I agree with your conclusion, that statism is a system of believes that leads to structures that ultimately collapse - that´s the effect of all systems built on false premises.
Otoh: without any government how do you expect to be able to defend private property against violent gangs? Wouldn´t that mean having to create "defense gangs", too? Back to the same cycle?
Or is your logic like: government can´t be based on morals, so abandon government?
@TheHomoludens Actually, defending private property requires an ABSENCE of "government," since every "government" steals property. The difference is, when it's called "authority" and "law," most people imagine that the gang called "government" has the RIGHT to do things which us mere mortals don't (initiating violence against innocents). Organized defense can only be effective when people let go of the most dangerous superstition.
@LarkenRose "Actually, defending private property requires an ABSENCE of "government," since every "government" steals property."
Imho you take your position to the extreme and falsify it, because if the government is just another gang, they will of course defend what they think is their property. And all governments everywhere have always enriched parts of the population - so your pov is oversimplified imho.
@TheHomoludens Aside from the contradiction involved in a 'property-protecting thief', the government sucks at producing security and law as much as it sucks at producing shoes. Even if they WANTED to protect you they would FAIL at it, because they have no epistemic or economic method to rationally allocate resources and evaluate alternatives.
People have the Liberty to do whatever they want but they must face the consequences of their choices. There has to be enforcement of moral behavior 'laws' to make sure people don't run around fucking animals and stealing from the elderly.
.Good explanation on why Democracy fails... now realize that the masses have been drinking fluoridated water, eating gmo foods, breathing in chemtrails, and you will see how they turned the 'Democratic' vote into whatever they want.
@laurasIs2c I do condemn the violence disguised as "national defense." I also condemn the violence done by the state in the name of "helping" people. Extortion and aggression committed in the name of "compassion" isn't any better than extortion and aggression committed in the name of "protection."
@LarkenRose The unfortunate fact is that it seems VERY easy to scare people into thinking organized violence is 'necessary' to civil society, despite the blatant contradiction involved.
@ThisMachineKillsReds Hey Mr. Supersmart, had you read all my comments you could have spared your last comment to me.
I don´t believe in statism, but I don´t believe in "property" as basic human right (I think "life" is more important than "property") either (call me "socialist" if you want, I don´t give f..k about any "-ism"). And I don´t know where this crazy world is heading, but I´m sure, turbulent times are ahead and in the next years, something different will emerge.
@ThisMachineKillsReds You liberterians seem to worship the illusion of "hard-working achievers" while ignoring that all "western" countries still profit from centuries of exploitation of the third world resources and people and structures built by earlier generations (from roads to electricity).
I´m pretty sure that in ten or twenty years the western countries will have a similar economic level as the BRIC-countries.
@ThisMachineKillsReds Otoh I don´t think there´s an alternative to cutting back the excesses of government (imho most important: unconstitutional militaristic imperialism) and opening a debate about what a government really has to do. I agree with much of minarchism.
But getting there will be painful for many and unfortunately the statists have well prepared their fascism 2.0 (NDAA, Fema,..).
At least the times aren´t boring (albeit I´d wish for faster developpments)...
@TheHomoludens Arguing over what "government" should do is like arguing over what Santa Claus should do. As long as people imagine a legitimate ruling class ("government"), what the subject class HOPES the parasites will do doesn't matter much. This is demonstrated by how rarely (i.e., never) political action has led to more freedom and less oppression. Freedom will come when we stop arguing over how hard the master should whip us, and start realizing that we don't have a rightful master.
@LarkenRose LOL, sorry man, but I´m past that realization.
I don´t have any master and I´ve never in my whole life ever looked for one.
I think societies have the governments they deserve or rather created. As long as people don´t want to take full responsibility, that crap will continue.
@LarkenRose One more question: several authors have stated a number of over 90% psychpaths in western societies. So how are we going to get out of this mess?
@TheHomoludens I don't buy the 90% psychopath stat, but whatever the level of psychosis, negligence, or just plain malice might be, step one is: don't give anyone a throne, or the (supposed) right to rule. Most people, as stupid and/or nasty as they are, get along remarkably well, most of the time, EXCEPT when it comes to "government," which almost everyone tries to use to violently control everyone else. If people lose the "authority" myth, their personal shortcomings will be almost trivial.
@LarkenRose One of the hardest realizations I had - starting with "free will" and my conflict with "herd mentality"- is that "sheeple" do live according to their own choices.
How´s that supposed to change?
I know that sounds pretty pessimistic, maybe I am...
@LarkenRose One more thing about "authority myth":
I have the impression that most libertarians are following this myth just like the majority of the world population.
Reading about Mises, Rand, Hoppe or Rothbard really made me wonder, how people could take these authors seriously. They all feature logical inconsistencies.
It should be clear by now, that I´m no follower of statism, but none of the libertarians´ answers was intellectually satisfying to me.
@ThisMachineKillsReds "The unfortunate fact is that it seems VERY easy to scare people into thinking organized violence is 'necessary' to civil society, ..."
That´s called Stockholm syndrome... those profiting usually have gambling addiction, both sides have in common that their empathy is killed; they need each other to coexist, but unfortunately make the majority of "western" citizens.
Good book illuminating the psychology of that: "insanity of normalcy" by Arno Gruen.
@laurasIs2c Forcibly stealing trillions of dollars from working people has never harmed anyone? Do you understand how Ponzi schemes work? The damage isn't obvious until the math catches up, and the whole game falls over. You do realize, I hope, that for the trillions of dollars stolen in the name of Social Security, there is not ONE PENNY "saved" anywhere, right?
@laurasIs2c Vilifying diversity? Did you just claim that this video vilifies diversity? (And did you say that after watching the entire thing, or while it was still being facetious?) I don't want to rush to judgment here, but if you think condemning forced uniformity and conformity (which is what the video does) amounts to vilifying diversity, you really don't know how to think.
@LarkenRose No, all I'm saying is that being punched is better than being stabbed, most people don't advocate theft but would steal a loaf of bread if they or one of their kids were starving and that was their only option and would consider it the lesser of two evils. You continually refuse to show how the society you advocate is more favourable an that suggests you're unable to you keep question begging.
@IllichSketchShow Most people absolutely DO advocate theft, because they think that when theft is "legalized" and committed by "government," it's okay. For most people, the default is advocating mass robbery and violence, via "government." They hardly ever do it on their own, but they condone it nonetheless because they still believe in the superstition called "authority." That's why they don't like to literally describe the violence behind their "political" position.
@IllichSketchShow Tackling a blind man away from an oncoming car is initiatory force. If the blind man wanted to charge the person for initiating force a jury could decide if the tackler had nefarious intent. When a person refuses/declines an offer and the aggressor continues their aggression then it is a crime. No thanks, I decline your offer Mr/Mrs government agent. To force any offer on any person against their will is a crime.
@zonsb I think it's an exaggeration to say that "government" amounts to providing services at the barrel of a gun ... because calling what they do "providing services" seems a stretch. : )
@LarkenRose To the general populace, government attempts to provide service. It serves corporations of which government owns it all by investment. It makes the laws, rules and regulations for the companies it owns. It's the major share holder in energy, food, information, news, entertainment, finance, banks, education, even companies that make voting machines like Diebold. That scratches the surface. The FDA is a Pharma APPROVAL agency that DISAPROVES alternative medicines.
@IllichSketchShow it is much better not to be agressed upon at all. That's what anarcho-libertarians advocate and it makes superstitious statist very mad because we expose their low morality and double standards.
And what are your considerations towards the people who wouldn't be able to afford to pay for some or any of these things, say unemployed people in a scheme who can't pay for a private security - they going to just have to go without an equibalent to police?
@IllichSketchShow No one would stop you (or me) from helping people out. Would you prefer that I advocate that YOU be forcibly robbed to fund MY idea of how things should work?
@LarkenRose excuse me don't bring me into it or use emotional phrasing with me. I simply asked what are your considerations toward those people, don't try to turn it around on me, that is rhetoric, answer the question instead, what are your considerations? I have not even stated a position.
@IllichSketchShow There are two general categories that any alleged "solution" to any societal challenge will fall into: 1) allowing individuals to make their own choices and spend their own money, and; 2) forcibly imposing my idea on others. I support #1, as the only moral, civilized approach. (Most advocate #2.) That's why I asked, before we get to specifics, which general category are you advocating?
I am not advocating a position, that's my point, I'm asking for more information. Most people want to be satisfied that they will not live in a society where a rich person gets rushed to the top of the list for an organ transplant (for example) while a poor person has to die, before they endorse your position so I'm asking what YOUR view is
You say when the gov provides a service you can "love it or leave it" and I agree, most people see that as better than having no access at all
also you talk about allowing individuals to make choices, but those choices are limited to circumstances of birth, for eg. my parents could afford the choice to get me health insurance whereas my friend argues he has no option for that whatever, however we have the NHS in the UK so if he does desperately need help he has the assurance. Even very conservative people in UK support the institution,
also shouldn't it make private healthcare cheaper as they have to compete with free?
A popular view is that contributions to the general welfare should in proportion to income of course, so someone who wouldn't miss $1m is expected to pay more than several poor people,
If you and I pulled resources we wouldn't be able to pay as much for those without police as a very rich person who point blank refused to help anyone. Plus we would be subsidising providers so they could just raise their prices in accordance as insurance companies do when gov pays medicaid etc
@IllichSketchShow excuse my errors if it's not the insurance cos that raise prices but certainly the price of healthcarre has gone up massively since those programs were introduced, I'm sure as a libertarian you will agree
@IllichSketchShow "Contributions"? Do you mean voluntary donations, or forcibly extracted payments? Yeah, it would be nice if people with lots of money would chip in more. Is that what you're suggesting? Or are you advocating "laws" and "taxes" that FORCE people to surrender their money?
"it would be nice" is not sufficient for most people, don't ask me questions to avoid answering my enquiries, if you want to make the case for your alternative then make a positive case, not a negative one. I am encouraging you to do that by answering these questions so take the oppotunity I am listening, don't keep turning it back on me, I know what the concerns of people you are trying to win round are and am giving you the opportunity to answer those concernse.
@LarkenRose EG. If a person owns a lot of land and employs peasants to farm it, say in a third world country where they are very poor, the force is exerted by the landlord to maintain his property. In a stateless society peasants would just say to landlord "bogoff, we plant this land not you, we don't acknowledge your right to the property" and take it in common,
I would support that in those circumstances although I doubt you would
@IllichSketchShow Offering to pay someone to do a job--even if the job is really hard and the pay being offered is hardly anything--is not force. Forcing someone into poverty and desperation--which big corporations do VIA "GOVERNMENT"--is not the same as giving them another choice. If, absent actual coercion, a bunch of people somewhere are working for next to nothing, it's because that is a step UP from what they had without the supposedly nasty business, so they took it.
I make this example to show that force is not black and white, taxes and laws are not necessarily the only way, if someone owns far more than their fair share people just don't acknowledge their right to own... their local community park say or road
if it contributes to a healthier society so much the better
if it doesn't then people will just stop doing it because it seems to end in disaster
eg. say in the case of unqualified workers taking ownership of a factory
@LarkenRose so far it sounds as though the system you are advocating will entail people choosing whether they can afford either police and fire service, home and property insurance, healthcare insurance, or education for their children, and rarely all of those.
If that is the case that may be satisfactory to you but it is very unlikely to win round persons on the left or even the centre. That's why I'm offering you the opportunity to make a positive case rather than a negative one.
@IllichSketchShow I notice that, as almost all statists do, you very carefully don't mention the violence inherent in every "government" solution to anything. You say, "but what about this, and what about that," and complain about my advocating individual freedom, because some people might have a tough time. That's why I'm focusing on the fundamental issue: whether you advocate voluntary interaction, or violent coercion. You seem to be trying pretty hard not to answer.
first of all I am not a statist, please don't cast aspursions on what my positions are, I have deliberately avoided stating positions because I would like you to argue in favour of your positions rather than focusing on mine, the fact that you avoid doing that doesn't suggest you have satisfactory answers
YOUR main concern is what you call "violent coercion"
MOST PEOPLES concern are what you call "this and thats" so if you're going to win them over answer the this and thats
@IllichSketchShow I don't care what most people's concerns are. Most people advocate widespread aggression and extortion. It's immoral. If they don't mind being immoral to suit their political beliefs, I'm going to call them on it. I don't think that "bad things might happen if I don't advocate mass violence" is a good argument, though that's what most people believe. My "position" is that I shouldn't force others to go along with or fund whatever I think might be a good idea.
@IllichSketchShow The case against statism is a purely negative one. Initiating violence is bad, and it's what every "government" does. My positive case is "don't do that; instead, interact voluntarily." Whenever someone responds with "But what if," what that means is "But if I DON'T advocate that others be forced to fund and cooperate with MY ideas, then..." So I begin by trying to get people to actually admit what they advocate, which is usually mass violence.
@LR some would say it's only voluntary if you are able to make a choice and as we've established some people have far more choices than others, not everything you consider voluntary are things other people consider volunatry
if you're not willing to answer straight questions then there is no point, I have been very charitable and given you lots of opportunities to make a strong case as to how the society you favour would look but you avoid them, people prefer the devil they know
@IllichSketchShow I didn't avoid anything. I advocate that people not initiate violence against each other. It sounds like you're asking for what my centralized, universally imposed "system" will be. There wouldn't be one. That's the point. If people gave up statism, there are a zillion different things people could choose to do, or to try, to deal with all sorts of challenges. The point is that no one, including me, could improve matters by forcing his ideas on others.
@IllichSketchShow And yes, people prefer the devil they know. It's my job to point out that it's a devil. It's not my job to give them a new, alternative devil. If I say, "Slavery is bad," and some plantation owner replies with, "But who will pick the cotton?", I feel no need to answer. Evil doesn't become good because someone has trouble picturing how things would work without it.
@Larken you'll be shit out of luck talking people round to your position if you can't hold your own court,
I'm familiar with Stefbots slavery/cotton argument, however, to use a reductio ad absurdum if the case was "slavery is bad" vs. "yeah but we need these slaves or everyone will die including the slaves" then abolition wouldn't really win out, showing sometimes you must accept one evil in place of a greater. You need to show your alternative is superior but you refuse to attempt
@IllichSketchShow Did you just imply that if we don't have widespread statist coercion, we all die? Ironically, just like most statists, you accidentally confess that you KNOW that you're advocating evil (or at least still considering it), because you carefully don't literally say what you propose. All I'm trying to do is take away the excuses and euphemisms that thieves and thugs use to try to legitimize their advocacy of massive violence.
@LarkenRose lets bring some philosophical litteracy into this shall we
if you say "letting someone die is less bad then killing someone" I say
"No that's not necessarily true, for example if someone is in great pain and wants to die, killing them is less bad then say I go past a pond and see a child drowning, begging for help, and I let them die"
that's all my slavery point was there to illustrate, where is the line to be drawn?
@IllichSketchShow you would save the child because they obviously need help and if not for drowning are in otherwise good health,if a cancer patient is suffering and asks to be given the ability to end their life,they are making that decision,now if someone is killing a child and you kill that person then it is less wrong to kill then to let someone die,you know, its kinda like 2 wrongs dont make 1 right but 3 lefts do :p
@lily42094 fuck you. this man stands for what the founding fathers built this country upon. stop conforming to corrupt politicians and use your fucking brain
@JonathanCursi Boy, chill out. I'm not about to get into some kind of a political debate. This man is just not even smart.He does NOT stand for what the founding fathers built this country upon. Does he suggest that we have an anarchy? What's his suggestions, because obviously in his mind our government isn't working. Let's be mature and not insult eachother and curse, k?
I see you fighting with all these retards on a daily basis. The sad truth of the matter is...
These people that you argue with on here are the very same people who would have died off generations ago if not for their nanny... So it is no surprise that they will defend it to the death, cause without it they would indeed be dead.
Dependent brainwashed retards make the best slaves...
I would be interested to know your opinion on how you think land should be divided amongst the population?
Let me guess, you're a liberal democrat aren't you? I bet you voted for Obama too. You sure sound like a communist. This is the stupidest crap I've heard since Nancy Pelosi saying we'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it!
@jeffery19677 I told him that was "the stupidest crap I've heard since Nancy Pelosi saying we'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it!" and he comments back saying I have more in common with Obama and the democrats than he does! I couldn't stand listening to the BS he was spouting and I never made it to the end of the video. Does he finally say that it's a spoof?
@STARFIRESOLAR Well, shall we see if there is any fundamental philosophical difference between you and the Democrats? For example, do you believe that, in the name of the "common good," the state has the right to forcibly take the earnings of the individual?
@LarkenRose Hell NO! But they do it anyway don't they? So in your mind does that make me a democrat? jeffery19677 says you are showing the stupidity of government institutions. If that's the case you're correct. You say for me to listen to the end of the video but I couldn't stand listening to the BS you were spouting and I never made it to the end of the video. If it was a spoof then why jump my ass for telling you how stupid it was?
@STARFIRESOLAR "Hell no," huh? So you're AGAINST "taxation" funding the military? And the police? (I'm guessing your "hell no" will suddenly turn into hypocritical back-pedaling. Let the obfuscations begin!)
@LarkenRose Forcibly taking money from someone is theft. I never said I was against taxes or the military or the police. But the way you loaded that question I should have known you would turn it around on me. They don't come to my door with guns and "forcibly take" my taxes! I'm a conservative but if you didn't get that from my first comments you're just an asshole looking to start some shit! Go Fuck Yourself! How's that for back-pedaling! Go ahead and say whatever you want, I'm done !!
@STARFIRESOLAR You don't think "taxes" are taken by force? You obviously DO advocate that individuals be forced to fund something they're against (military and police), and I'm betting "necessity" and the "common good" will be what you use to try to justify it. Like I said, being a collectivist statist, you have far more in common with the Democrats than I do. The only difference between "conservative" and "liberal" statists is how they want to spend the stolen loot.
So what do you want? Do you want only the people who can afford gas lamps to buy them? If we were in a both heating oil and natural gas shortage, and therefore the prices went way up, then you think we should just let the poor go heatless? The government would give you the heat you need to get through the cold winter, but we don't have any government (because it is apparently stupid and immoral) so we let the poor freeze. That is what you are asking for, Larken Rose.
@Tanglephish Okay, NOW I think you're a plant. You aren't really advocating my stupid idea, are you? I'm going on record now saying I think you're just pretending to be that stupid.
@LarkenRose And the evil Tanglephish charges into the room, wildly shooting his horriffic Challenge Gun! LarkenRose does a graceful set of backflips, cartwheels, and flying maneuvers to successfully evade the challenges.
But what LarkenRose doesn't know is that these are Homing Challenges. He must deflect them with shots from a Challenge Gun of his own to stop them. Evading them will not work! What will happen next? Stay tuned for LarkenRose's next comment to find out!
@Tanglephish You don't have a challenge gun. You have a make-crap-up, deny-reality, make-up-strawmen, and demonstrate-no-logic gun. I don't need to dodge or return fire. You don't know what I believe, or what I advocate, because you don't WANT to know. Oddly, you don't even know what YOU believe, for the same reasons. Like almost all statists, you refuse to face the literal reality of what you advocate.
Wait... If the majority of people think a stupid idea is correct and good and moral... doesn't that make the majority even more stupid than the stupid idea and those who are behind the stupid idea?
Doesn't that mean those stupid people deserve what they get? Or do those stupid people deserve a chance to shed that stupidity?
oh so sarcastic . yea cool your sharing an awareness of corruption :) but how about some ideas on positive action ,educate don't legislate :) maybe go for a more balanced approach? 49% on the would we live in an 51% on the world we wish to live in. we are the change we have been waiting for. PS only started trying this myself an know how easy it is to give away all your power to a world you despise.
No I don't agree with this video at all. No siree bob. We need a group of people who steal a lot from everyone... to protect us against other groups who steal a little from a few people at a time. We need to let people steal from us, because they use the money to protect us against those who steal from us.
I have a serious problem with the libertarian point of view.
Small government that imposes almost no taxes and uses that money to only defend us against external enemies and everything privatized is what has been going on for the last twenty years.
I fear the monopolistic corporations even more than the government. They can and will impose a tyranny much worse and they are answerable to no one.
@Larkinchance Did you really just claim that small "government," that imposes almost no taxes, is what we've had for the past twenty years?? And you think we need "government" to exist, so it will protect us AGAINST giant corporations controlling everything? Sorry, but I can't imagine it being worthwhile to try to have a rational discussion with you. (P.S. I'm not a member of any political party, nor do I want anyone else to be.)
Larken, most of the world is insane, and the more people that can be reached, the more likely the insanity will stop. What Larkin is saying is actually relatively sane. All that needs to be done is have a few pieces of the puzzle re-aligned. He's considerably easier to re-align, for example, than OWS protesters. Have you seen Schiff argue with them? It's a wonder that he didn't go insane!
He said he would rather have government rather than corporations controlling us. There's the Bill of Rights protecting us from the government, as for the corporations? The only legal interest of a corporate 'person' is to make money, it's its only purpose, and it will not stop for anything. We need to remove lobbying and a stronger, smaller, government to protect us from capitalistic greed and control.
@TehChiken How, exactly, do you think corporations would control you without "government"? And what do you think "lobbying" is? It's people bribing the state to forcibly control other people. Incidentally, I bet you try to do that too; you're just upset that the thugs of "government" are doing their bidding, instead of yours. If you play the game of coercion-via-state, I have a hard time feeling sorry for you when someone else beats you at your own game. Do you advocate "taxation"?
@LarkenRose I said smaller government, with a stronger respect towards our constitution and bill of right. I know there's absolutely no way a more branched out government would do anything, they would eventually be bought out.
@TehChiken You talk about "government" being "bought out," as if ANY "government" isn't. Whatever you want "government" to do, no matter how good it may sound, you are trying to influence those in power to use the violence of the state to serve your agenda. Everyone who votes is a "lobbyist" trying to "buy out" the politicians, in order to serve his own values and interests. People just call it "special interests" when the OTHER guy wins the fight over who can buy the state thugs.
@LarkenRose I didn't talk about government as if NO government is ever bought out, a smaller government focusing ONLY on respecting our rights and protecting us only by power given by us, is a better government. There needs to be more power towards us and more recognition towards us.
@LarkenRose Violence of the state? Only when media gets into politics, and "pundits" influence people with anecdotes and other rhetoric, which causes the mass to become dumbed down, it's not only a government issue but also a social issue. A social PROBLEM created by the corporate 'person'. "Special interest" isn't a black and white issue as you make it out to be with your heating anecdote, our best interest wouldn't be international, nor violent, just a redirection of tax money usage.
@TehChiken A "redirection of tax money"? Where does "tax money" come from? How do they get it? By threaten people with harm if they don't pay up. Whatever YOU want paid for with money taken from me via threat of force is a "special interest." "Government" isn't just corruptible; it IS the corruption of humanity. No, "government" does not create civilization; it is the opposite of it. Civilization is peaceful coexistence. The state is the initiation of force.
@LarkenRose You could be cynical and claim, that law enforcement and responsibility towards providing money for construction that provides a beneficent structure, is "force". Government isn't corruption, money is. One of the steps we have to take to get rid of government is to make a better government, then we educate, then we get rid of corruption, through education.
We can't have your smart idea without taking steps towards improving, gradually, the stupid idea.
@TehChiken It's not being "cynical"; it's identifying reality. "Taxation" is a demand for money, backed by a threat of force. You still don't understand what "government" is, because you still think there's such a thing as a good one, or at least a legitimate one. Whatever "government" you advocate, you are advocating the initiation of violence against innocents. That is why "government" IS corruption. (Real money is a medium of exchange. There's nothing inherently evil about it.)
@TehChiken "The founders" werw a group of people who didn't all believe or want the same things. The smartest among them, for example, were anti-federalists, and didn't LIKE the Constitution. Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, etc. What they attempted was a mixture of wisdom and lunacy. They tried to combine unalienable rights with the idea of a legitimate "government," which is logically bogus.
@LarkenRose Rather than wars created corporations because they CAN do so. I'm just saying, a smaller government with no ties towards monetary lobbying would be less corruptible. A government creates something that is called, civilization. Like I said before, I would rather trust government than corporations.
Then again, without lobbying U.S businesses could just move. But aren't they already, illegally?
I have a serious problem with the libertarian point of view as well; the acceptance of any gov't is flawed. But corporations are not to be more feared than gov't. Corporations ARE gov't. Corporations cannot exist without gov't. They literally are a state entity, a person UNDER THE LAW. And where does the law come from? Gov't.
Why do you think they're answerable to no-one? Because they are of Gov't.
He is anarcho-libertarian or to put it bluntly consistent libertarian. Minarcho-libertarians want free market everywhere except army, police and courts. If free market is such a good system, it does not make sense to exclude most important services from it.
@PluralOfEverything I hate to burst the bubbles of those who refuse to give up statism, but "Libertarian party" is a contradiction. One cannot truly be a libertarian without being an anarchist, for the very simple reason that there cannot be a "government" that doesn't initiate violence. The non-aggression principle 100% rules out anything that deserves the label "government."
@Larkinchance says "Government uses taxes to defend us against external enemies".
Does America have external enemies who were not provoked into résistance by external US imperialism?
John Bolton says all US Mid-East wars were all for Oil
/watch?v=uFbpKKOEnAE
NeoCon Psychopaths say it’s OK to murder 600,000 Muslims because their land holds 70% of World Oil Reserves. America has spent $8 TRILLON on Mid-East Wars. Do you have cheap Oil?
In fact many of the largest corporations dwarf most governments. When they run out of free resources, they begin to prey on their customers. Soon there will not be anything left in the US except usuries banks, private prisons, casinos and homeless and hungry people.
Until you can address this little problem maybe I might join the libertarian party but until then, take your self satisfied ass and F*ck off.
@kylben Woohoo! That's about my favorite thing in the world to hear. Glad I could be of service. Just about all of us were systematically programmed into the cult of statism. After my own prolonged, uncomfortable deprogramming, I'm just trying to help others make the journey a little more quickly and easily. Friends don't let friends advocate their own enslavement.
While I do agree that involuntary, statist democracy is coercive, immoral, and stupid, I should point out that very few decisions made by modern governments are actually made democratically. Democracy in the US or Europe is a myth; what these countries have is oligarchy. I should also point out that voluntary democracy (in things like cooperatives, democratic workplaces, and trade unions) would likely increase under anarchy.
Democracy leads to oligarchy. See my Tyranny Is Constitutional:
watch?v=7JSjBl0H8qg
There is no such thing as "voluntary democracy". That's an oxymoron.
Democracy is assuming a percentage of one's income is owned in common, and can be voted on by the collective. It doesn't matter if you don't want in. You're in.
@SomethingSea1 On the contrary, democracy is just people's making decisions by majority rule. There's no reason this can't be done voluntarily. If you simply have voluntary institutions, such as businesses, unions, or cooperatives, that make decisions by majority rule; no one is forced to join them, but if one does join them, one has to abide by the will of the majority.
"On the contrary, democracy is just people's making decisions by majority rule."
Exactly my point. Democracy is people making decisions about other people's money (stored effort) whether they like it or not (majority rule). I'm sorry, but I do not consent to being ruled by the majority. I like to self-rule and have voluntary (productive) interactions with people, and not be imposed by "the majority", thank you very much!
@SomethingSea1 That's fine; under anarchy, you would be free to go live as an individual and not obey the collective. But if you choose to join a democratic collective (which I believe most businesses will be in a free market), you consent to the rule of the majority. No one is forcing you to join that collective, but it is still run democratically.
"under anarchy, you would be free to go live as an individual and not obey the collective."
Anarchy is a very broad concept that can be either collectivist (socialist/statist) or freedom-oriented. Anarchism is not, by necessity, about freedom.
So, you're saying you don't have to join the collectives and can live out on your own or perhaps form your own? If that's the case, I rescind my other posts about this matter. I was thinking you were saying something different.
@SomethingSea1 I'm sorry, but how could anarchy be statist? Since one of the preconditions for anarchy is the absence of coercion, one could by definition never have a state. All anarchists, even anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-communists, oppose using coercion to establish their ideal societies. It is all based on free association. You can join communes and collectives if you want, or live in a more monetary society, but there is no state.
I know. Here's how: anarcho-communism, anarcho-socialism. Anything that involves "the proletariat smashing the state". The reason? Because that's the basis of the communist manifesto, and communism is the less diluted version of democracy -- democracy can be more fascistic because there's more double-think, and the fascism isn't as obvious right away. Communism sinks because it's more of a pure fascism.
@SomethingSea1 Um, what? Anarcho-communism isn't based on the communist manifesto, and it has nothing to do with fascism. The whole idea behind anarcho-communism is that people form voluntary communes and plan their economies through direct, decentralized democracy. No one is forced to join such a commune; people are free to continue living as they want without being members, but they don't reap the benefits.
"Um, what? Anarcho-communism isn't based on the communist manifesto, and it has nothing to do with fascism."
You're right, anarcho-communism isn't based on the communist manifesto. It's based on the communist manifesto and socialist anti-capitalism. Take a look at what you've said:
"people form voluntary communes and plan their economies through direct, decentralized democracy."
The communist manifesto is about the "proletariat" "taking back" "the means of production" -- i.e., stealing the means of production from those who are producing.
That's the "decentralized democracy". And actually, it's not even about stealing from those who are producing.
The "anarcho" part is about the "voluntary" communes aspect. It takes both of these to form the full picture:
@SomethingSea1 The proletariat are not stealing the means of production if those means never legitimately belonged to the bourgeoisie. I suggest you read Kevin Carson or listen to Stefan Molyneux; it's pretty clear that the vast majority of corporations and of the rich are so wealthy only because the government actively supports them.
Anarcho-communism is voluntary. It does not require the use of force; it merely requires non-violent protests (especially boycotts) and the abolition of the state
"The proletariat are not stealing the means of production if those means never legitimately belonged to the bourgeoisie."
That's both true and false. Many of the bourgeoisie went for the bailouts - they accepted stolen money. But not all of them did. Unless you distinguish between the two groups, you're little better than the statist thieves.
"I suggest you read Kevin Carson or listen to Stefan Molyneux"
I've listened to stefbot a lot over the past 2 years. I'm subbed to him. And fringe. And JacobSpinney, ladyattis, StormCloudsGathering, Stargazer5781, and so forth. And I've focused myself with arguing about this stuff for the last 2 years as well. I've also read The Communist Manifesto and spent a considerable amount of time trying to make sense of it. I've come to understand its perspective (I think), and why it's flawed.
"it's pretty clear that the vast majority of corporations and of the rich are so wealthy only because the government actively supports them."
Then you're probably also aware that the way that those corporations have become so wealthy via gov't has been a combination of more regulations, increased taxation, and bailouts. And unless you stop these - and focus on this vital aspect - you might as well not bother. It doesn't matter if you "take it back" if you leave the system in place.
"Anarcho-communism is voluntary. It does not require the use of force; it merely requires non-violent protests (especially boycotts) and the abolition of the state"
I'd love for you to try out anarcho-communism. The reason you can't do that is because there is statism. The solution to statism is not non-violent protests, and the only reason the state exists is taxation. Explain to people why taxation is theft, is illegitimate, and the state falls. It is only kept up with belief.
@SomethingSea1 Where are you getting this idea that I'm not against statism? I absolutely am; I've been advocating against statism for years! I regularly explain to people why taxation is theft and why the state is illegitimate. I'm not arguing that here because clearly you are ALSO against statism, so what's the point?
"Where are you getting this idea that I'm not against statism?"
You're an anarcho-communist, are you not? Generally, anarcho-communists attack capitalism, mistaking corporatism as being one and the same with it. This could not be more counter-productive. It's what the OWS people are doing. Attacking capitalism is little different from being a statist.
Perhaps I have the wrong idea. I would be gladly corrected.
@SomethingSea1 Actually, I'm more of a Mutualist, though I do have anarcho-communist leanings. And when anarcho-communists attack "capitalism," they define that as a system of large, oligopolistic corporations controlling everything (I assume this is what you mean by "corporatism"). Social anarchists generally differentiate between "capitalism" and "the free market." Capitalism is what we have now; the free market is what we will have in the absence of the state.
Again, that's semantics. The term capitalism was coined by early socialists to mean a system of oligopolies. In modern times, it has come into use as a synonym for "free market," but socialists maintain the original use.
"they define capitalism as statism/democracy"
They do define it as statism; they do NOT define it as democracy. Democracy is not consistent with oligopoly at all; indeed, they counteract each other.
@SomethingSea1 Mutualism is the earliest theory of anarchism, developed by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. It refers to a system of free market socialism, in which the state and hierarchical corporations are abolished in favor of worker coops and individual proprietorships. Mutualism is also a theory of property in which ownership is based on occupancy and use. Really, if you don't know what Mutualism is, you can hardly call yourself an anarchist.
@QuatFax One more quick nitpick about terms. Suppose someone described himself as an "anarcho-Christian." (I know some who do.) Or "anarcho-vegetarian." It seems weird to make it one term, like "anarcho-guy-who-likes-sudokus." Fine, two things about the guy, but what's the connect between the two? The part about "anarcho" has to do with which kind of ruling class (none, in our case) someone condones. I think what people hope happens without that is an entirely separate issue.
@SomethingSea1 What does that mean? Of course they have "anything besides semantics." They have pages and pages of theories about how society could function under voluntarist communism. You continue to misrepresent anarcho-communism as statist and irrational, and I still fail to see why. It's just a theory about how people should organize themselves in the absence of coercion; if you don't happen to agree with it, fine, but don't dismiss it as just another attempt to re-establish statism!
@QuatFax This may sound odd, but if you don't intend to FORCE anyone into the types of arrangements you HOPE people will make--even if they look like democratic communes--that actually makes you an anarcho-capitalist. If, for example, you would allow me and others to do the usual capitalist, free-trade routine, without forcible interference, that would be a "market" free of state intervention, i.e., capitalism. What either of us wants people to do afterwards is almost irrelevant.
@LarkenRose In a sense you're right, but it depends on semantics. Most of us on the left would define "capitalism" as the system of large, oligopolistic corporations that currently dominates the U.S., Japan, and Europe; this system, of course, is not the product of the free market. If you define "capitalism" and "free market" as synonyms, then in that sense I am a "capitalist," but I, and history, define it differently.
@QuatFax Yeah, "capitalism" has been used to mean free exchange, and giant corporate fascism--sort of looney to use the same word to mean both. But then, "anarchy" has been used to mean "no ruling class" and "chaos and mayhem." Gee, I wonder whose agenda that serves. Anyway, I'm quite sure you and I would have no trouble getting along, even if we have different views on ideal economics.
@LarkenRose I should also point out that it's more than hoping people will make these arrangements. Anarcho-socialists like myself would organize people into democratic communes and worker cooperatives, and would encourage them to boycott more hierarchical forms of business. Now, in a sense we are still "hoping," since we can't force anyone to join us, but it's not as if we'd just sit on the sidelines and say "whatever the market produces on its own works best."
@SomethingSea1 Yes, and anarcho-communists (and all anarcho-socialists, for that matter) DO focus on the way that the government keeps the rich rich. Abolishing the state and all its privileges is absolutely a foundational goal of anarcho-socialism. It's not our ONLY goal, but it certainly is of enormous importance for us.
"Abolishing the state and all its privileges is absolutely a foundational goal of anarcho-socialism."
Getting rid of the state is my only goal. You get rid of the state through attacking the assumption that taxation is a necessity. That is the only thing you need to do. With taxation out of the picture, everything else falls into place.
@SomethingSea1 First of all, just explaining to people that taxation is evil won't destroy the state. Even if you can convince them, they still may not be willing to stand up to the state and stop paying taxes or following the laws. You have to build a movement, and organize people. If individuals just stop paying their taxes, the state will suppress them; if large segments of the population stop paying their taxes at the same time, the state will fall apart.
"You have to build a movement, and organize people."
No, you don't. People organize themselves based on what they want. It's the same way the free market works. People are naturally free-market-oriented, voluntarily and selfishly driven. Do you want your resources taken from you without your consent? No? Guess what: neither do other people.
"If individuals just stop paying their taxes, the state will suppress them"
That is called the marginal state. Yes, when the chaos maker can no longer fool people, it will show its true colors. And? Yes, it's scary. What would you prefer - a continuing depression and poverty, or people realizing that a few corporatists have stolen from them and not supporting them anymore? No, not a violent revolution. A pathetic whimper.
Btw, I think democracy is a method of change, not a system...
Would be nice to see some of it at work imho.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
I agree with your conclusion, that statism is a system of believes that leads to structures that ultimately collapse - that´s the effect of all systems built on false premises.
Otoh: without any government how do you expect to be able to defend private property against violent gangs? Wouldn´t that mean having to create "defense gangs", too? Back to the same cycle?
Or is your logic like: government can´t be based on morals, so abandon government?
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Actually, defending private property requires an ABSENCE of "government," since every "government" steals property. The difference is, when it's called "authority" and "law," most people imagine that the gang called "government" has the RIGHT to do things which us mere mortals don't (initiating violence against innocents). Organized defense can only be effective when people let go of the most dangerous superstition.
LarkenRose 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@LarkenRose "Actually, defending private property requires an ABSENCE of "government," since every "government" steals property."
Imho you take your position to the extreme and falsify it, because if the government is just another gang, they will of course defend what they think is their property. And all governments everywhere have always enriched parts of the population - so your pov is oversimplified imho.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@LarkenRose I´d rather say:
Property is an illusion, only posession is real.
All we "own" is borrowed from the coming generations.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Aside from the contradiction involved in a 'property-protecting thief', the government sucks at producing security and law as much as it sucks at producing shoes. Even if they WANTED to protect you they would FAIL at it, because they have no epistemic or economic method to rationally allocate resources and evaluate alternatives.
ThisMachineKillsReds 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Of course, the reality is they don't give a shit about protecting you and if you believe they do you need to lay off the crack rock.
ThisMachineKillsReds 1 month ago
People have the Liberty to do whatever they want but they must face the consequences of their choices. There has to be enforcement of moral behavior 'laws' to make sure people don't run around fucking animals and stealing from the elderly.
.Good explanation on why Democracy fails... now realize that the masses have been drinking fluoridated water, eating gmo foods, breathing in chemtrails, and you will see how they turned the 'Democratic' vote into whatever they want.
HookNosedKikes 1 month ago
Hate that the department of defense harms others and claims to be protecting us.
laurasIs2c 1 month ago
@laurasIs2c I do condemn the violence disguised as "national defense." I also condemn the violence done by the state in the name of "helping" people. Extortion and aggression committed in the name of "compassion" isn't any better than extortion and aggression committed in the name of "protection."
LarkenRose 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@LarkenRose The unfortunate fact is that it seems VERY easy to scare people into thinking organized violence is 'necessary' to civil society, despite the blatant contradiction involved.
ThisMachineKillsReds 1 month ago
@ThisMachineKillsReds Hey Mr. Supersmart, had you read all my comments you could have spared your last comment to me.
I don´t believe in statism, but I don´t believe in "property" as basic human right (I think "life" is more important than "property") either (call me "socialist" if you want, I don´t give f..k about any "-ism"). And I don´t know where this crazy world is heading, but I´m sure, turbulent times are ahead and in the next years, something different will emerge.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@ThisMachineKillsReds You liberterians seem to worship the illusion of "hard-working achievers" while ignoring that all "western" countries still profit from centuries of exploitation of the third world resources and people and structures built by earlier generations (from roads to electricity).
I´m pretty sure that in ten or twenty years the western countries will have a similar economic level as the BRIC-countries.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@ThisMachineKillsReds Otoh I don´t think there´s an alternative to cutting back the excesses of government (imho most important: unconstitutional militaristic imperialism) and opening a debate about what a government really has to do. I agree with much of minarchism.
But getting there will be painful for many and unfortunately the statists have well prepared their fascism 2.0 (NDAA, Fema,..).
At least the times aren´t boring (albeit I´d wish for faster developpments)...
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Arguing over what "government" should do is like arguing over what Santa Claus should do. As long as people imagine a legitimate ruling class ("government"), what the subject class HOPES the parasites will do doesn't matter much. This is demonstrated by how rarely (i.e., never) political action has led to more freedom and less oppression. Freedom will come when we stop arguing over how hard the master should whip us, and start realizing that we don't have a rightful master.
LarkenRose 4 weeks ago
@LarkenRose LOL, sorry man, but I´m past that realization.
I don´t have any master and I´ve never in my whole life ever looked for one.
I think societies have the governments they deserve or rather created. As long as people don´t want to take full responsibility, that crap will continue.
TheHomoludens 3 weeks ago
@LarkenRose One more question: several authors have stated a number of over 90% psychpaths in western societies. So how are we going to get out of this mess?
TheHomoludens 3 weeks ago
@TheHomoludens I don't buy the 90% psychopath stat, but whatever the level of psychosis, negligence, or just plain malice might be, step one is: don't give anyone a throne, or the (supposed) right to rule. Most people, as stupid and/or nasty as they are, get along remarkably well, most of the time, EXCEPT when it comes to "government," which almost everyone tries to use to violently control everyone else. If people lose the "authority" myth, their personal shortcomings will be almost trivial.
LarkenRose 3 weeks ago
@LarkenRose Yes, "if people lose their "authority" myth"...
That´s a big "if".
TheHomoludens 3 weeks ago
@LarkenRose One of the hardest realizations I had - starting with "free will" and my conflict with "herd mentality"- is that "sheeple" do live according to their own choices.
How´s that supposed to change?
I know that sounds pretty pessimistic, maybe I am...
TheHomoludens 3 weeks ago
@LarkenRose One more thing about "authority myth":
I have the impression that most libertarians are following this myth just like the majority of the world population.
Reading about Mises, Rand, Hoppe or Rothbard really made me wonder, how people could take these authors seriously. They all feature logical inconsistencies.
It should be clear by now, that I´m no follower of statism, but none of the libertarians´ answers was intellectually satisfying to me.
TheHomoludens 2 weeks ago
@ThisMachineKillsReds "The unfortunate fact is that it seems VERY easy to scare people into thinking organized violence is 'necessary' to civil society, ..."
That´s called Stockholm syndrome... those profiting usually have gambling addiction, both sides have in common that their empathy is killed; they need each other to coexist, but unfortunately make the majority of "western" citizens.
Good book illuminating the psychology of that: "insanity of normalcy" by Arno Gruen.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
Social Security has been solvent forever and has never harmed anyone.
laurasIs2c 1 month ago
@laurasIs2c Forcibly stealing trillions of dollars from working people has never harmed anyone? Do you understand how Ponzi schemes work? The damage isn't obvious until the math catches up, and the whole game falls over. You do realize, I hope, that for the trillions of dollars stolen in the name of Social Security, there is not ONE PENNY "saved" anywhere, right?
LarkenRose 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Thanks for this silly expression for vilifying diversity.
laurasIs2c 1 month ago
@laurasIs2c Vilifying diversity? Did you just claim that this video vilifies diversity? (And did you say that after watching the entire thing, or while it was still being facetious?) I don't want to rush to judgment here, but if you think condemning forced uniformity and conformity (which is what the video does) amounts to vilifying diversity, you really don't know how to think.
LarkenRose 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@LarkenRose No, all I'm saying is that being punched is better than being stabbed, most people don't advocate theft but would steal a loaf of bread if they or one of their kids were starving and that was their only option and would consider it the lesser of two evils. You continually refuse to show how the society you advocate is more favourable an that suggests you're unable to you keep question begging.
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow Most people absolutely DO advocate theft, because they think that when theft is "legalized" and committed by "government," it's okay. For most people, the default is advocating mass robbery and violence, via "government." They hardly ever do it on their own, but they condone it nonetheless because they still believe in the superstition called "authority." That's why they don't like to literally describe the violence behind their "political" position.
LarkenRose 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@IllichSketchShow Tackling a blind man away from an oncoming car is initiatory force. If the blind man wanted to charge the person for initiating force a jury could decide if the tackler had nefarious intent. When a person refuses/declines an offer and the aggressor continues their aggression then it is a crime. No thanks, I decline your offer Mr/Mrs government agent. To force any offer on any person against their will is a crime.
zonsb 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow Government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun.
zonsb 2 months ago
@zonsb I think it's an exaggeration to say that "government" amounts to providing services at the barrel of a gun ... because calling what they do "providing services" seems a stretch. : )
LarkenRose 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@LarkenRose To the general populace, government attempts to provide service. It serves corporations of which government owns it all by investment. It makes the laws, rules and regulations for the companies it owns. It's the major share holder in energy, food, information, news, entertainment, finance, banks, education, even companies that make voting machines like Diebold. That scratches the surface. The FDA is a Pharma APPROVAL agency that DISAPROVES alternative medicines.
zonsb 1 month ago
@IllichSketchShow it is much better not to be agressed upon at all. That's what anarcho-libertarians advocate and it makes superstitious statist very mad because we expose their low morality and double standards.
MaikUniversum 2 months ago
i would like to know what have you been smoking and can i have some?lol
orgekiller 2 months ago
And what are your considerations towards the people who wouldn't be able to afford to pay for some or any of these things, say unemployed people in a scheme who can't pay for a private security - they going to just have to go without an equibalent to police?
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow No one would stop you (or me) from helping people out. Would you prefer that I advocate that YOU be forcibly robbed to fund MY idea of how things should work?
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@LarkenRose excuse me don't bring me into it or use emotional phrasing with me. I simply asked what are your considerations toward those people, don't try to turn it around on me, that is rhetoric, answer the question instead, what are your considerations? I have not even stated a position.
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow There are two general categories that any alleged "solution" to any societal challenge will fall into: 1) allowing individuals to make their own choices and spend their own money, and; 2) forcibly imposing my idea on others. I support #1, as the only moral, civilized approach. (Most advocate #2.) That's why I asked, before we get to specifics, which general category are you advocating?
LarkenRose 2 months ago
I am not advocating a position, that's my point, I'm asking for more information. Most people want to be satisfied that they will not live in a society where a rich person gets rushed to the top of the list for an organ transplant (for example) while a poor person has to die, before they endorse your position so I'm asking what YOUR view is
You say when the gov provides a service you can "love it or leave it" and I agree, most people see that as better than having no access at all
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
also you talk about allowing individuals to make choices, but those choices are limited to circumstances of birth, for eg. my parents could afford the choice to get me health insurance whereas my friend argues he has no option for that whatever, however we have the NHS in the UK so if he does desperately need help he has the assurance. Even very conservative people in UK support the institution,
also shouldn't it make private healthcare cheaper as they have to compete with free?
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
A popular view is that contributions to the general welfare should in proportion to income of course, so someone who wouldn't miss $1m is expected to pay more than several poor people,
If you and I pulled resources we wouldn't be able to pay as much for those without police as a very rich person who point blank refused to help anyone. Plus we would be subsidising providers so they could just raise their prices in accordance as insurance companies do when gov pays medicaid etc
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow excuse my errors if it's not the insurance cos that raise prices but certainly the price of healthcarre has gone up massively since those programs were introduced, I'm sure as a libertarian you will agree
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow "Contributions"? Do you mean voluntary donations, or forcibly extracted payments? Yeah, it would be nice if people with lots of money would chip in more. Is that what you're suggesting? Or are you advocating "laws" and "taxes" that FORCE people to surrender their money?
LarkenRose 2 months ago
"it would be nice" is not sufficient for most people, don't ask me questions to avoid answering my enquiries, if you want to make the case for your alternative then make a positive case, not a negative one. I am encouraging you to do that by answering these questions so take the oppotunity I am listening, don't keep turning it back on me, I know what the concerns of people you are trying to win round are and am giving you the opportunity to answer those concernse.
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@LarkenRose EG. If a person owns a lot of land and employs peasants to farm it, say in a third world country where they are very poor, the force is exerted by the landlord to maintain his property. In a stateless society peasants would just say to landlord "bogoff, we plant this land not you, we don't acknowledge your right to the property" and take it in common,
I would support that in those circumstances although I doubt you would
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow Offering to pay someone to do a job--even if the job is really hard and the pay being offered is hardly anything--is not force. Forcing someone into poverty and desperation--which big corporations do VIA "GOVERNMENT"--is not the same as giving them another choice. If, absent actual coercion, a bunch of people somewhere are working for next to nothing, it's because that is a step UP from what they had without the supposedly nasty business, so they took it.
LarkenRose 2 months ago
I make this example to show that force is not black and white, taxes and laws are not necessarily the only way, if someone owns far more than their fair share people just don't acknowledge their right to own... their local community park say or road
if it contributes to a healthier society so much the better
if it doesn't then people will just stop doing it because it seems to end in disaster
eg. say in the case of unqualified workers taking ownership of a factory
freedom in action
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@LarkenRose so far it sounds as though the system you are advocating will entail people choosing whether they can afford either police and fire service, home and property insurance, healthcare insurance, or education for their children, and rarely all of those.
If that is the case that may be satisfactory to you but it is very unlikely to win round persons on the left or even the centre. That's why I'm offering you the opportunity to make a positive case rather than a negative one.
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow I notice that, as almost all statists do, you very carefully don't mention the violence inherent in every "government" solution to anything. You say, "but what about this, and what about that," and complain about my advocating individual freedom, because some people might have a tough time. That's why I'm focusing on the fundamental issue: whether you advocate voluntary interaction, or violent coercion. You seem to be trying pretty hard not to answer.
LarkenRose 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
first of all I am not a statist, please don't cast aspursions on what my positions are, I have deliberately avoided stating positions because I would like you to argue in favour of your positions rather than focusing on mine, the fact that you avoid doing that doesn't suggest you have satisfactory answers
YOUR main concern is what you call "violent coercion"
MOST PEOPLES concern are what you call "this and thats" so if you're going to win them over answer the this and thats
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow I don't care what most people's concerns are. Most people advocate widespread aggression and extortion. It's immoral. If they don't mind being immoral to suit their political beliefs, I'm going to call them on it. I don't think that "bad things might happen if I don't advocate mass violence" is a good argument, though that's what most people believe. My "position" is that I shouldn't force others to go along with or fund whatever I think might be a good idea.
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow The case against statism is a purely negative one. Initiating violence is bad, and it's what every "government" does. My positive case is "don't do that; instead, interact voluntarily." Whenever someone responds with "But what if," what that means is "But if I DON'T advocate that others be forced to fund and cooperate with MY ideas, then..." So I begin by trying to get people to actually admit what they advocate, which is usually mass violence.
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@LR some would say it's only voluntary if you are able to make a choice and as we've established some people have far more choices than others, not everything you consider voluntary are things other people consider volunatry
if you're not willing to answer straight questions then there is no point, I have been very charitable and given you lots of opportunities to make a strong case as to how the society you favour would look but you avoid them, people prefer the devil they know
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow I didn't avoid anything. I advocate that people not initiate violence against each other. It sounds like you're asking for what my centralized, universally imposed "system" will be. There wouldn't be one. That's the point. If people gave up statism, there are a zillion different things people could choose to do, or to try, to deal with all sorts of challenges. The point is that no one, including me, could improve matters by forcing his ideas on others.
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow And yes, people prefer the devil they know. It's my job to point out that it's a devil. It's not my job to give them a new, alternative devil. If I say, "Slavery is bad," and some plantation owner replies with, "But who will pick the cotton?", I feel no need to answer. Evil doesn't become good because someone has trouble picturing how things would work without it.
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@Larken you'll be shit out of luck talking people round to your position if you can't hold your own court,
I'm familiar with Stefbots slavery/cotton argument, however, to use a reductio ad absurdum if the case was "slavery is bad" vs. "yeah but we need these slaves or everyone will die including the slaves" then abolition wouldn't really win out, showing sometimes you must accept one evil in place of a greater. You need to show your alternative is superior but you refuse to attempt
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow Did you just imply that if we don't have widespread statist coercion, we all die? Ironically, just like most statists, you accidentally confess that you KNOW that you're advocating evil (or at least still considering it), because you carefully don't literally say what you propose. All I'm trying to do is take away the excuses and euphemisms that thieves and thugs use to try to legitimize their advocacy of massive violence.
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@LarkenRose lets bring some philosophical litteracy into this shall we
if you say "letting someone die is less bad then killing someone" I say
"No that's not necessarily true, for example if someone is in great pain and wants to die, killing them is less bad then say I go past a pond and see a child drowning, begging for help, and I let them die"
that's all my slavery point was there to illustrate, where is the line to be drawn?
IllichSketchShow 2 months ago
@IllichSketchShow you would save the child because they obviously need help and if not for drowning are in otherwise good health,if a cancer patient is suffering and asks to be given the ability to end their life,they are making that decision,now if someone is killing a child and you kill that person then it is less wrong to kill then to let someone die,you know, its kinda like 2 wrongs dont make 1 right but 3 lefts do :p
jdefabs2112 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Government is Safety, Choice is Tyranny, Democracy is Freedom. Right....?
theAuspician 2 months ago
Comment removed
theAuspician 2 months ago
Thanks. We need more stupid ideas.
hagbard72 2 months ago
This man is stupid.
lily42094 2 months ago
@lily42094 fuck you. this man stands for what the founding fathers built this country upon. stop conforming to corrupt politicians and use your fucking brain
JonathanCursi 2 months ago
@JonathanCursi Boy, chill out. I'm not about to get into some kind of a political debate. This man is just not even smart.He does NOT stand for what the founding fathers built this country upon. Does he suggest that we have an anarchy? What's his suggestions, because obviously in his mind our government isn't working. Let's be mature and not insult eachother and curse, k?
lily42094 2 months ago
We could also make those Hawaiians pay for a portion even though they don't have or need furnaces.
spikeslawson 2 months ago
I see you fighting with all these retards on a daily basis. The sad truth of the matter is...
These people that you argue with on here are the very same people who would have died off generations ago if not for their nanny... So it is no surprise that they will defend it to the death, cause without it they would indeed be dead.
Dependent brainwashed retards make the best slaves...
I would be interested to know your opinion on how you think land should be divided amongst the population?
bryphi77 2 months ago 4
Let me guess, you're a liberal democrat aren't you? I bet you voted for Obama too. You sure sound like a communist. This is the stupidest crap I've heard since Nancy Pelosi saying we'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it!
STARFIRESOLAR 2 months ago
@STARFIRESOLAR Try watching the entire video. You'll find that you have far more in common with Obama and the Democrats than I do.
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@LarkenRose Maybe I did speak too soon. What you just said was the stupidest crap I've ever heard!
STARFIRESOLAR 2 months ago
@STARFIRESOLAR OF COURSE. He is talking about the heath care law!! Showing the stupidity of government institutions.
jeffery19677 2 months ago
@jeffery19677 I told him that was "the stupidest crap I've heard since Nancy Pelosi saying we'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it!" and he comments back saying I have more in common with Obama and the democrats than he does! I couldn't stand listening to the BS he was spouting and I never made it to the end of the video. Does he finally say that it's a spoof?
STARFIRESOLAR 2 months ago
@STARFIRESOLAR Well, shall we see if there is any fundamental philosophical difference between you and the Democrats? For example, do you believe that, in the name of the "common good," the state has the right to forcibly take the earnings of the individual?
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@LarkenRose Hell NO! But they do it anyway don't they? So in your mind does that make me a democrat? jeffery19677 says you are showing the stupidity of government institutions. If that's the case you're correct. You say for me to listen to the end of the video but I couldn't stand listening to the BS you were spouting and I never made it to the end of the video. If it was a spoof then why jump my ass for telling you how stupid it was?
STARFIRESOLAR 2 months ago
@STARFIRESOLAR "Hell no," huh? So you're AGAINST "taxation" funding the military? And the police? (I'm guessing your "hell no" will suddenly turn into hypocritical back-pedaling. Let the obfuscations begin!)
LarkenRose 2 months ago 2
@LarkenRose Forcibly taking money from someone is theft. I never said I was against taxes or the military or the police. But the way you loaded that question I should have known you would turn it around on me. They don't come to my door with guns and "forcibly take" my taxes! I'm a conservative but if you didn't get that from my first comments you're just an asshole looking to start some shit! Go Fuck Yourself! How's that for back-pedaling! Go ahead and say whatever you want, I'm done !!
STARFIRESOLAR 2 months ago
@STARFIRESOLAR You don't think "taxes" are taken by force? You obviously DO advocate that individuals be forced to fund something they're against (military and police), and I'm betting "necessity" and the "common good" will be what you use to try to justify it. Like I said, being a collectivist statist, you have far more in common with the Democrats than I do. The only difference between "conservative" and "liberal" statists is how they want to spend the stolen loot.
LarkenRose 2 months ago 12
@STARFIRESOLAR
try not paying your taxes and see how long it takes before armed thugs come knocking...
viehe69 2 months ago 2
I chews gas.
manholewisdom 2 months ago
So what do you want? Do you want only the people who can afford gas lamps to buy them? If we were in a both heating oil and natural gas shortage, and therefore the prices went way up, then you think we should just let the poor go heatless? The government would give you the heat you need to get through the cold winter, but we don't have any government (because it is apparently stupid and immoral) so we let the poor freeze. That is what you are asking for, Larken Rose.
Tanglephish 2 months ago
@Tanglephish Okay, NOW I think you're a plant. You aren't really advocating my stupid idea, are you? I'm going on record now saying I think you're just pretending to be that stupid.
LarkenRose 2 months ago 19
@LarkenRose And the evil Tanglephish charges into the room, wildly shooting his horriffic Challenge Gun! LarkenRose does a graceful set of backflips, cartwheels, and flying maneuvers to successfully evade the challenges.
But what LarkenRose doesn't know is that these are Homing Challenges. He must deflect them with shots from a Challenge Gun of his own to stop them. Evading them will not work! What will happen next? Stay tuned for LarkenRose's next comment to find out!
Tanglephish 2 months ago
@Tanglephish You don't have a challenge gun. You have a make-crap-up, deny-reality, make-up-strawmen, and demonstrate-no-logic gun. I don't need to dodge or return fire. You don't know what I believe, or what I advocate, because you don't WANT to know. Oddly, you don't even know what YOU believe, for the same reasons. Like almost all statists, you refuse to face the literal reality of what you advocate.
LarkenRose 2 months ago 6
@LarkenRose This is really frustrating. Stop backflipping and start shooting!
Tanglephish 2 months ago
@Tanglephish You sound like an agent provocateur.
zonsb 2 months ago 5
@Tanglephish Larken doesn't shoot unarmed opponents.
Sroek 1 month ago
Wait... If the majority of people think a stupid idea is correct and good and moral... doesn't that make the majority even more stupid than the stupid idea and those who are behind the stupid idea?
Doesn't that mean those stupid people deserve what they get? Or do those stupid people deserve a chance to shed that stupidity?
batfly 2 months ago
oh so sarcastic . yea cool your sharing an awareness of corruption :) but how about some ideas on positive action ,educate don't legislate :) maybe go for a more balanced approach? 49% on the would we live in an 51% on the world we wish to live in. we are the change we have been waiting for. PS only started trying this myself an know how easy it is to give away all your power to a world you despise.
MrDavidmacarthur 2 months ago
I love this!
oidni1 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrDavidmacarthur 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrDavidmacarthur 2 months ago
No I don't agree with this video at all. No siree bob. We need a group of people who steal a lot from everyone... to protect us against other groups who steal a little from a few people at a time. We need to let people steal from us, because they use the money to protect us against those who steal from us.
hughtub 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrDavidmacarthur 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hughtub ha ha ha that what they tell us .you guys really feed of sarcasm but you are funny :)
MrDavidmacarthur 2 months ago
I have a serious problem with the libertarian point of view.
Small government that imposes almost no taxes and uses that money to only defend us against external enemies and everything privatized is what has been going on for the last twenty years.
I fear the monopolistic corporations even more than the government. They can and will impose a tyranny much worse and they are answerable to no one.
Larkinchance 2 months ago
@Larkinchance Did you really just claim that small "government," that imposes almost no taxes, is what we've had for the past twenty years?? And you think we need "government" to exist, so it will protect us AGAINST giant corporations controlling everything? Sorry, but I can't imagine it being worthwhile to try to have a rational discussion with you. (P.S. I'm not a member of any political party, nor do I want anyone else to be.)
LarkenRose 2 months ago 5
@LarkenRose
Larken, most of the world is insane, and the more people that can be reached, the more likely the insanity will stop. What Larkin is saying is actually relatively sane. All that needs to be done is have a few pieces of the puzzle re-aligned. He's considerably easier to re-align, for example, than OWS protesters. Have you seen Schiff argue with them? It's a wonder that he didn't go insane!
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@LarkenRose
@LarkenRose
He said he would rather have government rather than corporations controlling us. There's the Bill of Rights protecting us from the government, as for the corporations? The only legal interest of a corporate 'person' is to make money, it's its only purpose, and it will not stop for anything. We need to remove lobbying and a stronger, smaller, government to protect us from capitalistic greed and control.
TehChiken 2 months ago
@TehChiken How, exactly, do you think corporations would control you without "government"? And what do you think "lobbying" is? It's people bribing the state to forcibly control other people. Incidentally, I bet you try to do that too; you're just upset that the thugs of "government" are doing their bidding, instead of yours. If you play the game of coercion-via-state, I have a hard time feeling sorry for you when someone else beats you at your own game. Do you advocate "taxation"?
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@LarkenRose I said smaller government, with a stronger respect towards our constitution and bill of right. I know there's absolutely no way a more branched out government would do anything, they would eventually be bought out.
TehChiken 2 months ago
@TehChiken You talk about "government" being "bought out," as if ANY "government" isn't. Whatever you want "government" to do, no matter how good it may sound, you are trying to influence those in power to use the violence of the state to serve your agenda. Everyone who votes is a "lobbyist" trying to "buy out" the politicians, in order to serve his own values and interests. People just call it "special interests" when the OTHER guy wins the fight over who can buy the state thugs.
LarkenRose 2 months ago 2
@LarkenRose I didn't talk about government as if NO government is ever bought out, a smaller government focusing ONLY on respecting our rights and protecting us only by power given by us, is a better government. There needs to be more power towards us and more recognition towards us.
...
TehChiken 2 months ago
@LarkenRose Violence of the state? Only when media gets into politics, and "pundits" influence people with anecdotes and other rhetoric, which causes the mass to become dumbed down, it's not only a government issue but also a social issue. A social PROBLEM created by the corporate 'person'. "Special interest" isn't a black and white issue as you make it out to be with your heating anecdote, our best interest wouldn't be international, nor violent, just a redirection of tax money usage.
TehChiken 2 months ago
@TehChiken A "redirection of tax money"? Where does "tax money" come from? How do they get it? By threaten people with harm if they don't pay up. Whatever YOU want paid for with money taken from me via threat of force is a "special interest." "Government" isn't just corruptible; it IS the corruption of humanity. No, "government" does not create civilization; it is the opposite of it. Civilization is peaceful coexistence. The state is the initiation of force.
LarkenRose 2 months ago 2
@LarkenRose You could be cynical and claim, that law enforcement and responsibility towards providing money for construction that provides a beneficent structure, is "force". Government isn't corruption, money is. One of the steps we have to take to get rid of government is to make a better government, then we educate, then we get rid of corruption, through education.
We can't have your smart idea without taking steps towards improving, gradually, the stupid idea.
TehChiken 2 months ago
@TehChiken It's not being "cynical"; it's identifying reality. "Taxation" is a demand for money, backed by a threat of force. You still don't understand what "government" is, because you still think there's such a thing as a good one, or at least a legitimate one. Whatever "government" you advocate, you are advocating the initiation of violence against innocents. That is why "government" IS corruption. (Real money is a medium of exchange. There's nothing inherently evil about it.)
LarkenRose 2 months ago 2
@LarkenRose So what did the founding fathers have in mind when creating this government?
TehChiken 2 months ago
@TehChiken "The founders" werw a group of people who didn't all believe or want the same things. The smartest among them, for example, were anti-federalists, and didn't LIKE the Constitution. Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, etc. What they attempted was a mixture of wisdom and lunacy. They tried to combine unalienable rights with the idea of a legitimate "government," which is logically bogus.
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@LarkenRose Rather than wars created corporations because they CAN do so. I'm just saying, a smaller government with no ties towards monetary lobbying would be less corruptible. A government creates something that is called, civilization. Like I said before, I would rather trust government than corporations.
Then again, without lobbying U.S businesses could just move. But aren't they already, illegally?
TehChiken 2 months ago
@Larkinchance
I have a serious problem with the libertarian point of view as well; the acceptance of any gov't is flawed. But corporations are not to be more feared than gov't. Corporations ARE gov't. Corporations cannot exist without gov't. They literally are a state entity, a person UNDER THE LAW. And where does the law come from? Gov't.
Why do you think they're answerable to no-one? Because they are of Gov't.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@Larkinchance LarkenRose is not a libertarian. He's an anarchist.
PluralOfEverything 2 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
He is anarcho-libertarian or to put it bluntly consistent libertarian. Minarcho-libertarians want free market everywhere except army, police and courts. If free market is such a good system, it does not make sense to exclude most important services from it.
zbigniewzapora 2 months ago
@zbigniewzapora
Anarchists do not hold a political position at all. That's like saying bald is a hair colour or not collecting stamps is a hobby.
TheCeejReturns 2 months ago
@TheCeejReturns
That depends on a definition of concepts: "political position" and "libertarianism".
zbigniewzapora 2 months ago
@zbigniewzapora
No it doesn't. The definition of anarchist negates having a political position.
TheCeejReturns 2 months ago
@PluralOfEverything I hate to burst the bubbles of those who refuse to give up statism, but "Libertarian party" is a contradiction. One cannot truly be a libertarian without being an anarchist, for the very simple reason that there cannot be a "government" that doesn't initiate violence. The non-aggression principle 100% rules out anything that deserves the label "government."
LarkenRose 2 months ago 17
@Larkinchance says "Government uses taxes to defend us against external enemies".
Does America have external enemies who were not provoked into résistance by external US imperialism?
John Bolton says all US Mid-East wars were all for Oil
/watch?v=uFbpKKOEnAE
NeoCon Psychopaths say it’s OK to murder 600,000 Muslims because their land holds 70% of World Oil Reserves. America has spent $8 TRILLON on Mid-East Wars. Do you have cheap Oil?
America has no enemy other than the US Govt
dreamdiction 2 months ago
In fact many of the largest corporations dwarf most governments. When they run out of free resources, they begin to prey on their customers. Soon there will not be anything left in the US except usuries banks, private prisons, casinos and homeless and hungry people.
Until you can address this little problem maybe I might join the libertarian party but until then, take your self satisfied ass and F*ck off.
Larkinchance 2 months ago
"It will change the way you see the world"
Larken, my girlfriend has been a Libertarian minarchist for years, and Iron Web plus MDS finally converted her. Thanks.
kylben 2 months ago
@kylben Woohoo! That's about my favorite thing in the world to hear. Glad I could be of service. Just about all of us were systematically programmed into the cult of statism. After my own prolonged, uncomfortable deprogramming, I'm just trying to help others make the journey a little more quickly and easily. Friends don't let friends advocate their own enslavement.
LarkenRose 2 months ago 2
While I do agree that involuntary, statist democracy is coercive, immoral, and stupid, I should point out that very few decisions made by modern governments are actually made democratically. Democracy in the US or Europe is a myth; what these countries have is oligarchy. I should also point out that voluntary democracy (in things like cooperatives, democratic workplaces, and trade unions) would likely increase under anarchy.
Other than that, great video!
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax
Democracy leads to oligarchy. See my Tyranny Is Constitutional:
watch?v=7JSjBl0H8qg
There is no such thing as "voluntary democracy". That's an oxymoron.
Democracy is assuming a percentage of one's income is owned in common, and can be voted on by the collective. It doesn't matter if you don't want in. You're in.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 On the contrary, democracy is just people's making decisions by majority rule. There's no reason this can't be done voluntarily. If you simply have voluntary institutions, such as businesses, unions, or cooperatives, that make decisions by majority rule; no one is forced to join them, but if one does join them, one has to abide by the will of the majority.
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"On the contrary, democracy is just people's making decisions by majority rule."
Exactly my point. Democracy is people making decisions about other people's money (stored effort) whether they like it or not (majority rule). I'm sorry, but I do not consent to being ruled by the majority. I like to self-rule and have voluntary (productive) interactions with people, and not be imposed by "the majority", thank you very much!
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 That's fine; under anarchy, you would be free to go live as an individual and not obey the collective. But if you choose to join a democratic collective (which I believe most businesses will be in a free market), you consent to the rule of the majority. No one is forcing you to join that collective, but it is still run democratically.
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"under anarchy, you would be free to go live as an individual and not obey the collective."
Anarchy is a very broad concept that can be either collectivist (socialist/statist) or freedom-oriented. Anarchism is not, by necessity, about freedom.
So, you're saying you don't have to join the collectives and can live out on your own or perhaps form your own? If that's the case, I rescind my other posts about this matter. I was thinking you were saying something different.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 I'm sorry, but how could anarchy be statist? Since one of the preconditions for anarchy is the absence of coercion, one could by definition never have a state. All anarchists, even anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-communists, oppose using coercion to establish their ideal societies. It is all based on free association. You can join communes and collectives if you want, or live in a more monetary society, but there is no state.
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"I'm sorry, but how could anarchy be statist?"
I know. Here's how: anarcho-communism, anarcho-socialism. Anything that involves "the proletariat smashing the state". The reason? Because that's the basis of the communist manifesto, and communism is the less diluted version of democracy -- democracy can be more fascistic because there's more double-think, and the fascism isn't as obvious right away. Communism sinks because it's more of a pure fascism.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 Um, what? Anarcho-communism isn't based on the communist manifesto, and it has nothing to do with fascism. The whole idea behind anarcho-communism is that people form voluntary communes and plan their economies through direct, decentralized democracy. No one is forced to join such a commune; people are free to continue living as they want without being members, but they don't reap the benefits.
QuatFax 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QuatFax
"Um, what? Anarcho-communism isn't based on the communist manifesto, and it has nothing to do with fascism."
You're right, anarcho-communism isn't based on the communist manifesto. It's based on the communist manifesto and socialist anti-capitalism. Take a look at what you've said:
"people form voluntary communes and plan their economies through direct, decentralized democracy."
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@QuatFax
The communist manifesto is about the "proletariat" "taking back" "the means of production" -- i.e., stealing the means of production from those who are producing.
That's the "decentralized democracy". And actually, it's not even about stealing from those who are producing.
The "anarcho" part is about the "voluntary" communes aspect. It takes both of these to form the full picture:
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 The proletariat are not stealing the means of production if those means never legitimately belonged to the bourgeoisie. I suggest you read Kevin Carson or listen to Stefan Molyneux; it's pretty clear that the vast majority of corporations and of the rich are so wealthy only because the government actively supports them.
Anarcho-communism is voluntary. It does not require the use of force; it merely requires non-violent protests (especially boycotts) and the abolition of the state
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"The proletariat are not stealing the means of production if those means never legitimately belonged to the bourgeoisie."
That's both true and false. Many of the bourgeoisie went for the bailouts - they accepted stolen money. But not all of them did. Unless you distinguish between the two groups, you're little better than the statist thieves.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"I suggest you read Kevin Carson or listen to Stefan Molyneux"
I've listened to stefbot a lot over the past 2 years. I'm subbed to him. And fringe. And JacobSpinney, ladyattis, StormCloudsGathering, Stargazer5781, and so forth. And I've focused myself with arguing about this stuff for the last 2 years as well. I've also read The Communist Manifesto and spent a considerable amount of time trying to make sense of it. I've come to understand its perspective (I think), and why it's flawed.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"it's pretty clear that the vast majority of corporations and of the rich are so wealthy only because the government actively supports them."
Then you're probably also aware that the way that those corporations have become so wealthy via gov't has been a combination of more regulations, increased taxation, and bailouts. And unless you stop these - and focus on this vital aspect - you might as well not bother. It doesn't matter if you "take it back" if you leave the system in place.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"Anarcho-communism is voluntary. It does not require the use of force; it merely requires non-violent protests (especially boycotts) and the abolition of the state"
I'd love for you to try out anarcho-communism. The reason you can't do that is because there is statism. The solution to statism is not non-violent protests, and the only reason the state exists is taxation. Explain to people why taxation is theft, is illegitimate, and the state falls. It is only kept up with belief.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 Where are you getting this idea that I'm not against statism? I absolutely am; I've been advocating against statism for years! I regularly explain to people why taxation is theft and why the state is illegitimate. I'm not arguing that here because clearly you are ALSO against statism, so what's the point?
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"Where are you getting this idea that I'm not against statism?"
You're an anarcho-communist, are you not? Generally, anarcho-communists attack capitalism, mistaking corporatism as being one and the same with it. This could not be more counter-productive. It's what the OWS people are doing. Attacking capitalism is little different from being a statist.
Perhaps I have the wrong idea. I would be gladly corrected.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 Actually, I'm more of a Mutualist, though I do have anarcho-communist leanings. And when anarcho-communists attack "capitalism," they define that as a system of large, oligopolistic corporations controlling everything (I assume this is what you mean by "corporatism"). Social anarchists generally differentiate between "capitalism" and "the free market." Capitalism is what we have now; the free market is what we will have in the absence of the state.
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"Capitalism is what we have now; the free market is what we will have in the absence of the state."
No, capitalism is exactly what we do not have now. The free market IS capitalism.
"And when anarcho-communists attack "capitalism," they define that as a system of large, oligopolistic corporations controlling everything"
So, they define capitalism as statism/democracy.
"I'm more of a Mutualist"
What does that label mean?
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 "The free market IS capitalism"
Again, that's semantics. The term capitalism was coined by early socialists to mean a system of oligopolies. In modern times, it has come into use as a synonym for "free market," but socialists maintain the original use.
"they define capitalism as statism/democracy"
They do define it as statism; they do NOT define it as democracy. Democracy is not consistent with oligopoly at all; indeed, they counteract each other.
QuatFax 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 Mutualism is the earliest theory of anarchism, developed by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. It refers to a system of free market socialism, in which the state and hierarchical corporations are abolished in favor of worker coops and individual proprietorships. Mutualism is also a theory of property in which ownership is based on occupancy and use. Really, if you don't know what Mutualism is, you can hardly call yourself an anarchist.
QuatFax 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 So no, anarcho-communists are most certainly NOT statists. You are simply mistaking their semantics.
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax One more quick nitpick about terms. Suppose someone described himself as an "anarcho-Christian." (I know some who do.) Or "anarcho-vegetarian." It seems weird to make it one term, like "anarcho-guy-who-likes-sudokus." Fine, two things about the guy, but what's the connect between the two? The part about "anarcho" has to do with which kind of ruling class (none, in our case) someone condones. I think what people hope happens without that is an entirely separate issue.
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"You are simply mistaking their semantics."
I really don't know. They don't seem to have anything BESIDES semantics.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 What does that mean? Of course they have "anything besides semantics." They have pages and pages of theories about how society could function under voluntarist communism. You continue to misrepresent anarcho-communism as statist and irrational, and I still fail to see why. It's just a theory about how people should organize themselves in the absence of coercion; if you don't happen to agree with it, fine, but don't dismiss it as just another attempt to re-establish statism!
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax This may sound odd, but if you don't intend to FORCE anyone into the types of arrangements you HOPE people will make--even if they look like democratic communes--that actually makes you an anarcho-capitalist. If, for example, you would allow me and others to do the usual capitalist, free-trade routine, without forcible interference, that would be a "market" free of state intervention, i.e., capitalism. What either of us wants people to do afterwards is almost irrelevant.
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@LarkenRose In a sense you're right, but it depends on semantics. Most of us on the left would define "capitalism" as the system of large, oligopolistic corporations that currently dominates the U.S., Japan, and Europe; this system, of course, is not the product of the free market. If you define "capitalism" and "free market" as synonyms, then in that sense I am a "capitalist," but I, and history, define it differently.
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax Yeah, "capitalism" has been used to mean free exchange, and giant corporate fascism--sort of looney to use the same word to mean both. But then, "anarchy" has been used to mean "no ruling class" and "chaos and mayhem." Gee, I wonder whose agenda that serves. Anyway, I'm quite sure you and I would have no trouble getting along, even if we have different views on ideal economics.
LarkenRose 2 months ago 21
@LarkenRose Definitely we wouldn't have a problem. I really appreciate your videos, by the way. You make your points really well!
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax Agreed, although right now I feel like I'm eavesdropping.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@LarkenRose I should also point out that it's more than hoping people will make these arrangements. Anarcho-socialists like myself would organize people into democratic communes and worker cooperatives, and would encourage them to boycott more hierarchical forms of business. Now, in a sense we are still "hoping," since we can't force anyone to join us, but it's not as if we'd just sit on the sidelines and say "whatever the market produces on its own works best."
QuatFax 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 Yes, and anarcho-communists (and all anarcho-socialists, for that matter) DO focus on the way that the government keeps the rich rich. Abolishing the state and all its privileges is absolutely a foundational goal of anarcho-socialism. It's not our ONLY goal, but it certainly is of enormous importance for us.
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"Abolishing the state and all its privileges is absolutely a foundational goal of anarcho-socialism."
Getting rid of the state is my only goal. You get rid of the state through attacking the assumption that taxation is a necessity. That is the only thing you need to do. With taxation out of the picture, everything else falls into place.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@SomethingSea1 First of all, just explaining to people that taxation is evil won't destroy the state. Even if you can convince them, they still may not be willing to stand up to the state and stop paying taxes or following the laws. You have to build a movement, and organize people. If individuals just stop paying their taxes, the state will suppress them; if large segments of the population stop paying their taxes at the same time, the state will fall apart.
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"First of all, just explaining to people that taxation is evil won't destroy the state."
Taxation is not evil. Taxation is theft. And yes, if people no longer believe in the necessity of taxation, the state will collapse.
"Even if you can convince them, they still may not be willing to stand up to the state and stop paying taxes or following the laws."
The only state you need to stand up to is the your own state of mind regarding taxation.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"You have to build a movement, and organize people."
No, you don't. People organize themselves based on what they want. It's the same way the free market works. People are naturally free-market-oriented, voluntarily and selfishly driven. Do you want your resources taken from you without your consent? No? Guess what: neither do other people.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago
@QuatFax
"If individuals just stop paying their taxes, the state will suppress them"
That is called the marginal state. Yes, when the chaos maker can no longer fool people, it will show its true colors. And? Yes, it's scary. What would you prefer - a continuing depression and poverty, or people realizing that a few corporatists have stolen from them and not supporting them anymore? No, not a violent revolution. A pathetic whimper.
SomethingSea1 2 months ago