The person who robbed me in uninsured so my safety support representative denied my claim
Source: twitter
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
164 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15918 readers
3 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why would anyone find this convoluted social order desirable in any way? Any time I'm a victim of a petty crime I have to get an arbitrator to prevent corporate warfare over my insurance payout? Feudalism sounds more orderly.
Because in such a system the uninsured are esentialy outiside the law. Sociopaths can do whatever they want to them. Then again in medieval times there were waifs and exiles...
The only Person who finds this desirable is a Person who thinks wealth will Transfer over from our current system to that one and they will Just be their own little Duke in their area because they own the protection Agency.
Honestly I suspect most AnCaps are knowingly doing a bit. They know AnCapism is bullcrap, what they really want is to regress back to feudalism so they can be an Earl who gets to have Prima Nocta with the peasant girls but they know that looks bad so they just advocate for an ideology that would essentially lead to that. They're just doing feudalism with extra steps.
The patron saint of ancaps, Murray Rothbard, was 100% doing a bit. He was being a complete contrarian and trying to make other academics mad. Like one time another professor asked him to name a few historically anarcho-capitalist societies and Rothbard answered exclusively with societies that used slavery, like medieval Iceland. He wasn't being serious. He didn't believe it would become a real society either, he was just an asshole.
Modern ancaps seem to be mostly deep level internet obsessives, so I do believe they buy into the ideology. I don't think they consider the full implications, but there is a massive overlap with ancaps and pedophiles. Or like those weirdos who move to Panama or Chile to do their stupid little projects where someone gets shot.
definitely the "dark enlightenment" weirdos who basically just advocate for neofeudal technocracy somehow layered over libertarianism. ex Peter Thiel
Because it implies a bunch of value added labor - investigations, peaceful civil arbitrations, equitable adjudications, amicable and fruitful conflict resolutions - that don't exist in the real world but seemingly should if liberal theories of social order are accepted.
It's a fairytale of civil justice, told by babies to babies, to soothe their own anxieties about the civil nature of the modern world.
You make a single phone call and everything sorts itself out.
Absolutely Utopian.
That’s because feudalism was at least centralized so you don’t incur all the social penalties involved with distributed human networks. Feudalism is to this what monopolies are to free markets: a centralization of communication patterns.