America Beyond Capitalism - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1014

Strength in numbers

Quote from: Coinbuck @ BTCLot on December 29, 2011, 11:17:30 PM

Quote from: altuin on December 28, 2011, 11:56:28 PM

Personally, I support something along the lines of a monarch, where exactly one person is in control, to avoid arguing with themselves, but elected for a short period. No congress, no representatives, no nothing, and the in-charge can run the government however they want. It will make it more efficient and better suited for a changing wolrd

Welcome to North Korea. Have fun there.

1 person over 6B? 300M? 900k? 6?

I like 1.

Coinbuck @ BTCLot

hero member

Activity: 540

Merit: 500

The future begins today

Quote from: altuin on December 28, 2011, 11:56:28 PM

Personally, I support something along the lines of a monarch, where exactly one person is in control, to avoid arguing with themselves, but elected for a short period. No congress, no representatives, no nothing, and the in-charge can run the government however they want. It will make it more efficient and better suited for a changing wolrd

Welcome to North Korea. Have fun there.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

So there's a libertarian socialist community living pretty much independently somewhere. The offspring of one of the founders discovers a well (or oil, or whatever natural resource), while digging a new foundation for his/her house. That person is an ass and decides they deserve a larger share of the community pot in return for the water. Or if they are more clever, they could obfuscate how much water is really down there and how difficult it is to attain, thereby artificially limiting the supply and getting more of other resources in return for relatively little work.

How would such a community deal with this situation?

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: bb113 on December 29, 2011, 12:51:18 AM

What if someone does not want to share?

Then they dont. Most libertatian socialists advocate voluntary associations, rather than forcing people in to it. Which kinda makes sense, as by its very nature the movement is opposed to authority and statehood.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: altuin on December 28, 2011, 11:56:28 PM

Personally, I support something along the lines of a monarch, where exactly one person is in control, to avoid arguing with themselves, but elected for a short period. No congress, no representatives, no nothing, and the in-charge can run the government however they want. It will make it more efficient and better suited for a changing wolrd

Really? And you think you could elect someone uncorruptable enough that there is no need for checks and balances, and that this despote would actually rule in favor of the people and not himself and his inner circle? And that he wouldnt change the laws so he could be re-"elected" again, over and over? Care to give a historical example, preferably that worked better, than say, Putin?

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: P4man on December 28, 2011, 06:06:38 AM

Quote from: The Script on December 28, 2011, 05:44:16 AM

Perhaps when we speak of capitalism we are not meaning the same thing. I guess what I would want to know is in Chomksy's or your socialist anarchy would you use force against me to take away my property?

Hu?

This is also what I don't get. It seems to me there is no avoiding a central authority with socialism. What if someone does not want to share?

altuin

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Personally, I support something along the lines of a monarch, where exactly one person is in control, to avoid arguing with themselves, but elected for a short period. No congress, no representatives, no nothing, and the in-charge can run the government however they want. It will make it more efficient and better suited for a changing wolrd

qbg

member

Activity: 74

Merit: 10

Quote from: The Script on December 28, 2011, 05:44:16 AM

Perhaps when we speak of capitalism we are not meaning the same thing.

This. It is a collusion between the state and business along with perverse circumstances that is the issue anarcho-socialists have with what they call 'Capitalism'. See Roderick Long's discussion on this topic.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: The Script on December 28, 2011, 05:44:16 AM

Perhaps when we speak of capitalism we are not meaning the same thing. I guess what I would want to know is in Chomksy's or your socialist anarchy would you use force against me to take away my property?

Hu?

The Script

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Chomsky is a highly intelligent individual, there's no doubt about that, and I have great respect for him. But I don't understand the fear of capitalism and the desire to "get past it". Perhaps when we speak of capitalism we are not meaning the same thing. I guess what I would want to know is in Chomksy's or your socialist anarchy would you use force against me to take away my property?

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: TheMarketAnarchist on December 27, 2011, 10:50:13 PM

Why do we need to move "beyond Capitalism"? What's wrong with Capitalism? The problem is crony capitalism and government intervention in the free market. Capitalism is fine. It isn't the problem.

The problem is that wealth gets you power. And power gets you wealth. The system is incompatible with democracy. We are headed towards corporate feudalism.

Quote

Chomsky is a socialist who either doesn't fully understand or who deliberately misrepresents capitalism.

If he is a socialist, then its in the original meaning of the word, which one would better call libertarian socialist or anarchist, since the word "socialism" has lost all meaning, after being applied to various totalitarian state regimes that are anything but socialist and almost opposite of what people like Chomsky stand for.

As for Chomsky not understanding capitalism.. yeah right. Maybe he should read a book or something Roll Eyes

TheMarketAnarchist

newbie

Activity: 44

Merit: 0

Why do we need to move "beyond Capitalism"? What's wrong with Capitalism? The problem is crony capitalism and government intervention in the free market. Capitalism is fine. It isn't the problem. Chomsky is a socialist who either doesn't fully understand or who deliberately misrepresents capitalism.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

As much as I resent our current political and economic system, I dont see "Somalia-style" libertarianism as a viable alternative, let alone neo-communist state socialism, so Im intigued about learning about alternatives. Ive always been a fan of Noam Chomsky, I think this guy is thinking in the same direction:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7745

Topic: America Beyond Capitalism - page 2. (Read 6620 times)