FAQ   Search   Memberlist  
Profile    Log in to check your private messages    Register    Log in
ron paul != anarchism
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BLAG Forum Index -> politics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jebba
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

extraspecialbitter wrote:
this cute corgi in Cochituate, Massachusetts was spotted showing his (her?) support outside a local polling place. Photo by Mrs. Bitter.


Heh. Cute puppies!

ewl
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Ed lobante Reply with quote

berkbw wrote:

Ed, I apologize . And to the community, I will try to temper the combination of crotchety old age, etho (booze), and big mouth. It is unbecoming to the forum, and decorum in general.


Don't sweat it, Berk. I kind of suspected you thought I was a troll so I didn't take offense. Actually I'm a distro hopper, which is why I tend to appear and disappear from the forums periodically.


_________________
Ed LaBonte
trencher
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ron who?
Junichirô
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

trencher wrote:
Ron who?

RonRon, my two little cats (females) do that. And it's anarchy, not in UK, but in my home.

chilli9
PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

what is anarchy really? is it a mess or is it peace and order? :P i dont get it.
________
Valium Rehab Advice



Last edited by chilli9 on Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:55 am; edited 1 time in total
ryanpatgray
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:50 am    Post subject: what is anarchy really? Reply with quote

chilli9 wrote:
what is anarchy really? is it a mess or is it peace and order? :P i dont get it.


It is the absence of state-instituted coercion.

Beyond that it is a blank slate upon which different types of anarchists can place their own templates. There are leftist anarchists and there are anarcho-capitalists. There are also anarcho-primitivists who would prefer to live without modern technology if the state were to collapse. Personally, I like to think all of these groups would live peaceably side by side if the state were to collapse. Why need one group interfere with the other?

http://mises.org/story/1778

r7
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:31 pm    Post subject: Re: what is anarchy really? Reply with quote

ryanpatgray wrote:
Beyond that it is a blank slate upon which different types of anarchists can place their own templates. There are leftist anarchists and there are anarcho-capitalists.


i would take issue with some of this. i do not believe 'anarcho-capitalists' are in any way anarchist. i agree with this article: More on propertarian stupidity, on the excellent Anarchist FAQ site, see especially Section F: Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?.

r7

Junichirô
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:57 pm    Post subject: Re: what is anarchy really? Reply with quote

r7 wrote:


i would take issue with some of this. i do not believe 'anarcho-capitalists' are in any way anarchist. i agree with this article: More on propertarian stupidity, on the excellent Anarchist FAQ site, see especially Section F: Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?.

r7

+10

ryanpatgray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:34 am    Post subject: Re: what is anarchy really? Reply with quote

r7 wrote:
ryanpatgray wrote:
Beyond that it is a blank slate upon which different types of anarchists can place their own templates. There are leftist anarchists and there are anarcho-capitalists.


i would take issue with some of this. i do not believe 'anarcho-capitalists' are in any way anarchist. i agree with this article: More on propertarian stupidity, on the excellent Anarchist FAQ site, see especially Section F: Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?.

r7

"Can it really be a coincidence that almost all propertarians are so anti-union?"

This is actually a common misunderstanding. We are not against voluntary unions. We are against laws that give unions unfair advantages in forming, negotiating or coercing other employees into joining.

"What, ultimately, is the difference between Rothbard's (monopoly) "libertarian law code" designed by "Libertarian lawyers and jurists" and implemented and developed by judges ("judge-made law") and a state? "

Rothbard's libertarian law code is NOT monopoly. That is the difference. The author either badly misunderstands Rothbard or is being dishonest.

"Rand's Galt's Gulch is effectively a monarchy, with the owner of the land ruling it and those within it."

Perhaps using the metaphor "A man's home is his castle" . . . . But certainly not so in the literal sense of a monarchy.

"—how is it possible to achieve the necessary balance and interdependence of the various spheres of production, their dimensions and the proportions between them, except through the constant neutralisation of a constant disharmony?"

Nature sets forth its own kind of harmony. Human beings are simply animals. It is when we forget that we are a part of nature that we create disharmony by trying to force people into artificial boxes through governments and dogmatic religions. We may be tempted to say this or that "aught to be" but in doing so we are assuming knowledge that no human being could possibly have. In the sphere of numbers this is known as the "calculation problem". In the sphere of other political issues this is known as the "unintended consequences" problem.

ewl
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is pure fantasy. "Communism" actually existed someplace in history. Not in the form envisioned by Marx, but it still existed. "Anarchism", the leftist version existed for a short time during the Paris Commune and for a longer duration during the Spanish Civil War in Catalonia. "Anarcho-Capitalism" has never existed, nor could it. Property rights must be protected by force.

_________________
Ed LaBonte
ryanpatgray
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:47 pm    Post subject: Medieval Iceland Reply with quote

ewl wrote:
"Anarcho-Capitalism" has never existed, nor could it.
You are incorrect. In Medieval Iceland an anarcho-capitalist society existed for a period of 290 years. It collapsed after a tithe (tax) was imposed for the purpose of church maintenance. In other words, it collapsed after it ceased to be purely anarcho-capitalist. http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1121
ewl wrote:
" Property rights must be protected by force.
There is a difference between the initiation of violence and self-defense. The initiation of violence is what governments do against people they claim to be their citizens. Self-defense is what a homeowner may morally do to a home invader. There is nothing inherent in anarcho-capitalism that would prevent self-defense.

I would also like to emphasize that I have no problem with VOLUNTARY communism or VOLUNTARY socialism. I may not choose to join such but each to his / her own. I only have a problem with coercion - coercion in ANY form.

ewl
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Medieval Iceland Reply with quote

It takes more than private property to make an economy Capitalist. It was a medieaval society so it was predominantly farm oriented. The only "small businesses" would have been black smiths and maybe millers. Other than that, people produced for themselves. Modern industrial society is vastly more organized. The only way to do it in a capitalist manner is through large corporations. If you have large corporations owned my a small group of wealthy people using force to protect their property rights you have a defacto government.

_________________
Ed LaBonte
ryanpatgray
PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Medieval Iceland Reply with quote

ewl wrote:
It takes more than private property to make an economy Capitalist.
True, it also takes liberty. This is why fascism is not capitalist even though it (nominally) has private property.
ewl wrote:
It was a medieaval society so it was predominantly farm oriented.
This is irrelevant. Farming can be a business like any other. It just has a different product.
ewl wrote:
The only way to do it in a capitalist manner is through large corporations. If you have large corporations owned my a small group of wealthy people using force to protect their property rights you have a defacto government.
Methinks you misunderstand what capitalism actually is. Capitalism is not about the fat guy with a mustache on Hasbro’s Monopoly game. In fact, that fat guy probably would not be quite so wealthy without the existence of the state. The state allows him to patent “intellectual property”. (Do you think Bill Gates would be as wealthy if it were not for patents?) The state often provides him with both direct and indirect subsidies at the expense of the tax paying serfs. The state provides him with an iron triangle of massaged regulations that give him an advantage over competitors and potential competitors. If you think I am a fan of the fat guy with a mustache on Hasbro’s Monopoly game you are incorrect. He got there because of the state. Without the state there would be an infinite number of competitors. “Large corporations” in the sense we know them now would not exist. There is also no reason to assume there is only “one right way” to accomplish something. The state forces a “my way or the highway” system down our throats but in the free market you will have options.
ewl
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Medieval Iceland Reply with quote

ryanpatgray wrote:
l"This is irrelevant. Farming can be a business like any other. It just has a different product.


It's not a "business" if it's primarily subsistence farming. It's just living. That's the kind of farming that existed in the middle ages. Which goes back to my main point. Capitalist anarchism has never existed anywhere in history. Nor is it likely to.


_________________
Ed LaBonte
fistfullofroses
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:08 pm    Post subject: Re: ron paul != anarchism Reply with quote

Veganbikepunk wrote:
Besides all that, he's an electoral candidate. Someone who thinks pushing a candidate has something to do with anarchism, is someone who knows almost nothing about anarchism. What's wrong with making the homepage Infoshop or Ainfos or something?


Less government is more an anarchial ideal than is more government. If you vote unskillfully you will grow the size and scope of government. If you vote skillfully you will shrink the size and scope of government. People like Ron Paul are trying to reduce government's interference into the people's everyday lives. This is something every anarchist should appreciate. Why hate him? It's fine to say that he doesn't go quite far enough toward the abolition of government all together, and even more fine to say that you disagree with him, but some of the things he champions are going to lessen the burden of the people to support a corrupt and evil government body. What is so wrong with that?

Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BLAG Forum Index -> politics Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

Protected by Anti-Spam ACP