Why voluntaryism will not work

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

 I am fully and utterly convinced voluntaryism will never work. However, it's not for the reasons you may think. I believe in anarcho-capitalism and its ideas. However, what I have come to the conclusion on is that there is no force in Heaven or Hell that will allow left-wing anarchists (socialists and communists) to peacefully co-exist with us. Allow me to explain why. One of the pro-voluntaryist/an-cap pages on Facebook was trolled by a bunch of left-anarchists with their usual childish antics. One of them, saying that ancaps were a joke, was face by my question of how ancaps were a joke when they subscribed to a philosophy where it was moral to engage in violence by damaging property. Now, the idiot that asked the question couldn't even answer. He just accused me of being another white, middle-class American who lived in a white neighborhood. Then, as if the stupidity level couldn't get any higher, another asshole basically accused me of using bad logic because property was an intimate object, and therefore, could not violence initiated against it. In other words, if someone breaks into my house, terrorizes me and steals my things, it's not a crime because property doesn't have any feelings. Brilliant.

 Guys, I'm serious, we need to view leftist anarchists one the same level that we view statists. They will never co-exist with us. Period. They must be viewed as a threat at all costs. Believing that establishing a voluntaryist society where people can live the way they want and adhere to non-aggression will never happen so long as their twisted philosophy is allowed to take root in the minds of men. 

[State-God]

It's a very tricky question, if only because were we to combat them in some sort of revolutionary situation I think it would be very easy for anti-AnCom policies to turn into anti-Everything-not-our-particular-brand-of-anarchist. Revolutions can turn into terror very quickly, easily and painfully.

[MAM]

It's a very tricky question, if only because were we to combat them in some sort of revolutionary situation I think it would be very easy for anti-AnCom policies to turn into anti-Everything-not-our-particular-brand-of-anarchist. Revolutions can turn into terror very quickly, easily and painfully.

We don't need to iniate the coercion we just need to sit back, keep our guns clean and wait for them.

And while they're trying to kill us they'll make everyone think they're the hurt party and call us reactionaries. Using the same basic strategy that the Muslims have used to spread their religion.

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

^I agree with MAM. In all honestly, how much of a threat are these idiots? What are they gonna do? Throw Molotov cocktails at us from a distance and use that to claim victory? Yeah. Good luck with that. They don't even have an organized movement.

[State-God]

^I agree with MAM. In all honestly, how much of a threat are these idiots? What are they gonna do? Throw Molotov cocktails at us from a distance and use that to claim victory? Yeah. Good luck with that. They don't even have an organized movement.

And we do?

The big problem is this. In a revolutionary situation, it doesn't matter how organized you are or how many guns you have. What matters is meeting the demands of the revolutionary masses.

If the AnCom's pull a Bolshevik (i.e. lie through their teeth till the day is done) they can defeat us easily. And depending on what exact situation the revolution takes place in, we might never have a chance.

[ff42]

I subscribe to the theory that if children can be rescued (from brainwashing, torture, etc.) then they will remain an-caps and not infect voodoo (religion or state) onto their children.  In a generation or two their COULD be only an-caps (our basic nature). 

Yes there will be an occasional genetic abnormality or brain-damage that occurs, but with so much resources in the hands of an-caps we could correct the abnormality/damage.

[MAM]

^I agree with MAM. In all honestly, how much of a threat are these idiots? What are they gonna do? Throw Molotov cocktails at us from a distance and use that to claim victory? Yeah. Good luck with that. They don't even have an organized movement.

And we do?

The big problem is this. In a revolutionary situation, it doesn't matter how organized you are or how many guns you have. What matters is meeting the demands of the revolutionary masses.

If the AnCom's pull a Bolshevik (i.e. lie through their teeth till the day is done) they can defeat us easily. And depending on what exact situation the revolution takes place in, we might never have a chance.

And what do you want us to do? Form a paramilitary?

[Hanzo]

We have a real-life government that is pillaging and killing us peaceful humans home and abroad, and you're worried about those nerds? Honestly I think they're the very least of anyone's worries. They're more dangerous to themselves than anyone else.

[Seth King]

We have a real-life government that is pillaging and killing us peaceful humans home and abroad, and you're worried about those nerds? Honestly I think they're the very least of anyone's worries. They're more dangerous to themselves than anyone else.

+1

[magentawave]

Guys, I'm serious, we need to view leftist anarchists on the same level that we view statists.

Yup, I do consider lefty anarchists to be left statists which of course makes them FAKE anarchists. If you ever want to box a FAKE anarchist in all you have to do is ask them if there is no state then who is going to stop you from owning property and a business and hiring employees and they will never give you a straight answer.

[Syock]

Guys, I'm serious, we need to view leftist anarchists on the same level that we view statists.

Yup, I do consider lefty anarchists to be left statists which of course makes them FAKE anarchists. If you ever want to box a FAKE anarchist in all you have to do is ask them if there is no state then who is going to stop you from owning property and a business and hiring employees and they will never give you a straight answer.

I find they gladly say that they will stop you with violence and destruction until you have nothing left.  They have a disconnect in their thinking because they are not going out and voting for someone that loses an election. 

[State-God]

^I agree with MAM. In all honestly, how much of a threat are these idiots? What are they gonna do? Throw Molotov cocktails at us from a distance and use that to claim victory? Yeah. Good luck with that. They don't even have an organized movement.

And we do?

The big problem is this. In a revolutionary situation, it doesn't matter how organized you are or how many guns you have. What matters is meeting the demands of the revolutionary masses.

If the AnCom's pull a Bolshevik (i.e. lie through their teeth till the day is done) they can defeat us easily. And depending on what exact situation the revolution takes place in, we might never have a chance.

And what do you want us to do? Form a paramilitary?

Again, no absolute answer. I can't predict the future and guess what sort of environment the revolution will take place in.

In all likeliness, they'll be seen as the nutjobs they are and even if we don't win out, they won't.

But anything's possible.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

We have a real-life government that is pillaging and killing us peaceful humans home and abroad, and you're worried about those nerds? Honestly I think they're the very least of anyone's worries. They're more dangerous to themselves than anyone else.

+1

Exactly. Ancoms are irrelevant.

[Krantz]

Yes - me too i came to this sad conclusion that cooperation with anarchocommunists is not possible - they simply   and purposely violate NAP.

Generally it isn't anything new - some people are going to do it, and it gives us a right to retaliate - but I'd like to consider some more tactical measures of dealing with it.

We cannot rightfully initiate force against them; we are allowed to respond to their real attacks only - but their open declarations like "I'm going to steal your property" (and kill you if you object?) are very real for me; there's no doubt in my mind that they really mean it - and they actively plot to carry out their plans as soon as opportunity arrives. (This "real threat" factor is present in our current statist legal systems btw. - random shouting "lets kill all gays" may go unpunished, but a "real" plot to kill people will be stopped by police forces). Knowing that an attacker has a big advantage in violent conflict I wonder if we shouldn't strike first then and - when an-cap society eventually does emerge - actively prevent communists of all kind from organizing themselves. Unfortunately this opens the whole Pandora-box of "preemptive wars" and surveillance, so I am not really sure if it is the right solution - but on the other hand if we just look at them building criminal organizations and waiting for the right moment to strike we are doomed.. For now i think we should just take a closer look at the NAP principle and consider a possibility that NAP may not really prevent us from squishing their lethal threats before they are really fulfilled.

[Syock]

actively prevent communists of all kind from organizing themselves.

Not all of them are violent.  How would you even do a thing like that anyway?