Libertarian my ass!

[myrkul]

I'd suggest Voluntaryist, but technically, that describes his position as well.

Does it really? I've always interpreted them as wanting to abolish privately owned means of production by force. Maybe that's just my ignorance though. I can't say I've honestly cared enough to read further into it since it sounds so repugnant to me.

Well, yeah, but they want it to be done voluntarily.

And here, I'll quote Frank Zappa:
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

[Richy_T]

Let's say I have extra cheese from goats, and you have extra crackers. Then, I get together with you and say, "Hey, I'll give you some of my extra cheese for some of your extra crackers." Then we trade and we both make cheese and crackers. That was capitalism at work. So unless you're going to be completely self-sufficient and live in a cabin in the woods somewhere, how can you possibly avoid it?

No, you have it wrong. If you have extra cheese and I have extra crackers, you give me your extra cheese because work is its own reward and I give you the extra crackers because work is its own reward.

However, if I decide it's more rewarding to drink and gamble all day and end up with nothing, you give me your cheese (because work is its own reward) and we both do without crackers.

Of course, this scenario would never happen because... I dunno. Magic?

[Mike Christ]

Let's say I have extra cheese from goats, and you have extra crackers. Then, I get together with you and say, "Hey, I'll give you some of my extra cheese for some of your extra crackers." Then we trade and we both make cheese and crackers. That was capitalism at work. So unless you're going to be completely self-sufficient and live in a cabin in the woods somewhere, how can you possibly avoid it?

No, you have it wrong. If you have extra cheese and I have extra crackers, you give me your extra cheese because work is its own reward and I give you the extra crackers because work is its own reward.

However, if I decide it's more rewarding to drink and gamble all day and end up with nothing, you give me your cheese (because work is its own reward) and we both do without crackers.

Of course, this scenario would never happen because... I dunno. Magic?

Not quite; on a small scale, this is what would happen.  But on a large scale, with one society trading with another society, it would have to happen capitalism-style.  Unless, of course, we're talking about state communism, in which case, we're all fucked and destined to die in a war for the mother land.

[Richy_T]

Well, I have always called that State capitalism, or corporatism, But perhaps he would accept laissez faire capitalist to describe us? We could try to take back Liberal. I'd suggest Voluntaryist, but technically, that describes his position as well.

Ah, fuck it. I'm an AnCap. Deal with it, ya commie bastids.

The problem with that is that it make laissez faire or anarchist a modifier to "capitalist" which both implies that the main aim is capitalism (it's not for me. I'm for freedom first) and that the capitalism is somewhat exclusive to these viewpoints, thus making it easy to vilify and oppose it (try telling an occupier that your need for his ipad is greater than his and see how quickly the capitalism comes out). I'd say something like "minarchist" describes my position better.

[myrkul]

Well, I have always called that State capitalism, or corporatism, But perhaps he would accept laissez faire capitalist to describe us? We could try to take back Liberal. I'd suggest Voluntaryist, but technically, that describes his position as well.

Ah, fuck it. I'm an AnCap. Deal with it, ya commie bastids.

The problem with that is that it make laissez faire or anarchist a modifier to "capitalist" which both implies that the main aim is capitalism (it's not for me. I'm for freedom first) and that the capitalism is somewhat exclusive to these viewpoints, thus making it easy to vilify and oppose it (try telling an occupier that your need for his ipad is greater than his and see how quickly the capitalism comes out). I'd say something like "minarchist" describes my position better.

Capitalism is exclusive of anarchy or state. Capitalism is quite simply the operation of for-profit business. Who owns these businesses and which (if any) businesses are run by the State is what determines the anarchy/state axis. Typical "laissez faire capitalism" lets most of these businesses be owned and operated by private individuals, retaining State monopoly only on Defense and Justice. Anarcho-capitalism lets private individuals run Defense and Justice companies, as well. State capitalism moves progressively more industries under government control, either through regulation or direct ownership and operation. At the far end, we have fascism, where every industry is directly or indirectly controlled by the government.

By contrast, we have communism. There's less of a spectrum, here, it's pretty much either/or. Either everything is shared voluntarily, or it's all controlled by the State and doled out as they see fit. People being people, the first form hardly ever lasts for long or expands beyond a small group without becoming the latter.

[Richy_T]

Even in small groups, it tends to have problems. Way back when, there was a small colony of progressives set up not far from here. They didn't last too long. About all it's really good for is about family sized and even then not always. It can have more success if it's possible to expel people from the group but that's really straying from the ideals somewhat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruskin_Colony

[myrkul]

Even in small groups, it tends to have problems. Way back when, there was a small colony of progressives set up not far from here. They didn't last too long. About all it's really good for is about family sized and even then not always. It can have more success if it's possible to expel people from the group but that's really straying from the ideals somewhat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruskin_Colony

lol... Yeah, Like I said, it usually doesn't last.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

I'd suggest Voluntaryist, but technically, that describes his position as well.

Does it really? I've always interpreted them as wanting to abolish privately owned means of production by force. Maybe that's just my ignorance though. I can't say I've honestly cared enough to read further into it since it sounds so repugnant to me.

Well, yeah, but they want it to be done voluntarily.

And here, I'll quote Frank Zappa:
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

Glorious bacon, that's a name that I haven't heard in ages.

Let's say I have extra cheese from goats, and you have extra crackers. Then, I get together with you and say, "Hey, I'll give you some of my extra cheese for some of your extra crackers." Then we trade and we both make cheese and crackers. That was capitalism at work. So unless you're going to be completely self-sufficient and live in a cabin in the woods somewhere, how can you possibly avoid it?

No, you have it wrong. If you have extra cheese and I have extra crackers, you give me your extra cheese because work is its own reward and I give you the extra crackers because work is its own reward.

However, if I decide it's more rewarding to drink and gamble all day and end up with nothing, you give me your cheese (because work is its own reward) and we both do without crackers.

Maybe if I reaaaalllllyyy like you, then I'll let you have some of my cheese. Maybe.