Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 6,043 articles on Polcompball Anarchy Wiki. Type your article name above or create one of the articles listed here!

    Polcompball Anarchy Wiki

    Davilandism is just the thought of the user Davilanda (me, the person who is editing this thing). It's an catholic, monarchist, libertarian, reactionary and aristotelian ideology

    Political Beliefs


    I believe that the only system that can make society prosper in the long term is laissez faire capitalism. This is because it is the only system that is consistent with the right to property (a fundamental pillar for coexistence in society), in addition to being the system that has allowed countries to develop in a better way (people who allege that protectionism is what develops nations do not coherently analyze the historical situations of the countries that allege that they developed with protectionism).

    Regulations and other obstacles to the free market economy are only arbitrary barriers to the free interaction of economic agents (making it difficult for businessmen to calculate economically and generating crises and misery). In addition to this, the regulations do not help the consumer at all, since they are intended to help him and only cause prices to rise, companies to go bankrupt and the consumer to not be able to decide his life for himself.

    Property and Business

    Property is the only thing that allows us to settle our conflicts, which makes it what keeps our society on its feet. Private and personal property have arbitrary distinctions, since they start from the same source (the exclusion that someone exercises to other people of an object (even if it is shared at will by the owner)) generating that the Marxist distinction of personal property and private is arbitrary as he had already said. Property must be defended as inviolable, since this is the foundation of society as we know it, and without it we could not resolve conflicts peacefully. Of course, the property (over the objects) in the same way must attend to the common good, but this does not imply that an institution that violates the property right itself must take charge of that work.

    Economic Thought



    The State is an institution that has a monopoly on violence and uses this power to coerce the people under its interests. The only thing that keeps it alive is our blindness to the belief that it is necessary to maintain society as we know it. If we were to rebel among all of us against this institution that has harmed the human race for thousands of years, it would not have a chance, since we are the only ones who allow its existence by paying taxes.


    Landlords and Original appropiation



    Personally I am not a nationalist or an internationalist, I just think that no one should be subject to state coercion. I think that the concept of "nation" is too ambiguous and tends to lead to statism, although it can be used in favor of the fight against statism.

    Internationalism tends towards globalism insofar as it seeks cooperation between nations, which means that it can lead directly to the idea of a world government (an idea that is inherent to the existence of the State itself).


    I don't think we should intervene in any community unless it is absolutely necessary (it is strictly necessary if the community falls under the clutches of communism or statism). Problems between regions don't really worry us because they are just fights between states (talking about the current situation of course).


    Western society must preserve the knowledge and moral norms that have been given to us by our ancestors. Well, this does not mean that there is no progress of any kind, but that social progress is restricted due to the damage that new ideas can generate in society (for example, feminism and the LGBT community). Social morality must be properly based on natural law and virtue ethics, since these are the ones that best support social values (in addition to the fact that, in the case of natural law, it is the only one that can satisfactorily support the law and morals).


    About homosexuality

    Homosexuality, like disordered tendencies, per se is not a sin, since it is not as such an immoral action that is carried out voluntarily. What is a sin is committing homosexual acts (such as having a romantic relationship or having sex with other men), since you are knowingly committing immoral acts (committing disorderly acts).

    I don't think homosexuality should be considered a crime, since homosexuality (understood as homosexual acts), like other sins, does not make society cease to exist (not like actions such as stealing or killing). But one must be clear about the immorality of committing such acts.

    About transexuals

    Transsexuals are people with a completely altered perception of reality who believe that by identifying as the opposite gender, they are already that gender. Supporting them to identify as people of the opposite gender to the one they are born with is being uncaring and is hating that person with that problem. These people should be given the appropriate psychological treatment and be taken to therapy to stop having such ideas that are harmful to them.



    Transition to the Ancap system

    Well guys, this is the tutorial on how to make an anarcho-capitalist and libertarian society that is moral and functional in a few steps, ideal to go along with Christian morals and traditional values (or if you are not paleolibertarian, you can go along with categorical imperative).

    The ingredients are:

    1. People who can attract ordinary people to libertarian ideas (speakers).
    2. Defenders (like, the security of the cause).
    3. People who prevent the speakers from falling into anti-libertarian ideas ("intellectuals", so to speak).

    Now, the steps you must follow are:

    1. Through the speakers, make society understand the importance of property rights and how the State violates these rights.
    2. Get the defenders to act in case the state tries to suppress the cause.
    3. Mix intellectuals with speakers to prevent speakers from falling into legitimizing anti-libertarian methods (such as reformism).
    4. Get everyone to stop paying taxes, and thus destroy the state without resorting to unnecessary violence.
    5. Wait 3 to 10 years for this to take effect.
    6. You can give agrarian and anti-urban ideas to taste.

    Now, enjoy your prosperous and (mostly) happy anarcho-capitalist libertarian society!

    Technological Beliefs


    Philosophical Beliefs





    About random things









    Socal Media


    Deku fra Davilanda (davilandaidecorinto)





    • Davilanda - Guys, I'm mad because I spent a whole day editing this thing and ended up ruining everything because of a little mistake
    • Retroliberalism- add me please
    • - Add me?
      • Davilanda13 - wait more time, please
    •  Metbolism - You're like me but Ancap
      • Davilanda13 - true, but also you're volcel, that makes you better than me XD
    • - Add me?
    • Technocapital Cultist - You ever heard of NRx? I think you'll like it
      • Davilanda13 - men, NRx are just hoppeanos with state, so they're gays
    • Sílas Carrasco - Can you add me pls?
      • Davilanda13 - and you're who?
      • Davilanda13 - shit, based culturally, but you're prottie, and authoritarianism Is gay
    • Ronwelltarianism - Can you please add me?
    • - Add me reactionary chad.
    • Owfism - Add me to relations
    • Noelism - Good news, Chilean leftoid constitution got BTFO'd. Also add me?
    • Owfism - It seems you have mentioned some arguments (2 of you are made by yourself so I am not gonna really touch on them). The first being the theological argument, now, this uses an argument by analogy. More specifically, it was used by Paley through the watchmaker analogy. It would thus be asked what would we think if we found a watch on the ground, did it appear spontaneously Is it a dream or is it thought through its complexity, how it was made in order to be a watch. Then the watch must have been made by someone on purpose right? Through this, Paley argued that the teleology of the watch would come to the conclusion that there was an intelligent creator, that being God, that created it. So through this argument, if there is a watch maker, there must be also be a world maker. Right? And that is obviously, in this case, God. However, Paley also compared a watch to a human, but I am not talking about that.

    Now, personally, I don't believe in the conclusion that god exists, nor this argument, so, I shall come up with a disanalogy of sorts. Situation A and B are thus too different to be able to work. Yes, we can take a look at a watch and look at the gear, how it was assembled onto the watch yada yada yada, but, there is something wrong here: If god, the interpretation of god, the main one at least, an all-good, all-powerful being would give our eyes a blind spot? Like, what's the point of a blind spot? If the omni-god, one which is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, a.k.a all-powerful and all-good, would give us something bad and useless? Like, if he does something bad, then that means he is not all-good, thus he is not omnibenevolent. I could go on about how the omni-god doesn't make sense, but I am just gonna stick to the theological argument. Paley would response to this by saying that just because we don't know there is a purpose doesn't mean there is one, however, this is contradictory, because his whole argument for god is that you should look at the world and see purpose. So if we see things that are working great, and others that are not working so great, now that's flawed. Let's take a look at Bertrand Russell's analogy: Why would god give a bunny a white tail? So hunters can shoot at it? Now, yet again, that debunks the fact that god is omnibenevolent, since he gave bunnies a bad purpose, which well, is not an all-good thing. The point: If we invent purposes rather than recognizing ones that are inherently there, then we create purpose, not God, then if you believe that god made eyes so can we see then God must have also made fingers to be picked by noses and rabbit tails as bullseyes and blind spots as a way for us to be in a car accident. So, the counter-argument is (since this is too long and I am not touching the other arguments and other ways of debunking this) We don't get to just pick and choose and say God designed the stuff we want him to have designed and not the other stuff. (Ik its pretty weird to just make a really long comment debunking your beliefs in god, but, I was bored.

      • Davilanda13 - I will respond you later
    • Serbian Socialism Are you planning to add me? I hope not.
    • Neo-Optimateism Pretty interesting. Your thoughts about pink and red markets?
      • Davilanda13 - I really didn't heard about that markets :'v
        • Neo-Optimateism - Pink market creates violent and legal goods((mostly government regulated))(prisons, wars, torture, compulsory education) and Red market is violent and illegal goods(slavery, assasinations, theft). Also, do you have discord?
          • Davilanda13 - davilandaidecorinto, and thanks, I think that the pink market should be provided by the (unregulated) market, but some things can be avoided for keeping the human dignity (torture). About the Red, I think it's very immoral and it should be still illegal (idk if I explained my point correctly).
    • - Literally me, but like, anarchist and even more traditionalist.
    • - Can you add me?
    • HeredyBall - My man got stuck in the laissez-faire rabbit hole and is hyper-christian. How would you make sure your "morales" works without a higher power ? How do you deal with monopoles ?
      • Davilanda13 - no sé jaja salu2.
    • - Add me? Here's link
    Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
    Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.