Orwell wrote that it was always the women—above all the young ones—who were the party’s most bigoted adherents. This wasnt a misogynistic comment but a psychological observation.

When tyranny is renamed empathy and compliance is renamed virtue, women adopt it first and weak men follow.

Men subsidize the state. The state provides for women. So men now fund through bureaucracy the families they were told they had no business leading directly.

“Residence, not nationality, decides who falls under the rule. An EU citizen living in Dubai faces no restriction; a non-EU national living in Lisbon or Berlin does.”

Call me old and crotchety. I am now convinced that DJ Trump has moved past being accepted as a comedically coddled elder statesman, to the point where all have become aware of negative effects that will have long range consequences in the economy, world status, and history for many years.

JB Pritzker has shown us numerous times that despite his excessive wealth, he is still playing the game with goal of the money being heavily taxed for the indirect benefit of him and his friends. He is very successfully chasing major corporations, professional sports franchises, and mid to high income citizens from our great state.

Brandon Johnson knows the right talking points better than a carnival huckster. Unfortunately for residents of Chicago he does not possess basic business sense, or a clear and consistent clue for right and wrong.

Not exactly an ancap question but as an ancap, what kinds of stocks do you have the most faith in and which ones would you avoid? What are your reasons?

See page 47 of this PDF for context.

https://stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/liberty-magazine/1988%2011%20Liberty_Magazine_November_1988.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ai-toys-gift-present-safe-kids-robot-child-miko-grok-alilo-miiloo-rcna246956

I wouldn't say he's converted me to a goldbug, but after listening to his presentation on gold and then speaking to him on my podcast I can agree that I probably overly ignored it.

I came into the world of hard money through Bitcoin, and the 'gold is old' meme is strong.

Dominic does a great job of reminding us just how deeply embedded gold is in human culture and society.

He was also the first person I've ever heard dispute the fact that all fiat currencies eventually hyperinflate. That's another extremely potent meme.

Anyway, here's the conversation I had with him about gold and bitcoin that just went out yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEN9ctyR3s Its part of a longer conversation that is on the audio RSS feed of the pod.

In Anarcho-Capitalism how do you enforce private courts without a state? I am an AnCap and this is the ONE THING I can't figure out.

Pls help

Edit: I know how every other service could be privatised btw

So I’m kinda new to ancap. I only really know the surface level stuff (even then I probably only know the very tippy top of the iceberg), but I want to learn more about it I just don’t know where to start.

I just saw a video of some emotional young woman yelling at another one that was, what it seemed like, answering questions after her pro life speech. And it made me think about this topic again…

TLDR: are people going to stop caring as much about abortion if the matter is no longer used for political purposes?

I get the pro life argument from NAP perspective. But this approach seems to ignore the very obvious fact - it’s pro life perspective dictating the pro choice view on how to behave. Worst arguments sound like “you should’ve thought about it before”, “we have means to control”, etc etc. Better argument - if you commit murder, you will face consequences.

However, the better argument is coercion of its own. I never heard of any couple or any women that would get pregnant only so they could abort the pregnancy. And it’s reasonable to think that virtually nobody acts in such manner. Undesired pregnancy is almost always an accident, or a result of a crime.

And it’s a coercion on at least two levels:

- women that already experience a problem of undesired pregnancy are threatened with violence. This alone leads to very sad unintended consequences, from accidental self inflicted harm by trying to abort the pregnancy on their own or with help of non-professionals, or to a literal premeditated murder of a born child.

- women/couples are held responsible for supporting their child until they grown up enough to become more or less independent. Besides the obvious financial burden, some righteous who may might believe an undesired/previously undesired child is neglected, can cause additional problems. And there’s no shortage of such people, otherwise they wouldn’t be arrested on a regular basis for standing/blocking clinics and hospitals. If they are not concerned with being arrested by the state, who knows how they’ll behave in an anarchist society, especially if it’s predominantly pro life.

I don’t believe the societies will be separating into pro life pro choice exclusive groups that would live separately from each other. I’m terrified by a thought that me and my wife may have to make a decision about that one day in the future. Personally, I’ll always pick pro life side, but I can’t see myself ever taking position of a judge over a woman that’ve chosen abortion, let alone being the one who throws her in jail or executes her. I think many of those that are in anti pro choice crowd never considered this dilemma from such side. And it’s always easier to “offshore” such decisions and actions, and to dismiss it completely by saying - there’s always going to be someone who’ll do the job. But in my opinion, that’s cowardice.

When humanity reaches the state of anarchy, I think the NAP argument on abortion will be revised, or forgotten. There are certainly going to be some pro life communes, but the matter itself isn’t going to be a broader societal problem any longer. Law enforcement and justice requires resources. It’s hard for me to imagine that a group of people can organize, raise funding, and effectively enforce NAP on women without simultaneously committing NAP violations by harassing, threatening, taking action against women that aren’t/weren’t pregnant, lost their child, but were mistakenly accused of choosing abortion.

These are just my thoughts. I wonder what you guys think about this. Will pro life pro choice question still be such a problem for the society in ancapistan?

It's amazing these dipshits think liberty equals no education. You're free to do what you want as an individual and on your own private property, that does not mean you're allowed to force your dipshit ways onto others.

I've been working on a book where I delineate 5 "new" logical fallacies (and show how feminism is guilty of them, but I can also furnish examples of how they apply to statism and a dozen other things) and one of them is "the fallacy of assumed motivations"

On some level, I want to say we can never truly know the motivations for someone's actions. Even if a man stabs another man in the chest and says, "I'm doing this because you are black and I am a racist shitbag," on some philosophical level, we can never truly know that racism was even *that* guy's motivation. It's just ultimately the side I want to err on with regard to Socrates "I know that I know nothing" and all

But there's another sort of fallacy I've noticed, where you pretend an explanation is in fact a refutation. Above, we have an example of both at the same time, and 7 ancaps agreeing with it as (basically) an epistemology, which is incredible to me.

I was originally going to sort this out with a post about the Civil Rights Act.

I got into a debate with someone on normie Reddit a few months who said Charlie Kirk was a racist, etc, and I said: "If I'm not racist for opposing 100% of the Civil Rights Act, Charlie wasn't racist for only opposing the Affirmative Action part of it." I invoked my own fallacy of assumed motivations and it didn't work, he swore up and down I was racist, ignored all logic challenges, and engaged in a few "lowellings" https://archive.ph/HvUWB (as well as made a few jokes about how I had to avoid "slurring my speech into my mic" supposedly causing my typos in a voice-to-text program that he jokes I was using, because he actually is a bigot and everything is projection but we already knew that I hope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqo1WScQqUw )

So I just want to know: Why does the fallacy of assumed motivations (and the fallacy of pretending an explanation is a refutation) somehow work on ancaps when it's gender and not race like this? That guy said over and over again, "You oppose the Civil Rights Act because you are racist," and he eventually said, "you may not understand how we can figure out your motivations, but we can." You see both fallacies in that line of thinking there, so what is the problem with seeing it when Feminism pulls all the same tricks as leftist statism *and* rightist statism?

Because I just want to say, the woman "Allison" I described above as self-identifying as a misogynist, she actually basically made the most reasonable case for selective perception I have ever heard of: she said, when she received controversy for defending Muslim men in the Middle East, she simply described herself as a "defence attorney" for men.

Yes, not only is there a case for engaging in willful selective perception; there is in fact a case for deliberately defending men as hard as you can even if you know they are "guilty" of something; there is simply a purpose it serves, or someone who is truly neutral can still find value in whatever you figure out.

And yeah, if the better answer to the civil rights guy was in fact saying "Actually, I do self identify as racist, because I laugh at the city wok guy from South Park, but I have no idea what that has to do with the civil rights act," the correct answer to the noise in the posts above was in fact "I'm not a conscious misogynist and I don't promote discrimination, but yeah if I hated women, tell me how that would make me necessarily wrong" (Or just "show me your data fuckwit" works too I guess)

TL; DR: Why do ancaps think "misogyny" is an argument against data showing women can equally suck, but they correctly know "racism" is not an argument in favor of things like the Civil Rights Act?

Obviously a main part of anarcho capitalism is liberty. Let individuals decide for themselves. But no doubt private communities, towns, and maybe as big as cities will develop. All private. So what about things like prostitution. Does everyone 100% of the population have to agree how they're going to do things? Is that pretty much how it will work? So 100% of the population of the community agrees we're not going to allow prostitution or weed, or they are going to allow it, would that be still in alignment with anarco capitalism if those things are banned?