Daily Anarchist Forum
December 09, 2019, 08:24:41 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"  (Read 27867 times)
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2012, 05:10:01 PM »

Yes, their not protesting because their losing their jobs, which were the only only ones in greece, their ability to get basic medical care, and food, no its "special privileges. Anarchists don't like social democracy, but we consider it better than cut throat US style capitalism (people not dieing because they can't pay for hospital bills. I'm not Ron Paul I don't want sick people to die.
Maybe you should think twice before you champion free government "services." Your personal experience with them hasn't panned out so well. At 15 years of age, you should be able to read and write. I hope, for your sake, that English is not your first language.

The only lasting impression you've left on me (and I suspect the majority of the community), has been your inability to write coherently, and failure to read or comprehend very basic ideas. The current healthcare system is as close to fascist as you can get. It is private in name only...public in reality. If people are dying, it's because of the state.

Your above post is the last one I will respond to, at least until you achieve something resembling functional literacy (and I'm not holding my breath).
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2012, 05:28:00 PM »

I am completely capable of writing clearly. I just choose not because this is the internet
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2012, 05:30:30 PM »

They go around breaking things and starting conflicts...because the government got reduced in size! Yes, protesting because their access to pillaged wealth is being reduced. Anarchists shouldn't riot when the government gets reduced or crippled due to a loss of credit channels...they should rejoice.

I'm not an an-com, nor am I a rioter. However, you've brought something up that I'd like to address. Not every reduction in statism is something that should be celebrated, because it may not actually be a reduction in statism. Let me explain. Take, for example, welfare for the poor. I think we can all agree that the bloated welfare state is terrible. However, that welfare, as crippling as it is, makes life livable for those most suffering under this current system of corporate capitalism. A large degree of statism was introduced when the corporations and politically favored industries were originally given their privileges. Logically, those with less wealth got screwed over. The welfare serves to counteract the negative effects of that privilege (even if not very effectively). To take away just the welfare before taking away the corporate privilege would be to allow the original statism to run uninhibited, and that shouldn't be celebrated.

Maybe you already know this and I'm just running on, but this is a concept that I think too few market anarchists understand.

Thanks for saying what I wanted to say better than I could.

Also, I have the ability to write correctly. I simply choose not to, because this is the internet and I don't feel the need to.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 05:56:06 PM by assasin7 » Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2012, 05:51:38 PM »

They go around breaking things and starting conflicts...because the government got reduced in size! Yes, protesting because their access to pillaged wealth is being reduced. Anarchists shouldn't riot when the government gets reduced or crippled due to a loss of credit channels...they should rejoice.

I'm not an an-com, nor am I a rioter. However, you've brought something up that I'd like to address. Not every reduction in statism is something that should be celebrated, because it may not actually be a reduction in statism. Let me explain. Take, for example, welfare for the poor. I think we can all agree that the bloated welfare state is terrible. However, that welfare, as crippling as it is, makes life livable for those most suffering under this current system of corporate capitalism. A large degree of statism was introduced when the corporations and politically favored industries were originally given their privileges. Logically, those with less wealth got screwed over. The welfare serves to counteract the negative effects of that privilege (even if not very effectively). To take away just the welfare before taking away the corporate privilege would be to allow the original statism to run uninhibited, and that shouldn't be celebrated.

Maybe you already know this and I'm just running on, but this is a concept that I think too few market anarchists understand.
I get it. But it's difficult for me to have sympathy for people who are willing to take up arms to defend their ill-gotten privilege, especially when the unborn are footing the bill.

Thanks to AgoristTeen1994 (?) posting a collection of articles recently, I reread some work by Rothbard. He was discussing what it really means to dislike the state. Ron Paul, and even Stefan Molyneux, have said before that an immediate end to the welfare state isn't something they support. It needs to be gradual to protect the dependent classes. Rothbard opposed that. He talked about judging someone based on whether they would push a button, right now, that would end the entire state immediately. Do you oppose the state so strongly that you would do it? I say yes. I get how this isn't an exact analogy to our discussion, precisely because of your previous post. Sometimes the order of removal is important. But the idea of actually rioting, and risking your own body to support ANY segment of the state is so far out of line from what anarchism is about that it disgusts me. The monster we call "the state" is nothing more than the union of all the sets of dependent and leech classes. It's just a bunch of people stealing from others. Sure, some people don't understand it, and don't have malicious intent. But the greek "anarchists" know exactly what's going on. Same with the Spanish coal miners shooting rockets in response to subsidy cuts. If someone has that strong of a vested interest in the state, you might as well consider them to BE the state. In libertarian class theory, you would say these people are exploiting the productive classes, and are willing to use violence to make it happen.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Coltan L.
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: June 26, 2012, 07:40:31 PM »

I think this discussion is stuck on labels.  What is the state? organized, legitimized violence. If its not that I'm not sure what else it is. 

Now I'm ancap as all get out.  And in my ancap paradise ancoms could do basically whatever they want as long as they're not violencing on people.  But in their world, you can't have private property or accumulated capital as I understand it (could be totally wrong, my reading stopped at abbreviated Proudhon.)  So in an Ancom world, if I have nonviolently accumulated capital, how do you stop me from keeping it without organized, legitimized, violence?

There are assumptions here. At the most base level, mine *can* involve non-violence because of original appropriation and what not.  How can Ancoms stop people from accumulating capital?  Help me out.
Logged
Coltan L.
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2012, 07:51:50 PM »

I'm realizing I don't understand mutualism as much as I could. I am curious though.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2012, 08:06:46 PM »

"How can Ancoms stop people from accumulating capital?"

I don't know, maybe starting a riot, breaking your windows and accusing you of being an exploitative hoarder who wants people to die without healthcare. Just speculating with some exaggerated sarcasm, so take it for what it's worth. I understand "mutualism" to be a subset of market anarchism. They have most of the same principles that we all share, except they have different preferences about how business should be conducted. So a mutualist might choose to work somewhere that is employee owned, buy produce from a cooperative, and find lending money (for interest) to be distasteful. But, unlike ancoms, they won't violently interfere with voluntary employer/employee, buyer/seller, borrower/lender relationships. Market anarchists with tie-dye shirts and sandals are still market anarchists. That's my uninformed opinion on the subject.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2012, 08:19:33 PM »

 I think Jeff Berwick said it best in an article he had pinned over at his blog a few weeks ago. It's absolutely illogical to refer to the rioters in Greece in anarchist simply because of their violent nature. Any individual that is willing to destroy the property of an individual that is simply trying to make a living through the act of peaceful, voluntary exchange with other individuals is nothing more than a common criminal. They're nothing but angry, violent thugs who need to be taught a lesson in the acts peace. It's the businessman that is trying to create the voluntary society through the means of agorist action. To punish that is simply senseless and cruel.
Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2012, 08:25:44 PM »

I think this discussion is stuck on labels.  What is the state? organized, legitimized violence. If its not that I'm not sure what else it is. 

Now I'm ancap as all get out.  And in my ancap paradise ancoms could do basically whatever they want as long as they're not violencing on people.  But in their world, you can't have private property or accumulated capital as I understand it (could be totally wrong, my reading stopped at abbreviated Proudhon.)  So in an Ancom world, if I have nonviolently accumulated capital, how do you stop me from keeping it without organized, legitimized, violence?

There are assumptions here. At the most base level, mine *can* involve non-violence because of original appropriation and what not.  How can Ancoms stop people from accumulating capital?  Help me out.


I wouldn't stop you from having a little area of ancapdom, but you don't understand something, your ancap society would need to invade other areas to survive.
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2012, 09:07:48 PM »

 How the hell do you figure that into your (spotty) logic?
Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
Coltan L.
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2012, 09:30:28 PM »

I think this discussion is stuck on labels.  What is the state? organized, legitimized violence. If its not that I'm not sure what else it is. 

Now I'm ancap as all get out.  And in my ancap paradise ancoms could do basically whatever they want as long as they're not violencing on people.  But in their world, you can't have private property or accumulated capital as I understand it (could be totally wrong, my reading stopped at abbreviated Proudhon.)  So in an Ancom world, if I have nonviolently accumulated capital, how do you stop me from keeping it without organized, legitimized, violence?

There are assumptions here. At the most base level, mine *can* involve non-violence because of original appropriation and what not.  How can Ancoms stop people from accumulating capital?  Help me out.


I wouldn't stop you from having a little area of ancapdom, but you don't understand something, your ancap society would need to invade other areas to survive.

Yeah, I need more than that.

It seems like you see the same paradox in Ancap as I do in Ancom. And that's really interesting.

Why do you think capitalism, the real system of mutual exchange not what is going on in Merika now, requires violence. If I grow a potato and BlackandGr9y wants to trade it for toe-socks that s/he makes with his/her wicked knitting skills.  How do either of us lose?  Especially me?

Whereas at least in my limited understanding, an Ancom system would have to be either closed, to protect from outsiders potentially (probably) more efficiently produced goods. Or it would have to be violent to stop outsiders from being outsiders.

The tricky thing about this discussion that I've noticed in the few aborted attempts I've had at it is that both groups use terms very differently.  Some Ancoms call stuff non-violent, or at least give a pass to it, that makes me want to puke and die. Likewise, you may call my starch/sock exchange violent.  I donno.
Logged
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2012, 09:57:33 PM »

this is lol:

http://libcom.org/files/buffy.pdf

Onto business:

1. Capitalism requires a slave class (in America its illegal immigrants who would fight for fear of deportation)

2. Capitalism will collapse, because the cheapest way to run a company is automation, meaning that over time their will be products and no one to buy them. So they will have to spread markets ie: invade other areas, which will suit part 1, by taking military prisoners)


As for production, look at AK Press, 20 books a year, and only 7 employees
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Coltan L.
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2012, 10:39:33 PM »

this is lol:

http://libcom.org/files/buffy.pdf

Onto business:

1. Capitalism requires a slave class (in America its illegal immigrants who would fight for fear of deportation)

2. Capitalism will collapse, because the cheapest way to run a company is automation, meaning that over time their will be products and no one to buy them. So they will have to spread markets ie: invade other areas, which will suit part 1, by taking military prisoners)


As for production, look at AK Press, 20 books a year, and only 7 employees

Who's the slave in my exchange with Blackandgr9y? Its pretty clear who's getting the worse deal, but that's up them and their subjective values. Don't you think with automation people will just develop new skills?  And automation can't replace everything or even most things.  I prefer my prostitutes live. In all seriousness I can't stand robot teleprompters, I pay more for car insurance because the place I go through has solid customer service.  I'm not biting.
Logged
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2012, 10:42:26 PM »

I meant production of goods.

that trade isn't capitalism, by capitalism I meant a system were money is used to make more money
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2012, 11:30:54 PM »

Which, in turn, is used to make better goods. It's called investment.
Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!