41–50 of 145 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism.
If you treat the word anarchism as "stateless society", then anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. If you treat the word anarchism as "anarcho-communism", then you are right. Even from historical perspective, individual anarchism is almost as old, as communitarian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? We don't, because you're talking about imposing some "services" on other people, which always happens through coercion. We should both be aware that coercion is bad, mm'kay? "But who will build the roads?!" is like asking an anti-slavery activist "but who will pick the cott…
So you're saying public education is immoral, and public health care is immoral. Maybe for the taxpayer it is. I doubt it seems immoral for the child of some poor parents. Or for someone seriously ill who can't afford to go to the private doctor, no matter if they chose not to plan for the future and be financially sound.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? We don't, because you're talking about imposing some "services" on other people, which always happens through coercion. We should both be aware that coercion is bad, mm'kay? "But who will build the roads?!" is like asking an anti-slavery activist "but who will pick the cott…
So you're saying public education is immoral, and public health care is immoral. Maybe for the taxpayer it is. I doubt it seems immoral for the child of some poor parents. Or for someone seriously ill who can't afford to go to the private doctor, no matter if they chose not to plan for the future and be financially sound.
It does not matter how fair theft seems to the recipient of the services that are funded in such a way, it's still theft.
It is cool that you care about the unfortunate ones though. You are not alone in that — most people do, too. If we go from the assumption that democracies really represent the opinion of the majority, it can be seen that a lot of people do care.
So, if the majority of people really want to help the poor, they would still help (voluntarily this time) without a coercive apparatus, right?
(Obviously, private charities will be better at helping the poor, and private schools and medicine are doing a better job that the government does, but my reply focuses mainly on the moral side of things.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying public education is immoral, and public health care is immoral. Maybe for the taxpayer it is. I doubt it seems immoral for the child of some poor parents. Or for someone seriously ill who can't afford to go to the private doctor, no matter if they chose not to plan for the future and be financially sound.
The biggest problem with humanity is arrogance. Not everyone can live. Sorry!
If your definition of morality is "a system for decreeing who should die" rather than "a system for ensuring everyone lives", you are the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well it's not that they are binded by the left-right paradigm, it's just that they've already agreed that authoritarianism (up?) is worse than libertarianism (down?), and then proceed to debate the finer points of collectivism versus individualism (right and left). Much better than ignoring the up and down completely like neo-liberal and neo-conservative politics. From the mainstream, we see plenty of disheartening p…
>> How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? We don't, because you're talking about imposing some "services" on other people, which always happens through coercion. We should both be aware that coercion is bad, mm'kay? "But who will build the roads?!" is like asking an anti-slavery activist "but who will pick the cott…
I find it completely ironic that anarchism itself cannot even escape the left-right paradigm. Going down lower Manhattan on a weekdays, you can find heated arguments between an anarcho-communist vs another anarcho-capitalist. But I also find the term anarcho-communism to be an oxymoron.
Anarchists are not confused. "Anarcho"-capitalists are just not anarchists. Anarchism is anti-property, anti-capitalist, and anti-state. If your proposal is to replace the rule of the state with a purified rule of property and capital, you are not an anarchist.
It has no issue owning your own house, car, laptop, etc etc. That is yours and does not belong to the state, or 'everyone', or anyone else. It just does not want rent seeking; owning other peoples' homes and means of production, or hoarding otherwise (eg owning vast tracts of land you do not use). So for example a factory should be owned by it's workers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So someone who calls for overthrowing the US government and replacing Capitalism with Anarcho-Syndicalism is now a gatekeeper?
Feel free to argue against the points presented in the video. Capitalism is such a messed-up term these days. To me it means free, voluntary exchanges and agreements/contracts between people, but most people have been propagandized to view it as "evil capitalist pigs exploiting and oppressing the poor". But capitalism cannot be replaced, it's what people do when they're allowed to, after all. It's about people pursui…
On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat subject to public jurisdiction. The idea that land, or mineral rights, or intellectual property belongs exclusively to either (a) an individual, (b) a corporation, (c) a state, or (d) everybody, are all legal fictions and voluntary illusions. Other than perhaps the clothes on one's back, property is not a natural right (in the sense of natural law). We made it up. For better or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship between private capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose of maintaining private ownership.
I can accept the argument that interfering with the quasi-evolutionary capitalist engine does more harm than good, and that capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others. But given the history of unearned legacy wealth, systemic ethnic and national oppression, and the state's role in maintaining disproportionate advantages for those with capital, calling the trades that occur between haves and have-nots "voluntary" seems a little disingenuous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest problem with humanity is arrogance. Not everyone can live. Sorry!
> Not everyone can live. If your definition of morality is "a system for decreeing who should die" rather than "a system for ensuring everyone lives", you are the problem .
Take minimum wage for example. You want poor people to get higher salaries, but in reality, all you accomplish by raising the min. wage is preventing some lowest-skilled people from getting a job (which contributes to economic stagnation too, ofc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not everyone can live. If your definition of morality is "a system for decreeing who should die" rather than "a system for ensuring everyone lives", you are the problem .
No matter how much we want everyone to live, we can't try and ensure it through coercion . Besides, coercion only works for evil. You can't achieve good through coercion. Whenever you try, it has the opposite effect. Take minimum wage for example. You want poor people to get higher salaries, but in reality, all you accomplish by raising the min. wage is preventing some lowest-skilled people from getting a job (which…
Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups, or go back to church, please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anarchists are not confused. "Anarcho"-capitalists are just not anarchists. Anarchism is anti-property, anti-capitalist, and anti-state. If your proposal is to replace the rule of the state with a purified rule of property and capital, you are not an anarchist.
Anarchism is against private property, not personal property. It has no issue owning your own house, car, laptop, etc etc. That is yours and does not belong to the state, or 'everyone', or anyone else. It just does not want rent seeking; owning other peoples' homes and means of production, or hoarding otherwise (eg owning vast tracts of land you do not use). So for example a factory should be owned by it's workers.