free society without a free market and private ownership... It's such a basic concept that commies are just too retarded to understand. How the fuck can you call a society where you can't technically own your own home a free society? Ancoms believe in a fairy tail land where everyone just collectively thinks exactly the same, collectively decides to offer their services for free, and collectively works to maintain their retarded ideology. I wouldn't be against them in the sense that, if we got rid of the state, there would be nothing stopping me and a bunch of ancaps from building a covenant and keep the commies out. But would I like to live in an ancom commute? Fuck no! Though realistically, I don't think an ancom commute would last more than 2 or 3 years. Their economic system has been proven time and time again to fail. Whatever they try to form will fail, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Reminder that Catalonia was A STATE Also it was extremely authoritarian https://jim.com/cat/blood.htm

>>1583 Maybe that's true.

I have always though, if there is a world with numberous of socialist communes, it wouldnt be inevitable to expect that one commune will be more productive than the others. So we can expect that this commune will be gaining more profits, so there is not real equality in all the human society. That is an argument that can validate why is socialism and real equality can only be achieved with an authoritarian state, so they can organize the economy so no one can take profit, but as we know that is impossible because of economic calculation.

>>3181 >So we can expect that this commune will be gaining more profits, so there is not real equality in all the human society. If there is still such a thing as profits, then it doesn't seem that you're describing a post-capitalism society. But if you just mean that a commune might produce more stuff than another, I don't see how it is a problem for anarcho-communism, or any other anti-capitalist anarchist traditions.

You are alive today. This is something. You may be able today to go to a cafe and eat outdoors, but don't let your guard down. Tomorrow will be worse. Americans must be totally obsessed with freedom now. Every conversation, thought, and action must be spent looking for loopholes, resisting, and prepping. The elites want to kill you. How could care you about anything else?

>>1428 >class as the ultimate division of society Collectivist division of society in general. There is no difference between National Socialist racial divisions and Marxist class divisions besides the changed names.

Americans want to have a civil war over homosexuals, abortion, and illegal immigrants, but no one cares that the USA is a bankrupt warmongering police state.

Americans say everyone must be a mindless sheep.

>>1418 Communism claims that private property either isn't real or is "theft". If you can't own property, then you can't own yourself either. If you don't own yourself, then you have no rights or bodily autonomy. Some commies try to resolve this paradox by making a distinction between "personal property" and "private property", but that's complete nonsense. "Personal property" is still private property. If no one but you can enter your house, unless you give them permission, then guess what? That's private property. If you and all your commie friends voluntarily agree to share a piece of private property and the resources it produces, then guess what? You're allowed to do that under anarcho-capitalism.

>>5482 >Some commies try to resolve this paradox by making a distinction between "personal property" and "private property", but that's complete nonsense. "Personal property" is still private property the means of production

Let us say that Ruritania is ruled by a king who has grievously invaded the rights of persons and the legitimate property of individuals, and has regulated and finally seized their property. A libertarian movement develops in Ruritania, and comes to persuade the bulk of the populace that this criminal system should be replaced by a truly libertarian society, where the rights of each man to his person and his found and created property are fully respected. The king, seeing the revolt to be imminently successful, now employs a cunning stratagem. He proclaims his government to be dissolved, but just before doing so he arbitrarily parcels out the entire land area of his kingdom to the “ownership” of himself and his relatives. He then goes to the libertarian rebels and says: “all right, I have granted your wish, and have dissolved my rule; there is now no more violent intervention in private property. However, myself and my eleven relatives now each own one-twelfth of Ruritania, and if you disturb us in this ownership in any way, you shall be infringing upon the sanctity of the very fundamental principle that you profess: the inviolability of private property. Therefore, while we shall no longer be imposing ‘taxes,’ you must grant each of us the right to impose any ‘rents’ that we may wish upon our ‘tenants,’ or to regulate the lives of all the people who presume to live on ‘our’ property as we see fit. In this way, taxes shall be fully replaced by ‘private rents’!” Now what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert challenge? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this subterfuge, and resign themselves to living under a regime no less despotic than the one they had been battling for so long. Perhaps, indeed, more despotic, for now the king and his relatives can claim for themselves the libertarians’ very principle of the absolute right of private property, an absoluteness which they might not have dared to claim before.

Americans scream tyranny makes you safer, but actually the police state actually increases danger. Now instead of worrying about criminals, you also need to be avoid the Gestapo and terrorist bombings that are a response to tyranny. Americans do not seem to understand that tyranny leads to having a dictator because everyone who is a danger is killed off.

>>5507 Nigger dont you run when im talking to you.

Communism is for retards with down syndrome

>>1418 >What are some actual decent arguments against anarcho-communism? They don't believe in property. You spend all day catching a fish in the river then some guy comes along and says he's more hungry than you and eats it. That's why communes don't work in practice you need somebody to generate a surplus without getting rewarded and without being a slave. The USSR at least had gulags.

>>5510 Not very helpful. Please provide real arguments.

>>5527 It's the best post in the thread, maybe on the board. You don't understand why this is, because you're a retard with Down's Syndrome. Enjoy your gulags and mass starvation, downy.