4.5 million people live in some approximation of AS-land in Rojava. And also to some degree in Chiapas.

Shut the **** up.

[ ] Chatting about ACism
[X] Whining about being asked to chat about ACism

Nailed it.

And yes, the ACers whined about being asked to chat ACism, while simultaneously almost completely* avoiding chatting about ACism at all, for well over five years running. It was an epic display of collective long-form trolling.

All that time, none of those ACers every bothered to get off their lazy behinds and actually learn something about ACism itself. They are, as always, the most ignorant, lazy, and un-curious alleged "-ism"ers to ever infest the interwebs.

Some things never change.

* Of course, when they did slip up and actually try to chat about ACism, we got gems like "Roof Roads"...

no u

Microbet, I believe I can sum-up the difference between AC and AS. In ACism, police protect private property justly acquired. In ASism police protect taking away private property justly. We're coming from different premises. I'll try to come back to this later.

[ ] Chatting about ACism
[X] Whining about being asked to chat about ACism

Nailed it again !!!1!

!!!111!!1111!!!!

LOL no.

First, in 'Statistism', police protect private property justly acquired. So you're loltastically trying to compare 'Statistism' -vs- "AS", not ACism vs "AS".

This is still another example of the ACers doing anything to avoid discussing ACism.

Some things never change.

Is it possible to have a thread about ACism without kero and ST?

pp,

It may not be possible to justly own some things. Take land for example. None of it was ever originally owned. There is no clear title. I never, without coercion, have granted anyone else's claim to land. (Perhaps excluding property I rented)

The personal "ownership" of any land is only a promise that someone will violently exclude others from that land. The someone generally being the state through the police.

Hence Proudhon's, "property is theft."

Where do "police" come from in ACland?

Sure.

But, as I know about 1000% more about ACism than you do, why would you want to?

Again, if you want to learn about ACism, I'm here to help teach you. If you insist on remaining ignorant, please don't try to ruin things for everyone else.

feel free to respond to what i say and i will respond to you as well

LOL, I've been shunned!

lol

This is completely off the mark as a description of libertarians/ACists. People like this, that sort of fall in love with axiomatic thinking and try to over apply it to places where it clearly doesn't help do exist. They are the scourge of many fields from physics to economics to god knows what. But they have nothing to do with ACists. 99% of ACists couldn't tell you stuff taught on the first day of logic 101 (what does it mean for a set to be well ordered) etc.

ACists are basically the opposite of the over appliers of logic. They just emotionally despise liberals or civil rights or the police and know so little about logic that they don't realize that their politics are largely formed like everyone else's; a complicated heuristic based way in which axiomatic thinking is worthless. As much as I might dislike say, axiomatic quantum field theory those people at least know some basic logic.....and never find themselves giving talks in front of Confederate flags.

Eh, Libertarians do have an axiomatic style to their thinking, it's just that they're not especially good at logic. It's a bit like those mathematical "proofs" that wind up proving that 1= 0. It's still mathematical in approach, it's just riddled with errors.

I don't think its at all like 1=0 proofs. Those proofs have errors. You can clearly point them out because they are still statements made in an axiomatic system that actually do allow you to compare the magnitudes of numbers.

Acism is closer to coming up with nonsense that proves that pizza is the best food.....oh yeah and you're currently arguing with your wife about what to eat and you happen to really, really want pizza. It's not at all like people who actually know logic and are honestly but inappropriately using it.

Lots of opinions on ACists based on nothing. Yawn. Supposedly, in this forum, broad-brush attacks are taboo. Clearly this isn't always applied. In the context of meaningful discussion, there is no place for it. Interesting that there are so many who take interest in NOT having a meaningful discussion, which is evident by the posting style of detractors of ACism in this thread.

All the ACists need to do is actually talk about ACism, it doesn't seem that complicated a thing to do yet they continually refuse to do so.

ACism is very simple. Voluntary institutions emerge absent of state actors. This is true in the current paradigm with companies that start every day, and there's every reason to forsee start-ups to create legal paradigms. For example, there is no state actor involved in creating encyclopedias, so there are private organizations making encyclopedias, some for profit, and some for non-profit. Hence, wikipedia, which self-governs. What specifically do you want to know?

I mean, it's pretty obvious there's about 4-1 troll to serious post ratio. It's about the psycho-analysis of ACists, and the lone reddit comment, etc. ad nausium. Not serious discussion, and it's a blatant strategy to bog down discussion.

For example, this is a strawman, entirely a strawman, wouldn't say it's a troll, because I can't be reasonably sure as to the intent of this post, but it's a vast oversimplification of complex arguments, and a complicated understanding of the world. This is precisely the trollish kind of post that prevents honest discussion.

Again. Total yawn-post.

I mean, really, this thread reads like a bed-time story for the detractors as to why ACists are wrong without ever having to put their finger on it. And yet I am suppose to be here to explain myself? Hahaha!

OK, where do rumors that ACland == rape town come from? Why won't ACland be rape town?