Topic: Libertarian my ass! (Read 9528 times)

Glorious bacon, that's a name that I haven't heard in ages.

Maybe if I reaaaalllllyyy like you, then I'll let you have some of my cheese. Maybe.

lol... Yeah, Like I said, it usually doesn't last.

Even in small groups, it tends to have problems. Way back when, there was a small colony of progressives set up not far from here. They didn't last too long. About all it's really good for is about family sized and even then not always. It can have more success if it's possible to expel people from the group but that's really straying from the ideals somewhat.

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

Capitalism is exclusive of anarchy or state. Capitalism is quite simply the operation of for-profit business. Who owns these businesses and which (if any) businesses are run by the State is what determines the anarchy/state axis. Typical "laissez faire capitalism" lets most of these businesses be owned and operated by private individuals, retaining State monopoly only on Defense and Justice. Anarcho-capitalism lets private individuals run Defense and Justice companies, as well. State capitalism moves progressively more industries under government control, either through regulation or direct ownership and operation. At the far end, we have fascism, where every industry is directly or indirectly controlled by the government.

By contrast, we have communism. There's less of a spectrum, here, it's pretty much either/or. Either everything is shared voluntarily, or it's all controlled by the State and doled out as they see fit. People being people, the first form hardly ever lasts for long or expands beyond a small group without becoming the latter.

The problem with that is that it make laissez faire or anarchist a modifier to "capitalist" which both implies that the main aim is capitalism (it's not for me. I'm for freedom first) and that the capitalism is somewhat exclusive to these viewpoints, thus making it easy to vilify and oppose it (try telling an occupier that your need for his ipad is greater than his and see how quickly the capitalism comes out). I'd say something like "minarchist" describes my position better.

Not quite; on a small scale, this is what would happen.  But on a large scale, with one society trading with another society, it would have to happen capitalism-style.  Unless, of course, we're talking about state communism, in which case, we're all fucked and destined to die in a war for the mother land.

No, you have it wrong. If you have extra cheese and I have extra crackers, you give me your extra cheese because work is its own reward and I give you the extra crackers because work is its own reward.

However, if I decide it's more rewarding to drink and gamble all day and end up with nothing, you give me your cheese (because work is its own reward) and we both do without crackers.

Of course, this scenario would never happen because... I dunno. Magic?

Well, yeah, but they want it to be done voluntarily.

And here, I'll quote Frank Zappa:
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

Does it really? I've always interpreted them as wanting to abolish privately owned means of production by force. Maybe that's just my ignorance though. I can't say I've honestly cared enough to read further into it since it sounds so repugnant to me.

Well, I have always called that State capitalism, or corporatism, But perhaps he would accept laissez faire capitalist to describe us? We could try to take back Liberal. I'd suggest Voluntaryist, but technically, that describes his position as well.

Ah, fuck it. I'm an AnCap. Deal with it, ya commie bastids.

Yes, but then how would we be able to tell the difference between us and statists that like general freedom to trade?

Capitalist pigs, maybe?

I'm sure he'd accept that. 

Why do all you anarcho-syndicalists have a problem with both of our systems existing side by side? I don't want your brand of freedom. Let me keep mine.

You want to have areas where worker unions jointly own the means of production? Go for it. Have at it! Pool your funds together and build a factory which you can all share. I won't try to stop you. I'm completely okay with that.

Absolutely this.

This isn't the first time I've heard a syndicalist get all up in arms over the use of the term anarchism being applied to ancaps. In fact, I've seen them get upset over the "anarcho" in anarcho-capitalism. "That's deeply offensive", I've heard before. What other term are we supposed to use to describe ourselves? Self-governing traders? Freecaps maybe? Common-law-business-believers? I don't know.

That aside, even a syndicalist can't be completely against capitalism.

Let's say I have extra cheese from goats, and you have extra crackers. Then, I get together with you and say, "Hey, I'll give you some of my extra cheese for some of your extra crackers." Then we trade and we both make cheese and crackers. That was capitalism at work. So unless you're going to be completely self-sufficient and live in a cabin in the woods somewhere, how can you possibly avoid it?

I swear, they always confuse corporatism for capitalism.

Please ! I'm European also, and I'm proud free-market libertarian.


Absolutely not true. Mainstream "liberal" parties in Europe don't have anything in common with classical liberalism or libertarianism.
Yes, sometimes they want slightly smaller state (maybe 40% income tax, not 45%...), but they have less common with classical liberalism/libertarianism than US Republican Party.

Actual libertarians, people who in the US would support Libertarian Party (or who support agorism everywhere ); don't call themselves "liberals", even in Europe ! Well, at least not in Poland.
https://libertarianizm.net/ - Polish radical, libertarian forum, if somebody know language

Calling himself "liberal" in Europe is like calling himself "Republican" in the US - yes, maybe slightly lower income tax, but...  


Sorry for my bad English, but this is important thread and horrific misconceptions, sometimes I must say something

It's not even that (though that's part of it). You're authorizing the use of force against yourself, too. Even if you vote against it. "But I voted to legalize" is not a valid defense if caught with weed.

It works like this: if the state tells you to do something, you must do it. If you do not, you will be forced to. If force means we must kill you, then so be it; the law comes before your life. Is this not in direct violation to basic human rights? Will you deny my right to live for the sake of "order"?

It is immoral to support this system. By voting, you are agreeing that it is perfectly okay to use this system against me, even if that means killing me. I have done nothing to you. You do not know me. And yet your vote, no matter the direction, will be used against me. This is statism; this is your power to vote given away to the government. There are many ways to vote, but a yae or nay to use the power of state force against me, a stranger, is immoral.

Asking someone to do, or not do, something isn't just a polite way of telling them. It is granting them the decision-making power of whether or not to comply.

You have to understand that the word "please" is short for "If it pleases you," so if you ask a bully, "Please stop hitting me," what you're saying is, "If it pleases you to do so, stop hitting me." Asking allows, inherently, for the option of "no" being the answer.

Compare that to "Stop hitting me." or or the even more forceful, "I will not allow you to hit me again."

"Please stop hitting me" asserts his right to continue, if he wishes, while "Stop hitting me" asserts your right to prevent him from continuing.

What we've got here is a language failure.

If you're asking, yes.