So many Ancaps...

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Apr 12 2013 08:01
notrueliberal wrote:
Like Libcoms, the AnCaps simpley have a presence on the internet.

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Apr 12 2013 10:46

Why are we even arguing with this moral degenerate? I was ignoring hin perfectly fine, why can't we all? Seriously, Reddebrek, the time it took you to make fun of this introverted white middle-class right-wing extremist could have been better spent just staring slackjawed out a window!

Also, I'm glad this reactionary's going to preach about entitlements to a bunch of working-class communists, that's going to get him places! I hope he becomes a regular poster, that'll really electrify the forums!

notrueliberal
Offline
Joined: 11-04-13
Apr 13 2013 05:42

Indeed I see exactly where ya'll are coming from. If you define private property (it's enforcement) as coercive than it makes sense. We don't see eye to eye on that, but we don't have to. Here is why:

Do you believe in voluntary association? Furthermore do you believe in self ownership?

I do and for what I had in mind you do too. If you don't there is no need for you to waste your time reading the rest of this post as the rest of this assumes that you do. If I am wrong, and you don't believe in voluntary association, just quote this line and say you don't so that I don't waste anymore of my or your time. Thank you.

Let's say that I am morally bankrupt, if you believe in voluntary association, you don't have to associate with me, or my ilk. Furthermore I do not believe that Men are equal, am I equal to Stephan Hawking? No, not in the slightest. First physically due to chance of my birth I am lucky enough to not have motor nuerone disease. Secondly I know very little of physics, the man is far more intelligent than I will ever be. If my acknowledgement of these observable facts makes me morally bankrupt, fine. Just don't associate with me. Personally I have no "beef" with communists. I believe in private property, yes I will fight to defend what I conisder mine, I have before, I will do it again. I don't believe that I am my brothers keeper, I do not believe that I have any obligation to anyone that I do not make myself. I do not believe in the "social contract". Like iexist I have no issue with working with communists to abolish the State. We can work together where we see fit. And we do not have to associate past the advancement of our common interests.

In what I consider my ideal world there is room for communists to go and live in communes, ya'll would be free to do your own thing. Because of voluntary association. The question is, is there room for me, and mine in your ideal world?

I offer you this hypothetical as an example.

An anarcho-communist run ship crashes into the South side of a deserted island. They set up their commune and you run things how you guys think they should be run. Through your democracy (I fail to see how democracy isn't a State, but we can talk about that later if you wish). But Oh NO! An AnCap (I will defend my title of anarchist latter if you wish) run ship crash lands on the North side of the island. The AnCaps set up their system and run things how they see fit. What motivation do the two groups have to fight eachother? Seems to me that we can leave eachother alone just fine. Maybe I'm crazy. Now if we all believe in voluntary association then people would be able to leave the AnCap territory and go to the AnCom territory and vice versa. If no one is forced to stay at either location against their will, which is coercive if they own themselves, then if you guys are right and the AnCap system is morally bankrupt, evil, and reprehensible. Then the morally right, good, and just AnCom system is going to take the exploited workers from us evil capitalist exploiters, and thus the superior merit of your system wins, without violence. Because without the workers to work to produce capital, and then to work in the capitalist factories, no goods and services are going to be produced under the AnCap system, and we will either acknowledge defeat or die. And if we do decide to come and conquer you instead of dieing, holding on to our beliefs, you are fully justified in killing us. If the reverse happens and your system fails, you will be faced with a choice, acknowledge defeat and join us, earning your way based on merit, or you can choose to die, or you can choose to come and take our stuff. In which case we will resist.

Of course there is always the third option, and that is, neither of our systems fail and we just ignore eachother, except when someone desires to immigrate to one or the other of our colonies. Which seems to me to be reasonable.

There is absolutely no need to fight eachother if we both believe in voluntary association.

Pleace correct me if you think I'm wrong. If you believe in voluntary association, then we have common ground. Otherwise we don't, I might stay and post somemore just to see what ya'll think about things, but if you don't believe in voluntary association I don't see us working together. I just don't see why we would have to fight if you do.

Peace be with you all!

PS Nanner I'm sorry you feel left out, maybe after I see how this post goes I'll come back and address the things you asked, and the challenges you presented.

PPS Even if we don't have common ground and you guys want me to stick around and give ya'll an alternative view point, let me know and provided things don't degrade into childish name calling, something that shouldn't happen to intelligent and mature adults, I will stay and do so.

Again, peace be with you all.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Apr 13 2013 07:01

First off, you can't have free association under capitalism. The market is coercive, therefore truly free association is impossible.

Two, communism is about material interests not morals. So you can cut that shit out right now.

Three, under communism you'd be entitled to live as a free, self-sustaining individual. I mean, if you don't contribute anything to the collective, don't expect anything in return. But if you want to live in the woods or whatever, have fun.

However, should you choose to exploit others (i.e. employ them) you can bet we'll use force to prevent that. If the working class is willing to have a revolution to overthrow capitalism (which is how communism will come about, not through communists outcompeting/morally convincing capitalists as you seem to suggest), you can bet it's going take steps to prevent any would-be exploiters from setting up shop.

Four, anarchism is about social, political, and economic equality. It's precisely because all humans are not equal in terms of intellect or physical ability that it's so important to establish a society in which solidarity and mutual aid are the defining characteristics.

Also,

notrueanarchist wrote:
I do not believe that Men are equal

Now please stop calling yourself an anarchist.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Apr 13 2013 06:56
Quote:
I don't believe that I am my brothers keeper, I do not believe that I have any obligation to anyone that I do not make myself

- notrueanarchist

Quote:
I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant'. 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

- Margaret Thatcher

And you think you can make common cause with anarchists!?!

Seriously, f*ck you.

notrueliberal
Offline
Joined: 11-04-13
Apr 13 2013 07:14

Chilli Sauce, thank you for your prompt response!

Your first paragraph I'm going to ignore for now because I'm sure your literature will explain why that is the case. I hope it does a better job than your "Introduction to Capitalism" essay here, I may write a critque of it at some point in the future.

Second the reason why I refer to morallity is because I have been accused of "moral bankruptcy" I did not bring up morality, other posters did.

Next you say if I want to live in the woods or whatever have fun. That is precisely my option under today's rule. That or submit, I don't find either notion appealing in the slightest.

If employment is exploitative, who exactly makes the goods, and provides the services? Are they expected to do so out of good will, and alturistic benevolence? If I am the manager of say a store, I don't own the store, and I put out a sign saying "Help Wanted" is it coercive for me to employ someone who comes in looking for a job? Furthermore let's say I run a store in your communist society, and I put out a sign saying "Help Wanted" is it coercive for me to put someone to work who comes in looking to help? If I don't pay them, they merely volunteer?

Next question who gets to decide where people work, in your communist society? Do they do so themselves, what's the difference between doing so because they want the benefit of say a wage, or them doing it as a volunteer. If the difference is that it's exploitative to pay someone but not exploitative if they do the work for free, I'm not sure what to say to that.

Let's say that me and a group of AnCaps decide we want to go off and live in the woods, our way. Are you going to stop us from doing so? As our way involves capitalists, entrueprenurs and works. And the division of labour.

Again thanks for the time.

PS Out of curiosity how is not working and getting nothing back in a communist society, different from not working and getting nothing back in a capitalist one?

notrueliberal
Offline
Joined: 11-04-13
Apr 13 2013 07:21

So "fuck me" eh? Intelligent discourse goes right out the window. And I thought that there were adults on the internet. I guess I'm just too optimistic.

Furthermore I have no idea who Margret Thatcher is, or was.

But I do agree that people throw too much shit on the government. The fact that they think they need it is why it exists in the first place. Is that the part you take issue with? If so I question how you can call yourself an anarchist, seeing how you want the State.

If the issue you find in that quote is the part about how there is no society, then you and I are in agreement. The woman clearly doesn't understand what civilization is. Society is a very real thing, that is if we are defining society as a network of relationships between people. However that doesn't change the fact that society is made up of individuals.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Apr 13 2013 07:24

Chilli

I think this guy is just wanking off on here and doesn't really want a debate at all. Still, it's no skin off my nose - he'll disappear soon enough I dare say.
How about in a post revolutionary world though? I like to think that the vast majority would see the benefits of being a part of the community but is that an unrealistic viewpoint? Will there be innumerable assholes trying to fuck things up for us and trying to exploit others and if so, then what? Terrorism, war? Personally, I take a less gloomy view but I think that it's a point worth addressing.

notrueliberal
Offline
Joined: 11-04-13
Apr 13 2013 07:36

Webby,

I am here trying to understand your point of view. However you're probably right and I probably will disappear seeing as presenting a conflicting view on here is met with pejoratives and explatives. Not that I'm sensitive to all that I don't particularly care other than the fact that when people result to it, there's no discussion to be had. The result is that people just degenerate into pathetic wailing children. If I wanted to put up with that nonsense I'd have kids.

However you ask a pertinent question. That about "what about in a post revolutionary world" I seriously doubt that everyone is going to be happy with your system. Just like I doubt everyone will be happy with mine, just like people aren't happy with the current state of affairs. This is because value is subjective, not everyone has the same priorities, values, goals, ethics etc... So the question is what do you do with such dissenters?

I say let them go and do their own thing. Who cares? If people want to go and have a God-Emperor I say all the power to them. It's like shooting up herion. Do I think it's a good idea? Absolutely not! But you can't save people from themselves. This is called voluntary association. Do I want to end the State here in the US? It would be nice, but overall I don't care that much, I'd be content to go and live with like minded people on an island somewhere.

notrueliberal
Offline
Joined: 11-04-13
Apr 13 2013 07:59

For that matter I think it would be really cool to colonize and terraform so extraterristial body. But I think the prospects of that happening are far less likely than finding an island, and being left alone.

So here is a question I have for you.

You guys obviously have numbers as demonstrated by the pictures ya'll posted. You obviously have organization, so why don't you guys pool your resources, make a one time purchase of autonomy somewhere, or create a Seastead whatever and go there and live?

It seems to me that paying the man one last time for such autonomy and then creating your society has got to be superior to being exploited for the rest of your lives? Unless I'm missing something here...

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Apr 13 2013 09:13

Notrueliberal

If by 'your point of view' you mean that of a Libcom then you're addressing the wrong man. I'm pretty new around here, arrived with a very individualistic idea of what anarchy means and am by no means a convinced communist. However, my mind as been changed in many areas through debating on the forums and reading some(but not many) articles.
I did not mention 'dissenters'. What I am talking about is opponenents - those that would actively try to exploit and control. There is a difference there.
The reason that I said that you would dissapear soon enough is that I got the impression that your purpose for posting is to show off a bit rather than engage in meaninful debate in an open minded way. If I'm wrong about that then I apoloigize, if I'm not, then knock yourself out - we all need to find something to do with our time.

Quote:
It's like shooting up herion. Do I think it's a good idea?

Hey, don't knock it till you've tried it! It's an instant route to your own self centred 'island'. Individualism in a bag!

Finally, as for 'pooling resources', what fucking planet are you living on? You must be taking the piss here surely? You cannot seriously believe for one minute that we would be left to get on with it in peace? And how about resources? Because we don't want to be wage slaves does that mean we have to live like survivalists? Or do we pop off to the mainland on our raft and ask nicely if we can have a computer or whatever in exchange for some of our delicious fucking coconuts?!!!

facecuddle
Offline
Joined: 13-04-13
Apr 13 2013 14:41

@notrueliberal

Anarcho-capitalists 'are not anarchists, and that those who call [them] anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.'

Anarchism is a historically rich working class movement and has had a huge impact on both small-scale and large-scale struggles. Every single anarchist strand, even the individualists, has a socialistic character. Anarcho-capitalism cannot possibly be considered anarchist in any meaningful way unless your definition of anarchism is so narrow as to refer solely to an opposition to the state. The idea of an ancap, somebody that advocates the complete dismantling of the state in favour of the unrestricted tyranny of the market, waving a black flag - the historical symbol of working-class struggle against exploitation and hierarchy - is a sick joke. Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. They are radical Libertarians (I use a capital 'L' just to distinguish Libertarians from libertarianism, again a leftist movement). We will go out of our way to oppose and dismantle your ideas and your 'movement' at every possible turn. You have no place in our movement. You are not welcome here.

Oh, and guess who the author of the quote I started with is?

Murray Rothbard.

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Apr 13 2013 14:45

Wow, you don't believe in equality and you sound like you're writing this from the 13th century, are you also a new right pervert? Are you also going to start talking about the evils of socialism and feminism and anti-racism or about how white men need more rights or something?

I really like that, in all of your bizzare hypothetical scenarios, you are always in the perspective of a powerful person. "Why am I exploitative if I employ workers for slave wages"! I think it really reflects either an utter detachment with reality or you're a petite-bourgeois type. Either way, you're slavish devotion to the powerful disgusts me on a moral level.

Tell me, when your decadent middle class reality falls apart when neoliberal capitalism starts knocking on your fucking door, will you realize that the powerful shouldn't be defended? Or are you just so upper-class, privileged, antisocial and myopic that you can imagine yourself wallowing in filth and amorality for the rest of your life?

jonthom's picture
jonthom
Offline
Joined: 25-11-10
Apr 13 2013 15:20

for some reason whenever "ancaps" try to call for some sort of unity or co-operation with anarchists the same arguments seem to come up. it gets rather predictable after a while.

first and foremost, anarchism is and always has been an anti-capitalist, anti-statist and egalitarian movement. capitalism - in any form - would deny the things we need to live and enjoy life to anyone who does not hold enough money or property, leaving them dependant on the often fleeting whims of private charity or state concessions.

"Voluntary association" - a nice principle with little relationship to reality. the "ancap" mentality seems to assume a world of discrete individuals/communities/territories/nations engaging in free exchange based in contracts. but the world is not that simple. if two communities existed side by side, one "ancap", one anarchist, what would happen if - say - the former decided they wanted to monopolise the use of a river for dumping sewage, while the latter wanted to put it into communal use for fishing or swimming?

for that matter, in your "ancap" world, how would you deal with a group of workers who wanted to collectivise their workplace and put it under communal control? my guess is to do exactly what capitalists do now - stop them by coercion and/or force, only with private companies replacing the role of the police.

the idea that people could just voluntarily associate or dissociate at will simply doesn't match any sort of reality, in particular the reality that those who own property have more power than those who don't, making the idea of "voluntary" association laughable at best.

this seems related to the other issue on which "ancaps" seem, to put it politely, confused - that somehow we "all agree" about smashing the state and can just leave the rest for later, as though revolution would leave the world with some sort of neutral blank slate and we can just go off and do our own thing. for anarchists, anti-statism and anti-capitalism are inseparable, both in our means and our ends. when workers struggle, they do it against capitalists and the state alike.

"why don't you just go make an anarchist colony" - it's been tried. they were generally either smashed or safely accomodated and marginalised.

most of the above however is theoretical "after the revolution" stuff which gets a bit tiresome after a while (though it does seem to be the main activity of some "ancaps", building endless abstract models for how a future society could look and posing hypotheticals like the ones you gave above). perhaps more important is practical work in the here and now.

anarchists involve themselves in a range of activities - workers struggles, environmental campaigns, prisoner solidarity, benefits claimants groups and various others. I really struggle to see what common ground there could be for co-operation with "ancaps" on any of these things, making the whole discussion a bit meaningless really. and if "ancaps" did want to get involved for some reason, it would be on the grounds of actual practical activity, not because of some delusional idea that "we're all anarchists aren't we?".

the following did interest me however:

Quote:
As far as physical communities go, there is an AnCap colony in Cambodia sponsered by the DollarVigilante which smuggles people out of the US, there is an AnCap community in Acopulco Mexico, in the United States both New Hampshire and Wyoming have communities of AnCaps.

the main article I found on the cambodia thing was this one about becoming a loan shark in Cambodia, which concludes:

Quote:
If you try to lend people who voluntarily want to borrow from you at 36-120% per year in the western world you will be called a "loan shark" and you will be kidnapped and put in a cage. If you do it in Cambodia, you make happy a borrower who had no other means to access capital and you get rich in the process.

if you honestly don't see how this situation is coercive then frankly I fear for your sanity.

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Apr 13 2013 16:54

All reaction is a form of insanity, it's motivated entirely by cruely, avarice and a love of the powerful. The fact that this trash loves evil, exploitative, fascistic money lenders who want to fuck over people in one of the poorest societies on earth is utterly repugnant. You're fucking scum, a pevert who's voluntarily (liberal scum like you love this word) forsaken his own humanity.

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Apr 13 2013 17:14
NannerNannerNannerNannerNanner wrote:
Why are we even arguing with this moral degenerate? I was ignoring hin perfectly fine, why can't we all? Seriously, Reddebrek, the time it took you to make fun of this introverted white middle-class right-wing extremist could have been better spent just staring slackjawed out a window!

Well if it helps I have an infection and so was unable to get to sleep due to fever and had watched all my films. I was also busy making pdf's so I had about a dozen LibCom tabs already open.

jonthom wrote:
for some reason whenever "ancaps" try to call for some sort of unity or co-operation with anarchists the same arguments seem to come up. it gets rather predictable after a while.

You left out the part were they turn the argument into an excuse to tell everyone how great they are. groucho

notrueliberal
Offline
Joined: 11-04-13
Apr 13 2013 20:10

What have I done to make you think I'm showing off?

I don't know maybe I am showing off, who knows, maybe I'm doing it subconciously. Honestly I'm here for now because I want to be, if I grow bored/ get frustrated with it, I'll take a break or move on. Life is way too short to spend my free time doing things I don't want to be doing, or that make me angry.

As far as debate goes I'm open for it, after all the worst thing that can happen is that I straighten out my mind and get a better grasp on what my positions actually are, you know? Wasn't it Edison who said something to the effect of 'I did not fail one thousand times to build a light bulb, I just learned a thousand ways not too'. The point is simply maybe I'll be convinced that ya'll are right, maybe I'll convince some of ya'll that I'm right who knows that's not my purpose. I want to understand where the libertarian communists come from. It's funny posters here consider the term AnCap to be an Oxymoron, many people on my end consider the same thing for the term "Anarcho-Communist". I'm not one of them.

If I change my mind cool beans, if I don't it will give me something to think about whilst I slog away doin my stuff. It will hopefully, if I'm honest, lead to a more consistent world view. We'll have to see.

To me the pursuit of knowledge is sacred. The sharing of knowledge is sacred. I don't believe in IP, nor do I believe in Rothbard's notion that printing "copyright" on the bottom of an item somehow obligates people to the creator. I don't believe in IP at all.

I don't believe that private property is inalienable, magic, from God or whatever. I've been told by people in my "camp" that the fact that I don't take private property to be some sort of magic deity to be worshiped I'm not a libertarian. Frankly I'm not as familiar with the logical fallacies as I should be, but I'm not a fan of the No True Scotsman. If you thought I was here to show off because of my name, think again. My username has a purpose that I thought was rather clever. But of course I do or I wouldn't have chose it right?

Now on to address some of the things in your reply.

"I did not mention dissenters. What I am talking about is opponents." A dissenter is an opponent. A dissenter is someone who has an oppinion contrary to what is popularly held. However regardless it doesn't matter. I say let these people go their own way, and if/when they come back and try to conquer you and yours I say shoot them in the face, burn their body and get back on. The principle here, what I want to get at. Is this, you see employment as coercion, I don't, presumbably the people who work for me don't either. (FYI I don't own a business, I'm just some hired help, probably like the majority here). If the people who work for me agree that working isn't coercion then what's it to you, what we do? What stake is there for a communist in the affairs of non communists? I have absolutely no stake in your affiars, which is why whether I agree or not with you guys I don't care. You know?

What about religion? Who cares whether I worship Jesus, Kopimi, Ctuhulu, Ares, or a tenis ball. When I smoke a bowl who does that hurt? Me... Who's business is it? Mine and the guy selling me dope. I don't see why people find that so hard. But they do. The point is that I have ultimate control of my body and mind which allows me to make bad and good chioces.

I am Labour just like you guys, I work for minimum just like some of you guys. I am working on getting my EMT license in order to increase my pay by becoming a skilled worker. However I take what money I have left over after the bills roll in and I put that into ventures to make myself more money. Because I don't want to work for the rest of my life, I'm taking action to make sure that isn't the case. I have no employees, it's just me and my sweat at this point in my life.

"You cannot seriously believe for one minute that we would be left to get on with it in peace?"

In fact I do, there a plenty of organizations that do evil shit in the world and the US does nothing about it. The US with the most powerful military in the world has done nothing to stop the genocides in Rwanda, it did nothing against Russia when it invaded Georgia (an ally) etc... The point is that if the US doesn't do anything to stop those overtly evil actions, then why on Earth is it going to care about you? If the US doesn't care about you is it so far fetched to say that the other countries won't either?

"Or do we pop off to the mainland on our raft and ask nicely if we can have a computer or whatever in exchange for some of our delicious fucking coconuts?!!! "

Why not? Furthermore I'm not saying you have to live like survivalists surely you guys can build what you need to create your civilization. Unless you're saying that you can't build production facilities and what not that you need to produce goods, and establish services on the division of labour. If you are saying that your system can't do that, are you then admiting that Capitalism is necessary for the establishment of your society? You just need to take the fruits of labour of the capitalists inorder to establish a communist society? Please tell me if I misunderstood you.

Anyway I went to bed halfway through writing this so if someone posted after Webby I'll address it in time.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Apr 13 2013 20:14

Aah, this is a bit brutal. I mean, I had a dig at this guy myself which I don't feel 100% comfortable about but he has taken a hell of a beating here.
Come on Nanner, this guy may be misguided, or wrong, or stupid even. In truth he probably just doesn't like the current system but hasn't thought through all the options properly. But to call him scum, a degenerate and a pervert is going way over the line. We know NOTHING about this guy.
Clling him 'white' and 'middle class' is a bit dodgy to say the least. The white and the middle class don't have the monopoly on talking offensive and reactionary bullshit.
Seriously, I found what this guy was saying to be pretty fucking daft but I think that Libcom is way better than needing to be accusatory and abusive to make a point

notrueliberal
Offline
Joined: 11-04-13
Apr 13 2013 20:30

"Seriously, I found what this guy was saying to be pretty fucking daft but I think that Libcom is way better than needing to be accusatory and abusive to make a point "

Are ya'll really? It seems that the only person interested in discussion was that one guy who is actually making me think about private property and you webby, everyone else is just vitriolic.

To me you resort to ad hominem attacks when you don't have a leg to stand on. If you were truly correct you'd be willing to compete on the field of ideas.

But apparently you guys aren't that's fine, you don't have to. It just means that those of you who aren't are pathetic wailing children just like I said. And just like I said if I wanted to put up with that nonsense I'd have kids.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Apr 13 2013 20:37

Note: My last post crossposted with Notrueliberal.

The showing off coment was just something I deduced from the tone of your post. Like I say, if I'm wrong, I'm sorry.
If you want to get deep in to libcom then discuss with those on here that know what they're talking about and are willing to engage with you in a respecful way. I'm certainly no ancap, but nor am I libcom, although I'm certainly heading in that direction.
My experience is that I got some abuse when I started posting on here but when I continued to post in good faith people engaged with me really well and have been very supportive of my attempts to understand their definition of anarchism. If however, and I'm not saying this is the case, you are here to fuck with people you will get your ass kicked.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 13 2013 21:02

FYI notrueliberal, the reason ppl behave towards you in this way is because of all the other previous an-caps that come on here to "show us" commies what anarchism really is and how we just don't get it. It's shitty that you feel the wrath of past people's behaviour, but so far the an-caps that come here invariably delved into some pretty bigoted rhetoric. Prove us wrong, and maybe you'll get to play in our sandbox a little longer.

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Apr 13 2013 21:27

^Edit: Oh, shit Khawaga beat me to it.

Webby wrote:
.
Come on Nanner, this guy may be misguided, or wrong, or stupid even. In truth he probably just doesn't like the current system but hasn't thought through all the options properly. But to call him scum, a degenerate and a pervert is going way over the line. We know NOTHING about this guy.

Webby,

I think you know enough. S/he's posted several paragraphs of that propertarian bullshit (if you're not familiar with it, you can look it up) and I'd be surprised to hear anyone say that that isn't one of the most immoral ideologies out there.

Regarding the name calling: I'm not fond of it myself, but in its proper context it's nothing to gasp about. These "anarcho"-capitalists/individualists/propertarians/whatever they'd like to call themselves, have had their arguments dealt with in the past (e.g. in threads dealing with Anarchomedia, ComradeAppleton and, to a certain extent, HorrorHiro and yourself), so I wouldn't expect that every time one of them shows up here they're dealt with in a serious manner. The only reason I'd wag my finger at Nanner is for not link the relevant threads and even then, who gives a shit? It's the equivalent of not providing sources when debating someone from the flat earth society.

Props to the comrades that try to engage them seriously and thumbs up to those who don't.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Apr 13 2013 21:48

Hey, I don't think I ever supported ancap! I think I was more talking about giving people a break whatever class they came from. Still, I admit that I made some pretty stupid and clueless posts but always in good faith. If someone has bad ideas that doesn't mean they are bad people. Were you always a fully informed communist or whatever? We've all got to start somewhere. The point is though, that if I'd taken offence at comments made to me when I first got here, I wouldn't have stuck around and be coming round to a libcom point of view as I am now. I don't offend easily but if I'd been called scum, trash and a pevert I may have thought fuck this and never considered libcom again. Fucking hell, give the guy a break. If he's a shitposter he'll be gone of his own accord soon enough.

Streachailt
Offline
Joined: 11-02-13
Apr 13 2013 21:52

Going back to this for a second:

yeksmesh wrote:
Look not to defend these kinds of people but equating them to fascists is a wee bit over the top in my experience.

An Ancap I know has, along with the usual vitriol towards anything left-wing, recently expressed a deep sympathy and affinity for old skool italian fascism, which kind of makes sense, i.e. two similarly middle-class, anti-democratic, elitist, anti-communist movements. A group of them also succeeded in derailing a local single-issue public meeting as they wished to "do battle with the socialists" [ideologically of course].

The way I see it (i.e. here come my unfounded fantastical guesses) eventually some could realise that they cant get everyone to accept the free-market, and that they must forcibly create the preconditions of free-market "freedom" and could even justify violence against the left as self-defence by shouting about gulags etc. Although all of this is unlikely to happen, them being on the internet and all....

notrueliberal
Offline
Joined: 11-04-13
Apr 13 2013 22:34

Honestly I am considering saying fuck it and just leaving. To me just out of hand dismissing me because of idealogy is just really silly. If you ever want to gain converts and understanding between us you will have to be reasonable. We'll see what happens.

Value is subjective, that goes for the value of goods and services as well as moral judgements. Am I anti-democracy? Hell yes I am, because democracy is the State just like monarchy etc...

I fail to see how voting to control people isn't coercive, and isn't a State. Please explain that to me. I think I have been reasonable. I'm not flaming you guys, I'm not trolling you guys either. I have been honest about my positions, and I am thinking about this stuff. For example that post about how the enforcement of private property is coercive. I'm thinking about it, I haven't just dismissed it out of hand. If you want intelligent non belligerent posts you might consider giving me the same curtosy. I think you guys are anarchists, just like I am, I hate the no true scotsman fallacy. However we have some very different ideas on some issues, that doesn't mean we have to hate eachother. I don't hate Christians for what I consider their silly and often immoral beliefs either. I don't think you should hate me just because you disagree with me.

"and that they must forcibly create the preconditions of free-market "freedom" and could even justify violence against the left as self-defence by shouting about gulags etc."

If you don't force people to stay in your community then I'm not going to come and fight you guys, or pay other people to do it for me. On the contrary it seems like you guys would justify violence against me, and mine for employing people, even if we let them leave and if they wanted to join you, letting them go and do it. If someone were to keep people from leaving through force of arms, you won't have to shoot that guy, if I don't someone else in my society will. I am for voluntary association I am not for enslavement!

Do I want to get up in the mornings and go to work? Hell no, I'd rather live in a universe where scarcity isn't a thing, and I could satisfy all my wants and needs by lieing on beach with naked ladies. But scarcity is a very real thing, so that is never going to happen.

So please just give me some common curtosy for once. I think the fact that I haven't up and left or resorted to childish name calling is a sign of good faith. If I came in here and behaved toward ya'll like ya'll have behaved toward me, you probably would have deleted my account and blocked my IP already.

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Apr 13 2013 23:05
Webby wrote:
Hey, I don't think I ever supported ancap!

Ergo why I wrote, "...to a certain extent".

Quote:
If someone has bad ideas that doesn't mean they are bad people.

Someone promoting "free"-markets, a notion which entails that, at the very least hypothetically (although accepted by many of them), people should be "free" to "voluntarily" contract themselves into slavery, or "free" to have their children employed, or have the"liberty" to discriminate (as in an owner of an establishment refusing service to some group), is not a bad person, Webby? Our esteemed guest has not explained in detail what s/he means by "free"-markets (or maybe s/he has and I haven't read it), I'll give you that, but ask and we'll see.

Quote:
Were you always a fully informed communist or whatever?

No, but in my darkest days I never promoted an ideology which was ok with discrimination or slavery. If I had, people would have been in their right to call me a moral monster.

notrueliberal
Offline
Joined: 11-04-13
Apr 13 2013 23:35

Ethos,

I used to believe in "free" markets, however I have since come to the conculsion that there is only the market. I used to think that perhaps we could abolish the State, then I came to the conculsion that the State is what people want, or at least enough of them want it to make it what we have.

I am not okay with slavery, the question of whether or not people can contract themselves into it is one of the questions that gets tossed around by AnCaps. I don't think it's possible because in such a case an individual is free to choose not to be a slave i.e. at anytime he can break the contract, one cannot enter into a contract which one cannot break at a later date. If one is enslaved because the risk involved is too great for them to break free, i.e. in attempting to do so they could be murdered. That is not a voluntary system.

As far as discrimination goes, I'm not okay with that either. I think it's silly, it's ridiculous, and absolutely retarded. However to my mind people are free to believe what ever silly thing they want. Are we going to focefully keep people from praying to Allah five times a day? Or going to church, or believeing in Thor, or Wotan? All of these beliefs are rather silly, and if we look at the monotheistic religions they are used today to justify murder, rape, enslavement of women etc... Does that mean that we have to kill every Muslim, Christian, and Jew in existence? To sort of preemptively keep their religion from causing problems? The only way to keep people from believing in silly shit, is to kill them. Are you prepared to be a serial killer, killing everyone who you disagree with?

To my mind rights don't even exist only claims do. Property is not some magic thing that you wank to in your spare time. It's a construct that we use to resolve disputes over scarce objects and resources. Without property the word "theft" has no meaning, and really without property enslavement has no meaning either, since inorder to be enslaved you have to own yourself. If you don't own yourself how can you be a slave? I mean if you don't own yourself, then really you can't make your own choices, something else has to make them for you... I don't know, I find it interesting to think about however.

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Apr 14 2013 00:43
notrueliberal wrote:
Ethos,

I used to believe in "free" markets, however I have since come to the conculsion that there is only the market. I used to think that perhaps we could abolish the State, then I came to the conculsion that the State is what people want, or at least enough of them want it to make it what we have.

I am not okay with slavery, the question of whether or not people can contract themselves into it is one of the questions that gets tossed around by AnCaps. I don't think it's possible because in such a case an individual is free to choose not to be a slave i.e. at anytime he can break the contract, one cannot enter into a contract which one cannot break at a later date. If one is enslaved because the risk involved is too great for them to break free, i.e. in attempting to do so they could be murdered. That is not a voluntary system.

As far as discrimination goes, I'm not okay with that either. I think it's silly, it's ridiculous, and absolutely retarded. However to my mind people are free to believe what ever silly thing they want. Are we going to focefully keep people from praying to Allah five times a day? Or going to church, or believeing in Thor, or Wotan? All of these beliefs are rather silly, and if we look at the monotheistic religions they are used today to justify murder, rape, enslavement of women etc... Does that mean that we have to kill every Muslim, Christian, and Jew in existence? To sort of preemptively keep their religion from causing problems? The only way to keep people from believing in silly shit, is to kill them. Are you prepared to be a serial killer, killing everyone who you disagree with?

To my mind rights don't even exist only claims do. Property is not some magic thing that you wank to in your spare time. It's a construct that we use to resolve disputes over scarce objects and resources. Without property the word "theft" has no meaning, and really without property enslavement has no meaning either, since inorder to be enslaved you have to own yourself. If you don't own yourself how can you be a slave? I mean if you don't own yourself, then really you can't make your own choices, something else has to make them for you... I don't know, I find it interesting to think about however.

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Apr 14 2013 00:45

So If your not lying about being working-class, your a field slave who thinks he's a house slave who wants to be a master. Wonderful, so either you're a class traitor and a boss-lover or your lying about your privileged upbringing to make your abhorrent views somehow more acceptable. Don't know what's worse, that you'd scab out on your workmates if given the chance or that you'd lie about your comfortable living. Whatever, I really doubt a worker could hate his fellow workers as much as you do.

I think it's a testament to the internet that someone an openly be against democracy on it. Wow, it's beautiful - the quasi-fascist is asking for tolerance! I guess your with the boss on that front, sick of all those workers going to the polls wishing to raise taxes on the rich by a single percentile is just one percentile to much! I am so sorry the government makes you unable to pay your workers piecework and for a couple dollars a day! I guess if fascism came to whatever country you live in you'd be as happy as a kid in a candy store. Finally, the elites can take power away from the rabble, you'd start rejoicing in the streets. Securing "liberty" from the tyranny of humanity. Do you even have friends, and are they as disgusted as I am with your ultra-reactionary fascist views?

Oh, and I' m not surprised that the new right ultra-elitist nietzschean is also an atheist who thinks Christianity, which has historically been the religion of the weak, is "immoral" and "silly". I bet he's a redditor too.

Also, I am slightly shocked but completely unsurprised his elk have a hard-on for old skool italian fascism, do you have any links of them hurling abuse at all the workers fascists killed in the Po Valley for strikng? How does it feel to be apart of an ideology that has in it's ranks race realists, white supremacists, pedophiles and pedophile apologists, violent misogynists, antifeminists, elitists and people who want to destroy democracy to "save liberty"?

Webby wrote:

Really how tolerant does someone have to be to a person as offensive at this. He can be like Mother Theresa while reminding you of Franco. His elitism, selfishness, individualism and his reactionary right- wing extremism deserves to be called out for what is - soulless and disgusting. I think I am perfectly justified in thinking he's privileged, only people that privileged can be so cruel and glorify power that much.

notrueliberal
Offline
Joined: 11-04-13
Apr 14 2013 00:45

How mature. Yet another child masquerading as an adult. Alot of that going around.