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 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?
And this is what you call non-emotional.Clearly you have no clue how to discuss an issue. Dismissed.
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?
I'm not sure why you asked me that as if I had made an argument, I just answered Ice Weasel's question what the term means.
But to answer your question, capitalists support free markets. A capitalist does not have to want to earn profits, they just have to believe people have the right to economic freedom free from control by government force. An anarchist is a capitalist by definition since they support no government.
Of course they live in a fantasy land. For one day, we would have economic freedom. The second day, mafia's would form to blackmail and coerce them. The third day, they would form a government to stop them. Libertarianism is sustainable, anarchy isn't. Under anarchy, markets would also collapse because no one could establish generally recognized ownership of any assets to transact business with.
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?
The whole ideological group that looks at the state of big business capitalism and financial institutions and sees too much regulation are just nuts. Big banks and big business pretty much run wild as it is because practically all politicians are owned and controlled by them. Of course they have a host of counter-intuitive theories that say that shit-canning the regs will somehow prevent so much plutocratic bullshit but I have never heard an argument that did not sound suspiciously like that voodoo invisible hand hogwash.
If Republicans want smaller government then why is marijuana illegal?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.
Reefer Madness (1936) - IMDb
Hemp for Victory (1943) - IMDb
Controlled Substances Act
1972 Shafer Commission - Table of Contents
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1635ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr1635ih.pdf
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute
Also, what's a "Libertariab"?
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.
Bullshit.
Nobody believes in government comes in sizes, but Liberalism advocates minimalist government.
Most of them probably believe that more potheads will cause more problems and won't necessarily shrink the size of dependents of the state.If Republicans want smaller government then why is marijuana illegal?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.
Purity is a religious concept, not economic. There is no such thing as a pure economic system since all these theories about how a pure form of this economic system or that economic system is just mental masturbation. It's impossible to have any economic system with no regulation and I've never heard any Libertarian, conservative or otherwise call for it. Anarchy is self rule and no system is self ruled so whoever coined the term anarcho-capitalism is an idiot, if the term even exists. It's an oxymoron.
You just repeated what I said and called it bullshit. Weird.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.
Bullshit.
Nobody believes in government comes in sizes, but Liberalism advocates minimalist government.
The whole ideological group that looks at the state of big business capitalism and financial institutions and sees too much regulation are just nuts. Big banks and big business pretty much run wild as it is because practically all politicians are owned and controlled by them. Of course they have a host of counter-intuitive theories that say that shit-canning the regs will somehow prevent so much plutocratic bullshit but I have never heard an argument that did not sound suspiciously like that voodoo invisible hand hogwash.
Is someone confuserated on the distinction between "intrusive" and "minimalist" then?
Help is on the way -
Liberal:
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
Today's liberal do not fit the dictionary term. They re-label pretty much everything to forward their agenda. The classic liberal you refer to would be called a libertarian today.
Then you might be conflating "liberals" with "leftists". This just in: Joe McCarthy is expired. He tried the same thing.
Meanwhile I think we're all still waiting for some definition of "libertariabs". Sounds like something to do with aerobics.
I will agree with that in theory but my comment had more to do with the somewhat faith-based political beliefs of many libertarians rather than how things actually are. To me many of their calls for massive deregulation have no basis in reality and studiously ignores the unintended consequences of letting capitalists run amok, I feel there is too much of that already, especially in the financial industry.
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.
Mostly correct, I personally believe that unaccountable power is abhorrent to freedom. Why libertarians want practically all economic power to not be answerable to the public at large is mystifying.
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:
Monty Python- The Annoying Peasant
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.
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 flinging 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.
But for anyone else without their hair on fire the question is open: are people basically good, or do they need an authority figure to lead them around? If so, is that authority figure necessarily that entity in possession of the most capital?
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.
Bullshit.
Nobody believes in government comes in sizes, but Liberalism advocates minimalist government.
I guess that proves you aren't a liberal, doesn't it? Or did you change your mind about Obamacare, the war on drugs, regulating businesses, and all those other big government things you love?
Today's liberal do not fit the dictionary term. They re-label pretty much everything to forward their agenda. The classic liberal you refer to would be called a libertarian today.
Then you might be conflating "liberals" with "leftists". This just in: Joe McCarthy is expired. He tried the same thing.
Meanwhile I think we're all still waiting for some definition of "libertariabs". Sounds like something to do with aerobics.
He isn't the one that is confused, it is all the idiots that call themselves liberals and dismiss people who want smaller government as right wing nuts.
Wait, that is you,, isn't it?
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.
The problem with your horse is that Ferengi's are not anarchists. In other words, you just demonstrated your unparallelled ability to jump to unsupported conclusions instead of doing actual research..
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.
Bullshit.
Nobody believes in government comes in sizes, but Liberalism advocates minimalist government.
I guess that proves you aren't a liberal, doesn't it? Or did you change your mind about Obamacare, the war on drugs, regulating businesses, and all those other big government things you love?
"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 flinging 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.
But for anyone else without their hair on fire the question is open: are people basically good, or do they need an authority figure to lead them around? If so, is that authority figure necessarily that entity in possession of the most capital?
One is tempted to observe that you have no values to judge with, which is why you lie about everything.
Bullshit.
Nobody believes in government comes in sizes, but Liberalism advocates minimalist government.
I guess that proves you aren't a liberal, doesn't it? Or did you change your mind about Obamacare, the war on drugs, regulating businesses, and all those other big government things you love?
Pogo believes the size of government is determined only by whether it allows abortion or gay marriage.
Bullshit.
Nobody believes in government comes in sizes, but Liberalism advocates minimalist government.
I guess that proves you aren't a liberal, doesn't it? Or did you change your mind about Obamacare, the war on drugs, regulating businesses, and all those other big government things you love?
Link to ANY of those positions I've taken here?
Oh that's right ---- you just make it up.
Asshole.
Pogo said:Hi, you have received -7931 reputation points from Pogo.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
Fuck you, lying asshole
Regards,
Pogo
Note: This is an automated message.
Then you might be conflating "liberals" with "leftists". This just in: Joe McCarthy is expired. He tried the same thing.
Meanwhile I think we're all still waiting for some definition of "libertariabs". Sounds like something to do with aerobics.
He isn't the one that is confused, it is all the idiots that call themselves liberals and dismiss people who want smaller government as right wing nuts.
Wait, that is you,, isn't it?
No double-comma boy, read the last post of mine you quoted that directly contradicts that. Dumb shit.
