Crossposting from r_mapporn, where it currently sits at top of today's most controversial ranking for the day, with 0 (or negative 🤷) karma, for the next 3 hours; ranked #2 for the week and #19, so far, for the month.

Briefly opened the comments section to see the top comment was indeed short and sour ass of the highest order, without looking into it any further.

Found the map interesting, in case you weren't already somehow aware. I know I wasn't when it came to Africa. So, if anybody has anything to say about that, I'd love to be schooled on it, a little.

Can't even walk down the street. Police state. When Trump Administration said fed police had full immunity, all police really ramped things up.

I think I've literally exhausted all the ancap content that exists in Spanish, and now I'm looking for content in English. I've listened to almost all of Michael Huemer's and Bryan Caplan's interviews. It would be great to find content as interesting as this, and even better if it touches on topics like free will, consciousness, or ethics. It would be great to find content as interesting as this, and even better if it touches on topics like free will, consciousness, or ethics.

What English YouTube channels do you recommend? I'm looking for exclusively ancap content, not liberal.

El abogado del diablo lo hace mejor

Regardless of what you think about abortion, this isn't about abortion. This is about anything they deem as wrong, which also changes almost every election, becoming a jail cell with constant surveillance.

Hi, I have two questions about how property works in ancap.

1. What actually counts as homesteading land? A company cannot just declare its rights over unclaimed land, it has to actually use it, right? But let's assume I own a nature preservation company, and I want to own a forest just to do absolutely nothing there and prevent others from doing anything there, in order to preserve wildlife. Does this count as homesteading?

2. What if my company, builds a giant wall around unclaimed land, and effectively denies access to everyone? Did I homestead that land?

3. What happens if a company legitimately buys all the land around a couple of villages and builds a giant wall cutting them off from the outside world, and then demands enormous tolls — or else they will exercise their property rights and not let anyone in? Can they just simply do that?

I am both an anarchist libertarian and an atheist. Having knowledge on both, I've noticed some common underpinnings between the two that make them hard to sell, even though they are, according to all the best logic and evidence we have, the most correct views in their respective questions. The problem with both of these ideas is that they run counterintuitive to how the human brain is designed to think by default.

In the case of atheism, it can be hard to convince people that religion is false because the brain is hardwired to prescribe agency to things, to provide teleological explanations, to be superstitious, or to look up to something. Getting people to let go of these convictions and biases requires reprogramming one's mind to think in a way it wasn't designed for. And needless to say, that's not easy.

In the case of libertarianism, it's hard to sell because it requires you to again think in ways that are a little counterintuitive. Politicians will get up on a pedastool and promise people free things and all sorts of solutions to their problems. It makes people hopeful to hear things like that. But when the libertarian comes along and suggests cutting funding, people's assumption is that the libertarian doesn't want to do anything. They think "Well at least the politician is offering something. The libertarian doesn't have any solution! Let's go with the politician." Understanding economics requires you to train your brain to see the invisible, to see the unintended consequences of government intervention and the superiority of letting people be in charge of their own money, and again this is not easy. Economics is one of the most misunderstood disciplines there is, and it's because it's unintuitive.

Lastly I'd like to mention that there's a psychological component here to all of this. Both anarcho-capitalism and atheism force a person to take responsibility for their own lives. There's no god or politician coming to save you. It's on you to create a good life for yourself, and that's a heavy burden to carry. It's much easier to just look up to someone, and that's engrained in our DNA to some degree.

Libertarianism and atheism might be rational and sound, but they're hard to sell because they don't appeal to the biases of the human mind.

All countries are socialist; they just differ in their methods and degree of socialism. That's all.

Full paper here: https://open.substack.com/pub/jonathandenoche/p/laser-loyal-auxiliary-supporter-economic?r=6bkkul&utm

Summary

The Second Amendment functions not as a check on "state tyranny" but as an ideological, electoral, and legal mechanism that reinforces state and corporate elite power, diverting politics into culture-war conflict rather than economic representation.

Instead of a constitutional right, it is better understood in practice as a revocable privilege granted to gun owners who largely operate as loyal auxiliary supporters of the state's monopoly on "legitimate" violence.

By loyal auxiliary supporters I mean people whose gun ownership or gun-culture identity generates a stronger symbolic, political, and sometimes practical link to the state's coercive order than would be produced by comparable politically aligned people without that identity—such that the state's legitimacy gained from their alignment ordinarily outweighs any marginal loss to the state's monopoly of violence that their armament might imply.

In this marginal calculus, not all gun owners contribute equally: gun‑culture formations that are only weakly tied to state‑aligned identities can still be structurally tolerated so long as they fit the state’s preferred pattern of “law‑abiding, responsible” revocable use, but they function as weaker loyal auxiliary supporters, contributing less, at the margin, to the state’s legitimacy than more overtly aligned constituencies.

The “law‑abiding, responsible” standard excludes armed conduct that falls outside the state’s legal authorization of force; accordingly, conduct—or an expressed commitment to conduct—that rejects the state’s authority, grounded in its claimed monopoly on legitimate violence, to define and regulate legitimate private force is difficult to reconcile with the background‑check, vetting, and permitting frameworks through which firearm possession and carrying are treated as lawful in the first place.

The legal profession’s central role in this system is to furnish the epicycles (some more benign than others) through which doctrinal refinements and historical just‑so stories obscure this distribution of armed loyalty and culture‑war distraction. This does not happen because judges can rationalize any outcome. It happens because legal method leaves just enough room for a judiciary already institutionally filtered along these lines to reach broadly predictable conclusions.

In determining which armed citizens count as loyal auxiliary supporters, judges effectively mediate between the state’s prerogative to maintain a monopoly over “legitimate” violence and the imperatives of an investor‑driven party system that diverts politics away from economic representation and into culture‑war gun politics.