The Violence Of Socialist Security

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The definition of free market capitalism is clear.

No State.

No Violence.

Who's definition, yours? You keep flapping on about state yet fail to realise the state came with capitalism, not before or after.

You can chose to ignore the blatantly clear definition I posted from wiki if you like, but that does not make you correct in your views.

Again though what does wiki prove? It doesn't prove that capitalism is free markets. Not all capitalists support free markets either.

Free markets do not require capitalism! That is just a false claim. Free markets is NOT the definition of capitalism. Socialism allows free markets.

You do understand I am an anarchist, right?

And this is why I strongly disagree with you. You are not an Anarchist as far as I'm concerned. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT anarchism and was never supposed to be. The term was coined to be a contradiction to justify one persons own contradiction.

Capitalism can not be anarchistic. Again who is going to protect private ownership and capital? Who is going to protect the workers? What you would have is what we had in the industrial revolution, slavery, kids working, no safety, etc. It took the labour movement years to get what we have now and you want to wipe that all away?

If you want no government, no state, then why are you so against libertarian socialism (real anarchism)?
Because you are confused and still buy into the statist propaganda that capitalism means freedom. I don't care what wiki says, the reality is right in front of you, you just need to drop the state conditioned bias and look at the way things really are.

Your whole premise is based on misinterpretation of terms. If you had a sense of the history of class struggle and the labour movement you would understand better. Doesn't the fact that Anarchists support socialism give you some kind of clue, or were they all wrong?

reply to post by ANOK


You are expending an enormous amount of energy trying to troll me.

I mean first you question "who's" definition, then in the next line you clearly say I posted the wiki definition.

Why?

Why not just admit you are wrong?

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

That is ridiculous.

People do not need to threaten each other with violence in order for society to prosper.

In fact it is the use of violence that is going to destroy civilization and return us to the stone age.

No Sir... Civilization is dependant upon the threat of violence to maintain order and prosperity. Think about it.

I have thought about it.

I don't see it.

So you are saying that if 10 people were stranded on an Island, the only way for them to maintain order and prosperity is for them to threaten each other with violent force?

Did you come from an abusive family?

edit on 10-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Please tell me you're not that stupid. You're telling me that 10 people stranded on an island constitutes a civilization? (I never said society). Geeze... why do I bother... mental midgets.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
So you are saying that if 10 people were stranded on an Island, the only way for them to maintain order and prosperity is for them to threaten each other with violent force?

If one of those ten decided he owned the island, and wanted to coerce the others to labour for him, how would he achieve that?

Could it be done without violence, if the other 9 refused?

That is capitalism, if they were all equal owners it would not be capitalism. Capitalism is inherently violent.

If you think capitalism didn't become the dominant economic system, and maintains that through violence, then you are completely naive.

In any civilization there are rules. What happens if you break those rules? You go to jail or face punishment... right? What if you refuse to go to jail or face punishment? You get shot or forced to go... VIOLENTLY!!

Is that so hard to understand brainiac????

We as humans will violently defend our system of survival. When we lived in small groups of hunter gathering societies, that system was the land and water sources. In todays modern civilizations, it is the system of obtaining resources and commodities from outside that has replaced the self sustaining systems that smaller "barbaric" societies depended upon. The system must be defended... violently.

Interesting thread. Do you think that socialism could work in today's world? I think that there would have to be a world revolution for it to work. That, and most people wouldn't go along with it. Is it possible to be rich in a socialist system? Has there ever been a truly socialist society?

I'm curious because when you learn the real definition of socialism it becomes interesting.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Please tell me you're not that stupid. You're telling me that 10 people stranded on an island constitutes a civilization? (I never said society). Geeze... why do I bother... mental midgets.

So how many people have to live on the island before they all need to start threatening each other?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
So you are saying that if 10 people were stranded on an Island, the only way for them to maintain order and prosperity is for them to threaten each other with violent force?

Not the only way but it would probably be the most natural way. In small communities a man knows better than to disrespect or cross another man because it could lead to blows. This means most try to get along or stay out of ther way of others because of that threat of violence.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by mnemeth1
So you are saying that if 10 people were stranded on an Island, the only way for them to maintain order and prosperity is for them to threaten each other with violent force?

Not the only way but it would probably the natural way. In small communities a man knows better than to disrespect or cross another man because it could lead to blows. This means most try to get along or stay out of ther way of others because of that threat of violence.

Man inherently respects other mens property.

If I walk through the woods and pick up a stick, then spend a large amount of time fashioning that stick into a fine spear, other men will recognize that spear to be mine and they will not take it from me without permission.

If someone did attempt to take it from me without my permission, the other men in the tribe would recognize that individual as being wrong and they would also recognize my right to defend my property.

In fact, they would probably even come to my aid and administer justice on my behalf.

If a person was continually branded a thief, they would be ostracized from the community and left to fend for themselves.

Man is inherently NON VIOLENT - it is only when the violence becomes legitimized in a State that problems arise.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Man is inherently NON VIOLENT - it is only when the violence becomes legitimized in a State that problems arise.

Wrong. Man respects anothers property because, as you have said before, you can defend yourself. If a group of men come together in the form of a family, gang or state then their violent nature seems to really show. Heck I have seen kids who have nothing to do in a fight jump in and kick or punch someone who is being jumped just to see what it feels like to hit someone. That's not the state that is man's violent nature.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If a person was continually branded a thief, they would be ostracized from the community and left to fend for themselves.

Actually in the real world they are beaten, burned or stoned by the community. The state need not apply.

reply to post by mnemeth1


This is why I do not consider you to be an Anarchist...

F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?

In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho" or by calling themselves "anarchists" their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false.

"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

www.infoshop.org...

Please read this whole article, and maybe some more from this well known and respected Anarchist web site. Infoshop has been around for many years before the internet.

You should also know about this if you want to call yourself an Anarchist...

dwardmac.pitzer.edu...

reply to post by ANOK


Anarchist is short for anti-archy, which means against rulers.

Archy means rule.

Anarchy has nothing to do with property and everything to do with the State.

Who ever wrote that is an idiot.

reply to post by mnemeth1


That is the dictionary definition of Anarchy, as explained in the article you have had NO time to read. It also says Anarchy is chaos. Again you prove to just misunderstand.

Anarchism is a political movement with its roots in left wing socialism. This I have proved.

Capitalism can not be anarchism, this I have proved.

modern Individualism initiated by Herbert Spencer is, like the critical theory of Proudhon, a powerful indictment against the dangers and wrongs of government, but its practical solution of the social problem is miserable -- so miserable as to lead us to inquire if the talk of 'No force' be merely an excuse for supporting landlord and capitalist domination.

anarchism.pageabode.com...

The person you are calling an idiot for that article is the whole anarchist movement, because infoshop has been around since at least the 70's in one form or another is well excepted. You have read a couple of things on teh net and you think you know it all.

Go read some books on anarchism, here are some recommendations...

Proudhon, What is Property (first use of 'Anarchism' as a positive).
Emma Goldman, Anarchism and other essays.
Alexander Berkman, ABC of Anarchism.
Bakunin, What is Authority.
Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread.
Colin Ward, Anarchy in Action.

reply to post by ANOK


You are quoting all of these ridiculous blogs that I've never heard of.

I can find all sorts of random blogs to back up my position as well.

In fact there are wayyyyyyyyyyyyy more anarcho-capitalist blogs than anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist blogs.

So I guess that makes my definition more right than your definition if you want to play the blog game.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
So I guess that makes my definition more right than your definition if you want to play the blog game.

If you go by blog game rules in spanish you end up loosing about 10 to 1. Hate to see what it would be in eastern european languages. Just saying.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by mnemeth1
So I guess that makes my definition more right than your definition if you want to play the blog game.

If you go by blog game rules in spanish you end up loosing about 10 to 1. Hate to see what it would be in eastern european languages. Just saying.

hahah I doubt that.

The US has more a lot more internet users.

Not that it matters anyways, the entire exercise is pointless.

If he wants to think of me as some kind of fascist, I suppose there's nothing I can say that will change that.

Everyone else that reads Rothbard, Block, Hoppe, or any other number of Austrian economists understands what the real definition of anarchy means and how that equates to economic freedom and property rights.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Thats funny you doubt it but I actually googled it. The world is a lot bigger than just the US and just because you have more people surfing doesn't mean you have the most number of people creating anarcho-?????? content.

I would like to say that ANOK names a list of writers and you bust out a different list. You define it one way and he says it's an oxymoron and I would have to agree with ANOK. That is the way it always seems to work out in the real world.

The truth is that without social security and the employer match into the program you would have to earn 10% or so annually in order to replicate it's benefits if you live to the normal life expectancy. It has been proved over and over that without forced savings a good portion of people will not have any savings at all. At that point it will be other taxpayers footing the bill anyways.

Since social security benefits are capped, the fact that income above a certian point isn't taxed makes full sense and is not regressive. If we want to fix the sytem we need to fix the economy. We can do that by fixing the mortgage and credit mess once and for all. Government buys all debt, refinances it at low rates and still make all the money back over time. Consumer gets a sizable decrease in payments which gets spent on other things and revitalizing the economy. Now that would be socialistic but it is also the answer to our problems and it would be a temporary one time fix. The cart got spilled, lets clean it up, then let the banks can start filling a new cart.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


No, it hasn't been proven over and over again.

When government is inflating the money supply, the savings that people put aside for their retirement is destroyed.

When government is artificially suppressing the interest rates through the federal reserve, the earnings rates on savings accounts drop below the rate of inflation.

When government massively taxes incomes, the ability for people to save for the future is greatly reduced.

Thus, how you can make such ridiculous claims is beyond me, but besides that:

1. You, nor anyone else, has the moral authority to wage violence against an innocent person in order to force them to save for their future. That is their responsibility to worry about, not yours.

2. In a normal healthy economy, peoples' children would be wealthy enough to support their elderly parents in old age if they did not have adequate savings.

3. in a normal healthy economy that isn't corrupted by violent government theft, charity would be able to manage those few who did not have adequate savings to carry them through retirement.

The notion that you personally need to wage violent warfare against the innocent in order to get them to save is outrageous.