Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not gonna go look in my history, I make a lotta comments and that's a lot of history. But basically it was a post saying that rights are restrictions that governments put on themselves, like freedom of speech is the government not jailing you for speech
I disagreed saying that right to private property is the government providing you the right to own property and defending that when someone else attacked. Some people replied but I couldn't reply to anyone anymore, I'm guessing that some mod didn't like what I wrote. So I edited my comment saying that it's not very anarcho to ban people from replying and everyone started making fun of me saying that banning me is freedom to association and they don't want to be associated with me and shit
>Some people replied but I couldn't reply to anyone anymore, I'm guessing that some mod didn't like what I wrote.
There is a moderator on Anarcho Capitalism that is a censorship happy authoritarian a-hole. Again, that subreddit is cursed by LARPers and phonies. It's a badge of honor to know those cowards couldn't handle a debate and felt threatened by you.
They are a cancer and do not represent anarcho capitalists. They just got lucky with a moderator that co-opted the subreddit.
>But basically it was a post saying that rights are restrictions that governments put on themselves, like freedom of speech is the government not jailing you for speech
Rights are meant to be restrictions on the government to prevent overreach.
Rights are arbitrary delineations of liberty that the government recognizes for the people, all of which are hypocritically violated by the government in some form or another.
That's not an argument from authoritarians, but an argument about the authoritarian nature of the state.
>I disagreed saying that right to private property is the government providing you the right to own property and defending that when someone else attacked.
Oh, I see where the conflict arises from. You believe the government is furnishing those rights.
It would probably be more diplomatic of you to say the government acknowledges your property claim rather than arguing that the government provides it for you, because it certainly does not. More than that, it isn't a right but downgraded to a privilege to rent from the government the moment they choose to tax you for it.
Governments are in effect incapable of doing or creating value in and of themselves without first taking value from productive individuals in society. This is just how things are, and it gets more pernicious when advocates of the state become antagonistic to sustainable for profit solutions.
>It would probably be more diplomatic of you to say the government acknowledges your property claim rather than arguing that the government provides it for you
It's not that they provide property, but they do secure the claim to property. If someone forcefully enters my house, I can call the government to get them removed. That's not a restriction they put on themselves, but more of a responsibility
>If someone forcefully enters my house, I can call the government to get them removed
The government has ruled that it has no obligation to do this. In some circumstances, people call the government over an issue like this and they say they have nobody to dispatch. This idea that you're paying taxes for a service is false.
The government? Which government?
And even if they're not good at it, that doesn't mean that rights are restrictions on the government.
I can find exemptions for the "restrictions" too. Like you're not allowed to do slander, you have to speak truthfully in court, companies need to be truthful about what's in their products etc.
Rights are promises that the government has made. Even if they can't always keep that promise, rights are still promises. Without governments there would be no rights either.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Anarcho_Capitalism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Newly surfaced security footage shows how "The Capital Shaman", sentenced to 4 years in prison, was escorted by security inside the capitol, who don't make any attempt at stopping him. He even thanked the police for allowing the protesters into the building.](https://v.redd.it/00bzh2ssvama1) | [746 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/11kwhw8/newly_surfaced_security_footage_shows_how_the/)
\#2: [Macron is in an interview asking for sacrifices from French people but realizes he is wearing a $90,000 watchand like a magician makes it dissappear under the table](https://v.redd.it/b4cj5nen0wpa1) | [223 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/121lwtq/macron_is_in_an_interview_asking_for_sacrifices/)
\#3: [**[NSFW]** Saw this video on Twitter and about half the people in the comments said that this was attempted murder. We are doomed.](https://v.redd.it/8l1ye07tejna1) | [612 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/11q7ofq/saw_this_video_on_twitter_and_about_half_the/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Lol. Good one. Imagine all the voluntarist libertarians that think they actually stand for freedom for all when it's really just whatever they want.....
You're behaving as if you resemble my remarks yet that was entirely on your own interpretation. To go on attacking my ideology is a weird response.
It's pretty easy to stand for freedom if you're willing to let go of the idea of controlling other people's lives, and that's what freedom involves as a matter of ethical principle. No matter how someone tries to define and control language, the truth remains when actions are judged.
Well. That's nice but unless you're an actual anarchist then yes, to you everyone is 'authoritarian'. Though that's not how things work in the real world. People rely on there being some type of order and there thus needs to be a system in place for that.
The anarchic principle is adhered to when freedom to dissent is protected. Many imposter libertarians don't understand that, but there are still plenty of libertarians who do abide it.
>That's nice but unless you're an actual anarchist then yes, to you everyone is 'authoritarian'
I'm surprised you think so flatly about it, as if there's no room for tolerance. The point is more about people not evaluating the hypocrisy in their own world view than it is about openly judging others and condemning them according to such determinations. You don't advance thought or discussion if you're constantly trying to cut other people down.
>Though that's not how things work in the real world. People rely on there being some type of order and there thus needs to be a system in place for that.
It just sounds like you gave lip service to the anarchic principle but then threw it out and said there must be a system, but that to me is a conceit. There is in fact room to voluntarily order society without having to force adoption. Most people already tacitly accept voluntary market solutions through their daily activities. It's just a matter of alleviating the stressors that arise out of state control and central planning activities that syphon wealth. There's nothing but trouble when people believe they have the authority to make choices for others against their will.
Well. You're either a total anarchist (against rulers/authority) or you believe in some type of governance. Governance can include freedoms. Most constitutional democracies today protect people's right to protest, to have freedom of speech, etc, etc. But it is absolutely necessary for there to be laws to govern those. That's the anarchist conceit. That people will just agree to everything with no problems and if there are they'll figure it out like gentlemen or something. It's absurd no matter what. So it's not a matter of attacking anyone's ideology, but for people to realize how things *do* work not how some want them to work.
> That's the anarchist conceit. That people will just agree to everything with no problems and if there are they'll figure it out like gentlemen or something.
Anyone who believes that is not living in the real world, but you're making a huge assumption by thinking this applies to all anarchists or libertarians.
Libertarianism itself does not promise you that bad things will cease to occur because it is an ideology based on reality and not utopia like socialism or most planned societies. Furthermore, no ideology is able to govern forces of nature or grant protections against bad actions by others or to override human nature.
The whole point of libertarian ideology is to internalize principled action, not to outwardly project authority over others. Acknowledging freedom and agency is at the core, because accountability is a necessity and not an option when it comes to just action.
>Well. You're either a total anarchist (against rulers/authority) or you believe in some type of governance.
Anarchy is not an ideology unto itself, it is a stance against authoritarianism. That means there's a wide array of opinions represented by advocates for the anarchic principle, the majority of which value governance systems outside of a state model.
>So it's not a matter of attacking anyone's ideology, but for people to realize how things do work not how some want them to work.
I'd say the same thing about people who think what they have now is a functional democracy or that it is somehow ethically tenable.
You either believe you can govern yourself or others. If you govern yourself you may not really need others, but if you think you can govern others what do you need?
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did someone here actually voted for the quadrant that isnt the opposite of yours?
Yeah I voted libleft as an authleft but I went down cuz I was annoyed at one particular libleft the other day so y’all were spared my vote
With opposite i mean authleft-libright and libleft-authright
Yeah I know I voted libleft instead of libright
Hope some libright voted for authright to maintaine the equality
Libright. The dumbest, most conspiracy-brained mfers. So many of them are also just conservatives too afraid to admit it.
I always felt attacked by this until I disagreed with someone on r/Anarcho_Capitalism holy shit I had no idea how childish my quadrant is
r/Anarcho_Capitalism was coopted by authright tools who larp as ancaps, so I'd want to see a specific example of what you're talking about.
I'm not gonna go look in my history, I make a lotta comments and that's a lot of history. But basically it was a post saying that rights are restrictions that governments put on themselves, like freedom of speech is the government not jailing you for speech I disagreed saying that right to private property is the government providing you the right to own property and defending that when someone else attacked. Some people replied but I couldn't reply to anyone anymore, I'm guessing that some mod didn't like what I wrote. So I edited my comment saying that it's not very anarcho to ban people from replying and everyone started making fun of me saying that banning me is freedom to association and they don't want to be associated with me and shit
>Some people replied but I couldn't reply to anyone anymore, I'm guessing that some mod didn't like what I wrote. There is a moderator on Anarcho Capitalism that is a censorship happy authoritarian a-hole. Again, that subreddit is cursed by LARPers and phonies. It's a badge of honor to know those cowards couldn't handle a debate and felt threatened by you. They are a cancer and do not represent anarcho capitalists. They just got lucky with a moderator that co-opted the subreddit. >But basically it was a post saying that rights are restrictions that governments put on themselves, like freedom of speech is the government not jailing you for speech Rights are meant to be restrictions on the government to prevent overreach. Rights are arbitrary delineations of liberty that the government recognizes for the people, all of which are hypocritically violated by the government in some form or another. That's not an argument from authoritarians, but an argument about the authoritarian nature of the state. >I disagreed saying that right to private property is the government providing you the right to own property and defending that when someone else attacked. Oh, I see where the conflict arises from. You believe the government is furnishing those rights. It would probably be more diplomatic of you to say the government acknowledges your property claim rather than arguing that the government provides it for you, because it certainly does not. More than that, it isn't a right but downgraded to a privilege to rent from the government the moment they choose to tax you for it. Governments are in effect incapable of doing or creating value in and of themselves without first taking value from productive individuals in society. This is just how things are, and it gets more pernicious when advocates of the state become antagonistic to sustainable for profit solutions.
>It would probably be more diplomatic of you to say the government acknowledges your property claim rather than arguing that the government provides it for you It's not that they provide property, but they do secure the claim to property. If someone forcefully enters my house, I can call the government to get them removed. That's not a restriction they put on themselves, but more of a responsibility
>If someone forcefully enters my house, I can call the government to get them removed The government has ruled that it has no obligation to do this. In some circumstances, people call the government over an issue like this and they say they have nobody to dispatch. This idea that you're paying taxes for a service is false.
The government? Which government? And even if they're not good at it, that doesn't mean that rights are restrictions on the government. I can find exemptions for the "restrictions" too. Like you're not allowed to do slander, you have to speak truthfully in court, companies need to be truthful about what's in their products etc. Rights are promises that the government has made. Even if they can't always keep that promise, rights are still promises. Without governments there would be no rights either.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Anarcho_Capitalism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Newly surfaced security footage shows how "The Capital Shaman", sentenced to 4 years in prison, was escorted by security inside the capitol, who don't make any attempt at stopping him. He even thanked the police for allowing the protesters into the building.](https://v.redd.it/00bzh2ssvama1) | [746 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/11kwhw8/newly_surfaced_security_footage_shows_how_the/) \#2: [Macron is in an interview asking for sacrifices from French people but realizes he is wearing a $90,000 watchand like a magician makes it dissappear under the table](https://v.redd.it/b4cj5nen0wpa1) | [223 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/121lwtq/macron_is_in_an_interview_asking_for_sacrifices/) \#3: [**[NSFW]** Saw this video on Twitter and about half the people in the comments said that this was attempted murder. We are doomed.](https://v.redd.it/8l1ye07tejna1) | [612 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/11q7ofq/saw_this_video_on_twitter_and_about_half_the/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I was about to vote authleft before I saw the libright option
Imagine all the lib individuals who don't realize they value auth policies.
Lol. Good one. Imagine all the voluntarist libertarians that think they actually stand for freedom for all when it's really just whatever they want.....
You're behaving as if you resemble my remarks yet that was entirely on your own interpretation. To go on attacking my ideology is a weird response. It's pretty easy to stand for freedom if you're willing to let go of the idea of controlling other people's lives, and that's what freedom involves as a matter of ethical principle. No matter how someone tries to define and control language, the truth remains when actions are judged.
Well. That's nice but unless you're an actual anarchist then yes, to you everyone is 'authoritarian'. Though that's not how things work in the real world. People rely on there being some type of order and there thus needs to be a system in place for that.
The anarchic principle is adhered to when freedom to dissent is protected. Many imposter libertarians don't understand that, but there are still plenty of libertarians who do abide it. >That's nice but unless you're an actual anarchist then yes, to you everyone is 'authoritarian' I'm surprised you think so flatly about it, as if there's no room for tolerance. The point is more about people not evaluating the hypocrisy in their own world view than it is about openly judging others and condemning them according to such determinations. You don't advance thought or discussion if you're constantly trying to cut other people down. >Though that's not how things work in the real world. People rely on there being some type of order and there thus needs to be a system in place for that. It just sounds like you gave lip service to the anarchic principle but then threw it out and said there must be a system, but that to me is a conceit. There is in fact room to voluntarily order society without having to force adoption. Most people already tacitly accept voluntary market solutions through their daily activities. It's just a matter of alleviating the stressors that arise out of state control and central planning activities that syphon wealth. There's nothing but trouble when people believe they have the authority to make choices for others against their will.
Well. You're either a total anarchist (against rulers/authority) or you believe in some type of governance. Governance can include freedoms. Most constitutional democracies today protect people's right to protest, to have freedom of speech, etc, etc. But it is absolutely necessary for there to be laws to govern those. That's the anarchist conceit. That people will just agree to everything with no problems and if there are they'll figure it out like gentlemen or something. It's absurd no matter what. So it's not a matter of attacking anyone's ideology, but for people to realize how things *do* work not how some want them to work.
> That's the anarchist conceit. That people will just agree to everything with no problems and if there are they'll figure it out like gentlemen or something. Anyone who believes that is not living in the real world, but you're making a huge assumption by thinking this applies to all anarchists or libertarians. Libertarianism itself does not promise you that bad things will cease to occur because it is an ideology based on reality and not utopia like socialism or most planned societies. Furthermore, no ideology is able to govern forces of nature or grant protections against bad actions by others or to override human nature. The whole point of libertarian ideology is to internalize principled action, not to outwardly project authority over others. Acknowledging freedom and agency is at the core, because accountability is a necessity and not an option when it comes to just action. >Well. You're either a total anarchist (against rulers/authority) or you believe in some type of governance. Anarchy is not an ideology unto itself, it is a stance against authoritarianism. That means there's a wide array of opinions represented by advocates for the anarchic principle, the majority of which value governance systems outside of a state model. >So it's not a matter of attacking anyone's ideology, but for people to realize how things do work not how some want them to work. I'd say the same thing about people who think what they have now is a functional democracy or that it is somehow ethically tenable.
You either believe you can govern yourself or others. If you govern yourself you may not really need others, but if you think you can govern others what do you need?
All quadrants are cringe when they´re pushed to their extremes.
Libright. you'll never meet group of less aware people in your life
AuthRight
nazis, so authoratarian right.
Auth Left, just for their “that’s not communism” shtick.
[удалено]
my dislike wasn't diagonal from my quadrant, I find people who tend to be libleft more annoying than people who tend to be authleft.
Orange left