This seems like such upside-down thinking to me. But it's nice to get a clearer sense of how the other side thinks about these things, even if it does come from a cartoon giraffe.
@josta59 - What's upside-down about not wanting a private bureaucrat between me and the market? What's upside-down about wanting to have a say in decisions to the degree that I am effected by those decisions? What's upside-down about wanting democracy and not an unaccountable and hierarchical capitalist class? I'm simply echoing classical anarchism.
@Vote3rdParty Classical anarchism has always seemed upside-down to me. How can you expect every single person in a society to share their surplus with their unfortunate neighbor without any incentive or way to enforce it? Government provides the enforcement, while capitalism provides the incentive. One is violent, the other peaceful. Free-market anarchism has a solution for every problem, while classical anarchism seems to ignore all potential problems. It seems like a false religion to me.
@josta59 - You must have missed the point I made in this video that government welfare is only needed because of the wrath of capitalism. In a society where everyone has a right to a job and income, no such programs are needed. What is really backwards is "anarcho"-capitalism which entails unaccountable private control over the means of production, which has never existed without the state. Without government, private property doesn't even exist.
@Vote3rdParty I think I understand what you're saying, I just completely disagree with all of it. Hard to even talk about it when we seem to have no common ground at all. Maybe let's start with the private property issue. I would like to understand why you think private property doesn't exist without government. Maybe that will help. And secondly, are you against ownership of property? If so, why?
@josta59 - Private property is a "right." A right is a privilege protected and enforced by government whether voluntary or statist. You claim people have no right to income while claiming people have a right to property. Seems like a contradiction to me.
@Vote3rdParty You think the 'government" protects peoples rights? Is that what theyre doing when theyre demanding everyones obedience, money, and property under threat of violence?
@Vote3rdParty You dont have a right to a job. To say that is to say you have the right to be employed by someone else.. quite simply, if someone has to give you something, it's not your right, and claiming it is is claiming the other person is your slave. You have the right to go out and create, claim, or trade for property. To try to be self-sufficient. If a human goes out and creates a farm... the only "government" that's needed is self-government.
@josta59 "Classical anarchists" are basically communists. Their views on law" and "
the state" are sound... but then when it comes to property they lose it. They say they dont believe in ruling people, or owning.. but then they say "nobody can have private because it's theft.." theft from who? the people who don't own it? it's just a bunch of contradictory double-think nonsense. Whoever says "you cant have it" is just claiming to own it. commies just claim to own every inchofearth
@Vote3rdParty If you dont want a "private bureaucrat" between you and the market.. get your own property and means of production....o.O You are echoing communism... And making about as much sense as they do.
You are quite incorrect. Firms don't stand between consumers and the market. Consumers and firms ARE the market! The outside man is the government - an entity which owns and produces nothing, and is thus reliant upon taxation (theft.)
@SeamusLight93 - I never said businesses stand between us and the market, I said private dictators do. We are the government, or at least we should be in theory. Of course the flowing of money from the PRIVATE sector into our free market political system is privatizing our fucking government as well. Wake up!
Your "private dictators" are boogeymen. What we have in this country is corporatism - governments intervening in the private sphere to allocate resources necessary to carry out programs.
You assume that corporations need government - they don't. The free market doesn't need government to survive and prosper, but government needs the productivity of firms. We can eliminate monopoly by eliminating corporatism - government's ability to enact corporatist policy.
@SeamusLight93 - Do you have a fucking brain? A free market economy has never existed without the state protecting the free market's illegitimate monopolies over the workforce. If there is, please name a single anarcho-capitalist economy that has ever existed. Thieves are my boogeymen, not we the people who work for a living.
Yeah, we do have corporatism, which is laissez faire privatization of the government.
Monopolies can't exist without the state protecting them. Like the housing bubble, the government was keeping interest rates artificially low, boosting Fannie and Freddie more than would be possible in a free market. That's why when prices went down, equity was wiped out. And you have no idea what laissez-faire means, apparently.
As for anarcho-capitalist societies: ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part18
@SeamusLight93 - Exactly, monopolies don't exist without state protection, and the free market by definition is a monopoly over the workforce. What do you expect from the government on Fannie & Freddie? To disobey their capitalist masters? They will surely be punished in our free market MONEY = POWER political system. Laissez faire means total state tyranny, historically.
Your link doesn't work jackass. And private property, like any other right, doesn't exist without the government.
This fuckers don't want to admit that the state prevents them to destroy themselves. They confuse state with socialism.. but socialism in many countries labor as the right balance to continue the legalize theft they do daily... is like a mafia..their taxes are the protection the mafia/state gives them to keep the profiting.
you know it buddies... you know, i am not afraid of anarchocapitalism, it will fall in 12 seconds after it's implementation with great cost of human lives. I guess anarcho-capitalist need police to contain people to raise or not? well, not too anarchic then. Free market it is impossible to implement without the state working for them. they are much more utopian than communist, socialists, or whatever collectivism imagined.
I find myself eternally frustrated with many of the conclusions drawn by my anarcho-capitalist friends, and indeed the propaganda upon which they base their religious hatred of democratic institutions. They do the world no good, and, as Chomsky put it, their politics will receive "the well-merited contempt of people who do not have the luxury to disregard the circumstances in which they live, and try to survive."
@PurpleHoneyBear - Shhhh! Remember, the free market and capitalism are completely different things! lol...
I actually find Randites smarter than Rothbardians because at least Randites realize their legalized theft has never existed and will never exist without a state or voluntarily. Or at least a lot of them realize this. Many randites are also ripe for becoming Rothbardians.
@Vote3rdParty Good observation. There's a bizarre cult-like worship of Rothbard. Have you noticed this? He had some important insights about a few topics, but his "anarcho-capitalist" ideas are frightening. He thought it was viable to let parents sell their children if they didn't want them, because he thought that this was better than state custody. This is how they think. Sell children on "the free market" because we couldn't possibly look at instead reforming present institutions.
@PurpleHoneyBear - All these right-wingers say some fucked up shit that exposes the extremism of their ideology. Like Ayn Rands statements that the colonial invasion and conquering of America was justified. I think the anarcho-capitalists are succeeding, at least on youtube, of creating the perception that they are true anarchists. Most of the time when I say I'm for anarcho-socialism it requires much explaining and it gets very frustrating. Same with the term libertarian. Fuck bastardization!
@Vote3rdParty Excellent points. Ayn Rand also supported Israel, brushing the Palestinians off as backwater religious tribals. I tend to agree that the culture is stuck in the stone age to a large extent, but that she would pick Israel's side in that conflict shows her utter lack of humanitarian sense. She was a classic sociopath.
Chomsky complained in an interview not long ago about how some sort of "objectivist" organization was designing lesson plans for Boston schools. Horrifying.
@PurpleHoneyBear - Seems like siding with lighter-skinned folk is what Ayn Rand did best. These right -"libertarians" are philosophical psychopaths. Their ideology requires for you to be numb to people's needs.
Interesting about those lesson plans. Did they want to try and brainwash progressives into being objectivists? As a Bostonian I'm glad I didn't have to sit through that propaganda.
@PurpleHoneyBear Ayn Rand also supported so-called "limited government-" a completely nonsensical, contradictory delusion. She was a statist.
And Chomsky is a "libertarian socialist.." what, like a "free slave" ? It's another contradiction. Liberty is liberty. Socialism is the state forcing you into collectivism.
@redbloodblackflag Libertarian socialist is not a contradiction. Your definition of socialism is not shared by libertarian socialists. This has been rehashed so many times.
@Vote3rdParty And now I await the hordes of Mordor as they descend upon me. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred."
@PurpleHoneyBear "democratic institutions." 1. What the hell kind of anarchist supports democracy? Democracy is a form of "government." 2. Logic is logic. socialism is "collective ownership of means of production." It will result in an external 'authority,' "the collective," ordering everyone on the commune about. It's a contradiction. If you want to collectivize, what is stopping you? surely not your right to property.
@redbloodblackflag - What the hell kind of libertarian or anarchist supports dictatorships? Direct democracy and anarchism are completely compatible. Perhaps that's why all classical anarchists are for democracy. It's anarchism and dictatorships over the means of production, land, food, and water that is not compatible with anarchism. In a world with limited resources, these resources must be shared and controlled by the people, not private or hierarchical elites.
Comment removed
redbloodblackflag 2 days ago
There is a major misunderstanding of free market capitalism, confused with corporatism, with the absence of popular sovereignty.
jaygillette71 2 months ago
Everybody on this page is crazy.
8bitRicky 2 months ago
This seems like such upside-down thinking to me. But it's nice to get a clearer sense of how the other side thinks about these things, even if it does come from a cartoon giraffe.
josta59 4 months ago
@josta59 - What's upside-down about not wanting a private bureaucrat between me and the market? What's upside-down about wanting to have a say in decisions to the degree that I am effected by those decisions? What's upside-down about wanting democracy and not an unaccountable and hierarchical capitalist class? I'm simply echoing classical anarchism.
Vote3rdParty 3 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Classical anarchism has always seemed upside-down to me. How can you expect every single person in a society to share their surplus with their unfortunate neighbor without any incentive or way to enforce it? Government provides the enforcement, while capitalism provides the incentive. One is violent, the other peaceful. Free-market anarchism has a solution for every problem, while classical anarchism seems to ignore all potential problems. It seems like a false religion to me.
josta59 3 months ago
@josta59 - You must have missed the point I made in this video that government welfare is only needed because of the wrath of capitalism. In a society where everyone has a right to a job and income, no such programs are needed. What is really backwards is "anarcho"-capitalism which entails unaccountable private control over the means of production, which has never existed without the state. Without government, private property doesn't even exist.
Vote3rdParty 3 months ago
@Vote3rdParty I think I understand what you're saying, I just completely disagree with all of it. Hard to even talk about it when we seem to have no common ground at all. Maybe let's start with the private property issue. I would like to understand why you think private property doesn't exist without government. Maybe that will help. And secondly, are you against ownership of property? If so, why?
josta59 3 months ago
@josta59 - Private property is a "right." A right is a privilege protected and enforced by government whether voluntary or statist. You claim people have no right to income while claiming people have a right to property. Seems like a contradiction to me.
Vote3rdParty 3 months ago
@Vote3rdParty You think the 'government" protects peoples rights? Is that what theyre doing when theyre demanding everyones obedience, money, and property under threat of violence?
redbloodblackflag 3 days ago
@Vote3rdParty You dont have a right to a job. To say that is to say you have the right to be employed by someone else.. quite simply, if someone has to give you something, it's not your right, and claiming it is is claiming the other person is your slave. You have the right to go out and create, claim, or trade for property. To try to be self-sufficient. If a human goes out and creates a farm... the only "government" that's needed is self-government.
redbloodblackflag 3 days ago
@josta59 "Classical anarchists" are basically communists. Their views on law" and "
the state" are sound... but then when it comes to property they lose it. They say they dont believe in ruling people, or owning.. but then they say "nobody can have private because it's theft.." theft from who? the people who don't own it? it's just a bunch of contradictory double-think nonsense. Whoever says "you cant have it" is just claiming to own it. commies just claim to own every inchofearth
redbloodblackflag 3 days ago
@Vote3rdParty If you dont want a "private bureaucrat" between you and the market.. get your own property and means of production....o.O You are echoing communism... And making about as much sense as they do.
redbloodblackflag 3 days ago
You are quite incorrect. Firms don't stand between consumers and the market. Consumers and firms ARE the market! The outside man is the government - an entity which owns and produces nothing, and is thus reliant upon taxation (theft.)
SeamusLight93 4 months ago
@SeamusLight93 - I never said businesses stand between us and the market, I said private dictators do. We are the government, or at least we should be in theory. Of course the flowing of money from the PRIVATE sector into our free market political system is privatizing our fucking government as well. Wake up!
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty
Your "private dictators" are boogeymen. What we have in this country is corporatism - governments intervening in the private sphere to allocate resources necessary to carry out programs.
You assume that corporations need government - they don't. The free market doesn't need government to survive and prosper, but government needs the productivity of firms. We can eliminate monopoly by eliminating corporatism - government's ability to enact corporatist policy.
SeamusLight93 4 months ago
@SeamusLight93 - Do you have a fucking brain? A free market economy has never existed without the state protecting the free market's illegitimate monopolies over the workforce. If there is, please name a single anarcho-capitalist economy that has ever existed. Thieves are my boogeymen, not we the people who work for a living.
Yeah, we do have corporatism, which is laissez faire privatization of the government.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty
I'm sorry, but you're being willfully stupid.
Monopolies can't exist without the state protecting them. Like the housing bubble, the government was keeping interest rates artificially low, boosting Fannie and Freddie more than would be possible in a free market. That's why when prices went down, equity was wiped out. And you have no idea what laissez-faire means, apparently.
As for anarcho-capitalist societies: ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part18
Now go fuck yourself.
SeamusLight93 4 months ago
@SeamusLight93 - Exactly, monopolies don't exist without state protection, and the free market by definition is a monopoly over the workforce. What do you expect from the government on Fannie & Freddie? To disobey their capitalist masters? They will surely be punished in our free market MONEY = POWER political system. Laissez faire means total state tyranny, historically.
Your link doesn't work jackass. And private property, like any other right, doesn't exist without the government.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
All capitalism = legalized theft
LiberalJerseyman 5 months ago
This fuckers don't want to admit that the state prevents them to destroy themselves. They confuse state with socialism.. but socialism in many countries labor as the right balance to continue the legalize theft they do daily... is like a mafia..their taxes are the protection the mafia/state gives them to keep the profiting.
sicoticosandro 5 months ago 2
you know it buddies... you know, i am not afraid of anarchocapitalism, it will fall in 12 seconds after it's implementation with great cost of human lives. I guess anarcho-capitalist need police to contain people to raise or not? well, not too anarchic then. Free market it is impossible to implement without the state working for them. they are much more utopian than communist, socialists, or whatever collectivism imagined.
sicoticosandro 5 months ago 2
Bravo!
I find myself eternally frustrated with many of the conclusions drawn by my anarcho-capitalist friends, and indeed the propaganda upon which they base their religious hatred of democratic institutions. They do the world no good, and, as Chomsky put it, their politics will receive "the well-merited contempt of people who do not have the luxury to disregard the circumstances in which they live, and try to survive."
PurpleHoneyBear 5 months ago 2
@PurpleHoneyBear - Shhhh! Remember, the free market and capitalism are completely different things! lol...
I actually find Randites smarter than Rothbardians because at least Randites realize their legalized theft has never existed and will never exist without a state or voluntarily. Or at least a lot of them realize this. Many randites are also ripe for becoming Rothbardians.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago 2
@Vote3rdParty Good observation. There's a bizarre cult-like worship of Rothbard. Have you noticed this? He had some important insights about a few topics, but his "anarcho-capitalist" ideas are frightening. He thought it was viable to let parents sell their children if they didn't want them, because he thought that this was better than state custody. This is how they think. Sell children on "the free market" because we couldn't possibly look at instead reforming present institutions.
PurpleHoneyBear 5 months ago 2
@PurpleHoneyBear - All these right-wingers say some fucked up shit that exposes the extremism of their ideology. Like Ayn Rands statements that the colonial invasion and conquering of America was justified. I think the anarcho-capitalists are succeeding, at least on youtube, of creating the perception that they are true anarchists. Most of the time when I say I'm for anarcho-socialism it requires much explaining and it gets very frustrating. Same with the term libertarian. Fuck bastardization!
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Excellent points. Ayn Rand also supported Israel, brushing the Palestinians off as backwater religious tribals. I tend to agree that the culture is stuck in the stone age to a large extent, but that she would pick Israel's side in that conflict shows her utter lack of humanitarian sense. She was a classic sociopath.
Chomsky complained in an interview not long ago about how some sort of "objectivist" organization was designing lesson plans for Boston schools. Horrifying.
PurpleHoneyBear 5 months ago 4
@PurpleHoneyBear - Seems like siding with lighter-skinned folk is what Ayn Rand did best. These right -"libertarians" are philosophical psychopaths. Their ideology requires for you to be numb to people's needs.
Interesting about those lesson plans. Did they want to try and brainwash progressives into being objectivists? As a Bostonian I'm glad I didn't have to sit through that propaganda.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@PurpleHoneyBear Ayn Rand also supported so-called "limited government-" a completely nonsensical, contradictory delusion. She was a statist.
And Chomsky is a "libertarian socialist.." what, like a "free slave" ? It's another contradiction. Liberty is liberty. Socialism is the state forcing you into collectivism.
redbloodblackflag 3 days ago
@redbloodblackflag Libertarian socialist is not a contradiction. Your definition of socialism is not shared by libertarian socialists. This has been rehashed so many times.
PurpleHoneyBear 3 days ago
@Vote3rdParty And now I await the hordes of Mordor as they descend upon me. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred."
PurpleHoneyBear 5 months ago 2
@PurpleHoneyBear "democratic institutions." 1. What the hell kind of anarchist supports democracy? Democracy is a form of "government." 2. Logic is logic. socialism is "collective ownership of means of production." It will result in an external 'authority,' "the collective," ordering everyone on the commune about. It's a contradiction. If you want to collectivize, what is stopping you? surely not your right to property.
redbloodblackflag 2 days ago
@redbloodblackflag - What the hell kind of libertarian or anarchist supports dictatorships? Direct democracy and anarchism are completely compatible. Perhaps that's why all classical anarchists are for democracy. It's anarchism and dictatorships over the means of production, land, food, and water that is not compatible with anarchism. In a world with limited resources, these resources must be shared and controlled by the people, not private or hierarchical elites.
Vote3rdParty 3 hours ago