I did summarize a good deal in those 2 videos
mr1001nights, your critique of capitalism is actually a critique of the mixed economy and corporatism. In a true free market, people would not have to work for a boss if they didn’t wish to, there would be plenty of land that they could homestead and live a life on their own. In a true free market, there are many kinds of workingman associations, where the poor help each other out and live in a commune-like society. What’s wrong with this?
Contrast that with anarcho-syndicalism where certain relations are forced at the point of a gun.
Haha, you crack me up. But maybe we should play game with this troll, per libertystudent’s wishes?
I did. I spent 30 minutes on them with the intent of having a civilized debate.
It may be more productive for you to counter reality rather than the fantasy world you’ve created, Don Quixote.
Actually it seems like you’re here to advertise your videos. Maybe people should take the bait and rate them 1*?
You summarized your strawmen, and haven’t shown any indication that you understand Austrian economics or praxeology. I hoped to debate you, but I have plans tonight, and time has run out. You’ll probably be banned by the time I get back, your chief crime is being ignorant, and rather than someone try to reach out and teach you, to even test your capacity to change your mind, instead you’ll probably be tossed.
I apologize for the rude behaviour of my cohorts, somewhere along the line, people think that if you treat someone poorly or aggressively, that’s evidence of your superiority.
In the meantime, if you do get banned, don’t let that turn you off checking out AE and some economic doctrine based less on emotion, and more on rational argumentation.
Everyone here probably agrees with me when I say the videos are an exercise in logical fallacy.
…and how many moderators does it take to close a thread?
How can you call a system based on bosses “anarchism”? “syndicalist business” seems oxymoronic. Syndicalism opposes capitalism itself
Just one.
Want justification? Ok, basically, with capitalism (no government), you are free from coercion. Without a government, the only ones who would coerce would be criminals, and these would be stopped by defense agencies. Free trade is good because it freely allows people to benefit by making arrangements that benefit both. With governmnet, on the other hand, there are people who are prevented from doing this.
Here are the bad things about government: you have to be a patron of it irregardless of your consent, and they have no way of knowing if they are providing services most effectively.
Anarchism = no rulers
That means that you are free to do what you want as long as you don’t violate the freedom or liberty of others. If I want to work for a wage under a boss, I may do so. If I want to move to a syndicalist society I may do so. If I want to move to a commune, I may do so. But to say that you want to prevent people from doing something is itself anti-anarchist.
Are you joking? Brainpolice and countless other libertarians devoted - nay, wasted - COUNTLESS hours on this clown. He’s not ignorant. He’s here to push his videos.
Who will be the one to step forth? So many of you around.
Because people consent to the “bosses” being their boss.
It is crazy, the speed at which people are replying. lol
All of the mods don’t agree as to whether or not this is a troll thread.
Easy: anarchism is about there being no rulers. Your view, much like Chuck0’s leads to there being no sport sanctioning bodies, no mutually-agreed-upon arbiters–no rules of any sort whatsoever.
Now begone and take your stupidity with you.
Some of you guys want to toy with him I bet.
I will also be dissapointed in the operation of the forums if the thread is shut down.
I hope mr.1001nights remains for the sake of being an external participant in the debates here (external in that he does not agree, for the most part it seems, with most of the arguments here). I think it says a lot of his character that he actually bothered to come here in the first place.
Closing this thread would straddle the line of shutting out a “troll” (which is steadily reaching McCarthy like levels of subjectivity, imo), & providing excellent ammunition for opponents outside the forums, to advise no one to approach here with an interest in debate, lest they be banned, shunned, or ridiculed out to pasture by the mods, for consistently having different opinions than others elsewhere on the forums.
Then again, I’m far more tolerant than others, so perhaps I’m just being redundant in my opinion here.
I apologize for risking a melodramatic tone, but it’s more so cautious & worriesome, if anything else.
He’s clearly not interested in debate.