Re: Heathian Anarchism Is Neo-Feudalism

Adding to some things that BP said about capitalism and mini-states.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znt28KaIg6M

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Politics
• Anarcho-capitalism
• Heathian
• Anarchism
• Spencer
• Heath
• Property
• Land
• Feudalism
• Neo-Feudalism
• Rights
• Freedom
• Serfdom
• Corporations
• Monopoly
• Statism
• Territorialism
• Aterritorialism
• Murray
• Rothbard
• Libertarianism
• Georgism
• Henry
• George
• Geoism
• Geo-anarchism
• Rent
• Taxation
• Governance
• Max
• Weber
• States
• Competition

[1x93cm]

how can you have infinite resources on a finite planet

[MstrirSage]

@1x93cm I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with the content of this video. But yes, all resources are finite.

[LP101A]

Resources are always available with total and complete knowledge-sharing and with no technological suppression.

Life is on many levels and dimensions - you aren't supposed to know; it is for your betters.

Limitations are set by the 1) PTB and 2)the brainwashed mindset of the masses who are the most staunch defenders of their slavery

Most shortages are planned. No surprises here

The problem is that the persons driving this - want you dead because you're taking up space and breathing good air

[ericfontainejazz]

Thanks for addressing these issues. I have always been concerned about blind obedience to the homesteading principle granting perpetual rights to a plot of land. I do think that use and occupancy do need to be taken into consideration by DROs to some limited degree. I get frustrated when many of my hard core anarcho-capitalist friends place too much emphasis on deontology and dismiss any concerns about consequentialism as irrelevant.

[devourage]

Translation: You can't counter any argument I've made, so you're leaving. There's nothing silly about this conversation, and I never said nothing good came from western democracies. It's better than most forms of statism, I just don't think it's particularly good, or necessarily conducive to freedom or wealth. The provisions against majority tyranny is where democracy is limited. That was my point in my last post. You have failed to rationally argue anything I've said. Good night.

[sausage4mash]

@devourage sophisticated Democracy's have provision against the tyranny of the majority ,America is not that democratic you only have two party's but your written constitution is something to be proud of ,anyways this conversation is getting silly ,if you can see no Good at all in western Democracy's then you have a warped perspective ,end of , on that note I'm off to bed :)

[devourage]

As for your comments about wealth, Hong Kong is one of the most prosperous economies in the world, if not the most prosperous. It is far easier to become wealthy living in Hong Kong than most western nations. Yet the region exists under a highly coercive state. Wealth creation is spurred by economic systems, not political systems. The reason that (some) democracies are wealthy, is that, once again, democracy is at least somewhat limited when it comes to acquiring wealth.

[devourage]

The free exchange of ideas is NOT inherent in a democracy. Nations that have a free market of ideas have such a thing precisely because democracy is limited. Democracy just means majority rule. America has free speech because the constitution says that people can't vote it out. In a pure democracy nothing stops 51% of people from stripping the rights of the other 49. Freedom exists where democracy cannot take it away.

[sausage4mash]

@devourage most dictatorships theologys and communist systems in the world seem to be technologically backwards ,the only distinction I can see between them and us, is we are liberal democracy's (will add most Americans conflate democracy with capitalism ,two different things ,but I'm guessing you know that as you seem well read ) ,so yes I would say the free exchange of Ideas inherent in a democracy has a correlation to a country's wealth .

[devourage]

"in doing so you seem to be agreeing..."

I am agreeing to no such thing, nor do I see why you would think I am agreeing to it. Once you give an elite group of individuals control over trillions of dollars of other people's money, and control over weapons that can destroy the world, I don't think there's any way to stop corruption and tyranny from arising. I certainly don't think that giving power over to the masses changes this at all.