There is no compromising with ancoms or any ideologues, really. Our principles are simple and the only compromises we need make with any sort of state are those that are made in the face of the potential for hostile foreign aggression imho

>>4476 Ancap and Panarchy are the same thing just with a different focus. You can't have a society where you choose your government and keep your property unless its a society of private property of individual sovereignty. Panarchy instead is a way of expressing anarcho-capitalism, a more honest way, focusing on individual and freedom, and not misleading with bastardized words like capitalism, anarchy, or libertarian/liberalism. Words so closely associated with the state, lack of order, and degeneracy. Words people already have trained reactions to. If anything we should all be advertising ourselves as Panarchists. From time to time, to get people to really look at what we're about and can be about.

>>4482 >Panarchy instead is a way of expressing anarcho-capitalism, a more honest way, focusing on individual and freedom, and not misleading with bastardized words like capitalism, anarchy, or libertarian/liberalism. Words so closely associated with the state, lack of order, and degeneracy. Words people already have trained reactions to. >If anything we should all be advertising ourselves as Panarchists. From time to time, to get people to really look at what we're about and can be about. That's what I've been leaning towards, lately. Despite being an ancap, economics was never the main concern for me. I just don't like the state, but don't want to be coerced into a collective like what the social anarchists want. I've been using the term Voluntaryist to describe myself, but I recently noticed that a bunch of minarchists started using the term to describe themselves. My only beef with Panarchism is that promoting it would naturally require an alliance with the LibLeft and from the looks of it, they don't seem to be on board with the idea, saying that it would eventually lead to "imperial capitalism" on the socialist communities.

My experience with panarchy comes from talk of private militaries, so I'm really struggling to see the leftlib connection? Are we confusing panarchy with agorism? Another ideology that is essentially ancap but for whatever reason is leftist?

>>4485 The only LibLeft connection is that people can voluntarily choose their own governments (or no government at all), including leftist ones. I'd say that Panarchists are slightly more left-leaning than those who simply identify as ancaps though.

Any "tru anarchist" (tm) is fundamentally a panarchist. If you believe everyone should be allowed to live by whatever ideology they want as long as it's voluntary, then you are a panarchist. But the reason you barely hear anyone use that term is because people want to be more specific with which ideology they support and would live by under anarchy. So yes, if ancoms agree that destroying property that isn't theirs is immoral and agree to live far away from me and not bother me, then I don't care what they do. And if they decide their system fucking sucks and wanna join our side, they're more than welcome to. Panarchy would essentially be a free market of ideologies.

>>4487 Excellent summary. I've personally taken to calling myself a voluntaryist, both because it sidesteps having to muddle through the three distinct definitions of anarchy, and because it reinforces the idea of not giving a fuck so long as nobody's messing with me or anyone/thing I care about. However, panarchy, if it managed to work, would be the ideal. Honestly, though, I expect that a voluntary society would take an even more meta-ideological form than that: panarchy implies that multiple competing legal providers coexist in the same space, sort of like the Icelandic Commonwealth; however, undoubtedly, some voluntary communities would reject such a notion, either out of ideological purity (ancoms, probably mutualists, too) or out of the concern that such a plurality would constitute a liability in some way. Thus, even the panarchist model would be mutable, based on which territory one found oneself in at the moment.

>>4487 The only problems is that when ancoms fail with their commune, there will be definitely someone who will want to use them and seize their property which would lead to the creation of slave labor of some kind, which would lead to the creation of the state. The problem is that not everyone will be adhering to libertarian principles even in a libertarian society which would mean eventual expansion to ancom lands after Africa 2.0 happens.

The world is an Orwellian nightmare now. The US is not a democracy. The government and illegal immigrants don't obey the law. You are on camera constantly, the Gestapo is everywhere, you must give your fingerprints to drive, you are being tracked by license plate readers, you'll be groped if you travel or go to a ball game, you must wear a microchip if you go to Disneyland, you cannot use the Internet if you don't have a phone and you can't get a phone without a facial scan, everything is illegal, the government is wiretapping you, you don't have free speech, you don't have religious rights, guns are banned, the government can steal your property, the government can extrajudicially assassinate you and torture you, cash is illegal, and you cannot escape because the border is closed.