The same people that have told you over and over again that you can't fix Government with Government. Your Government has given you Obama. I never called you a "rightwinger".
How's using politics to fix Government working out for you?
Anarchist Stuff
- Thread starter guerilla
- Start date
The same people that have told you over and over again that you can't fix Government with Government. Your Government has given you Obama. I never called you a "rightwinger".
How's using politics to fix Government working out for you?
I swear you people could talk to a block of wood and your talking points would still be the same.
He's great on foreign policy, but horribad on economics. He doesn't have a consistent value ethic, like most leftists, he sees justice only in terms of victims, not in terms of principles.
You're afraid that Obama is a sleeper communist hell-bent on taking over the country. Fair enough.
Who gave him that legitimacy of power?
Who participated in the system that grants him this power?
You believe in Democracy. The people voted. You lost.
I feel like I am arguing with a block of wood.
He is a sleeper for an institution that wishes to destroy this country, yes.
Nobody. They stole it.
The system didn't grant him power. The evidence clearly shows they stole it. Don't bother asking for links, you can research the fraud for yourself if you want.
Not really. And the American system isn't even a democracy in the first place.
Evil won, although it had nothing to do with the vote. If the system hadn't been compromised, it would have ejected the foreign virus. Look at luke's post a couple weeks ago. He seriously thinks the people voted for Obama to remain president. All of you nuts do. Talk about delusional.
You guys are no better than leftists. Ayn Rand once said, never examine a folly, only ask yourself what it accomplishes. Leftists and "false left-right paradigm" nuts like yourself helped destroy this country. Why bother examining it further? You're both two sides of the same coin, working together to accomplish the same thing.
Nothing left to do but watch the demolition begin. But in the waning hours of freedom, by all means continue to jerk off to these ridiculous hypothetical and theoretical mumbo-jumbo fantasies.
Like jerking off to the notion that anyone who seeks out any position that grants a monopoly on violence won't use that power for personal gain and oppress the population in the process?
You really believe that if Romney won anything would be different?
You're giving tyranny a legitimate platform. I'm not. That's the "fantasy" I'm jerking off to.
EDIT: Hint, when you legitimize tyranny, evil always wins.
That's exactly what we do. That's why increasingly more and more people are rejecting politics and not voting.
You, and others here, consistently present one particular form of anarchism, which isn't even representative of the major thrust of anarchism historically. Indeed, in its key tenets, it actually runs counter to it. Anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist. You know this. This is a thread about anarchism. I'm contributing something on anarchism that isn't part of the Mises/Molyneux/ancap circlejerk. I think it's important to offer a perspective on anarchism that isn't a fringe-y, economically right-wing bastard child.
BTW, there's a whole forum dedicated to debunking Stefan Molyneux and his weird internet pseudo-cult, for those who might be tempted to be swayed by the "rational" arguments he presents in his youtube videos.
You kooks are the type of people who would have sat at home when Lenin began murdering his opposition, mumbling about "false Bolshevik-Menshevik paradigms" and congratulating yourself on your amazing inability to detect nuance.
What's traditionally been labeled anarchism has been anti-"this"-government movements and it has been labeled anarchist by the particular government being opposed.
Principled philosophical anarchism goes back to the ancient Chinese, and is as old as the idea of government itself.
Actually, Communism is anti-capitalist. Anti-business communists are frequently conflated with anarchists.
But there is also an issue of terminology. If you go on RevLeft, the guys there don't hate the small town baker, or the local newspaper publisher. They hate big business. Many anarcho-capitalists hate big business as well, because they thrive on state violence.
The Bourgeoisie are in fact the fascists.
Why is it a circlejerk? Have you read any ancap literature? Anything from Mises or the Mises Institute?
Can you make specific comment on any of Molyneux's books or speeches?
This sort of anarchism is rapidly becoming a mainstream set of ideas. It's left socialist anarchism (the kind where you smash windows and riot in the streets) that is a fringe movement.
Also, there is nothing right wing about anarcho-capitalism. Indeed, most early anarcho-capitalists were European liberals, which is a political constituency that doesn't even exist in America.
If you disagree, please explain the right wing ties with being pro-choice, pro-drugs, pro-porn, pro-prostitution, pro-peace. I'd love to hear you resolve that.
Most anarcho-capitalists are friendly to Chomsky and Bakunin.
Bakunin doesn't mean socialism the way you do. I suggest you do some more research on him.
Left Libertarians (I'd argue they are closet commies, but whatever) love Proudhon.
Also, iirc, Proudhon was a really bad anti-semite.
In nearly every case, leftists are good on class theory (as was Marx) but they are miserable when it comes to economic theory.
Good attempt at trolling though. Certainly a higher standard than anyone else can come up with.
Bakunin doesn't mean socialism the way you do. I suggest you do some more research on him.
Left Libertarians (I'd argue they are closet commies, but whatever) love Proudhon.
Also, iirc, Proudhon was a really bad anti-semite.
In nearly every case, leftists are good on class theory (as was Marx) but they are miserable when it comes to economic theory.
Good attempt at trolling though. Certainly a higher standard than anyone else can come up with.
Which way do you think I mean it? Which way do you think he means it?
Would this meet the definition of an ad-hominem?
Can you prove it?
Who's trolling? I'm just posting anarchist stuff in a thread about anarchist stuff.
I think you mean it with regards to state welfarism.
I think he means it with regards to social consciousness.
Nope.
Sure.
I don't have a problem with that. It backfires, because I know more about the people you're posting than you do.
Again, these guys are decent on class theory. Marx was decent on class theory. But none of them are any good at economics, not least because they all subscribed to the labor theory of value, which is like believing the earth is flat. The foundation of their economics is flawed. And that includes Chomsky, who despite being a confused intellectual at times, is heroic for the cause of peace 97% of the time.
The real question here, is what is an anarchist? What do they believe? What do those ideas imply?
This is Bakunin on anarchy
"The supreme law of the State is self-preservation at any cost. All States, ever since they came to exist upon the earth, have been condemned to perpetual struggle – a struggle against their own populations, whom they oppress and ruin. A struggle against all foreign States, every one of which can be strong only if the others are weak. And since the States cannot hold their own in this struggle unless they constantly keep on augmenting their power against their own subjects as well as against other States, it follows that the supreme law of the State is the augmentation of its power to the detriment of internal liberty and external justice."
I agree with that wholeheartedly.
If these guys are against rulers, then there is little issue with them, even if they have bad economics.
The irony of you posting that, is that with the exception of Proudhon (who was a despicable and stupid man) I am closer to Chomsky and Bakunin than you are ideologically.
This is the exact type of "realist/balance of power/security dilemma" shit they tried to brainwash me with at college, this retarded notion that states are these soulless, idiotic actors playing out a role from a script. It's basically a really lame construct designed to incentivize one world government.
Really depressing that this is what passes for intellectual thought in the upper echelons of society nowadays.
I resign from this discussion.
Simple reason: this is going nowhere.
(I'll actually not partake in any political or religious discussions on WF anymore.. )
Guerilla: I apologized for any ad hominem attacks on my side and even unblocked you.
Guess that was not reciprocal.
Anyhow, I invite you to good coffee and lots of discussion should we ever meet in person. It seems that a forum like this leaves too much room for bad communication practices.
skype: captain klinge (omit the space)
I reside in Switzerland, so I'll add a good fondue to the mix should you ever head on over here.
::emp::
Simple reason: this is going nowhere.
(I'll actually not partake in any political or religious discussions on WF anymore.. )
Guerilla: I apologized for any ad hominem attacks on my side and even unblocked you.
Guess that was not reciprocal.
Anyhow, I invite you to good coffee and lots of discussion should we ever meet in person. It seems that a forum like this leaves too much room for bad communication practices.
skype: captain klinge (omit the space)
I reside in Switzerland, so I'll add a good fondue to the mix should you ever head on over here.
::emp::
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Bakunin was an anarcho-communist. Almost no one is a communist anymore except apparently, Psuedo Nym. It's a pretty bad political theory.
(That's why the Glen Beck claims you repeat about Obama are nonsense. Obama is a fascist, not a Communist)
That said, what's your political theory? Do you support theft and violence against innocents? Do you recognize the primacy of the individual or the group?
