HOw on earth can you be against anarchy and be against the state? You said yourself that capitalism requires laws and that laws require a state. So then you must be a statist.
If law does not exist prior to the state - and the state is by all accounts (even Objectivist) an initiator of force - then you are saying that law does not exist until a a monopolistic gang initiates force against non-aggressors. So law is therefore merely the institutionalization of coercion. Instead of law being justice, for you it is power, and justice comes (if at all) sometime after the establishment of the monopoly of enforcement.
@MillionthUsername "the state is by all accounts (even Objectivist) an initiator of force"
You make yourself look like an ass saying that. You should at least have a passing familiarity with Objectivism before declaring it advocates initiation of force, which it doesn't (see ANYTHING by Ayn Rand).
@MrCropper I read all of Rand's books 20 years ago. She believed in the monopoly power of the state. She specifically rejected anarchism, so she contradicted her stated opinions of being against the initiation of force. Using semantics to say that the state=law is ridiculous.
Explain how you can establish a monopolistic state over a territory without initiating force against non-aggressors.
The fact that you call me a name without even addressing the issue I raised is not a good sign.
@MrCropper Every political ideology "initiates force" for your ideology that does not exist for it to exist would mean that you would have to initiates force against those who object. The anarchists are right on that point. I disagree with the anarchists because I believe in the "states" right to "initiate force". The protester protests and the men with guns come and break up the protest. Is the government using force to break up the protest or are the protesters? it's an argument in semantics
@MrCropper And coercion falls into the same category. Coercion needs to be defined and each ideology defines it in the image that suits the purpose of the belief. How does one for example decide what is coercion? And for that matter how do you enforce others to apply yours (or my) values? I sit and watch you libertarians (and no your not a libertarian lol you just believe in basically the same things) arguing in semantics all the time. Circular reason comes to mine
@franks2732 "Coercion needs to be defined and each ideology defines it in the image that suits the purpose of the belief. How does one for example decide what is coercion?"
If we met face-to-face, and I weren't afraid of legal ramifacations, I'd damn quick show you what coercion is. And you'd understand (it would likely be the first thing you'd understood in your life).
@MrCropper Perhaps you could just stick your head up your ass along with your asinine beliefs. My mistake you have not taken your head out of your ass in years. And the violence thing, really? A bit childish "dummy spit"
@neobudda1 The bat shit crazies indeed populate YT. I love how his argument was to smash me face in, him being a teacher and all lol. But out of the "church of zombie fish" the "rand" followers are indeed close to the worst, the worst of course being the rothbard crew
Because we make you face your ethical/moral drawbacks, and we'll beat you in debate.
BTW, as an Objectivist you are a small government statist. You CANNOT be a non-statist unless you're an anarchist, logically. I've read Ayn Rand enough to know that much.
Good luck not debating anyone who doesn't agree with you...see how yelling into an echo chamber advances your "ideas". LOL.
I think that there are quite a few people that realize that a monitory government system goes hand in hand with corruption and take they on the the term "Anarchists" because they don't any better
i think that you should commit more time to researching and reading the actual philosophers rather than getting your information by debating "anarchist" on youtube. but that's only if you want to genuinely understand anarchy and critic it.
What about anarcho-capitalism? Rejecting the state but not capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism can be argued to be the most pure form of capitalism. Arguments against the state are very much in line with objectivist thinking in my opinion. Ayn Rand was not omniscient so it's OK to disagree with some of her conclusions, isn't it? Law is definitely necessary. Anarchists who reject law are ridiculous.
You should be able to debate ANYONE who is willing to have a rational debate. If you won't debate someone, even a fascist, just because they are fascist, you've shown nothing except your own close-mindedness.
Your argument for why you don't debate with Anarchists is because they're wrong? So why post the video explaining why they're wrong in the first place? How can you claim to believe what you said in the video if you don't defend it against their criticisms of it? Would you take someone who thinks we should have an income tax seriously if they said "I don't debate Objectivists"?
Some people just don't like to constantly argue with kids. It's not a strawman, it's a difference too great in the intelligence between capitalists and anarchists.
No, that wasn't an ad homien, it was a fact.
Besides... most anarchists have anarchist friends so they need to defend their beliefs to keep their friends. Sad but true. It's futile to argue with them.
Again, apparently their freedom DID need to be maintained. Does a bin Laden give a fuck about your "surplus product"? Irrational (not rationally self-interested) sociopaths and outside forces do not fit into your worldview, which makes it oversimplified and asinine. End of story.
What are you talking about? Freedom comes from law? Are you crazy? so if the law says you are not free, you have no claim to freedom? To say that freedom comes from law is to say that Blacks under slavery or Jews during the holocaust were sub human. It is to say that English colonists were unworthy of representation, that soviet citizens deserved the gulag. Laws are inherently tyrannical, and markets supersede law by their very nature.
@Skyler827 Gross oversimplification. Only laws are capable of guaranteeing freedom; this is NOT the same as saying ANY laws bring freedom. This is not a subtle distinction.
@sybo59 Freedom does not need to be guaranteed by law any more than gravity. Freedom is an inherent, self evident concept. Everybody is free to do what they want if they are not impinging on other people's rights. This is a fact, and when the law denies it, as it always does, the law is an enemy of freedom. To say that only laws can guarantee freedom is like saying only religion can guarantee certainty about the afterlife. They guarantee the opposite of what they promise.
@Skyler827 Freedom doesn't need to be guaranteed? So our rights are just magically maintained simply because they SHOULD be? History doesn't reflect this.The concept of freedom, and freedom in practice are two different things. Let me ask you: does a law against fraud protect rights, or take away the "right" to defraud? What is better for individual freedom than a rational Constitution that limits the power of gov't to the role of preserving rights, and only using force on initiators of force?
@sybo59 It is irrelevant that fraud hurts society. In the absence of government, people will individually fund contract enforcers and agents for restitution, just like we buy insurance now. None of us learn about any of this history is because all well "governed" societies have kept the needs of contract enforcement, ostracization and collective defense in the hands of the state, and we learn nothing of the numerous stateless societies that have existed. We are falsely taught empire=civilization
@Skyler827 I said nothing of societal benefit, though this is a side effect of increasing individual liberties. Stateless societies, as you boastfully mention, have indeed existed--but that is my point; obviously they couldn't be maintained. Their freedoms didn't last, and without a Constitution, you can never expect them to. Also, you don't see a problem with everyone having the right to initiate force? You don't see how this lends itself to de facto rule of the ones with the biggest guns?
@sybo59 There are ways around the guns. If one person has the biggest guns and wants the fruits of other people's labor, the others have ways of forcing him to cooperate, such as the threat of leaving, of refusing to produce surplus, or warning others elsewhere about his treachery. Once others can be convinced to tolerate this local strongman, once they cannot leave, once they can't hide their surplus, then collective freedom collapses and soveriginty collapses into the hands of said strongman.
@sybo59 If you keep changing topics every post, I won't have space to argue my points. I was going to say that natural checks and balances on force are an inevitable feature of free societies. Free people are mobile. Free people can hide their surplus product. Free people can communicate over long distances faster than any state army. It does not matter that most of them have no weapons, such societies worked just fine until empires took these abilities away. Freedom repels empire, ergo law.
@sybo59 Are you kidding me? Seriously, you really believe that a piece of paper makes any difference? The U.S. constitution is one of the best constitutions on the planet when it comes to restricting government power, and yet what do we have? It's the biggest baddest ugliest monster of a state you can imagine. So... the smallest state in the world has become the largest one. How can you NOT see that ? Government IS the initiation of force.
@wherearewegoing "the biggest baddest ugliest monster of a state you can imagine" This is only true if you drop context (scale). The US gov't is bigger than others mainly because the US is a huge country. It has certainly gotten way too big, but you'd still be hard pressed to find a country with more individual rights. THIS gov't today absolutely initiates force, but this isn't my ideal gov't; I'm only saying that it is better than anarchy/democracy at guaranteeing indiv. rights.
@wherearewegoing Also, yes, if people no longer want freedom, a constitution will not magically maintain it. But this is not what I am answering. A constitutional republic (assuming a good constitution), with gov't strictly limited to the rolls of internal/external defense against initiators of force (ie. military, police, courts) is the best at guaranteeing individual rights (assuming a population that value freedom).
"Islamic fundamentalism"? Is that like Christian and Jewish fundamentalism? I'm sure Mr. Cropper does not differentiate between the three, for his intellectual sake. How about just "Monotheistic fundamentalism." Still, great video.
So basically is what you're saying is that you're a conceited narrow-minded fuck who can't communicate with anyone whose ideas are different from your own?
If you wont dialog with anarchist you are only arguing against your own strawman. That is not logical sorry. Also anarchy doesnt mean no law it means no leader in the anarchist theory laws do exist but they are not enforced by the state. I would love to know how you came to half the conclusions you came upon but apparently you dont wish to speak with me.
@Anarchy00094 """Also anarchy doesnt mean no law it means no leader in the anarchist theory laws do exist but they are not enforced by the stat"""
Right, they are enforced by a police that has to be private right? So that means they are enforced and formed by who ever can pay the police. Sounds like a brilliant idea, just lovely.
It seems many initially study Objectivism with an open mind and than close their minds to any variation of the basic philosophy. They ignore reason when it comes to minor variations of their world view. It seems to contradict everything I have read of Rand, to close your mind to reason and cling to your one ideology, doesn't sound like objectivism. Rand was defending her philosophy, you are defending a memory, which it seems Rand would condemn. Which leads to a contradiction in your philosophy.
Wouldn't you say people in our current society would say objectivism and the ideal minarchist state is also a "floating abstraction"? You see anarchism as being impractical; they see minarchy as impractical.
And is the country's current "law" legitimate to you even though not ideal? What makes law legitimate?
If you think capitalism is "just an economic system," then you need to read Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal," and get back to me. But I'll say this for now: capitalism is impossible in statist regimes because capitalism requires protection of rights.
A person could conceivably oppose atheism on the grounds that typically atheism disregards appeals to the super-natural as a whole and at the same time oppose deism/theism as false due to reliance on a deity or perhaps just being organized. Just off the top of my mind, Wiccans may fall into this category.
You don't need a state to take care of criminals like you mentioned. Road companies could take care of it, or private security. And laws don't make markets. Lawmakers had to eat right? Someone needed to produce. Hence, markets came first. You're sounding like a big statist when you say that law creates markets/freedom. Markets/freedom necessarily come before laws. That isn't to say all laws are bad (laws against rape, murder, theft, etc. are fine). Roderick Long has a lecture on this.
As for Markets vs. Law. A system of exchanges would have to occur before rules about said exchanges were made. This doesn't mean that all markets preceded all laws, but that the first 'laws' (Private or public) came out of some need for a general rule of transaction that could have only occured
As Markets became more complex, so too do the laws.
i somewhat agree, but for anarchy to ever be legitimized, requires pure deterritorialization. that means that markets have to lose the "money" aspect, where it will be replaced with a bartering value-system and still be money in a sense. the only anarchy thats possible is technological-resources machine while we do whatever we want. then theres the pyschological criminal aspect.
um because money is more of a sign of territory. it is at first hand a self-redundant property, but it still has different sociological values depending on the form. for example paying in pennies or paying in a 100 dollar bill. so pure deterritorialization would be to always be on the move, because if anything sits there an culminates people grab it for their own. for example, whether home buyers are the true owners of the house or not. this would kind of put everything into a hyperrent.
it would diminish the use hording aspect of money. another thing would be to just build a central machine, while we live babylonian lives. for example, mechanize the vast majority of the process of shopping at jewel, and assembling the products, and growing the crops.
if we go in thinking like its not possible it isnt, but women in africa get forced feed, and islam extremists bomb themselves into buildings. anything goes, so many setups are possible while keeping production going. that is anarchy's biggest fault. the second one is the name, and media image it has. the third is that its impossible to have a theory for it, there are too many different theories. it only works if we let go of the written word, and instead live back on our voice. like hunter-gathr
anarchism and property is a simple problem to solve-you cant own more than you can use or produce with your own labor-production is then owned by the workers-resources owned by all,ensuring participatory decision making lines of communication between community and labor on how to use resources, the Ukraine was succesfully anarchist until the bolsheviks doublecrossed em and the spanish had several successful models working together at the same time.
YouTube is not for debates in a sense, that it is HARD to damn follow your opponent in these crappy message boards. Wanna debate ? Come to anarchist forum at least. Then it will be a sign, that you are INTERESTED in debate and asking questions. YouTube is good ONLY for video debates.
It can be difficult, but I find a great deal of learning can be achieved with people who are interested and serious and just get right down to it. I don't make videos, but do have a good deal of constructive arguments on YT. Hundreds of words can be plenty to achieve mutual learning and understanding, if not agreement.
WOO-HOO! Here's to not wasting one's time on talking sense to fools.
BTW, your deep knowledge of Objectivism has undoubtably made me a better Objectivist. I was a wishy-washy Kelley type before. With many people now being exposed to Rand via the new Kelley/Branden-esque bigraphies, there's a great need for in-depth, publicly available depth in Objectivism. So forget the idiots and stick to the fun stuff! :)
You must be a more seasoned objectivist than I, I still feel it somehow necessary to address anarchists and talk about why they draw different conclusions than I do in spite of understanding the virtues of the free market etc.
I don't think that labeling them as "fools" is the right aproach. I may disagree with anarchists on a number of points, but I don't think they are either unintentionally stupid, nor willfully so. Misguided and confused maybe but why not work with them to correct this?
Another thing that bothers me is that I have never seen any litterature nor videos online that describe exactly how the political system of objectivism would work. I agree wholeheartedly with objectivist ethics, but the argument from effect is also necessary.
Example: How would the government be financed if taxation is immoral?
who said in anarchist society there would be no law ? I really want you to learn more about anarchism and clear many misconceptions you have, like this one.
Yeah, right! Exactly what laws are you talking about? And who would enforce them? Make a substantive argument, if you can. But, simply telling me I'm wrong, does not help you or me. Anarchic law is an oxymoron. It's like saying socialist freedom.
You know I am not gonna discuss with you this issue ? Because YT is not for debates, and you are ignorant on a subject. If you wanna clear your misconceptions about anarchy - be more curious and read upon in. Just making bald assertions about "oxymorons" won't help you understand my position.
Youtubes not for debates? Who says? You? Im not impressed. I am sure I am ignorant on a subject, but not this one. What law is there in anarchy? And how is it enforced?
-You still think he didn't say this? Look above just a little.
He doesn't like debating anarchists? I'm not an anarchist! And his personal choice has very little to do with the function of Youtube. Can you tell me what and how laws cans exist in an anarchy?
He meant for himself, and the way he perceives his role as a youtube poster. He didn't say "nobody should debate on youtube", but that was your implication
I hope this seemingly useless debate on semantics isn't annoying; I like playing with words.
His statement made, explicitly, no qualifier as to for whom Youtube is not for debating. Youtube is not for debates, he said; in general, is the correct implication, imo. Even though he did not say, directly, "everyone", I think "in general" or completely non-specified is closer to just him. Don't you think? How do you know what he meant?
I know what he meant because a strong statement such as "nobody should debate on youtube" can only be made in the litteral sense.
If I said "A house is not for having lunch" you would automatically assume my meaning to be "I personally don't eat lunch inside my house". Certainly a strong statement such as "nobody should ever eat lunch in their house" would have to be stated more specifically because of how extreme it is.
Remember, the statement in question is, "Youtube is not for debates" not "nobody should debate on youtube".
How can you say you KNOW he meant something he did not qualify? Especially when, in the english language, things without qualifiers are meant to be that way to be as inclusive as possible.
"A house is not for having lunch", in no way, by itself, implies anything other than a house, any house, anyone's house or houses in general are not for having lunch. To go from the non-specified, open ended, nebulous and general to the specific, singular and definite is not automatic, it is a mistake.
Yeah this lost in translation thing is kind of pointless, I just replied to your comment originally because I was convinced myself that he meant "I don't want to debate on youtube"
If you still disagree with me on what he meant you can ask him yourself, I just felt I had to say something because I thought you criticized him unjustly.
A proper government retaliates on your behalf and puts that person in jail. Or were you talking about dictators? Or socialist regimes? Because in a proper capitalist society, there are no taxes.
Capitalism is a system where individual rights are supreme. The government acts only in retaliatory force against people who initiate force. Limited government where the masses cannot vote your money away from you for some particular socialistic cause (taxes). Democracy is simply rule by the majority and is certainly not necessarily moral or good.
OK, I can see how capitalism necessarily precludes taxes.
But it doesn't preclude other stupid government intervention. So capitalism is not the protection of all of a person's rights, it's just protection of a person's money.
Protection of our individual right to life (which includes property), liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism necessarily precludes all government intervention other than retaliatory force against other men. What intervention are you talking about? By capitalism, I do not mean this mixed up mess we have today, where government intervention abounds stemming from violations of individual rights for the interest of some group.
A more free properly capitalistic society has no government intervention, not in personal finance, education, morality, healthcare, business, culture or entertainment.
Capitalism is a type of government that respects and protects individual rights.
Democracy is a type of government that respects and empowers majority rule.
There are various other types of government and many states can have attributes of different types at the same time. I'd categorize the current US type as mostly socialist/somewhat capitalist (80/20 perhaps).
I know that objectivism opposes taxation in all forms, but I still don't know what the proposed alternative is. I've read that government funding in an objectivist state would be voluntary, but Imi not sure about all the nuts and bolts of it.
For now all I can say to you is that objectivists oppose taxation, same as anarchists do. The government as they propose would not have the right to force anybody to give up anything, only the right to protect rights
I think what you have written is accurate. I think that an objective capitalistic state hasn't existed to know or even study, as a science, the practical applications (nuts and bolts) of a voluntary limited government. Nineteenth century America is the closest so far. And I say objective because objectivity is paramount, Objectivism, not so much.
I concider myself an objectivist but as far as I've come to understand being an objectivist is to accept objectivist ethics
In other words, it doesn't mean you have to agree with everything Ayn Rand, or Peikoff, or Brook or whoever says. Being an objectivist means to concider reason as the primary means of obtaining knowledge, and to pursue rationality and personal values/happiness. It means other things as well but it's a long discussion
Well put. I believe reason to be supreme. And accepting this has lead me to a proper objective epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and politics. AR has helped me a great deal to understand and articulate my own philosophy. But I also believe that there are more than a couple Objectivist's that are emotionally committed to certain ideas that get in the way of a more integrated orientation to reality.
The big ones, imo, are AR and LP's misunderstanding of freewill, evasion, inherently dishonest ideas and evil. If you think it's impossible for the originator of a philosophy to misapply it; think again. I still consider myself an objectivist and a determinist and an atheist and a capitalist and an egoist.
As for what Cropper said, I commented originally because I was concerned with the meaning of what you said. He probably should have specified his point more clearly, but my concern isn't with semantics, but rather with ideas.
I think we've clarified this point as much as it needs to be clarified
You gonna back that up? In what way does an anarchist support the upholding of an individual's rights? By getting rid of laws? There must be a monopoly on retaliatory force or else choas and dictatorship will ensue. Capitalism is the only way your individual rights will be respected.
Anarchy's biggest weakness is security, and yeah they also assume that individual governance wont lead to gang and terrorist related activities. Honest capitalism and true democracy is best. Corporations today have too much power of politics, and the 2 "fake" party system is no democracy but an illusion of choice. I dunno what system Star Trek runs on but that is pretty damn close to perfection. A techonlogy and scientific base culture is what we need.
"The anarchists take markets like trees and lakes and stuff, markets just exist."
No serious anarchist is arguing that a market is a material thing (like a tree.)
"...markets have created everything, and all we have to do is get out certain ingredients, namely using physical force against others, 'cause that's what the state does, right? So if we stop people using physical force how we going to do that?"
What does it mean to take an ingredient out of a market? Or do you mean natural resources?
I'm not sure why getting goods out of a market (or getting resources from nature) necessitates physical force against other people. I'm pretty sure I could extract something useful from the earth or fall a tree for wood without having to use force against another person (I could if I wanted to I suppose, I could go to a farmhouse and cut down the trees that protects it from high winds and tell the farmer I'll shoot him if he stops me.)
dumbism = dis video stupidism = peopel finkin soviets were communists and cannot make the distinction between socialism for the rich and the illusion of socialism.
The only person who could ever regard a preemptive declaration "everyone must respect individual rights, and here's what will happen if you don't" as the initiation of force is someone who, somewhere, deep down inside him, wants to violate individual rights.
and what evidence do you have that could indicate tha Anarchists do not want to protect individual roghts.? That is what Anarchism is about, the rights of the individual.
You are REALLY ignorant on a subject. You don't know anything about anarchism because you even don't know what STATISM is and what is the main problems of a state. Anarchy is just a rejection of this state and saying "no, we can find much better answers". Educate yourself on a subject. I see, that you really a smart guy.
The part where you talk about the Greeks claiming to be free because they obey only the law, sounds good to me. However the reality of the so-called democratic system we find ourselves in is nothing more than mob rule. So I am surprised that you attack thinking which would protect a system of true democracy like Anarchism. Or are you taking the dictionary meaning of anarchy and transposing that onto Anarchism. (I take your point that there are a lot of dick heads out there)
"Anarchists are [indeed] the scum of the left. They want to be hippies, but those jobs are already taken." -Ayn Rand
Anarchy is philosophy without politics i.e. the politics of a man, alone on a desert island. As soon as two or more people are involved, the selfish ethics of man demands a set of objective and universally binding rules (i.e. laws) in politics, which ban the use of force amongst human beings.
The use of force is fine if used against nature; and as long as youre alone, there is only nature. The presence of another human being, in the absence of a ban on the use of force amongst men, is nothing more than the presence of another predator of you and your own prey, and therefore a threat to your life and your survival. In other words: you would be better off without him. And indeed it is preferable for man to live alone than to live in a lawless society (anarchy).
Civilized society means a society of laws. In small groups of men these laws can be implicit (oral), but have to become more and more explicit (written), the greater the number of people involved. The less objective the laws, the less civilized the society. The absence of laws is the absence of civilization.
In order to destroy politics in philosophy, you need to advocate subjective ethics. In order to do that, you need whim, feeling and faith in epistemology. Ron Pauls theistic metaphysics, his ideas on immigration and foreign policy are good illustrations of the complete disorientation and helplessness of libertarians and anarchists alike, once they leave the field of economics. They run out of concrete ideas to plagiarize and do not know the method, which created those ideas in the first place.
Anarchy is just stupid. The first mistake they make is they assume that if you abolish the state you will suddenly get the system of anarchy that they propose. You and EagleEye1975 debunked the rest of the anarchist system.
I made a video where I made the point that many ATHEISTS, who reject irrational beliefs, are quite often socialists, communists, or anarchists... all of which are just as dogmatic as religion! These people who claim to be rational, and understand the "invisible hand" of natural selection with modification (evolution), do NOT understand the "invisible hand" of economics in free (yet regulated) markets!
Do you believe that the state can be limited? If you do, you believe in fairy tales.
The only way law can provide freedom is if those laws are limited. But as long as laws are controled by a coercive monopoly called the state, they will expand indefinitely creating endless pages of regulations that are literally impossible to follow. In other words, chaos. Laws should be naturally selected like anything else. If you can't imagine how this is possible, you need to read a bit more.
You don't think America's laws are "naturally selected"? The reason American-style constitutional government is taking the entire earth over is because of its evolutionary vigor. But anarchy repudiates law... so what the hell are you saying?
Yep. The complete irony, the joke on Anarchism, is that we already freaking have what they want! The reason America's legal approach became the strongest, attracted to many immigrants, and, to lesser degrees, spread around the world is because it's a "superior product" in the "world market."
To be opposed to it simply because you, personally, don't get to be the one doing the governing is like saying that it's unfair that two people can't be up to bat in a baseball game at the same time.
grantsinmypants2, "To be opposed to it simply because you, personally, don't get to be the one doing the governing..." Where did you get that from?
Free market anarchists are opposed to the initiation of force. So they do not want to govern the nation themselves. They realize no human being is intelligent enough to do so.
The fools that call themselves anarchists, that run around like idiots throwing bricks in windows are a different story. If you're talking about them, I might agree with you.
Fireman12888, not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but a stateless society does not by definition reject laws. It rejects rulers. It rejects the state, a coercive monopoly that rules over a geographic region with the exclusive right to initiate force against, steal taxes from, & force a single crappy system of laws on every citizen within its domain. A domain, by the way, which it does not legitimately own.
I was being sarcastic. I believe what we have now is chaotic, and that anarchy is the answer to posses freedom. Or at least what I think defends my principles; surely the "barrel of a gun" in my face for taxes is not what I want.
For evolution to create highly adapted entities, the more variation the better. On a global scale natural selection exists between countries. However we still have only one major choice, an expanding coercive state. Within a country there is virtually no variation. Differences between states is miniscule. All are forced under a single system of federal law. Anarchy allows people to voluntarily organize communities as they wish. This creates tremendous variation. Societal evolution accelerates.
Good for you! Build your objectivist community. Screw the rest of the idiots because often they don't take ideas seriously enough. It is such a waste of time to fight with MOST of them. There are some that just haven't thought about the ideas and are latent O'ist but don't worry about them. Until most O'ists realize this and spend time distancing themselves and achieving truly great things O'ism is not going to take off a bunch.
No, that was an identification. MaikUniversum has absolutely no evidence for what he is saying. He has nothing to indicate to him whether not what he is saying is actually true. He's just making an arbitrary guess about Cropper's motivations. Yet he's asserting it as if somehow he's certain. It's pathetic.
Jesus, all you fucking anarchists are like this. Stay on topic! I'm not even talking about whether or not anarchism is right or wrong. I'm talking about your initial comment where you arbitrarily guessed Cropper's emotional state, and psychologized the reasons for him to not want to talk to you. My god it's not that hard to see that....You fucking anarchists always do this context-swapping bullshit. Stop wasting my time with your undigested brain goop, and focus your mind you piece of shit.
This guy is hilarious!
bearcat648 1 month ago
So; We've all heard you blabber semi-coherently and use straw men arguments and half-truths to attack your opposition - Now, what do you propose?
Where lies the solution, if not in learning to get along?
There are two possible futures; Mankind will survive/Mankind will perish; And unless we learn to coexist, the second is an eventuality.
Orthodoxcrusader 3 months ago
HOw on earth can you be against anarchy and be against the state? You said yourself that capitalism requires laws and that laws require a state. So then you must be a statist.
sewbuttns 3 months ago
Laws are only as good as the men who make them and the men who enforce them.
sewbuttns 3 months ago
If law does not exist prior to the state - and the state is by all accounts (even Objectivist) an initiator of force - then you are saying that law does not exist until a a monopolistic gang initiates force against non-aggressors. So law is therefore merely the institutionalization of coercion. Instead of law being justice, for you it is power, and justice comes (if at all) sometime after the establishment of the monopoly of enforcement.
Isn't that backwards?
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername "the state is by all accounts (even Objectivist) an initiator of force"
You make yourself look like an ass saying that. You should at least have a passing familiarity with Objectivism before declaring it advocates initiation of force, which it doesn't (see ANYTHING by Ayn Rand).
MrCropper 3 months ago
@MrCropper I read all of Rand's books 20 years ago. She believed in the monopoly power of the state. She specifically rejected anarchism, so she contradicted her stated opinions of being against the initiation of force. Using semantics to say that the state=law is ridiculous.
Explain how you can establish a monopolistic state over a territory without initiating force against non-aggressors.
The fact that you call me a name without even addressing the issue I raised is not a good sign.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MrCropper Every political ideology "initiates force" for your ideology that does not exist for it to exist would mean that you would have to initiates force against those who object. The anarchists are right on that point. I disagree with the anarchists because I believe in the "states" right to "initiate force". The protester protests and the men with guns come and break up the protest. Is the government using force to break up the protest or are the protesters? it's an argument in semantics
franks2732 3 months ago
@MrCropper And coercion falls into the same category. Coercion needs to be defined and each ideology defines it in the image that suits the purpose of the belief. How does one for example decide what is coercion? And for that matter how do you enforce others to apply yours (or my) values? I sit and watch you libertarians (and no your not a libertarian lol you just believe in basically the same things) arguing in semantics all the time. Circular reason comes to mine
franks2732 3 months ago
@franks2732 "Coercion needs to be defined and each ideology defines it in the image that suits the purpose of the belief. How does one for example decide what is coercion?"
If we met face-to-face, and I weren't afraid of legal ramifacations, I'd damn quick show you what coercion is. And you'd understand (it would likely be the first thing you'd understood in your life).
MrCropper 3 months ago
@MrCropper Perhaps you could just stick your head up your ass along with your asinine beliefs. My mistake you have not taken your head out of your ass in years. And the violence thing, really? A bit childish "dummy spit"
franks2732 3 months ago
@franks2732 objectivist is a jedi mind trick in which you fool yourself. mrcopper is so wild
neobudda1 3 months ago
@neobudda1 The bat shit crazies indeed populate YT. I love how his argument was to smash me face in, him being a teacher and all lol. But out of the "church of zombie fish" the "rand" followers are indeed close to the worst, the worst of course being the rothbard crew
franks2732 3 months ago
"Why I won't debate anarchists"
Because we make you face your ethical/moral drawbacks, and we'll beat you in debate.
BTW, as an Objectivist you are a small government statist. You CANNOT be a non-statist unless you're an anarchist, logically. I've read Ayn Rand enough to know that much.
Good luck not debating anyone who doesn't agree with you...see how yelling into an echo chamber advances your "ideas". LOL.
ProIndividual 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thevillagepeople777 And at the same time they force it on everyone else.
ihaterobbie123 5 months ago
because you lose all your arguments?
metamaggot 5 months ago
I think that there are quite a few people that realize that a monitory government system goes hand in hand with corruption and take they on the the term "Anarchists" because they don't any better
SmokeyMcadams 7 months ago
Yet another clueless randroid...
AcidRephlex 7 months ago 2
i think that you should commit more time to researching and reading the actual philosophers rather than getting your information by debating "anarchist" on youtube. but that's only if you want to genuinely understand anarchy and critic it.
hakami89 8 months ago
What about anarcho-capitalism? Rejecting the state but not capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism can be argued to be the most pure form of capitalism. Arguments against the state are very much in line with objectivist thinking in my opinion. Ayn Rand was not omniscient so it's OK to disagree with some of her conclusions, isn't it? Law is definitely necessary. Anarchists who reject law are ridiculous.
Esoparagon 8 months ago
because youre a faggot who got pwned
SecularNumanist 10 months ago
You should be able to debate ANYONE who is willing to have a rational debate. If you won't debate someone, even a fascist, just because they are fascist, you've shown nothing except your own close-mindedness.
caspringer09 11 months ago 3
Your argument for why you don't debate with Anarchists is because they're wrong? So why post the video explaining why they're wrong in the first place? How can you claim to believe what you said in the video if you don't defend it against their criticisms of it? Would you take someone who thinks we should have an income tax seriously if they said "I don't debate Objectivists"?
awsmsc 11 months ago
There you go. Close that mind . That's how all problems are solved. How sad is that?
AndyWright68 1 year ago
@AndyWright68 Are you closed, or open minded towards people that believe in leprechauns?
sybo59 1 year ago
@sybo59 The ones at the end of the rainbow or drunk at the bar?
AndyWright68 1 year ago
@AndyWright68 Touche'.
sybo59 1 year ago
Some people just don't like to constantly argue with kids. It's not a strawman, it's a difference too great in the intelligence between capitalists and anarchists.
No, that wasn't an ad homien, it was a fact.
Besides... most anarchists have anarchist friends so they need to defend their beliefs to keep their friends. Sad but true. It's futile to argue with them.
agun17 1 year ago
"Freedom does not need to be guaranteed"
"...until empires took these abilities away"
Again, apparently their freedom DID need to be maintained. Does a bin Laden give a fuck about your "surplus product"? Irrational (not rationally self-interested) sociopaths and outside forces do not fit into your worldview, which makes it oversimplified and asinine. End of story.
sybo59 1 year ago
What are you talking about? Freedom comes from law? Are you crazy? so if the law says you are not free, you have no claim to freedom? To say that freedom comes from law is to say that Blacks under slavery or Jews during the holocaust were sub human. It is to say that English colonists were unworthy of representation, that soviet citizens deserved the gulag. Laws are inherently tyrannical, and markets supersede law by their very nature.
Skyler827 1 year ago
@Skyler827 Gross oversimplification. Only laws are capable of guaranteeing freedom; this is NOT the same as saying ANY laws bring freedom. This is not a subtle distinction.
sybo59 1 year ago
@sybo59 Freedom does not need to be guaranteed by law any more than gravity. Freedom is an inherent, self evident concept. Everybody is free to do what they want if they are not impinging on other people's rights. This is a fact, and when the law denies it, as it always does, the law is an enemy of freedom. To say that only laws can guarantee freedom is like saying only religion can guarantee certainty about the afterlife. They guarantee the opposite of what they promise.
Skyler827 1 year ago
@Skyler827 Freedom doesn't need to be guaranteed? So our rights are just magically maintained simply because they SHOULD be? History doesn't reflect this.The concept of freedom, and freedom in practice are two different things. Let me ask you: does a law against fraud protect rights, or take away the "right" to defraud? What is better for individual freedom than a rational Constitution that limits the power of gov't to the role of preserving rights, and only using force on initiators of force?
sybo59 1 year ago
@sybo59 It is irrelevant that fraud hurts society. In the absence of government, people will individually fund contract enforcers and agents for restitution, just like we buy insurance now. None of us learn about any of this history is because all well "governed" societies have kept the needs of contract enforcement, ostracization and collective defense in the hands of the state, and we learn nothing of the numerous stateless societies that have existed. We are falsely taught empire=civilization
Skyler827 1 year ago
@Skyler827 I said nothing of societal benefit, though this is a side effect of increasing individual liberties. Stateless societies, as you boastfully mention, have indeed existed--but that is my point; obviously they couldn't be maintained. Their freedoms didn't last, and without a Constitution, you can never expect them to. Also, you don't see a problem with everyone having the right to initiate force? You don't see how this lends itself to de facto rule of the ones with the biggest guns?
sybo59 1 year ago
@sybo59 There are ways around the guns. If one person has the biggest guns and wants the fruits of other people's labor, the others have ways of forcing him to cooperate, such as the threat of leaving, of refusing to produce surplus, or warning others elsewhere about his treachery. Once others can be convinced to tolerate this local strongman, once they cannot leave, once they can't hide their surplus, then collective freedom collapses and soveriginty collapses into the hands of said strongman.
Skyler827 1 year ago
@Skyler827 In other words, freedom DOES need to be maintained, and only objective law can guarantee individual freedom. Thank you very much.
sybo59 1 year ago
@sybo59 If you keep changing topics every post, I won't have space to argue my points. I was going to say that natural checks and balances on force are an inevitable feature of free societies. Free people are mobile. Free people can hide their surplus product. Free people can communicate over long distances faster than any state army. It does not matter that most of them have no weapons, such societies worked just fine until empires took these abilities away. Freedom repels empire, ergo law.
Skyler827 1 year ago
@Skyler827 I didn't submit that last post as a reply to you, so you probably didn't read it. Here you go.
sybo59 1 year ago
@sybo59 Are you kidding me? Seriously, you really believe that a piece of paper makes any difference? The U.S. constitution is one of the best constitutions on the planet when it comes to restricting government power, and yet what do we have? It's the biggest baddest ugliest monster of a state you can imagine. So... the smallest state in the world has become the largest one. How can you NOT see that ? Government IS the initiation of force.
wherearewegoing 1 year ago
@wherearewegoing "the biggest baddest ugliest monster of a state you can imagine" This is only true if you drop context (scale). The US gov't is bigger than others mainly because the US is a huge country. It has certainly gotten way too big, but you'd still be hard pressed to find a country with more individual rights. THIS gov't today absolutely initiates force, but this isn't my ideal gov't; I'm only saying that it is better than anarchy/democracy at guaranteeing indiv. rights.
sybo59 1 year ago
@wherearewegoing Also, yes, if people no longer want freedom, a constitution will not magically maintain it. But this is not what I am answering. A constitutional republic (assuming a good constitution), with gov't strictly limited to the rolls of internal/external defense against initiators of force (ie. military, police, courts) is the best at guaranteeing individual rights (assuming a population that value freedom).
sybo59 1 year ago
Not watching the video, but is the answer "Because they're generally 14 year old punkrockers"
Masterphonic 1 year ago 9
"Islamic fundamentalism"? Is that like Christian and Jewish fundamentalism? I'm sure Mr. Cropper does not differentiate between the three, for his intellectual sake. How about just "Monotheistic fundamentalism." Still, great video.
biped19 1 year ago
So basically is what you're saying is that you're a conceited narrow-minded fuck who can't communicate with anyone whose ideas are different from your own?
theInversion99 1 year ago 2
If you wont dialog with anarchist you are only arguing against your own strawman. That is not logical sorry. Also anarchy doesnt mean no law it means no leader in the anarchist theory laws do exist but they are not enforced by the state. I would love to know how you came to half the conclusions you came upon but apparently you dont wish to speak with me.
Anarchy00094 1 year ago 4
@Anarchy00094 "Also anarchy doesnt mean no law it means no leader in the anarchist theory laws do exist but they are not enforced by the state. "
That is the single dumbest definition of anarchy (or law) I've ever heard.
MrCropper 1 year ago 2
@MrCropper
That is why I dont debate assholes, they dont back up anything. Your say so is not proof. If you dont debate anarchist dont respond at all.
Anarchy00094 1 year ago
@Anarchy00094 """Also anarchy doesnt mean no law it means no leader in the anarchist theory laws do exist but they are not enforced by the stat"""
Right, they are enforced by a police that has to be private right? So that means they are enforced and formed by who ever can pay the police. Sounds like a brilliant idea, just lovely.
gulbirk 3 months ago
yet another randtard. whoopdy doo.
pazomblez 1 year ago
@pazomblez I love how Randians bitch about religion but are more dogmatic and irrational then the worst of the religious.
theInversion99 1 year ago
Some reading for the randtards out there:
Sociology of the Ayn Rand cult: lewrockwell[dot]com/rothbard/rothbard23[dot]html
The unlikeliest cult in history: 2think[dot]org/02_2_she[dot]shtml
The cult of Ayn Rand and the worship of fascism:
atheism[dot]about[dot]com/b/2006/02/24/cult-of-ayn-rand-the-worship-of-fascist-supermen[dot]htm
google cult + Ayn Rand for more.
Rand was a malignant narcissist, possibly a sociopath, like any good cult leader. This comes through unmistakably in her writing.
pazomblez 1 year ago 2
So like a state that best protects your rights is the ideal?
gosmokesome 1 year ago
It seems many initially study Objectivism with an open mind and than close their minds to any variation of the basic philosophy. They ignore reason when it comes to minor variations of their world view. It seems to contradict everything I have read of Rand, to close your mind to reason and cling to your one ideology, doesn't sound like objectivism. Rand was defending her philosophy, you are defending a memory, which it seems Rand would condemn. Which leads to a contradiction in your philosophy.
raider6504 2 years ago
just wondering where is the basics?
and btw what is the song in the background music?
Y0b0mi 2 years ago
Wouldn't you say people in our current society would say objectivism and the ideal minarchist state is also a "floating abstraction"? You see anarchism as being impractical; they see minarchy as impractical.
And is the country's current "law" legitimate to you even though not ideal? What makes law legitimate?
NoMorFear 2 years ago
How can you oppose both anarchism and statism?
barccy 2 years ago
By supporting capitalism.
MrCropper 2 years ago
But that's economic. What about political? Anarchism and statism can both be capitalistic. They can both be otherwise.
barccy 2 years ago
If you think capitalism is "just an economic system," then you need to read Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal," and get back to me. But I'll say this for now: capitalism is impossible in statist regimes because capitalism requires protection of rights.
MrCropper 2 years ago
yup, economics and politics go hand in hand
wasn't that what communism was all about...
TheSophist2007 2 years ago
A person can't oppose both atheism and deism/theism can they?
barccy 2 years ago 2
A person could conceivably oppose atheism on the grounds that typically atheism disregards appeals to the super-natural as a whole and at the same time oppose deism/theism as false due to reliance on a deity or perhaps just being organized. Just off the top of my mind, Wiccans may fall into this category.
Nelapidae 2 years ago
"And all the other idiots" :P Well said
silenzer12 2 years ago
You don't need a state to take care of criminals like you mentioned. Road companies could take care of it, or private security. And laws don't make markets. Lawmakers had to eat right? Someone needed to produce. Hence, markets came first. You're sounding like a big statist when you say that law creates markets/freedom. Markets/freedom necessarily come before laws. That isn't to say all laws are bad (laws against rape, murder, theft, etc. are fine). Roderick Long has a lecture on this.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 2
This sounds like a giant strawman.
As for Markets vs. Law. A system of exchanges would have to occur before rules about said exchanges were made. This doesn't mean that all markets preceded all laws, but that the first 'laws' (Private or public) came out of some need for a general rule of transaction that could have only occured
As Markets became more complex, so too do the laws.
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago 3
i somewhat agree, but for anarchy to ever be legitimized, requires pure deterritorialization. that means that markets have to lose the "money" aspect, where it will be replaced with a bartering value-system and still be money in a sense. the only anarchy thats possible is technological-resources machine while we do whatever we want. then theres the pyschological criminal aspect.
gen6k 2 years ago
otherwise whoever has the most "money" controls the whole bitch.
gen6k 2 years ago
Why would deterritorialization lose the 'money' aspect?
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago
um because money is more of a sign of territory. it is at first hand a self-redundant property, but it still has different sociological values depending on the form. for example paying in pennies or paying in a 100 dollar bill. so pure deterritorialization would be to always be on the move, because if anything sits there an culminates people grab it for their own. for example, whether home buyers are the true owners of the house or not. this would kind of put everything into a hyperrent.
gen6k 2 years ago
it would diminish the use hording aspect of money. another thing would be to just build a central machine, while we live babylonian lives. for example, mechanize the vast majority of the process of shopping at jewel, and assembling the products, and growing the crops.
gen6k 2 years ago
if we go in thinking like its not possible it isnt, but women in africa get forced feed, and islam extremists bomb themselves into buildings. anything goes, so many setups are possible while keeping production going. that is anarchy's biggest fault. the second one is the name, and media image it has. the third is that its impossible to have a theory for it, there are too many different theories. it only works if we let go of the written word, and instead live back on our voice. like hunter-gathr
gen6k 2 years ago
anarchism and property is a simple problem to solve-you cant own more than you can use or produce with your own labor-production is then owned by the workers-resources owned by all,ensuring participatory decision making lines of communication between community and labor on how to use resources, the Ukraine was succesfully anarchist until the bolsheviks doublecrossed em and the spanish had several successful models working together at the same time.
kviapunx 2 years ago
YouTube is not for debates in a sense, that it is HARD to damn follow your opponent in these crappy message boards. Wanna debate ? Come to anarchist forum at least. Then it will be a sign, that you are INTERESTED in debate and asking questions. YouTube is good ONLY for video debates.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
It can be difficult, but I find a great deal of learning can be achieved with people who are interested and serious and just get right down to it. I don't make videos, but do have a good deal of constructive arguments on YT. Hundreds of words can be plenty to achieve mutual learning and understanding, if not agreement.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
WOO-HOO! Here's to not wasting one's time on talking sense to fools.
BTW, your deep knowledge of Objectivism has undoubtably made me a better Objectivist. I was a wishy-washy Kelley type before. With many people now being exposed to Rand via the new Kelley/Branden-esque bigraphies, there's a great need for in-depth, publicly available depth in Objectivism. So forget the idiots and stick to the fun stuff! :)
nine9s 2 years ago 2
You must be a more seasoned objectivist than I, I still feel it somehow necessary to address anarchists and talk about why they draw different conclusions than I do in spite of understanding the virtues of the free market etc.
I don't think that labeling them as "fools" is the right aproach. I may disagree with anarchists on a number of points, but I don't think they are either unintentionally stupid, nor willfully so. Misguided and confused maybe but why not work with them to correct this?
Sam26100 2 years ago
Another thing that bothers me is that I have never seen any litterature nor videos online that describe exactly how the political system of objectivism would work. I agree wholeheartedly with objectivist ethics, but the argument from effect is also necessary.
Example: How would the government be financed if taxation is immoral?
Sam26100 2 years ago
Self interest. Pay for protection. A price for citizenship. A trade. Not socialist slavery. And not anarchic chaos.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
You might get more views if you made your videos a few minutes shorter.
AtomicExplosion95695 2 years ago
Have you ever read anything on anarchism?
Mjhavok 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In World War II would you have called the Japanese Shintofascists?
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Comment removed
Mjhavok 2 years ago
I'm a long-time subscriber of you, MrCropper, and I feel your dismisal of anarchists was more collectivistic and flippant than substantive.
The debate I see in market->law or law(required for)markets is:
What number or percentage of people can be, or ought to be permitted to make law, and what does the legitimacy of the person 'permitting' rest on?
Does that cover it, or am I missing something crucial?
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
Good video!
Statists do NOT want to protect individual rights and, likewise, anarchists do NOT want to protect individual rights.
-Excellent point. Thats really what it boils down to.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
you really don't understand what you have just said.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
How exactly are your rights protected when there is no law?
MCTMD1 2 years ago
who said in anarchist society there would be no law ? I really want you to learn more about anarchism and clear many misconceptions you have, like this one.
PEACE.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Yeah, right! Exactly what laws are you talking about? And who would enforce them? Make a substantive argument, if you can. But, simply telling me I'm wrong, does not help you or me. Anarchic law is an oxymoron. It's like saying socialist freedom.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
You know I am not gonna discuss with you this issue ? Because YT is not for debates, and you are ignorant on a subject. If you wanna clear your misconceptions about anarchy - be more curious and read upon in. Just making bald assertions about "oxymorons" won't help you understand my position.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Evading the question much?
DantesObjective 2 years ago
Youtubes not for debates? Who says? You? Im not impressed. I am sure I am ignorant on a subject, but not this one. What law is there in anarchy? And how is it enforced?
MCTMD1 2 years ago
I don't think he said "youtube is not for debates"
He said he doesn't feel like debating anarchists himself. It's a personal choice of his.
Sam26100 2 years ago
"Because YT is not for debates"
-You still think he didn't say this? Look above just a little.
He doesn't like debating anarchists? I'm not an anarchist! And his personal choice has very little to do with the function of Youtube. Can you tell me what and how laws cans exist in an anarchy?
MCTMD1 2 years ago
He meant for himself, and the way he perceives his role as a youtube poster. He didn't say "nobody should debate on youtube", but that was your implication
Sam26100 2 years ago
I hope this seemingly useless debate on semantics isn't annoying; I like playing with words.
His statement made, explicitly, no qualifier as to for whom Youtube is not for debating. Youtube is not for debates, he said; in general, is the correct implication, imo. Even though he did not say, directly, "everyone", I think "in general" or completely non-specified is closer to just him. Don't you think? How do you know what he meant?
MCTMD1 2 years ago
I know what he meant because a strong statement such as "nobody should debate on youtube" can only be made in the litteral sense.
If I said "A house is not for having lunch" you would automatically assume my meaning to be "I personally don't eat lunch inside my house". Certainly a strong statement such as "nobody should ever eat lunch in their house" would have to be stated more specifically because of how extreme it is.
that is how I know what he meant
Sam26100 2 years ago
Remember, the statement in question is, "Youtube is not for debates" not "nobody should debate on youtube".
How can you say you KNOW he meant something he did not qualify? Especially when, in the english language, things without qualifiers are meant to be that way to be as inclusive as possible.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
"A house is not for having lunch", in no way, by itself, implies anything other than a house, any house, anyone's house or houses in general are not for having lunch. To go from the non-specified, open ended, nebulous and general to the specific, singular and definite is not automatic, it is a mistake.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Yeah this lost in translation thing is kind of pointless, I just replied to your comment originally because I was convinced myself that he meant "I don't want to debate on youtube"
If you still disagree with me on what he meant you can ask him yourself, I just felt I had to say something because I thought you criticized him unjustly.
Sam26100 2 years ago
What was unjust about my criticism? He can't explain what he said any better than I can, only what he meant, which I am less interested in.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
How are your right protected when a bully steals your money from you?
juliecranford 2 years ago
A proper government retaliates on your behalf and puts that person in jail. Or were you talking about dictators? Or socialist regimes? Because in a proper capitalist society, there are no taxes.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Ook, but capitalism isn't a type of government. Do you mean democracy or what?
juliecranford 2 years ago
Capitalism is a system where individual rights are supreme. The government acts only in retaliatory force against people who initiate force. Limited government where the masses cannot vote your money away from you for some particular socialistic cause (taxes). Democracy is simply rule by the majority and is certainly not necessarily moral or good.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
OK, I can see how capitalism necessarily precludes taxes.
But it doesn't preclude other stupid government intervention. So capitalism is not the protection of all of a person's rights, it's just protection of a person's money.
juliecranford 2 years ago
Protection of our individual right to life (which includes property), liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism necessarily precludes all government intervention other than retaliatory force against other men. What intervention are you talking about? By capitalism, I do not mean this mixed up mess we have today, where government intervention abounds stemming from violations of individual rights for the interest of some group.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
A more free properly capitalistic society has no government intervention, not in personal finance, education, morality, healthcare, business, culture or entertainment.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Capitalism is a type of government that respects and protects individual rights.
Democracy is a type of government that respects and empowers majority rule.
There are various other types of government and many states can have attributes of different types at the same time. I'd categorize the current US type as mostly socialist/somewhat capitalist (80/20 perhaps).
Nelapidae 2 years ago
Capitalism is not a type of government.
juliecranford 2 years ago
You raise an interesting question
I know that objectivism opposes taxation in all forms, but I still don't know what the proposed alternative is. I've read that government funding in an objectivist state would be voluntary, but Imi not sure about all the nuts and bolts of it.
For now all I can say to you is that objectivists oppose taxation, same as anarchists do. The government as they propose would not have the right to force anybody to give up anything, only the right to protect rights
Sam26100 2 years ago
I think what you have written is accurate. I think that an objective capitalistic state hasn't existed to know or even study, as a science, the practical applications (nuts and bolts) of a voluntary limited government. Nineteenth century America is the closest so far. And I say objective because objectivity is paramount, Objectivism, not so much.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
That depends on what you mean by Objectivism
I concider myself an objectivist but as far as I've come to understand being an objectivist is to accept objectivist ethics
In other words, it doesn't mean you have to agree with everything Ayn Rand, or Peikoff, or Brook or whoever says. Being an objectivist means to concider reason as the primary means of obtaining knowledge, and to pursue rationality and personal values/happiness. It means other things as well but it's a long discussion
Sam26100 2 years ago
Well put. I believe reason to be supreme. And accepting this has lead me to a proper objective epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and politics. AR has helped me a great deal to understand and articulate my own philosophy. But I also believe that there are more than a couple Objectivist's that are emotionally committed to certain ideas that get in the way of a more integrated orientation to reality.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
The big ones, imo, are AR and LP's misunderstanding of freewill, evasion, inherently dishonest ideas and evil. If you think it's impossible for the originator of a philosophy to misapply it; think again. I still consider myself an objectivist and a determinist and an atheist and a capitalist and an egoist.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
As for what Cropper said, I commented originally because I was concerned with the meaning of what you said. He probably should have specified his point more clearly, but my concern isn't with semantics, but rather with ideas.
I think we've clarified this point as much as it needs to be clarified
Sam26100 2 years ago
Well, I think you can learn from the semantics of someone you are exchanging ideas with. The exact words chosen and in what order are/is informative.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
You gonna back that up? In what way does an anarchist support the upholding of an individual's rights? By getting rid of laws? There must be a monopoly on retaliatory force or else choas and dictatorship will ensue. Capitalism is the only way your individual rights will be respected.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
So in other words... you explicitly and unapologetically just want to reside in a cocoon of your own beliefs. That's what you're saying, right?
7freddie7 2 years ago 2
Anarchy's biggest weakness is security, and yeah they also assume that individual governance wont lead to gang and terrorist related activities. Honest capitalism and true democracy is best. Corporations today have too much power of politics, and the 2 "fake" party system is no democracy but an illusion of choice. I dunno what system Star Trek runs on but that is pretty damn close to perfection. A techonlogy and scientific base culture is what we need.
jystyle 2 years ago
"The anarchists take markets like trees and lakes and stuff, markets just exist."
No serious anarchist is arguing that a market is a material thing (like a tree.)
"...markets have created everything, and all we have to do is get out certain ingredients, namely using physical force against others, 'cause that's what the state does, right? So if we stop people using physical force how we going to do that?"
What does it mean to take an ingredient out of a market? Or do you mean natural resources?
MotionFur 2 years ago 2
I'm not sure why getting goods out of a market (or getting resources from nature) necessitates physical force against other people. I'm pretty sure I could extract something useful from the earth or fall a tree for wood without having to use force against another person (I could if I wanted to I suppose, I could go to a farmhouse and cut down the trees that protects it from high winds and tell the farmer I'll shoot him if he stops me.)
MotionFur 2 years ago
dumbism = dis video stupidism = peopel finkin soviets were communists and cannot make the distinction between socialism for the rich and the illusion of socialism.
gettingchilli 2 years ago
The only person who could ever regard a preemptive declaration "everyone must respect individual rights, and here's what will happen if you don't" as the initiation of force is someone who, somewhere, deep down inside him, wants to violate individual rights.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
you don't like statists or anarchists. that's odd.
juliecranford 2 years ago 2
that's like hating religion and promoting anti-science movement at the same time.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
not really. both can be dogmatic groups of people not worth listening to.
jmeiskues 2 years ago
It sounds like he disagrees with both, which is impossible.
juliecranford 2 years ago
dogmatic ? Maybe, but science is ALWAYS objective. And denying it is denying reality and leaning to solipsism.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
"you don't like statists or anarchists. that's odd."
Not at all. Statists do NOT want to protect individual rights and, likewise, anarchists do NOT want to protect individual rights.
Statism = Anarchism.
Capitalism is the OPPOSITE from the statist/anarchy crowd.
MrCropper 2 years ago
what! how can Statism = Anarchism
and what evidence do you have that could indicate tha Anarchists do not want to protect individual roghts.? That is what Anarchism is about, the rights of the individual.
PBrofaith 2 years ago
he has no evidence, he just make blind assertions just like any desperate statist. It's natural.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
But he claims not to be a statist either. lol
juliecranford 2 years ago
He is either lying or do not know what statism is. I suppose it is the latter.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
You are REALLY ignorant on a subject. You don't know anything about anarchism because you even don't know what STATISM is and what is the main problems of a state. Anarchy is just a rejection of this state and saying "no, we can find much better answers". Educate yourself on a subject. I see, that you really a smart guy.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
lmao
Mjhavok 2 years ago
What anarchists are you talking about?
It's all about protecting individual rights.
And anarchy is totally compatible with capitalism, moreso than statism. And anarchy is the lack of a state, so no they are not equal.
juliecranford 2 years ago
@MrCropper
statism = anarchism?
dude, you know that's like saying black = white
lulz.
pazomblez 1 year ago
The part where you talk about the Greeks claiming to be free because they obey only the law, sounds good to me. However the reality of the so-called democratic system we find ourselves in is nothing more than mob rule. So I am surprised that you attack thinking which would protect a system of true democracy like Anarchism. Or are you taking the dictionary meaning of anarchy and transposing that onto Anarchism. (I take your point that there are a lot of dick heads out there)
PBrofaith 2 years ago
In a sense they are right about markets everywhere. Natural Selection is a free market. But anarchists are pretty dopey.
AnarchoCannibal 2 years ago
Well said, Sir!
"Anarchists are [indeed] the scum of the left. They want to be hippies, but those jobs are already taken." -Ayn Rand
Anarchy is philosophy without politics i.e. the politics of a man, alone on a desert island. As soon as two or more people are involved, the selfish ethics of man demands a set of objective and universally binding rules (i.e. laws) in politics, which ban the use of force amongst human beings.
Rodin1 2 years ago
The use of force is fine if used against nature; and as long as youre alone, there is only nature. The presence of another human being, in the absence of a ban on the use of force amongst men, is nothing more than the presence of another predator of you and your own prey, and therefore a threat to your life and your survival. In other words: you would be better off without him. And indeed it is preferable for man to live alone than to live in a lawless society (anarchy).
Rodin1 2 years ago 2
Civilized society means a society of laws. In small groups of men these laws can be implicit (oral), but have to become more and more explicit (written), the greater the number of people involved. The less objective the laws, the less civilized the society. The absence of laws is the absence of civilization.
Rodin1 2 years ago 4
In order to destroy politics in philosophy, you need to advocate subjective ethics. In order to do that, you need whim, feeling and faith in epistemology. Ron Pauls theistic metaphysics, his ideas on immigration and foreign policy are good illustrations of the complete disorientation and helplessness of libertarians and anarchists alike, once they leave the field of economics. They run out of concrete ideas to plagiarize and do not know the method, which created those ideas in the first place.
Rodin1 2 years ago 4
If they wanted to be hippies, they would be hippies. The job isn't taken. More than one person can be a hippie.
juliecranford 2 years ago
Anarchy is just stupid. The first mistake they make is they assume that if you abolish the state you will suddenly get the system of anarchy that they propose. You and EagleEye1975 debunked the rest of the anarchist system.
Scoforever 2 years ago
LOL!
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago 3
I made a video where I made the point that many ATHEISTS, who reject irrational beliefs, are quite often socialists, communists, or anarchists... all of which are just as dogmatic as religion! These people who claim to be rational, and understand the "invisible hand" of natural selection with modification (evolution), do NOT understand the "invisible hand" of economics in free (yet regulated) markets!
eagleeye1975 2 years ago
Do you believe that the state can be limited? If you do, you believe in fairy tales.
The only way law can provide freedom is if those laws are limited. But as long as laws are controled by a coercive monopoly called the state, they will expand indefinitely creating endless pages of regulations that are literally impossible to follow. In other words, chaos. Laws should be naturally selected like anything else. If you can't imagine how this is possible, you need to read a bit more.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
You don't think America's laws are "naturally selected"? The reason American-style constitutional government is taking the entire earth over is because of its evolutionary vigor. But anarchy repudiates law... so what the hell are you saying?
MrCropper 2 years ago
Yep. The complete irony, the joke on Anarchism, is that we already freaking have what they want! The reason America's legal approach became the strongest, attracted to many immigrants, and, to lesser degrees, spread around the world is because it's a "superior product" in the "world market."
To be opposed to it simply because you, personally, don't get to be the one doing the governing is like saying that it's unfair that two people can't be up to bat in a baseball game at the same time.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago 2
So what your saying is that the anarchist want "applied force" by the state in order to tax?
Please let me know.
fireman12888 2 years ago
grantsinmypants2, "To be opposed to it simply because you, personally, don't get to be the one doing the governing..." Where did you get that from?
Free market anarchists are opposed to the initiation of force. So they do not want to govern the nation themselves. They realize no human being is intelligent enough to do so.
The fools that call themselves anarchists, that run around like idiots throwing bricks in windows are a different story. If you're talking about them, I might agree with you.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
I did not know that a stateless society rejected laws. Must be chaotic society indeed.
fireman12888 2 years ago
Fireman12888, not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but a stateless society does not by definition reject laws. It rejects rulers. It rejects the state, a coercive monopoly that rules over a geographic region with the exclusive right to initiate force against, steal taxes from, & force a single crappy system of laws on every citizen within its domain. A domain, by the way, which it does not legitimately own.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
I was being sarcastic. I believe what we have now is chaotic, and that anarchy is the answer to posses freedom. Or at least what I think defends my principles; surely the "barrel of a gun" in my face for taxes is not what I want.
fireman12888 2 years ago
For evolution to create highly adapted entities, the more variation the better. On a global scale natural selection exists between countries. However we still have only one major choice, an expanding coercive state. Within a country there is virtually no variation. Differences between states is miniscule. All are forced under a single system of federal law. Anarchy allows people to voluntarily organize communities as they wish. This creates tremendous variation. Societal evolution accelerates.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
Good for you! Build your objectivist community. Screw the rest of the idiots because often they don't take ideas seriously enough. It is such a waste of time to fight with MOST of them. There are some that just haven't thought about the ideas and are latent O'ist but don't worry about them. Until most O'ists realize this and spend time distancing themselves and achieving truly great things O'ism is not going to take off a bunch.
plemke1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, that was my video response that you were talking about! :)
eagleeye1975 2 years ago
you feel frustration, that's why you won't debate and won't try to understand it. Very sad.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
And you're just making arbitrary assertions. THAT is sad.
Beethovens7th 2 years ago
wait, was that an arbitrary assertion? is it also sad for me?
fireman12888 2 years ago
No, that was an identification. MaikUniversum has absolutely no evidence for what he is saying. He has nothing to indicate to him whether not what he is saying is actually true. He's just making an arbitrary guess about Cropper's motivations. Yet he's asserting it as if somehow he's certain. It's pathetic.
Beethovens7th 2 years ago
I think a thousands of years of human history is enough evidence to see where state is wrong and where free market is good. Don't ya think ?
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Jesus, all you fucking anarchists are like this. Stay on topic! I'm not even talking about whether or not anarchism is right or wrong. I'm talking about your initial comment where you arbitrarily guessed Cropper's emotional state, and psychologized the reasons for him to not want to talk to you. My god it's not that hard to see that....You fucking anarchists always do this context-swapping bullshit. Stop wasting my time with your undigested brain goop, and focus your mind you piece of shit.
Beethovens7th 2 years ago