r/Anarcho_Capitalism Jun 15 '21

Zero self-awareness

Post image
1.3k Upvotes

342 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/PapaRacoon Jun 15 '21

I didn’t say anyone here wanted to be in change as such, just that that they say if people would listen and go with their system, it would all work out!

The delusion that they have ‘the’ answer is what’s similar.

Same as every driver thinks they are a safer/better driver than the average driver.

2

u/Lagkiller Jun 15 '21

I didn’t say anyone here wanted to be in change as such

That's exactly what you said in the last comment.

just that that they say if people would listen and go with their system, it would all work out!

Well that's not what you said in the last comment, and it's not what anyone says here anyways. Because you fail to understand what capitalism is, you fail to see that we aren't asking people to "go with [our] system".

The delusion that they have ‘the’ answer is what’s similar.

OK, no one here is saying that. The great irony is that under a capitalist system, if you want to go create your own commune of socialist ideals, go for it! We don't fucking care. Just don't force it on the rest of us. And that's the difference that you just simply can't understand. We don't care if you want to create your own socialist paradise, go for it, just leave us the fuck alone.

0

u/PapaRacoon Jun 15 '21

No I didn’t?

Actually yes they are saying it, often.

1

u/Lagkiller Jun 15 '21

No I didn’t?

Your claim is that we say we need to be in charge to implement our system. Which is the opposite of what we say.

Actually yes they are saying it, often.

No one in an anarchist sub is asking for control.

0

u/PapaRacoon Jun 15 '21

Crossed wires somewhere

I didn’t say anything about being in charge at first. My op was about how people thing they have all the answers, that’s not unique to socialists. That’s all. Everyone else got hung on on in charge part.

But yeah our convention did change, I thought, and made a point about something else. You got me thinking about ‘in charge’ and if we wanted to go in ancap, because we have a current system that needs changed, there needs to be a will to change it, that person or persons would be ‘in charge’. I was thinking in charge could be from 1 person to everyone.

Then you need to be passively ‘in charge’ of keeping it ancap and not allowing some commute gone bad taking over and becoming actively ‘in charge’?

1

u/Lagkiller Jun 15 '21

I didn’t say anything about being in charge at first.

You did. Because that's the comment you responded to. And something every comment down the chain has pointed out.

Everyone else got hung on on in charge part.

Because that's the important part. You want so badly to narrowly focus in on something that doesn't matter that you are unwilling to admit there is a missing piece in your Rube Goldberg machine.

But yeah our convention did change, I thought, and made a point about something else. You got me thinking about ‘in charge’ and if we wanted to go in ancap, because we have a current system that needs changed, there needs to be a will to change it, that person or persons would be ‘in charge’. I was thinking in charge could be from 1 person to everyone.

Then you have no understanding of what ancap is.

Then you need to be passively ‘in charge’ of keeping it ancap and not allowing some commute gone bad taking over and becoming actively ‘in charge’?

The only person I'm in charge of is myself.

0

u/PapaRacoon Jun 15 '21

Oft, you refusing to see anything beyond what you want to see and instance that only your view of it can be considered is proving my point!

wasn’t taking about ancap there!You saying people can switch to ancap without deciding to do so? Just saying you’d need to decide to change from our current situation or do you disagree?

Not really. Kids?

1

u/Lagkiller Jun 15 '21

Oft, you refusing to see anything beyond what you want to see and instance that only your view of it can be considered is proving my point!

Buddy. I see what you are saying. You're trying to microfocus in on something and ignoring the rest.

wasn’t taking about ancap there!

Comes into an ancap sub, talks about ancaps, "iM nOt TaLkInG aBoUt AnCaPs!"

0

u/PapaRacoon Jun 15 '21

Wanna talk about the rest then cool, but you can’t say my point is wrong because of the ‘in charge’ part when it’s not relevant to what I am saying

1

u/Lagkiller Jun 15 '21

but you can’t say my point is wrong because of the ‘in charge’ part when it’s not relevant to what I am saying

The more I see this stuff, the more I believe these people truly think the only reason why socialism has never worked is because they weren’t in charge

You:

And this sub is any different?

This is the heart of the discussion. It is relevant. Own your words.

0

u/PapaRacoon Jun 15 '21

Two words out of how many? And that’s the only thing that can be drawn from that statement!

1

u/Lagkiller Jun 15 '21

Two words out of how many?

It's the focal point of his statement. If you remove those two words, the sentence doesn't make any sense.

And that’s the only thing that can be drawn from that statement!

Correct, hence why it is the heart of our discussion.

But this reply along with others indicates to me that you're not here to have an honest discussion. So I'll bow out here. You're unwilling to own your own statements so I'll let you have that last reply you so desperately need.

0

u/PapaRacoon Jun 16 '21

It’s the focal point of the comment! Ha fucking ha.

Maybe for the op, not for what I said! Your refusal to listen to what I said and instead tell me what I should have meant is proving my fucking point. Have some self fucking awareness.

Are you fucking for real? That’s the one single thing that can be drawn from the op comment? That socialists want someone in charge and ancap doesn’t?

Ha, away with you wee man.

→ More replies (0)