No, he just says a lot of things that happen to be very true.
Well I just think it looks quite nice. It also gets a nice reaction out of people who like to throw around the term monarchist.
The term “statist” is too easily thrown around on these forums. So what? The state also referred to slaves as property, I guess we better drop those words too?
Nonsense. Property rights does not grant completely arbitrary authority. People do not become your defacto slave as soon as they walk on your lawn. Your conception of property rights appears to legitimize outright psychopathy.
Arbitrarily “excersizing dominating power” over someone is not consistant with libertarianism, it’s practically the definition of crime. Individual rights are supposed to protect people from rulership.
As for your poor attempts at taking rhetorical pot-shots, I’m not a mutualist.
How is the student being ruled over? You’re the one with the onus of proof.
No, it’s still not.
Your argument is seriously made of fail.
Or maybe yes. Since statism and military command are quite closely related, it’s no wonder that the term ‘ruler’ and ‘leader’ are related as well. Leader is of course the one who ‘leads’ an army or gang of thieves.
This can also be seen in the word duke :
1129, from O.Fr. duc and L. dux (gen. ducis) “leader, commander,” in L.L. “governor of a province,” from ducere “to lead,”
The thing is, the idea of leadership is rather militaristic and at odds with the foundations of a libertarian society : voluntarism and contract.
What? A mentor doesn’t direct? Nonsense.
He is being guided, a leader can be defined as one who guides, or directs. It’s that simple.
What? A mentor rules over the person? Nonsense!
And yet a mentor doesn’t rule over the person.
You realize that I’m just going to hound you with this, don’t you? You need to admit your error for that to not happen.
He also has called himself an anarcho-capitalist.
This wouldn’t surprise me. Do you just pick the definitions that conform to the point you are trying to make and ignore the rest, even if more general and used often. I dunno, do you have anything to say that’s worth reading?
I’ll give you a hint, I know it’s not. My point; there is a differentiation between a “ruler”, someone who uses the threat of violence to back up their “rules” i.e laws. And someone who “guides” someone voluntarily, without that threat. Or do you not see a difference?
Where is the coercion, force, violence in the relationship? Hire your own PDA, insurance company - you won’t be “ruled” over. Free to defend yourself from “rulers” lol. Family - voluntary socialism, the breadwinner provides food, shelter, and other goods. He can withdraw that when he wishes, his/her property - he sets the ‘rules’. Nothing stopping the person leaving at any time - and withdrawing from those ‘rules’. Ain’t the same with a nation or state, homesteading - they don’t legitimately own the land. The “you can just leave argument” is fallacious.
Other institutions - you mean business right. Like the Boss? The owner who sets the ‘rules’? C’mon now..
Indeed. Somebody did. [:)]
I think this equation is very wrong, & is what furthers ignorance out of spite (in addition to frustration) among anarchists who are not anarcho-capitalist, or at least find problems with the term itself.
You’re ignoring the basic origins of the word anarchy itself (quick reference, but googling additional sources obviously helps: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchy), and while uncovering linguistic origins of labels & terms will be the last thing on earth to prevent semantic arguments & word soup from developing, it doesn’t help when one is trying to correct the etymology of a word that may longer be viewed as inherently useful (anarcho-capitalism), in an attempt to create a new word to correct confusion associated with the previous.
There is already a word, or at least an attempt at describing “no voluntary government”, of which is found in the philosophy of voluntaryism, which is what I find libertarianism is more accuratley rooted with rather than anarchism (by that I mean libertarianism and voluntarysim seem to be more compatible, & in some cases merley use different language to describe similar things, compared to libertarianism & the various flavors of anarchism).
I say this despite the possible logical conclusions of a stateless society (wherin State could be defined as involuntary government, or the involuntary system) possible leading to anarchism (which the definition I will use implies no rulers, which despite the okay by many of voluntary rulers,many anarchists still take problem to the concept of rulers themselves), of which the arguments range from the absurd to the convincing. I’d appreciate if left-libertarians would be gentle with me when I say this, as my interest is discussion, not trespassing [H]
Keep in mind however, I’m not inherently seperating libertarianism, anarchism, & voluntaryism, either. They all share very common themes in their logic & reasoning, & perhaps a meta apparoach towards these 3 may yeild a better path at determing a better term to be used when once describes what is usually associated with anarcho-capitalism and/or market-anarchism (the various flavors associated aside, of course).
I have to give you this, Giles: at least you came up with a novel version of the anarcho-semantics debate.
^^^ This.
Thats actually a very good analogy. Yes people were reffered to as property, jet freedom-minded people recognised that did not make it so. Equally today rulers are reffered to as leaders, but we, freedom-minded people, recognise that does not make them so.
Giles was good for awhile there, but he’s really missed the point lately, and that’s leading him into conflict with people who aren’t his enemies, naturally or intentionally.
As I mentioned recently, GS was a worshiper of Benito Giuliani, desperately craving an opportunity to lick El Duce’s boots, while laying naked, sideways on a marble bathroom floor at the White House.
For a brief period of time, GS seemed to have overcome his lust for being dominated by a stronger, and yet infinitely more evil man. But then he found Hoppe. And went from reading Mises AND Rothbard while exploring others, to, Hoppe this, Hoppe that.
Hoppe is pretty good. I haven’t found much to disagree with so far. However, I’m not using Hoppe exclusively, and trying to fill in every blank or untouched area by using Hoppe alone, or extending his ideas to answer everything, including the meaning of life itself.
We use a hammer to pound nails, not to stir a soup, and while Hoppe makes a lot of great points, assuming he is the end of knowledge, and everything he has come up with is perfect, ultimately leads to the sort of latent pseudo intellectual sexual masochism on display in this thread.
It’s good to take a step back, and make sure we’re not obsessed with Proudhon, or Tucker. George or Mises. Rothbard or Hoppe. These are starting, not ending points on the road to a more complete knowledge.
Too bad Lord Brock O’Banna didn’t make this speech the other day instead of what he did…
Liberty student… et tu Brutus?
This is actually fairly ironic, since the character displayed (Hue) de-assimilates from the Borg due to lack of contact with the collective.
er…
I mean, “i lol’ed”.
walks away whistling
Competitive Rulers is Nonsense.
You can’t start competing with a ruler if you’re not a ruler already. If someone rules you, you don’t compete with him, unless you’re up for a revolution. Saying otherwise amounts to settling with state to state competition. Or like arguing that from now on no new companies will be formed, is that true competition?
He makes a fair point; words can have more than one meaning - and when it comes to irrelevant or useless posts you post at least as many as anyone else:
