"Anarchists" rioting in London | Bitcointalksearch.org

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1007

Quote from: luv2drnkbr on May 25, 2011, 08:13:02 AM

Quote from: FatherMcGruder on May 24, 2011, 09:41:23 AM

Quote from: luv2drnkbr on May 24, 2011, 09:37:55 AM

Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws.

Its decisions restrict what laws can be made, and while not technically "laws" (as the term is applied to mandates passed by Congress). By narrowly restricting how laws can be made, it effectively creates laws.

The Constitution says the Supreme Court is the "supreme law of the land". But yes, technically I did not answer his question.

Um, no it doesn't. The constitutions says that IT is the supreme law of the land. The constitution doesn't even grant the Supreme Court the power to judge the constitutionality of laws, that's just something that they assumed they could do, and there isn't really any court capable of overridding that assumption. Technically, the House of Representives has the power to sensor/override a Supreme court ruling; but this has actually never occured.

ndonnard

member

Activity: 109

Merit: 10

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on March 27, 2011, 08:08:20 AM

Not sure if this is being discussed yet, but just posting my thoughts on the 'anarchist' label and how I think most people would associate it with the chaotic bullshit they see happening in London today.

If I really had to choose an exact label for myself, and I could only choose one, I might call myself a 'market anarchist', however I absolutely don't want to be associated with people spray-painting buildings with the 'A' symbol or smashing out the windows of successful and 'posh' businesses.

It's funny, I grew up actually thinking the word 'anarchy' meant 'chaos' and it was only just recently I realised how wrong that definition is, and that the mistake probably came from mainstream TV media, where those kind of rioters are just labelled 'anarchists' in general.

You can probably call youself anarcho-capitalist or private propetry anarchist instead of market anarchist. But it's all about terms, meanwhile the ideas you support are much more important. As I uderstant it's something from Austrian School of economics, Murray Rothbard or Robert Nozick with his "Anarchy, State, Utopia".

FatherMcGruder

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: luv2drnkbr on May 25, 2011, 08:13:02 AM

The Constitution says the Supreme Court is the "supreme law of the land".

Quote from: Constitution of the United States, Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article III, sections one and two, which define the Supreme Court, do not give its justices Judge Dredd powers.

luv2drnkbr

hero member

Activity: 793

Merit: 1016

Quote from: FatherMcGruder on May 24, 2011, 09:41:23 AM

Quote from: luv2drnkbr on May 24, 2011, 09:37:55 AM

Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws.

Its decisions restrict what laws can be made, and while not technically "laws" (as the term is applied to mandates passed by Congress). By narrowly restricting how laws can be made, it effectively creates laws.

The Constitution says the Supreme Court is the "supreme law of the land". But yes, technically I did not answer his question.

benjamindees

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on May 09, 2011, 12:02:08 AM

Quote from: 左 on May 08, 2011, 11:32:42 PM

I oppose laws (well, all laws, but specifically) that restrict freedom.

Can you name a law that doesn't restrict freedom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_versus_license

deadlizard

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 11

Quote from: FatherMcGruder on May 24, 2011, 09:41:23 AM

Quote from: luv2drnkbr on May 24, 2011, 09:37:55 AM

Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws.

consensus facit legem

AntiVigilante

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: MoonShadow on March 27, 2011, 12:00:19 PM

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on March 27, 2011, 08:08:20 AM

Not sure if this is being discussed yet, but just posting my thoughts on the 'anarchist' label and how I think most people would associate it with the chaotic bullshit they see happening in London today.

The European 'anarchists' are not in favor of a stateless society. They are, largely, socialists. Intentional chaos is an intermediate stage outlined by Karl Marx, and in detail in Rules for Radicals. Karl Marx noted that the majority of any nation has a vested interest in the status quo, even if that same majority can recognize it's flaws. Thus, the status quo must be disrupted before any substantial change, in this case a socialist revolution, may be successful. Certainly they don't all believe that they are socialists, but all of those who are rioting are contributing to that end, whether they know it or not.

Of course it's aimless violence which only drives the people further into the loving arms of the government he 'allegedly' wanted to get rid of. That in itself makes the claims of his goals completely suspect. Hence my username.

I have a hairs breadth of patience for paid provocateurs and their idiot entourage.

FatherMcGruder

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: luv2drnkbr on May 24, 2011, 09:37:55 AM

Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws.

luv2drnkbr

hero member

Activity: 793

Merit: 1016

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on May 09, 2011, 12:02:08 AM

Quote from: 左 on May 08, 2011, 11:32:42 PM

I oppose laws (well, all laws, but specifically) that restrict freedom.

Can you name a law that doesn't restrict freedom?

Roe v. Wade

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1007

Quote from: DATA COMMANDER on May 17, 2011, 11:04:42 PM

Quote from: BitterTea

If the workers want their own factory, why do you advocate they take it (by force) from those they voluntarily agreed to work for?

When did they use force?

Read the whole thread.

DATA COMMANDER

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: BitterTea

If the workers want their own factory, why do you advocate they take it (by force) from those they voluntarily agreed to work for?

When did they use force?

em3rgentOrdr

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 251

youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin

Quote from: MacFall on May 11, 2011, 01:55:41 PM

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on March 28, 2011, 12:04:24 AM

...I'm reluctant to tell a member of the general population that I'm an 'anarchist' for fear of what they think anarchy means (like I did), because they watch mainstream news.

Same here. Other terms such as "voluntaryist" or "autonomist" have less baggage, but I find it is much easier to describe what I believe then to try to self-apply a label. It's also a good way to seize the moral high ground with a statement like:

"Violence and coercion against the non-violent are impermissable."

At the very least, one must abandon the argument from morality entirely to argue against the ethics of non-aggression. But people want to think their position is moral, so they will just keep bouncing arguments helplessly against it. At least, that's been my experience. In fact, it's what eventually led me to become a voluntaryst.

Voluntaryism FTW.

MacFall

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Agorist

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on March 28, 2011, 12:04:24 AM

...I'm reluctant to tell a member of the general population that I'm an 'anarchist' for fear of what they think anarchy means (like I did), because they watch mainstream news.

Same here. Other terms such as "voluntaryist" or "autonomist" have less baggage, but I find it is much easier to describe what I believe then to try to self-apply a label. It's also a good way to seize the moral high ground with a statement like:

"Violence and coercion against the non-violent are impermissable."

At the very least, one must abandon the argument from morality entirely to argue against the ethics of non-aggression. But people want to think their position is moral, so they will just keep bouncing arguments helplessly against it. At least, that's been my experience. In fact, it's what eventually led me to become a voluntaryst.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

It is the height of foolishness to claim that business owners "don't do anything" just because they are not assemblng widgets with their own hands. They provided the capital, they take the brunt of the risk. If the workers want their own factory, why do you advocate they take it (by force) from those they voluntarily agreed to work for?

Look, I understand that the labor market today is grossly in favor of employers, but I see this as the function of government regulation and privelege granting. In the absense of a state, assuming a sufficiently large portion of the population accepts the premises of anti-statism, I don't see such a distorted labor market forming. However, I feel that there will still be entreprenurial individuals and there wwill be risk averse individuals. I see nothing wrong with the latter voluntarily accepting a wage from the former in return for their work. I do consider it wrong for the latter to suddenly decide he is being exploited, breaking his agreement, and using force against his employer.

How do you feel about this article? http://c4ss.org/content/4043

左

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

I don't care what you do, so long as you don't try and restrict everyone else's freedom.

I think conflict will come though when you try and claim that you and your friends own a factory, but are never seen anywhere near it. Instead, you "hire" people to work the factory for you, giving you a percentage of their labor for the privilege. What will you and your friends do when the workers decide that they'd rather not giving you anything 'cause, well, you aren't actually doing anything?

em3rgentOrdr

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 251

youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin

Quote from: 左 on May 08, 2011, 11:32:42 PM

@em3rgentOrdr, I think you don't know what I'm for, or against, by that post. Actually, I've nothing against markets, so long as they aren't capitalist. What I'm for is freedom, which I don't think is possible in a capitalist system.

Saying I oppose private property, and therefore oppose markets, is wrong.

I do oppose states, and government. I encourage people to resist state intrusions into their lives. I oppose laws (well, all laws, but specifically) that restrict freedom.

I will permit you to form you non-private property markets. Will you permit me to form private-property markets with my friends?

Alex Beckenham

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: 左 on May 08, 2011, 11:32:42 PM

I oppose laws (well, all laws, but specifically) that restrict freedom.

Can you name a law that doesn't restrict freedom?

左

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

@em3rgentOrdr, I think you don't know what I'm for, or against, by that post. Actually, I've nothing against markets, so long as they aren't capitalist. What I'm for is freedom, which I don't think is possible in a capitalist system.

Saying I oppose private property, and therefore oppose markets, is wrong.

I do oppose states, and government. I encourage people to resist state intrusions into their lives. I oppose laws (well, all laws, but specifically) that restrict freedom.

@BitterTea I don't know all the answers. I also can't be bothered finding out in this case. I'm not an economic theorist, I'm a political philosopher. I would guess that we could work together against statism, but I must make it clear that I have no objection to taxing corporations out of existence. Mainly 'cause I oppose corporations as well.

em3rgentOrdr

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 251

youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin

Quote from: BitterTea on May 08, 2011, 10:27:41 AM

I saw that you posted in another thread that you consider yourself an anarchist without adjectives. This is one of the labels I favor for myself, which are in rank of descending preference... voluntaryist, anarchist without adjectives, anarcho-capitalist. Am I correct in assuming this means that you and I can be allies against statism, regardless of our views on the correct way to assign ownership of property?

No

. 左's version of anarchism is simply opposition to private property. I've met these types of people all over the internet. It has little to do with opposition to the state and institutionalized monopolies on coercion.

On a side note, using the term "free-market anti-capitalist" is a fun way to confuse people like 左.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: 左 on May 07, 2011, 05:20:08 AM

Yeah, I don't care any more. But just to make it clear, most anarchists (and "anarcho" capitalists aren't anarchists) make a distinction between possessions and property.

Regarding the difference between "possessions" and "property", as long as I've been aware that anarchists draw a distinction it has made no sense to me. Is a hammer a "possession" or "property". How about a CNC machine, drill press, 3d printer, etc?

Regarding laborers receiving the "full value" of their labor, two questions.

1) Why must this be the case, morally?
2) How can you determine the "full value" of labor when that labor does not directly contribute to some end product. For instance, I am a computer programmer for a company that sells appliance parts. Other than the wage I agreed to receive (admittedly in a labor environment that strongly favors employers), how can one compute the full value of my labor?

Quote

Anyway, it's not for me to blueprint the future, and you're just going into tiny details that are basically irrelevant.

I saw that you posted in another thread that you consider yourself an anarchist without adjectives. This is one of the labels I favor for myself, which are in rank of descending preference... voluntaryist, anarchist without adjectives, anarcho-capitalist. Am I correct in assuming this means that you and I can be allies against statism, regardless of our views on the correct way to assign ownership of property?

Topic: "Anarchists" rioting in London (Read 21423 times)