by Real Sperland » Thu Mar 31, 2016 11:34 am
by Dalaen » Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:56 pm
by Trotterdam » Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:47 pm
by Our Town Restored » Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:52 pm
Trotterdam wrote:I find it confusing how there can exist both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists. They can't both be right.
How are two nations supposed to be able to follow opposite ideologies when neither has any organized government capable of motivating people to act in any particular way?
by Trotterdam » Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:07 pm
Oh hey, you're that guy! Not often I meet the same people on the forum as I do on RMBs.Our Town Restored wrote:Clearly because they don't want a FULL (actual) anarchy, but rather their romanticization of anarchy. More an illusion of anarchy, with a government still in place.
How there could be even an illusion of anarchy with a government baffles me.
by New Sperland » Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:44 am
Dalaen wrote:Dear Real Sperland,
True Anarchy is Freedom of Economy, Freedom of Politics and Freedom of Civil rights. Anarchy is Neo-Liberalism. No government. No state. You do not get to decide how someone else engages with the economy or trades with each other, because you are anarchistic.
Libertarian Collectivism, envisioned as a voluntary sharing of wealth is mimicked under "Left Wing Utopia or Civil Rights LovefestSource, these are high in Political Freedoms and Civil Freedoms, but voluntarily deny themselves Economic freedoms. Voluntarily agreeing to share means voluntarily agreeing not to trade freely.
I hope this clears up a misunderstanding that Left Wing Anarchy is not represented. In this system voluntary restrictions are counted as if they were legal restrictions.
Yours Sincerely,
Dalaen
Trotterdam wrote:I find it confusing how there can exist both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists. They can't both be right.
How are two nations supposed to be able to follow opposite ideologies when neither has any organized government capable of motivating people to act in any particular way?
Our Town Restored wrote:Trotterdam wrote:I find it confusing how there can exist both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists. They can't both be right.
How are two nations supposed to be able to follow opposite ideologies when neither has any organized government capable of motivating people to act in any particular way?
Clearly because they don't want a FULL (actual) anarchy, but rather their romanticization of anarchy. More an illusion of anarchy, with a government still in place.
How there could be even an illusion of anarchy with a government baffles me.
Trotterdam wrote:Oh hey, you're that guy! Not often I meet the same people on the forum as I do on RMBs.Our Town Restored wrote:Clearly because they don't want a FULL (actual) anarchy, but rather their romanticization of anarchy. More an illusion of anarchy, with a government still in place.
How there could be even an illusion of anarchy with a government baffles me.
Like I said once back on your RMB: what we really need is some anarcho-totalitarianists.
by Dalaen » Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:32 am
The Dictionary.com wrote:Anarchy Noun
1. A state of society without government or law
The Dictionary.com wrote:Socialism Noun
1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Aeschylus wrote:Neither a life of anarchy nor one beneath a despot should you praise; to all that lies in the middle a god has given excellence.
by New Sperland » Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:40 am
Dalaen wrote:Dear New Sperland,
We have read your response and considered it at length. We cannot agree with the idea that Anarchism is a form of "Socialism" as it is strictly not about having any centralization, no leader, no authority, no government. The current definition of the word Anarchy is as follows:The Dictionary.com wrote:Anarchy Noun
1. A state of society without government or law
The current definition of the world Socialism is as follows:The Dictionary.com wrote:Socialism Noun
1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
The current theory of State Function are concisely demonstrated in this wikipedia article. Anarchism does not promote any form of equality, there is no assumption that everyone is equal, only that everyone is equally free to commit violence as they please without fear of retribution from a form of government. Should violence be permitted by anyone against anyone due to the absence of the rule of law, then logically, any one could under their own steam form a business and use immoral practices in order to gain an advantage, due to the absence of government there would be no one to tell them otherwise. Gangs are common place in states that have fallen into Anarchy examples can be shown anywhere where the Government has fallen. Libya for example is a recent example of a nation falling into anarchy, though we believe it is not currently in anarchy as the people follow an alternative.
Anarcho-Capitalism is different from Anarchy, in so much that Social and Political laws still exist, but laws regulating the economy do not. We do not equate Neo-liberalism with Anarcho-Capitalism however this may be a mistake on our part. However Anarchy is the absence of the rule of law, utterly libertarian and utterly free market. Social, Political and Economic as we indicated in our previous message. Truly Anarchistic societies given the above definitions typically do not last for very long at all.
We take your consideration that Anarchism is anti-capitalistic, however Capitalism in many regards is considered to be "Free Market thinking" or Libertarian Economic ideals. We have not seen any articles that suggest Capitalism is about oppression of economic forces, quite the contrary.
In an "Anarchistic" society, anyone is free to do as they wish, whether that be the Rich choosing to get richer, whether that be gangs terrorizing the neighbourhood or a religious cult sacrificing your nearest and dearest for the glory of Violet. To say otherwise is to ignore centuries of thought about what it is to be an Anarchy or without government, without the rule of law.
We shall leave you with a quote by Aeschylus,Aeschylus wrote:Neither a life of anarchy nor one beneath a despot should you praise; to all that lies in the middle a god has given excellence.
Yours Sincerely,
Dalaen
by Dalaen » Fri Apr 01, 2016 8:00 am
by Ratateague » Fri Apr 01, 2016 8:48 am
by Trotterdam » Fri Apr 01, 2016 8:53 am
Anarchy is the effective complete lack of laws, because there is no government capable of enforcing any laws. This includes economic laws. Without laws, people will do as they wish, and wealth will accumulate in those who can earn it through their own ruthlessness, without regard for whether they "deserve" it.New Sperland wrote:Anarcho-Capitalism is not anarchism. To suggest it is is the biggest lie I have ever heard. Anarchism is a form of Socialism. Everyone equal. In an anarchic society everything would decentralized. In a capitalistic society the rich would be free to get even richer, they would be able to create there own private armies. Then they could crush anyone who doesn't do what they say, therefore it is a dictatorship. Anarchism is anti-capitalistic, to suggest it is not is a lie.
If participation in the organizations is voluntary, then the rich people who would be more benefitted by exploiting capitalism are not going to cooperate, making them useless. If participation in the organizations is not voluntary, then they're governments.New Sperland wrote:They wouldn't have a government, anarchists have created organizations to organize communities. To say you couldn't organize communities is absurd.
Someone doesn't have a sense of humor.New Sperland wrote:Anarcho-totalitarianism would leave the rich to do whatever they want creating a dictatorship. Why would't they? They are corrupted by huge amounts of money. They would want more.
Anarcho-Capitalism is highly hypocritical.
In an anarchy, all land would be owned by whoever can seize and defend it by force of arms, because there is nobody capable of enforcing any laws against this.New Sperland wrote:This contradicts your argument. In an anarcho-communist society all the land would be owned by the community as a whole. In an anarcho-Capitalist society it would be owned by one person or COMPANY Think about this.
by Ratateague » Fri Apr 01, 2016 8:58 am
Trotterdam wrote:Anarchy is the effective complete lack of laws, because there is no government capable of enforcing any laws. This includes economic laws. Without laws, people will do as they wish, and wealth will accumulate in those who can earn it through their own ruthlessness, without regard for whether they "deserve" it.
by Trotterdam » Fri Apr 01, 2016 9:08 am
by Bears Armed » Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:02 am
Ratateague wrote:Trotterdam wrote:Anarchy is the effective complete lack of laws, because there is no government capable of enforcing any laws. This includes economic laws. Without laws, people will do as they wish, and wealth will accumulate in those who can earn it through their own ruthlessness, without regard for whether they "deserve" it.
Er, let me stop you right there. Anarchy is the absence of rulers and leaders, by the meaning and the very etymology of the word. Not laws. Many anarchists still advocate for good laws, they just want individual autonomy. In many anarchist schools of thought, laws are achieved by collective enforcement.
by Ratateague » Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:17 am
Bears Armed wrote:Ratateague wrote:Er, let me stop you right there. Anarchy is the absence of rulers and leaders, by the meaning and the very etymology of the word. Not laws. Many anarchists still advocate for good laws, they just want individual autonomy. In many anarchist schools of thought, laws are achieved by collective enforcement.
That isn't "anarchy", it's "participatory democracy".
by New Sperland » Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:36 am
Trotterdam wrote:I said effective complete lack of laws. Without a police and court system capable of enforcing them, they're not laws, they're polite suggestions.
A law against, say, stealing is useless if it applies to everyone in society except for the thieves.
by Ratateague » Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:58 am
New Sperland wrote:Trotterdam wrote:I said effective complete lack of laws. Without a police and court system capable of enforcing them, they're not laws, they're polite suggestions.
A law against, say, stealing is useless if it applies to everyone in society except for the thieves.
There is one obvious law everyone should follow. Do not trespass. if someone murdered someone else, then obviously they should receive a punishment. If they steal something or rape etc. they should obviously be punished. I think we should at least try anarchism. Otherwise we wouldn't know for sure. Anarchy translates from the Greek word 'anarchos' meaning without leader of without government. There should be one obvious law. Do not trespass.
by New Sperland » Fri Apr 01, 2016 11:03 am
Ratateague wrote:New Sperland wrote:There is one obvious law everyone should follow. Do not trespass. if someone murdered someone else, then obviously they should receive a punishment. If they steal something or rape etc. they should obviously be punished. I think we should at least try anarchism. Otherwise we wouldn't know for sure. Anarchy translates from the Greek word 'anarchos' meaning without leader of without government. There should be one obvious law. Do not trespass.
I whole-heartedly disagree. A law against trespassing of that nature involves a heavy dose of propertarianism. Natural Law only goes so far as what is guaranteed to a person, especially where Lockean Proviso is involved. Besides, trespassing is harmless. Who is the victim? Broken twigs? By hoarding land, you rob others of the opportunity to experience beauty.
by Analeuthocosia » Fri Apr 01, 2016 5:35 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Lumaterra, Sunday and Saturday
Advertisement