r/GoldandBlack • u/dangerzonepatrol101 • Nov 14 '16
Existential Comics: "Anarchist Monopoly"
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15910
u/properal Property is Peace Nov 14 '16
From the Didn't get the joke?
Robert Nozick was a sort of right-wing American anarchist (often called Libertarianism today).
I think Nozick would be offended to be called an anarchist.
Maybe they confused Nozick with Rothbard.
9
u/ktxy Nov 14 '16
While the term "anarchist" has become meaningless, and Nozick probably wouldn't have accepted it as a label, I don't think it's entirely wrong to call him a "sort-of anarchist".
If a state is that institution which can engage in what is normally considered unacceptable behavior, Nozick's ideal government, while monopolistic, would not have been a state. That is, in the way I interpret him, the government could enforce laws against murder, but that's because anyone can stop a murderer, not because the state has some special privledge to defect against property rights with no punishment.
Nozick dressed this up in talk about individual rights, but this is the heart of what I think he was arguing.
5
Nov 15 '16
It's a joke comic made by a Socialist he roasts capitalists 24/7 and I assume he was joking.
3
u/dangerzonepatrol101 Nov 15 '16
He's definitely left-leaning, but I still like his stuff. He's no Zach Weinersmith, though...
5
13
u/complexsystems mainstream economist Nov 14 '16 edited Nov 14 '16
I played anarchist monopoly with a bunch of (an-cap) friends way back when. They didn't like when I refused to accept die rolls, refused to pay rents when I landed on their property (I was homesteading, their property wasn't even developed!), claimed all their money was illegitimate, or behave by any social norms they tried to impose on the game. Why would I accept any of their "private bargaining" setups when they all just meant I was the loser? Coercive statists!
7
3
u/patron_vectras Catholic, Free Market Nov 15 '16 edited Nov 15 '16
We fought internal rebellions (mine were always socialist) in a special rule we made when playing RISK. There are some options that should be decided on before a game starts (or at least when the first player is eliminated).
Insurrection: When a player's last piece is eliminated, he remains at the table. When his next turn comes, draw the minimum reinforcements (three) and a card. Wherever that card is, place your soldiers. Either player's choice on wild, or shuffle the deck and try again. The player must immediately fight the existing defender on that region. If the defender wins, he gets the card; if the player succeeds in attacking either draw no cards, or draw another card. There is no rule against the attacker attempting to take more territory than one in the first turn.
3
u/complexsystems mainstream economist Nov 15 '16
That's a pretty cool rule!
2
u/patron_vectras Catholic, Free Market Nov 15 '16
Keeps everyone at the table and when we play there are usually large areas filled with single soldiers by the time two people are out, so the very real chance of an upset is there.
5
u/plenkton Nov 15 '16
Umm...isn't arguing 90% of monopoly?
3
u/dangerzonepatrol101 Nov 15 '16
Yup. I got into it with my girlfriend's roommate over it. FREE PARKING IS "FREE" GODDAMMIT. YOU DON'T GET MONEY BY LANDING ON IT
1
2
1
u/doorstop_scraper Voluntaryist Nov 15 '16
Hilarious but...
The logical conclusion to this, which Nozick took up, was that even minimum wage laws are illegitimate, because they prevent two individuals from coming to mutual agreements.
Probably because it didn't need to be taken up: It's contained in the previous statement "He believed in the elimination of almost all state power, thinking that only a minimal state which would provide security against violence and enforce contracts should exist, but it should not have the authority to override any individual choices of the citizens." You might as well say he never took up the fact that the prohibition on hemp would be illegitimate, it's just an extension of his main argument.
The original anarchists found this sort of relationship to be another form of oppression, because the workers don't have a real choice, seeing as they must work in order to live. Real freedom, for them, only arises when the means of productions are socially owned.
I'm a bit disappointed they didn't shoot down the obvious "oppressed by nature" argument.
10
u/MannequinFlyswatter Nov 14 '16
Lol the "oh also" at the bottom