Anarcho-Capitalism is essentially how America began. What you see today is the natural development of humans acting under relative free choice. Capitalism has always been the default position of human societies.
One weakness of Anarcho-Communism is the abolishment of private property, which has been the foundation of human rights for over 500 years. When individual rights are eliminated, bureaucracy naturally takes over. The vision is beautiful, but the process is coercive.
Your comment is academically dishonest Anarcho-communism and other radical leftist ideologies rarely prohibit private property the basis is public ownership of the means of production. Even Marx in his manifesto specifically states that people should be able to keep their houses and personal possessions. But the purpose of this video is not to advocate for anarcho communism it is to show that Anarcho Capitalism has been and would be terrible.
@poleske :To add to that yes, our nation started off relatively anarcho-capitalist. Our success as a nation has been because we reformed this. AKA... labor law assuring people have decent work not child labor and sweatshops..... laws preventing the wholesale destruction of our environment;... laws assuring our food is safe... public education and libraries... well maintained roads and infrastructure. ANCAP only worked "for some" when there was a seemingly endless western frontier to exploit
@poleske I don't believe in a purely capitalist system. It is possible for capitalist activity to infringe on the opportunity of others, which is against the spirit of liberty and should be against the law.
Reforms have led to both good and bad things. You ones you mention here are mostly good. It is how we learn, and we still haven't gotten it right yet. Regulating markets is defiantly an important function of government.
I've been very interested in monetary reform currently.=)
@poleske I understand the vision of Marx. I simply think that collective ownership of production leads to bureaucratic control of resources; a central planning model. How can property rights be guaranteed if you have no means to acquire property? The state would need to "issue" property to you which limits choice and freedom, imo.
@poleske As far as Anarcho-Capitalism. Does anyone seriously advocate anarchy? I lean towards libertarianism though. I think most decisions (education, healthcare, unemployment) should be made closer to home (The States).
The role of the Federal government is to regulate the free-market, set legal precedent when the states can't handle it, and wage war.
Currently the Fed consumes about 2/3 of the tax base, the States 1/3. I'd like to see those ratios reversed. =)
(cont. 3). I suspect that in general we would have these regional monopolies (particularly capital intensive industries) who would employ all kinds of economically wasteful strategies to keep their position. Strikingly similar in fact to a sort of feudalism.
Then again, perhaps the very wealthy may use their leverage to consolidate as much power as possible, particularly with the technological capabilities they have today which makes it feasible.
(cont. 2) The situation is one which is familiar to my fellow old enough Senior Quebeckers. A situation where you have regional firms imperfectly competing with one another (in Quebec it was electricity). The result is that average total costs where high due to coordination inefficiency with the local grids, and investment was low due to limited capital pools and access, & prices were high most of time.
On another note, a situation of high scale economies markets with no regulation, actually have different, yet all undesirable resultant possibilities. One is a situation similar to what you describe: One with a few regionally dominant firms gouging most if not all customers (individuals and businesses) & offering a poor service. This possible through scale, which enables enough concentrated wealth to pursue virtue of mergers, trusts, predatory takeover, predatory pricing, etc.)
Small note: The technical term is not monopolistic competition as that refers to to a market between perfect competition and oligopoly (A misnomer in my opinion, but hey, don't want want to confuse those attached to convention do we).
Anarcho-communism is terrible. "At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism," an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity." Rothbard
@timothypaulrayakatim Did I mention communism once in this videos? Have I promoted communism once in any of my videos? This video is a logical argument for why Anarcho-capitalism is terrible. If you disagree with my assertion you can attempt to challenge one of my points.
@timothypaulrayakatim Who ever said that a single system was perfect? First of all, anarcho-capitalism would collapse in 5 minutes. Also, exploitation isn't intellectual superiority. I believe in economic equality up to an extent. Relative economic equality does not hold back individualism nearly as much an anarcho-capitalism does. In anarcho-capitalism, the less intelligent (who are individuals), have to submit themselves to menial jobs. In fact, economic equality does not
@timothypaulrayakatim hold back individualism much at all. In libertarian communism, it would protect the individuality of the maybe less practical and exploitative person. Intellectuals would be able to extend themselves through their creations. And individuals would be able to own houses, and personal goods, and consumer goods. The only thing being collectively owned is the means of production. It would be possible in libertarian communism for an individual to work harder
@timothypaulrayakatim and benefit himself. But the problem with your individualism is that the real value of the individual can't be determined by just them. The reason why they are successful is because of environmental factors, too, not just because they are intellectual people. The most dangerous thing about anarcho-capitalism is the detrimental affects on the environment that it would have. And "green capitalism" has been refuted over and over again. There are essays
@timothypaulrayakatim about it all over the internet. The bottom line is that every system exploits the individuality of everyone in some way. It is impossible to avoid it.
Another point they missed in the subject video is confusing the role of the government in banks. Government outsources banking in the Federal Reserve Act. So the most important function of government is in the realm of the "free market". Of course it is really a monopoly granted by government but undoing government still leaves the bankers holding our debt as an asset. Magically delete government and you still have these people with a legitimate claim to the taxes now paid.
If anarcho capitalists have their way we would be run completely by corporations and their private police forces. This is why the neo-cons did as much as they could to out source military security.
We would not have a community of small producers we would have more monopoly. You are absolutely correct. Government has a role- The first regulated is the first protected but: government is not the cause of market concentration.
@greenghost2008 1) Wages are only set by supply and demand in certain third world countries such as the free trade zones I have made links to. Wages in developed countries are far higher than they would be were the labor-market unregulated.
2) It is universally accepted by economists that when there are economies of scale that monopolistic competition will naturally develop.
Your the one who doesn't know anything about economics. You wouldn't have said what you said about wages if you realized that wages are set by supply and demand and that monopolies can only come about if government enforces one.
@twochordcool That doesn't make it a monopoly. That's market domination. If apple starts charging to much and giving a crappy product they will lose market domination. period. A monopoly has to have some kind of coercive force behind it to enforce it.
@greenghost2008 Market domination IS a monopoly. No coercion necessary. DEFINITION: "(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; 'a monopoly on silver'; 'when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like' exclusive control or possession of something; 'They have no monopoly on intelligence'"
@twochordcool untill moment somone else starts selling silver... Such a monopoly wouldn't last if their were several sources of silver. The moment such a business starts to give to high a price for to low a quality the monopoly is over. It doesn't seem possible for a monopoly to stay in power unless it is doing a very good job. The only reason standard oil got 90 percent market share was because they were bring the whole human race further. Rockfeller was the hero and FDR was the villian.
@greenghost2008 Aren't you a college student? and a native English speaker? There is no excuse for butchering the English language the way you have.
Regardless of whether it was a good thing or a bad thing you seem to agree that Standard Oil was able to become a monopoly without any government assistance.
Looking at the facts one can assume that Standard Oil would have been able to dominate the market were there no government at all.
@poleske yes but if standard oil were to jack up their prices to a ridculous amount to seel crappy oil they'd go out of business very fast. there was no need to break them up. That was not a monopoly. It was market domination. a just situation.
@poleske I never said FDR enacted the Sherman Anti-trust act. That only proves anti-capitalist stuff had been enacted before FDR was pres. Your the one who seems to be ignorant and just regurgitating talking points of the left and the keyensians.
It becomes much harder to like when all your comments are recorded. That is why true anarchists are always for open discussion and those on the right always look for ways to restrict it
I will refer to the comment you made two days ago
*... Rockfeller was the hero and FDR was the villian."
@poleske I meant it and still do. I thought of something, if all works are paid just enough to survive who will buy he companies products? I'm with the whole foods guy, business isn't completely about profit, I don't think docters become doctors ONLY for money. Although I still think self-interest is cool.
As far as FDR goes I can assume you meant TR because you were referencing something that happened when FDR was a little child
1) Yes that is true, less money in the hands of consumers leads to less consumer spending. That is what led to the first great depression. After Reagan&Thatcher that spending would continue as worker/consumers would keep up their spending by going into debt.
That is why the US&UK have such high levels of consumer debt.
@poleske Now with the issue of workers/consumers not having enough money to buy the products they produce. That isn't really the concern of a business owner. The more desperate workers are the better they are for their owners.
A business is an organization created for the purpose of generating profit. That is the basis of our economic system.
A doctor isn't a business man, a doctor is a worker. A doctor can own a business but being a doctor doesn't make one a capitalist.
@poleske un-restricted capitalism has always resulted in boom-bust economies, By virtue of having more you are able to get more. By exploiting the resources of an area, both human and natural you are able to drain those resources, leaving the area barren.
To the capitalist this doesn't matter. You leave with liquidity which you can re-invest somewhere else.
Look at what happened in places like Allentown, Butte, Gary and Detroit.
Like I said I think that you do not understand Anarcho-Capitalism. You are comparing Capitalism / Protectivism today with Anarcho-Capitalism - You need to check your premise.
While I can not force you to read something other than Ayn Rand I should insist you watch the entire video. I am describing how state capitalism is BETTER than anarcho-capitalism. Most government regulation of industry protects common people and state capitalism does look like it will improve in terms of acting as a moral enforcer. Of course I am an anarchist and I hate state capitalism but that doesn't mean I will immediately accept a more oppressive system.
Hey MORON, Anarcho-capitalist don't follow Rand... those are objectivist. Straw man much?
I've seen this a million times, so called "real" anarchist who are really socialist trying to cover there deep seeded need for a state to protect them because of there victim hood mentality. Of course the state will always be there worst abusers.
Arguing with people like you is impossible... you cant detach from your mentality long enough to critically and objectively consider any facts or arguments.
I didn't mention Rand once in my video. Only responding to an Anarcho-Capitalist who seems to have an almost religious attachment to her.
My video describes Anarcho-Capitalism and how it is worse than State-Capitalism.
You haven't adressed a single issue on the video. I distinctly said I don't want to argue semantics. I am not even advocating anything just advocating against what I see as a very misleading utopic political ideology that is very dangerious.
This is the typical answer of ancaps to any destruction of their logic. Anarcho-Capitalism= no libraries, no public hospitals, no public transportation, no public schools.....
You simply make vauge propagandist statements.
I believe political discussion is important but that you are simply wasing space with a poor atempt at sophism. If you believe my description of anarcho capitalism is eronious you should correct it.
At 5:31 you dont want to join a movement that will take things that you all ready have now. Anarcho-Capitalism does not do this. Socialism does and so does Statism.
I don't want to join a movement that takes from me public education, socialized medicine, libraries, manditory wages and conditions, food if I am starving, shelter if I am desporate, at least some nature in the form of national parks, It was a strugle for people to force the state to provide such things.
Not to mention a State that I have some controll over so I am generally protected from those who would use violence to extort me.
There is only one fundamental right - the right to life - from which all other rights including the right to liberty, the right to property and the right to pursue one's own happiness derive.
Wow.... you know, ... this fanatic obsession with Rand does not make Ancaps seem any less terrible.....
They have found a way to get all the closed minded, irrational and anti-logical fanaticism of religion....(quoting an author as though the words stated by said author were divine and unquestionable)
along with the coldheartedness of atheistic capitalism.
You see a rational capitalist would realize the main theme of this video is I strongly disagree with people like Ayn Rand
That has nothing to do with Aristotle or individualism. This is just empty rhetoric of rand. The idea that people have a right to be alive is rediculous because we only regard people as people when they are alived. The idea of a dead person having rights is rediculous as it is obvious that killing a person is a violation of their rights. If she takes the rhetorical meaning of life..is simply expressing that she believes that men's rights are to have property and liberty within their property.
Anarcho-Capitalism is essentially how America began. What you see today is the natural development of humans acting under relative free choice. Capitalism has always been the default position of human societies.
One weakness of Anarcho-Communism is the abolishment of private property, which has been the foundation of human rights for over 500 years. When individual rights are eliminated, bureaucracy naturally takes over. The vision is beautiful, but the process is coercive.
TheBalancedAmerican 3 months ago
@TheBalancedAmerican -
Your comment is academically dishonest Anarcho-communism and other radical leftist ideologies rarely prohibit private property the basis is public ownership of the means of production. Even Marx in his manifesto specifically states that people should be able to keep their houses and personal possessions. But the purpose of this video is not to advocate for anarcho communism it is to show that Anarcho Capitalism has been and would be terrible.
poleske 3 months ago
@poleske :To add to that yes, our nation started off relatively anarcho-capitalist. Our success as a nation has been because we reformed this. AKA... labor law assuring people have decent work not child labor and sweatshops..... laws preventing the wholesale destruction of our environment;... laws assuring our food is safe... public education and libraries... well maintained roads and infrastructure. ANCAP only worked "for some" when there was a seemingly endless western frontier to exploit
poleske 3 months ago
@poleske I don't believe in a purely capitalist system. It is possible for capitalist activity to infringe on the opportunity of others, which is against the spirit of liberty and should be against the law.
Reforms have led to both good and bad things. You ones you mention here are mostly good. It is how we learn, and we still haven't gotten it right yet. Regulating markets is defiantly an important function of government.
I've been very interested in monetary reform currently.=)
TheBalancedAmerican 3 months ago
@poleske I understand the vision of Marx. I simply think that collective ownership of production leads to bureaucratic control of resources; a central planning model. How can property rights be guaranteed if you have no means to acquire property? The state would need to "issue" property to you which limits choice and freedom, imo.
TheBalancedAmerican 3 months ago
@poleske As far as Anarcho-Capitalism. Does anyone seriously advocate anarchy? I lean towards libertarianism though. I think most decisions (education, healthcare, unemployment) should be made closer to home (The States).
The role of the Federal government is to regulate the free-market, set legal precedent when the states can't handle it, and wage war.
Currently the Fed consumes about 2/3 of the tax base, the States 1/3. I'd like to see those ratios reversed. =)
TheBalancedAmerican 3 months ago
(cont. 3). I suspect that in general we would have these regional monopolies (particularly capital intensive industries) who would employ all kinds of economically wasteful strategies to keep their position. Strikingly similar in fact to a sort of feudalism.
Then again, perhaps the very wealthy may use their leverage to consolidate as much power as possible, particularly with the technological capabilities they have today which makes it feasible.
Scientisticsoviet 8 months ago
(cont. 2) The situation is one which is familiar to my fellow old enough Senior Quebeckers. A situation where you have regional firms imperfectly competing with one another (in Quebec it was electricity). The result is that average total costs where high due to coordination inefficiency with the local grids, and investment was low due to limited capital pools and access, & prices were high most of time.
Scientisticsoviet 8 months ago
(cont.) A bit similar the situation many countries face today due to lax regulation or regulatory capture.
Scientisticsoviet 8 months ago
On another note, a situation of high scale economies markets with no regulation, actually have different, yet all undesirable resultant possibilities. One is a situation similar to what you describe: One with a few regionally dominant firms gouging most if not all customers (individuals and businesses) & offering a poor service. This possible through scale, which enables enough concentrated wealth to pursue virtue of mergers, trusts, predatory takeover, predatory pricing, etc.)
Scientisticsoviet 8 months ago
Small note: The technical term is not monopolistic competition as that refers to to a market between perfect competition and oligopoly (A misnomer in my opinion, but hey, don't want want to confuse those attached to convention do we).
Scientisticsoviet 8 months ago
Great video
Rickdeckard2020 11 months ago
Anarcho-communism is terrible. "At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism," an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity." Rothbard
timothypaulrayakatim 1 year ago
@timothypaulrayakatim Did I mention communism once in this videos? Have I promoted communism once in any of my videos? This video is a logical argument for why Anarcho-capitalism is terrible. If you disagree with my assertion you can attempt to challenge one of my points.
If you want to defend your system, defend it.
Don't just attack what you assume is my system.
poleske 1 year ago
@timothypaulrayakatim Indeed, red herring, of strawman type.
Scientisticsoviet 8 months ago
@timothypaulrayakatim Who ever said that a single system was perfect? First of all, anarcho-capitalism would collapse in 5 minutes. Also, exploitation isn't intellectual superiority. I believe in economic equality up to an extent. Relative economic equality does not hold back individualism nearly as much an anarcho-capitalism does. In anarcho-capitalism, the less intelligent (who are individuals), have to submit themselves to menial jobs. In fact, economic equality does not
DesecrateConformity 3 months ago
@timothypaulrayakatim hold back individualism much at all. In libertarian communism, it would protect the individuality of the maybe less practical and exploitative person. Intellectuals would be able to extend themselves through their creations. And individuals would be able to own houses, and personal goods, and consumer goods. The only thing being collectively owned is the means of production. It would be possible in libertarian communism for an individual to work harder
DesecrateConformity 3 months ago
@timothypaulrayakatim and benefit himself. But the problem with your individualism is that the real value of the individual can't be determined by just them. The reason why they are successful is because of environmental factors, too, not just because they are intellectual people. The most dangerous thing about anarcho-capitalism is the detrimental affects on the environment that it would have. And "green capitalism" has been refuted over and over again. There are essays
DesecrateConformity 3 months ago
@timothypaulrayakatim about it all over the internet. The bottom line is that every system exploits the individuality of everyone in some way. It is impossible to avoid it.
DesecrateConformity 3 months ago
Another point they missed in the subject video is confusing the role of the government in banks. Government outsources banking in the Federal Reserve Act. So the most important function of government is in the realm of the "free market". Of course it is really a monopoly granted by government but undoing government still leaves the bankers holding our debt as an asset. Magically delete government and you still have these people with a legitimate claim to the taxes now paid.
DrakeDorosh 1 year ago
40% of Americans own .03% of the wealth.
If anarcho capitalists have their way we would be run completely by corporations and their private police forces. This is why the neo-cons did as much as they could to out source military security.
We would not have a community of small producers we would have more monopoly. You are absolutely correct. Government has a role- The first regulated is the first protected but: government is not the cause of market concentration.
Great response.
DrakeDorosh 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 1) Wages are only set by supply and demand in certain third world countries such as the free trade zones I have made links to. Wages in developed countries are far higher than they would be were the labor-market unregulated.
2) It is universally accepted by economists that when there are economies of scale that monopolistic competition will naturally develop.
poleske 1 year ago
fgas;lfkjsf
poleske 1 year ago
Your the one who doesn't know anything about economics. You wouldn't have said what you said about wages if you realized that wages are set by supply and demand and that monopolies can only come about if government enforces one.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 Explain to me how our government or any government "enforces" Microsoft.
twochordcool 1 year ago
@twochordcool Microsoft isn't a monopoly.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 Really? How many computers do you know of that are running on non-Windows operating systems BESIDES Apple computers?
twochordcool 1 year ago
@twochordcool That doesn't make it a monopoly. That's market domination. If apple starts charging to much and giving a crappy product they will lose market domination. period. A monopoly has to have some kind of coercive force behind it to enforce it.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 Market domination IS a monopoly. No coercion necessary. DEFINITION: "(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; 'a monopoly on silver'; 'when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like' exclusive control or possession of something; 'They have no monopoly on intelligence'"
NO COERCION NECESSARY.
twochordcool 1 year ago
@twochordcool untill moment somone else starts selling silver... Such a monopoly wouldn't last if their were several sources of silver. The moment such a business starts to give to high a price for to low a quality the monopoly is over. It doesn't seem possible for a monopoly to stay in power unless it is doing a very good job. The only reason standard oil got 90 percent market share was because they were bring the whole human race further. Rockfeller was the hero and FDR was the villian.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 Aren't you a college student? and a native English speaker? There is no excuse for butchering the English language the way you have.
Regardless of whether it was a good thing or a bad thing you seem to agree that Standard Oil was able to become a monopoly without any government assistance.
Looking at the facts one can assume that Standard Oil would have been able to dominate the market were there no government at all.
Do you agree with these two assertions?
poleske 1 year ago
@poleske yes but if standard oil were to jack up their prices to a ridculous amount to seel crappy oil they'd go out of business very fast. there was no need to break them up. That was not a monopoly. It was market domination. a just situation.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 FDR was the villian? Well he was only 8 years old when the Sherman Anti-trust act was passed. He became president decades latter.
You seem to be a fountain of ignorance.
I hate to be insulting but it seems that for every word you read you make it your business to write ten.
Are you just regurgitating talking points from the Ayn Rand foundation?
poleske 1 year ago
@poleske I never said FDR enacted the Sherman Anti-trust act. That only proves anti-capitalist stuff had been enacted before FDR was pres. Your the one who seems to be ignorant and just regurgitating talking points of the left and the keyensians.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008
It becomes much harder to like when all your comments are recorded. That is why true anarchists are always for open discussion and those on the right always look for ways to restrict it
I will refer to the comment you made two days ago
*... Rockfeller was the hero and FDR was the villian."
greenghost2008 2 days ago
poleske 1 year ago
@poleske I meant it and still do. I thought of something, if all works are paid just enough to survive who will buy he companies products? I'm with the whole foods guy, business isn't completely about profit, I don't think docters become doctors ONLY for money. Although I still think self-interest is cool.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008
As far as FDR goes I can assume you meant TR because you were referencing something that happened when FDR was a little child
1) Yes that is true, less money in the hands of consumers leads to less consumer spending. That is what led to the first great depression. After Reagan&Thatcher that spending would continue as worker/consumers would keep up their spending by going into debt.
That is why the US&UK have such high levels of consumer debt.
poleske 1 year ago
@poleske Now with the issue of workers/consumers not having enough money to buy the products they produce. That isn't really the concern of a business owner. The more desperate workers are the better they are for their owners.
A business is an organization created for the purpose of generating profit. That is the basis of our economic system.
A doctor isn't a business man, a doctor is a worker. A doctor can own a business but being a doctor doesn't make one a capitalist.
poleske 1 year ago
@poleske un-restricted capitalism has always resulted in boom-bust economies, By virtue of having more you are able to get more. By exploiting the resources of an area, both human and natural you are able to drain those resources, leaving the area barren.
To the capitalist this doesn't matter. You leave with liquidity which you can re-invest somewhere else.
Look at what happened in places like Allentown, Butte, Gary and Detroit.
Workers & consumers are expendable.
poleske 1 year ago
Like I said I think that you do not understand Anarcho-Capitalism. You are comparing Capitalism / Protectivism today with Anarcho-Capitalism - You need to check your premise.
evryonesacritic 2 years ago
While I can not force you to read something other than Ayn Rand I should insist you watch the entire video. I am describing how state capitalism is BETTER than anarcho-capitalism. Most government regulation of industry protects common people and state capitalism does look like it will improve in terms of acting as a moral enforcer. Of course I am an anarchist and I hate state capitalism but that doesn't mean I will immediately accept a more oppressive system.
LOOK AT THE LINKS
poleske 2 years ago
Perhaps you should know that Ayn Rand never was an anarchist and not a large portion of AnCaps are objectivists in these days.
Loserido 2 years ago
Hey MORON, Anarcho-capitalist don't follow Rand... those are objectivist. Straw man much?
I've seen this a million times, so called "real" anarchist who are really socialist trying to cover there deep seeded need for a state to protect them because of there victim hood mentality. Of course the state will always be there worst abusers.
Arguing with people like you is impossible... you cant detach from your mentality long enough to critically and objectively consider any facts or arguments.
wizkid2000 2 years ago
I didn't mention Rand once in my video. Only responding to an Anarcho-Capitalist who seems to have an almost religious attachment to her.
My video describes Anarcho-Capitalism and how it is worse than State-Capitalism.
You haven't adressed a single issue on the video. I distinctly said I don't want to argue semantics. I am not even advocating anything just advocating against what I see as a very misleading utopic political ideology that is very dangerious.
poleske 2 years ago
This is the typical answer of ancaps to any destruction of their logic. Anarcho-Capitalism= no libraries, no public hospitals, no public transportation, no public schools.....
You simply make vauge propagandist statements.
I believe political discussion is important but that you are simply wasing space with a poor atempt at sophism. If you believe my description of anarcho capitalism is eronious you should correct it.
poleske 2 years ago
At 5:31 you dont want to join a movement that will take things that you all ready have now. Anarcho-Capitalism does not do this. Socialism does and so does Statism.
evryonesacritic 2 years ago
I don't want to join a movement that takes from me public education, socialized medicine, libraries, manditory wages and conditions, food if I am starving, shelter if I am desporate, at least some nature in the form of national parks, It was a strugle for people to force the state to provide such things.
Not to mention a State that I have some controll over so I am generally protected from those who would use violence to extort me.
poleske 2 years ago
There is only one fundamental right - the right to life - from which all other rights including the right to liberty, the right to property and the right to pursue one's own happiness derive.
evryonesacritic 2 years ago
Wow.... you know, ... this fanatic obsession with Rand does not make Ancaps seem any less terrible.....
They have found a way to get all the closed minded, irrational and anti-logical fanaticism of religion....(quoting an author as though the words stated by said author were divine and unquestionable)
along with the coldheartedness of atheistic capitalism.
You see a rational capitalist would realize the main theme of this video is I strongly disagree with people like Ayn Rand
poleske 2 years ago
Rand does not have a monopoly on individualism or Aristotelianism.
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
That has nothing to do with Aristotle or individualism. This is just empty rhetoric of rand. The idea that people have a right to be alive is rediculous because we only regard people as people when they are alived. The idea of a dead person having rights is rediculous as it is obvious that killing a person is a violation of their rights. If she takes the rhetorical meaning of life..is simply expressing that she believes that men's rights are to have property and liberty within their property.
poleske 2 years ago
You are comparing Anarco-Capitalism to Neo-Conservativism the Republicans
evryonesacritic 2 years ago
Workers go these so called rights by the state using force
evryonesacritic 2 years ago
The statement about libertarians in the anti war movement is incorrect see website anti war com / who
evryonesacritic 2 years ago