-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Luigi Mangione
- Thread starter Zeez
- Start date
Ok, Forget Luigi Mangione. He's long gone at this point.
This place sounds like the locked memory care unit for geezers.
Now that everyone got their favorite buzz words in, Who is Who?
libertarian/anarcho capitalist.
neo-feudalism.
communists
Crony Capitalists
Socialists
Fake libertarians
zionists
profiteers
Apocryphal Gospel
Proletarians
meme of the hour
international working class
a zionist neoliberal
they (liberals)
This place sounds like the locked memory care unit for geezers.
Now that everyone got their favorite buzz words in, Who is Who?
libertarian/anarcho capitalist.
neo-feudalism.
communists
Crony Capitalists
Socialists
Fake libertarians
zionists
profiteers
Apocryphal Gospel
Proletarians
meme of the hour
international working class
a zionist neoliberal
they (liberals)
myboiii thomas?!?!
with a bidet, the poo spatter is intact
@Captain Red Eye
are you thinking 500 years into the future?
how do we get to your anarchist utopia?
can it be done here and now?
do you complain at costco when they enforce their rules and then threaten to cancel your membership?
Captain Red Eye
Active member
I'm thinking it's always a good point in time for peaceful people to be able to make their own rightful choices concerning their own life.
I'm thinking it's never a good point in time for some people to be able to force their choices on an otherwise peaceful but disinterested person. That would be wrong if one person did it, or a group of people did it. I just don't make the exceptions for some special people to violate others, like you do.
I don't have an anarchist utopia. That's either a weak gotcha question or a question stemming from innocent ignorance on your part.
Below is something you might consider which relates to your questiion. It came from Hog Eye Bill's website. He is a peaceful anarchist.
You probably won't read it and definitely won't rebut it should you read it. Enjoy.
Statist error: The Nirvana Fallacy.
Fallacy:
Anarchy is bad because there will still be criminals (generalization).How would anarchy prevent crime, poverty, asteroids from hitting the earth, ...?
Response:
There are criminals today; there is slavery and a sex trade even in "free" countries. When a free society (even a hypothetical one) is compared to a statist one, the comparison should be to what is (or, in the hypothetical, what is likely, which is arguable—and frequently argued). While we expect that a voluntaryist society will be better than a statist one in many ways, it does not fail merely because it falls short of someone's utopia. (DBR)In my limited experience, a meta-fallacy of all critiques of anarchy (and indeed, any aspect of individualism or "alternative") is inconsistent bar setting—of attempting to hold the alternative up to a standard the incumbent cannot meet. (ME)
To expand on DBR's point, there are laws in statist societies against murder, but that does not prevent people from murdering. In fact, since the people in the government are above their own laws, they are often paid to murder (war, for example, death sentences, botched raids, etc). State actors also regularly rob and extort from productive citizens, yet there are laws against "normal" people doing these same things. So the state is not only not a guarantee against harm to innocents, but actually engages in the very behavior the statist is worried about. The absense of government will therefore be preferable (DV).
The difference is, in a free society, there is no organization like the state who regularly engages in slavery, theft, and murder, and not only gets away with it (because they are above their own law), but is also respected and expected to stop all of those actions in its subjects!
In other words, the state is no cure for those actions we find immoral.
A free society is not a panacea where all problems between people are magically solved. (DV)
Though anarchy does not compare well with Nirvana, it does
compare quite favorably to statism, the actual alternative.
compare quite favorably to statism, the actual alternative.
Costco ? I don't have a membership at Costco. The nice thing about Costco and rules is Costco doesn't assume they can enforce their rules over me unless I explicitly join their club.
Your lord and savior "big government" is not like Costco, they assume my consent to be in their club, even when I explicitly don't give it .
Your shitty gotcha question, made points for my argument, Good job!
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Thanks for asking.
Voluntaryist Panarchist.
Also, should you search "voluntaryist" don't believe everything that wikipedia has posted about it.
Some of their info. is wrong. I think they say "voluntaryists are pacifists". That isn't necessarily accurate.
Many voluntaryists follow the idea that proportionate defensive force is moral and acceptable.
One thing that makes a person a Voluntaryist is they eschew using offensive force.
Last edited:
@Captain Red Eye - Are you going to keep repeating your violent only imposed system or give us a plan to peacefully bring it to fruition. I did when you asked. Didn't notice?
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Oh sorry. I missed that.
Yes, start with your own actions. That's what I try to do.
I don't have the right to impose a master plan over others. So maybe stop fueling that. That is my suggestion.
So your idea of a real free market is not a master plan? I am not fueling anything. I proposed a simple plan which could implement a truly free market structure within the present system using a non-profit registration, yet you are too stuck on crony to see it.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
If your plan only includes people involved that individually consent to being involved. good luck with it.
I got stuck on crony when Cannavore kept conflating it with a free market, they are not the same thing.
There is nothing in an actual free market that would prevent you from joining with your friends to come up with cooperative efforts to achieve your goals.
I'm not opposed to people being socialists. I am opposed to socialists gaining membership by assuming consent of disinterested people. Assuming consent, when none is actually given, is a master plan.
Voluntary vs involuntary.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
I think you may have misunderstood my response. I was answering the question you asked me about peacefully bringing idea to frution.
Wasn't meant to be a comment responding to your idea on how to implement universal healthcare.
Sorry about the confusion. It's a gummy night for me, moved firewood today and I'm not getting any younger.
think about it a lot, do ya?
i was never confused about anarchy, murder and crime and shit and enforcing it, nor was i ever confused that the state does violence and is above the law.
but at least we have a term, you are anti- statist, right? the overarching philsophy that includes anarchism?
but it still doesn't answer what you think the alternative is and how we get there.
but at least we have a term, you are anti- statist, right? the overarching philsophy that includes anarchism?
but it still doesn't answer what you think the alternative is and how we get there.
so finally, you admit it.
rude
so now we need a taxes are theft thread AND a social contract/ consent of the governed thread??
Captain Red Eye
Active member
I am pro peace and anti-coercion. You are not. That's a fact.
I don't have a problem if you want to be involved in putting yourself under a hierarchy of your choosing, just don't assume you have any right to put otherwise disinterested peaceful people into one.
Since you individually don't have any right to do that, you couldn't possibly delegate your nonexistent right to a body of people to do that. You won't be able to rebut that either, but do try if you care to.
I won't stop you from starting any thread you like. You can call it "arguing with Captain Red Eye" if you like or maybe slaves bickering with a free thinker if you want a more catchy title. Probably a good idea not to clog this thread any more than has already happened.
There is no such thing as a social contract that allows some people to assume the consent of others. Contracts don't work that way. Social contract is a logic defying enabling tool used to advance inequality.
No kidding. This has been addressed more than once.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Great.
If you have an inclusion in your idea that allows voluntary opt in / opt out, I have no objection to what other people decide to do along those lines. My objections have never been to try to prevent people from getting access to more efficient healthcare.
Although if it's voluntary inclusion I don't think "Universal Healthcare" would be what I'd term it as, since some people would likely never opt into it.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
no social contracts baby
This is a good example of "social cooperation", not proof of a social contract. If you'd like to discuss more on that, there's a new thread. Probably shouldn't clog this one up with that discussion.
