Virginia apologizes for slavery... why?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are what they are. People should be given the opportunity to pursue their own talents and interests to some capacity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you believe that give it to them. Nobody is stopping you.

Are you suggesting that other people be *forced* to provide these opportunities?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this discussion is starting to go beyond the scope of this thread, so I'm going to start a new one.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All bank robbers are human. That doesn't mean all humans are bank robbers.

[/ QUOTE ] The people protesting the power of corporations (your own images, kindly provided) were not protesting against monopolies; they were smashing the windows of Starbucks because they disagree with what they do as a corporate entity, in impunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too! But regardless, this makes no difference. We weren't talking about their motivation, just a goal - in this case, the removal of legal protections corporations enjoy. I'm all for getting rid of that.

[ QUOTE ]
So, plenty clear : Not all corporations are monopolies; most corporations, if not every one of 'em, are hated by anti-capitalists, i.e. people who will stone you if you start going on about yer "free market"!..

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. There are people who oppose US action in Iraq because they like peace, and there are those who oppose US action in Iraq because they're pulling for the other side. But they both oppose US action in Iraq.

Are you going to make a point, or are you just riffing?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a monopoly on my labor. I am not incorporated.

[/ QUOTE ]That is not a monopoly - and you (should) know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it, then? I have exclusive control over that resource. What is a monopoly?

[ QUOTE ]
You accuse me of "moving the goalposts" and now you change the meaning of the very word on me!

Let me guess -- you are also a walking monopsony. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not an exclusive buyer of anything. I *might* be the only one willing to entertain your ramblings, but I'm not buying them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Corporations (as we know and love them) do not exist in a free market.

[/ QUOTE ]Then I guess we do not have a free market anywhere in the world

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't. Has anyone actually claimed that we do?

[ QUOTE ]
except in the fevered imagination of some Austrian aficionados of spherical cows and their stubborn acolytes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you were right. Then you had to keep talking. You just cant' stop, can you? Plenty of people can imagine a free market. Your textbooks are full of examples. Most of them are not written by Austrians.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've claimed that monopolies (in a meaningful sense) are unachievable without state intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]You mean that, without laws, there would never be a commercial transaction between individuals without starting from zero every time. No laws, no rules, no regulations, no ..monopolies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your favorite strawman. Debunked, shredded, burned at the stake thousands of times, but you keep rebuilding it.

Yes, without the state, people will have to rediscover fire every morning. They will have to invent a telephone from scratch before every phone call. They will have to grown their own wheat, mill their own flour, bake their own bread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've also claimed that it's possible to achieve very high market share in a free market (theoretically 100% is possible) but the only way to do so (without using coercive force, of course) is by actually serving customers better than anyone else can.

[/ QUOTE ]And this will be done without forming a corporation but by acting as a lone individual, who has mastered some sort of far-reaching, persistent, competitive advantage?

[/ QUOTE ]

False dichotomy 101. Did you know that cooperation, division of labor, all of that good stuff is possible without the legal construct we know as the US-style corporation?



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why am I moving the goalposts?


[/ QUOTE ] Your original statement didn't specify any "significant percentage" criteria.

[/ QUOTE ] I cannot clarify something without "moving the goalposts"?? Look like you have a problem when your opposite number does not take the BS lying down. Some anarchist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree, you're not "taking" any BS, you're shipping it out. In quantity.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you ever "elect" such a thing?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
But I do not agitate against this situation,

[/ QUOTE ]So *you* don't mind, so it's OK to impose upon everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ] No, pay attention now: I did not vote for it, but I tacitly agreed to it. Moreover, I did NOT impose it on anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

You pay attention. I didn't say YOU imposed it. I asked if you thought it was OK for it to be imposed.

Reminder: We've already established that you were being untruthful when you said people elect this stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
Those who have elected to participate in such a tyrannical group of people tacitly accept the situation, again, by not doing anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Those living under Saddam's rule were tacitly accepting. Slaves in the Confederacy were tacitly accepting.

These people were tacitly accepting their fate, since they made no move to stop it:



[ QUOTE ]
You say "mob rule!", I say "Do something about it or shut up".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the ultimate expression of might makes right. If you cannot overthrow those who impose upon you, it's your own fault.

Perhaps you should consider a career as a victim counsellor.

[ QUOTE ]
And the only way that you could do something about it and not find the likes of me opposing you (me, the citizen, and not just the state) is by going about it in a democratic, rather than an authoritarian, one-man-rule, kinda way...

[/ QUOTE ]

My proposal is the ultimate opposite to authoritiarianism.

If some party is telling you what to do, and using force to coerce you to do it, what difference does it make if it is one person or 50,000 people?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, this was merely an expression of boredom with your sophistry and avoidance of a simple yes or no answer. You've answered, I'm satisfied.

[/ QUOTE ]But I'm not! Don't leave me this way... Are you gonna "do something about it" or not? Are you gonna demonstrate, and smash a window or two, and throw rocks, or are you gonna sit on your ass debating about AC on the computer all day? Yes or No?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see smashing stuff and throwing rocks as very effective techniques.

Since you're preemptively limited "doing something" to physical, violent revolt, then the answer is no.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you're gonna "do something about it", please explain the non-authoritarian, non-coercive way you will achieve your aims.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think my aims are? My primary goal right now is to expose you for the clumsy intellectual con-artist you are. I am pretty satisfied with my progress so far.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people protesting the power of corporations were not protesting against monopolies; they were smashing the windows of Starbucks because they disagree with what they do as a corporate entity, in impunity.

[/ QUOTE ] We weren't talking about their motivation, just a goal - in this case, the removal of legal protections corporations enjoy. I'm all for getting rid of that.

[/ QUOTE ]Like I said, we agree on this, as in most things in your OP which I commented upon. The rest is your usual and unfortunate flights of fancy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not all corporations are monopolies; most corporations, if not every one of 'em, are hated by anti-capitalists, i.e. people who will stone you if you start going on about yer "free market"!..

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. There are people who oppose US action in Iraq because they like peace, and there are those who oppose US action in Iraq because they're pulling for the other side. But they both oppose US action in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ] Oh the fact that there are people railing against corporations for being corporations has been established many posts ago. If you thought I claimed such people don't exist, I should have made it clearer, earlier: They do exist. I didn't expect such obstinacy on your part, so I didn't.

Intentions matter, pal. People who protest against Starbucks because they prefer the other coffee brand are not to be viewed the same way as the Genoa crowd. Liberals protesting an Israeli policy for being brutal are not to be treated the same as neo-Nazis protesting that policy on account of being a a policy of Jews. Your Iraq "example" sucks, can you see why?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to make a point, or are you just riffing?

[/ QUOTE ]It's understandable that you wouldn't notice, what with all the mental acrobatics. The point is this: You are a capitalist - of the anarchist kind. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] You are, at the same time, trying to pretend you are sharing some values with the people that protest the power of corporations and monopolies - and capitalism itself. Well, this is hypocrisy - or self-deception.

Either you are a capitalist or an anti-capitalist.

Labelling yourself, as those Austrian charlatans would have it, an anarcho-capitalist does not make you both.

Choose your circus act.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a monopoly on my labor. I am not incorporated.

[/ QUOTE ]That is not a monopoly - and you (should) know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it, then? I have exclusive control over that resource. What is a monopoly?

[/ QUOTE ] A monopoly is an entity that has exclusive control over a resource. Your personal, individual labor is a resource only in the most strict meaning of the term. Someone who has usurped the power over the individual labor of a thousand women cleaning ladies, cannot seriously be said to lord over a thousand monopolies.

Perhaps whimsically or in a poetic mood. Which is it, with you? (I'd say too that a trickster would try to do this, but I trust your good intentions in this thread... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[ QUOTE ]
Plenty of people can imagine a free market. Your textbooks are full of examples. Most of them are not written by Austrians.

[/ QUOTE ]I beg to differ. I'd go as far as to claim that the vast majority of capitalists in the world would proclaim quite readily that we have free market capitalism in the United States and in most western democracies. I'm not arguing in favor or against capitalism here; I'm just copying down what the capitalists themselves are saying about their favorite system of political economy. You wanna wax forth about a capitalism without corporations and state laws [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] -- you are quite entitled to. It's a free country.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, without the state, people will have to rediscover fire every morning. They will have to invent a telephone from scratch before every phone call. They will have to grown their own wheat, mill their own flour, bake their own bread.

[/ QUOTE ]Forget the "state"; try the community of men. Without the law-making, self-regulating community of men (that is laws common for all, to you), yes.

Cry "mob rule" as loud as you can; it impresses the young, libertarian capitalists around here no end. Cite the Austrian pseudo-philosophers to your heart's content; no matter. The fact remains that Man is not an island and the history of Man shows this, from the get-go. You want to re-cast Man as a stand-alone entity, without restraints from the will of others, without the need for co-habitation, an entity without necessary restraint of individual will on account of communal living; well, happy trails and be sure to drop bread crumbs behind you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did not vote for [having corporations around], but I tacitly agreed to it. Moreover, I did NOT impose it on anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say YOU imposed it. I asked if you thought it was OK for it to be imposed.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, this is the agreement we enter into when we agree to live in a democracy. And you would be correct to start a side discussion about when did you agree to live in one! But this is where we circle all the way back to the old and sturdy "Do something about it, then!"

"Or GTF out".

[ QUOTE ]
We've already established that you were being untruthful when you said people elect this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]You are being inaccurate, but perhaps unintentionally. (See? I can be kind.) I did not say "elect" in the sense that people explicitly asked to be abused. But I stand fully by my contention that people who do not want something, either do something about it, or they can be assumed to have no objection to it, yes. And you can take this to the bank -- or your shrink. (I'm serious.)

So I don't know what the hell you think you have "established" there. Must be some fancy new establishment.

[ QUOTE ]
Those living under Saddam's rule were tacitly accepting. Slaves in the Confederacy were tacitly accepting.

[/ QUOTE ] Hey, do not get too silly, or I lose interest.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see smashing stuff and throwing rocks as very effective techniques. Since you're pre-emptively limited "doing something" to physical, violent revolt, then the answer is no.

[/ QUOTE ]Alright. What is the answer then??

[ QUOTE ]
My proposal is the ultimate opposite to authoritarianism. If some party is telling you what to do, and using force to coerce you to do it, what difference does it make if it is one person or 50,000 people?

[/ QUOTE ]A difference of an order of 50,000. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But I am curious about your "ultimate opposite to authoritarianism". So, ultimate question coming up! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Are you ever gonna answer it straightforwardly, or will we have another round of evasion ?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> If you're gonna "do something about it", please explain the non-authoritarian, non-coercive way you will achieve your aims.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
My primary goal is to expose you for the clumsy intellectual con-artist you are.

[/ QUOTE ]Cut the phoney bragging and answer the question. I submit that you cannot answer it without contradicting yourself.

Come on, jump.

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
These people were tacitly accepting their fate, since they made no move to stop it : [Image of Waco burning]

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows up a kind of convoluted understanding of history. Please realize that the Waco crowd did, in fact, protest and prepare themselves (as much as possible) against their portrayal by the gov't as dangerous murdering insurrectionists and against the imminent assault of gov't troops. You presume to be on their side, yet you soil their memory.

wikipedia entry

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]

The point is this: You are a capitalist - of the anarchist kind. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] You are, at the same time, trying to pretend you are sharing some values with the people that protest the power of corporations and monopolies - and capitalism itself. Well, this is hypocrisy - or self-deception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. I *DO* share "some values" with those people. I protest corporations and immoral monopolies.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say assume they think murder is bad, too. I share that value as well.

Did you know it is possible to agree on some things and disagree on others?

[ QUOTE ]
Either you are a capitalist or an anti-capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually it's you accusing me of black-and-white binary thinking. But some anti-captialists can still be against particular implementation details of statism. You're either a statist or an antistatist, but not all statists are members of the Kim Jong-Il fan club.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a monopoly on my labor. I am not incorporated.

[/ QUOTE ]That is not a monopoly - and you (should) know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it, then? I have exclusive control over that resource. What is a monopoly?

[/ QUOTE ] A monopoly is an entity that has exclusive control over a resource. Your personal, individual labor is a resource only in the most strict meaning of the term.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it's a resource I have a monopoly on. Earlier you said I was redefining words, now you're irritated that I'm following the book too closely? Choose your circus act (to use the parlance of our times).

[ QUOTE ]
Someone who has usurped the power over the individual labor of a thousand women cleaning ladies, cannot seriously be said to lord over a thousand monopolies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure where you're going with this obvious strawman. If Pre-1984 AT&amp;T (a monopoly if there ever was one) bought, say, the Venezuelan phone company, you'd have a monopoly lording over another monopoly. At that point, the Venezuelan company no longer has the monopoly on phone service in Venezuela, AT&amp;T does. If you enslave Mr. X, Mr. X doesn't have a monopoly on his labor, you do. So your'e not "lording over a monopoly", you *are* the monopoly.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd go as far as to claim that the vast majority of capitalists in the world would proclaim quite readily that we have free market capitalism in the United States and in most western democracies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people also proclaim quite readily that evolution is a crock and creationism is how humans came to be. Is the truth a matter for popularity contests?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not arguing in favor or against capitalism here; I'm just copying down what the capitalists themselves are saying about their favorite system of political economy. You wanna wax forth about a capitalism without corporations and state laws [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] -- you are quite entitled to. It's a free country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, earlier you said *I* am a capitalist. Now you're using that word to refer to other people. People who have opinions such that I would have to either be hypocritical or self-decieving to pretend to share values with them.

Are you, dare we say it, redefining words?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, without the state, people will have to rediscover fire every morning. They will have to invent a telephone from scratch before every phone call. They will have to grown their own wheat, mill their own flour, bake their own bread.

[/ QUOTE ]Forget the "state"; try the community of men. Without the law-making, self-regulating community of men (that is laws common for all, to you), yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what does the state have to do with that? Oh, wait, it's self-regulating? What is the need for the state, then?

[ QUOTE ]
Cry "mob rule" as loud as you can; it impresses the young, libertarian capitalists around here no end.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the only one who has used that term in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Cite the Austrian pseudo-philosophers to your heart's content; no matter. The fact remains that Man is not an island and the history of Man shows this, from the get-go.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I have said nothing to dispute that. I am pro-cooperation. You've trotted out this same dead horse how many times? In how many threads? One can point out the truth of the state without preferring isolation. One can choose *not* to associate with one person, but can then choose TO associate with another. You really can't get past this? I declined to eat a big mac, but later ate a steak. Is this some sort of insane self-contradiction? I mean, I didn't want to eat! But then I DID eat! Are you pulling the emergency stop handle? Is your world view crashing down around you?

[ QUOTE ]
You want to re-cast Man as a stand-alone entity, without restraints from the will of others, without the need for co-habitation, an entity without necessary restraint of individual will on account of communal living; well, happy trails and be sure to drop bread crumbs behind you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how you arrived at this conclusion. Otherwise, I will feel free to charactarize your postion as wanting to re-cast Man as a bloodthirsty killing machine, without restraints from the will of others.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did not vote for [having corporations around], but I tacitly agreed to it. Moreover, I did NOT impose it on anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say YOU imposed it. I asked if you thought it was OK for it to be imposed.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, this is the agreement we enter into when we agree to live in a democracy. And you would be correct to start a side discussion about when did you agree to live in one! But this is where we circle all the way back to the old and sturdy "Do something about it, then!"

"Or GTF out".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm already out. I'm on my land. You can have your little democracy on your property without the need to impose it upon mine. So, if anyone needs to GTFO, it's those doing the imposing.

But you're right. I'm not doing anything about it. Therefore, the status quo must be justified. The ultimate expression of might makes right. Whatever is, is what should be. Again, I urge you to apply for victim advocate jobs. This is exactly what victims need to hear. "You got mugged? You must have consented, since you didn't do anything. Next time if you *really* object you'll stop the mugging."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We've already established that you were being untruthful when you said people elect this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]You are being inaccurate, but perhaps unintentionally. (See? I can be kind.) I did not say "elect" in the sense that people explicitly asked to be abused. But I stand fully by my contention that people who do not want something, either do something about it, or they can be assumed to have no objection to it, yes. And you can take this to the bank -- or your shrink. (I'm serious.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not resisting = consent? Not even our status quo legal system makes such an obviously bogus assumption.

If I get pulled over, and the cop asks me if he can search my vehicle, I will clearly state that I do not consent to such a search. If he then decides that he's going to search anyway, I will continue to state that I am not consenting to such a search, but I will not resist such a search. At this point I feel the government has violated my rights (more than they normally do). He's not going to let me leave, withholding my taxes will have zero postitive effect (and saying something to the effect of "I pay your salary!" is going to make things notably worse for me), and open revolt against the cop's authority is clearly a -EV option.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those living under Saddam's rule were tacitly accepting. Slaves in the Confederacy were tacitly accepting.

[/ QUOTE ] Hey, do not get too silly, or I lose interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too silly? This is your argument you're making fun of here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My proposal is the ultimate opposite to authoritarianism. If some party is telling you what to do, and using force to coerce you to do it, what difference does it make if it is one person or 50,000 people?

[/ QUOTE ]A difference of an order of 50,000. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So how many are required to make it right?

[ QUOTE ]
But I am curious about your "ultimate opposite to authoritarianism". So, ultimate question coming up! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Are you ever gonna answer it straightforwardly, or will we have another round of evasion ?

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> If you're gonna "do something about it", please explain the non-authoritarian, non-coercive way you will achieve your aims.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm achieving them as we speak.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My primary goal is to expose you for the clumsy intellectual con-artist you are.

[/ QUOTE ]Cut the phoney bragging and answer the question. I submit that you cannot answer it without contradicting yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. I asked what you thought my aims are. I told you what my aim is. You obviously think I have some other aim. Until you tell me what you think that aim is, I can't answer your demand for the action plan.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These people were tacitly accepting their fate, since they made no move to stop it : [Image of Waco burning]

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows up a kind of convoluted understanding of history. Please realize that the Waco crowd did, in fact, protest and prepare themselves (as much as possible) against their portrayal by the gov't as dangerous murdering insurrectionists and against the imminent assault of gov't troops. You presume to be on their side, yet you soil their memory.

wikipedia entry

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, no. "preparing" and "protesting" is nothing but a sideshow. They did NOT stop the governemnt. They just burned. Obviously, they consented.

[ShakeZula06]

Entertaining thread guys.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A monopoly is an entity that has exclusive control over a resource. Your personal, individual labor is a resource only in the most strict meaning of the term.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it's a resource I have a monopoly on.

[/ QUOTE ] Only technically -- and you know it. (Otherwise, we can say that you also have a monopoly over the use of your bladder. Have it registered, pronto.)

[ QUOTE ]
If you enslave Mr. X, Mr. X doesn't have a monopoly on his labor, you do. So you're not "lording over a monopoly", you *are* the monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ] A monopoly has, by definition, a certain excess power over a resource , a power which affects a multitude of people. A single individual (unless that individual possesses some kind of unique, humankind-saving capability) cannot, by restraining or withholding or manipulating his individual labor, negatively affect too many people --besides his family, perhaps, or his co-workers. His line of work (e.g. a trust fund manager lording over some nifty billions) can be affecting lots of people through the deployment of his capital, but the nature, the content of one's labor or the uses of capital are not at issue here. The issue is individual labor as such.

And since most people are usually replaceable in their lines of work, your whole effort in this thread to twist the meaning of "monopoly" to encompass in it individual labor is shown up to be utterly, utterly silly.

Here is what's happenin' here: You are trying to use capitalist terminology to re-phrase a strictly marxist interpretation of labor. If you state that a person's individual labor should be that person's exclusive affair to dispense with, <u>we totally agree</u>, you and me. But if you try to squeeze the description of this basic human right into a terminology about "monopoly power", then I'm heckling you to get off stage. You're not funny.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm already out. I'm on my land. You can have your little democracy on your property without the need to impose it upon mine.

[/ QUOTE ] Lucky you, then. (And let us look at that flag design. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

I guess the solution for us poor, land-less city couls is to sign up for more tomes by Austrian economists and tune in the net for more instructions about escaping the state. Avoid elections and other forms of mob rule, at any cost, though. Ah well.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're gonna "do something about it", please explain the non-authoritarian, non-coercive way you will achieve your aims.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm achieving them as we speak.

[/ QUOTE ] So, it's strictly debate and enlightment, then, is it? Alright. Please explain the proper response of an ACer when the long arm of state law comes a-calling to confiscate yer precious land. Under some pretext or other.

You already said that "throwing rocks" and "smashing windows" is a no-no. Therefore, physical resistance is out. So is, presumably, any recource to the state's legal system - since it's a manifestation of state tyranny. Which leaves you with ..what? I'm all ears.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The point is this: You are a capitalist - of the anarchist kind. You are, at the same time, trying to pretend you are sharing some values with the people that protest the power of corporations and monopolies - and capitalism itself. Well, this is hypocrisy - or self-deception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. I *DO* share "some values" with those people. I protest corporations and immoral monopolies. Did you know it is possible to agree on some things and disagree on others?

[/ QUOTE ] Then I guess we'll just have to fathom your beliefs on every issue as we go along. You're a capitalist that believes in the ultimate power of capital and the absolute efficiency of the free hand of the free market -- but there is no free market anywhere in the world. You're an anarchist -- but you resent a Sklanskyan destitute who's robbing the richest man on earth to feed his children. And so on.

This is a worse torture than I bargained for but what the hell. Multitabling is not an alternative.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either you are a capitalist or an anti-capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]Some anti-capitalists can still be against particular implementation details of statism. You're either a statist or an antistatist, but not all statists are members of the Kim Jong-Il fan club.

[/ QUOTE ] Good point. Yet there is no clue as to what kind/shade of capitalism you are fond of. Perhaps another twirl of Rothbard will provide a hint. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Choose your circus act.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm considering how tough it would be to follow yours, actually.

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[sarcastically] "Preparing" and "protesting" is nothing but a sideshow. [The Waco residents] did NOT stop the governemnt. They just burned. Obviously, they consented.

[/ QUOTE ]Misplaced sarcasm on your part. (Again, neither respect for those what got killed in Waco, nor shame.) The Waco residents both protested and "tried to stop the government", as best as they could. They obviously, explicitly did not consent.

And they certainly did not elect to concentrate in pseudo-Socratic debatin' in order to "do something about it".

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Entertaining thread guys.

[/ QUOTE ]We'll be on all week.