Topic: Libertarian my ass! - page 5. (Read 9520 times)

Anarchism is society without rulers. Even in Anarcho-syndicalism, there would be leaders. The core idea is that anyone who follows, does so of their own volition.

It's not quite that simple. "Corporations" are a creation of the government, and wouldn't exist without it. A better simplification would be: "Government power bad, economic power OK."

That's one perspective, but another is that rights are the result of an agreement between two people. You get those rights that you grant others. If you grant others the right to life by not trying to kill them, you, in turn, have that right. If you refuse to acknowledge it's validity for others, you discard that right for yourself.

Well, most of these arguments are basically semantics. But, capitalism is inherently hierarchical, and anarchy is a society without hierarchy. So yeah, I'd agree that they aren't compatible using these definitions.

On the other hand, there's the anarcho-capitalists, who only see government power as bad, and corporate power as ok.

Personally, if I had to pick one of these ideal societies, I'd probably pick libertarian socialism. Though, one thing I don't like about liberalism/libertarianism is that they assume "god given rights," and idealize the "natural state of man." Nature is all about power, it's ruthless, and "private property" is only what you can physically defend.

The distinction between "personal property" and "productive property" is very vague in today's world.
Say, I could have a guitar in my personal property, but once I start playing in a restaurant in exchange for free drinks, it no longer belongs to me, and anyone can take it.
Or, I own a house and go to work every day, but one day, I get ill, and work from home, from my personal laptop. Now, suddenly, my personal laptop becomes a collective property, and anybody has the right to come and work in my house.

What's more, I don't see how, and in what quantities, the means of production would be created, in such a non-capitalist world. Who would have an incentive to create the means of production for the collective? Suppose somebody would want to do that, just to help the collective, how would you make sure there is no over-production of means of production?

Everything has its costs. If super-powerful 1024-core workstations were given away for free, I would use one for work without hesitation, 'cause it's soo cool, and fast. But if I am cited the price of 1000 bitcoins for that workstation - well, maybe I don't need it that much? Maybe I should be fine with a 20-bitcoin workstation, with fewer cores? That is a central argument in Austrian theory, AFAIK. When any kind of stuff is free, means of production or no means of production, you have no means of knowing how hard it is to produce, so you tend to over-consume. Maybe under-consume, if you prefer doing things on your own, without using the modern tools.

And if I run a business out of my garage, does it cease being my personal property?

Well, working for ones' self beats working for someone else, but we can't all hack the risk that entrepreneurship entails.

I think you are making an unfortunate but common mistake. Anti-capitalist thinkers (anarchists, communists, etc.) do not discuss that your house belongs to you. Your house, your clothing, your daughter's toys, your furniture... were never discussed from a Marxist point of view. These are considered personal property, which is somewhat related to the "natural rights" every human has according to Rousseau's theory... When different movements that embraced Marx economical analysis (among which anarchists) speak about the abolition of the private property, they are referring to productive property or means of production.

Anarchist theory (or anarcho-syndycalist theory, as my friend myrkul would say) has very deep roots in the economical analysis, as Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon believed that a man's freedom (or lack of freedom) is profoundly related to his relationship with work, and therefore related to how economy is structured.

Oh, OK. If some people freely choose to elect their government, they are not being ruled, that's right. Just have to make a clear distinction between some people and all people here.


Money is a thing. It has no will, and, therefore, cannot impose its will onto other people. Those complaining about money, are actually complaining about other people:
1. They'd like to get some stuff from other people.
2. They are not willing to give anything in return.
3. They cannot ask nicely enough.
4. They don't get any stuff, so they complain to the powerful - hey, guys, get that stuff from somebody and give it to me!

There may be some exceptions. Like, people who really, genuinely believe that there should be no private property, and all private property is theft. If you are such a person, you can advertise it here, I am sure a few people wouldn't mind to take some of the stuff you are using, and maybe have a party in the house you live in

LoL at the OP getting all hung up over a word. As if anarchism never existed in any form prior to the 19th century.

i dont get caught up on labels, words get flipped left and right over the years. It's like how conservatives in US were the most anti-war political group 70 yrs ago, but "conservatives" today have never met a war they didnt like.

Personally, when im asked, hey whats your political orientation ?
-Leave me alone. Dont want your services.

What economic system do you prefer ?
-Dont attack me, and i promise i wont attack you.

Easy enough..

Documentary:

Living Utopia (The Anarchists & The Spanish Revolution)

Considered a jewel amongst historians and rebel hearts, this documentary made in 1997 about the 1936 Spanish Revolution blends historical accounts of the development of the anarchist movement with first-hand testimonies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y

Here's the crucial question: For whom do the richest set the rules?

Another question: Absent the force of the State, how does one become rich?

One more: Absent the force of the State, how does one stay rich?

There's the clue: "Government" -> "Govern"

Someone could argue that government doesn't literally rule, as it's people who freely choose to elect their government, thus being their own ruler. And you are also free to to move to a wild and uncivilized area (plenty of islands in the world), where no tax-man will ever reach you. Again, your are free to be your own ruler.

Would you consider this as valid logic? I bet not. Well, money rules de facto - the richest set the rules. You are free to work to become richer and set your own rules, but what if you are not interested in it? Same logic for the gov: you are free to present yourself to any publicly elected position and set your own rules, but what if you are not interested in it?

Edit: changed some working mistake

See, there's the problem, money doesn't literally rule. Basing political ideologies off of idioms is not a useful practice. It's like trying to stop someone from wearing a loud shirt by invoking noise abatement laws.

Of course. And nobody frickin' needs to ask your permission to elect a ruler for them, don't they? The crucial point is not forcing each other.

This does not change the fact that in the current capitalism system, money rules. And as you say, anarchists are against rulers.

That's the very simple explanation. If you want the long one, I can recommend you some of the works that set the basis of anarchism, both in a political and economical sense.

Great Idea for a thread! Im sure there are a ton of Libertarians on here
I am a proud Libertarian and I have heard that the average BTC user is as well.

I have some friends IRL (some familiar with BTC some not) who whether they consider
themselves libertarians or not, definitely feel the same way on many topics.

Interesting history from the original poster as well.

Shout out to all libertarians!!!

I don't want to pay taxes. Does that make me a lowlife, or was this a lowlife who also did not want to pay taxes?

To be honest, I never listsen when people use the term libertarian. Yesterday it was a lowlife that doesn't wanna pay tax, today it's Bitcoiners and tomorrow their muslims. Just say what you have to say and leave the names for namecoin users.

Anarchism, by definition, is "without a ruler". A ruler is someone who forces his will onto other people.

You are free to be against capitalist free market, I am free to be for capitalist free market, my employer is free to be for capitalist free market too.

Now, if I am for capitalist free market, and my employer is for capitalist free market, we don't frickin' need to ask your permission to start our tiny little capitalist enterprise. Feel free to ignore it if you don't like it, but if you try to impose your likes and dislikes on us against our will, you are imposing yourself as a ruler over us. Expect resistance.

State Capitalism: in the end, just as bad as State Communism. I never denied that.

yup, often ignored.

Good article:
The Invention of Capitalism: How a Self-Sufficient Peasantry was Whipped Into Industrial Wage Slaves

Again, control of land. No self-sufficiency for the plebs. The word "Poacher" has negative connotations until today.

I think it helps to not think of the worker as beholden to the big, evil, fat-cat factory owner, dependent on the largesse of said owner to provide rags and gruel for his family and rather as a free agent, entering a voluntary contract to exchange labor for payment at a mutually agreed rate.

Of course, if the voluntary contract is not there, there is an issue. If the worker is unable to acquire capital, be it money, land or factory of their own through overriding restrictions, be it serfdom, legislation, taxation or whatever, that is an issue. But that is typically an issue with the political system in place, not with capitalism in and of itself.

I think the issue here is that there are terms which have a prima facie meaning, "anarchism" and "capitalism" and Rampion is attempting, to attach additional prejudicial, and in the case of "capitalism", pejorative meanings based on the writings of people with an agenda.

Now, personally, I'm not a fan of the word "capitalism" in any case but this distortion of the meaning of words by the left grows tiresome.