Exactly. Pretty interesting (if strange) stuff.

I agree hereward, inside of anarchism there are many different 'schools'
anarcho capitalism however is not one.

So you're denying the legitimacy of a group you disagree with?

Now who's being intolerant?

I'm am saying simply that they are not anarchists.

anarcho-capitalist is a contradiction.

Well, it seems to me like the only true sort of anarchism is anarcho-capitalism. Otherwise, you'd need some sort of authority to redistribute wealth. Plus, the free market is what people do naturally. Capitalism was invented because it works.

I see that you anarchists are divided on whether anarcho-capitalism counts or not, but it's just as crazy an idea as regular anarchism so it looks like it fits to me.

"anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho" or by calling themselves "anarchists" their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false.

"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. But they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

understand?

"I see that you anarchists are divided on whether anarcho-capitalism counts or not"

no we're not.
no anarchist thinks any form of capitalism is anarchism.
the only people that think anarcho capitalists are anarchists, are the anarcho capitalists themselves.

"Critics have sometimes contended that anarchist thought, and classical anarchist theory in particular, has emphasised opposition to the state to the point of neglecting the real hegemony of economic power. This interpretation arises, perhaps, from a simplistic and overdrawn distinction between the anarchist focus on political domination and the Marxist focus on economic exploitation . . . there is abundant evidence against such a thesis throughout the history of anarchist thought."

-clark and martin

This remind me of all the revolutionary groups in Life of Brian. It's like you're the Judean People's Front and anarcho-capitalists are the Popular Front of Judea.

more like the anarcho capitalists are the romans.

can we at least agree that life of brian is hilarious

Ironic that this very game is based on an anarchic, realist, view of states. Diplomacy is anarchy.

how?

Life of Brian is not that funny.

anyway, anarcho-capitalist is a contradiction.

it's like a buddhist monk with a kalishnokov, it just doesnt fit.

because in diplomacy you can promise whatever you want but theres nothing binding you to your deals. theres no enforcement if you break the rules and there are no rules to break. The only thing stopping you from doing things is fear of revenge, so your previous actions and how much power you have shape the rules of the game. thats the definition of anarchy.

not really.

you did a fair job of twisting it though I'll give you that.

how is that twisting it? Anarchy:no rules Diplomacy: no rules.

thats basically true.
but that doesnt make your conclusion true.
see I can do it too

videogames : potentially addictive heroin: potentially addictive
therefore videogames will kill you

dolphins: live in water sharks: live in water
therefore they are basically the same and should be treated as such

crackers: not good with lemon juice open sores : not good with lemon juice
therefore, ritz and lacerations are basically the same

your right, i simplified it too much. I'm just saying that diplomacy is based off of a system of international anarchy, otherwise known as the realist theory of international relations.

nations = anarchy

(theres not a "not equal to" sign on my keyboard)

you can just go like this

nations != anarchy

its either =! or != its what programmers use to represent not equal to. ask kestas lol he'd know

good to know.

anyway my point was you cant really have anarchistic international relations because the very idea of a nation is diametrically opposed to

fuck it.

How do anarchist tribes interact with each other? Or do they simply avoid each other?

with exaggerated grunting and fruit throwing.


ask a real question I'll give a real answer

wait, what? I'm absolutely serious. Would anarchists designate any kind of officials who specialize in relations with "other" tribes? Or would they shun such specializations and just have it be known that nobody can represent a tribe as a whole?

Btw, I feel that the analogy between Diplomacy and anarchism, what I know of it, is pretty apt.

I suppose thats up to each community to decide