|
|
#31
11-13-2007, 12:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] How does one tribe appropriate resources without the consent of another tribe? How do two separate tribes live in harmony with two separate ways of managing resources and social order? [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Thats pretty much what im saying. Another interesting product of socialism, even if imposed among all humans, is the implication that humans have the rights to the private resources of the world. Wouldn't socialist humans need the consent of possible aliens or even other earth species before using resources? 
|
|
#32
11-13-2007, 01:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
Would you call an anarchist who doesn't believe in property rights? Such a person would definitely not be an acist. [/ QUOTE ] An anarchist who doesnt believe in property rights is void of a means of getting his way. He must become a statist in order to see his goals satisfied. The only other way for him to practice socialism without being a statist is to live under the umbrella of an anarcho-capitalist society and start or join a kibbutz something of the sort.
|
|
#33
11-13-2007, 01:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] You mean statists. Anarcho-capitalists gain wealth through voluntary trade. They only use force in self-defense. [ QUOTE ] An anarchistic system of government (lol), would simply create a power vacuum for individual actors to fill and impose their will on the people. [/ QUOTE ] See... you can't even say this without calling it a government. A society where people impose their will on others through non-voluntary means is a state. [ QUOTE ] The idea that somehow these individuals would work to the betterment of society instead of their own gains is foolish and ignorant. [/ QUOTE ] Can you expand this point? im not sure what you mean relative to this debate?
|
|
#34
11-13-2007, 01:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] How does one tribe appropriate resources without the consent of another tribe? [/ QUOTE ] By doing so? I'm not sure where you're going. Typically they are occupying differing geographical regions. [ QUOTE ] How do two separate tribes live in harmony with two separate ways of managing resources and social order? [/ QUOTE ] Well often they didn't. But when they did, it was typically by adopting a "lowest common denominator" subset of social norms shared by both cultures for interactions. [ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Thats pretty much what im saying. Another interesting product of socialism, even if imposed among all humans, is the implication that humans have the rights to the private resources of the world. Wouldn't socialist humans need the consent of possible aliens or even other earth species before using resources? [/ QUOTE ] I think you are using an unusual definition of socialism. There is nothing about socialism that requires the participation of all human beings.
|
|
#35
11-13-2007, 01:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
ill leave it at this.
socialism implies the non-existence of capitalism while capitalism does not imply the non-existence of socialism. this will tend to result in socialism needing an iron fist to persist while anarcho-capitalism can have many different ways of life and uses of resources without imploding.
|
|
#36
11-13-2007, 01:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
I know that anarcho-capitalism isn’t equivalent to zero taxes, but consider, prior to 1776, Americans were the least taxed people in the world, but per capita, we were the richest people in the world. We were taxed at the rate of one schilling per year per person, and the typical unskilled laborer made 5 schillings a day.
When the British invaded America in the late 1700's, the Generals as well as the enlisted army men were amazed at the affluence of the Americans. Americans were flat out wealthy by British standards. For 200 years, America had prospered under a yoke of hardly any tax. We could have easily paid off our debt to the British for the French and Indian war, but the British were bully’s - standing outside our churches and shouting profanities, not recognizing the efforts of our officers in the French and Indian War, and mostly by trying to force our merchants to buy and sell products only to England. 1776 Taxes paid
|
|
#37
11-13-2007, 01:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Would you call an anarchist who doesn't believe in property rights? Such a person would definitely not be an acist. [/ QUOTE ] An anarchist who doesnt believe in property rights is void of a means of getting his way. He must become a statist in order to see his goals satisfied. [/ QUOTE ] One could just as easily say: "An anarchist who does believe in property rights is void of a means of getting his way. He must become a statist in order to see his goals satisfied." Both of these statements seem true to many who support the opposite sides, but both are completely false. To both, the other side is the one initiating force and because of the nature of belief, they are both completely correct in believing that. The fact is that in any kind of anarchist society where these two beliefs exist in a significant portion of the population, which they both do, they will have to find a means to compromise or collapse into statism, regardless of which one would be dominant.
|
|
#38
11-13-2007, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
ill leave it at this. socialism implies the non-existence of capitalism while capitalism does not imply the non-existence of socialism. this will tend to result in socialism needing an iron fist to persist while anarcho-capitalism can have many different ways of life and uses of resources without imploding. [/ QUOTE ] As a 19th century philosopher noted, (to paraphrase) "Under laissez faire, all other systems may be tried, but under no other system may laissez fair be tried."
|
|
#39
11-13-2007, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ill leave it at this. socialism implies the non-existence of capitalism while capitalism does not imply the non-existence of socialism. this will tend to result in socialism needing an iron fist to persist while anarcho-capitalism can have many different ways of life and uses of resources without imploding. [/ QUOTE ] As a 19th century philosopher noted, (to paraphrase) "Under laissez faire, all other systems may be tried, but under no other system may laissez fair be tried." [/ QUOTE ] lovely quote. Much clearer than my statements. I feel like i've heard it before, in fact, however, i just can't recall who was responsible for the wise words.
|
|
#40
11-13-2007, 02:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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? [/ QUOTE ] How did governments start in the first place?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
