I suspect many market anarchists came from a neocon background. I myself was a Democrat neocon slimeball, then became a Constitutionalist and graduated to Libertarianism and am now here at classical anarchism
I am a Anarchist i believe in Anarchy and i fully support Anarchy I put every thing i have to staying loyal i love my country but i hate my goverment any advice or any things that you could inform me about Anarchy would be great (srry about my spelling)
I arrived at Anarchism through the influence Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Leo Tolstoy, Tom Woods, Doug Cassey, Jeffery A. Tucker, Karl Hess, and Jacque Fresco. "Anarcho-Capitalism" is a tough term to swallow because the Capitalism we know of is State Capitalism. It sounds like "Anarcho-Statism" to some people. I think of it as a "farmers market society" where all types of trade and associations are voluntary, unregulated, and tax free. "Market-Anarchism" or "Voluntarism" seems like better labels.
@repfreedomforce I care not for labels, and refer to my philosophy as "AnarchoConsciousness". A social philosophy founded upon the non-aggression principle and voluntary associations. It's the way most of us live our lives most of the time. Examples of this philosophy are as abundant as people. It's the natural state of being. People must be indoctrinated into unnatural statism. So no matter what your Anarchic philosophy, if you advocate voluntarism, you are OK with the non-aggression principle!
Basically, under Tuckers free market socialism, everyone will have a plot of land as big as is needed for that individual household to sustain itself and live comfortably....no more. No claiming land by mixing labor only to turn around and rent it out for profit. No wage system where the workers are cheated out of the profits or where you "save" them from the risks of no profit then claim the greater share of it. Hierarchy within a voluntary system is rejected.
"Anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction in terms, you cant be a free society while holding ownership of business essentially putting yourself in a ruling position over your employees. Anarcho-capitalists are scary scary redneck bigots. Anarcho-capitalism is simply a mafia state or neo-feudalism. what a joke!
why is owning a place of business an different from owning anyplace else. I have every right to make rules for my property and how it shall be utilized to the limit of the rights of others. Period.
"Anarcho-capitalists are scary scary redneck bigots. Anarcho-capitalism is simply a mafia state or neo-feudalism. what a joke!"
I challenge you to prove any correlation alone betwen being a red neck and being an anarcho capitalist. And then I wnt you to give me a reason I should or would be ashamed of such an association. It is as if you just told me: "ancaps are all a bunch of niggers!". Who is the biggot now asshole?
i went from market anarchist to neocon then to classical liberal. and then marxism. then i pointed out all the obvious flaws in both capitalism and marxism. i'm now a libertarian socialist or mutualist
I came from the opposite side. I had no interest in politics, then I supported Obama, then I became an anti-Obama liberal, then I found libertarianism, then minarchism, then Objectivism, then minarchism again, then Austrian economics, then anarcho-capitalism. I'm still changing and learning every day. I think that I might be a voluntaryist...
The only plausible form of anarchism is anarcho-capitalism. Anti-state socialism would require a governing body to regulate "social/economic equality." There is a natural heirarchy in humans that cannot be undone. Trying to create no heirarchy would impose on others freedoms and is not anarchistic. Read Murray Rothbard.
You are right when you say socialism/anarchism are closely related. Socialism was at its origins anti-state. I can't help but to daydream about what may have happened if anti-state socialism took hold rather than state socialism
the way you described your shitty experiences in public school is nothing inherent to a school being public. i went to private school middle school onward and faced the same kind of intellectual oppression.
yea, when I started I was definitely on the right. I think you'd find a lot of folks start there. Especially coming into the libertarian party from the republican. And fortunately there were plenty of radicals in the LP when I joined to push me out of the LP and toward anarchism.
ha. I wish it was something more interesting or complicated but really that was it. I could not justify it in the end. After some time pulling my hair out over it I had to accept it or knowingly accept contradiction
I followed a similar path. The final conclusion that made me reject religion and government was the idea, violence is the admission of being stupid. Any system based on violence is stupid. In a poof of logic, religion and government legitimacy disappeared.
Thank you for posting, sometimes I think I am alone.
That wouldn't matter, I'm talking about ALL landlords, borgeoisie, and bankers. They all have authority over those under them. "Anarcho" capitalism is rule by who has the most money.
he wouldnt have to deal with bankers if he didnt want to, just like how you dont need to do that now. Youre never forced to deal with anyone that you choose not to.
If he wanted to live in a cave he could.
You just dont get it, do you? If he dealt with a banker of any "land lord" it would be voluntary.
It is not truly voluntary. In the current system I could choose not to pay taxes, but I would face dire consequences. In "anarcho" capitalism I would not want to deal with a landlord, but it is between that and homelessness. Same goes for having a boss. I don't have enough money to start my own business, so I must be subservient to someone else so I can feed myself, or else I starve. It's just extreme wage slavery.
It is voluntary because you dont have to engage in the deal. Current system = irrelevant
Then build your own house, cut down trees etc
Start a service job then, clean houses. no money needed for start up. Collectivism is subservant to society, anarcho capitalism means CHOICE in EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE.
Wage slavery is a stupid concept. You and chomsky just see yourselves as slaves with no will to push forward.
Everything you advocate requires a government, even if you dont call it one.
It is not voluntary because I have to choose between starvation and working for someone else, it's wage slavery. There is no market for me to clean houses, those with the money to buy equipment have already filled that.
So all anarchists are statists? Because anarchism has ALWAYS and will ALWAYS be a socialist movement. Even if some pimply teenagers claim otherwise.
It is voluntary because you can easly eat what you scavage for. Collectivist anarchy isnt anarchy because you have a government, whether you realize it or not.
There is a market for cleaning houses, which is why people do that all the time. the duh factor really kicks in here.
Socialism = statism. Freedom = choice. If I want to enter into an agreement with someone that has mutual benefits, then thats our decision. What happens if I try to have private property in an anarcho communist society?
But wouldn't the scavenging have to happen on someone elses property? Explain to me how anarchism (true anarchism) has a government.
You can have property in an anarcho communist society. But only as much as you use for yourself. Small farms, your house, the painter's materials, whatever you use for yourself is yours. However if there is a factory or large farm making those things, they are community property.
See? you just gave a limit as to what you can call yours. What happens if I live in your ideal society and I have more than I use and want to horde it?
Youre either going to have a statist answer or a true anarchistic one.
There is no limit, only to that which you can work. By owning property you do not use, you are limiting everyone else.If you want to hoard something that isn't nessacary to the community feel free to, but I doubt you would end up with 500 chairs when you only need 4.
thats absolutely NOT a strawman, and I think you need to look up what a strawman is
Yes I am limiting everyone else. What If I want to horde the main food supply? Or better yet, the only real water supply? <- ANSWER THOSE NO DODGING OR INCORRECTLY USING WORDS.
This isnt a strawman, im pointing out why your belief is statism. I expect direct answers.
If you are using them they are yours, if you are not they belong to everyone. If you try and shoot those who take water or something to that effect, expect a communal ass whooping.
So me wanting free access to it for everyone is statist, while having a military defend it isn't? You just contradicted yourself bud, but nice try trying to discredit a socialist movement kid.
I am showing you the holes in your childish theory
Hiring people to do a job thats based upon mutual agreement isnt statist. If the "military" as you so put it started to go around bossing people around through coercion, then yes that would be statism.
Seems like you admitted that you're statist though. The ONLY way you can ever give people free access to things is with a government that protects it from someone claiming it.. I made you dodge saying it several times, and you finally cracked
You can ONLY enforce your will on an area by using a state. What is to stop me from getting 15 people together with guns and "coercing" a population out of their money in "anarcho" capitalism? What is to stop me from killing those pesky unionizers at my sweatshop?
The only child here is you, see I grew up in a working class family and I am working class and always will be. Run along you borgeois kid, go drive daddy's porsche.
No, you can enforce your will by simply protecting it(yourself or an angecny). Just like man has done through his entire existence. other animals understand the concept of property as well
I never argued that anarcho capitalism is efficient, nor do I think it would stay as anarchy for more than lets say a year. I am very much a minarchist. a protection agency would stop it, and the fact that you would lose business if you did that.
I grew up in poverty. The source of your "belief" is jealousy.
What is to stop it in any society? Protection agencies, militia, community watch, universal personal armament... You sound more like you are trying to justify a state or police than attacking anarcho-capitalism.
I find it hilarious that so many lib-socs think we are rich. I have NEVER met a well to do an-cap. I myself grew up the son of a teacher and a factory worker.
The past year or so of my life is about 1/2 to 2/3rds of your video. I Loved Obama and then discovered Ron Paul(nuff said) and although I like RP he wants to give power over to individual states and that is not good enough. I feel like I should not participate in government because I would not act the way gov does on my own. But am still skeptical about anarchy with its many subsets and philosophical debates flying around at 100 miles an hour.
I went through similar experiences. In my first two years of high-school, I believed that Republicans were "good guys" and Democrats were "bad guys." Later, I became disilusioned with Bush and considered myself an anarchist without really knowing what that meant.
Most recently, I consider myself a Constitutionalist, though I intend to read up on anarcho-capitalism.
We're all aware that socialist anarchists predated capitalist anarchists. Is that the "history" you're referring to, or is there something else you feel we ought to know?
Also, I can't help but wonder what your point is. Wouldn't an appeal to tradition be logically fallacious?
I would like to challenge that first sentence, D4Shawn. Especially considering the earliest anarchists seemingly sort of... ambiguity... between the two
Honestly, I'm guessing you'd know more about that than I would. I've always gotten the impression that "traditional" anarchists were/are more or less socialistic, but I haven't actually investigated (fully) the situation myself. Your thoughts on the subject are more than welcome.
Brainpolice has a wonderful video where he quotes several individualist anarchists.
If you like, I can point you to a torrent containing prints of Liberty (August 1881 to April 1908), an anarchist publication in America published by Benjamin Tucker.
"I find it disingenuous when social anarchists make an arguement from historical precedent, when there is plenty of evidence of propertarian and individualistic strains within anarchism from the beginning."
Oh yes, there obviously are individualistic strains within anarchism/anarchy. They are diametrically opposed to capitalism, because to maintain capitalism you need to use hierarchy and force.
Not to mention capitalism has been one of the dominant ideologies to be used to justify the murdering and oppression of anarchists/radicals/workers throughout history. (Also might I add most religions, and state Communism as well)
The Capitalism you speak of has ALWAYS been within a regulated market, as part of a greater philosophy (greater as in larger), not truly laissez faire. This remains true. Market Anarchy, or Anarchocapitalism, is the Laissez Faire concept as applied to anarchic thought, as opposed to socialistic thought. Socialism ALSO absolutely requires hierarchies, and within the statist paradigm has led to FAR MORE atrocities than more mercantilist forms. Never forget the two greatest killers were SOCIALISTS.
To Whit: Josef Stalin (Score = 42.7 million)And Mao Tse Tung (Or Zedong in the modern spelling) (37.8 million)
By contrast, the worst semi capitalist monster (Hitler) checked in at "only" 21 million.
None of this, of course, has any bearing on free market capitalism, as no "strong man" is about to weild such absolute power. Oh, and Hitler was a socialist as well. A National Socialist as opposed to International Socialist. Same as the difference between the Republican and Democrat in the USA.
What's your point: Socialism is diametrically opposed to Capitalism? That's your great revelation? Did you figure that out all by yourself?
Personally, I wouldn't say that they are diametrically opposed by definition, but in general, that does seem to be the case. It's no big secret that we usually take opposing positions regarding property and voluntary hierarchy.
All that means is that you were making a circular argument by taking a very narrow definition of 'capitalism' and saying that it necessitates force because that's how you define it.
I get so bored of socialist definition games. We are just as against "coercive capitalism" as you are. If you don't except that, then you are simply constructing a straw man (which also bores me to death).
I have. My challenge would be to your own knowledge of history. Or to ask why we should be slaves to original concepts?
I suppose because early Greeks really got the ball rolling on the western worlds contribution to physics we should adhere to them regardless of advances since then.
Or that since the scholastics were the first economists that there ideas should be held as truth regardless of modern revelations or later development and clarification.
I too am thinking that the socialist anarchist paradigm bears further investigation... and so long as they embark on voluntary endeavors, I would never stand in their way.
That being said, I think their way will fail, which is why I'm a market anarchist. Property is basic to liberty.
I suspect many market anarchists came from a neocon background. I myself was a Democrat neocon slimeball, then became a Constitutionalist and graduated to Libertarianism and am now here at classical anarchism
1truemisfit 1 month ago
We ar few and far in between brother! I stand with you.
303Miles 5 months ago
lol troskyism through american television and radio ?! haha
seigneurvoland666 9 months ago
I am a Anarchist i believe in Anarchy and i fully support Anarchy I put every thing i have to staying loyal i love my country but i hate my goverment any advice or any things that you could inform me about Anarchy would be great (srry about my spelling)
mrGuitarmetalhead 10 months ago
Yes they want you to "Give Up" I have been told this by socialists many times before.
JasonDamisch 1 year ago
I arrived at Anarchism through the influence Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Leo Tolstoy, Tom Woods, Doug Cassey, Jeffery A. Tucker, Karl Hess, and Jacque Fresco. "Anarcho-Capitalism" is a tough term to swallow because the Capitalism we know of is State Capitalism. It sounds like "Anarcho-Statism" to some people. I think of it as a "farmers market society" where all types of trade and associations are voluntary, unregulated, and tax free. "Market-Anarchism" or "Voluntarism" seems like better labels.
repfreedomforce 1 year ago
@repfreedomforce I care not for labels, and refer to my philosophy as "AnarchoConsciousness". A social philosophy founded upon the non-aggression principle and voluntary associations. It's the way most of us live our lives most of the time. Examples of this philosophy are as abundant as people. It's the natural state of being. People must be indoctrinated into unnatural statism. So no matter what your Anarchic philosophy, if you advocate voluntarism, you are OK with the non-aggression principle!
repfreedomforce 1 year ago
@BlueMountains28 That video has been removed, could you please tell me what it was about? I am interested.
KingLeon1daz 1 year ago
Basically, under Tuckers free market socialism, everyone will have a plot of land as big as is needed for that individual household to sustain itself and live comfortably....no more. No claiming land by mixing labor only to turn around and rent it out for profit. No wage system where the workers are cheated out of the profits or where you "save" them from the risks of no profit then claim the greater share of it. Hierarchy within a voluntary system is rejected.
Tucker was NOT a market Anarchist
NickDjinn223 1 year ago
That was a really well done video.
However, I think the differences between mutualism and market Anarchism are HUUUGE.
Why is Tucker, and all traditional Anarchists for that matter, an Anarcho-Socialist as well as an individualist?
1. Opposition to usury. Mutualist banks are nothing like capitalist banks, with or without a state.
2. You are entitled to the product of your OWN labor ONLY....not your employees labor. That is exploitation.
3. You can claim as much as you can use. Only.
NickDjinn223 1 year ago
dude not to stray focus from the topic because its awesome and all but-
i really like your mustache:3
spilledinsanity 1 year ago
"Anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction in terms, you cant be a free society while holding ownership of business essentially putting yourself in a ruling position over your employees. Anarcho-capitalists are scary scary redneck bigots. Anarcho-capitalism is simply a mafia state or neo-feudalism. what a joke!
robbypyn 1 year ago
@robbypyn
define captialism
why is owning a place of business an different from owning anyplace else. I have every right to make rules for my property and how it shall be utilized to the limit of the rights of others. Period.
thorsmitersaw 1 year ago 2
@robbypyn
also:
"Anarcho-capitalists are scary scary redneck bigots. Anarcho-capitalism is simply a mafia state or neo-feudalism. what a joke!"
I challenge you to prove any correlation alone betwen being a red neck and being an anarcho capitalist. And then I wnt you to give me a reason I should or would be ashamed of such an association. It is as if you just told me: "ancaps are all a bunch of niggers!". Who is the biggot now asshole?
thorsmitersaw 1 year ago 4
@thorsmitersaw , anarcho-capitalism sounds very interesting but it cannot work. The best option is capitalistic monarchy :-)
szybkilok 1 year ago
@szybkilok Would be nice with some arguments supporting your two postulates.
psilocyberspaceman 1 week ago
@psilocyberspaceman, how do you deal with thieves/gangs in anarcho-capitalism?
szybkilok 1 week ago
@szybkilok Your question doesn’t support your arguments. Try again by putting forward arguments for your claims.
psilocyberspaceman 5 days ago
i went from market anarchist to neocon then to classical liberal. and then marxism. then i pointed out all the obvious flaws in both capitalism and marxism. i'm now a libertarian socialist or mutualist
AnarchyIsLiberty 1 year ago
I came from the opposite side. I had no interest in politics, then I supported Obama, then I became an anti-Obama liberal, then I found libertarianism, then minarchism, then Objectivism, then minarchism again, then Austrian economics, then anarcho-capitalism. I'm still changing and learning every day. I think that I might be a voluntaryist...
Stigmata742 1 year ago 2
Epic facial hair man.
blackice240 1 year ago
wicked facial hair
blackice240 2 years ago
The only plausible form of anarchism is anarcho-capitalism. Anti-state socialism would require a governing body to regulate "social/economic equality." There is a natural heirarchy in humans that cannot be undone. Trying to create no heirarchy would impose on others freedoms and is not anarchistic. Read Murray Rothbard.
cclodfe 2 years ago
You are right when you say socialism/anarchism are closely related. Socialism was at its origins anti-state. I can't help but to daydream about what may have happened if anti-state socialism took hold rather than state socialism
WizardsStaff 2 years ago
the way you described your shitty experiences in public school is nothing inherent to a school being public. i went to private school middle school onward and faced the same kind of intellectual oppression.
fede2 2 years ago
how did you make your video with that effect?
TheSecondCuming 2 years ago
Thors you are such an admirable individual. See you in stickam.
overmind25 2 years ago
For me - the ideological path was Socialism/Democracy - Fascism - anti-Fascist Fascism - Minarchism - Voluntarism-Rothbardianism - Anarchism
utubehayter 2 years ago
This is mirrors almost exactly how I become an anarchist. Rush Limbaugh->Paleoconservatism->Constitutionalism->Minarchism->Anarchism
Masebrock 2 years ago
Interesting that you entered into the world of Anarchism for the right. I have never met anyone who has.
303Miles 2 years ago
yea, when I started I was definitely on the right. I think you'd find a lot of folks start there. Especially coming into the libertarian party from the republican. And fortunately there were plenty of radicals in the LP when I joined to push me out of the LP and toward anarchism.
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
I came to Libertarianism and Anarchism from the left
Donutmangreen 2 years ago 8
The tax argument pretty much got me too.
Good vid.
crazypants88 2 years ago
Anarchist? You look like leon Trotsky!
garvess 3 years ago
ha. I wish it was something more interesting or complicated but really that was it. I could not justify it in the end. After some time pulling my hair out over it I had to accept it or knowingly accept contradiction
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
I followed a similar path. The final conclusion that made me reject religion and government was the idea, violence is the admission of being stupid. Any system based on violence is stupid. In a poof of logic, religion and government legitimacy disappeared.
Thank you for posting, sometimes I think I am alone.
ZullGostnu 3 years ago
If you oppose authority why did you become an anarcho capitalist?
jackriter 3 years ago
because he opposes authority
xkeltoix 3 years ago
So my boss or my landlord has absolutely no authority over me and I can do what I please?
jackriter 3 years ago
Why do you assume he works for someone?
xkeltoix 3 years ago
That wouldn't matter, I'm talking about ALL landlords, borgeoisie, and bankers. They all have authority over those under them. "Anarcho" capitalism is rule by who has the most money.
jackriter 3 years ago
he wouldnt have to deal with bankers if he didnt want to, just like how you dont need to do that now. Youre never forced to deal with anyone that you choose not to.
If he wanted to live in a cave he could.
You just dont get it, do you? If he dealt with a banker of any "land lord" it would be voluntary.
xkeltoix 3 years ago
It is not truly voluntary. In the current system I could choose not to pay taxes, but I would face dire consequences. In "anarcho" capitalism I would not want to deal with a landlord, but it is between that and homelessness. Same goes for having a boss. I don't have enough money to start my own business, so I must be subservient to someone else so I can feed myself, or else I starve. It's just extreme wage slavery.
jackriter 3 years ago
It is voluntary because you dont have to engage in the deal. Current system = irrelevant
Then build your own house, cut down trees etc
Start a service job then, clean houses. no money needed for start up. Collectivism is subservant to society, anarcho capitalism means CHOICE in EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE.
Wage slavery is a stupid concept. You and chomsky just see yourselves as slaves with no will to push forward.
Everything you advocate requires a government, even if you dont call it one.
xkeltoix 3 years ago
It is not voluntary because I have to choose between starvation and working for someone else, it's wage slavery. There is no market for me to clean houses, those with the money to buy equipment have already filled that.
So all anarchists are statists? Because anarchism has ALWAYS and will ALWAYS be a socialist movement. Even if some pimply teenagers claim otherwise.
jackriter 3 years ago
It is voluntary because you can easly eat what you scavage for. Collectivist anarchy isnt anarchy because you have a government, whether you realize it or not.
There is a market for cleaning houses, which is why people do that all the time. the duh factor really kicks in here.
Socialism = statism. Freedom = choice. If I want to enter into an agreement with someone that has mutual benefits, then thats our decision. What happens if I try to have private property in an anarcho communist society?
xkeltoix 3 years ago
But wouldn't the scavenging have to happen on someone elses property? Explain to me how anarchism (true anarchism) has a government.
You can have property in an anarcho communist society. But only as much as you use for yourself. Small farms, your house, the painter's materials, whatever you use for yourself is yours. However if there is a factory or large farm making those things, they are community property.
Capitalism depends on the state.
jackriter 3 years ago
See? you just gave a limit as to what you can call yours. What happens if I live in your ideal society and I have more than I use and want to horde it?
Youre either going to have a statist answer or a true anarchistic one.
Answer directly, DO NOT dodge this.
xkeltoix 3 years ago
Strawman
There is no limit, only to that which you can work. By owning property you do not use, you are limiting everyone else.If you want to hoard something that isn't nessacary to the community feel free to, but I doubt you would end up with 500 chairs when you only need 4.
jackriter 3 years ago
thats absolutely NOT a strawman, and I think you need to look up what a strawman is
Yes I am limiting everyone else. What If I want to horde the main food supply? Or better yet, the only real water supply? <- ANSWER THOSE NO DODGING OR INCORRECTLY USING WORDS.
This isnt a strawman, im pointing out why your belief is statism. I expect direct answers.
xkeltoix 3 years ago
If you are using them they are yours, if you are not they belong to everyone. If you try and shoot those who take water or something to that effect, expect a communal ass whooping.
jackriter 3 years ago
what if I protect it while im not using it? What if I have a bunch of armed guards around an electric fence?
Obviously you need force to get it from me since trade is frowned upon in your little world view. Youre a statist, get over it.
A strawman isnt something you say when a clear hole is found in your belief.
xkeltoix 3 years ago
So me wanting free access to it for everyone is statist, while having a military defend it isn't? You just contradicted yourself bud, but nice try trying to discredit a socialist movement kid.
jackriter 3 years ago
I am showing you the holes in your childish theory
Hiring people to do a job thats based upon mutual agreement isnt statist. If the "military" as you so put it started to go around bossing people around through coercion, then yes that would be statism.
Seems like you admitted that you're statist though. The ONLY way you can ever give people free access to things is with a government that protects it from someone claiming it.. I made you dodge saying it several times, and you finally cracked
xkeltoix 3 years ago
You can ONLY enforce your will on an area by using a state. What is to stop me from getting 15 people together with guns and "coercing" a population out of their money in "anarcho" capitalism? What is to stop me from killing those pesky unionizers at my sweatshop?
The only child here is you, see I grew up in a working class family and I am working class and always will be. Run along you borgeois kid, go drive daddy's porsche.
jackriter 3 years ago
No, you can enforce your will by simply protecting it(yourself or an angecny). Just like man has done through his entire existence. other animals understand the concept of property as well
I never argued that anarcho capitalism is efficient, nor do I think it would stay as anarchy for more than lets say a year. I am very much a minarchist. a protection agency would stop it, and the fact that you would lose business if you did that.
I grew up in poverty. The source of your "belief" is jealousy.
xkeltoix 3 years ago
What is to stop it in any society? Protection agencies, militia, community watch, universal personal armament... You sound more like you are trying to justify a state or police than attacking anarcho-capitalism.
I find it hilarious that so many lib-socs think we are rich. I have NEVER met a well to do an-cap. I myself grew up the son of a teacher and a factory worker.
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
The past year or so of my life is about 1/2 to 2/3rds of your video. I Loved Obama and then discovered Ron Paul(nuff said) and although I like RP he wants to give power over to individual states and that is not good enough. I feel like I should not participate in government because I would not act the way gov does on my own. But am still skeptical about anarchy with its many subsets and philosophical debates flying around at 100 miles an hour.
UcanbeGOD 3 years ago
u should fix the title
TiSlauf 3 years ago
You should fix your spelling.
juliecranford 3 years ago
fo sure
TiSlauf 3 years ago
cool facial hair
LimpLoser 3 years ago
you loo kab it like varg/.
seigneurvoland666 3 years ago
you're sexy
EntertainedWatcher 3 years ago
Very interesting!
Ilovetechnotrance 3 years ago
Awesome!
dakatesr 3 years ago
Your video is a little late but not the latest.
MarshalltheArtist 3 years ago
I went through similar experiences. In my first two years of high-school, I believed that Republicans were "good guys" and Democrats were "bad guys." Later, I became disilusioned with Bush and considered myself an anarchist without really knowing what that meant.
Most recently, I consider myself a Constitutionalist, though I intend to read up on anarcho-capitalism.
banjodan99 3 years ago
Haha.
It took me a while before I found a particular form of facial hair I REALLY liked. :D
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
Great video!
oo0terminus0oo 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Quit slandering "anarchy/anarchism" with your capitalist values, and your fucking rebel flag.
I wish some of these vloggers would read a little bit of history.
FCKITUP 4 years ago
We're all aware that socialist anarchists predated capitalist anarchists. Is that the "history" you're referring to, or is there something else you feel we ought to know?
Also, I can't help but wonder what your point is. Wouldn't an appeal to tradition be logically fallacious?
D4Shawn 4 years ago 3
I would like to challenge that first sentence, D4Shawn. Especially considering the earliest anarchists seemingly sort of... ambiguity... between the two
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
Honestly, I'm guessing you'd know more about that than I would. I've always gotten the impression that "traditional" anarchists were/are more or less socialistic, but I haven't actually investigated (fully) the situation myself. Your thoughts on the subject are more than welcome.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
Brainpolice has a wonderful video where he quotes several individualist anarchists.
If you like, I can point you to a torrent containing prints of Liberty (August 1881 to April 1908), an anarchist publication in America published by Benjamin Tucker.
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
Here's a nice quote from brainpolice2:
"I find it disingenuous when social anarchists make an arguement from historical precedent, when there is plenty of evidence of propertarian and individualistic strains within anarchism from the beginning."
D4Shawn 4 years ago
Oh yes, there obviously are individualistic strains within anarchism/anarchy. They are diametrically opposed to capitalism, because to maintain capitalism you need to use hierarchy and force.
Not to mention capitalism has been one of the dominant ideologies to be used to justify the murdering and oppression of anarchists/radicals/workers throughout history. (Also might I add most religions, and state Communism as well)
FCKITUP 4 years ago
The Capitalism you speak of has ALWAYS been within a regulated market, as part of a greater philosophy (greater as in larger), not truly laissez faire. This remains true. Market Anarchy, or Anarchocapitalism, is the Laissez Faire concept as applied to anarchic thought, as opposed to socialistic thought. Socialism ALSO absolutely requires hierarchies, and within the statist paradigm has led to FAR MORE atrocities than more mercantilist forms. Never forget the two greatest killers were SOCIALISTS.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
To Whit: Josef Stalin (Score = 42.7 million)And Mao Tse Tung (Or Zedong in the modern spelling) (37.8 million)
By contrast, the worst semi capitalist monster (Hitler) checked in at "only" 21 million.
None of this, of course, has any bearing on free market capitalism, as no "strong man" is about to weild such absolute power. Oh, and Hitler was a socialist as well. A National Socialist as opposed to International Socialist. Same as the difference between the Republican and Democrat in the USA.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
What's your point: Socialism is diametrically opposed to Capitalism? That's your great revelation? Did you figure that out all by yourself?
Personally, I wouldn't say that they are diametrically opposed by definition, but in general, that does seem to be the case. It's no big secret that we usually take opposing positions regarding property and voluntary hierarchy.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
I didn't even mention Socialism.
FCKITUP 4 years ago
True. I assumed. Sorry.
All that means is that you were making a circular argument by taking a very narrow definition of 'capitalism' and saying that it necessitates force because that's how you define it.
I get so bored of socialist definition games. We are just as against "coercive capitalism" as you are. If you don't except that, then you are simply constructing a straw man (which also bores me to death).
D4Shawn 4 years ago
You made more sense when I assumed you were contrasting capitalism and socialism (not individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism).
D4Shawn 4 years ago
I have. My challenge would be to your own knowledge of history. Or to ask why we should be slaves to original concepts?
I suppose because early Greeks really got the ball rolling on the western worlds contribution to physics we should adhere to them regardless of advances since then.
Or that since the scholastics were the first economists that there ideas should be held as truth regardless of modern revelations or later development and clarification.
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
I know this is totally unrelated, but your beard/moustache is awesome.
XOmniverse 4 years ago 2
I know ;-)
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
Excellent!
I too am thinking that the socialist anarchist paradigm bears further investigation... and so long as they embark on voluntary endeavors, I would never stand in their way.
That being said, I think their way will fail, which is why I'm a market anarchist. Property is basic to liberty.
Kbiomech 4 years ago 2
Thanks for the response, despite being a bit late.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
I was a mindless dittohead for a long time, so don't be too hard on yourself over the neo-con thing. Great response, btw.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
That's exactly what I've been thinking about "capitalism" and "socialism" recently as well.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago