Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You very clearly were insulting the right, asshole. You think everyone is as dumb as you? My point was clear, your comments won't make it disappear. The emotion is all yours, I call a spade a spade and don't ask the spade for permission.The statement isn't emotional; it's philosophical. It analyzes views of human nature.
But for a guy who claims not to be trafficking in emotion, you invoked "asshole" and "evil" before your second sentence was done. So much for that.
"One is tempted to observe here that the left side here believes people are basically good while corporatia needs to be controlled lest it get out of line; whereas the right believes the exact opposite."
Yes, I know it's philosophical. It's what assholes think. One need not be emotional to recognize the trait.
--- and once again you're the one with the emotion. My musing contains no value judgments; you so far have invoked "evil", "righteous", "greedy", "talking smack" and "asshole" (twice) -- the last as an attempted ad hominem before a point has even been made.
Perhaps you're just not cut out for this musing stuff.
That's what I was thinking, if it's a system of economics they need to coin a better term.Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.
An anarcho-capitalist is a fancy name for an anarchist
You very clearly were insulting the right, asshole. You think everyone is as dumb as you? My point was clear, your comments won't make it disappear. The emotion is all yours, I call a spade a spade and don't ask the spade for permission."One is tempted to observe here that the left side here believes people are basically good while corporatia needs to be controlled lest it get out of line; whereas the right believes the exact opposite."
Yes, I know it's philosophical. It's what assholes think. One need not be emotional to recognize the trait.
--- and once again you're the one with the emotion. My musing contains no value judgments; you so far have invoked "evil", "righteous", "greedy", "talking smack" and "asshole" (twice) -- the last as an attempted ad hominem before a point has even been made.
Perhaps you're just not cut out for this musing stuff.
Semantically it appears that an "anarcho-capitalist" is an simply an anarchist who makes a profit.
They look like this:
Seriously, it sounds like corporatocracy -- government of, by and for the richest. Which means on this planet they look more like this:
Ultimately it means an authoritarian; one who grovels at authority, defined as "he who has the most cash". Or as popularly termed - "elitism"
-- to be distinguished from anarcho-syndicalism...
Anarcho-syndicalists versus the First Estate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
So basically you wiki'd anarcho-capitalism, read maybe one or two sentences, and then dismissed it. "Oh,
No, I looked at the elements of the word, combined "anarchy" and "capitalist" and followed where those definitions led me. The next step was to find a Ferengi. The image I chose from Google Images happened to be associated with Wiki. The horse led the cart, not the other way 'round. And where it lives on Wiki is a page on Ferengi, not anarcho-capitalism. I have yet to even look up anarcho-capitalism (or "libertariab") -- I figure that's the job of those who invoke the terms. Wiki doesn't post here.
That's what I was thinking, if it's a system of economics they need to coin a better term.Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.
An anarcho-capitalist is a fancy name for an anarchist
So basically you wiki'd anarcho-capitalism, read maybe one or two sentences, and then dismissed it. "Oh,
No, I looked at the elements of the word, combined "anarchy" and "capitalist" and followed where those definitions led me. The next step was to find a Ferengi. The image I chose from Google Images happened to be associated with Wiki. The horse led the cart, not the other way 'round. And where it lives on Wiki is a page on Ferengi, not anarcho-capitalism. I have yet to even look up anarcho-capitalism (or "libertariab") -- I figure that's the job of those who invoke the terms. Wiki doesn't post here.
Even better. You just made it up. Good one.
Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.
An anarcho-capitalist is a fancy name for an anarchist
No, I looked at the elements of the word, combined "anarchy" and "capitalist" and followed where those definitions led me. The next step was to find a Ferengi. The image I chose from Google Images happened to be associated with Wiki. The horse led the cart, not the other way 'round. And where it lives on Wiki is a page on Ferengi, not anarcho-capitalism. I have yet to even look up anarcho-capitalism (or "libertariab") -- I figure that's the job of those who invoke the terms. Wiki doesn't post here.
Even better. You just made it up. Good one.
I don't know if it's a "good one" or not -- I didn't make up the term. It was here when I got here, so I read it and interpreted.
And no, at no point did my analysis consist of "Oh, ............."
Once again, I call assholes assholes. You can't get away with being an asshole, sorry. If you didn't see my point or why I called you an asshole that's because you're an asshole. Clear enough yet?Once again -- "evil", "righteous", "greedy", "talking smack" and "asshole" (three times now, plus "dumb", again attempting ad hom before a point is made). You own them all. Read 'em and weep. Or whatever you meltdowners do. Normal rational people, if facing a theory with which they differ, would offer a counterargument. Keep watching, maybe someone intelligent will be along to show you how it's done.
Profits are based on a common system. With anarchy, the individual defines what is right or wrong, there is no system, only what he sees fit to do. Profit then is in the mind of the beholder, a chicken for a goose could be considered profit, there's no standard to base value on.Is it not possible to be an anarchist who is not interested in making a profit?
Once again, I call assholes assholes. You can't get away with being an asshole, sorry. If you didn't see my point or why I called you an asshole that's because you're an asshole. Clear enough yet?Once again -- "evil", "righteous", "greedy", "talking smack" and "asshole" (three times now, plus "dumb", again attempting ad hom before a point is made). You own them all. Read 'em and weep. Or whatever you meltdowners do. Normal rational people, if facing a theory with which they differ, would offer a counterargument. Keep watching, maybe someone intelligent will be along to show you how it's done.
Clearly you have no clue how to discuss an issue. Dismissed.Even better. You just made it up. Good one.
I don't know if it's a "good one" or not -- I didn't make up the term. It was here when I got here, so I read it and interpreted.
And no, at no point did my analysis consist of "Oh, ............."
Yeah, you just made up nonsense about an idea you know nothing about.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I don't know if it's a "good one" or not -- I didn't make up the term. It was here when I got here, so I read it and interpreted.
And no, at no point did my analysis consist of "Oh, ............."
Yeah, you just made up nonsense about an idea you know nothing about.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Which means you have no answer. Not even .... "Oh".
Check.
You speak with great flatulence. You are in no position to critique debating skills since all you do is insult and dismiss points you don't agree with. That's an ideology led by emotion, projection won't work.Once again, I call assholes assholes. You can't get away with being an asshole, sorry. If you didn't see my point or why I called you an asshole that's because you're an asshole. Clear enough yet?Once again -- "evil", "righteous", "greedy", "talking smack" and "asshole" (three times now, plus "dumb", again attempting ad hom before a point is made). You own them all. Read 'em and weep. Or whatever you meltdowners do. Normal rational people, if facing a theory with which they differ, would offer a counterargument. Keep watching, maybe someone intelligent will be along to show you how it's done.
And this is what you call non-emotional.
Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.
An anarcho-capitalist is a fancy name for an anarchist
But there's the second word, so specifically one out to make a profit. Or to look at it in the reverse, a capitalist who wants no government setting any limits.
Is it not possible to be an anarchist who is not interested in making a profit?
That's what I was thinking, if it's a system of economics they need to coin a better term.An anarcho-capitalist is a fancy name for an anarchist
Why? It accurately reflects the point of view. That being said there are other terms: voluntaryist, private law society, nonarchist, etc... Same basic idea though.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
That's what I was thinking, if it's a system of economics they need to coin a better term.
Why? It accurately reflects the point of view. That being said there are other terms: voluntaryist, private law society, nonarchist, etc... Same basic idea though.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
What's wrong with those terms is that they are misleading because you're defining anarchy by consequences instead of strategies. Your strategy is "no government." Anarchist reflects that. One can be a capitalist, volunteerist or the other things and not be an anarchist. And your strategy isn't to implement anarchy through capitalism, capitalism is just one consequence of anarchy.
Of course that's just theory anyway. You're ignoring human nature that bad guys will band together and use force and the only way good guys are going to stop them is by doing the same. While the initial conflict may be resolved through voluntary association, in the long run, it won't work because we'll all end up sitting in towers all day looking for bad guys rather than doing anything productive.
Well, I'd need to see a definitive term definition. Anarcho sounds like anarchy to me. I am very opposed to crony capitalism and am more a free market capitalist guy. I'm unclear how the anarcho-capitalist enforces rules against polluting someone else's property. Doesn't that require government?Words can often come down to semantics. I like to use the term smaller government vs. limited because limited means there is an overseeing agency that limits exactly what it can do or not do. We have the Constitution to put limits on government but it's a guideline, not an enforcement agency.
Let's say a company has no problem dumping raw waste into a lake, how would an anarcho-capitalist handle it? I would support government health and environmental regulations but oppose government wage controls. That in my mind separates me from a socialist.
Government health and environmental regulations give corporations free passes to pollute up to a certain point, whereas absolute private property rights under anarcho-capitalism would make it illegal to pollute other peoples' property.
I agree with all that, especially the bold.Well, I'd need to see a definitive term definition. Anarcho sounds like anarchy to me. I am very opposed to crony capitalism and am more a free market capitalist guy. I'm unclear how the anarcho-capitalist enforces rules against polluting someone else's property. Doesn't that require government?Government health and environmental regulations give corporations free passes to pollute up to a certain point, whereas absolute private property rights under anarcho-capitalism would make it illegal to pollute other peoples' property.
Arachno-capitalism makes about as much sense (rhetorically speaking) as the arachno-collectivism.
Puitting aside for a moment the stupidity of both phrases, note how both groups who call themselves this are basically confused?
Capitalism DEMANDS some authority to insure that capitalists can conduct their activities unmolested by ANARCHISTS who recognize NO authority other than themselves.
Collectivism DEMANDS an AGREED UP authority (or set of behaviors) that the members of the collective agree to.
Basically in both cases these arachno-idiots imagine that sticking the term arachno somehow indicates that they LOVE FREEDOM.,
But there is no state of being less free in mankind's many possible forms of governance than the state of anarchy.
Anarchy never lasts because sooner rather than later MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist. We are currently a small faction among libertarians, but we're growing fast. The reason people become anarcho-capitalists is the fact the phrase "limited government" is an oxymoron. Once you have government, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society. "Limited government" is a concept similar to "limited melanoma." A democracy will never be a stable situation. It inevitably blows up.
