Am I the only one left?

[Loknar]

Wow, every cappy here seems to have been banned.

Capitalist Imperial
Team America
Emperor Sam


these guys seemed to have been dropped in the last week.

I on the other hand have 1200 posts (as of this posting) and have been here for 2 1/2 years.

I'm curious, am I different from those guys? Why am I tolerated?

I’m not trying to sound belligerent, its just a curiosity.

[violencia.Proletariat]

both of them were capitalist imperial.

[which doctor]

dont forget publius

[LSD]

Emperor Sam, TeamAmerica, and Counter-Insurgent were all sock puppets for Capitalist Imperial.

He was banned for accumulating 5 warning points ...twice.

In addition to yourself, we have long-time consistent poster Publius, as well as occassional posters such as Capitalist Lawyer and Hank Morgan.

[JazzRemington]

There was that "Wolves" guy. can't remember his name. I guess he waspart of that cappy invasion that I heard so much about earlier last year. I thought he wa spretty funny.

[Xvall]

Capitalist Imperial was a longtime member of the board, but his technique degreaded after throughout the years, which lead to his eventual accumulation of warning points and subsequent expulsion.

Publy is this here, though, and I don't forsee him ever being banned.

Wolves was a part of a protest-warrior invasion. Like most invasions, they just sort of got bored and left after a while back to where they came from, probably hell.

I think Bugaloo Shrimp is still around; I don't remember - I have a headache.

It's true, though, that this section has sort of died down. You can invite some friends, assuming they adhere to the rules.

[Xvall]

Oh yeah. We tolerate you because we think your avatar is funny.

[ComradeOm]

I was wondering why it was so quiet around here.

[Goatse]

Things have slowed down recently.

What are you Loknar, anyway? Your sig implies you're a very slightly leftist... so what got you restricted?

[drain.you]

Am I the only one left?
Dunno if a pun was intended but it made me laugh.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 01:40 PM
Things have slowed down recently.

What are you Loknar, anyway? Your sig implies you're a very slightly leftist... so what got you restricted?
I consider my self to be a centrist. I know my views have changed somewhat over time but I did vote for Bush and I'm a neo con when it comes to foreign policy.


BU ton the other hand I am very pro-union, believe in limited social welfare promote small business.

My foreign policy stance probably doest make me the perfect candidate. Aside from that I wouldnt consider my self to be liberal, socialist or communist.

[truthaddict11]

:) im still here

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:54 AM
I was wondering why it was so quiet around here.
I think this place died down once Stormin' Norman, Dark Capitalist, Tkinter1, vox and peaccenicked all left or were banned. It has just never been as fun since then, I don't think it ever will be either.

[Nyder]

I'm still around. But I'm not going to debate on capitalism anymore. I consider myself an anarchist, meaning I think all associations between people should be voluntarily, unless one commits agression against the other. The property issue can resolve itself. As long as there is no government, I'm happy.

[Publius]

I'm still around. But I'm not going to debate on capitalism anymore. I consider myself an anarchist, meaning I think all associations between people should be voluntarily, unless one commits agression against the other. The property issue can resolve itself. As long as there is no government, I'm happy.

Voluntary defined how so?

Capitalism is purely voluntary.

[Goatse]

Why are you restricted then, Nyder? Or have you changed?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:13 AM
Capitalism is purely voluntary.
No it isn't. Private property is enforced by state violence.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:13 AM

I'm still around. But I'm not going to debate on capitalism anymore. I consider myself an anarchist, meaning I think all associations between people should be voluntarily, unless one commits agression against the other. The property issue can resolve itself. As long as there is no government, I'm happy.

Voluntary defined how so?

Capitalism is purely voluntary.
Voluntary as in without coercion or threat of coercion (extortion). However people wish to interact is fine by me, as long as no one decides to use violence or threat of violence against me. Especially not institutionalised violence which is the essence of our state capitalist system.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:11 PM
:) im still here
Were you the one who changed form an Anarchsit to a Capitalist?

[Publius]

No it isn't. Private property is enforced by state violence.

How so?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:00 PM


No it isn't. Private property is enforced by state violence.

How so?
Ever tried to hold a protest on Private or corporate property?

[Publius]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 3 2006, 05:27 PM



Ever tried to hold a protest on Private or corporate property?

Ever tried to punch someone in the face?

Ever tried to murder someone?

Damn state violence, preventing me from commiting wonton destruction!

[Publius]

Voluntary as in without coercion or threat of coercion (extortion).

Which of course is arbitrarily defined by you and your ilk.

It's like a fascist saying he supports 'pure freedom' and 'voluntary exchange' by saying Fascism is 'purely voluntary' by obfuscating and changing the definition.

The only 'coercion' that exists is created by you in an attempt to purvey your form of social restriction.



However people wish to interact is fine by me, as long as no one decides to use violence or threat of violence against me.

Welcome to capitalism!



Especially not institutionalised violence which is the essence of our state capitalist system.

Eh?

[Rummy Deuce]

I'm new here and this may sound presumptuous, but could you define "institutionalized violence" and explain how it is the "essence" of state capitalism?

Second, is capitalism actually state sanctioned? It is a free market system that is for the most part independent of government except for regulatory issues and taxes.

[Loknar]

No system you're born into is voluntary.

Communism capitaliam or anarchism...

If you're born into a sysem already in place there is nothing you can really do about it unless overthrow it. But then you're enforcing it on others who dont want it.

Nothing will ever be perfect for everyone.

[Rummy Deuce]

One could move to a nation which more closely supports their ideology.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Rummy [email protected] 3 2006, 10:12 PM
One could move to a nation which more closely supports their ideology.
Ask anyone who truly believes in anything different, most examples are very similar. It isn't that straight foward for everyone either, many users being younger, or workers suffereing geographical immobillity.

[Rummy Deuce]

"Geographical immobility" is only as restraining as your resolve.

[Enragé]

and the ability to live without food, shelter, water

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Rummy [email protected] 3 2006, 07:36 PM
I'm new here and this may sound presumptuous, but could you define "institutionalized violence" and explain how it is the "essence" of state capitalism?

Second, is capitalism actually state sanctioned? It is a free market system that is for the most part independent of government except for regulatory issues and taxes.
You can't have a system where a handful of people controll the vast majority of people without ways of enforcing that minority control. In capitalism, force is necissary in order to "protect property ownership". People like Pubus say that employment is a voluntary arrangement, but that only works as long as workers voluntarily accept the terms laid our by the bosses. Just look at the Transit strike in NYC. The workers wanted to work with a different mutal agreement and the city bosses and government used the force of the law and everything else at their disposal to break the action by workers.

The strikers were fined and threatened with jail time. Ok, so is that jsut because they broke the law and so on? Well why is the law set up like that? Why do we have the taft-heartly act if capitalism is mutual and voluntary?

As for the question of the neutrality of the state: well we just saw the state threaten to jail strikers for not coming to a contract with their bosses? Can you find me one example of when the state fired a bunch of CEOs (like it interviened and did with air traffic controllers) because they couldn't come to an agreement with striking workers?

Or look at the example of the dockworkers who wern't even striking when Bush said that he would send the nationakl gaurd down to the docks and force the longshoremen to work without a contract.

Any violence against employers such as solidarity strikes or wildcat strikes are illegal while all the daily violence against workers done by their bosses such as lay-offs and so on is perfectly legal; therefore the claims that capitalism is a "mutual" and voluntary arrangement just don''t hold up.