Quote:
|
Well, anarchy is working now, it must be a great idea for the long term, right?!
|
Private sector business isn't the same as anarchy. Just because they don't call themselves a government, doesn't mean there's no power centers or social order or control.
|
I dunno about you guys, but today at my private sector job I took a 15 minute shit then surfed for porn all day. ANARCHY!
|
Quote:
George Lincoln Rockwell wrote for the National Review for a bit, too. I wonder what he later thought about democracy and conservatism and all that stuff....? I should really, really care, because clearly, it's very important that we make a big deal of people who change their mind about things. |
sobran sounds like a type of cereal old people would eat with prune juice
|
It should at least disturb some of you that Sobran's movement towards anarchism was made by the fact that he viewed both the Civil War and New Deal as trangressions of the Constitution.
|
So, is that the point you were trying to make?
Also, why would he think that the Civil War was caused by a transgression of the Constitution? States did and do have a right to secede from the Union, but I don't remember the Constitution saying the Union can't annex them back in. (Although I could be wrong about that.) |
Well, I think succession is kinda pointless if you're forced back in through military force.
|
Quote:
|
OAO, what kind of anarchist are you? All this talk about private sectors and the wonders of somalia, what the fuck are you on about?
|
Dig it. The southern states wanted to secede based on the northern states moral objections to politics, economy, and general way of life. The north maintained these objections but didn't want the union to dissolve. The northern states won and; therefore, the union stayed intact. Grant it, it took military force to enforce this, but the same is true of any occupying force following a war (Re: Japan, Korea, Germany, ect). Often, there are insurgents following the war who disagree with the results (Re: Lincoln assasination). The freeing of the slaves was a by-product, not a reason, for the war. So, you see, this war is not much different than other wars with the Constitution notwithstanding. It really has no place here.
|
Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle.
http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secess...is/890304.html |
Quote:
In other words, we support capitalism without the existence of a State. And Kelly, what are you smoking? The fact that the US forced the Confederacy to rejoin the union shows that it did not recognize the succession. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Seriously, how can you be an 'anarcho-capitalist?' Those two views are fundamentally opposed.
I'm imagining someone trying to build their wealth in the absence of a state, and therefore, in the absence of money with definite value. What the hell do you measure your wealth in? Cows? Gold? Okay, maybe gold works. But where do you get the gold? Unless your country's already rich in it, you have to trade with other states, and I don't think other states are willing to trade much of their gold to you for your cows. And you can't trade it within your country, because, well, they have no reason not to demand outrageous prices of you, and since there are no state-mandated laws, he probably won't be punished for chopping your fucking head off and just TAKING what you have. And when someone suddenly gets a hold of all of the wealth, he becomes a ruler, and can command people to work under him for pay, which just evolves into the feudal system all over again. I can't see any way how this philosophy could work. |
Emu, shut up and go read a little about political and economical theory. Anarcho-capitalism exists well outside the mind of OAO.
EDIT: however, now checking, OAO somewhat misdefined it. SECOND EDIT: And this will teach me to read posts carefully. Emu, you successfuly explain why anarcho-capitalism can't work: when there's free trade, semblances of authority ( read: state ) always come to exist purely through the inequalities that emerge, and the reactionary forces that maintain them to their benefit. |
Quote:
Quote:
And to reiterate what Ziggytrix said (above), they were certainly treated better than most post-war military. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
So who guaruntees the equity in this imaginary "true market economy"? If there is no state, then you will have tribes - maybe corporations in this era - that end up holding all the force.
Tell me, what could prevent corporate dominance in the absence of the state? Or is that what you are advocating? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Edit: piece of shit quotes >: |
Quote:
Anarchism (as Kropotkin will tell you) is a byproduct of a refined society. One that abolished classes through communism, and one which gradually evolves into non-agression. And therefore, we should be more concerned with the stepping stone (socialism) than with the end result because we cannot get from here to there. |
That's a fucking humungous stepping stone.
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:42 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.