Anarchy = True Freedom?

Soulja boy

Anarchy Is the true form of capitalism Unrestrained. Every individual would have far more opportunities to screw over one and other, No legislation to restrain capital gains, a beautiful ability to exploit every person weaker then you that you may encounter are only some of the benefits.

Anarchy does not automatically infer equality, and therefore because of the divine comedy of the human race and how it acts it wouldn't be long before the cartel mentality would form glorious business institutions that would be entitled to everything from murder to slavery to forward the needs of the few in charge.

Anarchy would be fantastic, it would allow a new ruling class to emerge that would be much closer to the true cutthroat entrepreneurs that DESERVE the world.

Denerick

Belfast wrote: »

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety." BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

ESSENTIAL LIBERTY. You have deliberately misread my post.

O'Coonassa

Soulja boy wrote: »

Anarchy Is the true form of capitalism Unrestrained.

Before agriculture it was anarchy and things were much more egalitarian.

Soulja boy

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Before agriculture it was anarchy and things were much more egalitarian.

Before agriculture there were far less then 6,707,000,000 people around.
Cull back 5/6ths of those and we can start talking egalitarian anarchy.
Or egalitarian anything really.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

O'Coonassa

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General..........http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

Soulja boy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In this case as far they are pretty much interchangeable as I am concerned.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

+1

There are only a couple of hundred anarcho-capitalists in the world though, and 80% of them are teenagers who've just finished reading Ayn Rand typing on the internet in their parents basement.

Soulja boy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not. I am equating anarchy with capitalism.

Denerick wrote: »

+1

There are only a couple of hundred anarcho-capitalists in the world though, and 80% of them are teenagers who've just finished reading Ayn Rand typing on the internet in their parents basement.

Thats true, most would describe themselves as liberatarians and are morons.

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

Though I will say this, because I suppose some of it needs pointing out.

Every person wants to achieve the greatest amount of liberty for themselves, but if every person really does attempt this they do so at the expense of others, specifically the weak and vulnerable. Its basic human nature. All power is and should be controlled by each other - in other words, the creation of a societal balance of power where the people balance the power of the government, the rule of law balances the power of governments and peoples (Hence the great see saw of liberty) and governments balance the powers of the people within an accountable and roughly democratic system.

It has flaws, but I'd much rather sacrifice some of my own liberty in order to guarantee my safety.

I don't think so.
All the freedom i ask for is to be able to travel where i want freely, live where i want freely, do what i wanna do freely as long as i'm not harming anyone else, do with my money as i wish without the government interfere with it and have the right to defend myself (with firearms if necessary) to protect me, my family and my property, just in case!

Not much aye?
Where's the question me gaining all these basic liberties at the expense of others?

And i'm not gonna go into the "all businesses are evil and they only want to exploit workers" debate.
That is one of the most daft idea one could come up with.
Why do people keep forgetting about all the amazing products and jobs capitalism has bought us.

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

+1

There are only a couple of hundred anarcho-capitalists in the world though, and 80% of them are teenagers who've just finished reading Ayn Rand typing on the internet in their parents basement.

Check out Ron Paul and Daniel Hannan and the people who support them.
They're a fair bit more than "a couple of hundred".
Yes they're still far less than the people who support Obama and his socialist regime. But unlike Obama's supporters, us libertarians are not fooled by simply a pretty face.

You'll be surprised by the amount of people who're getting aware of their liberty and freedom. Its not a new idea. Thomas Paine propagated it back in the 18th century which led to the americans fighting for their independence.

Liberty and freedom are very strong notions. They make people hold fast to them and fight for it for life. You won't understand it till you realise what freedom and liberty means to you.

Denerick

af_thefragile wrote: »

I don't think so.
All the freedom i ask for is to be able to travel where i want freely, live where i want freely, do what i wanna do freely as long as i'm not harming anyone else, do with my money as i wish without the government interfere with it and have the right to defend myself (with firearms if necessary) to protect me, my family and my property, just in case!

Not much aye?
Where's the question me gaining all these basic liberties at the expense of others?

And i'm not gonna go into the "all businesses are evil and they only want to exploit workers" debate.
That is one of the most daft idea one could come up with.
Why do people keep forgetting about all the amazing products and jobs capitalism has bought us.

Look it, we all sacrifice some liberty for some safety. Its basic social contract. If all people were allowed to do as they wished freely with no restraint there would be anarchy. And anarchy is merely the strongest doing what they want, when the want. A constitutional democratic republic is a large group of people and interest groups who have struck a bargain and have made a fantastic compromise.

And your not a libertarian. You'll grow out of that when the latest political fad comes around in a couple of months.

Soulja boy

Oh, I think Its only fair that I admit here as some people did not realize that my Views are Very anti capitalist and very anti anarchist.

An example of someone exploiting anarchy:

Soulja boy wrote: »

Anarchy Is the true form of capitalism Unrestrained. Every individual would have far more opportunities to screw over one and other, No legislation to restrain capital gains, a beautiful ability to exploit every person weaker then you that you may encounter are only some of the benefits.

Anarchy does not automatically infer equality, and therefore because of the divine comedy of the human race and how it acts it wouldn't be long before the cartel mentality would form glorious business institutions that would be entitled to everything from murder to slavery to forward the needs of the few in charge.

Anarchy would be fantastic, it would allow a new ruling class to emerge that would be much closer to the true cutthroat entrepreneurs that DESERVE the world.

People assumed that I meant that this is what would happen if a state were to revert to anarchy in this day in age.
That is not what I was implying when I said anarchy is the true form of capitalism.

Though this post came close to catching my meaning:

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Before agriculture it was anarchy and things were much more egalitarian.

It is true that the world used to be agriculturally based and in a state of anarchy.
What happened to this wonderful egalitarian (bwahahahaha) society?
Exactly what I described above.
The Laws and the state didn't come raining down from the sky, they came about because of people exploiting other people under the pretense of order.
Capitalism isn't something distinct from anarchy. It's something that came about directly because of it. It GREW from it. And that is why I see anarchy as flawed.

Soulja boy

af_thefragile wrote: »

Check out Ron Paul and Daniel Hannan and the people who support them.
They're a fair bit more than "a couple of hundred".

Think about it this way. In society now we have a handful of idealistic anarchists and a minority of capitalist anarchists.
Now imagine if everyone overnight was to become an anarchist... Do you still think the idealists would be the majority?

af_thefragile

^Guess the idealist would be happier to see a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist in power of the country than some lefty socialist. So for now you could probably count them in.

Denerick wrote: »

Look it, we all sacrifice some liberty for some safety. Its basic social contract. If all people were allowed to do as they wished freely with no restraint there would be anarchy. And anarchy is merely the strongest doing what they want, when the want. A constitutional democratic republic is a large group of people and interest groups who have struck a bargain and have made a fantastic compromise.

And your not a libertarian. You'll grow out of that when the latest political fad comes around in a couple of months.

What makes you say that?
I agree completely with libertarians such as Ron Paul, Dan Hannan, Fedrich Hayek and even Thomas Paine. They're the people whom i've based my ideologies on. Again, libertarianism is not a new "political fad". Remember when I mentioned Thomas Paine propagating it back in the 18th century with his "Common Sense" pamphlet... You should really read it.

If you're read the thread from the start, you'll notice i for once didn't call for complete dissolution of the central state. Only that to transfer most of the powers of the central state back to the local governments/councils/societies.
Powers such as the education system, health system, agricultural system, business market, firearms control and pretty much most things except a few basic functions such as foreign policy, defence/army, common law and maybe few aspects of infrastructure and environmental protection. The central state should not get involved in people's lives and businesses.

There are many communities around the world that would like to be left alone. There are various tribes living in rain forests or like the Amish community in america or the societies living in various remote areas of siberia and such. People do better when they're left alone. They can run their society much better on their own than with any central government influence. And this will hold true for most of the world too. We can run our societies much better ourselves than the government is doing for us. We could set up better schools, we could have better businesses and build better infrastructure when we can have the freedom to do all of this ourselves. This is what we libertarians and anarcho-capitalists/free-market anarchists basically say.

A government in the center of a large state gets to dissociated from the people of the state to care about what the people really want. All the central government is a political race where politicians are trying to fool people into cheap deals by only showing one side of it. The politician screams out "Free healthcare for all" and everyone cheers and votes for him. What they don't realise is to fun this highly inefficient government healthcare system, their taxes have just also been bumped up by another 5-10% and a bunch of incoherent levies thrown on top of it. Also why is there a growing number of homeless people on the streets? What is the government doing with them?
The government is wasting all of our tax money to bail out failed businesses. Is this the type of government you want? Where we work 4 months out of the year just to bail out failed businesses and run a group of highly inefficient services?
Give me a county to be run the way i wanna without any central influence and I can show them how its to be done!

Denerick

I'm well aware of the origins of Libertarianism. In fact, the libertarianism you seem to adopt is more like Barry Goldwaters 1960s brand.

I've read Paine and Jefferson et. all. When it came down to it their theory didn't exactly alter the ideology of government, specifically when Jefferson came into power.

I'm just saying you most likely read a bit of Ron Pauls campaign slogans and hooked on. You'll grow out of it soon enough.

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

I'm well aware of the origins of Libertarianism. In fact, the libertarianism you seem to adopt is more like Barry Goldwaters 1960s brand.

I've read Paine and Jefferson et. all. When it came down to it their theory didn't exactly alter the ideology of government, specifically when Jefferson came into power.

I'm just saying you most likely read a bit of Ron Pauls campaign slogans and hooked on. You'll grow out of it soon enough.

I doubt. Libertarianism will solve almost all of the problems we face in this country. Primarily it'll fix the recession by letting the free market sort itself out (which if left alone, it'll sort itself out absolutely fine). Then by having a free market system it'll allow entrepreneurs to set up more businesses which create more jobs and serve the community, making it better. New local businesses is the only way i see by which Ireland's economic and job problems can be solved. They can also create a good infrastructure in Ireland, improving tourism and adding more color and life to the country.

Then by having no education system, the schools can be privatised. This can give schools the opportunity to try out new more effective teaching methods which can prepare the kids/students to do better in university creating a highly skilled workforce to run the country. Also the workforce won't be a state brainwashed one.

By privatizing health, people would be forced to take care of themselves. You can't smoke and kill your lungs to then let the government pay for your screw ups. The more you abuse your body, the more you'll have to pay for it. This will curb Ireland's smoking, drinking, obesity problems.

By letting people own firearms, they can defend themselves more strongly against criminals. The criminals will find themselves weapons and firearms anyway regardless of the law. So why should only the bad guys have these things. We should also be able to keep weapons to protect ourselves from these criminals.

Then by letting the counties/local councils to decide on their own way of life, everyone can find their happy place to live in. I explained this in a couple of earlier posts. But basically the conservatives can set up their conservative society, the liberals can have their own society, the idealistic anarchists can have their society, the communists can have their society and all...



So what is the way you say to take and how can it be better than what i stated?

Denerick

Then by having no education system

By privatizing health

By letting people own firearms

Then by letting the counties/local councils to decide on their own way of life, everyone can find their happy place to live in. I explained this in a couple of earlier posts. But basically the conservatives can set up their conservative society, the liberals can have their own society, the idealistic anarchists can have their society, the communists can have their society and all...

Extremists like you will mean the death of liberty. None of you really consider the basics of the necessity of sacrificing some liberty for some safety. A completely free market is law of the jungle economics - All it would result in is the ownership of the nation by a couple of mega corporations. Who would do no doubt not even be Irish. And the rest is so patently absurd it doesn't need any comment.

What age are you?

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

Extremists like you will mean the death of liberty. None of you really consider the basics of the necessity of sacrificing some liberty for some safety. A completely free market is law of the jungle economics - All it would result in is the ownership of the nation by a couple of mega corporations. Who would do no doubt not even be Irish. And the rest is so patently absurd it doesn't need any comment.

What age are you?

That is just absurd speculation.
What makes you think a bunch of mega corporations aren't owning the nation already?! The government paying billions of tax payers money to bail out certain businesses, the ones that have probably infiltrated the government.

"Jungle economics" as you call it, works!!
The Austrian school of economics is the best economic theory out there.
A free market would not allow businesses to grow mega huge either. Fair competition and sound money won't allow this.

The only reason businesses like Nike have become so big is because they have managed to exploit 3rd world labour and this couldn't have had happened without the help of the IMF and world bank.
Its the governments who help businesses become big. When businesses are backed by governments, they can take bigger risks and manipulate foreign economies to exploit labour.

Also most people can fend for themselves. The government doesn't do much to protect me from the scumbag around the corner anyway. The Irish police force is highly inefficient too. Just like most other state services.

Why is the rest of my post absurd. Tell me one good thing socialism has bought us? The education system is inefficient. The healthcare system is in ruins. The infrastructure is poor. The economy is completely screwed. People have no jobs and neither can they pay off their mortgage.

Also you yourself have noticed it in your other thread how electoral democracy ultimately in an ego match between people of the same fundamental ideology.

This is exactly why we don't want the central government to have much power over the lives of people.

Denerick

Yes, but the difference is that I recognise the ego match as an inherently good thing. When politician's power has been curbed it simply means that I am free to live my life in relative liberty and safety. Any other system has failed. Your system is theoretical and highly impractical.

Governments aid and curb big businesses. Preventing cartels for example. Banking is the fundamental of our economy; when it doesn't work then there is no credit, meaning that nothing can grow. Without banking we might as well go back to bartering and exchange and give up on currency as a means of exchange. Responsible governments have to fix this fundamental sector of the economy; thinking otherwise is living in dreamland.

The great thing about electoral democracy is that it is inherently anti-ideological. You have constructed a system that is highly ideological and based on an internal logic. The free market as you describe it might work under a computer simulation, but doesn't work in practise. And Mises is long dead, both in reality and economically.

And bandying about socialism as you do serves nothing other than debase the term and make it meaningless. There's a world of difference between Ireland and Cuba.

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

Yes, but the difference is that I recognise the ego match as an inherently good thing. When politician's power has been curbed it simply means that I am free to live my life in relative liberty and safety. Any other system has failed. Your system is theoretical and highly impractical.

Governments aid and curb big businesses. Preventing cartels for example. Banking is the fundamental of our economy; when it doesn't work then there is no credit, meaning that nothing can grow. Without banking we might as well go back to bartering and exchange and give up on currency as a means of exchange. Responsible governments have to fix this fundamental sector of the economy; thinking otherwise is living in dreamland.

The great thing about electoral democracy is that it is inherently anti-ideological. You have constructed a system that is highly ideological and based on an internal logic. The free market as you describe it might work under a computer simulation, but doesn't work in practise. And Mises is long dead, both in reality and economically.

And bandying about socialism as you do serves nothing other than debase the term and make it meaningless. There's a world of difference between Ireland and Cuba.

Governments do nothing to prevent cartels and curb big businesses. Only thing that ends up happening is big businesses become influential on the government and end up lobbying and supporting campaigns for politicians who promise to help their business get bigger.

The banking industry is the biggest cartel in todays society. The whole fundamental system is based on the flawed fiat monetary system which is the sole reason for the economic of today. Fiat system along with the fractional reserve banking has given banks the freedom to give out as much easy loans as they want to people and businesses and then when the people or businesses can't repay back the loans, they have to end up printing money to fill in for the void creating inflation. Inflation is not the rise in prices but the rise in the amount of money circulating in the economy.

The gold standard (which can be compared to the barter system) worked fine since the beginning of economies and will work fine in the future. It just wouldn't give banks the freedom to give out as much loans as they wish to creating a bubble.

Free market has worked excellently in the past. It is what has built america into the super power it is. Free market has bought us all the amazing things we take for granted today.

Denerick

I would heavily question your assumption that the free market worked fine in the past, using the example of America. America is an example of what I'm talking about - a super rich, another layer of moderately rich, and then a struggling middle class, a working poor and a class of down and outs.

Denerick

I almost forgot to comment on this:

Its the governments who help businesses become big. When businesses are backed by governments, they can take bigger risks and manipulate foreign economies to exploit labour.

Governments do not help businesses become big; when you mention your example of America, where the free market supposedly reigned supreme, how does this add up in your mind? Thats a huge contradiction right there.

And I'm also working on the basis that you believe the entire world goes free market or libertarian; What exactly would be the barriers of entry to companies like Nike in countries like Chad? If the government had no control over its economy, what would stop the likes of Nike effectively buying up the country? What would stop Nike running the government?

The difference between the rule of corporations and the rule of people is that corporations are answerable to their shareholders, governments are answerable to their people.

There is no precedent of the free market working unrestrained in the manner you are talking about. its mad and wild theory with no grounding in practicality.

turgon

Well think about the risks the banks took. If they were left to plunge would the bankers be so keen to take such risks again? I think not.

Instead our socialist government helped cover their folly.

Denerick

turgon wrote: »

Well think about the risks the banks took. If they were left to plunge would the bankers be so keen to take such risks again? I think not.

Instead our socialist government helped cover their folly.

Come on, the bankers aren't to blame for this mess. Its a nice and tidy blameall - they're rich, smug and powerful. Fact is, we were the retards who had 4 credit cards, two mortgages with-a-house-in-Spain-and-an-apartment-in-Bulgaria... Sometimes people need to take responsibility for their own actions. We, as a society got into the mess by insane speculation. Now its come back to haunt us and all of a sudden we're blaming the people who provided the money for the insanity. Its a bit like blaming the barman for getting drunk and getting a headbutt on the way home.

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

I almost forgot to comment on this:



Governments do not help businesses become big; when you mention your example of America, where the free market supposedly reigned supreme, how does this add up in your mind? Thats a huge contradiction right there.

And I'm also working on the basis that you believe the entire world goes free market or libertarian; What exactly would be the barriers of entry to companies like Nike in countries like Chad? If the government had no control over its economy, what would stop the likes of Nike effectively buying up the country? What would stop Nike running the government?

The difference between the rule of corporations and the rule of people is that corporations are answerable to their shareholders, governments are answerable to their people.

There is no precedent of the free market working unrestrained in the manner you are talking about. its mad and wild theory with no grounding in practicality.

The people of Chad would stop Nike from taking over their country.
Freedom comes with a price and that is responsibility.
Going back to the first post of mine, i said all this can't happen until people learn to take responsibility for their actions and start to think for themselves.

If they see a largely exploitive corporations like Nike looking to set up its sweat shops in Chad, the people can stop Nike from doing that. They have the right to protest and go on strike.

And if say Nike agrees to pay them a fair wage for their job, then what's the problem!

But the basis here is that people need to get aware and learn what is right for them. They need to be able to figure out if any business is taking them for a ride.



"Governments do not help businesses become big; when you mention your example of America, where the free market supposedly reigned supreme, how does this add up in your mind? Thats a huge contradiction right there."

This began after the abolition of Bretton Woods (with their new printing press of fiat money) the IMF and World Bank started loaning out huge loans to 3rd world nations it couldn't pay back. These loans were given to countries on a basis that the country would allow american corporations to set up its industries in their country and exploit the countries cheap labour. This created a new trend where IMF started to loan huge amounts to 3rd world countries at the condition that western (predominantly USA and UK) corporations could set up their industries in their country and exploit their labour and natural resources. Victims of these deals are countries like Indonesia and Jamaica.

This is what has helped these corporations become so huge. If it wasn't for the IMF and World Bank, it wouldn't be possible.


Also the governments are answerable to none. Our government did a fine job at screwing over our economy. Who are the losers here?!

Denerick

The government did not screw the economy. Oh they just made us take out our third mortgage on our 60K a year salary did they??

Fine, people have a right to strike and protest. But what is stopping a company from simply paying them off? It isn't too difficult to prevent or forcibly stop a strike when the organs of the state are directly within the power of the multi national corporation which controls the government. I doubt you've really thought this all through.

But the basis here is that people need to get aware and learn what is right for them. They need to be able to figure out if any business is taking them for a ride.

I'm sorry, thats just a meaningless statement. What makes you think us poor 21st century sods are incapable of thinking for themselves? Just because we disagree with a tinpot fringe and unworkable theory of economics and governance?

This began after the abolition of Bretton Woods (with their new printing press of fiat money) the IMF and World Bank started loaning out huge loans to 3rd world nations it couldn't pay back. These loans were given to countries on a basis that the country would allow american corporations to set up its industries in their country and exploit the countries cheap labour. This created a new trend where IMF started to loan huge amounts to 3rd world countries at the condition that western (predominantly USA and UK) corporations could set up their industries in their country and exploit their labour and natural resources. Victims of these deals are countries like Indonesia and Jamaica.

This is meaningless and not consistent with what you are saying. Answer these questions directly:

1) In an international free market, where no nation holds any barriers to entry for foreign corporations, what is to stop them essentially carving up countries between themselves, especially third world countries whose entire GDP is a mere fraction of some of the biggest multi-nationals?

2) How can you justify the position that huge corporations were not in existence before 1944? There are hundreds and hundreds of examples in America alone. What about the oil barons? In some ways the biggest corporations of the Roaring twenties were wealthier and more powerful than the biggest corporations today.

3) There is no historical precedent that backs up what you say - the closest thing we've had was Gilded Age America, which is known as the 'Gilded Age' for a very good reason. All that resulted from that economic timebomb was a boom bust cycle, a massive class of the super rich, and millions of working poor earning practically no money in the industrial sector of the economy. How can that possibly be seen as a good way forward in your mind?

Denerick

And if say Nike agrees to pay them a fair wage for their job, then what's the problem!

If you really cannot see the problems inherent in a multi national corporation with no constitutional restraints and above the rule of the law and operating the organs of the state, then we might as well end this tete a tete here and now in order to give you some time to read some basic political science. Because thats just nuts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.