[Meistro1]

axm :

Socialists believe the government should own the means of production. Communists believe... the government should own the means of prodution. There might be a difference in scope or scale but there is no difference between the two ideologically. You simultaenously admit that Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism are equivalent as you argue that Ron Paul, a Libertarian is not an Anarcho-Capitalist. Do you suffer from cognitive dissonace much?

I'm not sure how you can deny that mises.org and Austrian economics are not the basis of Anarcho-Capitalism. Obviously your ignorance of the ideology is the root cause here, so I guess I wonder why you post opinions about something you know nothing about. The work of Ludwig von Mises, which has been expanded on by his institute and in particular the current head Lew Rockwell, is the academic basis for Anarcho-Capitalism. They are an anarcho-capitalist institution. They may not use the term 'anarcho-capitalism' but they advocate the free market in everything, including police and the court system and the roads. That is anarcho-capitalism; the free market on crack.

[Meistro1]

I love the socialists battle cry "oh no, this type of socialism has failed, this type of socialism has failed and that type of socialism has failed... but my type of socialism will work! it's better! Newer! 50% less mass graves!"

When your system needs the right man at the right time it is doomed to fail. The free market only needs people to act in their self interest, which is something they will almost always do.

[Abood]

Acting only in one's self interest is one of the main factors of a system that's bound to fail. Another is dogmatism; something anarcho-capitalism is saturated with.

[Meistro1]

Yeah, those are some of the stupidest statements I've heard today. A/C is praxelogical, not dogmatic and how does your 'self interest' theory explain the massive wealth of all the partially capitalist nations and the massive poverty of all the socialist nations? Why is Hong Kong, one of the freeest economies in the world, but a place of moderate human resources and absolutely no natural resources, such a thriving country? Wake up... socialism was disproven thirty years ago... stop dry humping your marxist dream and get a job.

[Abood]

Firstly, arguing that anarcho-capitalism is not dogmatic is like arguing that religions.. are not dogmatic. I have argued with many anarcho-capitalists, and have given them many chances, and they just keep proving me right: that they're extremely dogmatic. Every time they see something they like, for example, they attribute it to the free market. Someone even once said that voluntary collectivism can only exist in the free market.... Yeh, okay. Whatever that even means.

Secondly, rich capitalist nations aren't necessarily successful. If you look at the poverty rate, you'd realize that there's quite few people living in Third World conditions. And don't forget the other nations the developed nations affect. African and Latin American poverty are very much a cause of capitalism. Would you call that a success?

Thirdly, those so-called "socialist" nations you're talking about no less revolve around selfishness than capitalist nations. The only difference is that the selfish people with all the power become the politicians.

Fourthly, I'm not a Marxist.

[Meistro1]

"
Secondly, rich capitalist nations aren't necessarily successful. If you look at the poverty rate, you'd realize that there's quite few people living in Third World conditions."

LOL. How do you delude yourself into beliving this is true? Do you really think anyone cannot get a job at walmart or mcdonalds? There are actual retards working at burger king. People with an IQ of 50. Actual retards. Where is this dystopia you live in? Are you actually typing from some trailor? Do you have to whistle 1200 baud to get on the internet?

"African and Latin American poverty are very much a cause of capitalism. Would you call that a success? "

Ironically you made an accurate statement, but only because you messed up the order of your words. Poverty IS a cause of capitalism; people are poor, they want to be less poor so they turn to capitalism, the only system that makes them less poor. Now, there's no question the imperialism of foreign powers has messed up those countries, but it's absurd to blame their problems on capitalism.

"Thirdly, those so-called "socialist" nations you're talking about no less revolve around selfishness than capitalist nations. The only difference is that the selfish people with all the power become the politicians. "

OBVIOUSLY. This is the problem with socialism, this is why it never works. Your system hopes for something that will never happen... mine works no matter what happens.

[Abood]

LOL. How do you delude yourself into beliving this is true? Do you really think anyone cannot get a job at walmart or mcdonalds? There are actual retards working at burger king. People with an IQ of 50. Actual retards. Where is this dystopia you live in? Are you actually typing from some trailor? Do you have to whistle 1200 baud to get on the internet?

Does getting a job imply success? Is obtaining a job the goal, or the means towards success?

Now, there's no question the imperialism of foreign powers has messed up those countries, but it's absurd to blame their problems on capitalism.

Imperialism is a product of capitalist thought: maximization of profit. Imperialists want to maximize profit by having access to more, cheaper labour and resources.

OBVIOUSLY. This is the problem with socialism, this is why it never works. Your system hopes for something that will never happen... mine works no matter what happens.

Arguing that there's no difference between state socialism and anarchist socialism is like arguing that there's no difference between state capitalism and anarchist capitalism. Statism implies force, while anti-statism is voluntarism. And if a group of people voluntarily join a socialist collective, they would be willing to cooperate. Otherwise they wouldn't have joined in the first place.

[Meistro1]

"Imperialism is a product of capitalist thought: maximization of profit. Imperialists want to maximize profit by having access to more, cheaper labour and resources. "

Not at all; imperialism is a product of authoritarianism. True capitalism involves an extremely limited government (compared to the government of today, at any rate). Socialism demands an all pervasive state... it is the essence of authoritarianism and this the essence of imperialism. Russia's various ventures in the 20th century are proof positive of this. Capitalism is based on voluntarism, unlike socialism which is based on domination and the use of force.

"Voluntary Socialism" would cease to exist immediately the second it came into existance... there is nothing voluntary about socialism.

[Abood]

Not at all; imperialism is a product of authoritarianism. True capitalism involves an extremely limited government (compared to the government of today, at any rate).

Today's imperialism has no governments involved. The corporations actually try to get the governments as uninvolved as possible.

Socialism demands an all pervasive state

Stop there.

I'm not continuing arguing with you unless you know the difference between state and stateless socialism.

Otherwise, good bye and good luck.

[Meistro1]

"Today's imperialism has no governments involved. The corporations actually try to get the governments as uninvolved as possible. "

Good on them. Corporations are actually an example of something I'm sure you espouse; voluntarism. Why does the left fear corporations? Probably because they're scared they'll give them a job.

"I'm not continuing arguing with you unless you know the difference between state and stateless socialism. "

Sure I know the difference. State socialism is the one that kills people, stateless socialism is fanciful hyperbole, the imagining of internet revolutionaries. Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production... how do you expect to have that without a government? Really quite bizzare.

[HoniSoit]

how does your 'self interest' theory explain the massive wealth of all the partially capitalist nations and the massive poverty of all the socialist nations?

I assume you are intelligent enough to know the history of Western imperialism and how the metropolitan center plundered the wealth of the rest of the world, and kept them underdeveloped and their people subjugated.

I also assume you are intelligent enough to know that the 'socialist' China and Soviet Union started off with their economy at a level far behind the economic development of the West, but had caught up significantly in their subsequent development even in the face of a hostile West and almost total economic isolation.

[axm]

meistro1 you obviously are blinded by dogmatacism.

Socialists believe the government should own the means of production.

No, state socialists believe that.

Communists believe... the government should own the means of prodution.There might be a difference in scope or scale but there is no difference between the two ideologically.

...leading to a classless, stateless society. Quite a difference then!

You simultaenously admit that Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism are equivalent

No I haven't. I've said they are from the same ideology - a free market, but you wish no state(which is a large difference). They are by no means equivalent.

I'm not sure how you can deny that mises.org and Austrian economics are not the basis of Anarcho-Capitalism.

It is a libertarian institute. It is not 'anarcho'-capatilist in any way. It does not mention it. It wishes to keep the state - that is a fundemental differnece.

Obviously your ignorance of the ideology is the root cause here, so I guess I wonder why you post opinions about something you know nothing about.

The root cause of this conversation is your complete ignorane of the facts (there is a handful of anarcho-capitalists and you certainly don't have an "entire institute") and all other ideologies.

They are an anarcho-capitalist institution. They may not use the term 'anarcho-capitalism' but they advocate the free market in everything, including police and the court system and the roads.

...while wishing to keep the state. Hardly 'anarcho'-capatilism.

I love the socialists battle cry "oh no, this type of socialism has failed, this type of socialism has failed and that type of socialism has failed... but my type of socialism will work! it's better! Newer! 50% less mass graves!"

State socialism has failed. Libertarian socialism hasn't. there were no mass murders in any anarchist societys.

Yeah, those are some of the stupidest statements I've heard today.

You've shown already who is making these "stupid statements" and it certainly isn't Abood.

Wake up... socialism was disproven thirty years ago... stop dry humping your marxist dream and get a job.

Who's making the stupid statements now?

OBVIOUSLY. This is the problem with socialism, this is why it never works. Your system hopes for something that will never happen... mine works no matter what happens.

I lol'd.


I would like to debate seriously with an 'anarcho'-capitalist. Yet all I see is statements like the last two I just quoted. Until you have even a basic knowledge of socialism (instead of saying get a job) your ideology will remain a nuisance on the internet and nothing more.

[Meistro1]

"I assume you are intelligent enough to know the history of Western imperialism and how the metropolitan centre plundered the wealth of the rest of the world, and kept them underdeveloped and their people subjugated."

Nice fairy tale; America became a super power on it's own, not by by plundering. They did the plundering AFTER they where the world's super power. It is freedom, not theft that is responsible for their prosperity.


axm :

"It is a libertarian institute. It is not 'anarcho'-capatilist in any way. It does not mention it. It wishes to keep the state - that is a fundemental differnece. "

No it doesn't, and your asserting it so doesn't change it. Like I said, they want to privatize the roads, the justice system and the police. Where do you think they see the roal of the state? Anyway, I would respond further but you don't make any valid points, resort to ad-hom's and ask questions I've answered a dozen times already... hopefully someday you get your workers paradise, and when the state is loading you up to ship you off the gulag you can say "oh shit, that guy was right 50 years ago".

[HoniSoit]

Nice fairy tale; America became a super power on it's own, not by by plundering. They did the plundering AFTER they where the world's super power.

I suppose you have acknowledged that Western Europe accumulated much of their wealth by plundering the rest of the world? In the case of America, it started off by plundering the native Amerindians, and went on with slave trade/slavery. This has nothing to do with freedom in my opinion.

[Meistro1]

I don't argue that Western Europe did some plundering, but take for example Germany : without having basically any overseas colonies they where able to put up a hell of a fight in world war one and world war II. France, with all their colonies overseas, got their asses kick starting with Alsace-Lorraise being taken away, and then of course WWI and WWII... I guess all that plundering didn't do them too much good...

England got so rich not because they plundered but because they traded with the entire world. Freedom pays.

[HoniSoit]

England got so rich not because they plundered but because they traded with the entire world.

If by trade you meant colonising and turning colonies into plantations worked by enslaved indigenous people, threatening with military force or actually using it to open the markets of other countries, and (in the case of so-called 'free trade') setting up high tariffs against foreign products their own industries cannot compete and only relaxing it when they have overwhelming advantage - then yes, you are absolutely correct.

[Abood]

Damn, that was some heavyass revisionism, Meistro.

If by trade you meant colonising and turning colonies into plantations worked by enslaved indigenous people, threatening with military force or actually using it to open the markets of other countries, and (in the case of so-called 'free trade') setting up high tariffs against foreign products their own industries cannot compete and only relaxing it when they have overwhelming advantage - then yes, you are absolutely correct.

I love you.

[Fedsoc]

All rights are simply an extension of property rights.

You are right. And since Anarchism has never had anything but utter contempt for the notion of "rights", I am happy to agree to this. Furthermore, the only reason "rights" exist is because property enslaves us all.

[Meistro1]

"And since Anarchism has never had anything but utter contempt for the notion of "rights", "

See it's statements like this that give Anarchy a bad name.

[Fedsoc]

In the eyes of liberals like you I am glad to give Anarchy "a bad name". Your ideas are such a gross corruption of Anarchism that giving it a bad name may be the only way to save it.