[quote]florelius wrote:
I tried to get a bit more spesific answer from you. but ok, your strategy is to talk with people. but do you think about joining or forming a organisation/party for anarcho-capitalisme.
I asked about this after talking to erasmus ( a dutch anarcho-capitalist in here ) in the “liberty in socialisme” tread. as a communist my ideal society is also anarchisme ( offcourse anarcho-socialist ), but we have a more specific gameplan/strategy than other anarchists. And our strategy is offcourse socialisme.
[/quote]
That’s the beauty of anarchism! You can organise yourself in any way you want. As long as it is voluntary.
(small detail, I’m half swedish, half dutch, living in holland, om du vill snacka pÃ?Â¥ norska/svenska, gÃ?Â¥r det ocksÃ?Â¥ bra! )[/quote]
send meg en melding, så kan vi prate om politikk på skandinavisk:)
[quote]Dabba wrote:
where people can opt out of laws and thus have the ability to not pay for a business’ services.
[/quote]
This part is not correct.[/quote]
I meant not pay for the protection of a business and hence it’s laws. I didn’t mean to say that individuals will go unpunished if they commit a crime. However, since you were so brief in your response, I don’t know if that’s what you were getting at.
I don’t think Libertarianism will ever take root in America, because it sounds so cold-blooded. Instead, I think it’ll take a Eugene Debs approach and pass itself off as ‘fiscal conservatism’ with a series of halfway compromises.
For example, instead of abolishing the nigh-government monopoly on education, stop bribing states to forbid voucher programs.
Instead of paring down the military to nothingness, capture Osama and stick to the removal dates of Afghanistan and Iraq, saying ‘we did our best’.
Instead of ending the War on Drugs, just legalize pot. The DEA can still be concerned over the trafficking of other, harder narcotics.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
where people can opt out of laws and thus have the ability to not pay for a business’ services.
[/quote]
This part is not correct.[/quote]
I meant not pay for the protection of a business and hence it’s laws. I didn’t mean to say that individuals will go unpunished if they commit a crime. However, since you were so brief in your response, I don’t know if that’s what you were getting at.[/quote]
Okay, sorry I thought you were talking about being a flake and not pay for a service or product you bought or something, but as you restated, you are correct.
[quote]Otep wrote:
I don’t think Libertarianism will ever take root in America, because it sounds so cold-blooded. Instead, I think it’ll take a Eugene Debs approach and pass itself off as ‘fiscal conservatism’ with a series of halfway compromises.
For example, instead of abolishing the nigh-government monopoly on education, stop bribing states to forbid voucher programs.
Instead of paring down the military to nothingness, capture Osama and stick to the removal dates of Afghanistan and Iraq, saying ‘we did our best’.
Instead of ending the War on Drugs, just legalize pot. The DEA can still be concerned over the trafficking of other, harder narcotics.
And so on.
[/quote]
I agree and I do not think the fiscal converative approach will be any cheaper . Most people equate fiscal conservative with anti poor .
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Have you read any of what I have written on the subject and do you agree with my ideas as I have written them?
That is the only way I know how to change people’s minds – with dialog, by pointing to reality and showing people (with logic) why things are the way they are.[/quote]
I tried to get a bit more spesific answer from you. but ok, your strategy is to talk with people. but do you think about joining or forming a organisation/party for anarcho-capitalisme.
I asked about this after talking to erasmus ( a dutch anarcho-capitalist in here ) in the “liberty in socialisme” tread. as a communist my ideal society is also anarchisme ( offcourse anarcho-socialist ), but we have a more specific gameplan/strategy than other anarchists. And our strategy is offcourse socialisme.
[/quote]
edited for clarity.
Do you understand that anarcho-socialism is a contradiction in terms? Socialism cannot be brought about in a stateless society. It goes completely against human nature – to serve other people even if it means that those indentured into servitude are worse off for it. People generally will not choose to be worse off by serving others without being forced into it.
On the other hand there is anarchism which implies a capitalistic system – i.e., the markets by default would have to replace government agencies.
As far as a specific plan to bring about a stateless society it could not be done by force as peace is the only possible way to bring about ideological change. Changing people’s minds can only be achieved through a peaceful process like that going on here in the PWI forums.
this is why I do not understand the attraction, I think the people that own the roads would tax the shit out of us , I know we could stay home sell the car do away with cable and high speed internet and we could let all our infrastructure go to hell we , Who needs education . It is all backwards thinking.
When I grew up all the popular tV shows were westerns , there was always an evil mega land owner that cotroled the water source or would muscle the little guy out . There was very little law, alot of it went to the highest bidder . I have always felt reality was alot more creative than Hollywood
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is why I do not understand the attraction, I think the people that own the roads would tax the shit out of us[/quote]
That just means you do not understand economics.
There is a price that the market will bear and if it goes below or above that price goods or their buyers disappear, respectively.
Besides this, there would be many transit companies that would probably end up being owned by road conglomerates which would end up making transportation much cheaper than it is now.
Not only that, prices signal to investors whether or not it might be worthwhile to invest in alternatives to the current means of transportation.
But you see, all of these things rely on a completely free markets…that includes roads, too.
Oh, and BTW, the people that “own” the roads now DO TAX THE SHIT OF US, ANYWAY!
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is why I do not understand the attraction, I think the people that own the roads would tax the shit out of us[/quote]
That just means you do not understand economics.
There is a price that the market will bear and if it goes below or above that price goods or their buyers disappear, respectively.
Besides this, there would be many transit companies that would probably end up being owned by road conglomerates which would end up making transportation much cheaper than it is now.
Not only that, prices signal to investors whether or not it might be worthwhile to invest in alternatives to the current means of transportation.
But you see, all of these things rely on a completely free markets…that includes roads, too.
Oh, and BTW, the people that “own” the roads now DO TAX THE SHIT OF US, ANYWAY![/quote]
It means no such thing , if some one has a monopoly . That means they have a monopoly . Why doesn’t this free market move into a third world country so they can use it as an example on how the free market is so superior to good government
The government has a monopoly on roads now!! Do you not get this? Do you understand that they actually make them cost taxpayers more than they would if they were privately owned. The roads would never end up under a monopoly with private ownership just as every other good cannot.
Again, you do not understand economics which is why you will always choose the wrong path.
Pittbull, this is why what you say is so silly on its face:
People who own roads would still rely on commerce done on them therefore they could not keep the cost too prohibitive or else they would starve to death just like everyone else.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Again, you do not understand economics…[/quote]
Whose brand of economics? Why does everyone always talk as if only we understood economices we’d be Austrian anarchists…or, some flavor of Keynesian…or, some flavor of Classical, or Supply-sider, or Socialist, or…heck, whatever. Can folks around these parts just say “If you only understood and accepted my flavor of economics.” Please?
Oh, and I predict we’ll eventually cut spending on defense, medicare, and SS. Defense, we’ll pretty much pull back from around the world. Programs like medicare and SS we’ll reform through simple measures. Such as indexing to life expenctancy. Then we’ll get a VAT tax or something. Look, these programs are here to stay, and the populace isn’t going to tolerate their destruction to make us solvent in the longterm. So, we’ll mess around and better match up our entitlements to demographic realities, also coming up with new ways to pull in revenue. Libertarian and Anarchist jawboning is good for killing some time, I guess. As long as you realize that’s all it achieves–Killing some time.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, and I predict we’ll eventually cut spending on defense, medicare, and SS. Defense, we’ll pretty much pull back from around the world. Programs like medicare and SS we’ll reform through simple measures. Such as indexing to life expenctancy. Then we’ll get a VAT tax or something. Look, these programs are here to stay, and the populace isn’t going to tolerate their destruction to make us solvent in the longterm. So, we’ll mess around and better match up our entitlements to demographic realities, also coming up with new ways to pull in revenue. Libertarian and Anarchist jawboning is good for killing some time, I guess. As long as you realize that’s all it achieves–Killing some time.[/quote]
How will the government afford them if their money becomes worthless?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, and I predict we’ll eventually cut spending on defense, medicare, and SS. Defense, we’ll pretty much pull back from around the world. Programs like medicare and SS we’ll reform through simple measures. Such as indexing to life expenctancy. Then we’ll get a VAT tax or something. Look, these programs are here to stay, and the populace isn’t going to tolerate their destruction to make us solvent in the longterm. So, we’ll mess around and better match up our entitlements to demographic realities, also coming up with new ways to pull in revenue. Libertarian and Anarchist jawboning is good for killing some time, I guess. As long as you realize that’s all it achieves–Killing some time.[/quote]
How will the government afford them if their money becomes worthless?[/quote]
)[/quote]