A brief polemic in which I attempt to explain my position on so-called Anarcho-Capitalism.
*SPOILER* It's bollocks.
These days it's not too uncommon for right-wing Libertarians to refer to themselves as Anarcho-Capitalists. Logically, one can see where they're coming from; they're pro-Capitalism and anti-state, so fair enough right? Well, not really. I'd argue in fact that Anarchism and Capitalism are mutually exclusive, completely incompatible theories. Remember that Jewish guy in South Park who tried to capture Moses, the one who claimed to be from the Anti-Semitic sect of Judaism? It's as ridiculous a concept as that. Basically it is my belief that to use the term is to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of both Anarchism and Capitalism. Allow me to explain...
From the very start Anarchism has always been a Socialist, anti-Capitalist movement. In the words of Adolph Fischer, "every anarchist is a socialist
but not every socialist is necessarily an anarchist.'' Where Anarchism differs from other strands of Socialist thought, is that Anarchists recognise that Capitalism and the State are inextribably linked. One only has to look at the historical record of the rise of both Capitalism and the modern State to understand this. It is no accident that some of the earliest criticism of Marxism came from Mikhail Bakunin, an Anarchist.
To be an Anarchist is to oppose the concentration of unaccountable power and Authoritarian structures. What those masquerading as Anarcho-Capitalists fail to realise is that Capitalism necessitates such structures. The 20th Century Cold War myth that Capitalism and Freedom go hand in hand has been neatly demolished by the Chinese Republic, Capitalism's big success story. From an anarchist perspective, the State exists to protect the property owning class from the majority by the enforcing of property laws, for as Proudhon (regarded by many as the first Anarchist) proclaimed, Property is Theft.
The contradiction is clear; Capitalism cannot exist without the State, rendering the pursuit of Anarcho-Capitalism pointless, when really all they seek is Small-State conservatism. Like the Marxist-Leninists of the last century, who believed they could use State power to do away with Capitalism and ultimately failed, any attempt to put their theories into practice would ultimately lead to the same result. A deep spell of tyranny, followed by an inevitable return to the status quo.
Let's be under no illusions; there is no reconcilling the contradictions of Capitalism, either from the Social Democrats who believe that Capitalism can managed or made to function for the benefit of the many. Nor can Capitalism be used to truly shrink the state on which it depends. Indeed, the great small-state conservative heroes of the last century, such as Reagan and Thatcher achieved no such thing despite the rhetoric of their cheerleaders. A fact neatly underscored by the failure of the Chicago Boy's laboratory experiment in Pinochet's Chile, often bizarrely misremembered as a success story.
Capitalism is an unsustainable mechanism. Either we will do away with it, or it will do away with us.
54
[/quote]
Correction. It's not uncommon for (sane) right-wing Libertarians to refer to themselves as Libertarian Capitalists.
And those two terms aren't mutually exclusive.
Correction. It's not uncommon for (sane) right-wing Libertarians to refer to themselves as Libertarian Capitalists.
And those two terms aren't mutually exclusive.
How did you miss that then?
How did you miss that then?
[quote user=pablo420]^What exactly are you correcting?
[/quote]
If this is the part where you're going to start chipping away at the edges of transparent sentences that get in the way of your blithering anarcho-nonsense, then I'll formally request that you go and drink paint.
If this is the part where you're going to start chipping away at the edges of transparent sentences that get in the way of your blithering anarcho-nonsense, then I'll formally request that you go and drink paint.
Correction. It's not uncommon for (sane) right-wing Libertarians to refer to themselves as Libertarian Capitalists.
And those two terms aren't mutually exclusive.
[/quote]
I fucking hate double negatives.
Correction. It's not uncommon for (sane) right-wing Libertarians to refer to themselves as Libertarian Capitalists.
And those two terms aren't mutually exclusive.
I fucking hate double negatives.
Wanker.
Wanker.
Wanker.
[/quote]
don't care, it looks ugly.
Wanker.
don't care, it looks ugly.
[/quote]
advice declined.
advice declined.
I get the philosophy behind socialism but, due to constant unforseen circumstances(like natural disasters) and people getting butthurt for one reason or another, it will never work.
Anarcho-capitalism- has coined the term simply to express philosophy that currently doesn't have a modifier. That they use these two words together doesn't necessarily mean that they don't understand either, but rather they are taking facets from both to try and convey something. Don't be so literal. Its simply an attempt to explain that the welfare/freedom/trade ability of people always comes before the state, and that exists inside a market of some sort (free is desired).
I don't think any self-proclaimed Anarcho-Capitalist would dispute what you've said here, except for the "small-state" bit. And that's because they wouldn't want to call it anything. It would just be whatever is in existence so that the prosperity of people take precedent over any government function.
So I don't really get all the hub-bub...bub. And I'm not defending A-C, btw...just my view.
I get the philosophy behind socialism but, due to constant unforseen circumstances(like natural disasters) and people getting butthurt for one reason or another, it will never work.
Anarcho-capitalism- has coined the term simply to express philosophy that currently doesn't have a modifier. That they use these two words together doesn't necessarily mean that they don't understand either, but rather they are taking facets from both to try and convey something. Don't be so literal. Its simply an attempt to explain that the welfare/freedom/trade ability of people always comes before the state, and that exists inside a market of some sort (free is desired).
I don't think any self-proclaimed Anarcho-Capitalist would dispute what you've said here, except for the "small-state" bit. And that's because they wouldn't want to call it anything. It would just be whatever is in existence so that the prosperity of people take precedent over any government function.
So I don't really get all the hub-bub...bub. And I'm not defending A-C, btw...just my view.
Correction. It's not uncommon for (sane) right-wing Libertarians to refer to themselves as Libertarian Capitalists.
And those two terms aren't mutually exclusive.
[/quote]
[quote user=Brig] ^ ^ ^ Look. Why don't you stop dumbing down a relatively good thread and go eat your supper.
[/quote]
Correction. It's not uncommon for (sane) right-wing Libertarians to refer to themselves as Libertarian Capitalists.
And those two terms aren't mutually exclusive.
[/quote]
allow me to step in.
what pabler is trying to do is justify his beliefs in non-politics.
when i say non-politics i am of course referring to total and utter bollocks, personified by the person below
this hideous political monstrosity is caroline lucas aka total and utter bollocks.
although pables makes out he's an anarchist he is not... secretly he worships the tory party and is as big a tool (to right wing capitalist thinking) as ever there could be but he has spent so long trying to put other off the scent that he's now a very muddled and somewhat disillusioned young man.
he has started to infactuate himself with his alter-ego, pablo420, which will inevitably lead him to ruin.
the tragic consequences of this mental deterioration can be seen littered across the pages of TaN. you think he know what he's talking about but he does not... which is why he supports the so called 'green party' - a party who have no idea what they're doing in politics other than getting together singing douchebag songs on guitar and playing hacky-sack. they also rape young boys and groom toddlers to work for sex in bangkoks red light district. they are also communist and suck balls. they should really be called the red party. anyway, for all these very factual reasons the green (aka bollocks) party have become the epicentre of paulo's descent into lunacy.
when i first met pierre he was a fashionable young man with neat short hair, a fine taste in expensive designer suits and a penchent for brogues. often we would sit to discuss politics with the ocassional tale of how margaret thatcher freed the jews from nazi germany or how thatcher was the first person to land on the moon. until we met, i knew not what the tory party was nor the most honorable legacy that baroness thatcher left with our beloved england. pueblo's tales of how the tory party changed his life for the better melted my cold heart... cold for until i had heard of the tory party my heart was empty and a bit shitty. he even convinced me to join several tory rallies and we once even managed to get a glimpse of david davis banging some whore in a cloakroom. those were the days... wonderful conservative days all thanks to pab.
come second day of uni... things changed... and for the worse. when we arrived at uni it was totally not cool to be a tory and pobla sold us out to be a 'cool kid'. suddenly anything pro-tory was 'un-cool' and pubelo span on our glorious party so fast it made me sick. the hurtful truth is that i could see the pain in his eyes when he first said 'i think all tories are shit' to a group of blatant tony blair supporters. soon i could overhear him talking of how prescott was awesome and how he wanted to grow up to be blind, just like blunkett. i feel so sad just thinking about it.
pablo has changed his political stance more times than a jew shape-shifts to jump queues at asda and has bollock-itus. the only way to handle this is to elimiate the problem at the source.
without getting carried away and letting my emotions get the better of me, i think the only solution here is to round up all the pablo's on tan and burn them at the stake. what pablo has is highly contagious and needs to be dealt with before it spreads. i fear that we may also have to burn wolffe (sorry buddy) and greta. bollocks is a bad thing and should not be tolerated. if anyone knows bigs whereabouts i would take him out too, he is known to be a bollocks party sympathist... and by 'take out' i do not mean treating him to a zinger fillet tower burger meal at kfc.
i believe that once pabler has been removed his admin powers should be bestowed upon myself so that i can ensure that none of this bollocks happens again.
i care because you don't give a fuck.
ROKKUS 2012
allow me to step in.
what pabler is trying to do is justify his beliefs in non-politics.
when i say non-politics i am of course referring to total and utter bollocks, personified by the person below
this hideous political monstrosity is caroline lucas aka total and utter bollocks.
although pables makes out he's an anarchist he is not... secretly he worships the tory party and is as big a tool (to right wing capitalist thinking) as ever there could be but he has spent so long trying to put other off the scent that he's now a very muddled and somewhat disillusioned young man.
he has started to infactuate himself with his alter-ego, pablo420, which will inevitably lead him to ruin.
the tragic consequences of this mental deterioration can be seen littered across the pages of TaN. you think he know what he's talking about but he does not... which is why he supports the so called 'green party' - a party who have no idea what they're doing in politics other than getting together singing douchebag songs on guitar and playing hacky-sack. they also rape young boys and groom toddlers to work for sex in bangkoks red light district. they are also communist and suck balls. they should really be called the red party. anyway, for all these very factual reasons the green (aka bollocks) party have become the epicentre of paulo's descent into lunacy.
when i first met pierre he was a fashionable young man with neat short hair, a fine taste in expensive designer suits and a penchent for brogues. often we would sit to discuss politics with the ocassional tale of how margaret thatcher freed the jews from nazi germany or how thatcher was the first person to land on the moon. until we met, i knew not what the tory party was nor the most honorable legacy that baroness thatcher left with our beloved england. pueblo's tales of how the tory party changed his life for the better melted my cold heart... cold for until i had heard of the tory party my heart was empty and a bit shitty. he even convinced me to join several tory rallies and we once even managed to get a glimpse of david davis banging some whore in a cloakroom. those were the days... wonderful conservative days all thanks to pab.
come second day of uni... things changed... and for the worse. when we arrived at uni it was totally not cool to be a tory and pobla sold us out to be a 'cool kid'. suddenly anything pro-tory was 'un-cool' and pubelo span on our glorious party so fast it made me sick. the hurtful truth is that i could see the pain in his eyes when he first said 'i think all tories are shit' to a group of blatant tony blair supporters. soon i could overhear him talking of how prescott was awesome and how he wanted to grow up to be blind, just like blunkett. i feel so sad just thinking about it.
pablo has changed his political stance more times than a jew shape-shifts to jump queues at asda and has bollock-itus. the only way to handle this is to elimiate the problem at the source.
without getting carried away and letting my emotions get the better of me, i think the only solution here is to round up all the pablo's on tan and burn them at the stake. what pablo has is highly contagious and needs to be dealt with before it spreads. i fear that we may also have to burn wolffe (sorry buddy) and greta. bollocks is a bad thing and should not be tolerated. if anyone knows bigs whereabouts i would take him out too, he is known to be a bollocks party sympathist... and by 'take out' i do not mean treating him to a zinger fillet tower burger meal at kfc.
i believe that once pabler has been removed his admin powers should be bestowed upon myself so that i can ensure that none of this bollocks happens again.
i care because you don't give a fuck.
ROKKUS 2012
[/quote]
it's all a facade. he still has thatcher/regan porn in his house. he only ever pretended to smoke and drink to make himself more acceptable to the grungey sub-culture that was going on at the time. now he's just a confused internet narc who devours the internet looking for new political slants with which to taint his life!
it's all a facade. he still has thatcher/regan porn in his house. he only ever pretended to smoke and drink to make himself more acceptable to the grungey sub-culture that was going on at the time. now he's just a confused internet narc who devours the internet looking for new political slants with which to taint his life!
Communism cannot exist without the State. Say you are staying on property. You have worked the property and improved it. I am bigger than you. I run you off of that property because I am stronger than you. What mechanism is in place to make sure things are "equal"? Who defends you if you are weak? Good intentions? God? An unthinking mob?
Capitalism doesn't need the State. Look at selling dope. You yourself have engaged in such transactions I am sure Pablo. Did you need a State to purchase weed? No. In fact all the State does is increase the risk in selling it which in turn raises the price. In the absence of State us merchants will always be there. Whether you like it or not, Capitalism will be there. Stand in the way between me and my customers.....and we are going to have a fucking problem. You dig me? Time to deal with that reality.......
Communism cannot exist without the State. Say you are staying on property. You have worked the property and improved it. I am bigger than you. I run you off of that property because I am stronger than you. What mechanism is in place to make sure things are "equal"? Who defends you if you are weak? Good intentions? God? An unthinking mob?
Capitalism doesn't need the State. Look at selling dope. You yourself have engaged in such transactions I am sure Pablo. Did you need a State to purchase weed? No. In fact all the State does is increase the risk in selling it which in turn raises the price. In the absence of State us merchants will always be there. Whether you like it or not, Capitalism will be there. Stand in the way between me and my customers.....and we are going to have a fucking problem. You dig me? Time to deal with that reality.......
The idea behind property stems from the idea that you own your own body, that extends to other physical items that you have made or acquired from others (with their permission - gift/sale etc.), if you don't go by the idea of physical property then you believe in slavery.
You don't need a state to protect property, individuals can protect themselves or pay others to do so (in England sheriffs were hired by the locals eventually becoming the nationalized).
One issue both sides agree on in theory is the destruction of authoritarian power structures, in practice however, the type of people that are socialists tend to want to take control and "rule the roost".
The idea behind property stems from the idea that you own your own body, that extends to other physical items that you have made or acquired from others (with their permission - gift/sale etc.), if you don't go by the idea of physical property then you believe in slavery.
You don't need a state to protect property, individuals can protect themselves or pay others to do so (in England sheriffs were hired by the locals eventually becoming the nationalized).
One issue both sides agree on in theory is the destruction of authoritarian power structures, in practice however, the type of people that are socialists tend to want to take control and "rule the roost".
sorry, good blog but i thought i'd join the rest in making dumb comments...
sorry, good blog but i thought i'd join the rest in making dumb comments...
The idea behind property stems from the idea that you own your own body, that extends to other physical items that you have made or acquired from others (with their permission - gift/sale etc.), if you don't go by the idea of physical property then you believe in slavery.
You don't need a state to protect property, individuals can protect themselves or pay others to do so (in England sheriffs were hired by the locals eventually becoming the nationalized).
One issue both sides agree on in theory is the destruction of authoritarian power structures, in practice however, the type of people that are socialists tend to want to take control and "rule the roost".
[/quote]
can't have slaves without property, think about it
The idea behind property stems from the idea that you own your own body, that extends to other physical items that you have made or acquired from others (with their permission - gift/sale etc.), if you don't go by the idea of physical property then you believe in slavery.
You don't need a state to protect property, individuals can protect themselves or pay others to do so (in England sheriffs were hired by the locals eventually becoming the nationalized).
One issue both sides agree on in theory is the destruction of authoritarian power structures, in practice however, the type of people that are socialists tend to want to take control and "rule the roost".
can't have slaves without property, think about it
can't have slaves without property, think about it
[/quote]
That's is what the slaves think (those that think property is theft), however the owner, be it state (or other authority), would see otherwise.
Lot like Animal Farm and how that KGB guy explained it.
can't have slaves without property, think about it
That's is what the slaves think (those that think property is theft), however the owner, be it state (or other authority), would see otherwise.
Lot like Animal Farm and how that KGB guy explained it.
Communism cannot exist without the State. Say you are staying on property. You have worked the property and improved it. I am bigger than you. I run you off of that property because I am stronger than you. What mechanism is in place to make sure things are "equal"? Who defends you if you are weak? Good intentions? God? An unthinking mob?
Capitalism doesn't need the State. Look at selling dope. You yourself have engaged in such transactions I am sure Pablo. Did you need a State to purchase weed? No. In fact all the State does is increase the risk in selling it which in turn raises the price. In the absence of State us merchants will always be there. Whether you like it or not, Capitalism will be there. Stand in the way between me and my customers.....and we are going to have a fucking problem. You dig me? Time to deal with that reality.......
[/quote]
Shanus, I think you're confusing Capitalism with a Market Economy. People have always, and will always exchange goods and services for other goods and services or some form of currency which they exchange for other goods and services. That is not the same as Capitalism and Socialism/Anarcho-Socialism is not incompatible with a Market Economy. To argue otherwise is unrealistic in the extreme.
Communism cannot exist without the State. Say you are staying on property. You have worked the property and improved it. I am bigger than you. I run you off of that property because I am stronger than you. What mechanism is in place to make sure things are "equal"? Who defends you if you are weak? Good intentions? God? An unthinking mob?
Capitalism doesn't need the State. Look at selling dope. You yourself have engaged in such transactions I am sure Pablo. Did you need a State to purchase weed? No. In fact all the State does is increase the risk in selling it which in turn raises the price. In the absence of State us merchants will always be there. Whether you like it or not, Capitalism will be there. Stand in the way between me and my customers.....and we are going to have a fucking problem. You dig me? Time to deal with that reality.......
Shanus, I think you're confusing Capitalism with a Market Economy. People have always, and will always exchange goods and services for other goods and services or some form of currency which they exchange for other goods and services. That is not the same as Capitalism and Socialism/Anarcho-Socialism is not incompatible with a Market Economy. To argue otherwise is unrealistic in the extreme.
I get the philosophy behind socialism but, due to constant unforseen circumstances(like natural disasters) and people getting butthurt for one reason or another, it will never work.
Anarcho-capitalism- has coined the term simply to express philosophy that currently doesn't have a modifier. That they use these two words together doesn't necessarily mean that they don't understand either, but rather they are taking facets from both to try and convey something. Don't be so literal. Its simply an attempt to explain that the welfare/freedom/trade ability of people always comes before the state, and that exists inside a market of some sort (free is desired).
I don't think any self-proclaimed Anarcho-Capitalist would dispute what you've said here, except for the "small-state" bit. And that's because they wouldn't want to call it anything. It would just be whatever is in existence so that the prosperity of people take precedent over any government function.
So I don't really get all the hub-bub...bub. And I'm not defending A-C, btw...just my view.
[/quote]
respond, I'm bored! Even if its "you don't know anything".
I get the philosophy behind socialism but, due to constant unforseen circumstances(like natural disasters) and people getting butthurt for one reason or another, it will never work.
Anarcho-capitalism- has coined the term simply to express philosophy that currently doesn't have a modifier. That they use these two words together doesn't necessarily mean that they don't understand either, but rather they are taking facets from both to try and convey something. Don't be so literal. Its simply an attempt to explain that the welfare/freedom/trade ability of people always comes before the state, and that exists inside a market of some sort (free is desired).
I don't think any self-proclaimed Anarcho-Capitalist would dispute what you've said here, except for the "small-state" bit. And that's because they wouldn't want to call it anything. It would just be whatever is in existence so that the prosperity of people take precedent over any government function.
So I don't really get all the hub-bub...bub. And I'm not defending A-C, btw...just my view.
respond, I'm bored! Even if its "you don't know anything".
[/quote]
Could you be more specific?
Could you be more specific?
[/quote]
All that did was cement my belief that this anarcho bullshit is nothing more than a brain exercise in futility. Like this......
"Anarchist law is a hypothetical body of norms regarding behavior and decision making that might be operative in an anarchist community. The term is used in a series of ongoing debates within the various branches of anarchist theory regarding if and how norms of individual and/or collective behavior, decision-making and actions should be created and enforced. Although many anarchists would consider "anarchist law" simply synonymous with natural law, others[who?] contend law in anarchy would have additional, unique elements. Over the course of the last two hundred years as anarchism has grown and evolved to include diverse strains, there have been different conceptions of "anarchist law" produced and discussed..."
.....and this......
"Enforceability is one of the most controversial areas of Anarchist law. Early writers such as Proudhon argued that it was legitimate for working-class people to self-organize against criminals who prey on the weak, a process which would doubtless entail some degree of coercion."
These fucking Anarchists can't even come to a consensus RIGHT NOW on how shit would be run. Does anybody actually think these fucking dim bulbs are going to come up with anything cogent when they are scrambling for water, food and shelter? HA!!!!! The only way Anarchy could come about is the destruction of the State through some kind of terrible disaster. The fact that Anarchy itself keeps splitting into their own special interest groups over time is proof enough to me that it is a bankrupt idea. To me it is so easy for Anarchists to talk about such things when they are satiated and relatively comfortable. Take the satiation away...then they can come talk to me.
[quote user=pablo420] [quote user=ShanusMaximus]Capitalism doesn't need the State. Look at selling dope. You yourself have engaged in such transactions I am sure Pablo. Did you need a State to purchase weed? No. In fact all the State does is increase the risk in selling it which in turn raises the price. In the absence of State us merchants will always be there. Whether you like it or not, Capitalism will be there. Stand in the way between me and my customers.....and we are going to have a fucking problem. You dig me? Time to deal with that reality.......[/quote]
Shanus, I think you're confusing Capitalism with a Market Economy. People have always, and will always exchange goods and services for other goods and services or some form of currency which they exchange for other goods and services. That is not the same as Capitalism and Socialism/Anarcho-Socialism is not incompatible with a Market Economy. To argue otherwise is unrealistic in the extreme.
[/quote]
Oh PLEASE do explain how anarcho-communism would not be a command economy. Yeah Pablo....I can sell stuff....as long as it is on YOUR terms at YOUR prices that you and YOUR cronies have consensus on.
[quote user=n0body] [quote user=otester]One issue both sides agree on in theory is the destruction of authoritarian power structures, in practice however, the type of people that are socialists tend to want to take control and "rule the roost".[/quote]
can't have slaves without property, think about it
[/quote]
Bedouins didn't own "property"........except for slaves. Nomadic Native Americans had slaves also.....
All that did was cement my belief that this anarcho bullshit is nothing more than a brain exercise in futility. Like this......
"Anarchist law is a hypothetical body of norms regarding behavior and decision making that might be operative in an anarchist community. The term is used in a series of ongoing debates within the various branches of anarchist theory regarding if and how norms of individual and/or collective behavior, decision-making and actions should be created and enforced. Although many anarchists would consider "anarchist law" simply synonymous with natural law, others[who?] contend law in anarchy would have additional, unique elements. Over the course of the last two hundred years as anarchism has grown and evolved to include diverse strains, there have been different conceptions of "anarchist law" produced and discussed..."
.....and this......
"Enforceability is one of the most controversial areas of Anarchist law. Early writers such as Proudhon argued that it was legitimate for working-class people to self-organize against criminals who prey on the weak, a process which would doubtless entail some degree of coercion."
These fucking Anarchists can't even come to a consensus RIGHT NOW on how shit would be run. Does anybody actually think these fucking dim bulbs are going to come up with anything cogent when they are scrambling for water, food and shelter? HA!!!!! The only way Anarchy could come about is the destruction of the State through some kind of terrible disaster. The fact that Anarchy itself keeps splitting into their own special interest groups over time is proof enough to me that it is a bankrupt idea. To me it is so easy for Anarchists to talk about such things when they are satiated and relatively comfortable. Take the satiation away...then they can come talk to me.
Shanus, I think you're confusing Capitalism with a Market Economy. People have always, and will always exchange goods and services for other goods and services or some form of currency which they exchange for other goods and services. That is not the same as Capitalism and Socialism/Anarcho-Socialism is not incompatible with a Market Economy. To argue otherwise is unrealistic in the extreme.
Oh PLEASE do explain how anarcho-communism would not be a command economy. Yeah Pablo....I can sell stuff....as long as it is on YOUR terms at YOUR prices that you and YOUR cronies have consensus on.
can't have slaves without property, think about it
Bedouins didn't own "property"........except for slaves. Nomadic Native Americans had slaves also.....
For example of enforcing laws, if you robbed from a shop and were found guilty, you could be banned from all other shops in an area, re-entering would count as trespassing, aka. asking to be shot at.
This has worked in the past.
For example of enforcing laws, if you robbed from a shop and were found guilty, you could be banned from all other shops in an area, re-entering would count as trespassing, aka. asking to be shot at.
This has worked in the past.
For example of enforcing laws, if you robbed from a shop and were found guilty, you could be banned from all other shops in an area, re-entering would count as trespassing, aka. asking to be shot at.
This has worked in the past.
[/quote]
It has?!?!?! So.......I steal some food and get caught. Therefore, I can no longer buy any food and if I try I will be shot on sight......makes sense. Hopefully I don't have a twin......
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] All you guys arguing against anarchism are just statists...
[/quote]
I LOVE THE STATE!!!! GIVE ME A STATE ANY STATE!!!!!
For example of enforcing laws, if you robbed from a shop and were found guilty, you could be banned from all other shops in an area, re-entering would count as trespassing, aka. asking to be shot at.
This has worked in the past.
It has?!?!?! So.......I steal some food and get caught. Therefore, I can no longer buy any food and if I try I will be shot on sight......makes sense. Hopefully I don't have a twin......
I LOVE THE STATE!!!! GIVE ME A STATE ANY STATE!!!!!
It has?!?!?! So.......I steal some food and get caught. Therefore, I can no longer buy any food and if I try I will be shot on sight......makes sense. Hopefully I don't have a twin......[/quote]
Properly be easier to just rough 'em up a bit after getting caught or take "compensation".
It has?!?!?! So.......I steal some food and get caught. Therefore, I can no longer buy any food and if I try I will be shot on sight......makes sense. Hopefully I don't have a twin......
Properly be easier to just rough 'em up a bit after getting caught or take "compensation".
[/quote]
[quote user=otester] Quite easily say that about Anarcho-Socialism, that you need the state to enforce it (theft of money/property via taxes etc.)
The idea behind property stems from the idea that you own your own body, that extends to other physical items that you have made or acquired from others (with their permission - gift/sale etc.), if you don't go by the idea of physical property then you believe in slavery.
You don't need a state to protect property, individuals can protect themselves or pay others to do so (in England sheriffs were hired by the locals eventually becoming the nationalized).
One issue both sides agree on in theory is the destruction of authoritarian power structures, in practice however, the type of people that are socialists tend to want to take control and "rule the roost".
[/quote]
The idea behind property stems from the idea that you own your own body, that extends to other physical items that you have made or acquired from others (with their permission - gift/sale etc.), if you don't go by the idea of physical property then you believe in slavery.
You don't need a state to protect property, individuals can protect themselves or pay others to do so (in England sheriffs were hired by the locals eventually becoming the nationalized).
One issue both sides agree on in theory is the destruction of authoritarian power structures, in practice however, the type of people that are socialists tend to want to take control and "rule the roost".
These fucking Anarchists can't even come to a consensus RIGHT NOW on how shit would be run.
[/quote]
[quote user=Bakunin]
No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker.
[/quote]
These fucking Anarchists can't even come to a consensus RIGHT NOW on how shit would be run.
No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker.
To me it is so easy for Anarchists to talk about such things when they are satiated and relatively comfortable. Take the satiation away...then they can come talk to me.
[/quote]
Exactly. I pointed out that exact thing earlier.
[quote user=pablo420] ^We don't start from a level playing field. Capitalism was created on unequal terms, the State and it's property laws established after the fact to legitamise the theft of the land and wealth by the bourgeoisie and the impoverishment of the masses. Therefore, property is theft.
[/quote]
A "level playing field" has never existed in the history of biology, let alone society.
Property "owning" doesn't stem from Bourgoise sense of landownership and oppression of another class. Property owning comes from NATURE. That's why pack animals piss all over the place. I'd like to watch you explain to a Grizzly bear how he can't own the cave he wants.
...this is meant to be mildly humorous while making my point.
To me it is so easy for Anarchists to talk about such things when they are satiated and relatively comfortable. Take the satiation away...then they can come talk to me.
Exactly. I pointed out that exact thing earlier.
A "level playing field" has never existed in the history of biology, let alone society.
Property "owning" doesn't stem from Bourgoise sense of landownership and oppression of another class. Property owning comes from NATURE. That's why pack animals piss all over the place. I'd like to watch you explain to a Grizzly bear how he can't own the cave he wants.
...this is meant to be mildly humorous while making my point.
[/quote]
[quote user=otester]One issue both sides agree on in theory is the destruction of authoritarian power structures, in practice however, the type of people that are socialists tend to want to take control and "rule the roost".[/quote]
[/quote]
If you actually want to get involved in the thread then read these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism
If you actually want to get involved in the thread then read these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism
[/quote]
[quote user=otester]One issue both sides agree on in theory is the destruction of authoritarian power structures, in practice however, the type of people that are socialists tend to want to take control and "rule the roost".[/quote]
If you actually want to get involved in the thread then read these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism
[/quote]
Nah, pictures pointing things out are far more entertaining to a thread.
Jeux found her conspiracy theorist itt.
Btw wikipedia is not a source.
If you actually want to get involved in the thread then read these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism
Nah, pictures pointing things out are far more entertaining to a thread.
Jeux found her conspiracy theorist itt.
Btw wikipedia is not a source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism[/quote]
Nah, pictures pointing things out are far more entertaining to a thread.
Jeux found her conspiracy theorist itt.
Btw wikipedia is not a source.
[/quote]
Fine, my turn:
Check the sources at the bottom of wikipedia, go read them instead then or Google for others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism
Nah, pictures pointing things out are far more entertaining to a thread.
Jeux found her conspiracy theorist itt.
Btw wikipedia is not a source.
Fine, my turn:
Check the sources at the bottom of wikipedia, go read them instead then or Google for others.
[/quote]
So true
So true
[/quote]
* argument null and void *
* engaging defensive mode *
* argument null and void *
* engaging defensive mode *
[quote user=proofinlife]
Btw wikipedia is not a source.
[/quote]
Make valid arguement then lay the bait.
[quote user=proofinlife] Oops, did I anger the wikipedia fanboys? Have I sinned o lawdy?
[/quote]
Btw wikipedia is not a source.
Make valid arguement then lay the bait.
I am pretty sure that once anarchism (whatever the kind) is achieved, the next steps are one of these:
1. Russian feudalism. When people get to hire a gang and their leader, the duke, for protection from all other gangs. After a while comes a time when people can't tell their duke to fuck off, or choose another duke anymore.
2. Western feudalism. When people in tough times get indebted to big owners and pretty much sign their freedom and freedom of their children away.
I am pretty sure that once anarchism (whatever the kind) is achieved, the next steps are one of these:
1. Russian feudalism. When people get to hire a gang and their leader, the duke, for protection from all other gangs. After a while comes a time when people can't tell their duke to fuck off, or choose another duke anymore.
2. Western feudalism. When people in tough times get indebted to big owners and pretty much sign their freedom and freedom of their children away.