In this thread we post short things that don’t require a separate thread.
Previous low content threads:
Februari 2011
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/february-2011-low-content-thread/17318
Januari 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
Anarcho-capitalist t-shirts:
Store links: http://www.vforvoluntary.com/store
(commission for me is set at 0 at Spreadshirt and lowest 10% at Zazzle)
Lowest price is $10.40 (both versions) and 10.90 EUR in Europe (white version).
$4.50 delivery in the US at Spreadshirt, and 3 to 4 euros delivery in Europe at Spreadshirt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY
Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?
It’s a nice design…maybe because I’m a minimalist, but I feel there is too much on the shirt. What about taking the two icons off and what surrounds them, and keeping the “You own your life” and the snake. If you wanna keep the anarchy sign, put it somewhere more appropriate.
Keep the goal of the shirt in mind. If it is ambiguous what will it accomplish? The goal of the shirt is to give people an idea of what you’re about. The way it is now it sends off a much stronger signal than with a minimalist message. People aren’t used to seeing both an anarchy symbol and an expression of capitalism at the same time. So this creates an opportunity for someone else to bring up the subject (ask you) and then you can elaborate on things.
It’s also important that it looks sort off cool, and showing that you’re comfortable wearing it (and it’s message).
This is why I believe these elements all need to be in there. So it isn’t just a way to signal to others who already agree with you, but to signal proudly to others who may take an interest.
I mean with those minimal elements, it may spark enough curiosity for a viewer to ASK the person wearing the shirt what it’s about. Plus capitalism and anarchy may be too much to take in at once.
It’s precisely the point to offer them something they can’t yet take in.
Touche.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0A8Qf893cs
A russian anarchist artist who tries to make a statement by hugging and kissing Russian police officers.
The song is a anarcho-communist song: Hey, hey daloy politsey (down with the police)
That’s not an anarchist.
Are Violent Rioters Anarchists?##### By Per Bylund, as appeared in: Blame Anarchism?
Destruction is a statist measure; it is fundamental to government. So what are the black-clad youngsters so filled with hatred and so prone to destroy? They call themselves anarchists, but they are the embodiment of the statist principle: “do as I say–or else”. The masked hordes rioting the streets calling for anarchy want power; they want the power to do as they please, and they want the power to separate action from responsibility. They want the freedom to act–without consequence. They demand respect from others in the sense of fear, obedience and subjection rather than appreciation and admiration; they want to be the state and control its powers.
They are indeed the opposite of any conceivable part of the anarchist tradition, but use the label to place responsibility of their deeds on others. They blame anarchism for their actions, while demanding the powers of the state to mold society into their view of utopia. The riots are not a call for freedom; it is a call for another kind of government. Anarchism, on the other hand, is the absence of government.
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/wiki/AreViolentRiotersAnarchists
Sorry Nielso, anarchism is not the absence of government.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/anarchism-big-society
Anarchists say so! 
So we’re more anarchist then the “true” anarchists?
Or rather less, because we support capitalism!
Can we call them the conservative or orthodox anarchists (preferably conservative because the connotation and association with conservatives will piss them off)?
Anarchists who smash stuff are always anarcho-communists. All political violence originates from the left. And of course anrcho-communism is an oxymoron. The only form of anarchism is when the entities that control scarce objects are persons. When you reject private property you necessarily have to have a state. Just that they have shrunk their state to where persons can directly influence it, then they assume that everybody will happily get along and participate in the decision making process, that’s how they can pretend that their miniature states would not be states. But they would be local monopolies on force and the ownership of the means of production. Although the commies kind of came up with the term anarchist first, so I think they should be allowed to keep it. As such anarchism (statelessness and absence of property rights) simply can’t exist in reality.
Honestly, I think the words “anarchy” and “anarchism” are far beyond saving at this point and even the words “capitalism” and “libertarianism” I find highly problematic in conversation with most people. There are certain pre-conceived notions of what those things mean that are nigh impossible to root out of peoples’ heads.
I’ve been trying to use terms like “emergent society” or “polycentric law”. It seems to slow people down in throwing up mental barriers when you use unfamiliar phrases rather than ones they think they understand and have already rejected.
You may have seen this, but I hadn’t yet and it was great.
Matt Ridley: When ideas have sex
