>>17224
Thanks. I'll have a hard time working out what the font was now though, cause it's saved in paint. Feel free to alter it and make any additions you'd like.
>>17225
>The general layout is alright, but the table on the upper left, for example, looks ugly as fuck.
What improvements should be made to it? You have any specific ideas?
Everything is just slapped together for now. I was going to put a historical timeline, but I put a lot of pics and memes around the text boxes for now.
>Second, brutalism has nothing to do with being flexible about the NAP. Rothbard was very strict about the NAP.
Rothbard's NAP (and he originated it and Ancap altogether) allows voting, and insurrection against the state.
A lot of modern Tuckerite and Free State Project Ancaps think voting is aggression, which clearly gives them a more restraining interpretation. They also think that the NAP only justifies an instant response to aggression, whereas Larken Rose is more in line with the original Rothbardian interpretation where you can pursue thieves and get them later, and I believe he was dis-invited for expressing the less pacifistic interpretation of it in which shooting cops would be totally acceptable. That division was one of the major sticking points in recent history.
The Tuckerite people are definitely pushing a much softer variation of the NAP. Then you get people like Larken, then the position Rothbard came to in which he thought voting wasn't even strictly speaking immoral, and then way way off there are these new "militant ancaps" who think common ownership can't exist at all under ancap, and that we need to have a transitory war in which we kill all the commies.
There's also a cultural split in that Tuckerite style Ancaps tend to want to cosy up to the left-liberals and convert them due to their support for weed, gay marriage, etc, whereas the supposed Brutalists want to cosy up to the (liberal) conservatives, due to the proximity of Ancap to state's rights and freedom of disassociation. Rothbard himself supported things like the death penalty, and felt that blacks had lower IQ.
>Christopher Cantwell isn't, not because of his unique ideology, but because he's a fat, alcoholic cunt.
He's kind of a nob, I would say that that is because of his unique ideology. Instead of gaining Ancap through strategic voting for Republicans, Cantwell goes as far as suggesting that a Pinochet figure is needed as a transitory figure to clear the way before Ancap. He justifies according to his own interpretation of the NAP that says attacking state employees and leftists/commies isn't aggression, because they already initiated force by supporting government appropriation of taxes and property. That's pretty fringe to be sure, but it's about as far as I've seen anyone take Ancap in a revolutionary direction, so it had to be the furthest right interpretation before you stop justifying things from an Ancap perspective altogether and just go alt-right. Hans Hermann Hoppe is at the same extreme end.
>Third, ancaps don't want to sell the state. Rothbard wrote an entire essay on who holds legitimate property over state resources. Among other things, he said that students on their faculties. If I recall correctly, he explicitly opposed selling things like that to the highest bidder.
That was Rothbard's position when he was flirting with the New Left back in the 70s. He moved away from that, and later supporting conservative populists instead. Rothbard stretches across both camps in fairness.
People who further Rothbard's earlier position today often describe themselves as "left-rothbardians" or even share the label "free market anticapitalists" with mutualists and may post on C4SS.
SOME Ancaps do want to "sell" the state in that they don't believe that government property should become "unowned" in the transition, because that leads to conflict and a tragedy of the commons. The hardest right Ancaps do want to privatize everything, and since they don't mind voting (Rothbard didn't), the transition would be the very act of privatizing the state. Rothbard's proposal to the New Left was also a privatization proposal, it's just that he was arguing that a group of workers or students should get shares instead of selling it to a corporation. He derived this from his idea of mixing of labor and use turning unowned property into private property. Further to the right, Ancaps reject mixing of labor and say that enclosure is enough.
There are basically two very rough camps on these issue. The Tuckerite end, the Hoppe/Cuntwell end, and with Rothbard in the middle at most times in his life, but moving from a left Ancap position to a right one over time.