Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
I've been an ancap for several months now. An agorist is essentially a type of ancap; agorism is basically a variation which opposes patents on that basis that it's an illegitimate form of monopoly, recognizes the possibility of some common property in a free-market society (think air), and views the key to establishing a market anarchist society in the practice of Counter-Economics. I don't see how coming across this type of philosophy and getting interested in it can be viewed as a "flavor of the month" given the positions I currently have.
|
You know my dad's a Marxist, right? Full-fledged and all. The house is littered with political and economical text. I've been reading parts of it since I was 12. You know when I told my dad for the first time that I was a whatever '-ist'? Last year. And I'm now 21. It wasn't "communist" by the way. You're rushing. You haven't considered everything in a more whole political context. You've grabbed on to something that initially seems to make sense and you're building your lego moonbase over it, adding extensions and towers and anarchocapitalist turrets that shoot flowers, in the hope that nobody will see the foundation of it is still moon-rock. What the hell is up with that analogy? Anyway, you need more rounded understanding of politics before you adopt a strong position. I can see you going "flavour of the month?! I'll show them! I'll be an anarcho-capitalist FOREVER!!" which, while hilarious, is really not the effect we're going for, here.
Quote:
We don't live in a capitalist society. We live in a corporatist republic.
|
What YOU FAIL to understand is that a corporatist economic state is the natural progression of ANY capitalistic system. The State will always occur.
Quote:
Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.
|
How wonderful. To neutralize all the economical progression of the last 200 years sounds like a great idea.
Quote:
It isn't very profitable to engage in combat.
|
To the contrary, the spoils make it very, very profitable to go to war. Also stop this 'engage in combat' shit, this isn't fencing, or d&d. Seriously, it's unnerving.
Quote:
Except for the fact that you can have currency in the absense of a Sate.
|
No. At least, not multinationally. Currency can only exist if it is sponsored and accepted by all interested parties as of having a ( directly related to several factors, but accepted to be as such by all) value. Otherwise it's meaningless.
Quote:
Then I miscommunicated. Either way, it doesn't really matter now.
|
Yes, yes it does matter because you do this all the time. You say :BARF and then you said the other person misunderstood you because you ment :GRAVY. You should pay attention to how you speak, and what room for construsion you leave. From how a man speaks you can understand a lot about his intellectual clarity, and furthermore, his reasons of going into discussion. The fact that you're being wrong a lot, and blaming others for misunderstanding you in this, paints you as somebody who is trying to WIN something in here.
Quote:
I know what you're talking about. It was a statement meant to show you that I understood the system you proposed.
|
See, you do this here again.
Quote:
What is your basis for socialism if not for economic considerations?
|
GOOD LORD. My basis for socialism is for SOCIAL considerations FOREMOST! The advancement of man! The eradication of violence and injustice! Progressive foundations of thinking!
Quote:
And can you not see how empowering the State would enable it to spread it's own propaganda and crush dissent?
|
Because the state is controlled by the little safety trigger called VOTING. Now I know this might come as a shock to you as an american, where YOU have left democracy to deteriorate to choosing between two morons who have no real authority, but in other places of the world, there's still political parties, with programs and representatives. It's not perfect, but it's better than shit. Jesus, the State is not the methaphorical boogeyman. you need to consider alternate sources of information.
Quote:
You are right to say that the people need to be educated, but I do not think that the State will educate the people in a manner which is anti-statist. Likewise, the State won't eliminate the classes which it serves.
|
Again, that is up to what party you vote for, and it's program concerning education. Do you think it's a coincidence that educational programs focus more and more into producing people who can readily be assimilated in the market, instead of producing educated, aware people, who can see methaphorically far being their cock and balls? That is what YOU'RE VOTING FOR.
Quote:
You stated that all Socialists view socialism as a stepping stone. Now you admit that some view it as an end?
|
I said even socialists will agree socialism is not the end. You said 'for some people it is', and I said I am prepared to align even with such people (who are not really socialists) because of the agreement on step B.
Quote:
It illustrates your failure to understand that anarcho-capitalist societies have mechanisms for defense and that anarcho-capitalism, by nature, is panarchic.
|
No. And there's no word 'panarchic'. I get you though, 'cause I'm greek and I know pan stands for all and archic stands for law, but you know... retarded, trying to impress people, blah blah. anarchocapitalism is not panarchic. The whole point of 'archis' is that it might be dynamic, but it's the same for all within a community. See, if that's not so, we're just discussing the might of power, and that's another shade of fascism.
Quote:
Do you have any idea to what I'm referring to?
|
No, because medieval Iceland! Even the fact that you would suggest this in a modern context... retarded! Stop being! Retarded!
Quote:
First of all, justice doesn't change with the times; perceptions of justice do.
|
What? Where's the difference between the two? Idiot.
Quote:
Second of all, a mutally-accepted court would have to be hired for disputes between two involved parties, something which would be done as fighting is undesireable on a multitude of levels. Due to the nature of the court system, I think it would be a better alternative to the current system in which there is no choice.
|
The whole idea of a court is that it's ruling is respected by all. If you have private courts, there's no legal precidient that would suggest any reason to respect an infavourable result. This would suggest anarchocapitalists would very quickly become a bunch of violent crybabies, with a humonous set of different courts they go running to, suing their knee, whenever they fall down and hurt their knee.
THE POINT IS, OAO, THAT JUSTICE SERVES THE PUBLIC. THE WHOLE OF THE PUBLIC. It is there to create the necessary foundations of safety so that a whole community can prosper. Take the prosperity of the whole out of the equation, and there is no concept of justice that is applicable to this discussion. Make a new name for what you're talking about.
What, you jerk? Is that all?
Quote:
You provided no proof of your own. You merely made assertions without giving them basis.
|
Oh, ok! If you cannot clearly see where the burden of proof lies in these case, I'll just continue to call you stupid.
Quote:
1) Even assuming human nature can be altered, humanity is so complex that I don't see how you can find the right process to alter in a specified, exact manner.
|
Yet humanity's not complex enough to find loopholes around silly little private courts, right?*groan*
Quote:
2) Why would you want to alter human nature anyway? What real purpose does it serve without an objective moral basis?
|
The real purpose it would serve would be for man to understand himself better, control himself more readily. If there's a more widely accepted moral basis than this, I cannot tell. Still not objective, because OAO,
there ARE no objective moral bases.
So yeah, read some ethics while you're at it. I suggest Inventing Right and Wrong by H.Mackie as a good starting point.
Quote:
there is no intrinsic value.
|
If you do not see how a set value of the product of labour based on the amount of effort required to produce it, is not an
intrinsic value then you're uhh... stupid?
Quote:
I think that the LTV is fundamentally disproven by the price system.
|
In micro-economics. And not disproven, just not paid enough mind to.
Quote:
Prices reflect, in part, the value that is given to products by human minds. Assuming that supply is the same, most people would pay more for a computer than a toothpick even if the amount of labor required to make them was the same. Thus, they are valued on a subjective level.
|
No, you moron, they're not valued on a subjective level, the need of them in weighed on a subjective level. What you ARE saying is that let's say a nuclear power, India for example, when in great shortage of toothpicks, would rather spend 30 million dollars on a single toothpick than on another nuclear warhead. You are insane. It might NEED the toothpicks more, and spend 30 million dollars buying 30 gazillion toothpicks instead of one nuclear warhead. Can you see the distinction in this? Can you? PLEASE tell me you can.