/lit/ - Literature

>>15314623
ancap is a meme.

>>15314623
Silent spring is the most important enviromentalist book in terms pf influence imo

>>15314623
search anarcho capitalism meme on google images

>>15314623
All the American 1890s Mudracker literature.

>>15314623
Honestly read Marx

Meme ideology is best beat with meme ideology, so I'd unironically suggest you read Kaczynski.

>>15314765
this, read Industrial Society and its Future and join a real revolutionary movement for once, as an "an"cap you should already be full of spite and contempt for leftists so the transition should be unproblematic

>>15314623
>Our Synthetic Environment by Bookchin
https://b-ok.cc/book/5255038/8ce5ee

>>15314623
Whomever owns the river can do whatever the fuck they want with it. Fuck off socialist faggot.

>>15314623
Have you read Rothbard? Rand? An individual who polluted another's private property would be initiating force against them. The reason it is so widespread is because it is public property and there is great incentive to pollute. A factory could not pollute your private property in a free society, only their own.

>>15314623
It is not interesting to a radical capitalist civilization to allow the pollution or destruction of natural resources, specially because in an ancap society people would attempt to extract as much value from everything around them and basically everything would be owned by someone eventually, so a river would also be someone's property at some point, and used for a myriad of economic activities from hydroelectric power production to fishing to bottling and selling water. In an anarchist capitalist society people would be salivating for natural resources to own, and a river would not be up for grabs for too long.

You can either follow Rothbard (archic societies pollute, governments don't stop this pollution and limit the liability of polluters)
https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution
https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution

or you can try to reconstruct the natural rights/propertarian view to include the public space
https://www.panarchy.org/rodericklong/property.html
http://www.luvnpeas.org/glib/locke.html

youre a moron

>>15315238
What a retarded argument

>>15315228
>whomever
retard

>>15315238
> rivers are private property
Yikes!

>>15315657
>>15315742
>>15315746
>>15315750
Hoes extremely mad

>>15315238
>it's ok, i'm only polluting my part of the atmosphere, it's my private property!
kys retard

>>15314623
Post the name of the documentary you saw.

>>15315762
>You can't own the natural resources, that's a meanie thing to do!
Hippie faggot

>>15314623

>>15315137
cover is so sick

>>15315137
Good taste

>>15314660
It isn't. After a while you stop caring about all externalities that don't affect you. If it was your river in question and you could prove the source, you could charge them with violating the NAP and demand remedy or go to war.

>>15314623
what was the documentary

>>15314758
He would see nothing against it and that's essentially what it was and would have speculated in the absence of the revolution would occur sooner. He didn't have a moral argument moron.

>>15315750
They should be.

>>15316028
Ancap are for literall jews who wont care about nothing but themselves.

>>15314623
Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching

https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/propertarianism-for-libertarians/
Read the pdf "PropertarianCoreConcepts". It was my eye opener.

>>15316061
I don't care about anyone but myself.

>>15315750
Not what I said
>>15315762
Why would it not be ok to do whatever you like with your private property? Keeping in mind it would also lose value if you polluted it.
>>15315742
How so?

>>15316028
>or go to war.
You surely would do very well against a whole factory with millions of dollars.

>>15315238
>A factory could not pollute your private property in a free society, only their own.
Who would stop them if they did? The State?

>>15315804
>The coal factory next door is releasing a lot of toxic material in the air, giving you lung cancer
>It's their property and thus their right, what are you a commie faggot?

>>15316306
Practicality doesn't dictate morality. The state may typically have the monopoly of force, and just because in a free society that isn't the case, it doesn't mean you won't have the ability to moderate a dispute or enforce private property rights

>>15314623
read pedro, get on to actual anarchism

>>15315137
Bookchin was a filthy Zionist

>>15316459
Why would i care about mediating a dispute between separate owners of private property rights? It's not my property so i don't care. Why don't i just take their property for myself?

>>15316645
>bro we don't need to accelerate the material forces of production, we could implement the principle "to each one acording to his need" right away if it only weren't for these damn capitalists lmao
read Marx and Lenin, you need to go back

>>15316748
heheh, no tanks, thankie.
you like a good Hegelian trip, right? You are stuck in the dialectic of authority (your Vanguard) and equality. So here's a synthesis for you: Since you can't get to the right end by the wrong means, the means must be the end, the end, ongoing means.

>>15316837
>you like a good Hegelian trip, right?
no, Marx used Hegelian dialectics only because Darwinism hadn't been fully developed yet, now evolution is an accepted scientific fact and there's literally no excuse for leftists to keep reading this old German hack (I mean Hegel)
>So here's a synthesis for you
>he still shills the thesis-antithesis-synthesis meme which was refuted like 1000 times

>>15316860
like I said the Hegelian framing was for your benefit.
My point remains. We must BE our solution. You trust somebody else (some Great Man™), to build it for you, by force, using the very tools we're trying to dismantle... that's not the way.

>>15314623
The Leviathan by Hobbes

>>15316895
>We must BE our solution
empty platitude, you know Marxism is all about material reality, right?
>You trust somebody else (some Great Man™), to build it for you, by force, using the very tools we're trying to dismantle... that's not the way.
listen kid, I'd surely be an anarchist if there was ever any evidence that it works out well but as it happens material reality refutes anarchism, anarchist "insurrection" is literally Porky's wet dream since they know it can be dismantled in a minute and all historical examples of anarchism have survived like 2 weeks (please don't bring up the Stalinist "backstabbing" in Kekalonia during Civil War or Kronstadt, these talking points were refuted milion times). oh and Marxism is literally against the Great Man Theory of history, read Stalin. the masses cannot fight capitalism succesfully without the leadership of the communist party just as the party cannot survive without enthusiastic support from the masses

>>15314623
In the book of stopping and thinking for 5 fucking seconds lmao

>>15316952
>Marxism is all about material reality, right?
And I'm not a fucking marxist. If you can't into the basic fact that a radical new way of life requires a radical new ontology,, that's cool.
>anarchist "insurrection"
I like that you put insurrection in quotes there, it shows you basically understand that any anarchist mass change would work in a very different way to the marxist idea of change.
You guys want to rise up!!!111one!! and smashhh and killll, guilliotineeees woooo. No wonder common people are scared of you.
You want to play the game of states and armies, so of course anarchy makes no sense.
I don't wanna play that game at all. You think anarchy is fragile, but you're overlooking something huge: While porky's doggies may be strong, the actual position of the elites is extremely fragile. It requires the ongoing consent and engagement of the workers. So what If we merely disengage, no attacking, no smashing, no red flags waving from the capitol, just slowly build towards community self-sufficiency, mutual-aid, you know, fraternity. We don't eat the rich, we merely make them irrelevant. What are they gonna do? send in the riot police to make me go buy a bottle of coca cola?

>>15314623
Georgism, also called geoism and single tax (archaic), is an economic ideology holding that while people should own the value they produce themselves, economic value derived from land (often including natural resources and natural opportunities) should belong equally to all members of society.

>>15314623
Do unironic ancaps actually exist?

>>15314623
......... Really? you were an honest ancap and fucking river pollution is what is what made you reconsider? Im not an ancap, but your convictions must have been retardly surface level or nonexistant to begin with if THAT is what makes you reconsider your stance. Please, if you are going to post bait, actually make it semi-believable.

Does anyone actually believe OP?

>>15316860
pseud

>>15317495
cringe liberal

>>15317622

>>15317707
Not an argument.

just repeat: it was ultimately governments fault, it was ultimately governments fault, true libertarianism has never been tried, it was ultimately governments fault

>>15317750
nice.

>>15314623
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/iain-macsaorsa-ecology-or-anarcho-capitalism

Any economics textbook. Look for the chapter on externalities.

take the neoabsolutist pill.

>>15316028
>go to war
You will lose

>>15318336
Have you read any of these books?

>>15314623
>Just watched a documentary about river pollution by factories
Are you referring to Dark Waters as a documentary?

>>15314623
Read Kaczynski and Linkola

If rivers weren't public property you wouldn't have the problem to begin with

>>15317495
>>15317750
/thread

>>15319161
Capitalism doesn't work.

>>15319169
True. Neither do socialism.

>>15319189
At least socialism doesn't try to be evil

>>15316028
>you could charge them with violating the NAP
Who will enforce the judgment without State? If there are multiple different enforcing organization supposed to enforce stuff like that, who would have priority?
>or go to war.
What a fucking retard you are. Going to war for business related problems. Who will go to war, you? With your keyboard?

>>15319197
Do you unironically think that liberals are purposely trying to harm society, or that all this is a question of good vs. evil? How old are you?

>>15315804
>noooo you can't just live in peace with yourself and fellow creatures you have to exploit and consume things nooooo

kill yourself rat

>>15314623
“Free-market environmentalism”, the polluted river is one the first examples that is tackled.

>>15319314
They understand perfectly well what they are doing, and yet they cannot see themselves as evil. These are two completely compartmentalized sides of their mind. They have formed what Georges Gurdjieff called "buffers", which allow a person to hold contradictory beliefs without ever facing their paradox.

In other words, the elites are completely detached from the lower classes. They understand their suffering and their own role in it, only as abstract facts. Like when you see a disaster on tv that kills thousands of people and you feel bad for them, but if a single person in your family dies you feel a thousand times more intensely. Proles are merely quirky, "earthy" people that exist on the other side of their television screen. They are totally unable to come to terms with their physical coexistence with them.

>>15319314
Just an other political economy variation.

>>15319696
Oh, I see, and socialists are the good ones, isn't it? Their leaders aren't equally detached from the masses, the Politbureau doesn't see the working class as a mean to an end, as a vehicle for their fantasies of a civitas Dei on earth, right?

>>15319331
>live in peace with yourself and fellow creatures
You can try faggot. I'll come and shoot your bisons.

>>15320923
>Their leaders
I don't even know who you're talking about. Xi Jinping? The president of "Venezuala"? The president of Norway? Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez?
And it doesn't matter. I wasn't making a comparison. I was making a statement about the elites of the world today. I take your deflection to mean you basically agree with me. That's honestly good enough. We need to deal with the existential threats to our civilization, we can figure out what to do next along the way.

>>15321019
> I take your deflection to mean you basically agree with me.
Yup, I agree with you, I was just pointing out that I don't think socialism is any better, and that other alternatives exist.

>>15316074
>truth doesn't need to be justified or proven
OK so this is small brain but
>truth doesn't need to be justified but it does need to stand up to various tests
real fucking question, is this an elaborate troll?

>>15317056
not that guy but they'll attack you- possibly also by subtle means, possibly by siege, possibly with a fucking gun- until you need something they control, then they'll charge you for it

>>15314623
Maybe read some chomsky

>>15321164
>Georgist
That’s just another hue of socialism. There’s a bunch.

>>15321164
Cool!

I would like to talk about this "georgism" thing as well. To start off: some hundreds of years ago, some people arrived on this land where I currently am, and fenced it off, got it notarized by the government at some point, and this meaningless historical fact now has an immense impact on my life. Had that person been a relative of mine, my life would now be completely different. We can't even credit that original settler with some cleverness or any other distinguishable quality, because it is impossible to predict if, for example, an important city will eventually grow around that land, or if some industrial accident is going to render it uninhabitable.

So right off the bat I can't get on board with this George person because private ownership of land just seems so absurd and abhorrent to begin with.

>>15321272
If "I" am some commune making a big statement and inciting dissidence, maybe. What if it's all over the place? What if common people everywhere finally realized they'd actually be happier with a leading role in a small, modest community than as a consumer drone in global capitalism?

>>15316028
Too bad the externalities still affect you and you have no choice in the matter. I'll accept ancap is at least somewhat pragmatically real when we have individuals birthed and left on their own to feed themselves, teach themselves, build their own culture city then repeat the process (obv without instincts of any sort as that's technically an externality)

>>15319314
please tell me more about mutualism

>>15316674
nobody's perfect

>>15321306
Did you read Progress and Poverty?

>>15321309
>what if everyone went on strike
the ones not striking would be more than enough to push them into engaging in capitalism again

>>15314623
there's a chapter in "A Spontaneous Order" by Christopher Chase Rachels that talks about that kind of stuff

>>15319314
>free credit
yikes

>>15321329
Do you work a 12-hour work day? Does your child work in a coal mine? I donno bud, maybe strikes deserve a bit more of your consideration.

>>15321309
> I can't get on board with this George person because private ownership of land just seems so absurd and abhorrent to begin with.
https://www.prosper.org.au/faq/

>>15321313
https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/working-translations/proudhon-library-translations/

>>15319169
>a bloo bloo im a faggot studying philosophy at university in debt while working a minimum wage job this is obviously the fault of muh capitalist boogeyman
grow up

>>15314664
>Rachel Carson
I'm not reading some shit fem lit

>>15321377
I don't see that my issue is directly addressed there, and I'd have been very surprised if it had.
It's all explained from within the logic of capitalism.
It all sounds lovely, to be honest. That the unimproved value of land belongs to the community is a lovely idea. I'm sure it would be an improvement on the current state of affairs.

It's just not good enough. It doesn't deal with all the emergent evils of capitalism. The blind rules of money don't know if they are incentivizing noble entrepreneurship or thoroughly anti-social behavior. (I'm anticipating here that the "incentivizing power of money" is pretty big with you georgists) And, to re-iterate, it doesn't address my concern that meaningless events from centuries ago define who gets to decide the uses of land today - and profit from it.

>>15314623
like people have already said ITT, this wouldnt happen if the river wasn't public property.
if the river is public property then the factories dont give a shit about its cleanliness because they have to spend their time and money on the factory and the state has the responsibility to clean it up.
if the rivers were the private property of the factory it wouldnt be polluted, because then the factory owners have the responsibility of keeping it clean, and normal people like keeping their property clean in the first place. the owner of a pet shop isn't gonna let all the animals shit on the floor.

you have to realize that all these faults of capitalism that people like to point to, are not something that happens in an unregulated free market, but are the results of government interference.

have you actually read any ancap literature or did you just align yourself to it because of random stuff you read on the internet? all this shit on the internet like "when your le child slave le eats your le mcdonalds violating le NAP so you le nuke him" is just memes. thats not real anarcho capitalism. anarcho capitalism also has moral standards contrary to popular belief. actual ancaps like Rothbard or Rockwell say that degenerate shit has no place in a libertarian society.

read Mises, Rothbard, and Sowell

>>15321517
If we had not been divided by the laws of private property, if common citizens didn't have to spend their entire waking lives fighting for their lives against the pointless and cruel current of the market, perhaps we could all afford the time to be better stewards of nature, which is, evidently, our shared inheritance.

>>15321513
>I don't see that my issue is directly addressed there
“On land we are born, from it we live, to it we return again. We are children of the soil as truly as a blade of grass or the flower of the field. Take away from man all that belongs to land, and he is but a disembodied spirit. Material progress cannot rid us of our dependence on land.” (Progress and Poverty, 210)
“The opinion that private property in land is necessary to society is… as artificial and as baseless as the divine right of kings… Wherever we can trace the early history of society, whether in Asia, in Europe, in Africa, in America, or in Polynesia, land has been considered as common property, in which the rights of all who had admitted rights were equal. All members of the community had equal rights to the use and enjoyment of the land of the community. This recognition of the common right to land did not prevent the full recognition of the exclusive right to the products of labor.” (Progress and Poverty, 263)
“Civilisation, as it pushes the red man, shows no virtues. To the Anglos-Saxon of the frontier, as a rule, the aborigine has no rights which the white man is bound to respect. He is impoverished, misunderstood, cheated, and abused. He dies out, as, under similar conditions, we should die out.” (Progress and Poverty, 354)
>It's all explained from within the logic of capitalism.
How so? Explain yourself.

>>15319314
marxists still think they are fighting?
ps. how the fuck you think land of things has any relevance to anything in 2020?

You're not rich because you aren't working hard enough, that's all.

>>15321449
>fem lit
It’s ecology.

>>15321992
Have you read PicRel, and Bookchin's Ecology Of Freedom and Our Synthetic Environment?
The World Without Us by Weisman is a fun if apolitical read too.

>>15321992
Also, what do you think of Pentti Linkola?

isn't the ancap response to river pollution supposed to be something like a pollution tax? or do anarchists hate taxes because muh taxation is theft breedums

>>15322719
He ancap response would be to enforce property rights, the pollution is violating property rights.

>>15322726
so sell the river to someone so they could setup a business that allows someone to pollute in their river for a fee. lmao

>>15314623

You might enjoy Green Philosophy by Roger Scruton, it's a right wing pro market take on environmentalism

>>15321768
Excellent citations. (not present in that link, for the record)

"explained from within the logic of capitalism" means it makes the same assumptions:
* Money
* therefore banks
* glorious individual initiative of enterprise
* ultimately, society works because the free market automagically takes care of all needs and wants.

Whereas, what I want to see is an uprooting of this system, including these assumptions:

* No money.
* Therefore no banks.
* individual initiative serves as the spark to ignite consensual collective action
* things works by consensus at all levels. Society is brotherhood, or it is nothing.

>>15314660
>>15314677
>>15314765
>>15315762
>>15316028
>>15316061
>>15316278
>>15316306
>>15316319
>>15316688
This is what happens when your entire view of an ideology is based on memes. /lit/fags should know better baka

>>15325297
>No money
I don't understand how it'd work tbqfh. In the absence of money people just make their own currencies. Be it gold, grain, marbles, or any other common non-spoiling product. And if not (legally forbidden or something?), it'd be just a pain in the ass. It'd make trading itself harder because there would be no medium of exchange which represents value. It all sounds pretty unlikely and utopic af at global scale.

>>15325297
Yikes

>>15321955
Victorian peasants working 12 hour days? Pretty sure they worked harder than anyone in modern history. But they were still poor and owned by someone into whose head an idea emerged from the ether, and happened to have the right connections and conditions to create an empire. And if everyone was a business owner, who would do all the work, etc.

>>15325874
I have long since given up trying to explain moneyless systems logically. It never works. Because it's not that it doesn't make logical sense, it's that you can't bring yourself to imagine it working.
What you would need to do is to read a believable illustration, like The Dispossessed by Le Guin, to name a popular one.

>>15325902

>>15326729
Anon, I enjoy anarchic utopian fantasy as well, but it's fucking stupid and delusional to just believe that they're attainable irl. Again, how old are you?

>>15326887
Ah, yes, the Harsh, Rational™ Realism® always so confidently directed at 'utopian' anarchism or socialism.
It's quintessential dad philosophy. That posturing of a grounded, time-wethered wisdom from a midwit who earnestly believes his long-date high paying job and high rank in some corporate ladder makes him a Great Man.

Humanity has been around for millions of years, Homo Sapiens for at least half a million. Only very recently, from that perspective, we have entered a phase of exponential growth, in population, information, knowledge, material achievement, etc. And yet, it would seem that the rational position is to believe we have already explored all the plausible modes of being there could ever be!
Capitalism, a thing that has only existed as we know it for a few hundred years, is, apparently, the final achievement of the science of socioeconomic organization. It's the End of History, after all. (I'm still giddy from Fukuyama's last interview when he said Marxism should come back)

Let me put it bluntly: You don't fucking know what is and isn't possible for humanity. As with everything, the true rational position is agnosticism. Any first year undergrad planning to go into research already figured out that you don't really 'prove' anything, much less a negative statement. And then we are talking about ~ways of life~, something of which we've already seen breathtaking diversity in the last 500,000 years, and now we have the internet, space rockets, lab-grown hamburger patties, each further compounding the exponentiation of possibilities way beyond what is conceivable -- what is apprehensible by a single person.

But there's always some some fucken dad who ~knows~ what's realistic cause he paid off a mortgage or some such boomerbrain thing

>>15327702
great post, sick of faggot boomers pontificating on what is or isn't possible in an infinite reality because they work full-time and pay a mortgage

>>15327702
buuut how do u want to exchange goods without money bro r u retarded?

>>15328132
>>15326729

>>15327702
Good post.

>>15327702
Then why don't you try building your socialist utopia using your own money and in a smaller scale? Put YOUR money where your mouth is if you think your idea is good, else I am just going to completely disregard your unproven, untested statements.

>>15328212
I would honestly love to, but it's not the best idea, as I pointed out here >>15321309 in the bottom reply.

>>15327702
Man, I really think you're overreacting here. I'm not even totally opposed to your point, I just think it's childish, self-delusional and kumbaya-esque to think that humanity is so reliable. I'm just a contrarian pessimist, don't take it so personal. Also you're making a lot of assumptions about me, what the fuck? It's hilarious tbqh.

>>15315297
>buy some river
>dump waste there
yeah this would never happen in ancap world

>>15328440
So? Market needs will decide whether its worth more to get rid of industrial waste or preserve the water by paying the owner accordingly.

>>15328406
oh so you're going to be annexing people's property to facilitate the system you're admittedly agnostic about? how many counter-revolutionaries will have to be killed before you admit that this possibility of yours has been explored sufficiently and failed?

>>15328434
I can totally forgive pessimism. But at this point I am completely sure we are capable of much more, we are not even close to any "end of history".
>Also you're making a lot of assumptions about me, what the fuck? It's hilarious tbqh.
I wasn't saying you ~are~ a dad, more like you're emulating one.

>>15328497
>oh so you're going to be annexing people's property
???
>to facilitate the system you're admittedly agnostic about?
I'm not agnostic, I'm optimistic. Agnosticism is the base level for rationality. I think we have ample evidence today that, in the right circumstances, people can be much more than money systems give us credit for.
>how many counter-revolutionaries will have to be killed before you admit
how many people will have to die under structural violence and imperialism before you admit yadda yadda...
>this possibility of yours has been explored sufficiently and failed
It hasn't. That's not how science works. A possibility has been sufficiently explored when we've eliminated all other variables that could have affected the result.
I could talk about this at length, but here's one big variable that has been a constant for all socialist experiments: Massive opposition by imperialist powers, usually consisting of military invasion, threat of invasion, assassination of leaders, economic sanctions, trade blockades, etc.

Not to fucking mention I'm yet again cornered into the position of defending historical communist experiments which have all been authoritarian, not at all what I'm here to argue for.

>>15328497
also, large appreciation for the fact that youre not even pretending to be concerned about, oh, like, Ukrainian people who starved to death, or something like that, no, you're concerned about the lives of the fucking COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARIES

>>15328628
>I am completely sure we are capable of much more, we are not even close to any "end of history".
“The optimist in politics is an inconstant and even dangerous man, because he takes no account of the great difficulties presented by his projects; these projects seem to him to possess a force of their own which tends to bring about their realization all the more easily as, in his opinion, they are destined to produce more happiness. He frequently thinks that small reforms of the political system and, above all, of government personnel will be sufficient to direct the movement of society in such a way as to mitigate those evils of the modern world which seem so hideous to sensitive souls. As soon as his friends come to power he declares that it is necessary to let things alone for a while, not to be too hasty, and to learn to be content with whatever their good intentions suggest; it is not always self-interest that dictates these expressions of satisfaction, as people have often believed: self-interest is strongly aided by vanity and by the illusions of poor-quality philosophy. The optimist moves with remarkable ease from revolutionary anger to the most ridiculous social pacifism.
If he possesses an excitable temperament and if unhappily he finds himself armed with great power, permitting him to realize an ideal he has fashioned, the optimist can lead his country to the worst disasters. He is not long in discovering that social transformations are not brought about with the ease he had counted on; he then blames these disappointments upon his contemporaries, instead of explaining what actually happens as the result of historical necessities; he is tempted to get rid of people whose ill will seems to him to be a danger to the happiness of all. During the Terror the men who spilt the most blood were precisely those who had the strongest desire to let their equals enjoy the golden age of which they dreamt and who had the greatest sympathy for human misery: optimistic, idealistic and sensitive, they showed themselves to be the more unyielding the greater their desire for universal happiness.” (Reflections on Violence, 10)
>I wasn't saying you ~are~ a dad, more like you're emulating one.
I'll take it as compliment, then.

>>15328758
holy shit, you got filtered by Irony 101. the phrase "counter-revolutionary" was clearly intended to ridicule the Soviet officials who used that label against anyone who slightly disagreed with their grand vision of the future.

>>15328764
I can safely say I take full account of the difficulties presented by my project. Anarchy is definitely not the easy way, however <JFK_quote.jpg>

> He frequently thinks that small reforms of the political system and, above all, of government personnel will be sufficient to direct the movement of society in such a way as to mitigate those evils of the modern world
absolutely not. What the fuck? This is the opposite of any radical politics.
> As soon as his friends come to power
yeah, stopped reading here. I'm advocating anarchy, buddy. I don't want me or any friends to "come to power". I want to abolish power.
Try to find something a bit more relevant to the discussion, bud!

>>15328798
oh well, shucks, I'm a big pseudo. In my writing I try to mark words or phrases I'm saying ironically precisely to avoid confusion in this bottomless pit of ironies that is the internet.

>>15328867
>I want to abolish power.
refuted by Nietzsche

>>15328898
>Nietzsche
refuted by the life of the actual man.
And "power" in this context means institutional authority, not exactly what freddy was talking about.

>>15328898
why do nietzschefags defend a monstrous anarchic void with such relish? you have no contact with these realities. you're slaves of the demiurge

>>15323025
Yeah, then they are compensated for the pollution. Revealed preference shows the pollution is not a problem for them, because they could stop it if they want to. That's the idea behind the Coase Theorem but it doesn't always/usually work irl.

>>15328947
>refuted by the life of the actual man
so no refutation
>And "power" in this context means institutional authority, not exactly what freddy was talking about.
literally no such thing, institutions are people and only they can exercise power. if you want to abolish the institutions of power as they exist today and replace them with your own that's okay with me but then please admit that you'll still be using power

>>15328440
It's not an externality anymore if he owns the whole river. He's fucking up his own river.

>>15328867
>Capitalism is whem you use money
>Anarchism is when you "abolish power"
No, really, how old are you?

>>15327702
> the absolute state of this child’s autism spergout

>>15314623
Basic economics retard
>tragedy of the commons

bump

bump