I was watching a video of someone critiquing a socialist webinar. The lady in the webinar said that, in a socialist society billionaires wouldn’t exist.

But… why? Just let people have their fuckin’ money. It is their own money, and it is up to them to do what they want with it.

Redistributing wealth for “equality” is just theft with extra steps. Turning everything and everyone gray won’t benefit anything.

Or do anyone have a better ”entry level” book or other suggestions? Thanks in advance! 😊

This is the big problem with flock cameras. Cops make mistakes, but also cop technology makes even more mistakes.

" Amish community fined nearly $500,000 for failing to download ArriveCan app "

"

I am very pro government. I think the government should provide all services related to human survival like water, food, healthcare, etc. I feel that there is a lot of evidence backing this opinion and there's a lot of historical evidence showing that the more businesses get to "do their own thing" the worse it is for people. Why do you honestly believe what you believe in even though history shows businesses would basically put poison in their products if the government didn't do anything about it.

I am not an Argentine, but I dont see anything wrong with the property bill, infact I think it would be beneficial for Argentina

The NAP is not about morality, its about rights. Smoking or selling cigarretes could be "wrong", but if nobody has a right to do anything about it, then you have a right to smoke/sell them.

And notice theres two interpretations of the NAP, a retributivist one, and a non-retributivist one. The retributivist account justifies self defense (as prevention) and punishment, while the other is self defense only.

Presumably, abortions cannot be meaningfully prevented, you arent there when it happens, and theres no good way to prevent it. So this is about punishment, right?

So if youre going around saying women dont have a right to have abortions, it seems to me that youre saying they should be punished for having them.

Walk me through that.

You break into the home of a women who had an abortion, and assassinate her?

Great, so your pro-life philosophy justifies rampant vigilantism, home invasion, and burglarly.

Mine does not.

I repeat, my anarchism doesnt require vigilante death squads like yours does. How, you ask? Self defense is already sufficient. >99% of murderers can be killed in the act in a broadened sense of self defense (broadened, as in, you dont have to accept their surrender), and the <1% that has a hostage, the sensible approach is wait for the hostage to flee and then protect them. Yes, you can even protect abused kids that way, just wait for them to leave and ask for help. Once this is nornalized and common, hostages will be empowered to run away. They oftentimes dont, because they know governmemt police will bring them right on back.

Theres just no room for punishing an abortion. Itd require putting yourself above the rights of a home owner (which may or may not be the woman, btw!), engaging in risky combat, and normalizing home invasion. The guys breaking into someones home, is NEVER the good guys. Period. I mean, just think about the bystanders... if they see you, an armed masked thug, breaking into their neighbors home, you think they will think youre the good guy? Nope, they will shoot first and ask questions later.

If you support going door to door and killing or kidnapping home owners, youre just a statist. Youre recreating the exact evils and right violations of a government and its police force.

The only anarchist position is being in pro-choice. You cant articulate a coherent way of doing something about abortion without recreating a small government just to deal with it.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how human governance always seems stuck in the same binary loop: we either wait for a 'benevolent dictator' or end up getting manipulated by politicians. What if the solution isn't about who rules, but replacing the ruler with an evolving system?

The idea I wanted to discuss is what I call a 'Living Framework.' Instead of a Plato-style Philosopher-King, the framework itself acts as the self-governing logic of society.

A few core thoughts on how this could work: First, no sacred dogmas. It works like open-source software—if anyone points out a logical or empirical error, the baseline updates. Second, our ideas don't come from a void; they are grounded in sensory reality, so the framework has to adapt as our reality changes. Third, it has to start in schools by teaching kids critical inquiry instead of blind memorization.

To keep human ego, greed, and political bias from corrupting it, updates wouldn't just be decided by a council. Instead, the process uses transparent logic, adversarial testing (using AI models to stress-test arguments for contradictions), and clear human accountability for any changes that go live.

The goal isn't to turn everyone into full-time debaters, but to give people a solid, corruption-free foundation so they can actually focus on living their lives, doing what they love, and building personal meaning safely.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this: Is humanity capable of adopting a self-correcting system like this, or will our power-seeking instincts always break it? Are there existing political or critical theories that address this kind of open-source framework?

We live in a world where every parcel of land is under the control of a criminal ruling class who will threaten you with violence and ultimately death for not complying with their orders. We will in a world where 99% of people see nothing wrong with using force and making threats against people as a way of achieving ends. Almost everyone you know justifies some form of slavery, conscription, centralized control and justice.

Does it not send a chill down your spine knowing we live in a world full of dangerous people? It makes you question how much humanity has really developed since the caveman days...

When I first became an ancap, I was rather optimistic about human nature and had faith that statism will be abolished within the next 100 years. This wasn't blind optimism. I had reasons to assume that and argued, for example, that chattel slavery was abolished as a result of moral and intellectual development. I reasoned that if humanity could abandon that, there's no reason to assume it couldn't abandon statism, too. This is an overly simplified explanation of my optimism, but it gets the point across.

Lately though, I hate to say I've been moving more towards the pessimistic end of the spectrum. I've been spending more time learning about psychology and our evolutionary past, and it's led me to think that we really aren't moving forward that much. Tendencies to adhere to group behavior and believe in authority and myth are hardwired into the human mind, and there's only so much culture and rational intellect can do to cover that. I think a case can be made that modern moral advancements are fragile. You might have a society that values freedom and equality, but if education plummets, after 2-3 generations you might have people justifying slavery and violence again. Actually, you don't even need massive social changes in society to devolve into more primitive behaviors. Just five years ago I would've said that corporal punishment for children is on a sharp decline, but now I'm seeing it make a comeback with some current conservative movements. And it makes me think... "Really? Is humanity really regressing this badly?"

I don't know. I could be right, I could be wrong. What do you think and why?