The new "Alt-right Lite" movement that still refuses to disidentify itself with legitimate anarchist "movements"
Does that sentence mean that in the US "anarchists" are offspring of the right side instead of being the more extremist lefts like in Europe??
Basically, yes. Except for the fact that traditional anarchism (in Spain, for example) has condoned the use of force and accepts authoritarianism as a necessity. This is an oxymoronic position.
Well, the right side can do that too, like crying "freedom of speech" for people saying nigger and then calling for harsh punishment for those who call them racists ;)
Really interesting, I have never though about anarchic rights, because here rights are always those who want more state when it comes to other things then companies - and certainly to people that are not like them. More border walls, more cameras, more rules (like language quotas in music), harshest punishments and so on.
Steemit anarchist's seem like freedom lovers(its still funny for me to to use reagan-speak like "freedom lovers" but what the hell do you call not wanting your thoughts "managed") but most of the anarchist's who get press(I have no idea how much they represent the anarchist community) seem to be anarcho-communists who should really read the history of how anarchists fared after the revolution they helped bring about was successful.(spoiler they were all shot right away, the book Gulag Archipelago spares them a few measly sentences in this thousand+ page book so quickly were they liquidated)
Now I get what an ANCAP is, anarcho-capitalist. I have a question what real-world examples of anarchy (not)managing a society successfully do anarchists wish to emulate? Do most of you seek a complete (un)system of anarchy or do you only wish to carve out an anarchic space within a structured system like "going a cossacking" in feudalist russia?
Thanks for the info. This sounds like the present day South Africa model and the problem I see with it is that Bill probably belongs to a social milieu that glorifies criminality. The neighbourhood where he's from they hate all security services and will all band together against any incursion into their area. Soon they form a voluntary association of muggers, slavers, and extortionists and they start paying individuals inside the different security services for tip offs on juicy targets. Which isn't really a specific critique against this idea because this happens inside states as well. It seems to me that in the situation above just like in South Africa, people with wealth will have private security and gated communities and people with no wealth will be ruled by criminal gangs. This sounds like anarchy! (in the pejorative sense), do you have any real world examples that you would point to and say "This is anarchy!(in the sense of Yay! look how free they are)
The huge difference being that South Africa is a state. The criminal actions you mention above would cause groups to starve to death and be ostracized socially until nobody would transact with them.
The reason the biggest crimes in the world are allowed to flourish now is because of governments that immunize criminals from consequence.
If you want me to give a real world example of anarchic (un)systems that flourished how about pirate communities in the Caribbean of course they flourished by the very kind of criminal behaviour described earlier.
I'm well aware of terrible nastiness of even the most benign governments. Especially when there territorial control of sovereignty is involved. Small crimes tend to affect people personally and are still oppressive. I grew up in poverty(first-world poverty nothing onerous) and I know first-hand that rational self interest is usually not only not likely to be employed but also actively frowned upon by the criminal underclass. Nor does a criminal underclass rely on voluntary transactions and their idea of a good reputation is one of ruthless viciousness to outsiders anyway.