|
On January 29 2010 19:28 Yurebis wrote:
Yeah, I hate the state so much that I riot about the streets. I'm an angry anarchist, watch out.
Did I say that? Please correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that anarchists like communists believe that the only way to take power away from the current states is by violent means. I used the word riot because I didn't think anarchists liked the word revolution, but if you like that word better then by all means lets call it a revolution. =)
Communists would of course try to reduce the amount of violence by organizing people and building a mass-movement. But to believe that any state would sit idly by while you take control is utter fantasy and I don't think that any anarchist theoreticians would claim that that is a possibility.
Violence is an unavoidable part of any kind of social transformation, call it riot or revolution, the difference is semantics.
|
It's wrong. I'm not rioting and neither is any anarcho-capitalist I know.
Rioting is not a prerequisite for anarchism of any type, that's just a mainstream characterization to shy people away from the idea. Akin to... atheists are evil people or whatever.
Why would an anarchist riot anyway, it just calls for more state power to be used against him.
|
I doubt if anyone who voted Communist or anarchist or fascist is actually serious.
|
On January 29 2010 19:59 Yurebis wrote:
It's wrong. I'm not rioting and neither is any anarcho-capitalist I know.
Rioting is not a prerequisite for anarchism of any type, that's just a mainstream characterization to shy people away from the idea. Akin to... atheists are evil people or whatever.
Why would an anarchist riot anyway, it just calls for more state power to be used against him.
Then I am sorry for misinterpreting your words, but please enlighten me. 
What DOES anarcho-capitalist mean? As far as I know, and if I understood your post correctly, you dislike social-classes. Anarchists usually also dislike states, so Im guessing this goes for you as well?
So if you dislike classes and states, what do you plan to do about it then? How will you remove states and social-classes?
On January 29 2010 20:04 Loanshark wrote:
I doubt if anyone who voted Communist or anarchist or fascist is actually serious.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm certainly serious.
|
People often ask me where I stand politically. It’s not that I disagree with Bush’s economic policy or his foreign policy, it’s that I believe he was a child of Satan sent here to destroy the planet Earth. Little to the left.
- Bill Hicks
|
Which one is the one where I don't give a crap about anything? It's a serious question.
|
Stop paying taxes and the plan-people are out of a job. Not that extreme of a revolution, is it?
The means are separate from the ends however. There may be anarcho-capitalists out there who think we should kill every statist, I dont know. Much like there may be a socialist who wants to kill all capitalists, whatever. It's not the means that are characterized by what system they would like to live in. There may be one or another more popular idea, but it's the ends that matter as far as these labels go.
On January 29 2010 20:14 kOre wrote:
Which one is the one where I don't give a crap about anything? It's a serious question.
Apathy. One which I respect more than the statist choices to be honest. You don't take a liking into ordering people around, I suppose. That's great. A statist would find that weak, but I think it's great.
|
I like that one. I don't really like ordering people to do stuff because that means I rely on them to some extent, and I also don't like taking orders from people because that's just stupid. APATHY FTW! 
|
That's what I would be if I weren't such a raging, rioting, anarchist...
Edit: hmm... better remove the cop-killing part...
|
On January 29 2010 20:15 Yurebis wrote:
Stop paying taxes and the plan-people are out of a job. Not that extreme of a revolution, is it?
The means are separate from the ends however. There may be anarcho-capitalists out there who think we should kill every statist, I dont know. Much like there may be a socialist who wants to kill all capitalists, whatever. It's not the means that are characterized by what system they would like to live in. There may be one or another more popular idea, but it's the ends that matter as far as these labels go.
Okay then, I think this would go under the utopian plans for social transformation.
What do you think the state would do if you stopped paying taxes? The police would arrest you. And I know that you will say that they can't arrest everyone, so if everyone just stopped paying taxes then everything would be dandy.
So lets imagine that every citizen in a metropolis stops paying taxes at the same time - the government calls it civil unrest and sends in the military, now you either fight or get arrested/shot. The same thing happens if its on a national scale, except the army deployed might not be domestic but foreign.
You would literally have to make everyone in the entire world stop paying taxes at the exact same time to avoid that, and then you would probably STILL have to deal with the military. And lets face it, you are not gonna get everyone in the entire world to stop paying taxes.
Unless you use some kind of  in which case the whole thing is irrelevant.
I do however agree with you that the goal is the most important thing, and having good goals is praiseworthy thing. But I can't agree to the claim that the means do not matter in a discussion like this – of course the means matter, ask Rosa Luxemburg if its fun to fail at social transformation, I think the answer would be "no".
|
On January 29 2010 18:00 RoyW wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2010 17:34 Rothbardian wrote:On January 29 2010 17:26 EmeraldSparks wrote:
goodness gracious we are drowning in libertarians Freedom and Liberty is not divisive :p Yeah, especially when enforced by a strongly armed police force because your society is devoid of any social responsibility
Someone missed the memo on libertarianism
|
On January 29 2010 16:10 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
Objectivist -- so libertarian is the closest this poll offers
Funny, I consider myself a radical subjectivist and therefore consider libertarian to be the most appropriate(center right might also be acceptable to me, it varies with my faith in people, the worse I think people are the more I move left at most towards social democracy), though about 8 years ago I was a communist.
Seems like the poll is going exactly as one would expect from an on-line community
EDIT: a big exception for me would be the public provision of education, which I would have to support or else I would be a big massive hypocrite, also sceptical on the markets ability to provide health care, but as I'm not a health economist so best to leave sleeping dogs lie
|
On January 29 2010 15:25 nttea wrote:Socialist, but i vary day to day between communist and social democrat  edit: that was not in response to above question, i voted socialist.
^
What's wrong with Sweden.
I'm a libertarian
|
On January 29 2010 21:40 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2010 15:25 nttea wrote:Socialist, but i vary day to day between communist and social democrat edit: that was not in response to above question, i voted socialist. ^ What's wrong with Sweden. I'm a libertarian
the right-wing is what's wrong with sweden :p
|
Libertarian here.
Edit: To clarify, due to all the libertarians-can-be-a-lot-of-things posts in the following pages:
I am a classical liberal, not an anarcho-capitalist.
|
On January 29 2010 20:36 Hasudk wrote:You would literally have to make everyone in the entire world stop paying taxes at the exact same time to avoid that, and then you would probably STILL have to deal with the military. And lets face it, you are not gonna get everyone in the entire world to stop paying taxes. Unless you use some kind of in which case the whole thing is irrelevant. I do however agree with you that the goal is the most important thing, and having good goals is praiseworthy thing. But I can't agree to the claim that the means do not matter in a discussion like this – of course the means matter, ask Rosa Luxemburg if its fun to fail at social transformation, I think the answer would be "no".
The army wouldn't necessarily protect a defunct mafia when it has no money nor future prospect of having money. Because... they're not likely to be paid even if they do beat up some anarchists.
The scenario you have in mind is one where there's a transition from plan-people to plan-people. In that case, the army does try to suppress rioting and revolution because they're more likely to be paid that way, be it to pave a clean way to the next plan-person or to maintain the power of the current one. But once the prospect of future taxation is over with, there's nothing they can do, they're screwed either way. They'd be better off enlisting for some foreign nation's army or something. Why would a soldier risk his life defending the undefendable, for no pay, now or later?
What I've said about the means is that they don't matter for the labels to be correct (an anarchist is an anarchist no matter what way he wishes the state to be brought down in) as the labels deal with ends and not means. That was my contention. How much do they matter is something subjective.
|
I'm guessing 41 people don't know what a Libertarian actually is lol
|
25% Libertarian is very hard to believe lol (thus far anyway). Either people don't know what a libertarian is or there are a lot of silent libertarians around here.
|
On January 29 2010 22:41 Amber[LighT] wrote:
I'm guessing 41 people don't know what a Libertarian actually is lol
Hey hey, 40 ok.
|
In Sweden I consider myself right-wing.
In the US I'm socialist swine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
