an authentic cyberpunk setting uses cryptocurrencies for their minarchist future dystopian hellscapes why pay $5 for a latte when you could pay between Ƀ0.000432 and Ƀ0.004333 or roughly $50 and like $500

The only thing worse than that time a known fascist told me that they didn’t like libertarianism because it didn’t endorse slavery was the time a minarchist said that anarcho-capitalism “left a bad taste in their mouth” because it didn’t allow ethnic cleansing.

At least we have our nukes, though.

since libertarians only want a minarchist state because they want the state to exist solely to issue them a girlfriend, maybe sex bots could be used to calm down the pepes and the ancaps and they can go live in the desert or whatever with their sex bots and leave the rest of us alone

Rooted in Violence

Whether Liberal, Conservative, Meritocratic, Socialist, Libertarian, Fascist, Minarchist, or the g**d**n Divine Right of Kings—ALL statism rests and relies upon a false premise that it’s okay to hurt people to get your way, and to take their sh*t to get what you want.

The steadfast refusal to confront this truth is the singular reason we, as a species, have not evolved beyond such barbaric ideas, and realized the goals for peace and prosperity that, as individual human beings, we near-universally hold.

I feel like minarchists would be a bit more tolerable if they said things like “Yeah the constitutional convention was an illegitimate bloodless coup and the Constitution sucks dick as we can now see after over 200 years of it but if we had stuck to the Articles of Confederation things would be different.”

Because yeah, the Ancap in me would still be shaking his head “no the problem is the state,” but I wouldn’t be so rude about it because then they’d at least be right and have the benefit of speaking in the hypothetical.

As it is now, appealing to the Constitution as the solution to our problems despite the Constitution being in full effect throughout the entire country and us having a pretty good track record of free and fair elections is like living in the USSR and suggesting that “OK Stalin was bad but if someone else was in charge then surely…”

stop adding labels!!!

just say you’re a fascist! no one cares if you’re “a clerical austro-fascist syndicalist who sympathizes with carlism”!

just say you’re a libertarian! no one cares if you’re “a minarchist in practice with respect for the traditions of de tocqueville and thoreau. ideally an ancap”!

stop it!!!


>implying authoritarianism is the antithesis of liberty.

Authoritarianism simply means one person has absolute power. A monarch could easily rule over a Minarchist State.

Authoritarianism is about the distribution of power, not control. Control is totalitarianism. 

When you actually start to study sociology and the deeper implications of political ideologies on society, it only becomes all the more preposterous to argue that the political right-wing has ever represented anything akin to “freedom for the individual” or “liberation from tyranny”. The right-wing overwhelmingly subscribes to a structural-functionalist view of society, even when they aren’t explicitly sociologists. They argue that the various institutions and classes in society each fulfill a particular function for the maintenance of the larger whole – this includes the dispossessed doing “the dirty work” and the powerful “providing stability”, a sort of class-collaborationist idea that people should shut up and internalize their place. Men and women each fulfill particular roles, poverty serves a purpose of keeping many other institutions in business, and pyramids create order as long as everyone fulfills their destined role in society.

And it’s not just traditionalists who argue from this perspective – of course right-wing “libertarians” jump on this train too, despite all their claims of supporting the underdog. Inequality of power is absolutely fine as long as there’s an implicit social contract of order and an external facade of “individual liberty”. Consider right-libertarian Milton Friedman’s interview where he spoke about all the ways in which production “came together” across the world to generate a tiny pencil he was holding – no mention of the imbalances of power across that line, no mention of social conflicts or historical context that laid the material foundations therein; just pure, unadulterated structural-functionalism, a “harmonious collaboration” of many different cultures and classes that resulted in a useful tool he could write bourgeois propaganda with.

And that last bit is important, for at that point we jump into conflict theory, the branch most oppositional to structural-functionalism. Very much shaped by Karl Marx, this branch focuses on those various classes and institutions, and it takes on the radical position that they are at conflict with each other (as the name suggests) due to an inherent power imbalance; the dominant classes utilize every means at their disposal to structure society in their interests and to dispossess the subordinated classes. The dominant classes control the means of economic and social reproduction, while the subordinated classes “do the dirty work” of laboring within those utilities. THIS is the sociological school that represents genuine “freedom for the individual” and “liberation from tyranny” – after all, it actually acknowledges that tyranny exists and oppresses the underdogs, whereas SF theory attempts to smooth out those tensions and advocates an insidiously crypto-fascist class-collaborationism. Once you start arguing that poverty exists for a reason and that it OUGHT TO EXIST for that reason, or start arguing that order only prevails because ruling classes exercise command at the top (whether that be a head of state or a capitalist at the top), you drift into dangerous territory.

“Traditionalists”, right-wing libertarians, and fascists all base their political ideas on that structural-functionalist view of society – everyone needs to know their place, inequality of power is good, and “order” takes precedent over justice. If you refuse to acknowledge power imbalance in the inequality of resource access, then you are not “for the underdog” in any conceivable way; you stand up for an unjust system that wears different masks depending on the consciousness of the oppressed – under normal circumstances you’d like the neoliberal status quo, but if the dispossessed get “uppity”, you’re more than happy to utilize state repression to push them back into their functionalist “role”. This is why you see overlap between “small government” right-libertarian “minarchists” and full-blown fascists in a lot of circles – it’s at this intersection that they recognize the systemic role of capitalism, the state, and class society as a whole. Class conscious conflict theory is the best counter to all of this.

This is why we study sociology.

“minarchists” defending Truman’s War Crimes is hilarious to me

“I support an absolutely minimal state, with one man having the power to incinerate thousands on his own say-so”

fyi Ron Swanson is a caricature not a goal to shoot for

Your minarchist libertarian “friend” who derides the NAP but claims to have a functioning moral compass is probably a Hiroshima apologist, a troop worshiper, and a Zionist. Their ideal “small government” will have just enough authority to prosecute a war on drugs and maintain the largest military budget on the planet, but not enough to touch their guns or their bakers. They will not help you privatize the police, because it might threaten the pensions of whatever overpaid armed bureaucrat they happen to be related to. They will not step in if some self-righteous half-insane combat vet attacks you for flag burning because “Public speech invites public reaction”. They will not stand up for any rights that they do not themselves plan to exercise, because they’re to busy virtue signalling for Jesus.

You cannot convince them, because they are not on the way to becoming anarchists like you. They are fundamentally broken and cannot be reasoned with any more than a Liberal who thinks that wage labor is theft, and attempting to convince them with any form of consistent logic will lead to them calling you an autist and possibly even a sociopath, even though they will, without a hint of irony, make fun of liberals later for over reliance on emotions and faith.

“anglo-saxon pagan”
“race realist”

if it looks like a fascist, talks like a fascist, then it’s essentially a fascist.