moved again, this time to OI Learning
Results 121 to 140 of 204
So it's not crony-capitalism? Alrighty.
Are we really that rigid in our views that we need to constantly assert our opinions even in grammar with the use of quotations in "Anarchist"-Capitalist? I get that by your definition and many like you, a capitalist can't be an Anarchist. AnCaps feel likewise toward AnComs. It just seems over the top. I'm by no means offended but I felt it was worth mentioning. It kind of devalues the discussion.
Nobody said theft wouldn't occur under a free market. What's to stop theft is risk of personal injury among other things. And no that would not be carried out by a ruler in any form.
moved again, this time to OI Learning
Freedom before Peace
I don't think it has anything to do with definitions of words, the fact is that through the use of the word anarchist you're trying to associate yourself with an already existing political philosophy and movement that is directly opposed to the capitalist mode of production and thus your form of liberalism and that's what your philosophy is; a form of laissez-faire liberalism.
This is my conclusion on this topic that I wrote in my notebook today. Also bare in mind that im mostly just playing devils advocate here rather then trying to justify my personal beliefs. Im up in the air on my economic ideology still.
"An Anarchist-Communist and an Anarchist-Capitalist are incapable of engaging in a debate on Anarchism. That's because they are speaking two different languages. They more or less both agree that the definition of Anarchism is "Without Rulers". However an AnCom views the existence of private property as having rulers and seeks to abolish it. An AnCap views private property as an inalienable right and any collective attack on it would be a form of ruler. Both ideologies require a ruler from the standpoint of the other. There is no debate to be had between them."
History of the term and left vs right aside, the definition is generally agreed upon.
It'd probably be better to understand anarchism as an opposition to hierarchy. It's a political philosophy dedicated to the pursuit of social, economic and political equality. Yet this is besides the point, the point is you're trying to associate yourself with something that is antithetical to what you advocate. Why do it? Don't you see the absurdity of it?
Do you say this purely because the history of the terms usage? Because history aside(one way or the other) the definition pretty much seems to meet both ideologies by their individual definition of themselves.
Again im not trying to define myself as an Anarchist today regardless of my economic ideology which I dont have nailed down at this point. I may have come in here claiming anarchist but today im going to avoid a title. I came here to learn regardless of my opinion of the ideology of the forum and thats just what ive done.
I would ask you, hypothetically, how do we maintain a free market and keep it safe from harmful elements that would turn it into the type of system we see now? How would we maintain this "Ferrari"?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
"I will smack your face off of your face"
-Charlie Day
By 'crony-capitalism' you mean 'successful capitalism'. That's what capitalism leads to.
The kind of capitalism you advocate, without corporations, is merely unsuccessful capitalism.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
I personally advocate nothing today. For crony-capitalism to exist a government must exist. By definition a free market will be void of any government.
I LOVE your response brother. Hypothetically(as both true capitalism and communism are at this time) Avoiding ANY common law(which has proven to birth rulers by definition) would be key. I have deemed common law as the big bang theory of government(rulers). The second you implement common law, you have set off the big bang theory of rulers. Without common law a government cannot exist. Within the ideology of AnCap that would mean a ruler cannot exist.
Hypothetically of course.
Last edited by Anti-Archy; 16th June 2014 at 06:47.
The reason I really like Black Cross' post is not because it aids in an opinion im trying to prove, but because I can tell it's an honest question void of any agenda. Just thought id clarify that and give Black cross some Kudos.
Two articles that might interest you, Anti-Archy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
"Crony capitalism", with due respect, is what radical liberals call the economic configuration of any existing capitalist state, so that they can pretend that, no really, "anarcho-capitalism" would be so much better. It reminds me of the tendency of certain "socialist" groups to ritually chant "state capitalism", "German spies" and so on in order to avoid coming to terms with the October Revolution.
It's not a matter of definitions, it's a matter of historic continuity. Anarchists are, and have always been, socialists. Radical liberals using the term "anarchist" makes as much sense as communists using the term "Jacobin".Originally Posted by Anti-Archy
I don't think you realise this, but this would mean that theft would be ubiquitous. Anyone would be free to walk into a factory, for example, shoot the owner (probably after a rentacop-vs.-rentacop battle), and claim ownership of the mill. But this, in turn, means that private property would not exist except as an empty name. Of course, theft happens under capitalism. But it has to be an exception, since the capitalist mode of production rests on the security of private property.Originally Posted by Anti-Archy
All of this is idle speculation, of course, because in any case the chiefs of the largest capitalist entities have no desire for any sort of "anarcho-capitalism" - what they want is statified capitalism, state-backed cartels, trusts, regulatory agencies to influence and so on.
I think by its very nature a free market is not supposed to be maintained. Rather, market forces will minimize what is harmful. This, of course, is based on the assumption that participants in the market are very knowledgeable and think and act rationally.
Can you define common law in this context? Do you mean case-law whereby rulings made by judges interpreting laws create binding precedents or something else? I ask this because if that is the definition you are using then it seems to not really be correct given how there seems to be no correlation between crony capitalism and rulers with the common-law system.
Pink = Countries that use the common law system
Blue = Countries that use the civil law system
Orange = Countries that use the sharia law system
Brown = Countries + states that use a mixture of common and civil law
My second question which applies whether this is the definition you used or not is how would you prevent such a system that creates rulers from occurring in your proposed society?
Last edited by Kingfish; 17th June 2014 at 00:31. Reason: For the benifit of the eyes of revleft users
Actually I learned a little while ago from a friend what the term common law actually means. I was using it incorrectly. I don't know how I was so mislead but I was using the term to mean any law written on paper. That would include any constitutions and beyond. Once people get together and decide to write down a law, its all down hill from there. If there is a term to describe this I would greatly appreciate it if someone could tell me.Can you define common law in this context? Do you mean case-law whereby rulings made by judges interpreting laws create binding precedents or something else? I ask this because if that is the definition you are using then it seems to not really be correct given how there seems to be no correlation between crony capitalism and rulers with the common-law system.
Pink = Countries that use the common law system
Blue = Countries that use the civil law system
Orange = Countries that use the sharia law system
Brown = Countries + states that use a mixture of common and civil law
My second question which applies whether this is the definition you used or not is how would you prevent such a system that creates rulers from occurring in your proposed society?
To answer your second question. The idea would be no laws on paper means nobody officially holds power over any other. Not sure if thats an AnCap theory but its mine.
Since im now unable to post new threads, ill ask here.
If communism considers tools used in production to be private property then wouldn't production based skills be private property in some instances? If I know how to run a lathe then couldn't i exploit others for access to my knowledge just like access to my lathe?
That's why socialist advocate the abolition of all trade secrets.
How can the system possibly abolish whats in someone's mind? Will there simply be penalties for those caught doing something that isn't widely known?
You can post new threads anywhere in the Opposing Ideologies subforum and its subforums. Capitalists are restricted to these forums.
