Political Crossfire Forums

[jawsome]

Anarchism, absolutely.

Mostly because, in my opinion, its premise starts off rather shaky, if not outright wrong.

[LostSoul3412]

jawsome wrote: Anarchism, absolutely.

Mostly because, in my opinion, its premise starts off rather shaky, if not outright wrong.

In my opinion it is only misunderstood. :wink:

[jawsome]

LostSoul3412 wrote: jawsome wrote: Anarchism, absolutely.

Mostly because, in my opinion, its premise starts off rather shaky, if not outright wrong.

In my opinion it is only misunderstood. :wink:

Maybe it's just my definition of it, which differs from a lot of others'. I consider it to be the absence of involuntary force and coercion, which is a near-logical impossibility.

[LostSoul3412]

jawsome wrote: Maybe it's just my definition of it, which differs from a lot of others'. I consider it to be the absence of involuntary force and coercion, which is a near-logical impossibility.

It's not all that different. I would define Anarchy as "The elimination of involuntary contracts and coercion." The part that's most misunderstood is how this system would be established.

Some claim that it's impossible, some claim Socialism/Communism, and yet others still (myself included) believe that the free market is the key to freedom; thus I am an Anarcho-Capitalist.

[FinnMacCool]

jawsome wrote: Anarchism, absolutely.

Mostly because, in my opinion, its premise starts off rather shaky, if not outright wrong.

I think the problem is a lot of the things that anarchists say is different then what they actually want.

For example, saying that we want to do away with all forms of authority and coercion is impossible because things such as violence, which anarchists aren't opposed to, are inherently authoritarian.

I think it would be better to say that anarchists wish to do away with all unjustified authority which would include capitalism and government.

Anarcho-Capitalism is a contradiction which makes anarchism even more misunderstood.

I originally thought that anarchism was capitalist because of people like LostSoul.

[adleberg]

Socialism - just because in my experience 99% of people associate socialism with the communist states of the soviet union, china etc.

Maybe anarchists would be less misunderstood with a less 'action-packed' name...;)

[social]

Robin Hood wrote: Quote: Yes and it appears to be you. Marx wrote volumes on how capitalism is an inherently destructive, cancerous economic system, which ties quite neatly to his theory of *surplus value labour*.

This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Trying to maintain a conversation with you is a pointless excercise. All that seems to come out your mouth are rash, snide comments; a type of careless arrogance I'd only expect from someone with your political leanings.. Consider this a b**** slap; it's all you're getting out of me.

[Narvik]

FinnMacCool wrote: In addition, the very idea that the poor are poor because they are stupid is despicable. Wealth is a birth right, as is poverty.

Yeah? Move to Sweden. Everyone here gets the same education. The state even pays for your college education. The only thing you need to afford is somewhere to live, which you can take a loan for. Sweden's prime minister, Göran Persson, is from a working class family.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote:
Yeah? Move to Sweden. Everyone here gets the same education. The state even pays for your college education. The only thing you need to afford is somewhere to live, which you can take a loan for. Sweden's prime minister, Göran Persson, is from a working class family.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.

[Narvik]

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote:
Yeah? Move to Sweden. Everyone here gets the same education. The state even pays for your college education. The only thing you need to afford is somewhere to live, which you can take a loan for. Sweden's prime minister, Göran Persson, is from a working class family.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
You wrote "In addition, the very idea that the poor are poor because they are stupid is despicable. Wealth is a birth right, as is poverty."
How can it be a birth right if everyone get's the same education? Most people doesn't inherit the company they work on.

So according to me, in sweden, almost everyone has the same possibilities. Therefore i think your statement is false.

[FinnMacCool]

Narvik wrote: FinnMacCool wrote: Quote:
Yeah? Move to Sweden. Everyone here gets the same education. The state even pays for your college education. The only thing you need to afford is somewhere to live, which you can take a loan for. Sweden's prime minister, Göran Persson, is from a working class family.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
You wrote "In addition, the very idea that the poor are poor because they are stupid is despicable. Wealth is a birth right, as is poverty."
How can it be a birth right if everyone get's the same education? Most people doesn't inherit the company they work on.

So according to me, in sweden, almost everyone has the same possibilities. Therefore i think your statement is false.

Sweden I have heard has been championed as a great example of democratic socialism in action. If thats true, then my statement doesn't apply to your country.

[Narvik]

FinnMacCool wrote: Narvik wrote: FinnMacCool wrote: Quote:
Yeah? Move to Sweden. Everyone here gets the same education. The state even pays for your college education. The only thing you need to afford is somewhere to live, which you can take a loan for. Sweden's prime minister, Göran Persson, is from a working class family.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
You wrote "In addition, the very idea that the poor are poor because they are stupid is despicable. Wealth is a birth right, as is poverty."
How can it be a birth right if everyone get's the same education? Most people doesn't inherit the company they work on.

So according to me, in sweden, almost everyone has the same possibilities. Therefore i think your statement is false.

Sweden I have heard has been championed as a great example of democratic socialism in action. If thats true, then my statement doesn't apply to your country.

democratic socialism with a capitalistic touch. We have private property.
Sweden is a mixture between democratic socialism and capitalism.

[LostSoul3412]

FinnMacCool wrote: I originally thought that anarchism was capitalist because of people like LostSoul.

I'll take that as a compliment.

[FinnMacCool]

LostSoul3412 wrote: FinnMacCool wrote: I originally thought that anarchism was capitalist because of people like LostSoul.

I'll take that as a compliment.

It's not a compliment. It means that your propaganda machine is revisionist, dishonest, and dispicable.. Its a shame you have the nerve to call yourself an anarchist.

[SeamushMacEoghain]

Quote: It's not a compliment. It means that your propaganda machine is revisionist, dishonest, and dispicable.. Its a shame you have the nerve to call yourself an anarchist.

I will agree....anarcho-capitalism does not equate to anarchism....more along the lines of libertarianism. Do not mistake mutualism and anarcho-capitalism to be the same.

[jawsome]

FinnMacCool wrote: jawsome wrote: Anarchism, absolutely.

Mostly because, in my opinion, its premise starts off rather shaky, if not outright wrong.

I think the problem is a lot of the things that anarchists say is different then what they actually want.

For example, saying that we want to do away with all forms of authority and coercion is impossible because things such as violence, which anarchists aren't opposed to, are inherently authoritarian.

I think it would be better to say that anarchists wish to do away with all unjustified authority which would include capitalism and government.

Anarcho-Capitalism is a contradiction which makes anarchism even more misunderstood.

I originally thought that anarchism was capitalist because of people like LostSoul.

That's just it: I think it's a cop-out to only disagree with capitalistic and governmental coercion. Most anarchists I've met and talked with or read things by somehow believe when things are done by democratic means, they are inherently justified. I disagree comletely.

[LostSoul3412]

FinnMacCool wrote: It's not a compliment. It means that your propaganda machine is revisionist, dishonest, and dispicable.. Its a shame you have the nerve to call yourself an anarchist.

Such is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Just as I am entitled to mine.

SeamushMacEoghain wrote: I will agree....anarcho-capitalism does not equate to anarchism....more along the lines of libertarianism. Do not mistake mutualism and anarcho-capitalism to be the same.

It is libertarian philosophy taken one step further, meaning that it calls for the elimination of government; thus, it is Anarchist. Mutualist economics promote a fair market, as opposed to a free market; two completely different philosophies. Anarcho-Capitalism is merely another form of Anarchy.

[Fido]

LostSoul3412 wrote: FinnMacCool wrote: I originally thought that anarchism was capitalist because of people like LostSoul.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Capitalism is anarchism... for industry. In all other respects it is like cannibalism as an actual economy, which is to say not at all economical, but rather, wasteful. Primitive societies where cannibalism was practiced were organized in every detail, and not at all anarchy.

[Fido]

LostSoul3412 wrote: jawsome wrote: Maybe it's just my definition of it, which differs from a lot of others'. I consider it to be the absence of involuntary force and coercion, which is a near-logical impossibility.

It's not all that different. I would define Anarchy as "The elimination of involuntary contracts and coercion." The part that's most misunderstood is how this system would be established.

Some claim that it's impossible, some claim Socialism/Communism, and yet others still (myself included) believe that the free market is the key to freedom; thus I am an Anarcho-Capitalist.

Freedom is not just an individual condition, but the form of a relationship, the political aspect of which -is democracy. So, does your free market key to freedom include making a market of the government? I would ask- How can government for sale can be avoided where everything else has a price? The free markets serves only a free industry, but the price of a free industry is the freedom of the people curtailed, abused, and dismissed.
Free markets limit consumer choices by common consent of producers. We may have our choice of cars, but no choice between cars and mass transportation because high profits rather than consumer choices drive production. And where government ought to act to preserve rail lines, and rail or bus transport it bows before profit, and maximizes private rather than public transportation.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote:
That's just it: I think it's a cop-out to only disagree with capitalistic and governmental coercion. Most anarchists I've met and talked with or read things by somehow believe when things are done by democratic means, they are inherently justified. I disagree comletely.

Why is it a cop out? It is one of the defining principles of anarchism.


And your usage of the word "things" in your second sentence is a little vauge. What "things" do anarchists believe should be decided by democratic means?