Aside from the wild audio levels, that was pretty good. Anarcho-capitalism seems to be a mostly American phenomenon, tied in with the long tradition of right-wing isolationism and white male supremacy now practiced by a minority of us. Sociologists must be having a field day with this movement. I'd like to have a look at one of their studies. Why is your face obscured in this video?
Wow, lots of out of context quotes. Much more informative than actually addressing their arguments. BTW the society Chomsky said best suited his preferences led to forms of tyranny and oppression with few parelles in human history.
Making fun of these guys is like shooting fish in a barrel....No, like throwing a stick of dynamite into a barrel full of fish. I think consciousness, for most people, may be an affliction. An anomaly. A bad joke. That's what I think after watching this. I don't understand how the world works with so many people walking blindfolded and backwards. "This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends not with a bang but a whimper".
Good job man. How can you possibly believe in something that is an oxymoron in name itself? Anarcho-Capitalism is like saying Christian Devil Worshiper. Funny...
That guy that claims the US constitution is Anarcho-Capitalist is hilarious. Firstly, the constitution is one of the founding documents of a certain state. Secondly, it was written in before the existence of capitalism.
I do not believe in capitalism (of any kind), socialism (of any kind), nor communism (of any kind).
I do believe in "true" individualism -- the problem has always been figuring out who the individual is -- what activity best captures the greatest number of people; is it workers, owners, students, seniors, minorities, women, or LGTB?
None of the above! Consumers -- all are consumers. I agree with you regarding "possession" there are no "rights" of anykind in a free-society.
@Buddhagem: You transfer "ownership" from the one who risked their assets to commission an entrepreneur who builds the factory; then you and your lot come in and it is now "yours" On day 1 of your factory (after the product is made and before its sold) the owner hires salesmen and distributors; in your world they now own the product and not the owner or worker, correct? Because of possession. What owner would initially risk his assets to develop this factory?
rothbard used "anarcho" as the idea that there be no leader to force taxation....if I acquired land and capital through my own work and hired some people to work on some machines and after the work was done I no longer wanted them, how would my rights not be overtaken if the workers were in charge? regardless of where anarcho capitalism would lead humanity, it still seems to be very consistent..... how can one have a property right to his own home but not to a song, book or film he made?
Anarchism is not a working system without Capitalism, unless of course you want to be sent back to the stone age. I'm sorry but money is a better motivator than love. If you believe Monopolies will develope then don't fucking work for that guy. Capitalism is only a problem when it gets out of control. Don't shop at walmart then, dumbass. There's a difference between being logical and too logical. Humanity will not accel without any type of stability or motivation. Fucking moron.
What system produces goods the most efficiently? If you can understand the basic economics behind why a free market produces cellphones more efficiently you should also be able to imagine how a free market would produce any good or service more efficiently. Not to mention history. Please learn history. Governments have slaughtered millions!! Could/would a free society be able to do this? Anarchy is the only just system. Any form of Government has to use force! Force creates more violence!
Governments today murder more people than criminals have throughout the entire history of mankind. What you say is true, and i hope you stick to this ideology. Statists seem to suffer from either a stockholme syndrome or a lack of self-valuation process. The reasons they will not look into the details are usually personal, desire to hijack the system for themselves, or mere addiction.
The state is required to protect static property. The man who 'owns' 1,000 acres relies on the State or his mercenaries to keep us off.
What 'anarcho'-capitalists need to understand is that socialism isn't taxation, it's worker control of their own means of production, that trade can exist in an anarchist society between communes, collectives, and individuals, and that anarchists endorse possessions and the right to have what you earn.
I don't discriminate between "means of production" and "product". If you build a factory, it's yours. However, nobody is going to work in it if you don't compensate them adequately.
Sweatshop workers produce a lot of things. Do they get ownership of what they produce? Of course not. All they get are the wages it takes to keep them alive--which are determined by their bosses.
Last I checked, a capitalist has never built a factory. At least one has never performed the labor it takes to "build a factory."
If they built the factory it would be because they were compensated. Then they could pay another their compensation by buying goods they produced, just as he/she had. Then those who built those goods can be compensated. Thus providing stability and encouraging development and the progression of Human-beings as a species. Consider if minimum wage was $50 an hour. More people owned smaller businesses, and people helped provide stability by not shopping at walmart. Do you not think it would work?
buddhagen you like to sound smart saying how anarcho-capitalism is a oxymoron, yet you confused minarchy with anarcho-capitalism. I suggest you read more about the subject before trying to act like a smart ass, because your video is one huge typo, and error on your part. I don't know what part of "free-market", or "anarcho" you don't understand, but it means no state whatsoever. Get it right buddy boy.
buddhagem, there is no free market. It's government capitalism, hence why anarcho-capitalism was coined, because such a thing doesn't exist in the civilized world. Property is something that one aquires physically. Intellectual property is just reaching too far in property rights, and is not representive of anarcho-capitalism, because only such a thing would be manned by big brother (state government). Anarchist don't believe in patents, or anything like that. If you can produce it, do it.
Minarchist support some level of state intervention in the market such as enforcing intellectual property. In anarchy, no such thing would exist, because it's impossible to enforce such laws without the state. Not even anarcho-capitalism, and no anarchists would. Who is going to pay an agency money to protect intellectual property laws across the country, and around the world. It's not feasible. Market would decide it's not worth it, thus things such as music, movies, would be reproduced free.
Ayn Rand was a minarchist. She supported intellectual property. In anarchy, no such thing would exist. The state has a ever reaching scope in which to deal with social matters paid by people who create value (tax payer). Intellectual property is a legal monopoly enforced by the state. Even though I paid for this DVD movie, I can't make copies of it? Intellectual property creates fictious value in something that can be readily duplicated in the real world, thus worth less, than a forced monopoly
Again, socialist don't understand, you can't get something for nothing. If that was the law of nature, value wouldn't exist, everything would be in abundance, and nobody would even lift a finger to sustain one's life, and to seek luxury of life. This isn't heaven buddy, this is real life. Socialist think if you redistribute wealth, it makes life easier. This is a fantasy, fact is work is required to sustain life. Look at Jonestown, and all those socialist who died because of failed ideology.
buddhagen, your concept of property is all screwed up. Property is something people owns either what it was given to them, or they bought. If someone takes a crapper in my toilet, is it theirs? If I step into your house, is the house mine now, and I can sell it, and get some money? You analogy of a spoon is ridiculous none to say the least. Ownership is what also creates value through trade. What's the point of manufacturing cars if everybody doesn't pay for it? Your economics make no sense.
Everything in a free society is decided by mutual agreement. In a free market, it's between the buyer/seller. Freedom can only exists in a capitalist framework, because humans favor ownership, and value things. Rich people don't become militants. The largest militaries in the world, the most bloody wars in the world were caused by states who went to war against other states. Ayn Rand was a minarchist, not a anarchist. As a laissez faire objectivist, she wanted intellectual property.
Capitalism is the acknowledgement of ownership. Socialism doesn't recognize ownership. They also don't recognize value. Socialism based on a voluntary action is true to liberty, but coersed socialism, where forcefully requiring others to redistribute wealth is anti-liberty. Concept of socialism as the only true libertarian way is absolutely absurd. That is why communism/socialism required tyrannical states to force socialism by central planning. It's idiotic. Humans naturally own things. Reality
Lol, people who are against capitalism are the ones who can't generate wealth. Those people are socialist. The concept of making profit is a no-brainer. Denying profit, value (which is decided by human action) is like denying the fact that gravity exists. Anarcho-capitalism believes in free will, and that society is formed by collaboration of individuals who make transactions that shape society. Those who are favor of state, but hate rich men, only do so, because they use it to attack them.
Okay, I do not know. I started with her book "Capitalism - The unknown ideal" but it needs much time and effort because it is written in English. I do not find a Germen translation.
I find the source of my information: The German Wikipedia says that people of the libertarian movement said, that they are influenced by Ayn Rand's books in their youth. For example Wikipedia calls Alan Greenspan. And on an other passage Wikipedia says that Ayn Rand only says no to anarchy and wants a minimized government, but both minimized goernment and no government is called libertarian by Wikipedia.
She wanted minimized government interference in the free market. But government interference is called for in the enforcement of intellectual property and absentee ownership and some forms of usury. Also, and this is the big one, she was extremely militant. She believed in a large military.
Seriously, go ask an objectivist if they are libertarian.
Ayn Rand was a direct influence on Murray Rothbard and it's no coincidence that many Anarcho-Capitalists on You Tube seem to come to it from Ayn Rand literature that leads them to Rothbard. She certainly wasn't an anarchist but that doesn't negate the fact that she was a major influence in the development of these ideas
IDK. She spoke quite perjoratively about libertarians and ancaps and I think a lot of market anarchists, or ancaps find her philosophy stupid. I read Atlas Shrugged and how it romanticizes rich people as superhumans is just fucking stupid. I have never held the superhuman capitalist perspective.
@benjamaiLL Ok, Atlas Shrugs romanticises rich people as superhuman? Probably the stupidest person person in the book is rich. So are some of the main bad guys. The heroes include a janitor, an engine wiper (no I don't know what that is but it's not a millionaire that's for sure) and a truck driver. How do people get such basic facts wrong? And no I'm not an Ayn Rand supporter.
@buddhagem Ayn Rand had very little influence on Rothbard, he was an anarchist way before he met her. In fact Rand if anything slowed down the acceptance of Rothbard's ideas after their acrimonious split. You really should do basic research before posting your ignorance.
@newperve Rothbard was not an anarchist, he was a free market anti-statist. Simply calling oneself "anarchist" does not make one anarchist in actuality.
Rothbard even grasped this once, saying his ideas could not be described as anarchist. Then he tried to appropriate the label anyways.
But anarchism is a political theory, containing many ideas-- All of which exclude capitalism. Labels must not be confused with ideas; "anarcho"-capitalism must not be confused with anarchism.
@agapeiron He proposed anarchy, that makes him an anarchist in my book. Your claim that all anarchist idea "exclude capitalism" is bullshit. How is capitalism inconsistent with not having a state? Unless you're deliberately conflating free market and state capitalism which is very dishonest. I would guess you'd call Chomsky and the Spanish Anarchists "anarchists", despite their constant support for a state. Correct me if I'm wrong.
@newperve This is what I'm saying. To right wing nutballs, to call yourself an anarchist "makes" one an anarchist. It is an emphasis on labels, stifling actual content. It has no meaning. Who are the major anarchist thinkers that support capitalism? There are none. However, there was a right wing "libertarian" named Murray Rothbard, a schizoid free marketeer who himself admitted at one point he could not be construed as an anarchist.
@agapeiron Nice dodging. I repeat, how is capitalism inconsistent with not having a state, i.e. anarchism? You don't know which is you went directly to ad homs e.g. "right wing nutballs". Murray Rothbard would be a example of a "right wing" anarchist as well as Spooner and Thoreau. I notice you dodged about Chomsky and the spanish anarcho-statists. There was nothing schizoid about Rothbard, he was entirely consistent.
@newperve No; there are no "right wing" anarchists. Your idea that I am "dodging" is just a result of you being misinformed that anarchism is not a right wing doctrine, sorry. Rothbard wasn't an anarchist, just a confused old right winger that wanted a new tradition to suck on. Spooner was a critic of capitalism, not a Rothbardian.
Sorry, retroactively reading "anarcho"-capitalism into Spooner does not work.
Thoreau, like Godwin, came before the beginning of modern anarchism.
@agapeiron Spooner specifically said that people should be able to charge whatever interest rates they liked. Doesn't sound like a critic of capitalism to me, unless you're conflating State Capitalism and free market capitalism, which of course you are. And of course Thoreau doesn't count as an anarchist because he was before "modern" anarchism. Yeah right, you're not dodging at all. .
@newperve No; Spooner was against wage labor, seeing a parasitic exploitation in the relation between capitalist and worker. I know you desperately want to claim SOME individualist anarchist so you can squeeze in Rothbard, but it doesn't cut it.
Thoreau would more accurately be described as a precursor to individualist trend within anarchism. Sorry.
@agapeiron Spooner was against wage labor, but he wasn't for banning it was he? No, because he was a free marketeer. It's you who is desperate if you're trying to claim that Spooner wasn't for free market capitalism, unless you're using your personal dictionary again to redefine "capitalism" to mean "something that must include the wage system", which is pretty dishonest considering Rothbard didn't propose making it compulsory.
@newperve He has a sense of markets that was quite different from Rothbard's nutty approach. Rothbard merely tries to read himself into individualist anarchism.
@newperve But you do realize that, out of all the anarchists of his day, Spooner was a totally minority voice within the anarchist tradition?
So, shouldn't you at least like to conduct yourself more amiably when discussing the FAI? After all, if you really take anarchism seriously, and you realize you are just a lonely eccentric tendency (though I would say not a tendency at all, not being an anarchist but rather a free market nut), wouldn't you want to treat the FAI with more respect?
@newperve Asking questions as to whether capitalism has some meaning in the anarchist tradition is like asking whether the color yellow is the color white. So you asking me to discuss the texture of yellow has no meaning, as anarchism as a political theory has always been anti-capitalist.
I did not answer your question about the Spanish "anarcho-statists" (?) and Chomsky because you phrased it in a confusing way. Rephrase it again without your capitalist dogma.
@agapeiron No you lying shithead I did not phrase it in a confusing way. I merely guess (correctly I bet) that you supported both the Spanish "anarchists" (who maintained a state as powerful and intrusive as any in Europe) and Noam Chomsky (who openly favors expanding the welfare state). There is no "dogma" here, just well known facts.
@newperve The CNT and the FAI worked with the Spanish state to fight fascism. I am in fact opposed to their cooperation with the state in the period they did (in the 30s). Also, we must keep in mind, the CNT not a homogeneously libertarian organization.
Chomsky's reformist tendencies can only be defended by Chomsky alone. I'm not his defender.
@agapeiron Yeah they did work with the CNT and the FAI, by forming their own state. They had the monopoly of force in their own area and worked to keep it. So much for you being against the State. In fact you're only against someone else controlling the State. When people like you control it you're all for it. The CNT was not at all a libertarian organisation if by "libertarian" you mean "actually in favor of liberty".
However at least you don't support Chomsky, that's something.
@newperve This is where your silly Rothbard shit confuses you. You are projecting your own "anarcho"-capitalist understanding of coercion and force on anarchism in general.
I did not say the CNT was libertarian in general, but that it had libertarian tendencies within it.
@agapeiron I'm not projecting anything. If there is a definition of "force" that doesn't include going around murdering people for disagreeing with you I'd like to hear it. The "anarchists" did that, a lot. If you want to say what they had wasn't a state then go ahead, render the term as meaningless as your convictions. Of course you know they formed a government which is why you dodged the issue and tried to reframe it as joining a state. Nice try liar.
@newperve The idea of an "anarcho"-capitalist using quotation marks to refer to actual anarchists is amusing. If you want more familiarity with anarchist conceptions of the State, free association, etc, I suggest you check out some of the major anarchist thinkers.
@agapeiron You find it amusing that I think people who formed a state aren't anarchists. The Spanish "anarchists" weren't into free association, they were into killing people who didn't do what the committees told them to do. I note that you don't even try to refute that. So if you want to play silly word games where people who want the monopoly of force are "anarchists" go ahead. Just know I'm not fooled. The appeal to unnamed authorities is the lamest tactic ever BTW.
@newperve You are lumping all the Spanish anarchists into one homogeneous body to fit your silly ideology. Obviously you don't have the slightest conception of what diversity there was among them.
Millions of anarchists throughout history advocated the use of violence against capitalists. Read about it. You're the one sticking out like a sore thumb, playing the delicate flower that moans about the use of force against the poor, helpless rich.
@agapeiron Then you should be able to name one of these anarchists that didn't favor the principle of going out and killing people who disagreed with or disobeyed them. I am not talking about the use of violence against 'the rich" but against the disobedient. As usaul you're running away from my point and trying to pretend that you're anything but a closet stalinist
@newperve That question would assume that every single anarchist in Spain was going out to kill people that disobeyed them? Where is your proof for that? Would a fascist assassin or a Stalinist saboteur count as disobedient? Please clarify your question. If you want to talk about the Spanish anarchists in depth, by the way, message me because it'll take a lot of writing.
@agapeiron I suppose there might be one "anarchist" in Spain that didn't support going out and killing people who disagreed with them. I can't prove they all approved of it. What I can prove is that when anarchists did go out and kill people for disagreeing with them (or being suspected of it) no anarchist argued against it on grounds of principle. Death squads operated with impunity and certainly didn't confine themselves to assasins or saboteurs.
@newperve "I can't prove they all approved of it"-- Yet earlier you crowed otherwise.
You still haven't clarified your question by meeting any of my demands. You just ooze out rhetoric without naming names, instances of atrocities, or documents. Reread what I wrote below.
@newperve Seriously, though. If you are actually interested in discuss revolutionary Spain and the roles of the anarchists, message me. I enjoy rambling about it, because it fascinates me, bringing up various questions about revolutionary organizations, libertarian warfare, principles being sacrificed for the sake of "realism" while being attacked by fascists and so on.
@agapeiron I am very interested in discussing it with someone who isn't completely dishonest. That lets you out. If you think I'm going to waste my time with a discussion of someone who claims LENINISTS don't want to take over the state you're mistaken. The difference between hardcore Stalinists and the oh-so-romantic Catalonian "anarchists" is the anarchists were even less interested in freedom.
@agapeiron Sorry misread it because I assume that you always make excuses for murderers. In my defense there is no reason for you to make the statement you made and every reason to make the statement I misread you making. Now the only fun you gave me is dead. In any case your "anarchists" were a bunch of murdering statists who were even more dictatorial than the Leninists. Seriously even Stalin let you light up.
@newperve As I said before-- and which you keep ignoring-- I asked you to clarify your question so we can discuss it in a more rigorous way. I even asked you to message me. You refused. You keep running away from discussion. Then you squirt out a little rhetoric for the moral capital.
@agapeiron I am not running away you are. That's why you want to discuss "specific instances" not policy. I asked you several questions about the "anarchists" and you ran away from all of them. Why then, should I believe that PMing you wouldn't be a total waste of time? You just want your lies more concealable. I gave you a link to evidence, which you have not read. Do you deny it was the policy of the anarchists to murder dissenters?
@newperve You have not qualified that the link is reputable. You have not even told me the author. You could be linking me to a Spanish neo-fascist. Is it a scholarly article? Was it submitted to peer review? Does it cite sources? If you tell me yes, I will check it out for you.
You have not proven that it was the policy of anarchists to murder dissenters. I have not heard any arguments from you except a link to a page you have not qualified.
@newperve What anarchists? See, this is what I am talking about. There were different anarchist organizations. You keep referring ambiguously to "the anarchists." What organizations are you referring to?
@newperve "The difference between hardcore Stalinists and the oh-so-romantic Catalonian 'anarchists' is the anarchists were even less interested in freedom."
I love this. I love right wing rhetoric. It always operates like this: first, if you are an anarchist you are just a STALINIST! Then, YOU ANARCHISTS ARE EVEN WORSE THAN STALINISTS!
Hopefully you will be so disgusted with anarchists one day that you will stop pretending to be one.
@agapeiron Did the so-called "anarchists" murder those who disagreed with them or not? Did they impose taxes on the people or not? In short did they become a State or not? Did they ban tabacco in some areas? Did they force people into collectives? In what way were they better than Stalinists?
@agapeiron Right so on the one hand you're not going to comment if I don't give examples of specific instances on the other hand you're excusing the murder of priests by implying they are fascists. That you excuse murders of a priest by calling it "execution of clerical fascists" when your original example gave no evidence of fascism means you're excusing censorship by murder, which means you know it happened. I gave this link before, read it. jim dot com slash cat slash terror.htm
@newperve No; I said I would not support the murder of a helpless priest. However, if I were in a civil war and I was being attacked by fascists, I could see taking a fascist priest prisoner.
@agapeiron You tried you best to excuse it, how is that not supporting it? You called it "execution of fascist clergy" without any reference to the priest's political beliefs. You do this because you know that your buddies killed priests for being priests all the time and their bosses let it happen at best and encouraged it at worst.
@newperve See, that is exactly my point. Your idea that I excuse and support atrocities is "you tried your best to excuse it"-- In other words, you cannot demonstrate that I support or excuse such instances, yet you have no other way of smearing me.
Now you are just picking apart my words to find something to grab onto because you know I will condemn an act I find unjust.
@agapeiron You have given nothing but excuses for murder. The fact that you didn't succeed in excusing it doesn't mean you didn't try your best. You brought up the example of a murdered priest specifically to smear the victims of murder with being fascist and to call it "execution". You've brought up the "it was war" excuse (bet you won't let Bush get away with that), the "they were fascist" excuse and you've tried to focus on "specific instances" to deflect from the POLICY of murder,
@newperve I ask for specific instances so that I can tell you whether I condemn them or not. I told you I would condemn an execution of an innocent priest. Yet you say that by saying that and by discussing the conditions such an act might have occurred in, that I am excusing murder. Yet I would condemn such an act.
@agapeiron No you wouldn't condemn such an act or you wouldn't call it "execution" instead of murder and you wouldn't call the priest "fascist" simply for being executed. You might make a show of condemning such an individual murder but only to reassure people (falsely) that your favorite anarchists don't generally do this and it was a horrible aberation. Problem is it wasn't it was policy as I've shown.
@newperve That is your opinion. But it is just an opinion of yours. You still haven't demonstrated that I would excuse such acts.
You have not demonstrated it was policy. You just linked me to a page. I haven't clicked it because I'd like to know if it is a well-cited, scholarly work that is worth reading.
@newperve So far you have been repeatedly claiming I support things I condemn. You excuse this oxymoronic notion by giving your opinion on "what I would do" in such a situation. This has no value in an argument.
@agapeiron Read it yourself you selfish prick. God first you say you want a serious discussion then you religiously avoid the evidence and my questions. In any case I believe you know that the "anarchists" had a policy of murder because you've already gone out of your way to avoid questions of policy and to call murder "execution" thus legitimising it and calling the victim fascist.
@newperve You seem to have run out of steam. I'm not going to wait around for you to invent new logical contradictions or to figure out if your web site ("evidence") is a serious piece of intellectual work. Message me with whatever you can whip up next, I'm signing off.
If I don't see a message from you next time I sign in, I will assume you no longer can argue your points, or have no desire to continue.
Discussion of the matter with seriousness and less rhetoric will benefit both sides.
@agapeiron I have no desire to continue since you have no desire to look at the evidence. If you want to figure out if the website is a serious piece of work fucking read it moron. You are the one who isn't serious and you've given nothing but rhetoric. I ask again (and if you really want serious discussion you'll answer) did the Spanish anarchists have a policy of murdering dissenters?
@newperve I just told you I'd look at your site if you told me if it was a serious work that cites sources, has been submitted to peer review, was written by someone with some expertise on the subject. You are raving that I am ignoring "evidence" (a web site) because I am not going to do your homework for your side of the argument. You have to argue points or qualify them, that is your work. You don't make an argument and demand the opponent to prove it for you.
@agapeiron Fine it's a serious work that cites sources. I am not askig you to do my homework for me. I am just asking you to look at the evidence, which you said you wanted to do. I did not ask you to prove anything youi lying piece of shit. Now read it, don't read it I don't give a damn.
@agapeiron Listen you little sihtbag, less saying you'll read the site and more actually reading it. Told you twice it's a seriously work that cites sources. But keep pretending that I haven't said that you evil thugish little prick. Because that's all you've got isn't it. If I didn't take this evidence seriously why would I point to it as the sole link to my arguemnt liar? Oh and BTW I'm 40 overweight, out of shape and if you tried to attack me as you threatened I'd atill fucking kill you.
@newperve I didn't say you claimed it was not a serious work. I asked you if it was a scholarly work, had been submitted to peer review.
If you're basically giving up and have nothing left to say, that's okay. But if you want me to go read an article that may not be convincing, and you refuse to continue the argument, that isn't really winning an argument, is it? It's more like admitting defeat before real intellectual work begins.
@agapeiron So bascally if you don't want to read the evidence you win. Fine fucktard by your lame standards you win. And all it cost you was about three times the time it would take to read the fucking evidence with cites. Of course you've ducked all my questions and continually refused to say that the "anarchists" didn't do these things so actually no I win. If you want to continue I've given you a link to the evidence. You yourself say there isn't room in this forum to discuss it.
@newperve I have said repeatedly that I am going to read it if you vouch for its seriousness. I just want to know that if I go and read your article are you going to run and hide?
@newperve Obviously I'm not going to read it if you're just going to say, "Haha! See ya!" Because reading the article would only be one part of our discussion.
@newperve Saying in a hypothetical situation of a fight that I would rip you apart is not the same as threatening to attack you. I could tell Mike Tyson that if we were in a fight I would kick his ass and it would not mean I was threatening to attack him (though he might interpret it that way if he was as disgruntled and squeamish as you). The fact that you're bringing this up now to me seems to indicate you are desperately trying to flee from the matter at hand.
@agapeiron Fine I'll continue, but be aware I will constantly refer to you as liar, shithead, and winp wannabe murderer, because you are. It's interesting that you are only going to read evidence because you don't want to admit losing rather than because you actually want to know the truth. Of course you already know that the "anarchists" were murdering scum, that's why you refused to deny it.
@agapeiron No fucktard somewhere fucking public. If you're going to fucking lie and lie and lie I wan it on record. Doesn't have to be here, but somewhere there publically viewable. My blog (credible on the blogspot website) will be fine.
@newperve No, I'm not about to put my full name or any personal information on the net. If you are only interested in discussion so you can squeeze some blog popularity for it, I am not going to even bother. Sorry.
@newperve If you keep swearing at me I'm not going to continue, because you're just too emotional to take seriously. The discussion is just about to become serious and you are just losing complete control.
@agapeiron But I am going to keep swearing at you fucktard, until you stop acting like a fuctard. If you didn't want me emotional you shouldn't have repeatedly lied to and about me. At least I'm not saying I'd like to what was it, tear out my throat? Something like that? Now fuck off and read.
@newperve True enough. But I'm about to read the site you gave me. I did not say I'd like to tear out your throat, I said I would if we were in a fight. I did not "lie"; I asked you to prove things you said.
I'm not going to actually read and evaluate something if my response to you tomorrow is just going to receive a torrent of profanity, etc. I would want to continue the discussion. So obviously I am not going to read it until you calm down and seriously vouch you'll follow through.
@agapeiron Well tell you what, you stop acting like a fucktard and I'll stop calling you a fucktard. Got it shit for brains? Of course what you're actually doing is looking for an excuse not to view the evidence. BTW you specifically stated that you would tear my throat out, not that you would do it if we were in a fight. It was a clear threat. I have seriously vouched I'll follow through and you're not reading fucktard. Now fuck off.
@agapeiron No retard we're not, because I specifically said I wanted somewhere where everyone can see you lying Now that doesn't have to be my blog. It can be yours as long as you don't censor what I say. Again you're dishonest and trying to imply I'm the one giving up.
@newperve You already said you had no desire to continue, so clearly you are the one trying to give up. Apparently the discussion isn't important enough for its own sake.
If you want to use our discussion for propaganda value, I'm sorry, but I won't send you any response. But I'll still read the web site.
Two choices: (A) rational discuss through private messages or (B) I read your web site and benefit from whatever arguments it makes and you go on your merry way.
@agapeiron I said I wouldn't and then you said you wouldn't read the evidence if I didn't, so I said OK I will. Now you're saying you won't discuse this if it will be used for "propaganda value" i.e. if anyone else can see it. There are not two choices liar, there are many. We can discuss this in any public forum you like as long as you don't censor it. I am not interested in discussion with you for it's own sake because you are a lying bigot impossible to convince.
@newperve If you are not interested in discussion for its own sake, then why do you keep responding to my comments? At least you've given up the "grrr, fucktard!" tactic.
No, I was specific I wasn't about to let you suck on our discussion on some blog.
If you are dodging any serious colloquy, I won't even send you my thoughts on the jim.com site.
If you change your mind and want to discuss the matters for their intrinsic intellectual value, message me.
@agapeiron I am interested in showing you're a lying, sociopathic wannabe murderer. I am not dodging anything, I have offered repeatedly to discuss this openly but only openly. You suddenly insisted it be by PM only AFTER I specifically said that I would not accept that. Together with your constant dodging on whether you would even read the evidence it's clearly that you have no interest in discussing anything, only in lying and being a fucktard untill I get sick of you and go away.
If you're going to turn this discussion into a vendetta against me for the sake of your blog, I am not going to participate. Sorry; I have no need for internet schizophrenics.
I will read the site you pasted anyways with an open mind. But I am not about to join you in your little section of the blogosphere. If you change your mind and want a rational discussion, private message me.
@agapeiron "It can be [your blog] as long as you don't censor what I say", so clearly I'm not turning this discussion into anything for the sake of my blog. But run away that's what you're best at. So you're officially saying you won't conduct a debate in any forum but private messaging after I specifically said it had to be public. Fine you lose.
@newperve I asked you for private discussion of the matter over and over again. You ran and hid each time, calling me names, etc. Now I am ready to discuss the matter in depth, consulting your web site, and you'll only do so if you can squeeze some political capital out of it.
Disgusting, opportunistic attitude towards the truth.
You lose, as you have lost again and again, using rhetoric, name-calling and a site you refused to qualify as remotely serious.
@agapeiron How is it "running and hiding" to ask that something be public? That's the opposite of running and hiding you moronic troll. My attitude towards the truth is that it should be openly available, which to you of course is disgusting. I specifically called the site seriously liar. The offer to discuss it publically remains open and you remanin a liar who is running away. Your only ostensible objection is that I might use the result, what of it?
Aside from the wild audio levels, that was pretty good. Anarcho-capitalism seems to be a mostly American phenomenon, tied in with the long tradition of right-wing isolationism and white male supremacy now practiced by a minority of us. Sociologists must be having a field day with this movement. I'd like to have a look at one of their studies. Why is your face obscured in this video?
TheForwardGaze 2 weeks ago
Supremely wonderful video, couldn't agree more.
thesparitan 7 months ago
DOODS anyone who doesn't want everything to be free public domain is an evil capitalist who only views everyone and everything as capital.
hotfudgemoney 7 months ago
Comment removed
agapeiron 8 months ago
god is logic = theoreticalphysics.webs.com
paginipro 8 months ago
Wow, lots of out of context quotes. Much more informative than actually addressing their arguments. BTW the society Chomsky said best suited his preferences led to forms of tyranny and oppression with few parelles in human history.
newperve 9 months ago
Making fun of these guys is like shooting fish in a barrel....No, like throwing a stick of dynamite into a barrel full of fish. I think consciousness, for most people, may be an affliction. An anomaly. A bad joke. That's what I think after watching this. I don't understand how the world works with so many people walking blindfolded and backwards. "This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends not with a bang but a whimper".
crud4 10 months ago
Tell me the difference between the ceo and his factory and a person and their house that they own?
greenghost2008 10 months ago
Anyone that violates the Non-Coercion Principle should be charged as such.
qwertypoiu4321 10 months ago
Dude....this video makes me rage so hard at these idiots haha.
Propagandhi900 11 months ago
Good job man. How can you possibly believe in something that is an oxymoron in name itself? Anarcho-Capitalism is like saying Christian Devil Worshiper. Funny...
TheyLiveWakeUp 1 year ago
were did you find this?
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the montage was funny. but dont neglect the difference between anarcho capitalists and anarcho minarchists like rand.
dontliethetruth 1 year ago
the montage was funny. but dont neglect the difference between anarcho capitalists and anarcho minarchists like rand.
dontliethetruth 1 year ago
the montage was funny. but dont neglect the difference between anarcho capitalists and anarcho minarchists like rand.
dontliethetruth 1 year ago
You've got to admit, XOmniverse has rockin' hair.
progrockcoffee 1 year ago
That guy that claims the US constitution is Anarcho-Capitalist is hilarious. Firstly, the constitution is one of the founding documents of a certain state. Secondly, it was written in before the existence of capitalism.
spartan2600 1 year ago
LOL, why was Inmendham included in there?
adjohnson916 1 year ago
@adjohnson916 If you notice, he's just there to set up the An-Caps. I just used what he said to set them up.
buddhagem 1 year ago 3
Inmendham is not an anarcho-capitalist, he appears to be a marxist.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
I do not believe in capitalism (of any kind), socialism (of any kind), nor communism (of any kind).
I do believe in "true" individualism -- the problem has always been figuring out who the individual is -- what activity best captures the greatest number of people; is it workers, owners, students, seniors, minorities, women, or LGTB?
None of the above! Consumers -- all are consumers. I agree with you regarding "possession" there are no "rights" of anykind in a free-society.
OctoBox 1 year ago
@Buddhagem: You transfer "ownership" from the one who risked their assets to commission an entrepreneur who builds the factory; then you and your lot come in and it is now "yours" On day 1 of your factory (after the product is made and before its sold) the owner hires salesmen and distributors; in your world they now own the product and not the owner or worker, correct? Because of possession. What owner would initially risk his assets to develop this factory?
OctoBox 1 year ago
Yeah that seems a bit extreme. Is individualist anarchism a middle ground though b/w collectivist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism?
dubified89 1 year ago
lol pwned
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 1 year ago
rothbard used "anarcho" as the idea that there be no leader to force taxation....if I acquired land and capital through my own work and hired some people to work on some machines and after the work was done I no longer wanted them, how would my rights not be overtaken if the workers were in charge? regardless of where anarcho capitalism would lead humanity, it still seems to be very consistent..... how can one have a property right to his own home but not to a song, book or film he made?
eesloan4 2 years ago
I'm not going to listen to a mystic.
LibertarianOnline 2 years ago
Comment removed
Jenawahrheit 2 years ago
Anarchism is not a working system without Capitalism, unless of course you want to be sent back to the stone age. I'm sorry but money is a better motivator than love. If you believe Monopolies will develope then don't fucking work for that guy. Capitalism is only a problem when it gets out of control. Don't shop at walmart then, dumbass. There's a difference between being logical and too logical. Humanity will not accel without any type of stability or motivation. Fucking moron.
dalejrfan800 1 year ago
What system produces goods the most efficiently? If you can understand the basic economics behind why a free market produces cellphones more efficiently you should also be able to imagine how a free market would produce any good or service more efficiently. Not to mention history. Please learn history. Governments have slaughtered millions!! Could/would a free society be able to do this? Anarchy is the only just system. Any form of Government has to use force! Force creates more violence!
lukebessey 2 years ago
Governments today murder more people than criminals have throughout the entire history of mankind. What you say is true, and i hope you stick to this ideology. Statists seem to suffer from either a stockholme syndrome or a lack of self-valuation process. The reasons they will not look into the details are usually personal, desire to hijack the system for themselves, or mere addiction.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Active use constitutes ownership: Mutualism!
The state is required to protect static property. The man who 'owns' 1,000 acres relies on the State or his mercenaries to keep us off.
What 'anarcho'-capitalists need to understand is that socialism isn't taxation, it's worker control of their own means of production, that trade can exist in an anarchist society between communes, collectives, and individuals, and that anarchists endorse possessions and the right to have what you earn.
CrawdaddyJoe 2 years ago
What would anarcho-socialists do about criminals?
Gotcha.
Also, the spoon would belong to the restaurant. You's just be hiring it out.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
Anarcho-socialism is a joke.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
Anarcho-capitalism has to be the most fucked up political philosophy in existence.
juliaisafilmbuff123 2 years ago
yeah because non-violence is so fucked up, right?
threebobs 2 years ago
The problem with capitalism is that it can be used to dominate masses.
mlh8723 2 years ago
Capitalism can be used to dominate masses?
I don't see your LOGIC...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Riiiight....because governments have not shown to dominate masses.
270 million dead in the last century alone due to governments....nah, it's not that bad.
Sick. Really.
threebobs 2 years ago 2
Capitalism gives you ownership of what you produce.
Sounds pretty simple to me.
ufee 2 years ago
"you" as in the owners of the means of production right?
DonJack1776 2 years ago
I don't discriminate between "means of production" and "product". If you build a factory, it's yours. However, nobody is going to work in it if you don't compensate them adequately.
ufee 2 years ago
Sweatshop workers produce a lot of things. Do they get ownership of what they produce? Of course not. All they get are the wages it takes to keep them alive--which are determined by their bosses.
Last I checked, a capitalist has never built a factory. At least one has never performed the labor it takes to "build a factory."
Do you even think social classes exist?
DonJack1776 2 years ago
Of course it's unlikely any individual, entry level capitalist has contributed enough value to build a factory.
But, in theory, what if they had? Would you take it from them, if they had indeed put their own labour into its production?
ufee 2 years ago
If they built the factory it would be because they were compensated. Then they could pay another their compensation by buying goods they produced, just as he/she had. Then those who built those goods can be compensated. Thus providing stability and encouraging development and the progression of Human-beings as a species. Consider if minimum wage was $50 an hour. More people owned smaller businesses, and people helped provide stability by not shopping at walmart. Do you not think it would work?
dalejrfan800 1 year ago
buddhagen you like to sound smart saying how anarcho-capitalism is a oxymoron, yet you confused minarchy with anarcho-capitalism. I suggest you read more about the subject before trying to act like a smart ass, because your video is one huge typo, and error on your part. I don't know what part of "free-market", or "anarcho" you don't understand, but it means no state whatsoever. Get it right buddy boy.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
buddhagem, there is no free market. It's government capitalism, hence why anarcho-capitalism was coined, because such a thing doesn't exist in the civilized world. Property is something that one aquires physically. Intellectual property is just reaching too far in property rights, and is not representive of anarcho-capitalism, because only such a thing would be manned by big brother (state government). Anarchist don't believe in patents, or anything like that. If you can produce it, do it.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
Minarchist support some level of state intervention in the market such as enforcing intellectual property. In anarchy, no such thing would exist, because it's impossible to enforce such laws without the state. Not even anarcho-capitalism, and no anarchists would. Who is going to pay an agency money to protect intellectual property laws across the country, and around the world. It's not feasible. Market would decide it's not worth it, thus things such as music, movies, would be reproduced free.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
Ayn Rand was a minarchist. She supported intellectual property. In anarchy, no such thing would exist. The state has a ever reaching scope in which to deal with social matters paid by people who create value (tax payer). Intellectual property is a legal monopoly enforced by the state. Even though I paid for this DVD movie, I can't make copies of it? Intellectual property creates fictious value in something that can be readily duplicated in the real world, thus worth less, than a forced monopoly
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
Again, socialist don't understand, you can't get something for nothing. If that was the law of nature, value wouldn't exist, everything would be in abundance, and nobody would even lift a finger to sustain one's life, and to seek luxury of life. This isn't heaven buddy, this is real life. Socialist think if you redistribute wealth, it makes life easier. This is a fantasy, fact is work is required to sustain life. Look at Jonestown, and all those socialist who died because of failed ideology.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
buddhagen, your concept of property is all screwed up. Property is something people owns either what it was given to them, or they bought. If someone takes a crapper in my toilet, is it theirs? If I step into your house, is the house mine now, and I can sell it, and get some money? You analogy of a spoon is ridiculous none to say the least. Ownership is what also creates value through trade. What's the point of manufacturing cars if everybody doesn't pay for it? Your economics make no sense.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
Everything in a free society is decided by mutual agreement. In a free market, it's between the buyer/seller. Freedom can only exists in a capitalist framework, because humans favor ownership, and value things. Rich people don't become militants. The largest militaries in the world, the most bloody wars in the world were caused by states who went to war against other states. Ayn Rand was a minarchist, not a anarchist. As a laissez faire objectivist, she wanted intellectual property.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
Capitalism is the acknowledgement of ownership. Socialism doesn't recognize ownership. They also don't recognize value. Socialism based on a voluntary action is true to liberty, but coersed socialism, where forcefully requiring others to redistribute wealth is anti-liberty. Concept of socialism as the only true libertarian way is absolutely absurd. That is why communism/socialism required tyrannical states to force socialism by central planning. It's idiotic. Humans naturally own things. Reality
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
Lol, people who are against capitalism are the ones who can't generate wealth. Those people are socialist. The concept of making profit is a no-brainer. Denying profit, value (which is decided by human action) is like denying the fact that gravity exists. Anarcho-capitalism believes in free will, and that society is formed by collaboration of individuals who make transactions that shape society. Those who are favor of state, but hate rich men, only do so, because they use it to attack them.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
Sorry, but I do not understand this video.
NetzKaiser 2 years ago
AYN RAND WAS NOT AN ANARCHOCAPITALIST.
Rand was far from libertariansim. Objectivism calls for a government.
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
"far"? It is so so, but I heared that she is influence many anarchocapitalists.
NetzKaiser 2 years ago
Ask an Objectivist if they are libertarian. They will say "no" if they don't laugh at you.
The Ancap Vangaurd:
Murray Rothbard
David Friedman
Mises
Hoppe
and a bunch of other dudes. None of them really cite Rand as influence
She shares minor similarity in thinking w/libertarians, but Rand was not a libertarian and she never said she was.
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
Okay, I do not know. I started with her book "Capitalism - The unknown ideal" but it needs much time and effort because it is written in English. I do not find a Germen translation.
NetzKaiser 2 years ago
I find the source of my information: The German Wikipedia says that people of the libertarian movement said, that they are influenced by Ayn Rand's books in their youth. For example Wikipedia calls Alan Greenspan. And on an other passage Wikipedia says that Ayn Rand only says no to anarchy and wants a minimized government, but both minimized goernment and no government is called libertarian by Wikipedia.
NetzKaiser 2 years ago
She wanted minimized government interference in the free market. But government interference is called for in the enforcement of intellectual property and absentee ownership and some forms of usury. Also, and this is the big one, she was extremely militant. She believed in a large military.
Seriously, go ask an objectivist if they are libertarian.
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
Okay, thank you.
NetzKaiser 2 years ago
Mises wasn't an ancap.
antigonish3 2 years ago
Yeah. I knew that at the time I posted that. My mistake, I was not thinking at the time.
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
Ayn Rand was a direct influence on Murray Rothbard and it's no coincidence that many Anarcho-Capitalists on You Tube seem to come to it from Ayn Rand literature that leads them to Rothbard. She certainly wasn't an anarchist but that doesn't negate the fact that she was a major influence in the development of these ideas
buddhagem 2 years ago 6
IDK. She spoke quite perjoratively about libertarians and ancaps and I think a lot of market anarchists, or ancaps find her philosophy stupid. I read Atlas Shrugged and how it romanticizes rich people as superhumans is just fucking stupid. I have never held the superhuman capitalist perspective.
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
@benjamaiLL Ok, Atlas Shrugs romanticises rich people as superhuman? Probably the stupidest person person in the book is rich. So are some of the main bad guys. The heroes include a janitor, an engine wiper (no I don't know what that is but it's not a millionaire that's for sure) and a truck driver. How do people get such basic facts wrong? And no I'm not an Ayn Rand supporter.
newperve 8 months ago
@buddhagem
I know I am a year late, but Rand thought Rothbard didn't have enough government in his philosophy. She was more a fan of Mises.
bttalbot 1 year ago
@buddhagem
sorry Gotta interject, Rand thought the anarcho capitalists were retarded.
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@buddhagem Ayn Rand had very little influence on Rothbard, he was an anarchist way before he met her. In fact Rand if anything slowed down the acceptance of Rothbard's ideas after their acrimonious split. You really should do basic research before posting your ignorance.
newperve 9 months ago
@newperve Rothbard was not an anarchist, he was a free market anti-statist. Simply calling oneself "anarchist" does not make one anarchist in actuality.
Rothbard even grasped this once, saying his ideas could not be described as anarchist. Then he tried to appropriate the label anyways.
But anarchism is a political theory, containing many ideas-- All of which exclude capitalism. Labels must not be confused with ideas; "anarcho"-capitalism must not be confused with anarchism.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron He proposed anarchy, that makes him an anarchist in my book. Your claim that all anarchist idea "exclude capitalism" is bullshit. How is capitalism inconsistent with not having a state? Unless you're deliberately conflating free market and state capitalism which is very dishonest. I would guess you'd call Chomsky and the Spanish Anarchists "anarchists", despite their constant support for a state. Correct me if I'm wrong.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve This is what I'm saying. To right wing nutballs, to call yourself an anarchist "makes" one an anarchist. It is an emphasis on labels, stifling actual content. It has no meaning. Who are the major anarchist thinkers that support capitalism? There are none. However, there was a right wing "libertarian" named Murray Rothbard, a schizoid free marketeer who himself admitted at one point he could not be construed as an anarchist.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Nice dodging. I repeat, how is capitalism inconsistent with not having a state, i.e. anarchism? You don't know which is you went directly to ad homs e.g. "right wing nutballs". Murray Rothbard would be a example of a "right wing" anarchist as well as Spooner and Thoreau. I notice you dodged about Chomsky and the spanish anarcho-statists. There was nothing schizoid about Rothbard, he was entirely consistent.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve No; there are no "right wing" anarchists. Your idea that I am "dodging" is just a result of you being misinformed that anarchism is not a right wing doctrine, sorry. Rothbard wasn't an anarchist, just a confused old right winger that wanted a new tradition to suck on. Spooner was a critic of capitalism, not a Rothbardian.
Sorry, retroactively reading "anarcho"-capitalism into Spooner does not work.
Thoreau, like Godwin, came before the beginning of modern anarchism.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Spooner specifically said that people should be able to charge whatever interest rates they liked. Doesn't sound like a critic of capitalism to me, unless you're conflating State Capitalism and free market capitalism, which of course you are. And of course Thoreau doesn't count as an anarchist because he was before "modern" anarchism. Yeah right, you're not dodging at all. .
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve No; Spooner was against wage labor, seeing a parasitic exploitation in the relation between capitalist and worker. I know you desperately want to claim SOME individualist anarchist so you can squeeze in Rothbard, but it doesn't cut it.
Thoreau would more accurately be described as a precursor to individualist trend within anarchism. Sorry.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Spooner was against wage labor, but he wasn't for banning it was he? No, because he was a free marketeer. It's you who is desperate if you're trying to claim that Spooner wasn't for free market capitalism, unless you're using your personal dictionary again to redefine "capitalism" to mean "something that must include the wage system", which is pretty dishonest considering Rothbard didn't propose making it compulsory.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve He has a sense of markets that was quite different from Rothbard's nutty approach. Rothbard merely tries to read himself into individualist anarchism.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve Let us also recall that Spooner and his followers are in the utter minority of anarchists.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve But you do realize that, out of all the anarchists of his day, Spooner was a totally minority voice within the anarchist tradition?
So, shouldn't you at least like to conduct yourself more amiably when discussing the FAI? After all, if you really take anarchism seriously, and you realize you are just a lonely eccentric tendency (though I would say not a tendency at all, not being an anarchist but rather a free market nut), wouldn't you want to treat the FAI with more respect?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve Asking questions as to whether capitalism has some meaning in the anarchist tradition is like asking whether the color yellow is the color white. So you asking me to discuss the texture of yellow has no meaning, as anarchism as a political theory has always been anti-capitalist.
I did not answer your question about the Spanish "anarcho-statists" (?) and Chomsky because you phrased it in a confusing way. Rephrase it again without your capitalist dogma.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron No you lying shithead I did not phrase it in a confusing way. I merely guess (correctly I bet) that you supported both the Spanish "anarchists" (who maintained a state as powerful and intrusive as any in Europe) and Noam Chomsky (who openly favors expanding the welfare state). There is no "dogma" here, just well known facts.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve The CNT and the FAI worked with the Spanish state to fight fascism. I am in fact opposed to their cooperation with the state in the period they did (in the 30s). Also, we must keep in mind, the CNT not a homogeneously libertarian organization.
Chomsky's reformist tendencies can only be defended by Chomsky alone. I'm not his defender.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Yeah they did work with the CNT and the FAI, by forming their own state. They had the monopoly of force in their own area and worked to keep it. So much for you being against the State. In fact you're only against someone else controlling the State. When people like you control it you're all for it. The CNT was not at all a libertarian organisation if by "libertarian" you mean "actually in favor of liberty".
However at least you don't support Chomsky, that's something.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve This is where your silly Rothbard shit confuses you. You are projecting your own "anarcho"-capitalist understanding of coercion and force on anarchism in general.
I did not say the CNT was libertarian in general, but that it had libertarian tendencies within it.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron I'm not projecting anything. If there is a definition of "force" that doesn't include going around murdering people for disagreeing with you I'd like to hear it. The "anarchists" did that, a lot. If you want to say what they had wasn't a state then go ahead, render the term as meaningless as your convictions. Of course you know they formed a government which is why you dodged the issue and tried to reframe it as joining a state. Nice try liar.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve The idea of an "anarcho"-capitalist using quotation marks to refer to actual anarchists is amusing. If you want more familiarity with anarchist conceptions of the State, free association, etc, I suggest you check out some of the major anarchist thinkers.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron You find it amusing that I think people who formed a state aren't anarchists. The Spanish "anarchists" weren't into free association, they were into killing people who didn't do what the committees told them to do. I note that you don't even try to refute that. So if you want to play silly word games where people who want the monopoly of force are "anarchists" go ahead. Just know I'm not fooled. The appeal to unnamed authorities is the lamest tactic ever BTW.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve You are lumping all the Spanish anarchists into one homogeneous body to fit your silly ideology. Obviously you don't have the slightest conception of what diversity there was among them.
Millions of anarchists throughout history advocated the use of violence against capitalists. Read about it. You're the one sticking out like a sore thumb, playing the delicate flower that moans about the use of force against the poor, helpless rich.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Then you should be able to name one of these anarchists that didn't favor the principle of going out and killing people who disagreed with or disobeyed them. I am not talking about the use of violence against 'the rich" but against the disobedient. As usaul you're running away from my point and trying to pretend that you're anything but a closet stalinist
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve That question would assume that every single anarchist in Spain was going out to kill people that disobeyed them? Where is your proof for that? Would a fascist assassin or a Stalinist saboteur count as disobedient? Please clarify your question. If you want to talk about the Spanish anarchists in depth, by the way, message me because it'll take a lot of writing.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron I suppose there might be one "anarchist" in Spain that didn't support going out and killing people who disagreed with them. I can't prove they all approved of it. What I can prove is that when anarchists did go out and kill people for disagreeing with them (or being suspected of it) no anarchist argued against it on grounds of principle. Death squads operated with impunity and certainly didn't confine themselves to assasins or saboteurs.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve "I can't prove they all approved of it"-- Yet earlier you crowed otherwise.
You still haven't clarified your question by meeting any of my demands. You just ooze out rhetoric without naming names, instances of atrocities, or documents. Reread what I wrote below.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve Seriously, though. If you are actually interested in discuss revolutionary Spain and the roles of the anarchists, message me. I enjoy rambling about it, because it fascinates me, bringing up various questions about revolutionary organizations, libertarian warfare, principles being sacrificed for the sake of "realism" while being attacked by fascists and so on.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron I am very interested in discussing it with someone who isn't completely dishonest. That lets you out. If you think I'm going to waste my time with a discussion of someone who claims LENINISTS don't want to take over the state you're mistaken. The difference between hardcore Stalinists and the oh-so-romantic Catalonian "anarchists" is the anarchists were even less interested in freedom.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve Here is what I wrote: "No, Leninists want to take over the State."
How is that me claiming Leninists don't want to take over the State?
Are you even reading my comments, or just whipping yourself up into a frenzy?
Ironically, I actually gave a Youtube Stalinist (they're out there) shit the other day for claiming Leninists are not statists.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Sorry misread it because I assume that you always make excuses for murderers. In my defense there is no reason for you to make the statement you made and every reason to make the statement I misread you making. Now the only fun you gave me is dead. In any case your "anarchists" were a bunch of murdering statists who were even more dictatorial than the Leninists. Seriously even Stalin let you light up.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve You better pray to Uncle Joe that some evil anarchist demons aren't hiding under your copy of Atlas Shrugged.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Ok, so we're done with you even pretending to answer my points.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve As I said before-- and which you keep ignoring-- I asked you to clarify your question so we can discuss it in a more rigorous way. I even asked you to message me. You refused. You keep running away from discussion. Then you squirt out a little rhetoric for the moral capital.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron I am not running away you are. That's why you want to discuss "specific instances" not policy. I asked you several questions about the "anarchists" and you ran away from all of them. Why then, should I believe that PMing you wouldn't be a total waste of time? You just want your lies more concealable. I gave you a link to evidence, which you have not read. Do you deny it was the policy of the anarchists to murder dissenters?
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve You have not qualified that the link is reputable. You have not even told me the author. You could be linking me to a Spanish neo-fascist. Is it a scholarly article? Was it submitted to peer review? Does it cite sources? If you tell me yes, I will check it out for you.
You have not proven that it was the policy of anarchists to murder dissenters. I have not heard any arguments from you except a link to a page you have not qualified.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve What anarchists? See, this is what I am talking about. There were different anarchist organizations. You keep referring ambiguously to "the anarchists." What organizations are you referring to?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve "The difference between hardcore Stalinists and the oh-so-romantic Catalonian 'anarchists' is the anarchists were even less interested in freedom."
I love this. I love right wing rhetoric. It always operates like this: first, if you are an anarchist you are just a STALINIST! Then, YOU ANARCHISTS ARE EVEN WORSE THAN STALINISTS!
Hopefully you will be so disgusted with anarchists one day that you will stop pretending to be one.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Did the so-called "anarchists" murder those who disagreed with them or not? Did they impose taxes on the people or not? In short did they become a State or not? Did they ban tabacco in some areas? Did they force people into collectives? In what way were they better than Stalinists?
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve See my comment below.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron No I'd like an actual answer. Did they do these things or not? Stop dodging and own up to supporting brutal murderers.
newperve 8 months ago
Comment removed
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Right so on the one hand you're not going to comment if I don't give examples of specific instances on the other hand you're excusing the murder of priests by implying they are fascists. That you excuse murders of a priest by calling it "execution of clerical fascists" when your original example gave no evidence of fascism means you're excusing censorship by murder, which means you know it happened. I gave this link before, read it. jim dot com slash cat slash terror.htm
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve No; I said I would not support the murder of a helpless priest. However, if I were in a civil war and I was being attacked by fascists, I could see taking a fascist priest prisoner.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron You tried you best to excuse it, how is that not supporting it? You called it "execution of fascist clergy" without any reference to the priest's political beliefs. You do this because you know that your buddies killed priests for being priests all the time and their bosses let it happen at best and encouraged it at worst.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve See, that is exactly my point. Your idea that I excuse and support atrocities is "you tried your best to excuse it"-- In other words, you cannot demonstrate that I support or excuse such instances, yet you have no other way of smearing me.
Now you are just picking apart my words to find something to grab onto because you know I will condemn an act I find unjust.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron You have given nothing but excuses for murder. The fact that you didn't succeed in excusing it doesn't mean you didn't try your best. You brought up the example of a murdered priest specifically to smear the victims of murder with being fascist and to call it "execution". You've brought up the "it was war" excuse (bet you won't let Bush get away with that), the "they were fascist" excuse and you've tried to focus on "specific instances" to deflect from the POLICY of murder,
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve Where did I say any of those conditions ("it was war" or "he was a fascist") excused x act?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron You brought up both in your example of the priest and they serve no purpose but to excuse murder.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve I said I would condemn an execution of the hypothetical priest. So am I excusing what I condemn? How am I supporting what I condemn?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve I ask for specific instances so that I can tell you whether I condemn them or not. I told you I would condemn an execution of an innocent priest. Yet you say that by saying that and by discussing the conditions such an act might have occurred in, that I am excusing murder. Yet I would condemn such an act.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron No you wouldn't condemn such an act or you wouldn't call it "execution" instead of murder and you wouldn't call the priest "fascist" simply for being executed. You might make a show of condemning such an individual murder but only to reassure people (falsely) that your favorite anarchists don't generally do this and it was a horrible aberation. Problem is it wasn't it was policy as I've shown.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve That is your opinion. But it is just an opinion of yours. You still haven't demonstrated that I would excuse such acts.
You have not demonstrated it was policy. You just linked me to a page. I haven't clicked it because I'd like to know if it is a well-cited, scholarly work that is worth reading.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve So far you have been repeatedly claiming I support things I condemn. You excuse this oxymoronic notion by giving your opinion on "what I would do" in such a situation. This has no value in an argument.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve Stop dodging the quality of the link you sent. Is it a serious, scholarly article? What's the deal?
Do you want me to read it or not?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve Do you know the difference between a well-argued, serious piece of scholarly work and a random web page? Tell me about this link.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Read it yourself you selfish prick. God first you say you want a serious discussion then you religiously avoid the evidence and my questions. In any case I believe you know that the "anarchists" had a policy of murder because you've already gone out of your way to avoid questions of policy and to call murder "execution" thus legitimising it and calling the victim fascist.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve No, you have not even described it yet. Is it a scholarly work? Is it argued by a historian?
See my comment below. Later.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve You still haven't demonstrated how I can support something I condemn. That sounds like a logical contradiction.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron If you genuniely wished to condemn murder you wouldn't call it "execution" and you wouldn't call the victim fascist.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve You seem to have run out of steam. I'm not going to wait around for you to invent new logical contradictions or to figure out if your web site ("evidence") is a serious piece of intellectual work. Message me with whatever you can whip up next, I'm signing off.
If I don't see a message from you next time I sign in, I will assume you no longer can argue your points, or have no desire to continue.
Discussion of the matter with seriousness and less rhetoric will benefit both sides.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron I have no desire to continue since you have no desire to look at the evidence. If you want to figure out if the website is a serious piece of work fucking read it moron. You are the one who isn't serious and you've given nothing but rhetoric. I ask again (and if you really want serious discussion you'll answer) did the Spanish anarchists have a policy of murdering dissenters?
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve I just told you I'd look at your site if you told me if it was a serious work that cites sources, has been submitted to peer review, was written by someone with some expertise on the subject. You are raving that I am ignoring "evidence" (a web site) because I am not going to do your homework for your side of the argument. You have to argue points or qualify them, that is your work. You don't make an argument and demand the opponent to prove it for you.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Fine it's a serious work that cites sources. I am not askig you to do my homework for me. I am just asking you to look at the evidence, which you said you wanted to do. I did not ask you to prove anything youi lying piece of shit. Now read it, don't read it I don't give a damn.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve Is it a scholarly work, or written by a historian with some familiarity on the subject?
I will read it if you say it is serious. And you will have my response about the matter probably tomorrow.
I finally got you to say whether you even took your own "evidence" (an argument you are trying to piggyback on) to be serious.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Listen you little sihtbag, less saying you'll read the site and more actually reading it. Told you twice it's a seriously work that cites sources. But keep pretending that I haven't said that you evil thugish little prick. Because that's all you've got isn't it. If I didn't take this evidence seriously why would I point to it as the sole link to my arguemnt liar? Oh and BTW I'm 40 overweight, out of shape and if you tried to attack me as you threatened I'd atill fucking kill you.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve I didn't say you claimed it was not a serious work. I asked you if it was a scholarly work, had been submitted to peer review.
If you're basically giving up and have nothing left to say, that's okay. But if you want me to go read an article that may not be convincing, and you refuse to continue the argument, that isn't really winning an argument, is it? It's more like admitting defeat before real intellectual work begins.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron So bascally if you don't want to read the evidence you win. Fine fucktard by your lame standards you win. And all it cost you was about three times the time it would take to read the fucking evidence with cites. Of course you've ducked all my questions and continually refused to say that the "anarchists" didn't do these things so actually no I win. If you want to continue I've given you a link to the evidence. You yourself say there isn't room in this forum to discuss it.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve I have said repeatedly that I am going to read it if you vouch for its seriousness. I just want to know that if I go and read your article are you going to run and hide?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve Obviously I'm not going to read it if you're just going to say, "Haha! See ya!" Because reading the article would only be one part of our discussion.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve Saying in a hypothetical situation of a fight that I would rip you apart is not the same as threatening to attack you. I could tell Mike Tyson that if we were in a fight I would kick his ass and it would not mean I was threatening to attack him (though he might interpret it that way if he was as disgruntled and squeamish as you). The fact that you're bringing this up now to me seems to indicate you are desperately trying to flee from the matter at hand.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Yeah I'm sure it wasn't your intent to threaten me at all. Fuck off.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve In attempting to surmise my intentions you reveal only the fact that you felt threatened by the most typical internet shit-slinging.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve Now, I will read your article if I can expect you to continue the discussion. I will read it-- Are you throwing in or not?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Fine I'll continue, but be aware I will constantly refer to you as liar, shithead, and winp wannabe murderer, because you are. It's interesting that you are only going to read evidence because you don't want to admit losing rather than because you actually want to know the truth. Of course you already know that the "anarchists" were murdering scum, that's why you refused to deny it.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve I am going to take that to mean: "Yes, I will let you make arguments, but I will continue to offer only rhetoric."
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve So yes, like I said, I'll probably get you a response about it tomorrow.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve Also, when I respond to your article, whether I find it to be a convincing argument, I will do so via a private message.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron No fucktard somewhere fucking public. If you're going to fucking lie and lie and lie I wan it on record. Doesn't have to be here, but somewhere there publically viewable. My blog (credible on the blogspot website) will be fine.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve No, I'm not about to put my full name or any personal information on the net. If you are only interested in discussion so you can squeeze some blog popularity for it, I am not going to even bother. Sorry.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve If you keep swearing at me I'm not going to continue, because you're just too emotional to take seriously. The discussion is just about to become serious and you are just losing complete control.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron But I am going to keep swearing at you fucktard, until you stop acting like a fuctard. If you didn't want me emotional you shouldn't have repeatedly lied to and about me. At least I'm not saying I'd like to what was it, tear out my throat? Something like that? Now fuck off and read.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve True enough. But I'm about to read the site you gave me. I did not say I'd like to tear out your throat, I said I would if we were in a fight. I did not "lie"; I asked you to prove things you said.
I'm not going to actually read and evaluate something if my response to you tomorrow is just going to receive a torrent of profanity, etc. I would want to continue the discussion. So obviously I am not going to read it until you calm down and seriously vouch you'll follow through.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Well tell you what, you stop acting like a fucktard and I'll stop calling you a fucktard. Got it shit for brains? Of course what you're actually doing is looking for an excuse not to view the evidence. BTW you specifically stated that you would tear my throat out, not that you would do it if we were in a fight. It was a clear threat. I have seriously vouched I'll follow through and you're not reading fucktard. Now fuck off.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve I am about to read your evidence and you are acting irrational. A or B?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve Look, I am totally serious about reading your site! Why do you keep calling me fucktard, Jesus Christ.
We need to discuss this rationally; so let each make his arguments and we will continue tomorrow after I have read it.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve A or B? Make a decision, I'm tired and have things to do.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@newperve So are we on for continued discussion in private messages?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron No retard we're not, because I specifically said I wanted somewhere where everyone can see you lying Now that doesn't have to be my blog. It can be yours as long as you don't censor what I say. Again you're dishonest and trying to imply I'm the one giving up.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve You already said you had no desire to continue, so clearly you are the one trying to give up. Apparently the discussion isn't important enough for its own sake.
If you want to use our discussion for propaganda value, I'm sorry, but I won't send you any response. But I'll still read the web site.
Two choices: (A) rational discuss through private messages or (B) I read your web site and benefit from whatever arguments it makes and you go on your merry way.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron I said I wouldn't and then you said you wouldn't read the evidence if I didn't, so I said OK I will. Now you're saying you won't discuse this if it will be used for "propaganda value" i.e. if anyone else can see it. There are not two choices liar, there are many. We can discuss this in any public forum you like as long as you don't censor it. I am not interested in discussion with you for it's own sake because you are a lying bigot impossible to convince.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve If you are not interested in discussion for its own sake, then why do you keep responding to my comments? At least you've given up the "grrr, fucktard!" tactic.
No, I was specific I wasn't about to let you suck on our discussion on some blog.
If you are dodging any serious colloquy, I won't even send you my thoughts on the jim.com site.
If you change your mind and want to discuss the matters for their intrinsic intellectual value, message me.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron I am interested in showing you're a lying, sociopathic wannabe murderer. I am not dodging anything, I have offered repeatedly to discuss this openly but only openly. You suddenly insisted it be by PM only AFTER I specifically said that I would not accept that. Together with your constant dodging on whether you would even read the evidence it's clearly that you have no interest in discussing anything, only in lying and being a fucktard untill I get sick of you and go away.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve Alright, last comment.
If you're going to turn this discussion into a vendetta against me for the sake of your blog, I am not going to participate. Sorry; I have no need for internet schizophrenics.
I will read the site you pasted anyways with an open mind. But I am not about to join you in your little section of the blogosphere. If you change your mind and want a rational discussion, private message me.
Take care.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron "It can be [your blog] as long as you don't censor what I say", so clearly I'm not turning this discussion into anything for the sake of my blog. But run away that's what you're best at. So you're officially saying you won't conduct a debate in any forum but private messaging after I specifically said it had to be public. Fine you lose.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve I asked you for private discussion of the matter over and over again. You ran and hid each time, calling me names, etc. Now I am ready to discuss the matter in depth, consulting your web site, and you'll only do so if you can squeeze some political capital out of it.
Disgusting, opportunistic attitude towards the truth.
You lose, as you have lost again and again, using rhetoric, name-calling and a site you refused to qualify as remotely serious.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron How is it "running and hiding" to ask that something be public? That's the opposite of running and hiding you moronic troll. My attitude towards the truth is that it should be openly available, which to you of course is disgusting. I specifically called the site seriously liar. The offer to discuss it publically remains open and you remanin a liar who is running away. Your only ostensible objection is that I might use the result, what of it?
newperve 8 months ago