Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Customers have plenty of information at there fingertips today and still unethical business practices beat out ethical ones by a long shot. I am wary of attempting to give corporate entities even more power hence my opposition to anarcho capitalism.
Having access to information and actually using it are entirely different things. Never underestimate the power of apathy. 99% of people who should know better don't know better because it's the path of least resistance. That's why libertarian and an-cap ideology forces people to address the issues because they're responsible for themselves rather than relying on someone else to tell them what to do.
However, limited liability is a useful construct even without the State:
Corporations were created by the State for the purpose of protecting their owners from liability and to allow them to profit when business is good, while avoiding personal loss when it is bad. In a stateless society, they would only exist in theory as the structure of the companies are concerned (shareholders, directors) but they would not provide financial immunity to those who are running them.
For instance, with the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the executives who run the company were not held personally liable for the damages caused. The company itself was, but if the company hadn't had the money to make repairs and reparations, those executives would still not have been held personally liable.
It's all a sham where the corporations are given privileges by the State that we are not allowed to have.
You claim the whining about not being killed is for kids? What's it called when you're claiming a group who don't share your political beliefs so don't vote for your 'team' are the gatekeepers of a ideology wholly offensive to that group?
Hey you know what, if you right wing statists just voted for an-caps and libertarians, you'd at least keep capitalism. You guys are the gatekeepers of Left.
Thank you! That's what I was thinking but I just couldn't put it into words.
His points have no basis in fact. They're complete hypotheticals with nothing to back them up.
On what is hypothetical
Do you know what the term "hypothetical" means? It does not seem that you do. You're using it opposite to its meaning.
Is not hypothetical that both you and communists profess to wish to eradicate the State. That's a fact.
It's not a theory that your ideology is hypothetical. It has never been put to use, because it is disastrous, outside of precivilization and very low population density frontier communities.
It is an abstraction. It is a hypothetical. It typifies the very definition of the term. Everything that you say in defense of your ideology is a guess as to what would happen, and it relies on ignoring all historical data that we have that tells us what might happen. There is literally nothing more hypothetical than your position.
Whereas my position was the government historical default for most of civilization.
Moreover, to analyze your position I look at both historical statements and actual real world implementation of ideologies that were not merely abstractions, for example communism, and which have striking similarities to your position (you know, because we have little else to look at for your purely hypothetical world).
My position is also rooted in demonstrated human behavior, which has always mandated the rule of law of a State.
To say that my position is hypothetical, while yours isn't, outs you as the biggest BS artist on this forum. Literally the opposite is true.
Quote:
His whole ideology is based on right-wing nationalism, which is every bit as collectivist as socialism.
Cultural vs economic collectivism - political weight, effects, and the definition of political party
You are clueless in regard to politics.
To wit, okay "Right Wing nationalism" is "collectivist"? Now what? You are comparing one thing 1. economic "socialism", which is an economic position with 2. social collectivism (cultural nationalism or "right wing nationalism" as you put it), which is a social position.
Whereas the sociopolitical sphere and the economic sphere are almost completely independent of one another.
There is no analytical legitimacy in identifying something as "collectivist", across the economic and social spheres, and drawing a sweeping conclusion from that identification. Doing so is political gibberish.
Examples:
Communism looked to break down social ties, making people culturally unrooted. This was actually its primary aim. It was socially "libertarian", the social sphere designation actually being the only true category that matters in defining a political position. Because it is the only factor that determines the extent of national self determination via political power. Culture builds political power at the community (budding national) level. Economic policies do not directly build community political power.
See the Jews for an example. They are decidedly not social libertarians within their internal political environment. They are the opposite of social libertarians within their internal political environment, and especially in a historical sense. They are not politically weak as a group. Who is? Much larger groups who have adopted more libertarian cultures. I digress.
After communism made most effective cultural ties either illegal, or otherwise informally but effectively suppressed them, they then offered a politically weak substitute in economic "collectivism" (socialism, which is a non-existent construct insofar as political power is concerned) to fool people into believing that they now had a politically stronger substitute for the cultural ties that the communists repressed.
Yes, and the people were so politically "strong" after that substitution that they could be freely murdered by the tens of millions by the foreign communist government.
This recent historical example is the very best observable evidence that no one should take a single thing that you say seriously. In fact, they should be alarmed by it.
Opposite to the USSR example, we have many examples in the world of culturally nationalist tribes who more or less operate via a capitalist economic system. Many Asian tribes operate like this, Israel and the Jewish diaspora operates like this, and many more.
Save your willful conflation of terms for a forum that will be more easily confused by them.
Cultural collectivism, or "Right Wing Nationalism", is not Leftism. It has always been Right Wing, since the first ethnic tribes who elected their local heroes as Kings. After those Kings died, their myths became the literary root of the national culture. These tribes are our conservative, ie: cultural, legacy.
Cultural libertarianism is indisputably Left Wing.
It seeks to either directly repress or indirectly de-incetivize cultural alliances that would later turn into politically strong groups and governments that would in turn provide for both internal civilization, via implementation of the law and justice through it, as well as protection from foreign groups who would and always will look to kill, enslave, or otherwise control other groups.
Groups who undertake the equivalent of social libertarianism widely adopt the culture of the historical slave classes. They become politically unable to cooperate, especially once ethnically diluted, and thus become politically vulnerable to social and economic exploitation and slavery.
And that is exactly what happens. The modern underclass (lumpenproles in Marxist speak, comrade) are currently the most socially "libertarian" class of people that you will find. See the modern African cannibals as well. I can not speak to the same people historically, but I have my suspicions.
That libertarianism has no answer for this is why it is an invalid distraction fit for children (or subversive pro-communists) that have no historical nor, frankly, rational nor observable context for their position.
Its the exact strategy that communism international used to make the Russian people into a slave class for decades, its the exact de facto social construct that our lowest performing members of society adopt (forming the class that the communists most revere), and it is the exact strategy that the Far Left insists on today to forward their agenda.
Which is why they are so up in arms against religion, family values, and even gender identity. Unless you are claiming that the modern Far Left espouses "Right Wing" libertarianism?
Quote:
Nationalism regulates capitalism, personal behavior, morality, and is totalitarian by nature
The cultural deconstructionists, and nation destroyers, Marx and Engels literally could not have said it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
You claim the whining about not being killed is for kids? What's it called when you're claiming a group who don't share your political beliefs so don't vote for your 'team' are the gatekeepers of a ideology wholly offensive to that group?
Hey you know what, if you right wing statists just voted for an-caps and libertarians, you'd at least keep capitalism. You guys are the gatekeepers of Left.
Wholly unreadable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Corporations don't exist in anarcho-capitalism, as they are a State construct.
They don't? By what force would you be able to stop a group of 50 men from forming a corporation, an army or anything else of the sort?
Any time that you have to rely on shaming someone not to kill you (wahhh..wahddya a bunch of Statists?!? Don't hurt me!!), or otherwise rely on some form of mass agreement and successful voluntary behavioral control worldwide to implement your system (you know, because no State to enforce Laws nor defend borders from marauding groups), then you know that you've gone wrong in your logic. There will be no mass agreement, complete international trust, nor successful voluntary behavioral control on a scale significant enough that it obviates the State.
Libertarians are essentially gatekeepers for Left Wing ideology, and always were. Their aim is to essentially to capture people who are anti-Left from voting for the nationalist Right. Another more historical use is as a form of Left Wing revolution against Right Wing governments. Though, the Left Wing true believers who utilize libertarian ideals this way are always too happy to abandon principles of "muh freedom" when they gain power instead. See the modern Left vs their libertarian legacy in the American Revolution.
1. Based on what you said here, we can come harass you, or take your belongings, maybe even physically harm you, and if you voice any complaints, you're just an immature crybaby.
I mean, there's no way you're just one of those hypocrites who can dish it out but can't take it, right?
2. We've gone over this so many times, and people still can't grasp it... rules would still exist! Don't be the initiator of force. Don't violate the property rights of others. If you do, we will forcefully shut you down. Those are the rules.
Put another way, those rules are just applied equally to everyone INCLUDING the government, which makes the government go POOF.
You can't even call it a government anymore if they're only allowed to use force defensively, and they can't take your stuff. They're just like any other private entity.
1. Based on what you said here, we can come harass you, or take your belongings, maybe even physically harm you, and if you voice any complaints, you're just an immature crybaby.
I mean, there's no way you're just one of those hypocrites who can dish it out but can't take it, right?
2. We've gone over this so many times, and people still can't grasp it... rules would still exist! Don't be the initiator of force. Don't violate the property rights of others. If you do, we will forcefully shut you down.Those are the rules.
Put another way, those rules are just applied equally to everyone INCLUDING the government, which makes the government go POOF.
You can't even call it a government anymore if they're only allowed to use force defensively, and they can't take your stuff. They're just like any other private entity.
No, based on what I said here I could shoot you square in the head for doing that and remain free. The State allows for a Castle law where I live. Thank you, State. If I did that, the State would legally and physically protect me from your cousins coming to take revenge. Again, thank you State for allowing me both to effectively protect myself and to stay healthy in the aftermath. Your laws often extend my life, allow me to retain my property, and allow me to act justly in the face of evil.
Moreover, if I didn't do that the state would hunt you down and lock you up for a long time, preserving you from the individual or mob action that would otherwise seek to take your life for a crime that may not actually not justify taking your life. So, say "Thank you, State".
Our legal system is largely just, but that fairness has come from a very long walk of a continuing State in order to work it out. It is better than the Wild West justice system that would otherwise exist, and it is better than what existed 300 years ago. Abandon the State, and start that process all over again. No rational person would want that.
We fully grasp what you are saying. It is you that doesn't see how anachronistic your position is. Telling us that "we don't get it" after taking the time to extensively rebut you, in the face of very short and superficial counter-arguments on your part, is not consistent with reality in this discussion.
Moving onto your next statement (see the first bolded part): "we" is the state. And the "rules" are laws. And now you have a State again.
The State's power always refines and grows. You just want more power within it, and your entire argument amounts to wanting to tear down the current one to that end instead of recognizing it as a long work in progress that currently allows most people a better quality and longer life than in history. In fact, a great way to shorten your lifespan is to relocate to one of the still existing primitive nations with no effective State.
Leftists have long been attempting to tear down the conservative State to give the "people" more power. Its just a power grab. Sometimes we stop them, sometimes we don't. When we don't, often foreign peoples take power and the State again rises but this time its not of the people who killed their hereditary King (speaking historically). I do know that a force that is destructive to civilization is not mankind's friend.
The second part that I bolded is almost verbatim the justification that communism international used to convince the Russians to adopt communism.
After they murdered their monarch as a result, a much worse government took hold and murdered them by the tens of millions. Read your history. We have. You people haven't. That doesn't obligate anyone to listen to your position that was long ago litigated by history.
No, based on what I said here I could shoot you square in the head for doing that and remain free. The State allows for a Castle law where I live. Thank you, State. If I did that, the State would legally and physically protect me from your cousins coming to take revenge. Again, thank you State for allowing me both to effectively protect myself and to stay healthy in the aftermath. Your laws often extend my life, allow me to retain my property, and allow me to act justly in the face of evil.
Moreover, if I didn't do that the state would hunt you down and lock you up for a long time, preserving you from the individual or mob action that would otherwise seek to take your life for a crime that may not actually not justify taking your life. So, say "Thank you, State".
Our legal system is largely just, but that fairness has come from a very long walk of a continuing State in order to work it out. It is better than the Wild West justice system that would otherwise exist, and it is better than what existed 300 years ago. Abandon the State, and start that process all over again. No rational person would want that.
We fully grasp what you are saying. It is you that doesn't see how anachronistic your position is. Telling us that "we don't get it" after taking the time to extensively rebut you, in the face of very short and superficial counter-arguments on your part, is not consistent with reality in this discussion.
Moving onto your next statement (see the first bolded part): "we" is the state. And the "rules" are laws. And now you have a State again.
The State's power always refines and grows. You just want more power within it, and your entire argument amounts to wanting to tear down the current one to that end instead of recognizing it as a long work in progress that currently allows most people a better quality and longer life than in history. In fact, a great way to shorten your lifespan is to relocate to one of the still existing primitive nations with no effective State.
Leftists have long been attempting to tear down the conservative State to give the "people" more power. Its just a power grab. Sometimes we stop them, sometimes we don't. When we don't, often foreign peoples take power and the State again rises but this time its not of the people who killed their hereditary King (speaking historically). I do know that a force that is destructive to civilization is not mankind's friend.
The second part that I bolded is almost verbatim the justification that communism international used to convince the Russians to adopt communism.
After they murdered their monarch as a result, a much worse government took hold and murdered them by the tens of millions. Read your history. We have. You people haven't. That doesn't obligate anyone to listen to your position that was long ago litigated by history.
To the bold, I'll keep the language simple for the grammatically challenged.
So if the state came to take your stuff, and you shot them in the head, that same state would defend your right to do so?
Which reality do you live in that permits that? Not this one. The Bundys didn't even do that, and they've been hounded and imprisoned, and almost convicted of nothing more than being associated with people pointing guns at state agents.
No, based on what I said here I could shoot you square in the head for doing that and remain free. The State allows for a Castle law where I live. Thank you, State. If I did that, the State would legally and physically protect me from your cousins coming to take revenge. Again, thank you State for allowing me both to effectively protect myself and to stay healthy in the aftermath. Your laws often extend my life, allow me to retain my property, and allow me to act justly in the face of evil.
Moreover, if I didn't do that the state would hunt you down and lock you up for a long time, preserving you from the individual or mob action that would otherwise seek to take your life for a crime that may not actually not justify taking your life. So, say "Thank you, State".
No, that has nothing to do with the state. The state writing a law that you can defend yourself isn't what gives you the right to defend yourself, or have someone protect you on your behalf.
Also, you changed the topic. We were talking about whether or not we're being immature or childlike.
Quote:
Our legal system is largely just, but that fairness has come from a very long walk of a continuing State in order to work it out. It is better than the Wild West justice system that would otherwise exist, and it is better than what existed 300 years ago. Abandon the State, and start that process all over again. No rational person would want that.
No, it comes from a very long walk of a continuing understanding of criminal justice. We've learned the value of due process, innocent until proven guilty, having the most objective judge or jury possible, and countless other lessons...none of that knowledge or wisdom would disappear just because there aren't politicians.
Quote:
We fully grasp what you are saying. It is you that doesn't see how anachronistic your position is. Telling us that "we don't get it" after taking the time to extensively rebut you, in the face of very short and superficial counter-arguments on your part, is not consistent with reality in this discussion.
You aren't grasping it, or else you would have rebutted it already, which you haven't. I'm very open to criticism, and all I've seen is the same tired arguments, which I used to believe, funny enough.
A lot of it stems from cloudy, muddled understanding of things. See below...and feel free to clear up anything you disagree with.
Quote:
Moving onto your next statement (see the first bolded part): "we" is the state. And the "rules" are laws. And now you have a State again.
This is what you're getting wrong. A group of people organizing by choice for collective defense is not a State. A State is the group that has a monopoly on the initiation of force within a given geographic area.
For example, the people that make up the United States government have a territory, the one on all the maps, and they claim to be the legitimate authority within that territory - they're the group that has societal permission to take people's money by force, and to force people to do things they never agreed to (or often prevent them from doing harmless activities).
It's honestly the mafia or gang model. The only distinction is perceived legitimacy.
Quote:
The State's power always refines and grows. You just want more power within it, and your entire argument amounts to wanting to tear down the current one to that end instead of recognizing it as a long work in progress that currently allows most people a better quality and longer life than in history. In fact, a great way to shorten your lifespan is to relocate to one of the still existing primitive nations with no effective State.
The first sentence is completely true. The rest is not. We don't want to tear anything down, first of all, but that's another topic. "You just want more power within it" We want people to stop using the government as an excuse to initiate force and violate property rights. How is that wanting more power?
It's the same thing that came up earlier... offensive vs. defensive force makes ALL the difference in the world. You're not exercising power over a population by defending against aggressors.
Quote:
Leftists have long been attempting to tear down the conservative State to give the "people" more power. Its just a power grab. Sometimes we stop them, sometimes we don't. When we don't, often foreign peoples take power and the State again rises but this time its not of the people who killed their hereditary King (speaking historically). I do know that a force that is destructive to civilization is not mankind's friend.
I won't argue much with that, although the founding fathers of the US did exactly that. They were the radical liberals fighting the King's claim to power over them.
Quote:
The second part that I bolded is almost verbatim the justification that communism international used to convince the Russians to adopt communism.
After they murdered their monarch as a result, a much worse government took hold and murdered them by the tens of millions. Read your history. We have. You people haven't. That doesn't obligate anyone to listen to your position that was long ago litigated by history.
I'm well aware of the history. What exactly is your argument here? It sounds to me that you've been arguing that any resistance to an established government is a gateway to leftist takeover.
I'm honestly curious who you view as the "good guys" or the justified side of the American Revolution... the British redcoats or the American colonists?
I was just thinking about it, and you really can sum it up with one of the sentences I said above...
We're against using the government as an excuse to initiate force and violate the property rights of others.
The cornerstone of civilized society is the NAP and property rights. Don't aggress against innocent people. Don't steal. People already believe in and follow this in their personal lives, so there's not much that needs to change.
The only thing that needs to happen is for people to be consistent with their own beliefs. Get rid of one simple idea: "Normally it would be wrong, but it's okay if I do it by way of government." Incorrect. If it's wrong to do on your own, it's wrong to have the government do it for you.
That's it. Once enough people look at that and say "Yeah, that's true. I shouldn't be advocating for the government to do anything I wouldn't do on my own", we'll have achieved our goal.
I was just thinking about it, and you really can sum it up with one of the sentences I said above...
We're against using the government as an excuse to initiate force and violate the property rights of others.
The cornerstone of civilized society is the NAP and property rights. Don't aggress against innocent people. Don't steal. People already believe in and follow this in their personal lives, so there's not much that needs to change.
The only thing that needs to happen is for people to be consistent with their own beliefs. Get rid of one simple idea: "Normally it would be wrong, but it's okay if I do it by way of government." Incorrect. If it's wrong to do on your own, it's wrong to have the government do it for you.
That's it. Once enough people look at that and say "Yeah, that's true. I shouldn't be advocating for the government to do anything I wouldn't do on my own", we'll have achieved our goal.
Candles in the Dark!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We want people to stop using the government as an excuse to initiate force and violate property rights. How is that wanting more power?
