/liberty/ - Liberty

Hoppe and his allies talk extensively on this. For all intents and purposes (at least for simplicity instead of wanting to fight over semantics with socialists), you could use the term "social collectives" to describe groups in an AnCap society.

I think people would form social collectives, yes. Actually this is one of the basics of AnCap is that if a "social contract" does exist, people would actually have to sign it in AnCapistan instead of having it forced on them.

And yes, I'd obviously be living in a more conservative/traditional town.

https://mises.org/files/property-freedom-and-society-essays-honor-hans-hermann-hoppe2pdf/download?token=m9BcLW4a

>>15777

Sorry m8 I'm colonially cucked

I don't think it can function without them. Every contract is going to come with a package of conditions. You can skip the details and have different packages for people who belong to different towns/churches/communities, who handle the local side of "voluntary social control".

Any society based on a truly free market would naturally turn anarcho-communist in a few generations.

>>15780

There'd be nothing wrong with that if it occurred voluntarily. Socialism via anarchism would really be the only legitimate (and moral) form of socialism. Although, I don't think that people would get too involved with collectives. People really would be happy to just trade freely and embed themselves in social communities. Having your own money is naturally appealing.

>>15780

only applies to the retards, who'd then die in a few weeks, and/or start begging.

>>15775

does it even fucking matter?

>>15793

lol

>>15793

It doesn't matter, but it is something that is rarely talked about and it would radically change our culture. People talk about how we can achieve a libertarian society but nobody talks about what it would actually be like.

>>15784

More or less this.

>>15780

A voluntary socialism is the only justifiable socialism. Even "An"Coms always want to use violence/revolution to make it happen though, so I'm always skeptical of socialism in all forms.

What you'll most likely see is a form of socialism built out of peer-to-peer Capitalist technologies, which will heavily blurr the lines between Socialism and Capitalism but I'll still consider it capitalism since it'll likely run on voluntary trade of capital.

Full on "An"Com though? I doubt it. The original colonists tried to make that happen, and half their town starved after the first winter because no one produced enough food thinking others would pick up the slack, and theft was rampant since they all collectively owned the town.

>>15805

https://c4ss.org/content/12561

>>15815

>Linking to the syndicate of kiddy diddlers

I'll give it a read though since I know Corey and Kevin.

>>15815

His peer-to-peer approach is spot-on, but his "commons" statements are pulled completely out of nowhere and ignore the fundamental and pragmatic principles of private property.

It's like if two people were to go…

>"Hey Jim, waving your arms like a fucking retard creates friction, right?"

>"Yeah, Bob."

>"And Friction creates heat?"

>"uhuh"

>"And Heat is released into the atmosphere?"

>"Uhuh"

>"And then the heat causes water to evaporate, leading to a water crises and sparking a global nuclear war! Flapping your arms wildly like a retard creates global nuclear war!"

>"Bob, you fucking retard, there's this principle called entropy for a reason."

>>15823

Great, thanks for admitting that you were wrong.

>>15826

Quote me exactly where I stated I was "wrong," or fuck off to your safe space.

>>15799

It's all just farts in a wind. It heavily depends upon the kind of society that transitioned, and / or the physical properties of said region, and, to an even more unpredictable scale, the people. You's have to cast an entire narrative for this hypothetical world in order to ballpark a conclusion because the possibilities are so diverse.

>>15866

Ok then. Would you join a social collective?

>>15875

depends on what you mean by a "social" "collective".

I'd have friends, sure, and if I meet tham all at once for a party or something and if that's a social collective, then yes.

BTW no theists

>>15908

*No theists allowed

>>15908

Read the OP. A social collective is a group of people voluntarily subjecting themselves to a set rules and regulations in order to benefit from things such as cultural homogeneity, financial support or even the complete collectivization of property. Fascist and socialist systems can exist within a libertarian/anarchist system

Of course. It's not all that different from an HOA, except that they pick out utilities, emergency services, defense/police, etc. The more interesting thing to imagine is private businesses and how commercial spaces are reinvented to meet the demands of property rights, private utilities, and conditions for entry/use of a business. It's possible that dense urban areas could inherit a shopping mall-type model that's like the HOA example above, using contracts to homogenize so everyone gets a headache-free commercial space.

>>15775

I do. Societies are too fragile not to break into governments.

It's easy for them. Not many people are strong enough to govern themselves, tragically.

>>15915

that's literally "people following rules".

I'd probably join the one that mirrored my beliefs.

>>15915

Have some Hoppe: https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/hans-hermann-hoppe/