Welfare... Fucking pisses me off
- Thread starter danke
- Start date
If you don't like welfare, move to africa. You can spend a few thousand bucks a year on armed guards to keep the peasants out of your property, and if you grow some nice fragrant plants, you'll never notice the smell of human waste drifting down on the wind.
Since the one that doesn't appreciate capitalism seems to not aspire towards any possible way to bring about a healthy, productive society, (again, within my limited studies) I simply find no reason to talk about them as they might as well be democrats.
You're making judgments about something you know virtually nothing about. Of course anarchists want a healthy, productive society. And by and large, they believe capitalism is antithetical to that (the former at least).
What, you can't have order without capitalism now? So there was no order before capitalism? Capitalism is a fairly recent development in human history. Pretty sure there've been ordered societies around a lot longer than there's been capitalism...
Again, this is just displaying your own ignorance of how anarchists propose to organize their societies. If you don't have the first idea about something, you probably ought not criticize it.
Want to inform yourself? Plenty of reading material here: An Anarchist FAQ - Section I - What would an anarchist society look like? | Anarchist news and information
As for the number of people calling themselves anarcho-capitalists vs. anarchists of a more traditional variety, I can pretty much guarantee the former is still a small percent of the latter. Most right-libertarians are just small-government types, not anarchist.
No they don't!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI0jixcWYzM&t=1m12s]SLC Punk, Why We Fight - YouTube[/ame]
Right, right. Well, an amendment then: ideological anarchists want a healthy, productive, free society. Disaffected suburban white kids just want to get fucked up and break shit and not have anybody tell them what to do, and if the ideological backing of the circle-A gives them a vaguely legitimate excuse to do that...
I never said it was efficient in its current form. That doesn't mean the solution is ot get rid of it entirely.
'Strip club bill' a no-brainer - CNN.com
Also, related but hilarious: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=7862613
Also, related but hilarious: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=7862613
@Pseudo: Man have you got a shitload of Socialism-powered wrongness in your sources.
I just don't have time to fight this tsunami of ignorance all at once, but I'll try to form a good response tonight.
But for now the most obvious point you are incredibly wrong about is the definition of Anarchy in general. I looked it up again and find no reference at all to a rejection of capitalism. None. Not in any of the definitions in places like merriam-webster.
Anarchy can be easily read as a 'rejection of coercion and aggression,' which socialism always harbors, so in my humble opinion and many others, it is simply impossible for Anarchy and Socialism to coexist. They are simply at odds.
The author of that last link you gave (infoshop) was a flaming douche moron. What a waste of skin!
I just don't have time to fight this tsunami of ignorance all at once, but I'll try to form a good response tonight.
But for now the most obvious point you are incredibly wrong about is the definition of Anarchy in general. I looked it up again and find no reference at all to a rejection of capitalism. None. Not in any of the definitions in places like merriam-webster.
Anarchy can be easily read as a 'rejection of coercion and aggression,' which socialism always harbors, so in my humble opinion and many others, it is simply impossible for Anarchy and Socialism to coexist. They are simply at odds.
The author of that last link you gave (infoshop) was a flaming douche moron. What a waste of skin!
Hey look, it's okay to admit that you don't have the first idea about this stuff.
It would probably be worth your while to look over the history of anarchy, particularly since the 19th century. Anarchists have always been against hierarchy and political, social, and economic inequality in all forms, from monarchies, to the modern state, to capitalist wage labor. They are just as much against bosses as they are against kings or politicians.
Well there's your problem. You're using dictionaries as an authoritative source.
You'd be completely wrong. But it probably depends on your conception of what "socialism" is. Anarchists don't consider state "socialism" as socialism. Why? Because socialism is defined as the means of production being possessed by the producers (workers). If the means of production are owned by the state, clearly the workers are not in possession. Therefore state ownership of the means of production is not socialism.
It's not the product of a single author, rather a number of different contributors. And that's pretty dismissive for how extensively sourced it is; much of the content is direct quotes from the central figures that have defined anarchism (Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, etc).
Lol, guess that's why you write content. You're too dumb to do any real thinking. How did saddam "fuck with us", you realize saddam was put in power by our government(1960's cia agenda) in the first place, right?
Forced socialism is different than a hypothetical community where everyone in it voluntarily agrees to be socialist.
quoting from the site he linked to :
Firstly, "anarchist communism . . . means voluntary communism, communism from free choice" [A. Berkman, ABC of Anarchism, p. 11], which means it is not imposed on anyone but is created and practised only by those who believe in it.
Last edited:
Can we be honest here: There is no difference between living on government welfare or bank welfare...One is acquired by having proof of no income, the other is acquired by having proof of some income...semantics. Debt is debt, someone else paying your bills is someone else paying your bills.
Credit and debt is welfare. If you have a mortgage you're paying off in 30 years, you are renting your house from the bank for 30 years and if you don't pay, you're out. Credit and debt are welfare with the possibility of making your life worse than it already is, on gubbment welfare there isn't much lower you can go.
My family went through some stuff, and accumulated debt (still have credit rating of 780+...wtf?). We lived off previous savings and opened lines of credit. The bank paid for shit. That's still welfare and if you have a sense of pride that would prevent you from taking from the government, don't you have that same sense of pride in taking from a bank?
We didn't take vacations or buy a lot of shit we didn't need, we stayed happy and the quality of life didn't really change because we didn't exactly have to cut down on extraneous spending much, but changes were definitely made to our lifestyle for a time, and it was because we were aware someone else was paying the bills.
"But I earned that line of credit!" Absolutely. But you didn't earn the right to accumulate interest on your debt, you've been punished with that by your inability to pay the debt.
Bank welfare is honest at least, you get penalized for it and it sucks you into a blackhole of having to pay a fine for not being able to pay your debt.
If you have debt, you've been helped by the generosity of someone else, not by your hard work and qualification of getting a line of credit.
So, if you bought your car with anything but straight cash upfront, you can thank a system of welfare for helping you out. If you believe you 'made payments' for that car you were essentially renting until you paid it off...what is it like knowing you have not owned any assets in your entire life, but are constantly living off private/corporate/bank welfare?
Credit and debt is welfare. If you have a mortgage you're paying off in 30 years, you are renting your house from the bank for 30 years and if you don't pay, you're out. Credit and debt are welfare with the possibility of making your life worse than it already is, on gubbment welfare there isn't much lower you can go.
My family went through some stuff, and accumulated debt (still have credit rating of 780+...wtf?). We lived off previous savings and opened lines of credit. The bank paid for shit. That's still welfare and if you have a sense of pride that would prevent you from taking from the government, don't you have that same sense of pride in taking from a bank?
We didn't take vacations or buy a lot of shit we didn't need, we stayed happy and the quality of life didn't really change because we didn't exactly have to cut down on extraneous spending much, but changes were definitely made to our lifestyle for a time, and it was because we were aware someone else was paying the bills.
"But I earned that line of credit!" Absolutely. But you didn't earn the right to accumulate interest on your debt, you've been punished with that by your inability to pay the debt.
Bank welfare is honest at least, you get penalized for it and it sucks you into a blackhole of having to pay a fine for not being able to pay your debt.
If you have debt, you've been helped by the generosity of someone else, not by your hard work and qualification of getting a line of credit.
So, if you bought your car with anything but straight cash upfront, you can thank a system of welfare for helping you out. If you believe you 'made payments' for that car you were essentially renting until you paid it off...what is it like knowing you have not owned any assets in your entire life, but are constantly living off private/corporate/bank welfare?
I don't know if you're trolling or what, but the difference is one you're obligated to pay back, the other you're not. The bank expects to make a profit off its loan to you, while government does not.* That's a pretty big difference.
*Though it can be argued that at least some "welfare" programs have as a partial goal an overall benefit, or profit, to society.
I think you're getting counter-trolled and it's actually quite a beautiful sight to behold
I promise I wasn't trolling
The US wasn't ruined by people on welfare, it was ruined by responsible adults who go to work everyday but were caught up in a false dream.
I remember being a little dude in the car listening to car advertisements on the radio and going "how the hell can you lease a BMW...for $200 a month...The car is $50,000"
Or
"How can anyone buy a house when they don't have nearly the money for it? People are going to be paying off that house for the rest of their lives? You just need to pay like $50,000 for a $500,000 house? and that's a GOOD downpayment? People think they'll have a job that can pay their loan for 30 years? REALLY?"
I was a little little kid then, and it seemed ridiculous. Turns out, this economic model WAS ridiculous. It was all a pipe dream.
Hard working people collectively destroyed the system, not the scum of the earth. Debt is such a bigger problem than handing out checks. What welfare does, giving the people "bread & circuses," is make them a segment of the population that is useless and are the pawns and developing indentured servant class.
Just wait till the Student Loan Welfare bubble bursts next (yay hot young indentured servant girls)...And what sucks is the parents of these kids got student loans when THEY were in school, defaulted on the loan declaring bankruptcy, made it to medical school with a clean bill and became hotshot doctors not wanting to pay their taxes or contribute to society...That's how it was done in the 70s...And our lovely parents closed the loophole for future generations. Why? Too many dark people going to school on government money, of course, so that's why there is emphasis on fraternities/sororities for assistance for students who will lead the country.
It's a lovely cycle of nonsense that only stops when you remove yourself from the hoarde of profane, vulgar, and unconscious dolts who are both part of the 1% and 99%. It isn't a money issue as much as like...an issue on the quality of human.
Debt is welfare, you aren't entitled to carry a balance month to month, even if it's legal. If we're going to use the law to gauge ethical behavior...We're already dead.
(not to mention that the use of credit cards, and the ability to carry a balance, artificially inflated the price of EXISTENCE because more people could buy more shit with money they didn't have, so they needed to increase the minimum wage to keep things "fair" and what do you know...Problems come from the top down, the bottom don't have anything or the energy with which to cause problems.)
Yeah me too but I wanted to say it not too far after my post just in case someone out there would happen to see it and decide not to give me work because of it.