Topic: "Anarchists" rioting in London - page 4. (Read 21460 times)

No, the state subsidies the costs of higher education in Britain, and they were protesting austerity plans that would have reduced the state's percentage of support.  Thereby increasing the cost borne by the students. 

Someone explain to me how kids rioting for cheaper education constitute "anarchists".  Does the state regulate and limit the availability of education or something?

And you make this conclusion, how?

Ask me what, exactly?  Do you think that all the native american tribes got rolled?

Other than Princeton English Professors, most do not have the vernacular to choose the exact words for the occasion in general conversations and spur of the moment speech and writing.  Throw in cultural slang, and it becomes next to impossible.

Semantics do matter though, when trying to convey an idea. It is the personal pro-noun, phenomena. You easily understand what idea you are conveying, but others may not because they are not thinking in your terms. You have to be specific in order to convey the idea. However, that takes time especially in the written mode of communication.

Much of our communication is left up to assumption based on time, place, and perspective. That is why it wasn't until 1997 that Scientists realized that they needed a "definition for the term: Planet".  Everyone assumed what it meant, but then when analyzed they found that not everyone agreed on what it was.

French was considered the language of Treaties, not because is was specific but because it was left open to interpretation. Basically, it depended on how you read the document. "Lots of Grey".

___________________________________________________



Enforcing property rights in a stateless society, is/and will be natural.  By Force.  You bring a stick, I bring a Gun; I have the property rights.


Ask the Indians !!!

I don't have a personal preference for semantics, I just think that it can be problematic to use a term that is usually associated with something vastly different from what you are trying to describe. Technically you could use the word 'paedophile' to describe someone who likes children. However I don't think someone who likes children would be likely to describe themselves as such.

You're right though that it isn't that important.


Well I understand the way that property rights could be enforced within a stateless society. I just disagree that the NAP and natural rights are complete justifications because they're both meant to be objective concepts but depend on arbitrary property agreements. It can be good, though, to appeal to the fact that most people don't like being aggressed against and show them how the state does this. Other than that I prefer to focus on practical issues which nobody on this forum seems to have talked about (I may at some point).

FTFY. Market anarchists, like mutualist and individualist anarchists, oppose capitalism. Anarchism is already fraught with misconceptions. As such, semantics matter. So called anarcho-capitalists would do well to avoid the term anarchy and use words like volunteerism and laissez-faire instead.

Why do people get so hung up on words?  Fine, don't call it "capitalism".  Call it "voluntaryism" or "free markets" or "laissez faire society" or "market anarchism".  If it's well-defined, argue the points and not the semantics.


This is a good point, and one that needs to be clarified.  If someone doesn't respect your property claims and "violates" them, what is the correct course of action?  Perhaps this is where the community comes in.  If you live in a community where you know your neighbors and respect each other's property claims then outsiders who attempt to infringe on your claims will be ostracized by the community and will not have any of their rights respected.  Or if you were to take action, your neighbors would support you, resulting in the Outsider not having the ability to enforce his counter claim.

I see this as the only problem with Voluntarism. The non-aggression principle assumes that violation of a persons property is an aggression. However, property rights are not objective, as they are determined by the interactions and agreements between the parties involved.

By the way, I believe it was Rothbard who coined the term 'anarcho-capitalism', but also later regretted it and acknowledged that it is misleading. The meaning of words are essentially defined by how most people understand them, and most people don't associate anything compatible with capitalism with anarchy.

Yes, entering my house without my permission is an act of violence.


Why not? I usually confine myself to places where I'm welcome, shopping centers, restaurants, bars, movie theaters, etc. When I visit someplace, I'm not in the habit of climbing through open windows or kicking down doors.

Curiously the threat of violence, works.

I used to have some kid problems around the house with them coming onto the property at night and stealing stuff from the shed and car.

For about a month, twice a week, I set up a table on the driveway and cleaned my guns. Surprisingly, I have nothing has been stolen since. But my neighbors have complained of things getting stolen. I didn't cure the problem, I just moved it. But hey, better them than me.

I don't believe in absolutes. However, if I believe this peaceful guy "implies" a threat to me (armed or not), and I am afraid for my life by his unwarranted actions, he is going to be shot.

When being imposed upon, it is my belief, not his, that matters.

There are no absolutes, not for me, and especially not for him.

A person entering your home without your permission is trespass, whether violence is used or not, intent of force is implied.  You don't own a city, but the same thing would be implied if an army marched in uninvited.

Once force is initiated, a force response in kind is justifiable.  If your trespasser has no weapons for which to threaten your family, your justifiable response is to 1) demand that he leave, and 2) if he does not (or cannot, drunk perhaps?) you can throw him out or hire someone to throw him out for you.  (such as a cop or hired security)

You cannot, however, justify shooting him while siting in your chair.  Like all things, the justifiable response is relative.  Only children and madmen deal in absolutes.

So if the stranger peacefully walks into your house with no weapons and turns on the TV, sits in the chair, and eats your food, it will be OK because the stranger didn't use any violence.

Or is it your opinion that someone imposing on your space a violent act?  If so, don't ever go to a city.

If I supported initiating violence to achieve my goals, I'd be pro-government.

What if the 'goal' is to keep strangers from entering your house?

Seems like a little Double Speak here.

In a way, I am an anti-government capitalist, but I want capitalism to be enforced fairly to prevent collusion, illegalities, and corruption of government.

A small strong government that prevents corruption. If it was up to me, if a Public Official commits a crime, throw the book at him. If you want to be a Judge, you must be willing for your life to be publicly transparent (People should see every dime earned and spent). If you drink coffee, the type and amount should be publicly available. I don't want "perfect" judges, I just want to eliminate corrupt and bias. If you sleep with prostitutes(in Nevada), fine, just don't rule on prostitution cases. The Public Official should give up privacy, in order to gain trust, and with time respect.

We'd all enjoy less confusion if anti-government capitalist didn't try to misappropriate anti-capitalist labels.

If you volunteer to pay for it 

Can you come and volunteer to cut my grass?