Never been on a sports team?
Hey, shallow sells. Have you listened to the radio in the past 30 years?
The socialists and liberals (libertarians) are esentially two sides of the same coin. It all stems from liberalism. In the mid 1800’s they were all called liberals (ex social liberals, political liberals, human liberals) and were usually allied against oppressive govts. I see no reason why it can’t be like that today.
i try not to.
Well, that’s one thing we can agree on.
Wouldn’t that be an example of social cooperation rather than collectivization?
I think one of the most important things to consider is along Machiavellian like thoughts. Ex: You do not want to ally yourself with someone stronger than you who is clearly against your interests. Would the an-left be an example of this on the whole? I honestly don’t know (on intuition I have weak doubts), but it is an important thing to consider.
No team sports in Rothbardia? [:(]
You won’t be missing much. It won’t work out so good when they keep trying to charge a fee to pass the ball…
Because they would line us up against a wall, one by one, and shoot us. The anarcho-right, if you want to call it that, would never prevent the left from carrying out and implementing their socialist utopia. But unfortunately, they would never do the same for us. You have to understand that their movement is not, in anyway, based on reason or economics–just pure emotion and hatred.
After the first one, the rest might get a little more pro-active in defending their “property” (lives)
I don’t know about that. If they really were anarchists, why wouldn’t they just leave us alone? The difference between a commune and business partnership is not all that great, really.
Well, I think that’s sort of an unfair generalization. That would be like me saying, "All libertarians are michigan militia, OK city bomber types who live in shacks in the mountains, and make pipe bombs when they aren’t at their klan rallies. As a former lefty, I’d say I was just more misguided and uneducated, if anything. My principles have essentially remained unchanged.
This is pretty flawed. Since you know ends don’t justify means and take ends take care of themselves and all that…
That sounds a little bit too much like creating a boogey man. I think to have that mindset and fear of a group can only create problems. Just like the US scaring us against “Islamo-Fascism”. Even if it is a somewhat accurate statement (and I am not saying it is) the sentiment ought to change.
They aren’t real anarchists; that’s the entire point. Go to revleft and ask them if they would allow private property, corporations and markets to exist. The syndicalists I talk to say that property and profit are theft/morally unjustifiable.
No, their systems of societal organizations are impossible to implement successfully. They must necessarily fail.
Non sequitur.
Again, I think that’s generalizing and sterotyping a group, like saying “of course he’s good at math, he’s asian”.
Yeah, but syndicalists desire a dictate of the majority, not anarchy.
Now, I could understand that from a central planning type of collectivsm, but not a decentralised, tribal collective, because market influence would still be present outside the group.
No, ludicrous hyperbole to point out yours, although I guess I can easily see the confusion.
Decentralized socialism doesn’t exist. This is syndicalism, aka, the most absurd theory ever put forth by man. See Socialism by Ludwig von Mises.
So let us assume that we have complete anarchy where the left and right get to create their own institutions and live however they like. The left creates their coops where they share ownership over the means of production but must compete against private corporations. Here are a few questions.
- What do you think would happen when those corporations (who get to secure capital through financial markets) expand, utilize economies of scale, and have much higher/more sophisticated capital per worker?
- What happens when the coops, who can’t demand the same degree/sophistication of capital, and who make all decisions by majority votes (each member of the coop is a different human being, with different productivity and different desires), are destroyed by competition?
- What happens when they realize that they are much poorer than those who work for corporations, and when they see their members leaving coops and joining such corporations?
- What do you think the ideological leaders of the left would do then?
Faced with extreme inequality (which they brought upon themselves) they will do what they’ve always done: agitate, spread mass propaganda, and appeal to jealousy (not all of them will do this, of course, just those who are ideologically tied to the movement). Am I wrong? Will this time be different? Never mind the fact that their propaganda will also appeal to those members of society who work for failed/less successful corporations (even though they are still much wealthier than those working for coops, but relatively poorer than those who work for successful corporations).
This doesn’t make any sense.
Assuming that you are correct, and there is a large enough group of violent disenfranchised leftists to make a serious threat to a homeostatsis ancap type of environment, than there are major psychological laws that must be addressed about people that would have to be taken into account along with economic law.
I don’t trust humanity. They are, for the most part, dominated by jealousy (in my opinion). Which is why I’m a liberal and not an anarchist. I haven’t even addressed Schumpeter’s argument about intellectuals, which is very strong.
I can think of a couple of examples: Bushmen, Monasteries, Community Gardens
There are lots of flavors of anarcho-collectivists
Without the protection of the state, it seems unlikely to me that corporations would get very large, if even exist at all. Why would you need limited liability with no courts around?
Why do you consider that a given?
the lazy ones get voted off the island!
Well, if the corporations are going to be that much better off, than there’s nothing to worry about. Their propoganda machine would be better, their weapons would be better, they would be smarter (all the smarties having “left the left” when they realized the ship was sinking), and there would be more of them (lots of people are pragmatic, rather than idealistic zealots). So, what’s the problem? Hell it might be a boon for guys like you! Imagine, an opportunity to realize a “final solution” to the “leftist problem”.
And what about lefty-lites? I’m thinking decentralist greens, or random hippie-types. Harmless? Scourges of freedom?
Than I think one would have to look into Hayekian like comprimises, if that is one’s view on humanity. If you think there is that much jealousy to be dangerous you have to find psychological solutions as well, they can not be ignored. Unfortunatly I think there is no easy solution. At least it would be a good and largly untapped field w/in a libertarian sphere, plus you have Hayek as a springboard (who could ask for better), sounds like a great start to something. I honestly think though, belligerent and fearful talk will only do harm, one must have a Hayekian politness as well.