Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What is Anarchy?

1…678911

Comments

  • #302
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Hazlittle wrote: »
    If socialism could work then why dont socialistt pull their resources and build a socialist society somewhere in the country side? If socialism works then you should be able to creat a company and jobs out of nothing.

    You are confusing socialism with hippie communes

    Socialism needs a state to co-ordinate capital, labour and resources.


  • #303
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    McDougal wrote: »
    You are confusing socialism with hippie communes

    Socialism needs a state to co-ordinate capital, labour and resources.

    What too lazy for revolution?

    Get a bunch of mates, save up and bam you have all you need. Promote yourself online. Get more funding n and slowly take over the state.

    Admit it you are just lazy.


  • #304
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Hazlittle wrote: »
    What too lazy for revolution?

    Get a bunch of mates, save up and bam you have all you need. Promote yourself online. Get more funding n and slowly take over the state.

    Admit it you are just lazy.

    You are just trolling now

    Why don't you and the rest of the Ron Paul crazies move to some Island set up a free market utopia. You can even sell off every little stream, every little rock. Hell you could even sell off the airspace to some hero entrepreneur.


  • #305
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    McDougal wrote: »
    I could easily claim that private property is theft.

    Capitalists have a very strange idea of theft. They steal and rob everyone blind and if someone suggests they give something back they accuse that person of being a thief!

    I have a great idea for a tv show. Two islands, one full of socialists and one full of libertarians. I wonder what would happen?


  • #306
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    I have a great idea for a tv show. Two islands, one full of socialists and one full of libertarians. I wonder what would happen?

    The libertarians would become socialists I imagine


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    McDougal wrote: »
    Socialism needs a state to co-ordinate capital, labour and resources.

    The socialist state is incapable of co-ordinating capital, labour and resources efficiently due to the absence of a price mechanism. How do you suppose the socialist state can overcome the problem of economic calculation?


  • #308
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    McDougal wrote: »
    You are just trolling now

    Why don't you and the rest of the Ron Paul crazies move to some Island set up a free market utopia. You can even sell off every little stream, every little rock. Hell you could even sell off the airspace to some hero entrepreneur.

    Because the state gets in my way. Thats the difference. You need a state and we dont want one.


  • #309
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Hazlittle wrote: »
    Because the state gets in my way. Thats the difference. You need a state and we dont want one.

    Would there be a right to education in a "libertarian" society?
    Would the rivers and lakes be sold to private indiviuals?
    Who would own the airspace?
    Who business owners reserve the rights not to serve minority groups or races they were predujice against?
    Would there be any healthcare for the poor?
    Would there be a toll on every bridge and road?

    Seriously I'm genuinely interested


  • #310
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    Soldie wrote: »
    The socialist state is incapable of co-ordinating capital, labour and resources efficiently due to the absence of a price mechanism. How do you suppose the socialist state can overcome the problem of economic calculation?

    Norway seems to be doing pretty well. And I don't wanna hear "Oh, they have vast amounts of natural resources." or any of that crap. It has nothing to do with the way they run the country. They pay high taxes and everyone benefits from high quality social services. Why? Because they don't have crooks and mafia heads running their country, lining their pockets with taxpayers money.


  • #311
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    demonspawn wrote: »
    Norway seems to be doing pretty well. And I don't wanna hear "Oh, they have vast amounts of natural resources." or any of that crap. It has nothing to do with the way they run the country. They pay high taxes and everyone benefits from high quality social services. Why? Because they don't have crooks and mafia heads running their country, lining their pockets with taxpayers money.

    Norway is not a socialist country; it is a social democracy.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    McDougal wrote: »
    Would there be a right to education in a "libertarian" society?
    Would the rivers and lakes be sold to private indiviuals?
    Who would own the airspace?
    Who business owners reserve the rights not to serve minority groups or races they were predujice against?
    Would there be any healthcare for the poor?
    Would there be a toll on every bridge and road?

    Seriously I'm genuinely interested

    This thread is about anarchy.

    1-You have the right to free education. Its called the internet. If you want to learn history download an e-book. There's no copyright in anarchy.

    2-The regulation of rivers would differ from culture to culture. There was a discussion on anarchy last night and the speaker mentioned that in the wild west they had common ownership of rivers which led to rivers being abused. In Brehon law the river belonged to whoever owned the beginning of the stream where all the water comes from.

    3-Airplanes and anarchy havent existed at the same time so I can only guess that you would the air space above you to the point that is manageable. A jet plane is 120db from something like 500m. So something like 1km above you house sounds reasonable to me.

    4-You have the absolute right to be racist as much you have a right to remove custom people who are racist. If I own a racist pubs I'll lose business ffrom non-racist customers.

    5-Up until 1950 the majority of hopitals were charity ran in America.

    6-People are free to work together to build free roads that benefit society if they want to.


    demonspawn wrote: »
    Norway seems to be doing pretty well. And I don't wanna hear "Oh, they have vast amounts of natural resources." or any of that crap. It has nothing to do with the way they run the country. They pay high taxes and everyone benefits from high quality social services. Why? Because they don't have crooks and mafia heads running their country, lining their pockets with taxpayers money.

    You dont know Norway then do you?:rolleyes:


  • #313
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Hazlittle wrote: »
    This thread is about anarchy.

    1-You have the right to free education. Its called the internet. If you want to learn history download an e-book. There's no copyright in anarchy.

    2-The regulation of rivers would differ from culture to culture. There was a discussion on anarchy last night and the speaker mentioned that in the wild west they had common ownership of rivers which led to rivers being abused. In Brehon law the river belonged to whoever owned the beginning of the stream where all the water comes from.

    3-Airplanes and anarchy havent existed at the same time so I can only guess that you would the air space above you to the point that is manageable. A jet plane is 120db from something like 500m. So something like 1km above you house sounds reasonable to me.

    4-You have the absolute right to be racist as much you have a right to remove custom people who are racist. If I own a racist pubs I'll lose business ffrom non-racist customers.

    5-Up until 1950 the majority of hopitals were charity ran in America.

    6-People are free to work together to build free roads that benefit society if they want to.


    Well thank you for answering but that sounds horrific


  • #314
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    McDougal wrote: »
    Well thank you for answering but that sounds horrific

    Whats wrong with governing with free will?


  • #315
    Joyce Country
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 284 ✭✭Joyce Country


    Hazlittle wrote: »
    Whats wrong with governing with free will?

    How is it free will when no one in the world apart from a few tea party nuts advocate it?


  • #316
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    Joyce Country wrote: »
    How is it free will when no one in the world apart from a few tea party nuts advocate it?

    Sorry I dont understand the question. Democracy isnt free will. If we vote to drink Guiness then that isnt free will. Free will allows people to choose what pint to buy.


  • #317
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Hazlittle wrote: »
    Sorry I dont understand the question. Democracy isnt free will. If we vote to drink Guiness then that isnt free will. Free will allows people to choose what pint to buy.

    And what about poor people? How much free will do they have?


  • #318
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Hazlittle wrote: »
    Sorry I dont understand the question. Democracy isnt free will. If we vote to drink Guiness then that isnt free will. Free will allows people to choose what pint to buy.

    Haha, seriously? Free will that is based on so many extraneous circumstances
    that are practically dependent on the political & economic environment
    maybe, but this is merely an example of a person's choice between paper or
    plastic in a world hell bent on making money & satiating the consumer seeing
    as (s)he is, after all, just a consumer and it's their human appetite's &
    weaknesses we as the sellers must focus on in order to sell our product
    & survive/be-successful. That is not anarchy it's like libertarian consumer
    capitalism & the river argument holds no water as a general example it's
    merely a specific case of something that appears to have gone bad, that
    is no argument to convince anyone we should give a single person
    ownership of a river under an anarchist system just because they happen
    to own the property residing there...

    As the question was just put -how much free will do poor people have?


  • #319
    Cannibal Ox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭Cannibal Ox


    Hazlittle wrote:
    Whats wrong with governing with free will?
    Doublethink?

    Governance = establishing legal and administrative constraints on actions.
    Free will = the exercise of choice unimpeded by external constraints.

    Governance + Free Will = Doublethink?

    I suppose you could argue the governor governs with free will, because no one governs the governor if the governor is to have free choice*, but then the subjects of the governor would be, well, subjects, whose freedom would be constrained by a governor.

    Which, I suppose, raises the question, of what you mean by free will? Do you actually mean absolute free choice, or, are you talking about a kind of watered down free will, where you acknowledge that no one has absolute free will, but it is good if they have the most amount of choice possible? In which case is it about freedom at all? Or is it about choice?


    *ignoring economic, biological, sociological, and psychological, determinants of choice.


  • #320
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    McDougal wrote: »
    And what about poor people? How much free will do they have?

    As much as I do. I'm not a rich man. But I spend a small of amount of money that I earn.
    Cannibal Ox wrote: »
    Doublethink?

    Governance = establishing legal and administrative constraints on actions.
    Free will = the exercise of choice unimpeded by external constraints.

    Governance + Free Will = Doublethink?

    I suppose you could argue the governor governs with free will, because no one governs the governor if the governor is to have free choice*, but then the subjects of the governor would be, well, subjects, whose freedom would be constrained by a governor.

    Which, I suppose, raises the question, of what you mean by free will? Do you actually mean absolute free choice, or, are you talking about a kind of watered down free will, where you acknowledge that no one has absolute free will, but it is good if they have the most amount of choice possible? In which case is it about freedom at all? Or is it about choice?


    *ignoring economic, biological, sociological, and psychological, determinants of choice.

    It is my belief you should be able to choose your government like you choose your breakfast in the morning. You choose your level or taxes and social rules. I'm totally fine with chaos.


  • #321
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    There is no point debating with "libertarians" just as there is no point debating with advocates of paedophillia or racism. It is an inherently evil belief based upon the dictatorship of property. Those with property are free to destroy those without.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    McDougal wrote: »
    There is no point debating with "libertarians" just as there is no point debating with advocates of paedophillia or racism. It is an inherently evil belief based upon the dictatorship of property. Those with property are free to destroy those without.

    The old 'Libertarians are paedos and racists' strategy. hole in one.


  • #323
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    McDougal wrote: »
    There is no point debating with "libertarians" just as there is no point debating with advocates of paedophillia or racism. It is an inherently evil belief based upon the dictatorship of property. Those with property are free to destroy those without.

    Hahaha brilliant ! Who are you ? A 12 year old Joseph Goebbels wannabe working for the socialist ministry of truth?


  • #324
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    I can't find any flaw with that characterization... It's just a fetishization
    of money and property & we haven't heard anyone explain to us why poor
    people should accept libertarianism over anarchism, let alone capitalism.


  • #325
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    I can't find any flaw with that characterization... It's just a fetishization
    of money and property & we haven't heard anyone explain to us why poor
    people should accept libertarianism over anarchism, let alone capitalism.

    The burden of proof is on you the statist! Look if a doctor is claiming that pill should be forced down everybodys throat then the burden of proof lies on the doctor!!

    As an anarchist I am saying I do not want any pills forced down my throat. It is ridiculous to think that a person has to prove if pills should not be forced on him.

    So statist put the pills down and step away from the cabinet or prove to me that I need them. And If decide to take them. Then let me do it voluntarily!!!


  • #326
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    I can't find any flaw with that characterization... It's just a fetishization
    of money and property & we haven't heard anyone explain to us why poor
    people should accept libertarianism over anarchism, let alone capitalism.

    If freedom isnt enough to intrigue a man then he must be happy living like a dog. Getting a few treats for his master in exchange for some tricks. I do not desire material wealth. I have no need to steal from Paul to give to Peter. Its not about money or property. Its about choosing how I live my life. There is only so far a man can be pushed before stands up and says thats enough.


  • #327
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Hazlittle wrote: »
    If freedom isnt enough to intrigue a man then he must be happy living like a dog. Getting a few treats for his master in exchange for some tricks. I do not desire material wealth. I have no need to steal from Paul to give to Peter. Its not about money or property. Its about choosing how I live my life. There is only so far a man can be pushed before stands up and says thats enough.

    Yet you advocate libertarianism which inevitably leads to exploitation?


  • #328
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    McDougal wrote: »
    Yet you advocate libertarianism which inevitably leads to exploitation?

    Nope.


  • #329
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Look, freedom is a very romantic notion and all, it sounds very pleasing.
    We can bring out some extreme versions with Charlton Heston saying
    "from my cold dead hands" or whatever, but the simple fact is that if you
    advocate a society in which people are just "free" we will have a situation
    in which there is freedom for the few - those who have money - and the
    rest, those incorrigible dogs who've refused to devote their lives to industry,
    will have nothing. What happens to the unemployed under your freedom?

    As I've already asked a few times at this stage & been ignored, how does
    what you're advocating benefit the poor & why should they give up a system
    in which people have fought tirelessly in order to grant them some
    fundamental necesssities?


  • #330
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Look, freedom is a very romantic notion and all, it sounds very pleasing.
    We can bring out some extreme versions with Charlton Heston saying
    "from my cold dead hands" or whatever, but the simple fact is that if you
    advocate a society in which people are just "free" we will have a situation
    in which there is freedom for the few - those who have money - and the
    rest, those incorrigible dogs who've refused to devote their lives to industry,
    will have nothing. What happens to the unemployed under your freedom?

    I have already posted a detailed 20 page PDF describing my ideal system with low unemployment, high wages, economic stability and security. I'm a big fan of copying precious working systems.
    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    As I've already asked a few times at this stage & been ignored, how does
    what you're advocating benefit the poor & why should they give up a system
    in which people have fought tirelessly in order to grant them some
    fundamental necesssities?

    Freer socially and economically. More jobs available. Getting paid due to your ability. Able to move upwards in society. Become a better person. Economic stability. Better savings. Return on the fruits of your labour. You will no longer be a thieving scumbag. You might actually do somehting with your life.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Hazlittle wrote: »
    I have already posted a detailed 20 page PDF describing my ideal system with low unemployment, high wages, economic stability and security. I'm a big fan of copying precious working systems.



    Freer socially and economically. More jobs available. Getting paid due to your ability. Able to move upwards in society. Become a better person. Economic stability. Better savings. Return on the fruits of your labour. You will no longer be a thieving scumbag. You might actually do somehting with your life.

    What a load of nonsense. Within 50 years of "Libertarianism" the world would be controlled by 10 or 12 corporations while 95% of people worked for them for sh1te wages. Libertarianism is the quickest road to serfdom. The law would be based upon who had the most guns. It's a disgusting system.


Advertisement