Thrifted this yesterday.

Wasn't born in the USA but grew up there. Since I was a kid, I had the assumption that this symbol meant 'uniting against tyrany' but saw that some objectivists/libertarians think it may be 'collectivist'.

Do you AnCaps think it's collectivist/statist?

I'll wear it anyway because it looks dope and libertarian/US history merch is hard to come by in my country.

Thanks.

To understand China you have to understand the three socialisms. And you also have to understand that no matter a country's ideology or intent any socialism will end up implementing mixture of the three socialisms even if they claim to only be one of the three.

Communism - Socialism by state ownership and control of all means of production and abolition of class
Fascism - Socialism by acceptance of inequality and acceptance that people have unique rolls to carry out in life. AKA Class socialism.
National socialism - Defining the social creature on ethnic lines. All socialism prioritizes the well being of an anthropamophized abstract conception of "the people" over actual people. National socialism just defines the edge of that creature on ethnic lines.

All real world cases of socialism end up implementing some mixture of all three. The Soviet Union did in fact care about Russian interests and were willing to violate the communist objective of feeding everyone (rip Ukraine) to prioritize Russian needs. The soviet union also had people take on different unequal rolls in its actual operation. Class was a huge part of the Soviet Union.

So the question of analizing any socialist country is not to categorize which one they are, but to rank how much they are of one verse another.

China is willing to temporarally, but also indefinately, forgo state control of capital because they view that as what is needed to serve their ethnic interests in the moment. They are not shy about stating it in those terms. They also very openly accept unequal rolls. So China is in order:

National socialist
Fascist
Communist

They are all three. That just happens to be that order even though they don't view themselves that way. They are actually pretty close to zero on the Communism scale as a matter of management, but are politically communist because their ideology is full of communist dogmas. But ideology and policy are different things.

Cuba though is Communist,Fascist,National socialist. I rank their Communism above their Fascism because they actually do have state control of production which is rare, and they don't have a significantly sized caste of betters. It does exist but is pretty small. It's going to exist to some extent but it is guarenteed to exist to some extent. They are low on national socialism because they don't express very much ethnic interest, but I'm sure it exists.

BTW the NSDAP wasn't purely uncommunist either. The same rules apply to them. To AnCaps everyone is a communist. And the NSDAP is no exception. Any socialism requires some state control over production, just as any socialism requires unequal rolls reinforced by the state, and any socialism requires some definition of who is us vs them. This is why all instances implement some mixture.

Many libertarians have great ideals but we are politically stupid. Most of is are not interested in understanding politic and prefer to just blame commies. How does that get us? Nowhere.

We need leaders.

Leaders that understand politic and pick good strategies for us and explain to us clearly.

Someone like https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/s/NAbdxfrEen

Milei.

If I can I would clone Milei and make them my president. We can do the next best thing. What would Milei do in our or your situation. Ask himself. Do it.

Let me gives you a sample.

Should you vote Donald or Kamala or Oliver?

My understanding is libertarians can't possibly like Kamala.

That's a tough choice.

Oliver can't beat Kamala. Obviously.

Many says voting doesn't matter. If voting doesn't matter why Donald bother coming to Libertarian ?

Many ancaps say voting is aggression. Yea. So is shooting people. If ancapnistan is invaded will you do nothing because shooting people is aggressions?

Just because you don't vote doesn't mean others won't vote to take your money.

Escape taxes with bitcoin or xmr all you want, but vote still you should consider.

Others say that libertarian parties need votes too. We can arrange things.

If you are in swing states vote Trump. Don't let commie Kamala win.

If you are in non swing states vote Oliver. Notice libertarian parties, if it wants to remain pure and principled, will never win election.

Pure capitalism cause so much wealth disparity that most people will be envy. You will always have to vote for lesser evil democracy.

But this is ancap forum. You hate voting. Sure. What does it take to get ancapnistan going? Political success. Let voting be a way to learn how to achieve political success.

And then things get complicated right?

Who should you vote for? Should you even vote?

You got to make decisions. Not as important as your decision to stock bitcoin or xmr but it's something you should think about.

And this is where Milei comes in.

Ask Milei.

Who should you vote for?

You like Milei. Just follow him. He shares our ideals and understand how politic works.

Trump isn't a full libertarian. No one is. But this guy beat the fuck up of Hilary with so little campaign funds.

He will lower taxes.

He will free Ulbricht. Ask him to free https://www.justice.gov/usao-nh/pr/ian-freeman-sentenced-8-years-prison-operating-bitcoin-money-laundering-scheme ian Freeman too.

Ian Freeman has done a lot to promote libertarianism. Are we, libertarians, so individualist that we just abandon people like him. If we do then we deserve having commie president because even they take care their heroes.

I may be wrong.

It's complex isn't it.

When in doubt.

Ask Milei.

Or, when you are confused. Ask yourself this.

What would Milei do?

You have an ideology that doesn't know what is correct and therefore cannot put it into law, but tends to put non-aggression into law, informally, and somehow knows that that's correct, yet can't know what is correct regarding search and seizure, custody of children regarding total meth heads, or any number of questions I could throw at it. Is it correct to pull someone over at all, and if it were, is it correct It could be pulled over on a busy freeway, endangering everyone? You don't have the answers, yet somehow you have the answer to whether or not aggression is immoral? By what means that you arrive to that answer, and why can't that same way be used to answer a whole bunch of other questions?

The truth is that you had to use rationalism to find out whether aggression was immoral or not, and so rationalism can answer that and many more questions, yet you have this persistent denial that rationalism can and should be used to find correct laws.

You deduce from self-ownership that there are property rights, and you use rationalism for this, yet you can't use rationalism to determine whether abortion is a moral or not? You can't use rationalism to determine whether the death penalty is immoral or not? More precisely, rationalism can find correctness, whereas morality is a word too loosely defined for rationalism to deal with. Hence, rational morality is actually the search for correctness, not for what is deemed moral.

Because correctness is important for both morality and law, rational morality is foundational to determining the correct path for all human interactions. Outside of correctness is the violation of somebody in some way, which is not something that law can be tolerating.

It is befuddling that you do not have correctness as your standard, yet you appeal to correctness (what is rationally valid) in order to justify things like self-ownership, non-aggression, and property rights.

You will make statists and those having all manner of like positions out to look like they are the scum of the earth, all because you have some grounding in correctness, while they likely do not, and yet you will stop at one or two principles, thinking that's all there can be? The full spectrum of correctness is not encompassed by a couple of principles. Thinking you are more correct than the entire world might be based, but thinking that you have full correctness is entirely flawed.

Constant, timeless, and unchanging truths are numerous, and are findable if you look for them, but supposing you have all the truth is the surest way to not find more of it.

In the new agency:

• Directors' salaries are reduced by 90%.
• The salaries of senior authorities, the "political staff", are reduced by 45%.
• The salaries of lower-level authorities are reduced by 30%.
• The number of employees on leave is reduced by 15%.

https://x.com/OPRArgentina/status/1848438012410991078

Just as the title says. Any recommend books, and resources to continue learning.