you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

You missed: s/AnarchoCapitalism I know, 3 of them.

/s/GoldandBlack: so to speak

"physically remove commies, so to speak"

What does that even mean? You mean Communists or all socialists? Or lefties? Maybe progressives Why not remove the capitalists too? Or at least the totalitarian-capitalists or TotCaps. Are anarcho-Marxists like myself allowed here?

Why say "so to speak"?

So far Goldand Black is a joke, so to speak.

[–]sawboss[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

You need to know that this is a complex topic. I don't fully understand all of it. I'll try to answer, but please don't jump to unnecessary conclusions. None of this is about you Jason.

What does that even mean?

It means that Communists may have to be physically removed from the country to protect our lives. Some people want to give them helicopter rides to other places. What happens after that is none of my business.

You mean Communists or all socialists? Or lefties? Maybe progressives

Definitely self described Communists. I don't think the distinction is worth fussing over. Any religious radical who is willing to kill millions for the sake of forcing their religion on others must be stopped before they can carry out their designs.

Why not remove the capitalists too?

Because Capitalists:

  • have reasonable ideals (profit)
  • are no burden to me
  • benefit society as a whole via jobs, desirable goods and services, and charity

Or at least the totalitarian-capitalists or TotCaps.

IDK what those are.

Are anarcho-Marxists like myself allowed here?

Are you able to peacefully respect the lives and property of others without forcing your religion on them? If so, I don't mind your presence at all. In fact, sometimes I enjoy having your input.

Why say "so to speak"?

Ask Mr. Hoppe

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

It means that Communists may have to be physically removed from the country to protect our lives.

This is a nonsensical concept. It's physical censorship of a different ideology. Communism is not more or less dangerous than most ideologies. It's not perfect or even great, but it's not authoritarianism, corporatism/fascism, inverted-totalitarianism (like extremist capitalism), totalitarianism (like extremist communism), Wahhabism or Zionism which are FAAAAR greater threats to humanity.

Who is advocating violence?

Western ideology and this perverted patriotism of the USA is killing millions. That's a bad dogma if ever there was one. All in the name of bringing "democracy" and capitalism.

Capitalists vary from reasonable and fair to exploitative by any and all means. Don't fucking forget it.

Capitalists are a HUGE FUCKING BURDEN. Externalities. Look it up. Or watch The Corporation (2004) docu.

This capitalist system has exploited society to the breaking point and collapse. Stop buying their propaganda. Communists have jobs too. There needs to be balance. The market does NOT reflect this ideal of "desirable goods and services", much less "charity". You think you have choice but often you don't. That's not a free market. Monopolies exist in all sorts of areas. Meanwhile you can have 36 cereals to chose from. That's not real freedom of choice.

I just made up TotCaps. It's funny, and counter AnCaps.

Anarcho anything is about less or no government.

Leaning left I like SMALL Marxist ideas like worker cooperatives, aka worker coops, aka worker directed enterprises. I don't like ANY big government and consider ALL governments evil and corrupted as hell. These are my views and other anarcho-Marxists may think differently, though I don't know how.

I'd rather be an AnCap than a regular Marxist, regular Democrat or Republican, or whatever. Being a regular capitalist, all selfish under a big government, is pretty much opposite of me.

Good link. I still don't get "so to speak".

[–]sawboss[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Western ideology and this perverted patriotism of the USA is killing millions. That's a bad dogma if ever there was one. All in the name of bringing "democracy" and capitalism.

I get it. People equate "capitalism" with whatever America is doing. I think that's mistake. What's happening right now does not reflect my ideals. That's why I'm willing to explore out-of-the-box thinking as with Hoppe. Continuing to do what we're doing right now just ensures continued suffering for everyone.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Totally agree.

It's extremist capitalism, or my preferred term, the corporatocracy, serving elite globalist interests, intentionally collapsing America. Mom and pop capitalists are going out of business not because of capitalism so much as the monstrous monopolies, intentionally.

I'm a little surprised I hadn't heard of Hoppe. Maybe because his more right than left? I'm not a Libertarian as many of them don't mind the big corporations as long as they get their pot. I'm more Green though they have several faults too. Internet and Pirate parties are good too. If there was a Voluntarist Party that's where I'd put my hat.

[–]sawboss[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

It's extremist capitalism, or my preferred term, the corporatocracy, serving elite globalist interests, intentionally collapsing America. Mom and pop capitalists are going out of business not because of capitalism so much as the monstrous monopolies, intentionally.

I think "corporatocracy" is a better word for our concerns. It's collusion between business and government for the purpose of rewarding allies and punishing opponents. Monopoly is only possible by government intervention. Monopoly is impossible in a free market because there will always be competitors for any business which fails to serve its customers at competitive prices.

I'm a little surprised I hadn't heard of Hoppe. Maybe because his more right than left?

He's controversial even among libertarians. He explores ideas many would describe as "extreme". The good thing is that he doesn't cloak any of it. You and I don't like the idea of "helicopter rides", but he's not calling for such a thing in the current environment. He's specifically addressing the hypothetical scenario of an established libertarian society. In such a scenario, what should be done about revolutionary communists? I don't have any answer, but Hoppe proposes one.

I'm not a Libertarian as many of them don't mind the big corporations as long as they get their pot.

Libertarianism isn't only about pot though. It's a political philosophy which values individuals over groups. There are many divergent opinions, as one might expect of an explicitly individualist culture. Some people believe pot should be legal because they want to smoke pot. A libertarian believes no drug should be prohibited by law on the principle that the government should have no say about what an individual does to their own body (assuming they harm no one else in so doing).

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I think "corporatocracy" is a better word for our concerns.

Meh. Beyond rational captialism is extremist exploitism.

Monopoly is impossible in a free market because there will always be competitors for any business which fails to serve its customers at competitive prices.

That's bullshit.

Wikipedia has a monopoly on encyclopedias. Otherwise the market is wide open... Not gonna happen.

I'm a little surprised I hadn't heard of Hoppe. Maybe because his more right than left?

He's controversial even among libertarians. He explores ideas many would describe as "extreme". The good thing is that he doesn't cloak any of it. You and I don't like the idea of "helicopter rides", but he's not calling for such a thing in the current environment. He's specifically addressing the hypothetical scenario of an established libertarian society. In such a scenario, what should be done about revolutionary communists? I don't have any answer, but Hoppe proposes one.

Don't worry if you don't, but if you happen to know of any YouTube videos, post your top 3 for everyone and lemme know. More than 3 is fine but may be overload.

(I always insist that Flat Earthers give me their top 3 videos, so if I don't like one then the others will prove their point. Any more than 3 and it's a waste of time if they can't get a hit. NONE have ever tried to meet my challenge.)

Libertarianism isn't only about pot though.

Oh I know. That's just the stereotype, and it's kinda true.

It's a political philosophy which values individuals over groups. There are many divergent opinions, as one might expect of an explicitly individualist culture. Some people believe pot should be legal because they want to smoke pot. A libertarian believes no drug should be prohibited by law on the principle that the government should have no say about what an individual does to their own body (assuming they harm no one else in so doing).

That's why I can't be a Libertarian. I need balance between individual and group interests. We all do. Anarchy would be great, but then people would be free to create groups. Therefore it's inevitable that a government, if only Minarchy is still necessary as some folks will always be leaders or sheeple or gangsters or insane or whatever.

I'd like to get rid of most laws and taxes.

[–]sawboss[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not impressed. At all.

Next.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Now you scared sawboss away