NationStates Jolt Archive

Following on from:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71742

Let the games continue!

Vas.

http://www.californiahistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/atwork/media/utah/05.rm

Let's see. I could just say "bump" and leave it at that, but that's no fun.

I could post "all anarchists are morons" and then point and laugh at myself in the mirror, but that'd be silly.

I could pay myself to say "anarcho-capitalism makes sense", but I don't think I could afford it.

I know, why don't I just retype the Catmas I've stuck to my computer? Cool:

Think for yourself.
Convictions cause convicts.
The conclusion you jump to may be your own.
The pun is mightier than the sword.
Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another.
Reality: It all depends on how you look at it.
The Enlightened take things lightly.
No two equals are the same.
'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Is the thought of a unicorn a real thought?
CURB YOUR DOGMA.

Vas.

but anarcho capitalism is an oxymoron. doesnt make any sense at all.

but anarcho capitalism is an oxymoron. doesnt make any sense at all.

Can't say that, it makes lots of sense. All politics is oxymoronic, it really means what it says, the problem is the morons who don't realise it (the shrinking minority who think voting matters). Anarcho-capitalism is an attempt to tarnish anarchism and, on that level, it makes sense. It's not proper nonsense, like khdsgfiuywer, it's just bad sense.

Vas.

Here, I have a question. Is anarcho-capitalism consiered a type of anarchism? Iknow it's not what those infoshop.org people advocate, but it still seems that anarcho-capitalism is quite anarchic.

I'm too tired to beat this dead horse. Maybe tomorrow. Today is St. Patrick's day and I have some serious drinking to do.

For my arguments agains the idiocy that is Anarchism, see

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131035&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120 a third of the way down the page.

For a more specific argument clearing up the confusion over capitalism and money, see
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132267&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20 again an third of the way down the page.

I'll leave you with my blanket statements against anarchy:

"Suppose the Happy Forest commune wants to dam the Angsty River to provide a clean source of energy for their sawmill- they don't have the manpower so they ask for help from their neighbours, the Jolly Farm commune. Unfortunately, Jolly Farm needs the water for crop irrigation. They tell Happy Forest to go stick their dam where the sun shineth not.

Any situation like this has the potential to escalate into a conflict and pretty soon, one commune will dominate the others."

I'm trying to point out is that anarchy is exceedingly delicate and thus unworkable due to the fact that although humans are definitely capable of rationality, they do not always act rationally. Also, what might seem rational to one person (or community) might seem irrational to another. The moment the communities fail to resolve a conflict of interest amicably, anarchism dissolves as you need hierarchy to fight a war effectively. Hierarchical governments, on the other hand, are much better equipped to survive societal dislocations such as war.
All I'm saying is that anarchism is a beautiful theory but is eminently unworkable. I guess you could call it ideological darwinism. Capitalism is simply the most robust system- it has its problems but generally it keeps muddling through.

And in conclusion:
Once again, lets say it all together: Anarchy is a method of venting frustration for the angst filled. It is inherently self contradictory. It is an attempt to make whining into a political ideology. It has no theory to back it up. It has no plans. In fact, when you try to look at it with a straight face, it has nothing.
And you know what- it certainly isn't our last hope.

"Suppose the Happy Forest commune wants to dam the Angsty River to provide a clean source of energy for their sawmill- they don't have the manpower so they ask for help from their neighbours, the Jolly Farm commune. Unfortunately, Jolly Farm needs the water for crop irrigation. They tell Happy Forest to go stick their dam where the sun shineth not.

Any situation like this has the potential to escalate into a conflict and pretty soon, one commune will dominate the others."
There are several things wrong with this argument. Neighboring communes would certainly be co-dependent in many ways and would be tied with associations that transcend the commune. Do you really think that the mayor of new York would send a detachment of NYPD thugs to pacify New Jersey if the Federal government had nothing against it?

Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism can quite happily exist side by side. What with it being anarchy and all. How people organise themselves is up to them and their ability to defend their community/collective/selves from oppression from others.

Technically, we do already live in an anarchy. There is no secret magic that allows goverment to exist: it is tolerated by it's citizens. The only way for "anarchy" to work is if people took an active part in resisting goverment, wherever it arises.

It can in fact be argued that, seeing as goverment is just an organisation that is infringing upon your liberty, you are perfectly justified in violent action in self defence. Of course, the goverment is completely "justified" in its oppresion of you. The only "justification" required is that you feel like doing something.

We are in anarchy now. It is our own shortcomings that result in us not living in freedom.