0
Libertarianism in the mainstream is often associated with conservatism. A lot of people who identity...
since 7 months, 3 weeks ago
23 of 23
Tip Reveddit Real-Time can notify you when your content is removed.
your account history
Tip Check if your account has any removed comments.
view my removed comments you are viewing a single comment's thread.
view all comments
If you are promoting these things, you are not an Anarchist.
Anarchy is a rejection of hierarchy.
Enforced monogamy is a violation of the human right to free association. Marriage is an institution that only exists with a government to codify it. Traditional gender roles place men above women in many respects and women above men in others. "Strict parenting" is nearly always code for corporeal punishment which is objectively and measurably harmful. The Christian faith is a hierarchy turned into religion. Nationalism places those in your nation in a class above those who are not. "Puritanical work culture" is more hierarchy. Abstinence from drugs and alcohol can only be enforced by a governing body.
Everything here, if you attempt to apply it to anyone other than yourself, is antithetical to anarchism. You cannot be an anarchist while advocating for multiple different levels of hierarchy.
And if you don't want to be associated with conservatives, don't advocate for every position conservatives take. I, for one, have never been associated with conservatives because I am an actual anarchist, and I promote ideas that are actually based on the principles of anarchy.
Based take of the day
This reads like some ancom polyamorous communal child rearing situation that takes anarchy too far.
I’ve never met an ancap/libertarian that wasn’t traditionally in a nuclear family with homeschooling etc
Yes.
No. Monogamous, married.
Historically, this is how it was always done. It takes a village is a cliche for a reason. Personally without the help I get from friends and family I could not realistically support my kids.
The basic definition of anarchism is not "too far."
Anarchism is a political philosophy, it has a definition. It has essential principles. Pushing your religion, your values, your choices, on everyone else is antithetical to that definition. It is not anti-anarchist to be a teetotaling Christian in a monogamous marriage with a nuclear family. It is, however, anti-anarchist to push that life on everyone else. Just like it would be anti-anarchist to try and push being a childfree polygamous wiccan on everyone else. Mandating others to follow your lifestyle is antithetical to anachism.
To bad you make a new one.
Ok buddy.
It does, look it up and come back to me.
That's because ancaps are just conservatives that like drugs
Why would promoting those beliefs be antithetical to heirarchy? You go on to say its only antithetical if you apply it to anyone else but promoting something is not the same thing as force.
I can say "hey you probably shouldn't smoke it's bad for you" without outlawing smoking or "I think monogamy works better than polyamory" without making having multiple partners illegal.
Advocating for a lifestyle you think works and for habits that you would like neighbors to have in a nonviolent manner is well within what is allowable under anarchist principles.
Fair point. But I will say that most of the "promoting" I've seen from ancaps comes in the form of supporting Republican politicians who are trying to push those things into law.
Like monogamy, for example. I never see AnCaps arguing in favor of legalizing polygamy, but I have seen many call polygamy a "symptom of cultural degeneracy."
Anecdotal of course.
I think some libertarians vote republican because they see their espoused financial (though not actually practiced) agenda as closer to what we believe and if the person is socially conservative they have less of a problem with the politicians beliefs than say a gay polygamous ancap might.
I would like to believe that most think they are voting for the lesser of two evils and not someone who actually supports their beliefs in any serious way just as I assume a lot of socialist will vote Democrat with the full knowledge that they functionally aren't that different to a Republican and are in their opinion just a slightly less shitty choice.
Little from Column A, little from Column B.
if you are an anarchist and a capitalist even that is an oxymoron I'll add.
Thats an-hierarchiesim. This is an-archonisn. No rulers. I know you fancy yourself the ""not-unjust" ruler and don't like when real anarchists reject archons and archon wannabes.
I can make up words too, but I think we would all benefit from using established definitions.
Hierarchy. Anarchy.
Even at a surface glance the two are very obviously diametrically opposed.
Hierarchy is a term used to describe systems of authority. At the workplace, there is an Owner->Boss->Employee hierarchy. In government we have a Federal->State->Local hierarchy.
In short, hierarchy is rulers. No rulers, no hierarchy. No hierarchy, no rulers.
What a weird thing to say when I just got done saying that anarchists reject the idea of hierarchy. I reject all coercive & authoritarian hierarchies, I have no interest in positioning myself at the top of the tower before I knock it down.
And when we dig down and talk about situations where hierarchies naturally occur, then you tack on the word "unjust". This is not my first rodeo.
Ahh there it is. The qualifier.
I'm sorry, but do you actually think that "when we have detailed conversations your position has nuance" is a gotcha? Every position has qualifiers, because existence is not a black-and-white experience.
If your entire ideology can be summarized in a single sentence, with no room for nuance, you likely haven't thought it through enough.
Words have meaning.
They do, maybe you should look it up and get back to me.
Anarchy is no rulers. Well how about that?
And here we go again, back on the ``"its UNJUST hierarchy" and I am fit to be your JUST archon because I am so much better than you.'' wagon.
Hey look at that, now what happens to hierarchy if there are no rulers?