check us out on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/CapitalAccount Follow us @ http://twitter.com/laurenlyster http://twitter.com/coveringdelta Welcome to Capit…
-
Recent Posts
- TRUMP will make America Great Again!
- WATCH: GOP Establishment Elites Discuss How to Stop Trump — ‘All He Has Going for Him Is a Lot of Votes’
- Judge Jeanine Knows Trump is Best Choice Wanted By the People
- Donald Trump is Best Choice for America!
- Dear Andrea B. Thomas, SVP of Sustainability at Walmart, Please boycott Cargill…
Recent Comments
- LRL on A Black Reporter Summarizes Barack – IMPEACH IN ORDER?
- Unique Fli on CIVIL UNREST and RIOTS Coming as America ‘s Poor Spend 60% of Income on Food and Housing!
- QAM YASHARAHLA on CIVIL UNREST and RIOTS Coming as America ‘s Poor Spend 60% of Income on Food and Housing!
- GMSNORTHCAROLINA24 on CIVIL UNREST and RIOTS Coming as America ‘s Poor Spend 60% of Income on Food and Housing!
- Markus Wolf on Dr. Mahathir Mohamad: America’s Drive towards Global Hegemony, Economic Warfare and Regime Change
Categories
-
Meta
Neo Galt, CurtHowland, each time you post a comment like these, a politician loses their votes.
Well done.
this comment is why anarcho-communism is an oxymoron. “Workers seizing capital”? anarcho-capitalists don’t believe in theft, only voluntary interactions, and free trade. go back to your kibbutz camp and propaganda center.
Ancaps believe in theft for they believe in property. This “seizing” of capital would be called “seizing” because that’s how ancaps would call workers disacknowledging property.
You have to be extremely delusional to think any worker in his sane mind would voluntarily acknowledge someone else’s authority over capital within an anarchist framework. And should said acknowledgement occur, it would merely be a suspension of anarchy as property implies authority over what is possessed.
“anarcho-capitlalism” is a distortion that emerged only recently in the USA. Anarchism and property have neven been toghether; “libertarian” meant anarchist-socialist at least, since Proudhon, who coined most anarchists terms and said that “Property is theft”
Anarcho-capitalists think they are against the system but they actually are within the system, created by it, as a reaction to it’s more progressive elements, They are just angry classical liberals and austrians… the most right-wing ecnomics ever, and fierce defendants of contemporary political systems including neoliberal dictatorship, and massacres against revolutions, wether actual or potential.
In short, anarchist-capitalists are feudalists, or fascists in disguise. True anarchism is red and black. In fact, the first flags of anarchism were pure red just as the socialist ones.
Kind of interesting. Thank you!
in other words you don’t own yourself. fucking moron
“property is theft” is contradictory. in order for something to be theft it has to be owned by someone and if it’s owned by someone it is private property. stop reading chomsky. go read human action dip shit
Was that even intended to be a serious reply? I refuse to accept that you’re that dense.
by the way, next time someone pulls a gun on you. I’m sure you wont mind giving up your wallet since it isn’t really yours, and by owning it makes you a thief.
Nature is common property, common property nullifies the utility of the concept of “property”. When someone claims that something belongs to him/her exclusively, then that person is stealing from everyone else, is initiating authority and a power struggle. That’s how property is theft – by stealing from anyone else.
Oh, and “insults” hardly make your points any stronger – they just underscore the fragility of your reasoning.
As much as I agree with you I fear the stupidity and drastic lack of education of humanity could make even Anarcho-capitalism just as corrupt and self serving as our current system.
“All wars are only the result of governments.”
All wars are the result of people. All people will organize based on shared beliefs and causes. There is no society without this. Complete anarchy is chaos. The naive notion that we will all simply get along without some arbitrating factor is ridiculous. When humans don’t get things their way, they tend to force the issue and violence ensues. Its part of human nature.
Like ron paul says-abolish the assholes destroying the dollar:the federal reserve and put the dollar back on a precious metal standard.
“The naive notion that we will all simply get along without some arbitrating factor is ridiculous.”
How so? Government has not been around since the dawn of mankind, how are we still alive if it was just total chaos? Aren’t there societies that are practically stateless today? Don’t respond to this by equating organized people with government.
When humans don’t get things their way, they tend to force the issue and violence ensues. Its part of human nature.
Should we not try to correct this?
Your definition of property rights combined with your assertion that Nature is common property leads to some immediate problems i.e.
1) do I have a right to your body?
2) do you not have a right to your own body?
3) are we stealing from the other plants and animals that we coexist with?
to name a few
not to mention that if I am to even consider your definition of nature I have to accept the contradiction you proposed. If we are not to have ownership at all, that also leads to more problems.
1 and 2 are obviously moot within an anarchist framework.
3.a) plants do not have will, 3.b) depends on whether you consider animals your peers or not and whether even in spite of that they have will and that is a totally different question.
As I see it problems arise expresely from individuals claiming to have power over others and that’s about it. There’s no need to add obviously moot layers of complexity and to engage in strawmen.
“How so? Government has not been around since the dawn of mankind”
In fact it has. All animals have a hiarchy of one form or other. Alpha male/female, chimps have organized politics, groups with rules. Ants do FFS. There is no organized group of anything in nature without some kind of centralized organizing factor. Its a theme that nature uses over and over.
“Aren’t there societies”
All societies have government of some form or there is no society.
“When humans don’t get things their way, they tend to force the issue and violence ensues. Its part of human nature.”
Its part of all species. Laws are government. All social rules are a form of government. We can perhaps talk about limiting the size of government. The scope of rules and those who enforce them. But there is no society without them.
if by moot you mean that 1 and 2 are unimportant in anarchy…anarchy is basically no government, that doesn’t mean no rights.
problems with your rejection of 3 …
1) freewill v. determinism debate (I think freewill is unfounded but let’s not get into this)
2) whether will is necessary for ownership
3) do we know they don’t have will? (which you brought up)
There are still many problems! We have to consider of all property rights: wealth, health, a house that you built, etc.
They’re moot because it’s understood that within anarchy there’s no coercion. Property is coercion so it’s inconsistent with anarchy.
Point 3 is mostly irrelevant, especially in the case of plans since we biologically require their consumption beyond dispute to survive. Sorry, but I’m not falling for that strawman.
mitt would wake up racist blind snoring adoring black hobama nazis!
that racist global warlord bankster hobama is a liar!
impeach hobama now!
more proof that hobama is worse than gwb
cc cispa/ndaa/africom/hobamcare casinos etc
shame on the sheeple!!!!!
aliciabanks.xanga.com/769548050/selection-2012–%E2%80%9Cforward%E2%80%9D-with-the-fleecing-of-america/
Whats tr he point of voteing? Secret elite
minarchism is a form of statism – it cannot be equated with voluntarism