No. But you avoid debates with anfags about muh real anarchism.

Not really in terms of ideology. The only differences I notice are the people who identify with these terms. From my experience people that identify with anarcho-capitalism are more socilaly conservative. While, people who identify as voluntarist are more socially liberal and get into some weird hippie occult stuff like doing ayahuasca. Then again that's my experience.

>>2480
Voluntarism is an ideal and anarcho-capitalism is just one way of achieving that ideal.

>>2481
Anarcho Monarchism, an interesting meme turned thought experiment. Think about during the golden age of kings, like 1100-1400 AD Even if people weren't REQUIRED to pay taxes back then, many still would have, fanatics and loyalists to the end. In other words, even if the idea of divine monarchy is not mandatory, I think at least 10% of the population would become "true believers" if a very smart very skilled, very wise man proclaimed himself a king, and already had a court (militia) of highly skilled and armed knights.

People are dumb as shit, they treat each other like hive mind animals. What happens if a bee keeper loses 30% of his bees in one single night? The bee keeper is still in business. This is how callous and ignorant people are toward one another. A monarch you aren't required to support, makes sense for tranquilizing/utilizing a lot of mindless people.

>>2481
I saw the thing about it being a counter to govt, a dark messiah, in a novel series, but I think literal Anarcho Monarchism bears a whole lot of thought, for containing dangerous people that are too stupid to be responsible for their selves. It would have the unbelieveable control and mental influence of a religion, but would be based in science, reason, culture, etc. Really, Anarcho Monarchism is the solution for people who think that NatSoc or NasBol, or Fascism is the right answer to organize society. None of those just previously mentioned have the holistic intelligence to forsee the consequences of their actions on a system, let alone the effect of a large group of people on a system.
Just let them be Anarcho Monarchists, or Anarcho Nationalists, building 100 mile wide 50ft tall circular walls in the middle of a thousand mile wide fertile plain. It visually shows their mental shortcomings. Let them live in the Attack on Titan type citadels, ultra walled cities, xenophobic, not much physical contact with the outside world, though obviously with a decently large presence on the internet. Let people laugh at home videos recorded by these AnNats, where in everybody's backyard, you can clearly see the giant monstrosity of a wall on the horizon. Let the world see hear and totally understand the childish bubble sheletered psychology that breeds such a belief, and the people who adhere to it.

>>2561
>Having borders is bad.
Be careful with what are you saying here, anon.

>>2565
Having borders is fine. Defining the people of your country by your arbitrary borders is ridiculous. Rational values > place of birth.

>>2574
>Your upbringing and ethnic origins don´t mark in any way your attitude or intelligence.
Yeah, and the next thing you will say is that niggers act like niggers because of socioeconomic factors.

>>2565
>muh fictional lines
Are you an anarchist or not? Fuck off crypto-fash

How do redditors keep finding this place?

>>2576
Anon, could you please close the door before you start vigorously choking down cock? We're all embarrassed on your behalf.

>>2578
Not an argument. You can't be an anarchist and be in favor of social constructs like borders, laws, states, or anything else.

>NOOOO!!! YOU CAN'T JUST DO WHAT YOU WANT ON YOUR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTYRINOOOO!!!!
Hahaha, you're a funny guy! Anyway, me and my catgirls need to go beat up some nigger trespassers.

>>2582
OK, when I shoot you for trespassing and sell your organs on eBay you can rest easy in the fact that I wasn't a real anarchist while doing so.

>>2575
Of course nurturing and race and genetics affect behavior and intelligence. Not arguing that.
However
Manifested positive values/philosophies > muh race.

In other words, an intelligent Mexican who is a wiz in a machine shop, and likes his guns, is more valuable and welcome, than a 100% Bavarian phenotype raised by upper class family who is a herion addict and a SJW liberal.

>>2590
There is always, of course, the reversion to the mean. That doesn't discount your argument in particular and specific cases, but in the long term, genetic/+racial selection and discrimination is a heuristic for getting the values you want.

>>2590
Fair point, bit I would still in my position though, as believing too much on the theory of the "good and based non-white" ends up falling in ZOGnald-tier (((civic nationalism))).

Calling yourself an anarchist makes you sound like a faggot imo.

>>2591
I agree that racial discrimination is one of the best tools for weeding out the shitties. I mean, we should all know that if a country's average IQ is less than 97, it CAN'T remain stable over a long period of time. Then you have tens of African countries with an IQ of 70, and geniuses from their countries have an IQ of about 110. Even most Middle Eastern countries, avg IQ of 90. It's not sustainable, but not just because of raw intelligence.

I am certain that the underlying reason high IQ races have long term sustainability, isn't even because of their ability to intricately plan years in advance. It isn't because of their superior technology. The real underlying reason why high IQ races make civilizations that are sustainable, is because they are the most Just.
In other words, as the aggregate morality in a society increases (NAP and Defense Principle) freedom, camaraderie, efficiency, charity will all increase. As the aggregate morality of a society decreases, so less will be the freedom, efficiency, camaraderie and charity.

This is why I think discriminating based on values is more important than on race. Yes, race determines initial eligibility in a functional society, just like height determines initial eligibility to be a pro basketball player. You basically must be at least 6ft tall, even though a few times over the past 50 decades, a player shorter than 6ft has been an MVP or Hall of Famer.

After the initial segregation, values/philosophy becomes more important, just like skill is more important in basketball, given you are over 6ft tall. For example, I don't see any reason why Nips, Joseons, Viets, Taiwanese, Singaporeans, shouldn't be able to come and stay or go as they please from a primarily White society. They are intelligent enough to understand morality, and they are intelligent enough to understand the causes and effects of their actions days or weeks before they actually occur. Sure, there would have to be cultural centers than show newcomers the ropes, but I think after an initial screening based on genetics and criminal history, there would be no problem with letting any race with an avg IQ of 100 or more, live with whites.

>>2613
>basketball
>50 decades
whoops lolol

>>2613
>For example, I don't see any reason why Nips, Joseons, Viets, Taiwanese, Singaporeans, shouldn't be able to come and stay or go as they please from a primarily White society.
Depends what you mean by "come and stay or go." A lot of what's necessary for a just society is predicated on that society being made up of very high-trust communities. Due to the nature of human biology and how human brains are wired, trust level in communities is highly correlated with homogeneity, particularly ethnic homogeneity and religious homogeneity. Religious homogeneity because religion informs one's philosophy, moral values, and theory of justice, and compatibility of such is necessary in order to settle disputes by argumentation rather than violence, and ethnic homogeneity because it's so easily verifiable. Ethnicity effectively paints your genetic history on your face, making it extremely easy for others to look at you and conclude, "he is one of us." This removes a lot of uncertainty and increases trust. Increasing trust decreases transaction costs, since you need to purchase a lesser amount of security/insurance to protect against possible uncertainties. Common languages and culture decrease transaction cost as well, for obvious reasons. And someone just looking like you decreases transaction costs because we like being around people that look like us, regardless of transaction costs or anything else.

The natural response to this is, "Couldn't a jap, chink, or other based Asian fit into this high-trust community so long as he learns the language, learns the culture, and adopts the same religion? He'd meet every criteria except for looking like everyone else, isn't that high trust enough?" And the answer is yes--but only up to a point. A lone member of some out-group can become part of the in-group, and peer pressure will force him to conform. The same is true of two such people, and likely also three, four, and five. After a certain point, however, there are enough of the out-group present in one place that they can form their own in-group, and conform with one another, instead of conforming with the host culture. Old /pol/ infographics like to throw around percentages for when this happens, usually in the vicinity of ~10% or so. That's probably approximately correct, but I'd like to propose a more intuitive answer. For an individual covenant community--say a neighborhood--the number of acceptable out-group members is the maximum number at which you may keep track of every exception individually. If they're small enough in number that you can think "Oh hey, that's Chingchong Nippon-san, he reads Faulkner and we saw him at church the other day," the number is small enough that no transaction costs are incurred, because there's no uncertainty. If the number of out-group newcomers is high enough that you can't keep track of them all, and instead think, "Oh look, it's one of the Asians," it's high enough to start increasing uncertainty in the community, which is when it starts to have a detrimental effect. The exact number at which this occurs surely varies from one community to the next, and I expect them to arrive at their personally optimal level of outsiders through price discovery.

>>2621

Fuck this is interesting. I like your idea about the threshold being naturally at the maximum number of people that can be individually recognized. It makes a lot of sense. I suspect that the threshold may be even larger "Looks like one of the Wantanabe boys" or "I think she's a cousin of the Moon's" It would also be interesting to study how much the racial preference changes over time in a scenario like that. I imagine that the different peoples of Switzerland are more comfortable with each other now, than they were 500 years ago, not just in the active mental, but in the deep subconscious.

Another point of interest would be bending the barrier, i.e. what things can a community do to maintain the same level of familiarity and trust when the percentage of Asians goes up to 11 or 12 figuratively? What causes the minority to not integrate, or form their own subculture? Language is obviously the biggest factor, but what about in a scenario where it's native English speaking whites with native English speaking Asians?

>>2622
>What causes the minority to not integrate, or form their own subculture? Language is obviously the biggest factor, but what about in a scenario where it's native English speaking whites with native English speaking Asians?
I'm going to keep using the transaction costs angle because it seems like the best way to describe this in game theory terms. When you interact with people different from you, you incur a transaction cost because it takes effort to reconcile the difference. It's in your own interest to minimize the transaction cost however possible. When you're isolated in a group of strangers, the way to minimize the transaction costs is to make yourself as much like the strangers as possible. When you have other people that are already like you, though, the way you minimize that transaction cost is to interact with the people who don't incur a transaction cost. It's easier to socialize and do business with people if you don't have to spend effort conforming yourself to them.

So let's say you have a community that's 90% white and 10% Asian, and the Asians are as culturally assimilated as they can possibly be. Asian/white transaction costs are in turn as small as they can possibly be. However, they aren't quite zero because humans have an innate biological in-group preference, and even if the culture is completely the same which I personally think is unlikely but for the sake of argument, it's still a tiny bit cheaper to interact with someone who is like you culturally and physically than someone who is only like you culturally. So, other things equal, the Asians will socialize with other Asians more than they would with whites. They still have to assimilate because they still need to do business with the whites and still need to be on relatively good terms to not be run out of town, but a tiny rift has started to grow between the two groups. The larger the group of Asians grows, the more opportunities there are for an Asian service or social function to replace a white service or social function. And even if the Asian services are still culturally the same, remember it's still marginally preferable for an Asian to interact with another slanteye. The more Asian services become available, the less impetus there is to assimilate. If the Asian population is big enough to provide essential services, such as housing, a place of worship, and food, there's no longer any impetus to assimilate at all.

>>2622
I believe being uncertain of the transactional costs and community cohesion past a certain point is reason enough to make a case for discrimination by individuals and communities. I also see no cases where a Taiwanese/Japanese/Singaporean guy wouldn't choose to live in a community filled with their own people instead of joining a white community. Even among the nicest, most altruistic white people they'd be alien, so why not join their rice eating brethren?
Anyways I think we're just arguing the small stuff here, we're largely in agreement. OP's question was answered in the first few posts so that doesn't matter.

>>2623
Could this be "solved" by just letting in a certain amount of out-group individuals that within a short number of generations would be genetically integrated? That is, if you let in, let's say, a family of asians, would the increased cost of transaction go as low as it was in the 100% homogeneous group if the tiny amount of asians mix genetically with the whites up to the point that their genes are diluted enough not to be visually differentiable from the other whites? That could be a way to let in certain high IQ or really valuable individuals of different racial groups into your covenant without that affecting it negatively in the long run, right?

>>2630
>Could this be "solved" by just letting in a certain amount of out-group individuals that within a short number of generations would be genetically integrated?
I suppose, but at that point you're basically just being homogeneous but with more steps. Regression to the mean implies that the net benefit to the gene pool would be negligible without a very aggressive eugenics program to supplement it, and most outsiders probably wouldn't want to join a community with the knowledge that their genes and way of life would be bred out of existence within a couple generations. You may as well just make an official policy of complete ethnostate, then deal with exceptional circumstances as they appear (since unless you're literally autistic you can always bend your own rules if it benefits you), instead of spending unnecessary time and effort trying to institutionalize your policy for unlikely and highly variable exceptional circumstances.

Exactly. We'll all be living in caves after everything is outlawed, but then you can be sure that living in caves will soon be banned in order to protect endangered bats.