FinnMacCool
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 153
- Location
- South Shore of Long Island.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
FinnMacCool said:Yes you read that right. I've been picking all different kinds of books on the subjects. I've been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn recently. I will be picking up Rudolph Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism soon.
As for what particular branch of anarchism I'm leaning to, I'm not so sure. I've had some interest in Anarcho Syndicalism but it seems too socialist for me. While on the other hand, Anarcho-Capitalism is too capitalist. So, I'm kinda not sure right now. But I am starting to believe that it could be possible to be rid of government.
The Real McCoy said:Anarchy = no government = free markets = capitalism.
Conflict said:Let's not be so quick to assume so much in such a short span of opinion.
Capitalism as it exists today is more like a form of systematic corporate exploitation backed by collusion with the state.
A true free market is not intertwined with politics, economic authors, and legions of banks who are more into profiteering than they are the redistribution of wealth for the prosperity of the whole nation.
Game theory and the form of "corporate" capitalism we are seeing is a subtle form of monopoly. None of this was ever intended by our founding fathers. THe concept of a coin economy was the initial subscription.
Our constitution was not built to facilitate the "winner take all" aspect of economics that has been standing for too long now. Life is not a game.
The Real McCoy said:Anarchy = no government = free markets = capitalism.
The Real McCoy said:Anarcho-Syndicalism is a fantasy that cannot possibly work outside the confines of the human imagination.
FinnMacCool said:Yes you read that right. I've been picking all different kinds of books on the subjects. I've been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn recently. I will be picking up Rudolph Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism soon.
As for what particular branch of anarchism I'm leaning to, I'm not so sure. I've had some interest in Anarcho Syndicalism but it seems too socialist for me. While on the other hand, Anarcho-Capitalism is too capitalist. So, I'm kinda not sure right now. But I am starting to believe that it could be possible to be rid of government.
galenrox said:No, don't you be confused, the United States is only capitalist in the loosest possible definition of the word. With billions and billions in subsidies towards grain and oil, price floors in labor markets and price ceilings in real estate, nowhere close.
Economics is the study of distributing limited resources in response to insatiable demand. Capitalism is the system of using money to distribute these resources through a system of supply and demand. Thus, in anarchy, it is capitalism. Now if a group of people want to buy some farms, grow all they need, and live together in a commune independently, that's perfectly fine, but by and large the economic structure would be capitalism.
And to FinnMacCool's concerns, we are not ready for anarchy now. The reason that anarchy is an ideal as opposed to a reality is because it would require a strong moral humanist movement, and most people don't think highly enough of mankind to think such a considerate movement could ever come about, but I think differently.
In 2004 all of the poorest states went for George W. Bush, a man who clearly is not concerned about the economic well being of the poor. This was primarily because of religious issues. People were willing to vote against their own self-interest to save what they percieve to be children in the womb.
Now however much I disagree with their decision, this points out a major thing, which is many people value their religion over their economic well-being. With this you have to keep in mind that christianity preaches very clearly the need to feed, clothe, and house the poor, tend to the sick, and preserve the environment, while it's only under some interpretations that the bible says anything about abortion at all.
This leads me to believe that it is definately possible to get society to the point where they value the lives of the born at least as much as they value the preborn, which is what's neccisary for anarchy to exist successfully.
Capitalism definately isn't a perfect system, but it's BY FAR the best system.
Bustabush said:Galenrox man looks like we clash on ecnomics again... Nice post by the way.
Why not perfect?
I agree with the first part, NO system is perfect, or if there is it would probably take millions of years to develop. Its the second part that I disagree.Capitalism definately isn't a perfect system, but it's BY FAR the best system.
Why not perfect?
Correct.Because we're human beings.
The Real McCoy said:Anarcho-Syndicalism is a fantasy that cannot possibly work outside the confines of the human imagination.
Anarchy = no government = free markets = capitalism.
Anarchists are very rare, and I don't think there are any anarchists here on thses forums that identify with being socialist, most are anarcho-capitalists, which I also find somewhat surprising considering the fact that most anarchists are also anti-capitalist.Those of you who claim to be anarchists while supporting socialism
The Real McCoy said:Anarchy = no government = free markets = capitalism.
Capitalism requires legal recognition of property rights, which requires a government.
A society without a government cannot properly be called capitalist or socialist; it will also never acheive communist ideals, but it's useless to tell them that.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and there's nothing human nature abhors more than a power vacuum. Anarchism, as a philosophy of non-interference and non-exploitation, would acheive nothing more than anarchy, a condition of chaos and destruction, which would then be replaced by government by feudal warlords.
Because we're human beings.
galenrox said:That's where you're mistaken, it doesn't require legal recognition of property rights, it requires societal recognition of property rights.
FinnMacCool said:Yes you read that right. I've been picking all different kinds of books on the subjects. I've been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn recently. I will be picking up Rudolph Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism soon.
As for what particular branch of anarchism I'm leaning to, I'm not so sure. I've had some interest in Anarcho Syndicalism but it seems too socialist for me. While on the other hand, Anarcho-Capitalism is too capitalist. So, I'm kinda not sure right now. But I am starting to believe that it could be possible to be rid of government.
galenrox said:I think you're speaking more about chaos than anarchy. You're talking about the elimiation of order, not law, the two don't neccisarily go hand in hand.
galenrox said:Now of course there'd be some douchebag who tries to claim someone else's land, but if the prevailing theme throughout society is the respect for property rights those people will be dealt with...
galenrox said:Are you joking? Do you have any idea how little of our order stems from law?
galenrox said:For the VAST majority of people the standards by which they live aren't "legal" and "illegal". The reason that we have seperate words before "legal" and "right, "illegal" and "wrong" is because we acknowledge that they are different things.
galenrox said:Or a private police force. Private police forces would be FAR more efficient than the current, non-competitive police force that we have today.
galenrox said:All of them would be possible. What you are doing is underestimating humanity, not just in the sense that you're expecting the worst in humans, but also you're not giving credit to humans' ability to adapt. I'm not calling for the immidiate elimination of government or law, and definately not calling for the end of having an infrastructure. I'm calling for the gradual elimination of government, training society to pick up the slack where the government leaves off.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Almost all of it.
For the VAST majority of people, things are defined as "right" and "wrong" by what they've been able to get away with. Law itself is nothing but an extension of the rules parents establish for their kids, which became extended to the clan, the tribe, the village, the city-state, the nation, and now the world.
A private police force. That's a novel concept. Will they be applying their own private rules (can't call'em laws), and so if one privatepolice force has a rule against jay-walking, but someone who isn't contracted to that private agency, who has his own private police contract with an agency that permits such dumb things, crosses in traffic and causes an accident for a driver who is a client, does the jay-walker's personal private police force rules apply, or do the rules of the driver who's contracted to the private police force that bans jay walking apply?
What's wrong with this reasoning
Name a perfect human being, name one.
Bustabush said:Just so I know were you stand before I continue. Are you suggesting that science we as humans are imperfect we can't do any thing right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?