"Capitalism" and "Socialism" are anti-concepts - Roderick T. Long

[PrivateAckbar]

This is propagandist semantics. Where he goes wrong is to group real Austrian Libertarians in with other groups like Anarcho-syndicalism and anarchism as if there is any group. The difference between these groups is the degree to which they believe in liberty or advocate some expression of force. Libertarians believe in capitalism because it is the economic mechanism most consistent with liberty.

[StatelessLiberty]

@PrivateAckbar

I think you're missing the point. He's not criticising free markets, he's criticising the use of the term "capitalism" - because it has multiple contradictory definitions.

He's saying that when libertarians defend free markets under the name "capitalism", the term "capitalism" means both free markets and the current neo-mercantilist system, in common usage.

To be clear, Roderick Long is a free marketer, but he doesn't describe himself as a capitalist - the same for me.

[PrivateAckbar]

@StatelessLiberty Yes that's where he's wrong. Libertarians never refer to capitalism as existing today. The content of most Libertarian arguments is an explanation of what is wrong ethically or practically with what we're calling capitalism.

[ppw00]

Typical example of using Rand when it suits you, and then denying her as it suits you.

[StatelessLiberty]

@ppw00 Rand didn't believe in one thing - you can accept some of what she says and not others without contradiction. The irony is that you're implying that you must either completely agree with Rand or completely disagree, which is a form of "package dealing" - something Rand often criticised.

[ppw00]

@StatelessLiberty That's not true at all. What I am implying is that Mr. Long here used one of Rand's discoveries - the anti-concept - and used it to argue against capitalism. But the truth is that if one accepts Rand's definitions of the concepts "capitalism" and "anti-concept", then capitalism is NOT an anti-concept.

[StatelessLiberty]

@ppw00

Firstly, he isn't trying to argue against capitalism in the Randian sense (he advocates a free market), he's arguing against using the term because of what its associated with. You can accept the Randian definition of capitalism, but it doesn't stop capitalism from being an anti-concept because of how the term is used.

The determining factor of whether something is an anti-concept or not, is not the definition that you accept but how it is commonly used.

[ppw00]

@StatelessLiberty Rand advocated a free market, too.

According to Rand, a concept is an anti-concept if it replaces and obliterates the valid concepts it's supposed to subsume. So just because the majority has no idea what they mean when they say 'capitalism' doesn't mean it's an anti-concept. But from the rest of your comment it's obvious that Long took the name 'anti-concept' and gave it his own definition, rendering this whole discussion moot.

[wbhyatt]

he said socialism is the STATE ownership of the means of production... it means the "common" ownership of the means of production. biased much?

[StatelessLiberty]

@wbhyatt Roderick Long does talk about libertarian socialism elsewhere in the video, so maybe he was referring only to state socialism here. If he wasn't, then I agree with you.

Bear in mind though that socialism is defined as common *or* state ownership of the MOP. If socialism just meant the former, then democratic socialists, social democrats and many Marxists would not be considered socialists.

[MrPratman]

The same could be said for the term "Individual" the individual is someone who chooses for himself how to operate himself(or herself) while people who ascribe themselves to groups believe that "Individual" means isolationist or completely alone. This is wrong. The individual is better by the presence of others. An isolationist becomes feral and animalistic. In reality to be an individual is to simply choose who you interact with and how.

[qtutoringhelps]

Rand had a precise definition of capitalism: private property rights. "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

Marx and other socialists have a precise definition of socialism: government ownership of the means of production.

[t3hsauce]

@qtutoringhelps I think you missed the point. He is talking about how the terms are used in common language by most people, not whether or not each philosopher had precise definitions of these terms.

[qtutoringhelps]

@t3hsauce

If that's true how most people use the word, most people are wrong.

[qtutoringhelps]

@t3hsauce

If people define an anti-concept (a term the presenter in this video employs) as a "concept known only by God," would you infer something from that or say instead: "These people are wrong, Rand's definition of an anti-concept is correct."?

[fountainherz]

***I meant politicians vote themselves pay increases and other various benefits. Further, the state and democracy intertwined spread cost which cause ridiculous laws/policies/whatnot that are supported by even a miniscule majority (the war on drugs had what, 52% support? the war on terror, etc.) to pass when they otherwise wouldn't on a national scale. This will not change even if corporate lobbying is eliminated.

[seigneurvoland666]

this was a long but good lecture, do you have it in full?

[StatelessLiberty]

@seigneurvoland666 Yes, it's the first link in the description.

[seigneurvoland666]

@StatelessLiberty I DONT NEED YOUR SMART ASS MOUTH B*TCH

[guyjohn59]

Most of the theoretical arguments against capitalism attack realities that exist by definition, and therefore apply to any -ism you want to name. Private property applies even to socialism, though that is what they say they're against, because under socialism everything is owned--it is just owned by the state. Socialism and communism are myths promoted by the state that there is such thing as social ownership when in reality it's state monopoly capitalism

[ExigentFilms]

From _Obama's Not a Socialist_: "Our government and business leaders are only too happy to be labeled capitalists and socialists by sedated environmentalists, flag-waving tea partiers, and each other. For almost two centuries, those on the right have attacked corporatism, calling it socialism, while those on the left attack the very same thing, calling it capitalism. ..."

[NocheezRecords]

@StatelessLiberty Continued: If you have money/power you don't need a state military to do your bidding, you can hire thugs or mercenaries to oppress the labor force who don't have the resources and won't be able to stop it easily. I think the most important thing is to look at every system of domination and question it. If it doesn't meet the standards of democracy and human rights it needs to be dismantled. It's an eternal question, eternal growth and progress for the human species.

[NocheezRecords]

@StatelessLiberty We would have to decide democratically if the attainment of certain goods such as land is an infringement on others rights. Many questions for sure. Wage slavery doesn't only have to come from a state/government but can also come from any hierarchical structure that holds power over labor. Owners could just as easy join in collusion with each other to subjugate the work force. continue...

[StatelessLiberty]

"We would have to decide democratically if the attainment of certain goods such as land is an infringement on others rights."

That's a complete contradiction. A "right" is an absolute, whereas democracy is the arbitrary whim of the majority. If rights are decided democratically, then they aren't rights at all. If I can decide what rights you have, then my control over you is totalitarian. Do you want to democratic collective to decide who sleeps in your bed or sleeps with your wife?

[tridentmovies]

@NocheezRecords

"We would have to decide democratically if the attainment of certain goods such as land is an infringement on others rights."

Let me rephrase that question for you: "We would have to decide democratically if the attainment of slaves is an infringement of the rights of those people called slaves."

Democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what's for dinner. It is a popularity contest. Under democracy, killing gays in the middle ages was a democratically good thing to do.

[tridentmovies]

@tridentmovies You might say: democracy is not supposed to violate the human rights of minorities. But who decides? Either the majority has the power or they don't. If they don't, then who decides when they do and when they don't? The minority? So then the minority has the final say? But that would be a tyranny like an oligarchy or plutocracy and rights would just be privileges. See all the contradictions and circular reasoning? Democracy is a logically and morally bankrupt concept.

[NocheezRecords]

@tridentmovies Invalid explanation on your part. Now we have a minority of wolves ruling over all. That's insanity. Democracy will tell us where the human species is human rights wise and the majority certainly would not vote in favor of a small minority ruling over people. The less centralized control the better. You are mincing issues, humanity is where it's at no matter the system, but the better system includes all. I doubt the majority would rule for a minority of slave owners.

[tridentmovies]

@NocheezRecords

No it is not an "invalid" explanation. You are basing your views on wishful thinking that a majority will do what is right. That's why i used the majority in ancient times example. The prevailing ideas and superstitions can be morally repugnant. Democracy simply means the tyranny of the majority over the minority, and in both cases it is the individual that is fucked. I don't need either the majority OR minority to tell me what to do.

[tridentmovies]

@NocheezRecords

Humanity, by the way, is a meaningless and subjective word. The dumbest and most evil policies have been implemented in the name of "humanity". The last thing any liberty-minded individual should ask for is any system - democracy included - that uses fuzzy words like "humanity". Violence is violence, whether a majority or minority argues in favor of it against the individual. No form of collectivism is morally acceptable.

[NocheezRecords]

@tridentmovies Humanity in my eyes being human rights, liberty and a social contract because unless you can do all completely without anyone's help or without using the tools society offers, you are a part of the social contract. Part of society or not, you cannot effect others liberty. Capitalism is master at demolishing others liberty because it commodifies everything, even humans and is based on greed. Your argument is incredibly faulty. Liberty has sacrifice.

[NocheezRecords]

I agree that these packaged definitions are harmful. Funny, this speaker did it himself, he forgot to mention the other type of socialism which is not state owned but instead labor controlled production which is very different, and is actually traditional socialism or what we know as traditional anarchism. I will say that the idea of free market capitalism is pretty much a dream left for fairy tales, it would never work since it has rulers/owners, just like a state.

[StatelessLiberty]

@NocheezRecords Well, no, if you watch the full video the speaker does talk about libertarian socialism (you're implying he is ignorant of it). And the point being made applies just as much to libertarian socialism. It is defined by its opposition to "capitalism", while this term is taken to mean contradictory things.

And using the terms "owners" and "rulers" synonymously is just question begging. You have to define "rulers". I have heard all these Chomskian talking points before.

[NocheezRecords]

@StatelessLiberty I would say owners in work and land play a big part in subjugation. The idea of an owner controlling labor is in itself tyrannical. Rulers could be considered those who are in powerful institutions or have resources deemed important in a particular society, like money. And this gives them control or favor over others. Anarchism deals in trying to break the tyranny, the ruling over of someone. Even in the US in the early 1900's we considered our system wage slavery.

[StatelessLiberty]

@NocheezRecords Everybody exerts influence over everyone else by virtue of living in society. If I produce something you want, then you are compelled by your desires to offer something to me in return. I have influenced you, but not not subjugated you. In fact, I have made you better off. Simply by owning capital, the capitalist have not enslaved anyone. If the capitalist and the fruits of his/her labour (in this case, capital) were to vanish, you would be worse off.

[NocheezRecords]

@StatelessLiberty That's why anarchism is best because the whole chooses it's oppression. We all have to give into things to protect the liberty of the whole.

[StatelessLiberty]

@NocheezRecords However, I do view the wage system as a product of government intervention on the behalf of plutocratic interests (so did David Ricardo, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker etc.) So in a non-normative sense, I oppose it. However this idea that someone merely having more property than another, or someone owning capital goods, makes them a "slavemaster" is philosophically untenable at best and totally destructive to liberty at its worst.

[ProIndividual]

@StatelessLiberty I also do not like the wage system and still a free market anarchist. I find it bad for workers in good times and bad. The company makes good profits and pays hourly wages (which can be a bad incentive for the company as well) which do not amount to the labor's worth in good times. In recessions these wages are not easily decreased (in fact they almost never drop in recessions) leading to layoffs for workers. I much prefer % pay, based on productivity and time invested.

[ProIndividual]

@StatelessLiberty This percentage pay leads to better compensation in good times, and no incentive for layoff in recessions. True, you may choose to find other work in recessions, but essentially there is no reason to layoff a worker as your profits decrease and so does your loabor costs in proportion. The tipping point is usually just above free labor in a struggling company, when a self imposed layoff and job change by the worker is imposed. This requires savings and budgeting however.

[NocheezRecords]

@NocheezRecords It's important to realize the aforementioned ideas are much more than "Chomskian" talking points, but the ideas of many involved in anarchism, or libertarian socialism. Ideas from those who understand people should not be subjugated and that systems should work to free up people instead of put rulers over them.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords If anarchism is a code of ethics, and not an economic style, then the philosophy boils down to a society organized voluntarily without coercion or uniformity, as uniformity requires coercion. So, how then can any economic style be incongruent with anarchism? It cannot. All economics will exist in a non-coerced society, as uniformity of economics depends on coercion. So, if the free market is fairytale then so is stateless socialism. Neither is a fairytale, both are possible.

[NocheezRecords]

@ProIndividual No system is without oppression. The idea of anarchism is to choose ones oppression via democracy. You call it fairy tale yet it has already occurred during the Spanish civil war, the kibbutz and many other places. Power hates democracy and worked to smash these systems. In reality free market capitalism is a fairy tale since it has never happened. It is known it would collapse so the powerful use protectionist capitalism while we suffer under free market rules To big to fail.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords Anarchism is a lack of coercion. If it coerces, it is not anarchism by definition, logically. MOST anarchists today and in history reject democaracy and voting as violence. They simply refuse to vote. So, you Chomsky inspired definition of anarchism is BS...and a strawman. Try reading on the philosophy before you embark on such strawman attacks. You obviously know very little about it. If you are not forced, the oppression you suffer is of your own free wil, not coerced.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords Your assumption is it's tyranny...but anarchists who vote do so because they all choose to...it's not compulsory, and their dictates only apply to those who chose to vote. If you are against voting like most anarchists, no such problem exists. Decision making when voluntary is not tyranny, no matter how stupid it is. S&M sex is nott rape, boxing is not assault, and voluntary government is not a coercive compulsory state. Do some reading.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords Compulsory democracy is not anarchism, logically...so if you try to force democracy on others, that is not anarchic, it's new state.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords You seem to think socialism will work without a state, without becoming a state. I agree, if it's purely voluntary and not based on borders like states are. Then, how can free markets not work too? Neither has existed without a state ruining and co-opting them. Does that make staeless economics a fairytale? Or is the state the unable to exist simultaneously with both forms of voluntary economics? You let your bias blind you.

[NocheezRecords]

@ProIndividual Ofcourse it should be voluntary. Education is what would lead us in that direction because anarchism is much more human friendly. If people understood it I think they would want it. It's a slow process. what is interesting is the occupies globally work on horizontal democracy (anarchism) and an incredible discussion about the new era being about the birth or awakening of the individual and a leaderless society. It's a new conversation and it's exciting.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords I like what you say, up until you call a form of democracy anarchism...anarchism is a code of ethics about non-coercion, it isn't democracy, or republics, or monarchy, or what have you. All of those social contracts conflict with anarchism in my view...but again, you are free to hurt yourself and other willing participants. Different organization mthods exist in anarchy, including a rejection democracy. But rest assured, if you use democracy you will suffer it's consequences.

[NocheezRecords]

@ProIndividual - Oh, and it has worked prior by the way- during the Spanish civil war and other instances.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords I agree, and yet we have no longterm success. Why? Would it have worked economically or imploded if not crushed by fascist force form the neighboring state? I'd argue it was doomed to implosion from the start, as it rejects markets and prices. Without prices and profits, distribution of goods and services will be distorted, leading to inefficiency and shortages. It only works on small scales, because once profit is eliminated you get the minimum production for the population.

[NocheezRecords]

@ProIndividual Markets only sort of work when they are regulated. Doomed to failure? Capitalism is fairly new and already on the verge of collapse globally We need systems that put humans above profit. The occupy movement and the Arab spring globally have a huge thing in common. No leaders. I think anarchism is the beginning and should morph into even better human systems. We don't need an exact system, we need to keep moving toward good things for humans.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords This is where your ideas fail, imho. You think bosses and leaders are tyrants (and they CAN be, but usually are not do the fact you can QUIT your job). How would you build a house if you didn't have expertise? You would find someone with expertise to do it for you (market), or ask him to direct you in your labors (leader). Nearly all well done activities require leadership...but not COMPULSORY leadership. Do not conflate voluntary heirarchy with involuntary heiarchy; it's silly.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords Anarchism has NEVER meant "no leaders". It comes from the Greek root words "an-" and "archon". "An-" means "without", and Archons were Greek tyrants (dictators of areas, usually city-states). Archon literally means "ruler". So, anarchy means "without rulers". You confuse leaders for rulers. By your meaning all parents are tyrnats and rulers for leading their children, and all teachers are rulers for leading a class. This is incorrect. Rulers are compulsory, not voluntary.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords So, all leaders are not rulers or tyrants. The only leaders who are rulers or tyrants are those who cannot choose to disregard. If you choose to follow a leader, say a guide on a wilderness hike, that is a leader not a tyrant/ruler. See, if it isn't compulsory it is not tyranny. If it is voluntary, no matter how much you disagree with it, how stupid or harmful it is, it is not in conflict with anarchism, is not a state, and is "being ruled".

This is why even suicide is anarchic

[NocheezRecords]

@ProIndividual To be more concise. Capitalism has been a blip in human history and in a short time we've got massive social and economic problems and starvation globally and tn ecosystem on the brink of erasing mankind from it. Not a good record in such a short time. I think we need to understand it's the tyrannical side of capitalism, the greed it is based on is it's demise.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords By that argument humanity is a blip in the history of this planet, and this planet a blip in the history of the universe...and this proves what exactly?

Actually, starvation was far more prevelant in agrarian society per-industrialization. Capitalism distributes goods through a market economy, i.e. prices, which leads to LESS starvation. You might want to look up the facts on this. Food gets CHEAPER, not more expensive, with market competition.

Social problems? (cont.)

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords Social problems? Moreso than agrarian society? Like diminished hunger levels, lower child labor rates, more equality for women, and less disease? Really?!

Look up the Happiness Index...you'll see a leftist has charted that as we got richer and richer happiness styaed the saem (30% of polled people said they were happy despite major increases to wealth for society generation after generation). Humans tend towars complaint, poverty today would be laughed at by poor 100yrs ago.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords The only tyranny in capitalism is when it is not voluntary, i.e. state capitalism (Keynesianism, Protectionism, Mercantilism, Imperialism, etc.,etc.). Free markets are completely voluntary, like stateless socialism (rral stateless socialism anyway), so it cannot be tyranny, logically. I'd love to take a world poll...who would opt-out into voluntary capitalism and who would go for a profitless incentiveless socialism...bet my side wins that poll on voluntarism. :)

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords The state has a bad record..capitalism has a fantastic record...we have never had less starvation in the world, less disease, less women's oppression, less slavery (remember that was yeoman farmer agrarian nonsense), less child labor, etc., etc., on and on. It may take a little effort to study the numbers on this, but the numbers are not debatable. We KNOW for a fact these things decreased in direct relation to the rise of market economics versus feudalism & tribalism.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords When you get the minimum production for the population you have to police the lazy...on small scales everyone sees everyone else and it works fine...on large scales there is no way to enforce everyone pulling their weight. Everyone shoots for the middle, the lazy aim to not get caught by just doing the average, the hard working have no incentive to out-produce the lazy and less productive, and the average production level laborers find themselves the goal, not high productivity.

[NocheezRecords]

@ProIndividual I disagree. People go to work because they need to eat and pay rent, certainly not because the way they are treated like cogs in a wheel in capitalism. I think people would be more motivated if they were allowed to self develop and they can be taught a social contract. The anarchists in Spain were a great example. These societies end not because they don't work, but because they do and leaders in countries who live off the population use their military might to smash them,

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords You just made my case for me. If everyone is given equal amounts of food and housing, there is absolutely no incentive to work any harder than the minimum required to recieve that ration. Why would anyone seek to work harder than that minimum if there is no profit gained from it? No property to own in excess of the others? Of course this results in the minimum production for the population. You made my case and totally didn't realize it.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords Also, let me point out, egalitarianism is not fair. Those who work harder and are more productive fairly deserve more than those who do the minimum (or less). And for the record, non-egalitarianism is good for the poor...as the wealthy accumulate capital they invest in high productivity tech, which raises profits, then margains able to be neogtiated for wages, and therefore standards of living. The reason you make 6x total compensation accounted for inflation than 3 generations..

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords ...the reason you make 6 times the total compensation accounted for inflation than they did three generations ago (great grandfather) for the exact same amount of working hours is the tech that enables increased productivity per person, which is a direct result of accumulated capital in a few hands. Whether you accumulate through private hands or public, it must be accumulated...and public accumulation is always least efficient, and tyrannical. We all get richer in varied degrees

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords I always see complaints about the "wealth gap"..it's erroneous. Until the collapse (due to a monopoly on currency and interest rates, not free market capitalism or capitalism in general) in 2008 the wealth gap grew from 1790 roughly to 2008 (with few changes in trajectory). All thw hile, the poor got wealthier to beat inflation. The economic pie is not finite, so % of income is IRRELEVANT. If you divide a 10oz pie 3 ways you have 3.3oz and 33%. If you do a 16oz pie 4 ways...

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords ...if you do a 16oz pie 4 ways you get 25% and 4oz. Now, did you get poorer to get 25%, not 33%? NO! You got wealthier to get more pie (3.3oz to 4oz)!!! The economic pie is not finite, so % is totally irrelavant. Everyone gets richer to varied degrees. The pie only continues to grow IF this process of accumulation continues. To end this process dooms the poor to falling standards of living accounted for inflation. I can give you charts to back this up.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords I am not calling you a statist by any stretch, but you would benefit from an essay/list called "Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense"...it could easily be called "Common Economic Fallacies", or "Leftist Economic Fallacies". It explains with graphs and data many things commonly accepted which are flatly wrong or irrelevant...like the fallacy that % of national income (the wealth gap) is somehow a way to measure standards of living.

[NocheezRecords]

@ProIndividual = Well calling me a statist would have been strange since I lean toward what would be considered a traditional anarchist. The are books on both sides. My big problem is hierarchies and power. If you do not make the workplace democratic and you allow business a top down tyrannical structure you will get disparity. Just because one has a skill does not give him power over others liberty. I stand by that.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords That's why I didn't call you a statist.

A democratic workplace is one that will not stay economically viable for long..the crowd is fickle, stupid, and violent by nature. But if voluntary, have at it. I'll stick to people who know what they're doing directing me where necessary and vice versa. Voluntary heiarchy isn't tyrannical. tyrany is involuntary.

It's all in want you CHOOSE, not in how it is structured. Again, I do not want to be punched in the face (assault), but...

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords Again, I do not want to be punched in the face (assault), but boxing (the sport) is not tyranny...everyone involved is voluntarily involved. I find the folly of other's sadistic passtimes to be entertaining actually...hence I'll eat popcorn and watch a boxing match without wanting to be punched, just as I'll watch you flounder in a democraticly run workplace (tyranny of the majority)...or as you're free to watch me flounder working for another person of my/their own free wills.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords However, the blog is correctly named...as statism is common and leftist, for the most part (even the Right operates on the anti-govt tendancy while using it hypocriticly all the while; a quixotic contradiction). Every fallacy named in the blog applies to the statist knee-jerk tendancies of Keynesians and Socialist economists alike...which are the common man's same fallacies. BTW, protectionism is huge one on the Right I address as well (among others); they aren't left out.

[NocheezRecords]

@ProIndividual But I am not for state controlled socialism. Traditional anarchism is labor controlled production. Capitalism in no way has labor controlling production. As for the state, in these times we first must separate corporate power from the state and give it back to the people. I would like to see a gradual tendency toward anarchosyndaclism. But I do not want to get caught in dogmas, we must create new ways along the way.

[fountainherz]

@NocheezRecords

"give it back to the people"

I disagree. The state has never nor will ever be "for the people" considering america's system is built on incentivization of corruption. The political class is just that-a separate class. Eliminating corporate lobbying will help (the market economy and taxpayer i.e. ending subsidies, barriers to entry, bailouts) but will not overall improve the political system. For example, politicians vote increases and create laws on their own terms, and...

[fountainherz]

...due to the short-term election process when contrasted with the duration of economic effects (it takes a bit of time for the effects of destructive economic policies to show) can thus play a "blame game" and pass the ill effects on previous politicians while they (unintentionally) exacerbate the problem in the name of alleviation. Thomas Sowell has gone into far more extensive details on this in "Basic Econ" and "Applied Econ". Strangely, he's not an anarchist.

[NocheezRecords]

@fountainherz I prefer not to have states either, but at this juncture the majority are not ready for that. We need to work toward it. Either way we need to become involved in direct action democracy but we need to fix many of the huge problematic issues. the powerful lobbying of the one percent is effecting the country negatively . My statement is to rid the legislation that allows them to do so, and take money out of the equation.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords But, can it work, like in Spain? Yes...voluntarily. It all works (capiatlsim, socialism, syndicalism, third way (fascism)) in absence of a state when voluntary. But none will work on large scales except markets of one type or another...only prices and profits stop shortages from occuring (assuming there are no state enforcing price fixing or monopolies). All else implodes...this is why anarchism is so key to left economics. Only a minority will opt into it.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords BTW, too big too fail existed in socialism too...state socialism. It's a function of the state, not a particular economic. It's all about the state, not what way you choose to relate to others economically. Again, no uniformity can exist in economics without force....so how do you plan on obliterating free market capitalists and capitalism short of killing people or imprisoning them? You cannot. Face this, and accept us as we do you. We are all free to live our way.

[NocheezRecords]

@ProIndividual I am not in favor of heading toward state socialism, but worker controlled production. In our system however, I think social programs are necessary, it's necessary to have them to balance the massive disparity between rich and poor. I don't want to obliterate anything except bad ideas. I think education based on freeing up humans while at the same time protecting everyone's liberty is the way to solve issues. Choosing our oppression democratically.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords I'm all for you having this form of economics, decision making, and society...as long as you don't force others into it. I will also wager with you, if you are allowed to gamble in your form of organization or economics, that your businesses will fail when worker controlled. I have never worked for a company that if run democratically wouldn't have been run into the ground. Laborers know jacksquat about running a business or bottom lines. That's a bad idea to me, obliterate it.

[ProIndividual]

@NocheezRecords I'll stick to NOT choosing oppression democratically...I'll choose no social contract at all, not voting, and individual sovereignty NOT popular sovereignty (it is afterall a manifestation of the informal logical fallacy "argumentum ad populum", and I like logic). It's okay for you to do this, like it's okay for the boxer to prize fight, imho. But don't force me into your votes or rules, punch me in the face against my will :)

Like boxing, I find the folly entertaining :)

[osheaad]

@DOHC2L Or "any conflicts or absurdities in the manner and application of terms" Or "the nonsense prevailing these usage of these terms"; simple but not so simple its not explicitly clear what is said.

[DOHC2L]

"Well I've said I don't want to dwell on terminological issues..." -Roderick T. Long

Shouldn't "terminological" be "terminology"?

Isn't "terminological issues" unclear compared to "terminology issues"?

Think about it...

[Talodus]

I find that the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" operate in much the same way. Libertarians SHOULD be called Liberals, but the meaning has been co-opted to meaning anything BUT what is now known as a "classical Liberal".

If someone took your name and started using it as their own and everyone accepted it, how would you be able to stand up for yourself in an argument when you can't even reference yourself?

[AnarchoCapitalistTV]

thanks for this.

[natdavi]

so what should I say instead of capitalism?

[darklordsma]

@natdavi Free Market, Laissez-Faire and Voluntaryism? Or take the time to explain what you mean by capitalism in order to preemptively shoot down misconceptions.

[DoctorCapitalist]

@natdavi Propertarianism.

[LibertarianRealist]

I don't think "capitalism" is anti-concept. It is, though, a vague and unuseful concept in itself. Adding a prefix such as "laissez-faire" makes it more precise. "Free market" is a better term in my view.

[SharpesAccomplice]

@LibertarianRealist It is because of the way it's commonly used, in the same way that 'socialism' is.