A "conversation" with a typical Mitt Romney supporter

reply to post by digital01anarchy

Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!

The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social. Somewhat ironically, given recent developments in America, it was published in New York between 1858 and 1861 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque. The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism” was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16-22 November, 1880).

anarchism.pageabode.com...



The dictionary is wrong with a lot of political definitions

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Who makes up the government? People!

Who would make up a free market society? People!

The government isn't a living entity, people within the government tell it what to do.

So you're saying the government fails because people fail.

Then people are flawed.

Is your solution to manipulate human beings to be perfect?

Because your argument has nothing to do with the government being a better solution that the free market. I've already provided to you that anarcho-capitalism does indeed solve some major issues (the worst being global centralized banking institutions). Which you said that anarcho-capitalism doesn't solve any major issues.

Your counter argument was that privatized banks who deal directly with their consumers and competitors are the same as centralized government banking institutions that deal directly with bought off politicians.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Free market capitalism is impossible. The market will always be manipulated by the ones at the top, with the most to gain or lose.

Your counter argument was that privatized banks who deal directly with their consumers and competitors are the same as centralized government banking institutions that deal directly with bought off politicians.

They both have the same exact outcomes, which is tyranny. The "free market" bank would grow large enough, become a monopoly in similar ways the Federal Reserve is, that was my whole point. You act like there has to be a government in order for there to be tyranny.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Well please inform the rest of us what should be in place....because take your pick, eventually everything gets corrupted.

reply to post by MidnightTide


I don't know but it surely wouldn't be a free market capitalist system. That system would make the one we have now look like heaven.