Why not Anarchism?

[Laughing Man]

Hi. Just want to make some points while I am here.

We don't have democracy because we have capitalism. Democracy and capitalism are incompatible. Capitalism gives pwoer to people with money, democracy gives power to everybody equally, and it is only the best ideas that win out, not the result of corporate land grabs and monopolistic practices protected by the government like it is in capitalism.

So you are saying that we don't have a voting system of democratic representation? Didn't a 'president' just get elected? I would argue that Capitalism is in fact the most pure democracy in the market place. Democracy can be defined as power or rule by people. In a system free of 'crony capitalism' [ what you call corporatism which no libertarian at the Mises Institute supports ] those who achieve the most wealth are those who please the greatest amount of consumers. Surely you agree that it is more profitable to sell 6,000 refrigerators at 100 dollars rather then 6 refrigerators at 1,000 dollars. And in this market you have the power to choose who you wish to buy from, where, when, how, for how much. Let us suppose you oppose 'sweatshop labor' and you believe that the means of production should be owned by the state apparatus and you come to find they employ 'sweatshops' [ It is certainly possible, governments have created slave labor camps and advocated slavery in the past ] What are you to do now? You purposely have to support something you are against because you have no choice. In a free-market, you specifically have the ability to choose who you wish to buy from or if you even want to buy at all. Hell you can become a subsistence farmer. Now in the democracy you speak, 'political democracy' yes everyone has the power to vote [ unless your a felon or under 18 ] yet that voting system only favors the majority [50%+1] Now if you are in the majority then you are thrilled because you get what you want. However, what of the 49%? What happened to that equality you spoke of? This is the reason [whether you believe it or not] that there are libertarians who oppose democratic representation and propound individual sovereignty. Rights are not something that can be whisked away simply because enough people want it.

And how did the person get the property? By declaring it his? By wage exploitation? In Democracy, once you would own your possessions, they would be considered yours. If people didn't agree with these principles, they could easily overturn them.

A person gets their property through homesteading principles. Some at the Mises Institute propound Lockean principles to this institution. You will have to explain how democracy creates possessions, establishes ownership and you will also have to explain how in political democracy, a majority rule cannot that those possessions away.

I.e. A bunch of uneducated idiots at Mises forums proclaiming their love for corporatism and fascism.

You will have to show where we say 'corporatism is a really great system' or 'Fascism is what we strive for.' If you conflate capitalism as being corporatism and fascism then you have a faulty knowledge of political ideologies.

Most economists are not anarcho-capitalists. Anarcho-Capitalism is ridiculous, since even anarchism opposes capitalism.

Well if you want to get technical, most economists are either Keynesians or Monetarists. At the very least they support a bastardized version of free-market capitalism. And you have a warped definition of Anarchism. Anarchism is the absence of rulers. It is not in fact a economical system. Merely a political/social one. That is why someone like Bakunin is an 'Anarcho-Socialist' and someone like Murray Rothbard is an 'Anarcho-Capitalist'

Property was essential to the dictatorship of Germany. That was the basis of their economic system, just like it is of the US: market capitalism. Any dictator relies on private property as well, declaring the 'nation' to be his.

Private property is essential to a dictatorship

Property is essential to all life. Even under Communism there is property. Communism is not the abolition of said property but the abolition of private property. Concerning fascism, this may shock you but it is a system of nationalized socialism. People are allowed to retain private property but its use is not to be derived from its owner but towards the state apparatus. And to consider the US 'market capitalism' is a laughable idea. As we speak the state is shelling out trillions of dollars to help 'failing' businesses, taking over some and this is 'market capitalism' according to you? This is the socialization of losses and the privatization of gains. 'Crony capitalism' at its worse. Eliminate the state and those who rely on it for profit by use of coercion money come crashing down.

Hitler hated Democracy. And he wasn't 'elected' through a democracy, he was constitutionally chosen to lead after his party gained a minority of the votes. That is not democracy. Democracy is when people rule together.

If you read German politics you will discover Germany is a multi-party system, therefore he can be elected on a minority vote and it would still be called 'democracy.' It still happens today. Look at Italy, I think they have over 20 parties.

Hitler hated democracy, and once he was in power he used the provisions in the republic's constitution to gain dictatorial power for himself, thus SUSPENDING democracy, just like what Libertarians support.

Well libertarians want to abolish the state [ at least some of them, the Anarcho-Capitalists ] and with the toppling of that comes the system of establishing such a state [ ie. Political Democracy ] granted we would also want to topple Monarchy, Dictatorship, Oligarchy, Plutocracy.

He hated equality, democracy, and socialism, and the consequences were frightening, with corporations and dictatorial rule reigning supreme, not democracy. He was like a Libertarian in that sense:

Hitler was a fascist. He did not oppose 'socialism' persay, he infact opposed 'Communism.' Both Fascism and Communism are variations of Socialism. Socialism being defined by the owning of the means of production by State. In Communism, the goal is to use the State to abolish private ownership of the means of production to aggrandize state power, while in Fascism the goal is to ally the state with private ownership of the means of production in order to aggrandize state power.

Had Hitler not limited freedom of expression and ensured everybody's right to participate in a Democracy, the holocaust never would have happened.

Right because everyone was trying to stop it through non-political means! It's so simple!


Well this is been fun. You should come over to the Mises Forums and we can talk about this further.

[Icarus27]

So you are saying that we don't have a voting system of democratic representation? Didn't a 'president' just get elected?

No. It's not democratic representation. Our 'elections' are highly influenced by rich elites, like lobbyists, committees and so on, who spend over a billion dollars on presidential elections. This means that the people who get the message out, who run for office under the committee platform, etc., are all over privileged elites themselves. Once in office, they are highly susceptible to their campaign backers, which creates what they call a 'revolving door,' which means they are more highly influenced by lobbyists who often have a hand in writing and researching legislation than they are by their own constituents.
Only you could consider capitalist 'democracy' to be a rule by the people.

I would argue that Capitalism is in fact the most pure democracy in the market place. Democracy can be defined as power or rule by people. In a system free of 'crony capitalism' [ what you call corporatism which no libertarian at the Mises Institute supports ] those who achieve the most wealth are those who please the greatest amount of consumers. Surely you agree that it is more profitable to sell 6,000 refrigerators at 100 dollars rather then 6 refrigerators at 1,000 dollars.

And it would also be more profitable to sell a thousand refrigerators at $1000, than it would be to sell six-thousand at $100. That would mean the corporation would decide who it is going to sell these items to in order to maintain more profit, even though it would mean a lot of people went without refrigerators.
Furthermore, corporations used to combine all the time to artificially limit supply - that is what happens when you have pure, unregulated capitalism where the government only exists to protect the interests of the elite.
In any case, that is not "democracy," putting elite businessmen in charge of the economy.

In a free-market, you specifically have the ability to choose who you wish to buy from or if you even want to buy at all.

No you don't, because you are officially limited to what the corporations are providing you. The corporations want to provide you what will make the most profits, not necessarily what satisfies your basic needs. There's a reason why stereo equipment is not made with the most high quality parts available - because it would cost too much. There's a reason why all the time in 'unregulated markets' corporations go to the bottom line - which means toxic toys, food, etc.
Again, that is not democracy, that is allowing an elite group of people to control the resources.
Furthermore, those 'rich people' in the equation above have more buying power than poor people - thus, they ultimately have more say in what gets produced.
This is a tyrannical system.

Now in the democracy you speak, 'political democracy' yes everyone has the power to vote [ unless your a felon or under 18 ] yet that voting system only favors the majority [50%+1] Now if you are in the majority then you are thrilled because you get what you want. However, what of the 49%?

In order for it to be a Democracy, they still would maintain their equality. That means that they have the power to influence other people and get them to vote the other way the next time the issue comes up. If they are right, that means that ultimately people will come around to their point of view.
This is because Democracy assumes people are smart enough to figure out the best way to run things, and do things. Capitalism, however, automatically assumes that putting large corporations in control of the economy is the only option possible, at the expense of everybody that works for them. Time and time again in history this has been proven not to work.
Finally, direct democracy ensures that people own the means of production. That means if people get outvoted, they could break off from the community and attempt to do things there own way. Massive inequality, where only 1% of the population has more wealth than the bottom 90%, wouldn't exist, because it would also be anti-democratic by definition.

A person gets their property through homesteading principles. Some at the Mises Institute propound Lockean principles to this institution.

This is a random and ultimately meaningless principle. It boils down to whoever gets the land first gets to use it for his purposes, regardless if its good for people or not.
It's ultimately logically flawed as well because it assumes that taking land and declaring it yours has no effect on anybody but yourself, which is of course false.
I don't care what the pseudo-intellectuals and armchair anarchists at "mises institute" believe.

You will have to show where we say 'corporatism is a really great system' or 'Fascism is what we strive for.' If you conflate capitalism as being corporatism and fascism then you have a faulty knowledge of political ideologies.

They ultimately lead to about the same thing: large, dominant institutions owning the means of production, supposedly providing us all 'jobs.' This is a caste system, not a free system. This is evidenced by the fact that anywhere pure capitalism is tried it leads to massive inequality, combination of resources by the elites to raise prices, worker abuses, and so on.

Well if you want to get technical, most economists are either Keynesians or Monetarists. At the very least they support a bastardized version of free-market capitalism.

Keynes himself was critical of capitalism.
And they also operate under the idea that the public deserves some influence on the market and that when the market starts to hurt people, it should be prevented from doing so.
They also do not believe people have a natural right to the land, and other such mythical Misean nonsense.

Property is essential to all life. Even under Communism there is property.

Private property has never been essential to life. Property is theft, it's declaring something yours at the expense of everybody else. Since each situation is different, it should be determined on a case by case basis.

Concerning fascism, this may shock you but it is a system of nationalized socialism. People are allowed to retain private property but its use is not to be derived from its owner but towards the state apparatus. And to consider the US 'market capitalism' is a laughable idea.

Fascism is a system in which private property (business property) is protected. It has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism, which is when the workers control the means of production.
There was absolutely NO socialism in Nazi Germany, but there was capitalism and capitalist type 'trade.'

As we speak the state is shelling out trillions of dollars to help 'failing' businesses, taking over some and this is 'market capitalism' according to you? This is the socialization of losses and the privatization of gains. 'Crony capitalism' at its worse. Eliminate the state and those who rely on it for profit by use of coercion money come crashing down.

The reason the state keeps getting involved like this is because capitalism is a failure.
If you want to live in a capitalist society, you have to be expected to pay for it. The bail outs were actually needed in order to ensure that capitalism continued to function. A similar thing happened in the 1920s when the market was 'free' to an extreme degree and it led to massive inequality of wealth and poor decisions by the business elite.
Capitalism requires statism to push it along, but maybe the state will ultimately be the end of it once people start having more and more influence on the state. This is really why capitalists are anti-democracy.

If you read German politics you will discover Germany is a multi-party system, therefore he can be elected on a minority vote and it would still be called 'democracy.'

No because Hitler never received a Democratic vote himself and a majority of the people did not vote for him.
Furthermore, like I said, he ENDED the multiparty system and the democratic principles it had.
That type of Libertarian thinking led the holocaust.

Well libertarians want to abolish the state [ at least some of them, the Anarcho-Capitalists ] and with the toppling of that comes the system of establishing such a state [ ie. Political Democracy ] granted we would also want to topple Monarchy, Dictatorship, Oligarchy, Plutocracy.

Libertarians don't want to abolish the state. They still want the government to protect private property, corporations, etc., and maintain a judicial system to ensure that the 'contracts' of capitalism are enforced.
It's actually big government; it's basically a government protecting the slave owners, in other words. That's why it's not taken seriously except by a bunch of little fascists at Mises forum.

Both Fascism and Communism are variations of Socialism.

Lol. You're clueless. In Marxist theory, socialism is a first step towards communism. It is not a "variant" of socialism.
Second, Fascism extends CAPITALISM, and conservative social values, and has an emphasis on militarism (mostly for the benefit of the capitalists at home). It has nothing to do with workers controlling their resources, which didn't exist in Nazi Germany nor did it exist in the USSR - which was a privatized dictatorship (no public input).

Right because everyone was trying to stop it through non-political means! It's so simple!


Well this is been fun. You should come over to the Mises Forums and we can talk about this further.

I have no interest in hanging out with the morons at Mises forums who simply ban people who continually own them in debate, and embarrass their ignorance of philosophy, economics, science, and logic.

[Icarus27]

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/744 ... ageIndex=3

Looks like RichardDawkins.net is the object of a Libertarian 'forum raid.' They do this until either they embarrass themselves or they get banned, then they go back to Mises forums and claim they're smarter than everybody else and link each other to articles on the Mises website.

And they tototally misreprsent my arguments correcting Freiheit's ignorance of even basic mathematics: and that is that mathematics is not a system that boils down to simple logic, as he was claiming. It's been proven in modern mathematics that it is impossible to do this, through Godel's theorem (if it applies there is a contradiction and if you remove it there is a contradiction), and that a theorem is not ture in of itself, but it must be proven. And a theorem is not the same thing as a 'basic truth,' they are derived from axioms, postulates, definitions, etc. We understand mathematics because of our observations on the real world and the way it's constructed, thus there would be no way to 'do math' without observing the real world objects, which confirm it all. Triangles, squares, these all exist in the real world because of the design of the universe.

Mathematics would be guess work if we didn't have our senses, instead of being derived from the universal principles, which it is.

[Icarus27]

Here's the genius of Mises forums and free-speech:

"i don't think that this adresses the issue of homosexuality and why it is wrong enough. i hate to tell you this eric but no homosexuals allowed. GO AWAY FAGGOT"

-Mises forums.

They think that anybody who doesn't agree with the made up principles and pseudo-science of von Mises is an 'idiot' and a 'totalitarian.'

[Laughing Man]

No. It's not democratic representation. Our 'elections' are highly influenced by rich elites, like lobbyists, committees and so on, who spend over a billion dollars on presidential elections.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative%20democracy

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

I take it the whole 2008 election was just a big sham and the millions of people who voted didn't actually vote I can spend 10 billion dollars convincing people to vote for me but if I am not saying what people want to hear then they won't. It is not as if these lobbyists have 10 million votes while the average individual only has one.

This means that the people who get the message out, who run for office under the committee platform, etc., are all over privileged elites themselves. Once in office, they are highly susceptible to their campaign backers, which creates what they call a 'revolving door,' which means they are more highly influenced by lobbyists who often have a hand in writing and researching legislation than they are by their own constituents.

Such is the corrupting nature of government, not of democracy. Another great reason not to have it.

And it would also be more profitable to sell a thousand refrigerators at $1000, than it would be to sell six-thousand at $100. That would mean the corporation would decide who it is going to sell these items to in order to maintain more profit, even though it would mean a lot of people went without refrigerators.

Price of a commodity is based on the subjective desires of the consumer. Frankly, I'm a thirfty man so I wouldn't get a refrigerator for 1,000 dollars. All things being equal if refrigerators were to suddenly shot up to 1,000 dollars, do you honestly think there would be a boom in sales concerning such a product?

Furthermore, corporations used to combine all the time to artificially limit supply - that is what happens when you have pure, unregulated capitalism where the government only exists to protect the interests of the elite.

Are you one of those 'post-scarcity' kooks? If the government only exists to protect the interests of the elites then we should at least be agreeing that Anarchy is a good thing and only quibble about the economics it employs.

No you don't, because you are officially limited to what the corporations are providing you

Why do you say that? Granted, government throws up a flack of regulation which makes it difficult to start your own business but that is something libertarians want to get rid of.

The corporations want to provide you what will make the most profits, not necessarily what satisfies your basic needs.

That's rich. Suddenly WonderBread is not a corporation, nor are water bottling corporations. Profit is derived from use value and use value is a subjective preference.

There's a reason why stereo equipment is not made with the most high quality parts available - because it would cost too much.

If you are talking about a 25 dollar stereo then yes. Obviously an increase of quality correlates with an increase in pricing.

Furthermore, those 'rich people' in the equation above have more buying power than poor people - thus, they ultimately have more say in what gets produced.

The purchasing power of the currency is based on how much currency is in fact in circulation. If you're mad that people's labor power varies due to productivity and thereby there is an 'inequality' in income then you are enacting utopian economics. A doctor should be valued [ economically speaking ] more then a waitress. In terms of rights they are both equal.

In order for it to be a Democracy, they still would maintain their equality.

That's ridiculous. Democracy is only about control by the people. It says nothing of equality. You are conflating the definition of democracy with some ridiculous concept.

That means that they have the power to influence other people and get them to vote the other way the next time the issue comes up. If they are right, that means that ultimately people will come around to their point of view.

In democracy, 'rightness' is only determined by who has the 50+1%. Have fun telling the gay and lesbian community 'hey guys and gals, just wait a little while longer to retain the rights that other individuals have but you don't simply because you are not in the majority.'

Capitalism, however, automatically assumes that putting large corporations in control of the economy is the only option possible, at the expense of everybody that works for them. Time and time again in history this has been proven not to work.

1. I think its funny you worry about capitalism becoming a monopoly, yet so far I as I see you have no qualm about government...which is a monopoly.
2. What is this nonsense that capitalism automatically assumes monopolies? Can you show me where a natural monopoly has occurredX in the past without government protection or subsidization.

That means if people get outvoted, they could break off from the community and attempt to do things there own way.

You talk of secession. Anarchism is just the logical conclusion of what you speak of right down to the level of the individual whose right it is to retain self-ownership.

This is a random and ultimately meaningless principle. It boils down to whoever gets the land first gets to use it for his purposes, regardless if its good for people or not.
It's ultimately logically flawed as well because it assumes that taking land and declaring it yours has no effect on anybody but yourself, which is of course false.

I still await to hear how you think democracy actually creates ownership rights.

They ultimately lead to about the same thing: large, dominant institutions owning the means of production, supposedly providing us all 'jobs.' This is a caste system, not a free system.

The ability of an individual to freely buy and exchange his/her property will give rise to dominate monopolistic corporations who demand obedience. Please, spin out the trail of logic of this because you seem like someone who has been sucked into Marx's strawmanning of the capitalist system by likening it to mercantilism.

Keynes himself was critical of capitalism.

Well I would have to see where he said that. Granted it could be true but you would have to show me and it wouldn't surprise me since Keynes is a muddled thinker.

Private property has never been essential to life. Property is theft, it's declaring something yours at the expense of everybody else. Since each situation is different, it should be determined on a case by case basis.

Oh wonderful, a mutualist. You know Proudhon also said 'Private Property is liberty' Mutualists usually leave that part of out their 'quote-o-thon.' I didn't say private property is essential to life, merely property. Private property is just the most realistic and productive method of property ownership.

Fascism is a system in which private property (business property) is protected. It has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism, which is when the workers control the means of production.

Oh yes, the wonderful 'that's not actual socialism' myth. Like I said, Fascism is the cartelization of private property interests in order to aggrandize the state apparatus. Fascism allows for private property but in a heavily regulated, highly intrusive environment. Basically, rent-seeking behavior. There is a fun economic term for you to look up.

The reason the state keeps getting involved like this is because capitalism is a failure.

Right, capitalism is the highest stage of productivity [ something Marx even admitted ] yet it is a failure. The reason the state keeps on getting involved in 'the failure of capitalism' is because the state seeks to control what is a rival to it. The market exchange is something that can happen without the state, the state knows this, and it also knows we can survive on the market system and I would argue flourish under it. Much like I said about the economic differences between Fascism and Communism. Communism wants to destroy the market, Fascism wishes to bend it to its will.

The bail outs were actually needed in order to ensure that capitalism continued to function.

No bailouts are not needed. You act as though Pan AM is still around. Businesses come and go. Private property [ Capitalism ] keeps on going along.

No because Hitler never received a Democratic vote himself and a majority of the people did not vote for him.
Furthermore, like I said, he ENDED the multiparty system and the democratic principles it had.
That type of Libertarian thinking led the holocaust.

This is nonsense. You act as if Hitler just walked into the National Socialist Party and said 'Ok I'm in charge, make me Furher of Germany' and everyone just said 'Ok.' Also libertarianism concerning ethics usually deals with natural rights theory, there are some utilitarians who object. Libertarianism caused the holocaust just about as much as nihilism established objective truth in the world.

Libertarians don't want to abolish the state. They still want the government to protect private property, corporations, etc., and maintain a judicial system to ensure that the 'contracts' of capitalism are enforced.

I would call them minarchists and I don't feel the need to defend them since I don't agree with them.

Lol. You're clueless. In Marxist theory, socialism is a first step towards communism. It is not a "variant" of socialism.

Yea...if you are a Stalinist. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
The first step is actually "Crude Communism". Learning is fun!

Fascism extends CAPITALISM, and conservative social values, and has an emphasis on militarism (mostly for the benefit of the capitalists at home).

Extends capitalism by completely destroying it? How can I combat this ridiculous Leninist drivel!? Oh me oh my!

I have no interest in hanging out with the morons at Mises forums who simply ban people who continually own them in debate, and embarrass their ignorance of philosophy, economics, science, and logic.

You won't be banned. I'm a moderator there and you would learn a great deal about something you don't seem to know about. All we ask is that there are no excessive insults or curses.

[Icarus27]

I take it the whole 2008 election was just a big sham and the millions of people who voted didn't actually vote I can spend 10 billion dollars convincing people to vote for me but if I am not saying what people want to hear then they won't. It is not as if these lobbyists have 10 million votes while the average individual only has one.

The elections are a sham. It is a choice between two parties that operate under one ideology: the property party. And of course, if the media and the corporations and the people with money are the ones getting their message across, how is the working class supposed to even participate beyond voting for one of the figureheads?

It's what political scientists call ELITE DEMOCRACY. In elite democracy, the people have no more options than voting. In an elite democracy, an elite group of men decide what ideas are good and what ideas are bad (just like a CEO ultimately decides what he'll sell). In an elite democracy, people generally aren't supposed to be too informed of the issues, and our media does good job in fulfilling this role.

Furthermore, as I said, once in office, the capitalist politicians are more interested in listening to the big guy rather than the small guy, I'd rather just eliminate this pseudo-democracy altogether, and put people in control of the means of production.

Such is the corrupting nature of government, not of democracy. Another great reason not to have it.

The government should get out of the business of protecting capitalist property rights. It could possibly serve a purpose of preventing humans from harming one another, and so on, but it definitely needs to quit shaping the economy by protecting the corporations and not the workers.

Price of a commodity is based on the subjective desires of the consumer. Frankly, I'm a thirfty man so I wouldn't get a refrigerator for 1,000 dollars.

That's just a myth. The only way to truly, subjectively determine what people want is to put it to a vote. People want more efficient cars? Then they should make more efficient cars. That is the purpose of true democracy; voting with your dollars is a lot of nonsense, as you're only choosing what the corporation provides you.

If I give someone two options for something he needs, it's inevitable that he'll ultimately choose one of them. What you're saying violates common sense and basic logic.

Are you one of those 'post-scarcity' kooks?

Are you one of those Misean kooks who doesn't believe in logic and reason. What logic have you studied at a University level?

If you don't have serious arguments just take it to Mises forums.

If you are talking about a 25 dollar stereo then yes. Obviously an increase of quality correlates with an increase in pricing.

There are no stereos with all high quality parts. There could be, though, if we truly did live in a free society.

The purchasing power of the currency is based on how much currency is in fact in circulation. If you're mad that people's labor power varies due to productivity and thereby there is an 'inequality' in income then you are enacting utopian economics.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making: which was that the rich have more money thus they have more purchasing options and more buying power than the poor, which violates the principle of democracy that each person has one vote.

There is nothing in economics that shows that 1% of the population has to own 90% of the wealth. It's not 'utopian economics' to advocate a system in which people cooperate to get work done. Look at the Linux operating system and the success of free software and programming languages that were not made for a profit.

It's been estimated that it would take over a billion dollars for a corporation to turn out linux - largely because of the inefficiencies of capitalism. But it works because Linux works around the market; it's like science, it doesn't subject itself to market discipline.

So the claim that people can't work to do things is demonstrably false.

That's ridiculous. Democracy is only about control by the people. It says nothing of equality. You are conflating the definition of democracy with some ridiculous concept.

It's implied. Democracy would mean that everybody would have to have a vote, would have to have an equal choice, so it clearly means that everybody would have to have equal say when it comes to decision making.

If the majority harms the minority, they are violating their democratic rights.

In democracy, 'rightness' is only determined by who has the 50+1%. Have fun telling the gay and lesbian community 'hey guys and gals, just wait a little while longer to retain the rights that other individuals have but you don't simply because you are not in the majority.'

It actually works in their favor. Because if you try and force other people to accept say, gay and lesbians, that means they are going to get angry and probably would try and hurt gay and lesbians. It makes much more sense to try and convince them that there is nothing wrong with being a gay or lesbian, and that would allow rights to go through without problems.

What gay and lesbians want is equality under the law, which should be ensured to them anyway. If they don't have it their democratic rights are being violated, and I think most people would agree that people should have their democratic rights. That is generally the route that the gay and lesbian community is taking.

I support the right of gays and lesbians not to be discriminated against by tyrannical land owners as well, as that also violates their rights. It's capitalism that walks all over the rights of minorities, not democracy.

1. I think its funny you worry about capitalism becoming a monopoly, yet so far I as I see you have no qualm about government...which is a monopoly.
2. What is this nonsense that capitalism automatically assumes monopolies? Can you show me where a natural monopoly has occurredX in the past without government protection or subsidization.

When the market is closer to Libertarian principles monopolies occurred more often and it was harder for people in the lower class to have living conditions that at all compared to the those of the rich elites.

Government is no worse of a monopoly than private tyrannies.

. Anarchism is just the logical conclusion of what you speak of right down to the level of the individual whose right it is to retain self-ownership.

Anarchism is anti-capitalist because it also assumes that there can be no massive owners of resources like there can be in capitalism.

I still await to hear how you think democracy actually creates ownership rights.

I have explained it above.

Oh wonderful, a mutualist. You know Proudhon also said 'Private Property is liberty' Mutualists usually leave that part of out their 'quote-o-thon.' I didn't say private property is essential to life, merely property. Private property is just the most realistic and productive method of property ownership.

No kind of property is essential to life.

I'm not a mutualist. I call myself a libertarian-socialist. I want to end capitalism, not 'make it work.'

Furthermore, Proudhon noted that capital is the same thing as government. I agree with him on that point, and I also agree with him that wage slavery is unjustified.

I don't agree that there would ever need to be private property, and he was referring to personal possessions, rather than 'property' which has to be guaranteed by the state.

Oh yes, the wonderful 'that's not actual socialism' myth. Like I said, Fascism is the cartelization of private property interests in order to aggrandize the state apparatus.

It wasn't socialism. Maybe in your world it was, but that's like calling it a democracy. The idiots at Mises forums think that Obama is socialist and that the US is socialist.

you have no credibility when it comes to political science - just like you have no credibility when it comes to anything else.

capitalism is the highest stage of productivity [ something Marx even admitted ] yet it is a failure. The reason the state keeps on getting involved in 'the failure of capitalism' is because the state seeks to control what is a rival to it.

It looks pretty inefficient to me given that we COULD have better cars, we COULD have better computers, we COULD have better health care, but we do not, because capitalism is stagnant in these areas.

No bailouts are not needed. You act as though Pan AM is still around. Businesses come and go.

Business generally have required massive government involvement for protection and research. They may 'come and go,' but they come and go in a system that uses a lot of government to ensure that they succeed.

This is nonsense. You act as if Hitler just walked into the National Socialist Party and said 'Ok I'm in charge, make me Furher of Germany' and everyone just said 'Ok.

It isn't nonsense. Hitler ruled through sheer political terror and corruption. He did not come to power by democracy and free, open elections where everybody had their point of view. Hundreds of thousands of people protested Hitler when he was elected, but the oppression grew week by week after he was elected.

The same thing happened in Italy. Once in power, they ensured that the power elite - the businesses - succeeded by lowering their taxes, banning unions, socialist parties, and so on, so that all opposition to the Nazis would be eventually eliminated and that's what happened.

That is why conservatism, in addition to capitalism, should be opposed.

And show me the historians and political scientists who say that Hitler had worker controlled factories and practiced any kind of democratic control.

Yea...if you are a Stalinist. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... s/comm.htm
The first step is actually "Crude Communism". Learning is fun!

Where does it say that Socialism isn't used to achieve communism?

Extends capitalism by completely destroying it? How can I combat this ridiculous Leninist drivel!? Oh me oh my!

It's not 'Leninist drivel.' It's basic political science. The government does everything to ensure the success of the businesses - which is capitalism, not socialism.

You won't be banned.

I don't care. I have no interest in talking to prepubescent trolls who believe in pseudo-science, except when they come here.

[andyx1205]

I take it the whole 2008 election was just a big sham and the millions of people who voted didn't actually vote I can spend 10 billion dollars convincing people to vote for me but if I am not saying what people want to hear then they won't. It is not as if these lobbyists have 10 million votes while the average individual only has one.

And who allowed President Obama to receive the publicity he did? He won the election, yes, and at the same time he coincidently received the most funding, such as from Wallstreet.

People have choice, sure. The choice to choose an apple or an orange. The choice to choose a Democrat or Republican.

Also, another note. Though all anarchists (besides anarcho-capitalists) seem to be all alike and identical, they are not. You have Proudhon's Mutualists/Individualist Anarchists, Bakunin's Collectivist Anarchists (blend of collectivism/individualism), and Kropotkin's Anarcho-Communists. There's also Syndicalism.

Of course, they're all similar in essence, with their differences relying on the strategies. Marxists believe that in order to free the masses, they must be enslaved, while anarchists believe that freedom can only be attained through freedom.

They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.

Many individuals on this forum throw anarchists into the pile with the communists, yet, though we both envision the same thing, we differ on how to reach there.

[Wuming6]

Why not Anarchism?

Go live in a country experiencing anarchy (Madagascar, Thailand, Sudan, etc.) and let me know what you think. That's why.

It's easy to be an anarchist in a first-world country (I'm looking at anarchists in the US, UK, EU, etc.) but I'd love to see them live in an actual failed state.

edit: For the record, I'm not calling Madagascar and Thailand failed states. I'm simply bringing them up because they have both had periods recently of political instability and coups.

First, weren't you a libertarian?
Second, none of the Sate you cited were anarchist...Actually the words State and anarchy are oxymorons

[Laughing Man]

The elections are a sham. It is a choice between two parties that operate under one ideology: the property party. And of course, if the media and the corporations and the people with money are the ones getting their message across, how is the working class supposed to even participate beyond voting for one of the figureheads?

You are purposely neglecting that there is the libertarian party, the socialist party, the green party. Simply because they don't get a majority doesn't mean they don't exist nor get votes in the first place.

It's what political scientists call ELITE DEMOCRACY. In elite democracy, the people have no more options than voting. In an elite democracy, an elite group of men decide what ideas are good and what ideas are bad (just like a CEO ultimately decides what he'll sell). In an elite democracy, people generally aren't supposed to be too informed of the issues, and our media does good job in fulfilling this role.

Your 'political scientists' sound like college freshmen. It is actually called 'plutocracy.'

Furthermore, as I said, once in office, the capitalist politicians are more interested in listening to the big guy rather than the small guy, I'd rather just eliminate this pseudo-democracy altogether, and put people in control of the means of production.

And as I have said, that sounds like a great reason to eliminate government. Ensure that no politician can ever be bought off or tempted to be bought off.

The government should get out of the business of protecting capitalist property rights. It could possibly serve a purpose of preventing humans from harming one another, and so on, but it definitely needs to quit shaping the economy by protecting the corporations and not the workers.

Protecting what of the workers? Obviously not their property because that would contradict your idea that government shouldn't protect property rights.

That's just a myth. The only way to truly, subjectively determine what people want is to put it to a vote. People want more efficient cars? Then they should make more efficient cars. That is the purpose of true democracy; voting with your dollars is a lot of nonsense, as you're only choosing what the corporation provides you.

Choosing what is provided is the definition of control which is implicated in democracy which means control by the people.

Are you one of those Misean kooks who doesn't believe in logic and reason. What logic have you studied at a University level?

Well I am a graduate of history. Political history to be precise. By the way if you want to get technical, Mises was an economist and while he studied epistemology [ big word for you there ] of economics, it was not necessarily a philosophical study. He dabbled though which I think is a positive since it is always good to learn a bit from all the social sciences.

There are no stereos with all high quality parts. There could be, though, if we truly did live in a free society.

What do you define as high quality? Gold knobs and platinum buttons? We now have stereos that do small renditions of light shows. Hell we can have a tv stereo...

This has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making: which was that the rich have more money thus they have more purchasing options and more buying power than the poor, which violates the principle of democracy that each person has one vote.

Well that is moronic. Democracy is a political system of representation and purchasing power is economic theory. You are basically trying to say 'Why can't motor oil be like hamburgers!?'

There is nothing in economics that shows that 1% of the population has to own 90% of the wealth. It's not 'utopian economics' to advocate a system in which people cooperate to get work done. Look at the Linux operating system and the success of free software and programming languages that were not made for a profit.

I'm not against cooperation and voluntary trade. That is the basis of the capitalist system. Even Marx admitted that.

It's implied. Democracy would mean that everybody would have to have a vote, would have to have an equal choice, so it clearly means that everybody would have to have equal say when it comes to decision making.

And in a capitalist market, they do. You can buy from wal-mart, target, K-mart, etc etc. There is no one authority saying 'You have to go here or else.' Everyone has the equal ability to decide where to shop or even if they want to shop in the first place.

It's implied. Democracy would mean that everybody would have to have a vote, would have to have an equal choice, so it clearly means that everybody would have to have equal say when it comes to decision making.

If the majority harms the minority, they are violating their democratic rights.

Obviously not everyone is going to agree 100% at no time. So now we come to a cross-road. Must they follow the majority? [ Something you say is a violation of rights ] or can they break from the democratic system and carry out their own will without infringing on the rights of others? [ Anarchy ]

It actually works in their favor. Because if you try and force other people to accept say, gay and lesbians, that means they are going to get angry and probably would try and hurt gay and lesbians. It makes much more sense to try and convince them that there is nothing wrong with being a gay or lesbian, and that would allow rights to go through without problems.

What gay and lesbians want is equality under the law, which should be ensured to them anyway

This is wonderful double-thought. You can't ensure that rights are respected however gay and lesbians are already ensured rights that are not respected. Which is it? Do gay and lesbians have the right do carry out their desires in non-violence? If yes, then the respect of those rights is demanded regardless of what a majority thinks. If no, then you have blatantly contradicted yourself.

It's capitalism that walks all over the rights of minorities, not democracy.

Right, it's capitalism that has established anti-same-sex marriage in state constitutions. Where are we? Bizarro world?

When the market is closer to Libertarian principles monopolies occurred more often and it was harder for people in the lower class to have living conditions that at all compared to the those of the rich elites.

Then you will have no trouble finding me an example of a naturally occurring monopoly in the capitalist system

Anarchism is anti-capitalist because it also assumes that there can be no massive owners of resources like there can be in capitalism.

Again you have a faulty definition of Anarchism [ by the way why are you even telling an anarchist the definition of anarchism when you yourself are not an anarchist? ] Anarchism simply means no rulers, ie no state apparatus. Any economical theory is completely separate from that.

I have explained it above.

In explaining how democracy creates ownership...no, you haven't.

I'm not a mutualist. I call myself a libertarian-socialist. I want to end capitalism, not 'make it work.'

Ok, then answer this. Libertarianism at its most basic is based on the Non-Aggression Principle. The premise that you cannot violate the rights of another individual through coercion or the threat of coercion. Socialism is a system with the public means of ownership over property. Say I don't want to share. I want to be greedy. Are you going to violate my rights and become 'unlibertarian' or are you going to be apathetic towards my private property interests and become 'unsocialistic'?

It wasn't socialism. Maybe in your world it was, but that's like calling it a democracy. The idiots at Mises forums think that Obama is socialist and that the US is socialist.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/405414/National-Socialism

I find it humorous you claim I have no credibility yet every political ideology you have spoken about here has been presented with a faulty definition. You're pretty good at this political science thing.

It looks pretty inefficient to me given that we COULD have better cars, we COULD have better computers, we COULD have better health care, but we do not, because capitalism is stagnant in these areas.

I would argue that is because of government legislation the purposely retards the private exchange system.

It isn't nonsense. Hitler ruled through sheer political terror and corruption. He did not come to power by democracy and free, open elections where everybody had their point of view. Hundreds of thousands of people protested Hitler when he was elected, but the oppression grew week by week after he was elected.

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/hitrise.htm

And show me the historians and political scientists who say that Hitler had worker controlled factories and practiced any kind of democratic control.

If Hitler had worker controlled factories he would of been a Communist...

Where does it say that Socialism isn't used to achieve communism?

Honestly, do I have to read for you?

'The first positive annulment of private property – crude communism – is thus merely a manifestation of the vileness of private property, which wants to set itself up as the positive community system.'

After crude comes the full realization of Communism. 'Pure Communism' so to speak. So for you kiddies at home it goes Capitalism [ Private Property ] --- Crude Communism --- Pure Communism.

It's not 'Leninist drivel.' It's basic political science. The government does everything to ensure the success of the businesses - which is capitalism, not socialism.

If the government and big business is in together then it is called Corporatism which is Fascism which remember is Socialism, kind of ironic that a variation of the socialism you preach is in fact what you hate. Your problem also is that you see economics as Capitalism or Socialism and not Capitalism, Socialism, Corporatism, Mercantilism.

[Laughing Man]

And who allowed President Obama to receive the publicity he did? He won the election, yes, and at the same time he coincidently received the most funding, such as from Wallstreet.

People have choice, sure. The choice to choose an apple or an orange. The choice to choose a Democrat or Republican.

Like I said before, there is also the Green Party, the Socialist Party, the Libertarian Party. If you continue to think that third party votes don't matter then you are purposely extending your 'apple and orange' dichotomy

Also, another note. Though all anarchists (besides anarcho-capitalists) seem to be all alike and identical, they are not. You have Proudhon's Mutualists/Individualist Anarchists, Bakunin's Collectivist Anarchists (blend of collectivism/individualism), and Kropotkin's Anarcho-Communists. There's also Syndicalism.

Of course, thank you for bringing up the distinction. I was trying to allude to this before. There are Socialist Anarchist, Capitalist Anarchists. I've read the works of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Max Stirner [ who is insane by the way ], Lysander Spooner & Herbert Spencer [ who are individualist Anarchists ] and one Syndicalist who was Spanish but I forget his name.

Many individuals on this forum throw anarchists into the pile with the communists, yet, though we both envision the same thing, we differ on how to reach there.

I have more respect for Anarcho-Socialists then Communists. Like you said and paraphrasing Bakunin, the premise that we can achieve liberty through the aggrandizement of coercion is absurd.