abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Those exist because of the privilege.
How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
they exist in the workers paradise of north korea and cuba too.
your new-left marxism is based on lies and willful ignorance.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
As always, you resort to calling me a Marxist. You're clearly incapable of honesty.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
you embrace marxist principles, use marxist rhetoric, quote marxist sources, vote for marxists (jill stein) encourage people to read marxist party platforms (the greens) and are unwilling or unable to articulate your position, thus the astute observer must conclude you are a marxist.
if you are not a marxist, then articulate your position, not chomsky's (since he too is a marxist) not the Greens (marxists) not bertrand russels (marxist) and not george orwell's (not a marxist, but often misquoted by them)
go ahead, articulate away. im waiting.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This is all you have. This is all you have had for months. Have you noticed that I have never once asked you what philosophy you espouse? It is because I don't care. The only reason you are ascribing views to me, which I have repeatedly and vehemently denied, is that you wish to discredit me, because I have so effectively challenged your heros, Ayn Rand and the Koch brothers.
You're a NAZI, you embrace nazi principals, use nazi rhetoric, quote nazi sources, vote for nazis (Rawn Pawl), encourage people to read nazi party platforms (Mein Kamph). See, I can ascribe views to you since you haven't pushed your views.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i have repeatedly asked you to explain your "views" and you have refused.
anyone who asks about my philosophy receives a prompt answer, based on the fact that i HAVE a philosophy and can articulate it. you have nothing but lies, deception, ad hominem, deflection and cop-outs.
i dont have to discredit you, you have no credibility to diss. you cant even borrow the limited and shaky gravitas of noam chomsky without discrediting his weak ass philosophy by association.
you have nothing but the demand that everything be demolished and all of society be sacrificed on the altar of "anarcho-_________ism" with nothing to replace it but your vague promises of "something" which cannot be discussed untill we all climb into your windowless panel van, but then there will totally be candy. lots and lots of candy.
youre a joke.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You are clearly a hypocrite.
I don't have to explain libertarian socialism to you. Go fucking read a book if you want to learn.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
you CANT explain it, because nobody else has prepared the words to wag your puppet tongue and nobody has crafted the ideas to fill your wooden head.
It's not a punishment. It had zero effect on the deceased.
I agree that physical wealth comes from production, but organized, efficient, and expanding production is exactly what gave rise to the service economy. 2 million farmers feed 300 million people (without giving any consideration to exports). The point is that having so much wealth and making production so efficient has given humanity a lot of what it wanted, and now there's less incentive to refine. We got bored and invented new stuff to want.
People are only animals in the same sense they are now, except that any of the animals can stand up and become something else if they earn it. Yes, that outcome is possible now, but we can improve it by eliminating the distribution to lucky lottery winners and declining to permit them rule over us. Unearned economic power is just as destructive and vile as unearned political power.
Family farms are unique situations involving less than 1% of the population. I already suggested an equity argument: if you spent your life working on it, it's not unearned.
It hasn't destroyed anything because it's the present reality, as I already noted. Only 30% of people inherit anything. Subtract the nominal inheritances--a few thousand bucks, a car, the small stuff--and where does that leave us? According to you, the nuclear family has already broken down and society is being ravaged by disease; this left behind nothing but hopelessness and created a "'live for today' mentality."
Our problems today aren't being caused by some lack of inheritance or building for the future but by our own choices as a society.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The only reason it seems incomplete to you is that you can't understand that anarchy is supposed to have a power vacuum and lack politics, imbecile.
What is hereditary debt? As for hereditary servitude, we have that already have that. The vast majority of the population, not having any responsibility for or control over its circumstances, is held hostage to the whims of the lucky lottery winners who control so much of the wealth our society created.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
most of the people will never own a business, and thus have no stake in protecting those businesses from theives. should we therefore legalize theft and robbery?
it would be intensely popular with the plebs.
your silly notion relies on populism, demagoguery, and class envy to gain any purchase. it is destructive and self-defeating.
eliminating the right of a woman to say "No" would be quite popular with about 50% of the population, should we put that up for a vote too? Free Pussy On Demand would totally rock, in a macro-economic sense. just the replacement of ripped bodices would push the GDP up marginally at the very least. throw in the morning after birth control pills, soothing unguents for sore twats (and assholes), and the unavoidable population increase would really push those GDP numbers to the sky!
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
those who manage to keep their family farms receive hereditary debt.
further, the children of paupers become paupers unless somebody else helps them through charity. your system would ensure everyone is born a pauper and stays there generation after generation by eliminating upward mobility for families. we would all be forced into the endless cycle of poverty found in inner cities. you cant keep anything, so you cant build anything, so you cant earn anything, so you cant save anything to escape your trap.
family farms NOW represent less than 1% of the population, but they didnt used to be so rare. it has taken more than a century of merciless destruction of the rural communities to get us to this point. this point which is very close to yor proposed ideal of endless serfdom to faceless corporate masters and unaccountable government mandarins.
edit: and "society" doesnt create shit. PEOPLE working for self interest create wealth, society is simply the field on which they play their game.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Live not for what you can acquire, but for what you can leave behind.
I disagree with your assertion that they have no stake in protecting those businesses from thieves. Chaos harms everyone, top and bottom. Any change in the law relies on populism!
Who said anything about popular? That's an entirely different issue from the one we're arguing--the argument I've made isn't even applicable! Forcing women to give up control of their bodies is not comparable to lifting the property rights of the dead.
Because they wanted the property and choose to assume the debt. If the property was encumbered, I don't understand the problem.
Obviously that's just not true, that the children of paupers become paupers without the help of someone else. Even if true, the children of the privileged become privileged just because they inherited it--why is that outcome better? The purpose of this law would be to enable and enhance upward mobility for people, all people versus some people from ordained families. Those who don't work will have poverty, yes, and what's malicious about that? Anyone who doesn't want to live in poverty, who wants to enjoy advantage, will do exactly what they would do right now to obtain it. Human beings won't resign themselves to endless poverty forever because there's just no hope for their poor children and grandchildren. That's a naive assessment of how people actually think and humans actually behave that--once again--ignores all empirical data and all practical assessment. People build for themselves, and that's that; in a world where all of the wealth is up for grabs rather than locked away in trust accounts and deteriorating from mismanagement, I assure you they'll build and strive to get their share. That struggle, all people against all other people with equal incentives to win, will lead to better outcomes everyone just as competition always does.
Those who create value will be rewarded with value. If a farm can't compete with others farms, that's the farm's fault. [/quote]
Collectively, through the combination of all the individual actions, society creates wealth. Society is a necessary partner to wealth creation.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Hereditary nobility is what "voluntaryism" sounds like. Just add private armies, feudalism.
We're dealt the human behavior we have. Giving sounds like a wonderful thing, but in reality it just destroys incentives, whether it's a person inheriting $10 million or one on food stamps.
How is anyone a slave? Perhaps we're slaves to inherited privilege, if that's how you want to see it. What's more justifiable?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
and he also said "I also consider myself left-libertarian".
He is actually just another republican trying to call himself a libertarian.