|
|
#21
11-13-2007, 12:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
i should probably get used to the idea that in this forum anarchism is assumed to mean acism. [/ QUOTE ] anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism implies a one size fits all (statist) solution that must be coercisevly imposed. the very definition of anarchy implies capitalism and private property. There is no other structure that allows for a variety of solutions without a force imposing a one size fits all way of life. 
|
|
#22
11-13-2007, 12:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism either. Do YOU see why? The very concept of anarchy means that free actors can do as they wish, and this includes free trade, mob rule, and buying up/stealing all available land to make socialist communes Let's call it what it is: Anarchy. You support anarchy, period. The "capitalism" addition is just a bit of fluff to dress up a thoroughly debunked and laughed at notion with credible words. gg. [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
|
|
#23
11-13-2007, 12:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Any number of ancient stateless tribes were essentially anarcho-socialist, i.e. there was no state, there was private property in personal goods, but collective ownership of most of the means of production, such as the land itself. [/ QUOTE ] this is like calling my household socialist rather than a reference to the societal structure. The fact that there were more than one tribe proves this point. The tribes divided themselves by means of private property. Different tribes made exchanges with other tribes with their private "social" property too. They were socialist in the same way a a kibbutz is socialist. [/ QUOTE ] They were socialist in that the members collectively owned the factors of production (or at least some of them), which is all that matters. [/ QUOTE ] its not all that matters relative to this debate. this reminds of me of when i hear people talking about universal health care. I say "so you're going to give free health care to everyone in the universe?" They almost always say "no, only to those in our country, why would we use our nations private resources for other people unconditionally?"
|
|
#24
11-13-2007, 12:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism either. Do YOU see why? The very concept of anarchy means that free actors can do as they wish, and this includes free trade, mob rule, and buying up/stealing all available land to make socialist communes Let's call it what it is: Anarchy. You support anarchy, period. The "capitalism" addition is just a bit of fluff to dress up a thoroughly debunked and laughed at notion with credible words. gg. [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] can one of you respond to my response to phil?
|
|
#25
11-13-2007, 12:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i should probably get used to the idea that in this forum anarchism is assumed to mean acism. [/ QUOTE ] anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism implies a one size fits all (statist) solution that must be coercisevly imposed. [/ QUOTE ] You should let this go, because this simply is not correct. This is only correct for a large or technically advanced society. Socialism, including anarcho-socialism, works very well for small tribal groups at an extremely low level of technology. This is true for a few reasons: 1) Peer monitoring can overcome the incentive problem in very small groups, 2) The small size of the group and the primitive level of technology does not lead to an unmanageable number of potential alternative uses for scarce collectively owned resources, and 3) The small size of the group insures a homogeneity of culture that tends to breed agreement about the uses of scarce collectively owned resources. Tribal socialism really is socialism, and stateless tribal socialism really is anarcho-socialism. These are in fact the *only* circumstances underwhich true socialism, collective ownership of the factors of production, anarcho or otherwise, is sustainable.
|
|
#26
11-13-2007, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Any number of ancient stateless tribes were essentially anarcho-socialist, i.e. there was no state, there was private property in personal goods, but collective ownership of most of the means of production, such as the land itself. [/ QUOTE ] this is like calling my household socialist rather than a reference to the societal structure. The fact that there were more than one tribe proves this point. The tribes divided themselves by means of private property. Different tribes made exchanges with other tribes with their private "social" property too. They were socialist in the same way a a kibbutz is socialist. [/ QUOTE ] They were socialist in that the members collectively owned the factors of production (or at least some of them), which is all that matters. [/ QUOTE ] its not all that matters relative to this debate. this reminds of me of when i hear people talking about universal health care. I say "so you're going to give free health care to everyone in the universe?" They almost always say "no, only to those in our country, why would we use our nations private resources for other people unconditionally?" [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying it isn't socialism unless it includes the whole world? Well by that definition, yeah, socialism is impossible.
|
|
#27
11-13-2007, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i should probably get used to the idea that in this forum anarchism is assumed to mean acism. [/ QUOTE ] anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism implies a one size fits all (statist) solution that must be coercisevly imposed. the very definition of anarchy implies capitalism and private property. There is no other structure that allows for a variety of solutions without a force imposing a one size fits all way of life. [/ QUOTE ] The way I understand it is that acists don't mind using force to protect private property, whereas other anarchists believe that people have different individual rights. So it all depends on what rights you believe people should respect. Would you call an anarchist who doesn't believe in property rights? Such a person would definitely not be an acist.
|
|
#28
11-13-2007, 12:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i should probably get used to the idea that in this forum anarchism is assumed to mean acism. [/ QUOTE ] anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism implies a one size fits all (statist) solution that must be coercisevly imposed. the very definition of anarchy implies capitalism and private property. There is no other structure that allows for a variety of solutions without a force imposing a one size fits all way of life. [/ QUOTE ] The problem with this, at a basic level, is that humans throughout our history have tried to gain wealth, power and importance through theft, murder and war. An anarchistic system of government (lol), would simply create a power vacuum for individual actors to fill and impose their will on the people. The idea that somehow these individuals would work to the betterment of society instead of their own gains is foolish and ignorant.
|
|
#29
11-13-2007, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
The way I understand it is that acists don't mind using force to protect private property, whereas other anarchists believe that people have different individual rights. [/ QUOTE ] Anarcho-socialists also believe in using force to protect private property. For example, I doubt you would find too many anarcho-socialists who would argue that a woman could not use force against a rapist. Anarcho-socialists just have a smaller set of what they think should be included in that category.
|
|
#30
11-13-2007, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] i should probably get used to the idea that in this forum anarchism is assumed to mean acism. [/ QUOTE ] anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism implies a one size fits all (statist) solution that must be coercisevly imposed. the very definition of anarchy implies capitalism and private property. There is no other structure that allows for a variety of solutions without a force imposing a one size fits all way of life. [/ QUOTE ] The problem with this, at a basic level, is that humans throughout our history have tried to gain wealth, power and importance through theft, murder and war. An anarchistic system of government (lol), would simply create a power vacuum for individual actors to fill and impose their will on the people. The idea that somehow these individuals would work to the betterment of society instead of their own gains is foolish and ignorant. [/ QUOTE ] Ike, Of the top of your head, who are the richest people throughout history who earned their wealth without massive government intervention?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
