Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/6/2006 12:57:11 AM EDT
I consider myself to be a libertarian, as such I could be classified as an anarcho-capitalist.

However when people think of anarchists they think of those stupid people who like to go to protests and start riots. Most of those people are not capitalists, they like to fancy themselves anarcho-socialists or anarcho-communists.

I just got to thinking, how the fuck does anarcho-socialism or communism work?

Anarchy means you want no government, so how can you have socialism or communism without a government? Capitalism will work just fine without a government, I dont see how the others could.

So is there some logical reason that those kind of people believe it will work, or are they just stupid liberal fucktards. I'm thinking the latter.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:02:07 AM EDT
You're right.

I'm going to simply +1 you.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:06:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
Capitalism will work just fine without a government.



Sorry, your question is lost on me. Couldn't get past that little nugget.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:15:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
Capitalism will work just fine without a government.



Sorry, your question is lost on me. Couldn't get past that little nugget.



Why wouldn't it? Without government, capitalism (the system of producing goods and services for the sake of profit) would be the force behind all economic activity.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:29:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2006 1:31:44 AM EDT by swingset]

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
Capitalism will work just fine without a government.



Sorry, your question is lost on me. Couldn't get past that little nugget.



Why wouldn't it? Without government, capitalism (the system of producing goods and services for the sake of profit) would be the force behind all economic activity.



Yeah, Polyanna, without government we'd all just go right along shopping and selling, it'd all work just fine.

And, there's ample evidence of how good business is for the working class without government intrusion, just look at industrial-revolution-era working conditions and wages, and to all the countries without government balance against industry.



Industry/business cannot be trusted to be benevolent, without a counterbalance. History proves it. Power vacuum, and all that shit.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:32:09 AM EDT
For a wonderful illustration of capitalism absent government, watch Deadwood.

I've gotta agree such a situation could never exist for long.

The rioting libtards are not anarchists, they may call themselves anarchists, the media may call them anarchists, "look at the chaos these anarchists are creating" but they are not any such thing.

They are disgruntled youths, they know they're pissed off about the state of the world they were born into, but they don't have a clear idea of why or what they would do to fix it yet. Anarchy isn't a reasoned political position for them, it's giving the status quo the finger.

Real Anarchists are a whole different trip, interesting folks generally speaking. They KNOW anarchy isn't a viable political model, and they don't care. They relish the the idea of a bloody, chaotic Darwinian world where they would have the opportunity to pit themselves against each other, generally believing civilization undermines the natural order of things, that survival of the fittest results in a much smaller population of the best survivors until a natural equilibrium is reached in which there's enough room and wealth to go around so they stop murdering each other in pursuit of it with such frequency. A rather romanticised vision IMO, that capitalizes on the fact that all men crave such a challenge, particularly in the pussified society we currently find ourselves in, along with the fact that they're dead right about civilization sheltering and nurturing useless eaters, genetically weakened individuals, culturally and intellectually bankrupt subcultures, the whole Neiche thing.

For further information check out the survival forum...
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:34:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
Capitalism will work just fine without a government.



Sorry, your question is lost on me. Couldn't get past that little nugget.



Why wouldn't it? Without government, capitalism (the system of producing goods and services for the sake of profit) would be the force behind all economic activity.


No universal method to enforce contracts.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:36:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
Capitalism will work just fine without a government.



Sorry, your question is lost on me. Couldn't get past that little nugget.



Why wouldn't it? Without government, capitalism (the system of producing goods and services for the sake of profit) would be the force behind all economic activity.



Exactly, Capitalism is people being directly rewarded for the work they actually do, by the work they do, while people who don't work don't reap the rewards.

Socialism is the idea that everyone is entitled to a "fair share" no matter what their contribution to society is.

Communism is just like Socialism, except more extreme and features dictatorship by committee in addition to the previous.

We're coming close to Socialism in this country because of asshats who have this mentality that they're "entitled" to something from the .gov.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:38:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
For a wonderful illustration of capitalism absent government, watch Deadwood.

I've gotta agree such a situation could never exist for long.

The rioting libtards are not anarchists, they may call themselves anarchists, the media may call them anarchists, "look at the chaos these anarchists are creating" but they are not any such thing.

They are disgruntled youths, they know they're pissed off about the state of the world they were born into, but they don't have a clear idea of why or what they would do to fix it yet. Anarchy isn't a reasoned political position for them, it's giving the status quo the finger.

Real Anarchists are a whole different trip, interesting folks generally speaking. They KNOW anarchy isn't a viable political model, and they don't care. They relish the the idea of a bloody, chaotic Darwinian world where they would have the opportunity to pit themselves against each other, generally believing civilization undermines the natural order of things, that survival of the fittest results in a much smaller population of the best survivors until a natural equilibrium is reached in which there's enough room and wealth to go around so they stop murdering each other in pursuit of it with such frequency. A rather romanticised vision IMO, that capitalizes on the fact that all men crave such a challenge, particularly in the pussified society we currently find ourselves in, along with the fact that they're dead right about civilization sheltering and nurturing useless eaters, genetically weakened individuals, culturally and intellectually bankrupt subcultures, the whole Neiche thing.

For further information check out the survival forum...



Couldn't have said it better myself
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:42:34 AM EDT
With no viable method of enforcing contracts, and no law enforcement, the individual is helpless, contracts can be voided by bullet or blade, so individuals begin to band together into clans, gangs, or tribes. War inevitably follows, and alliances are made, treaties are signed, and before you know you're back to a government of one kind or another.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:49:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
With no viable method of enforcing contracts, and no law enforcement, the individual is helpless, contracts can be voided by bullet or blade, so individuals begin to band together into clans, gangs, or tribes. War inevitably follows, and alliances are made, treaties are signed, and before you know you're back to a government of one kind or another.



The idea is one of a streamlined limited government, not a bloated beauracracy that spends itself into debt quite readily. Very few people actually wish for a eternal state of chaos (would be almost suicidal), just that some of us wish for a change to the current order, that's all.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:54:46 AM EDT
Strictly speaking, there are few (Cuba and DPRK) 'socialist' states out there. Most people confuse 'socialism' with 'social welfare'. A state can be quite capitalist (Sweden), while giving out oodles of social welfare.

Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:55:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
With no viable method of enforcing contracts, and no law enforcement, the individual is helpless, contracts can be voided by bullet or blade, so individuals begin to band together into clans, gangs, or tribes. War inevitably follows, and alliances are made, treaties are signed, and before you know you're back to a government of one kind or another.



The idea is one of a streamlined limited government, not a bloated beauracracy that spends itself into debt quite readily. Very few people actually wish for a eternal state of chaos (would be almost suicidal), just that some of us wish for a change to the current order, that's all.



See the original context of this topic, and the tidbit I quoted above:


Capitalism will work just fine without a government


That sounds like anarchy, socially, but capitalism surviving in that state....which is hopelessly naive to think it will do anything but create warlordism out of those who have, enforced against those who need.

I'm no socialist, but the absence of a powerful counterweight to industry has ALWAYS spelled disaster to the common man. History proves it, over and over and over again. Anything else is wishful thinking.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:57:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Strictly speaking, there are few (Cuba and DPRK) 'socialist' states out there. Most people confuse 'socialism' with 'social welfare'. A state can be quite capitalist (Sweden), while giving out oodles of social welfare.




I suppose it depends on the nature of the specific system in question. Generally speaking, though, my opinion is that social welfare is just another way to redistribute wealth from those who work to those who don't, not to mention a good way for politicians to ensure re-election.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 1:59:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2006 2:01:01 AM EDT by K2QB3]
Bob said,
"The idea is one of a streamlined limited government, not a bloated beauracracy that spends itself into debt quite readily. Very few people actually wish for a eternal state of chaos (would be almost suicidal), just that some of us wish for a change to the current order, that's all. "


Oh I'm with you there, I'm a libertarian/ anarcho-capitalist myself.

As I constantly rant at anyone who will listen, where the current order went off the rails in the US is when we started using state-sponsored debt instruments as legal tender in payment of debts. It provides the state with almost unlimited power, the lifeblood of the welfare/warfare state is fiat.

Do away with legal tender and we're golden. Contracts should be enforcable in any medium of exchange agreeable to the parties.

Strict constitutionalism is almost there, if they'd just said "no one" instead of "no state" in article 1 section 10 the republic would still be strong. It's difficult to believe that isn't what they meant anyway.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:02:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2006 2:02:57 AM EDT by Bob1984]

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Oh I'm with you there, I'm a libertarian/ anarcho-capitalist myself.

As I constantly rant at anyone who will listen, where the current order went off the rails in the US is when we started using state-sponsored debt instruments as legal tender in payment of debts. It provides the state with almost unlimited power, the lifeblood of the welfare/warfare state is fiat.

Do away with legal tender and we're golden. Contracts should be enforcable in any medium of exchange agreeable to the parties.

Strict constitutionalism is almost there, if they'd just said "no one" instead of "no state" in article 1 section 10 the republic would still be strong. It's difficult to believe that isn't what they meant anyway.



With the nature of our economy, we do require a form of currency, however, I do like the idea of being able to trade goods/barter in lieu of money for private debts, assuming both parties are agreeable to it. Sadly, people are willing to exchange libery for security, their rights for a handout
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:05:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Do away with legal tender and we're golden. Contracts should be enforcable in any medium of exchange agreeable to the parties.



There is no law preventing you from 'buying' a car in exchange for a crate full of dead squirrels or whatever. The use of dollars is simply a practical convenience; you are free to strike whatever deal you like (and he accepts) with the dealer.

Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:05:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Strictly speaking, there are few (Cuba and DPRK) 'socialist' states out there. Most people confuse 'socialism' with 'social welfare'. A state can be quite capitalist (Sweden), while giving out oodles of social welfare.




Free market capitalism requires a free market for capital.

There is no capitalist nation left on the planet at this time.

The primary check on industry and government both is an honest monetary system, without that the only alternatives are socialism and fascism, however benevolent (or not) they might be.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:14:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Do away with legal tender and we're golden. Contracts should be enforcable in any medium of exchange agreeable to the parties.



There is no law preventing you from 'buying' a car in exchange for a crate full of dead squirrels or whatever. The use of dollars is simply a practical convenience; you are free to strike whatever deal you like (and he accepts) with the dealer.




Yes, there is.

Look at any federal reserve note in your wallet (there are no dollars in circulation) it says, quite plainly, and with full force of law behind it, "this note is legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private"

I cannot write a contract specifying payment in dead squirrels and then have it enforced in court, a court can only legally enforce a contract written in dollars.

There's nothing convenient to me whatsoever about having a government subsidized enterprise with monopoly power to loan the medium of exchange into existence at interest, it's quite possibly the stupidest idea in the history of mankind. Once interest starts to accrue there is no longer enough money created to discharge the debt created along with it, do you comprehend what that means? The mathematics of the situation are really very simple, we must continue to borrow more money all the time or the money supply declines, and the Fed/Gov collects interest on the ENTIRE MONEY SUPPLY AND THEN SOME.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:46:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
There is no capitalist nation left on the planet at this time.



Except for nearly all of them, you mean. That most don't do it well is another matter. Command economies are pretty much a thing of the past; virtually every state is organized as a market economy.


Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Yes, there is.



Incorrect.



Look at any federal reserve note in your wallet (there are no dollars in circulation) it says, quite plainly, and with full force of law behind it, "this note is legal tender in payment of all debts, public
and private"



Legal Tender:


Presumably, there is no federal law precluding private businesses from choosing to reject U.S. coins and currency altogether as payment for goods and services at point-of-sale.



You are ignoring the word 'debt'. If you owe me a dollar, and you choose to pay me back with a US one dollar bill, I must accept. But that is only because you are indebted to me, and because you choose to pay in USD. Assuming that I agree, you could pay me back in whatever 'currency' (ammo?) we agree upon.



I cannot write a contract specifying payment in dead squirrels and then have it enforced in court, a court can only legally enforce a contract written in dollars.



You sure could. Barter arangements are widely recognized in the US. Here is a random example.



Once interest starts to accrue there is no longer enough money created to discharge the debt created along with it, do you comprehend what that means? The mathematics of the situation are really very simple, we must continue to borrow more money all the time or the money supply declines, and the Fed/Gov collects interest on the ENTIRE MONEY SUPPLY AND THEN SOME.



Which isn't a big deal at all. The .gov (through the Fed Reserves) does charge an interest rate to banking institutions, because history has shown us that is an excellent way of implementing monetary policy.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 5:26:54 AM EDT
Until Oklahoma became a state in 1907, the area known as No Man's Land (the panhandle) was completely outside of any law. This was even confirmed in a federal court held in Paris Texas follwoing an multiple grudge murder committed in No Man's Land between feuding factions which hailed from across the border in Kansas, called the Haymeadow Massacre. That court ruled that No Man's Land wanot even under federal jurisdiction. Neither was it under territorial jurisdiction or Indian law.

Many acts which are commonly considered criminal (murder, armed robbery, etc) were indeed committed in No Man's Land. BUT the area WAS settled by ranchers and shopkeepers (plus plenty of saloon keepers and prositutes).

This was during a time when capitalism flourished because people like ourselves carried a rough sense of Justice inside ourselves. Yes, it was rough justice to be sure, but it was a settled economy that flourished without external law.

The towns had informal "mayors", "deputies" and "courts"... usually with the tavernkeeper as judge, with the tavern as his courtroom. This was indeed a time of no "legal" law, but of "internal law".

What the latest batch of self-styled Anarchists are about is either a delusional youthful enthusiasm for all things disorderly, or an almost pathaological hatred for authority.

I am surprised that in this day of all sorts of frivolous laws protecting us from ourselves, that Anarchism is not more popular among the idiots who would throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 5:38:37 AM EDT
Anarcy? Taking your guys' stuff would be easer than going to a stupid job all day.

I bet you could emigrate to Somalia and enjoy the fruits of anarchy. There are many other such anarchists' paradises, but the anarchists never seem to decide to move there.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 5:41:02 AM EDT
Anarchy is for people who never outgrew adolescent rebellion.

People who advocate zero government have zero understanding of human nature.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 5:42:30 AM EDT
I would prefer the US to move torwards anarchy than the current move to bigger goverment and more rules.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 7:21:30 AM EDT
True communism requires the disbandment of the government that set the commune up. That never happens cuz the power is sooo good. But if it did happen then I guess it would be like anarchy.
Top Top