It’s silly for libertarians to oppose a corporate state? That’s news to me, because I was under the impression that we all do.
Or one could aknowledge that the corporate structure is the result of state interventions on the behalf of capital, since a corporation is by definition a state-charter. So it would seem consequentially obvious that in the absence of a state altogether, there is no state to provide this charter. Since there would be no state to universalize limited liability and provide such a special legal status, the “corporation” as it currently exists, by definition, is rendered an impossibility in a stateless society. I also question who in their right mind would voluntarily sign a contract that essentially aschews all responsibility with regaurd to the people they are interacting with.
No, that’s a completely different thing than what I’m talking about. Stop changing the context to troll. For the millionth time, I’m talking about the internal constancy of one’s political philosophy. Claiming to be for free markets while favoring the war in Iraq, for example, would be internally inconsistant since something like the War in Iraq cannot be conductive without violating the fundamentals of a free market to begin with. Hence, in this case, war hawks who claim to be for free markets are inconsistant. This isn’t hard to understand.
Stop sidetracking from the content in question and personalizing. Stop it. Me as a person and my blogs and youtube videos are irrelevant to the content of this discussion. Stop derailing.
John, the state commits the violence for you. If you participate in the state, you are doing so knowing that the services and goods have been appropriated from others with the threat of violence, just as some measure is appropriated from you.
Now some will argue that you have no choice, or it’s ok, or any other number of rationales. But the way I see it, is that we compromise. Plain and simple, we make a decision not to risk injury or death, and tolerate smaller violent acts against us.
Your definition of an anarchist includes state masochism. An anarchist doesn’t use violence, and he should also probably oppose violence against himself. It’s not pacifism. It’s understanding that the use of force for or against is illegitimate.
I’m not evading anything. I just ate some pizza hut (big corporation) and now I am going to watch a DVD (produced by a big movie corporation) while drinking some Fresca (produced by the Coca Cola big corporation).
I oppose violence against myself that I can control, personally. I cannot fight the American military and police.
It’s a battle I simply don’t care about, as a result. Masochism would be me voting for more of it or wasting any time or money in the political process would be better invested elsewhere. Masochism is retreating from life so that there is a greater cost to me than the violent thugs.
I don’t know if he was or not. I was making the point, that I have yet to meet a Libertarian who has Nostradamus’ attributed excellence at precognition.
Most libertarians who claim to know the future, in my opinion, are trying to project their own fantasies.
I’m not familiar with that. Do they predict it, or say it could be one of many possible outcomes?
It’s the prognosticators who say that segregationist tribalist dystopias cannot and will not happen that are what I am talking about. These are so-called libertarians who are trying to fantasize about their own moral and cultural standards made omnipresent.