Forum Post: Listen Here
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 27, 2011, 8:28 p.m. EST by RothbardianAnarchist
(8)
from East Meadow, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Hello, anarchist here. I just want to say that in general I support the dissatisfaction with the system as of late which is being expressed in the form of protests and what have you. But I am afraid that much of the OW movement is being dominated by a bunch of state-socialists pretending to be non partisan "for the people" fake leftists who might as well say they are democrats and be honest. Now for a few points:
Ask yourself this question. Who is out there beating the living shit out of you? Those men in uniform? Those men are agents of the State, the very agent you want to have more "regulatory" power and influence over the general populace. Sense of irony? I hope you see it.
Secondly. Most of this fiasco can be blamed on markets mingling with governance. That being, bailouts, barriers to entry, intellectual property etc.. giving dominant corporations so much market influence. Asking for more government will only make matters worse. Why? Because corporations always buy out in the end. Governments are made of people who like money too. That's why we anarchists don't want a central institution that can be bought out so easily. What we mean by free markets is simply voluntary exchange between individuals. These corporate monsters are the creation of the State.
Btw I am not a Ron Lawl supporter as I don't believe in political means to ends, but some of you people are just completely off base. You claim to be non partisan but clearly resent any libertarian perspective. I mean ffs that article on the wiki is made of straw.
Thanks.
Your are right to say over-centralization is part of the problem. I just can't see how unrestricted anarcho-capitalism will prevent that. How do you plan to prevent private corporations or other entities from cornering markets and restricting competition, eg. predatory pricing etc. Sounds like magic to me.
You're a troll
Clearly. Disagreement is a known symptom of being a troll.
I truly love anarchy. I really do. And one day we will all be able to have enlightened anarchy.
But it will not work yet, and not for another century or more.
Anarchy is based off the premise that each individual is fully capable of self-governance, and this would only work if there was a mutual respect for all beings, human and animal alike. This will not work out because we are seriously trance-deep in the idea that we are all seperate from eachother (in a cosmological sense) and cannot do what is 'naturally right'.
In enlightened societies, beings do not harm one another because that means they are harming themselves (if you get a hammer and hit someone else, they will get a hammer and hit you). Therefore, there is no desire or need for pain. They are not attached to outer things, like materials and money. So, they share as an ingrained instinct. We are so deep in the belief of duality that we still term things as 'good' or 'bad', 'right' or 'wrong' when these subjective attitudes change by the second, and change with distance.
Our very foundation of all spiritual, political, philisophical, religious, social, economic, and emotional matters are based on primitive ideals and will never work. In other words, we are just trying to find new ways to polish the same piece of shit. You can tell the level of advancement and enlightenment of a society by where the society finds it pleasures. We find it in physical things, which is primitive.
We must change from the inside out and realize we are spiritual beings, for if we do not understand the basic function of our existence, we will never learn to live in balance with the Universe.
very lovely message, thank you
para nada. Take care
Rule by a gun. He with the biggest wins. NO I will pass on Anarchy
I see you have read nothing on the subject. Move to a different thread.
Nice post.
I dig anarchy, what are the chances, realistically, that it would ever happen in the USA?
Isn't the solution to just make money & go off the grid, pretty much?
repost It really depends on the anarchist you talk to. Off grid is an option given that communes already exist. Most of us know the State will exist for a while, that doesn't mean we want to go along with it.
Thanks for the reply, which wiki were you referring to, btw?
Agreed..
[Removed]
You still have a free market which is out of the control of the State. There is a whole new economy on the Internet that the Powers That Be can't touch.
This is why I promote a Culture of Self Employment. They can't stop you from living the life you want to if you change your thinking from Manufacturing Age thinking to Information Age thinking.
http://occupyyallstreet.blogspot.com
Counter economics ftw!
We haven't had a free market in this country for nearly 8 decades, we have had a carefully manipulated economy where the government intervenes with monetary policy through the FED and with a system of corporatism that provides both patronages and protection through favored regulatory controls for those it favors.
Rothbard himself admitted that he was not an anarchist and that anarcho-capitalism was anarchist in name only.
I think you misunderstood what he meant. He was saying that anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism and vise verse.
Except capitalism is not possible without the state, his understanding of capitalism was as bad as his understanding of anarchism, and he had no historical sense whatsoever.
Actually capitalism preceded the creation of the STATE, look back in history before there were recognized STATES, there were markets, free from intervention, free from coercion, free from manipulation. Sorry, but capitalism is definitely possible without the STATE.
Depends how you define capitalism. His definition was contrary to lets say, Benjamin Tuckers. If he used Tuckers or Marx's definition you'd be right. Move along.
His definition of capitalism doesn't even work with Smith. The only way you can argue his capitalism is stateless is by a sleight of hand where the state administrating contract law is not a state.
IIRC the rothbardian system also involve property owners having monopoly of force over their property, which brings us to a feudal state.
This is why I am a mutualist on property. My Rothbardian views come from moral arguments against the state and the left-rothbardian agorist movement.
edit Rothbard also goes into detail on Feudalism in his "The Ethics of Liberty" if you want further reading.