Collectivism has nothing to do with noticing obvious trends and drawing conclusions; collectivism is simply putting individual rights below some “common good”.
If someone doesn’t want to marry a member of the same sex, doesn’t want to do drugs, and doesn’t want to emmigrate to other countries, does that mean it makes sense for that person to call him/herself a “right-winger/fascist”, even if that person doesn’t want to force those views upon others?
Enough with the double-standards.
Being a self-described anarcho-capitalist yet supporting minarchism isn’t hypocritical?
“In contrast, anarcho-capitalists reject any level of state intervention, defining the state as a coercive monopoly and, as the only entity in human society that derives its income from legal aggression, an entity that inherently violates the central axiom of libertarianism.”
~ Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty
Also, it sounds like that someone can be an individualist and/or just has preferrences, so sorry, they don’t need necessarily need call themselves “right-winger/fascist” nor need to be.
For example, I do not wish to marry a member of the same sex (heterosexual / asexual), don’t want to do drugs (ditto), doesn’t want to emmigrate to other countries (I would honestly prefer not, but there might be some random one in a billion emergency so who knows for sure), and yet, lo and behold, I am not a right-winger and/or fascist.
I do however, have work in the morning.
I’m not minarchist. I support natural rights. I don’t support “competing” legal systems; that concept is anti-rights. What happens when two people can’t agree upon a legal system?
If you think about it, we currently live under “competing” legal systems; the statists legal system is beating ours.
The only alternative to competition would be a state, I.E. a territorial monopoly on the provision of law and arbitration. You claim to be an anarcho-capitalist yet reject the fundamental thing that would make one an anarcho-capitalist: support for free competition in the provision of defense, arbitration and law. In fact, you’re essentially making Randian arguments that are commonly made by objectivists against anarcho-capitalists, since they think that to allow free competition in “government” itself would allegedly violate “objective ethics”. Of course, in even supporting a coercive territorial monopolist in the first place, the objectivist is violating their own self-professed objective ethics. And if they followed their own logic through consistantly, they would have to advocate a global government since even the existance of multiple nation-states would be anarchic in relation to eachother.
Like I said before, your position seems to be closer to the objectivists than market anarchists. When pushed, you adopt a taxless minarchist position.
Well, it depends upon what you mean by profit and interest and in the Syndicalist sense I don’t believe interest really applies to them. However, do not confuse profit and interest with monetary gain - at least not for the Mutualists. The concept that more Austrian-economic type Anarchists have in concerns for profit are different than mutualists. For example, Austrians would suggest that any trade results in profit, whereas Mutualists believe that profit only occurs when the full extent of labour is not compensated with monetary gains ala LTV. Even so, many Mutualists have given the LTV up, though still adhere to some trademarks in the mutualist terminology.
You’re defining Fascism by its effects, not by its nature.
All in all, I believe Roderick Long’s article is worthy of a read here.
Or the video of the speech, which can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z31FQ1_jjlQ
Brainpolice, you still won’t answer what happens when two people can’t agree upon a court system.
There’s nothing wrong with a “coercivist monopoly” on natural rights; how is our current situation any different from the one you’re advocating? We have competing legal systems (the statists’ and ours) and they are winning.
Right, and because as long as humans have been around, there has been war. Therefore humanity is all about war.
You argue that terms can’t change their original meaning, then you change the meanings whenever it is convenient for you.
Well, that is one subject you appear to be an expert on.
No. I legitimately do believe that capitalism HAS ALWAYS meant merchant capitalism. Actually, the term mercantilism came long after the term capitalism. I wonder why…
As far as your analogy goes, however, no, war does not coincide with humanity. True, war is dependant on humanity, but humanity is not dependant upon war.
Capitalism, however, is dependant upon government protection of capital projects.
I’m sorry but reading the first few pages of this thread, this guy: Niccolò is an idiot troll. Cease making foolish and unevidenced assersions and try engaging in a rational debate. To say “ron paul isn’t a libertarian” is to say nothing. Where is your evidence? Where are your premises, your reasoning, your conclusion. This sort of behaviour does not belong in a rational debate. If you have a position you must state why you hold the position and what your evidence is. Failure to do so, and further failure to accept people’s attacks on your position is just ridiculous. Please, for the sake of libertarians everywhere, put your head in a fire.
lol
As for Ron Paul not being a libertarian, fine.
A libertarian must adhere to the non-aggression axiom and the principle of self-ownership.
Ron Paul advocates government. Government violates the first axiom, thus, Ron Paul cannot be a libertarian.
Btw. Overuse of the word “rational” is annoying.
Ron Paul seems to advocate government the same way Rothbard advocated govermnment. As a means to an end.
Most of this is just a debate about semantics. It’s like a bunch of skønn-snoerrer’s hopping in a circle.
Wich means : anarcho-communists oppose the existence of private propery except for a few items. With respect to these few items, they are ‘confused’ enough to come up with a new word in order to hide their contradictory position.
I don’t see why they make good allies in the quest for absolute property rights, i.e. libertarianism.
Except then he uses terms like
“X is unconstitutional”
“The founding fathers wanted it this way…”
“We need to return to america’s roots”
and explains away things as unamerican or hurtful to America or It’s people. He’s a populist statist as far as I’m concerned.
Well of course he words things that way. He’s running in the Republican party.
We could use more populists, even if they are minarchists.
And I’m truly tired of the argument that he is doing it wrong by voting and participating in the process.
An anarchist, by definition, opposes government as a means to an end. Political and economic or social means are opposing forces. Anarchists propose economic or social means.
I never claimed that anarcho-communists in particular make good allies. Merely pointed out the objective content of their position differs from their incorrect interpretation of its implications and is blurred by their use of labels.