Capitalism vs Communism dosnt matter

[North Suran]

so your comparing the world today to the way it was in the dark ages? I think theres been a few developments since then... like the englightenment?

No.

He's comparing your Utopian fantasy to Feudalism. Because that is what it is essentially is - people being enslaved to other individuals and private companies.

[Bendira]

so your comparing the world today to the way it was in the dark ages? I think theres been a few developments since then... like the englightenment?

No.

He's comparing your Utopian fantasy to Feudalism. Because that is what it is essentially is - people being enslaved to other individuals and private companies.

Until they move to a different area that they want to be in... How would it fall into feudalism? If you dont like your private company that provides protection to you, get a different one.

[North Suran]

so your comparing the world today to the way it was in the dark ages? I think theres been a few developments since then... like the englightenment?

No.

He's comparing your Utopian fantasy to Feudalism. Because that is what it is essentially is - people being enslaved to other individuals and private companies.

Until they move to a different area that they want to be in... How would it fall into feudalism? If you dont like your private company that provides protection to you, get a different one.

And what if your house is tied to the current company? What if your job is tied to the current company? What if you live in a settlement that is dominated by that private company, so that all access is controlled directly by them? What if the private company orders its security men to beat you up for even considering trying to leave?

Don't you just love choice?

[Bendira]

so your comparing the world today to the way it was in the dark ages? I think theres been a few developments since then... like the englightenment?

No.

He's comparing your Utopian fantasy to Feudalism. Because that is what it is essentially is - people being enslaved to other individuals and private companies.

Until they move to a different area that they want to be in... How would it fall into feudalism? If you dont like your private company that provides protection to you, get a different one.

And what if your house is tied to the current company? What if your job is tied to the current company? What if you live in a settlement that is dominated by that private company, so that all access is controlled directly by them? What if the private company orders its security men to beat you up for even considering trying to leave?

Don't you just love choice?

If a corporation restricts its populace like that, the other security firms would destroy them to absorb their unhappy customer base.

[East Fancainia]

BURN THE GOVERNMENT! Do you guys realize how idiotic you guy are? Have you ever seen the movie Escape from New York? That's an anarchy. In truth, there will always be something in some sort of power, claiming some sort of land, etc.

[Self--Esteem]

so your comparing the world today to the way it was in the dark ages? I think theres been a few developments since then... like the englightenment?

No.

He's comparing your Utopian fantasy to Feudalism. Because that is what it is essentially is - people being enslaved to other individuals and private companies.

Until they move to a different area that they want to be in... How would it fall into feudalism? If you dont like your private company that provides protection to you, get a different one.

And what if your house is tied to the current company? What if your job is tied to the current company? What if you live in a settlement that is dominated by that private company, so that all access is controlled directly by them? What if the private company orders its security men to beat you up for even considering trying to leave?

Don't you just love choice?

If a corporation restricts its populace like that, the other security firms would destroy them to absorb their unhappy customer base.

That sounds utopian. Even to me.

[Lackadaisical2]

All of you who say anarchism would be completely un-orderly dont understand the principle of it. It would be completely orderly. Just the military, court systems and police would be owned by private corporations in constant competition with eachother. You would be even safer than you are now, because now you have a massive corrupt corporation with a monopoly on the defense industry who pisses away your money they stole from you with taxes to fund a highly inefficient military. The private sector wouldnt let any of that money slip through the cracks.

oh no, now you called it anarchism *waits for it*

[Bendira]

BURN THE GOVERNMENT! Do you guys realize how idiotic you guy are? Have you ever seen the movie Escape from New York? That's an anarchy. In truth, there will always be something in some sort of power, claiming some sort of land, etc.

Yeah, Hollywood knows politics so well.

[Bendira]

All of you who say anarchism would be completely un-orderly dont understand the principle of it. It would be completely orderly. Just the military, court systems and police would be owned by private corporations in constant competition with eachother. You would be even safer than you are now, because now you have a massive corrupt corporation with a monopoly on the defense industry who pisses away your money they stole from you with taxes to fund a highly inefficient military. The private sector wouldnt let any of that money slip through the cracks.

oh no, now you called it anarchism *waits for it*

Anarcho-Capitalism might not be anarchism, I dont even care. Its just the name. In fact I wish it wasnt called anarchism, because people always assume im some property destroying leftist nutjob (no offense to my more mild manored leftist comrades here).

[Glorious Homeland]

If a corporation restricts its populace like that, the other security firms would destroy them to absorb their unhappy customer base.

Precisely! And who or what will stop a monopoly occurring before long? You will get fiefdoms, kings and emperors before long; but not by name. A pure capitalist system would have slavery afterall, why wouldn't it? You would need authority to ensure such didn't happen, like an all-powerful central bank. That would regulate the cost of labour, to ensure companies didn't get one up on one another by acquiring slaves. That would mean that the price of slaves would have to be kept high by default, especially for young children who could be brought up to be the richest men on the planet. Interestingly humanitarian, but it requires authority, control. Without any of that it will devolve into feudalism.
Society before and just during the first instances of urbanisation was that of anarchism, it may not have been appreciated intellectually in such respect, but it was. No anarchist-like societies survived conquest long-term (native americans for one). All anarchists failed because there was always going to be a strong power that came out of nowhere.

[Self--Esteem]

All of you who say anarchism would be completely un-orderly dont understand the principle of it. It would be completely orderly. Just the military, court systems and police would be owned by private corporations in constant competition with eachother. You would be even safer than you are now, because now you have a massive corrupt corporation with a monopoly on the defense industry who pisses away your money they stole from you with taxes to fund a highly inefficient military. The private sector wouldnt let any of that money slip through the cracks.

oh no, now you called it anarchism *waits for it*

Anarcho-Capitalism might not be anarchism, I dont even care. Its just the name. In fact I wish it wasnt called anarchism, because people always assume im some property destroying leftist nutjob (no offense to my more mild manored leftist comrades here).

"Anarcho-Capitalism" AKA Laissez-Faire is indeed not about anarchism. But you make a great job in turning it into something people really could consider anarchy.

[North Suran]

so your comparing the world today to the way it was in the dark ages? I think theres been a few developments since then... like the englightenment?

No.

He's comparing your Utopian fantasy to Feudalism. Because that is what it is essentially is - people being enslaved to other individuals and private companies.

Until they move to a different area that they want to be in... How would it fall into feudalism? If you dont like your private company that provides protection to you, get a different one.

And what if your house is tied to the current company? What if your job is tied to the current company? What if you live in a settlement that is dominated by that private company, so that all access is controlled directly by them? What if the private company orders its security men to beat you up for even considering trying to leave?

Don't you just love choice?

If a corporation restricts its populace like that, the other security firms would destroy them to absorb their unhappy customer base.

So in your happy Utopian world, civil wars between various private firms will be both normal and frequent?

What a paradise!

[North Suran]

All of you who say anarchism would be completely un-orderly dont understand the principle of it. It would be completely orderly. Just the military, court systems and police would be owned by private corporations in constant competition with eachother. You would be even safer than you are now, because now you have a massive corrupt corporation with a monopoly on the defense industry who pisses away your money they stole from you with taxes to fund a highly inefficient military. The private sector wouldnt let any of that money slip through the cracks.

oh no, now you called it anarchism *waits for it*

Anarcho-Capitalism might not be anarchism, I dont even care. Its just the name. In fact I wish it wasnt called anarchism, because people always assume im some property destroying leftist nutjob (no offense to my more mild manored leftist comrades here).

"Anarcho-Capitalism" AKA Laissez-Faire is indeed not about anarchism.

Anarcho-capitalism is not the same as laissez-faire capitalism. The former calls for the total elimination of the State. The latter calls for a State that does not intervene in economic matters.

[East Fancainia]

BURN THE GOVERNMENT! Do you guys realize how idiotic you guy are? Have you ever seen the movie Escape from New York? That's an anarchy. In truth, there will always be something in some sort of power, claiming some sort of land, etc.

Yeah, Hollywood knows politics so well.

Better than you....

[Treznor]

so your comparing the world today to the way it was in the dark ages? I think theres been a few developments since then... like the englightenment?

No.

He's comparing your Utopian fantasy to Feudalism. Because that is what it is essentially is - people being enslaved to other individuals and private companies.

Until they move to a different area that they want to be in... How would it fall into feudalism? If you dont like your private company that provides protection to you, get a different one.

And if you didn't like your old feudal lord, you could always pick a new one.

If you really think that's going to promote general freedom, you don't understand how power concentrates into the hands of the few.

[Self--Esteem]

All of you who say anarchism would be completely un-orderly dont understand the principle of it. It would be completely orderly. Just the military, court systems and police would be owned by private corporations in constant competition with eachother. You would be even safer than you are now, because now you have a massive corrupt corporation with a monopoly on the defense industry who pisses away your money they stole from you with taxes to fund a highly inefficient military. The private sector wouldnt let any of that money slip through the cracks.

oh no, now you called it anarchism *waits for it*

Anarcho-Capitalism might not be anarchism, I dont even care. Its just the name. In fact I wish it wasnt called anarchism, because people always assume im some property destroying leftist nutjob (no offense to my more mild manored leftist comrades here).

"Anarcho-Capitalism" AKA Laissez-Faire is indeed not about anarchism.

Anarcho-capitalism is not the same as laissez-faire capitalism. The former calls for the total elimination of the State. The latter calls for a State that does not intervene in economic matters.

Not entirely true. People called Friedman and Hayek anarcho capitalists. The term was originally created by mixed-economists to deform Laissez-Faire beliefs.

The government itself has nothing to do with that. That would be Minarchist Libertarianism VS Anarchist Libertarianism.

[Glorious Homeland]

And if you didn't like your old feudal lord, you could always pick a new one.
If you really think that's going to promote general freedom, you don't understand how power concentrates into the hands of the few.

Surely that's why people become anarchist in the first place?

[Treznor]

And if you didn't like your old feudal lord, you could always pick a new one.
If you really think that's going to promote general freedom, you don't understand how power concentrates into the hands of the few.

Surely that's why people become anarchist in the first place?

Generally because they have the mistaken impression that they'll be able to advance to the ranks of the elite, instead of remaining one of the peons.

[Kamsaki]

Until they move to a different area that they want to be in... How would it fall into feudalism? If you dont like your private company that provides protection to you, get a different one.

Okay, why doesn't this same reasoning work for states? The answer, of course, is that the state can stop you leaving. But so can corporations.

The fallacy is in assuming that corporations, states and even collectives are in any way distinct from each other beyond their organisational structure and the scope of their intentions. They all of them are just about the cascade of influence across a multiplicity of human beings. Thinking about any of them in terms other than that (though emergent behaviour might nonetheless be a useful modelling tool) is to mythologise.

[Caninope]

Efficient does not equal beneficial.

The US healthcare system is efficient. It also leaves over 30 million US citizens without health coverage.

A lot fo them choosing too- they can afford it instead of other luxuries.

Like food.

Besides, many of those who go without it really don't need it, seeing how the majority are young (20's-30's).

Young people are immune to illness?

To make it cheaper, eliminate the restrictions across state lines, get rid of the oligarchy, and remove pre-existing conditions.

Or, just subsidise it so that people can actually afford it.

No luxuries, like cell phones, TV, internet. And while young people are not immune to sickness, the generally are healthier. From what I can tell, introducing competition would help.

[Lelouche]

No luxuries, like cell phones, TV, internet. And while young people are not immune to sickness, the generally are healthier. From what I can tell, introducing competition would help.

uh...communication tools are not a "Luxury" they are a necessity for anyone trying to compete in a modern job market. My employer needs to be able to reach me

that's a fairly stupid statement

[Caninope]

No luxuries, like cell phones, TV, internet. And while young people are not immune to sickness, the generally are healthier. From what I can tell, introducing competition would help.

uh...communication tools are not a "Luxury" they are a necessity for anyone trying to compete in a modern job market. My employer needs to be able to reach me

that's a fairly stupid statement

Do you need TV? No. Cell Phones are not always an immediate necessity. If someone needs one, then you can get through with a pay as you go plan.

[Lelouche]

No luxuries, like cell phones, TV, internet. And while young people are not immune to sickness, the generally are healthier. From what I can tell, introducing competition would help.

uh...communication tools are not a "Luxury" they are a necessity for anyone trying to compete in a modern job market. My employer needs to be able to reach me

that's a fairly stupid statement

Do you need TV? No. Cell Phones are not always an immediate necessity. If someone needs one, then you can get through with a pay as you go plan.

I don't have TV, but I do have Internet obviously
I also consider that a necessity, it's my primary source of information and communication
As for my phone....it's as cheap as it can get
And a phone is always a necessity, unless you live in the 19th century

[Self--Esteem]

What the heck? What happens? Is it because of this stupid 1st May, that I feel the necessity to side with my sworn nemesis Treznor*?

Assumptions like "I do not need a TV. I do not need a mobile phone. It's all pure luxury" sound awfully stupid.






*J/K on that last part

[Treznor]

What the heck? What happens? Is it because of this stupid 1st May, that I feel the necessity to side with my sworn nemesis Treznor*?

Assumptions like "I do not need a TV. I do not need a mobile phone. It's all pure luxury" sound awfully stupid.






*J/K on that last part

Whoa! I'm a nemesis, now? I haven't been one of those since my RP days!

Oh, not really? Aw, and I was gonna grow the mustache and everything!