"Anarchists" rioting in London

[wb3]

  Why I think other governments might fall for this stuff. America is not really one government, it is 50 governments agreeing. In good times this is easy, wealth for all. In bad times, the Central Government has to cave to the States. You have 10 states that are passing a gold and silver standard, one that threatens succession from future governor potential candidates. We will be able to see the correct methods when the system contracts, those to liberal will collapse, those to conservative will be protectionists, and those who got it just right will prosper.  There are few states that are completely self sufficient. Alaska, North Dakota, Texas (if you eliminate mandatory spending from the FED).

 e pluribus unum works in reverse too.

[FatherMcGruder]

And you make this conclusion, how?

Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian philosophy, and capitalism consists of authoritarian relationships: employer over employee, landlord over tenant, usurer over borrower. These roles may occasionally reverse, but the authoritarian relationships still persist. Furthermore, employers, landlords, and usurers (they're pretty much all usurers, but whatever) cannot do what they do without a state of some kind and states are authoritarian entities. Therefore, anarchy opposes capitalism.

Someone explain to me how kids rioting for cheaper education constitute "anarchists".  Does the state regulate and limit the availability of education or something?

If anarchists cannot get rid of the state very easily, it makes sense to try to decrease the power of the other capitalist rulers. It also makes sense for anarchists to get angry when education becomes more of a for-profit, vocational venture. To anarchists, such policy changes mean an exacerbation of the capitalist status quo. And can we honestly expect a mass of indignant, radical youth, anarchist or not, not to do something rash?

We should also not disregard the likely possibility of agents provocateur.

[MoonShadow]

And you make this conclusion, how?

Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian philosophy,

Not strictly correct.  Anarchism is an anti-state philosophy, not necessarily anti authoritarian.  After all, Father, what is the ultimate authority, if not God?

and capitalism consists of authoritarian relationships: employer over employee, landlord over tenant, usurer over borrower. These roles may occasionally reverse, but the authoritarian relationships still persist.

"You keep using that word, but I don't think in means what you think it means..."

 Furthermore, employers, landlords, and usurers (they're pretty much all usurers, but whatever) cannot do what they do without a state of some kind and states are authoritarian entities. Therefore, anarchy opposes capitalism.

In practice, perhaps.  Not in ideology.  The problem that persists with your conversations is that the word "capitalism" is different for different people.  What you rail against is actually corporatism.  Capitalism is not an ideology, but a definable set of natural economic laws.  Capitalism exists in every human society, whether the people involved wish to acknowledge it or not.  In places where capitalism is respected, societies prosper in general.  There are some downsides to capitalism, but overall it is always best to go along with nature rather than fight it.  Really Father, you should actually read some of the recommended reading on the subject that has been presented already.  I particularly recommend Economics in One Lesson.

Someone explain to me how kids rioting for cheaper education constitute "anarchists".  Does the state regulate and limit the availability of education or something?

If anarchists cannot get rid of the state very easily, it makes sense to try to decrease the power of the other capitalist rulers.

Case in point, political structures are, by definition, not capitalist structures.  The political rulers in the UK are not capitalists.  The same is true for every other nation on Earth.  There is no such thing as a capitalist nation, and there cannot be.

It also makes sense for anarchists to get angry when education becomes more of a for-profit, vocational venture.

Why would it make sense?  Education has always been a for-profit, vocational venture. 

To anarchists, such policy changes mean an exacerbation of the capitalist status quo. And can we honestly expect a mass of indignant, radical youth, anarchist or not, not to do something rash?

If they were raised to understand the natural laws of God, then yes, we can. 

We should also not disregard the likely possibility of agents provocateur.

Probably we should not.

[benjamindees]

Father McGruder, if you could take a minute out from kicking ass for the Lord, please tell us why owning things is inherently authoritarian.

[FatherMcGruder]

Not strictly correct.  Anarchism is an anti-state philosophy, not necessarily anti authoritarian.  After all, Father, what is the ultimate authority, if not God?

In your question, you assume that God exists, that he is an authority, that that means that we must embrace authoritarianism. I cannot validate these assumptions. Can you? Furthermore, it simply doesn't make sense that anarchists would only oppose the state. That would mean contentedness with switching from one master to another and we already do that. No, anarchists know that anarchy is a struggle against all authority that may never end.

 Furthermore, employers, landlords, and usurers (they're pretty much all usurers, but whatever) cannot do what they do without a state of some kind and states are authoritarian entities. Therefore, anarchy opposes capitalism.

In practice, perhaps.  Not in ideology.  The problem that persists with your conversations is that the word "capitalism" is different for different people.  What you rail against is actually corporatism.  Capitalism is not an ideology, but a definable set of natural economic laws.  Capitalism exists in every human society, whether the people involved wish to acknowledge it or not.  In places where capitalism is respected, societies prosper in general.  There are some downsides to capitalism, but overall it is always best to go along with nature rather than fight it.  Really Father, you should actually read some of the recommended reading on the subject that has been presented already.  I particularly recommend Economics in One Lesson.

I oppose the individual capitalist as much as the biggest group of them. If corporatism is inherently authoritarian, I will oppose it too. You assume that capitalism is something of nature. Can you prove that? Can you prove that humans must behave naturally?

Case in point, political structures are, by definition, not capitalist structures.  The political rulers in the UK are not capitalists.  The same is true for every other nation on Earth.  There is no such thing as a capitalist nation, and there cannot be.

I suppose it's not safe to assume that all people in government are capitalists, but I wasn't doing so. The capitalists living off of the cumulative interest they collect from borrowers are also rulers. If a society's government can fund the education of its members in a non-profit manner, it will weaken the capitalist usurer kings. Hopefully doing so will also redirect funds from its more oppressive activities. Of course, that probably won't ever happen and any rioting will make its alleged participants look bad. I never said it was the smart thing to do, but it is justifiable.

Why would it make sense?  Education has always been a for-profit, vocational venture.

Has it? If so, why does it have to be?

If they were raised to understand the natural laws of God, then yes, we can. 

See my earlier response in this post.

Probably we should not.

Glad we can agree on that.

Father McGruder, if you could take a minute out from kicking ass for the Lord, please tell us why owning things is inherently authoritarian.

Christ, I've been waiting for someone to make that reference. Have you actually seen Dead Alive or did you watch me make that reference in IRC?

Ownership is authoritarian when you come to own or maintain ownership of something through authoritarian means. Simply owning the product of your labor, and not using it to extort from others the product of their labor is not authoritarian. Capitalist profit is extortion though and therefore authoritarian. Some anarchists might argue that private ownership is always authoritarian, but I disagree.

[MoonShadow]

 Furthermore, employers, landlords, and usurers (they're pretty much all usurers, but whatever) cannot do what they do without a state of some kind and states are authoritarian entities. Therefore, anarchy opposes capitalism.

In practice, perhaps.  Not in ideology.  The problem that persists with your conversations is that the word "capitalism" is different for different people.  What you rail against is actually corporatism.  Capitalism is not an ideology, but a definable set of natural economic laws.  Capitalism exists in every human society, whether the people involved wish to acknowledge it or not.  In places where capitalism is respected, societies prosper in general.  There are some downsides to capitalism, but overall it is always best to go along with nature rather than fight it.  Really Father, you should actually read some of the recommended reading on the subject that has been presented already.  I particularly recommend Economics in One Lesson.

I oppose the individual capitalist as much as the biggest group of them.

Then you oppose yourself.  Do you own any tools, or any property whatever?  If you are really a priest, do you own a bible?  Any property that is required to earn a living is, by it's very definition, capital.  Ownership is defined by primary possession, not some government edict on a piece of paper that says someone (or some corporation) owns something.

 If corporatism is inherently authoritarian, I will oppose it too. You assume that capitalism is something of nature. Can you prove that?

I could, yes.  However, if you are not willing to have an open mind and, at a minimum, read a book; then I'm not willing to waste my time repeating the work of others.

Can you prove that humans must behave naturally?

Must?  Of course not.  Why would that be a requirement?  Opposing natural laws (of economics or anything else) are achievable so long as those who wish to do so are willing to dedicate resources to that end.  It's comparable to sailing up river.  Sure, it can be done; but it's naturally easier to sail down river.

Case in point, political structures are, by definition, not capitalist structures.  The political rulers in the UK are not capitalists.  The same is true for every other nation on Earth.  There is no such thing as a capitalist nation, and there cannot be.

I suppose it's not safe to assume that all people in government are capitalists, but I wasn't doing so.

I wasn't claiming that either.  I said that the political structures are not capitalist.  Those who participate in the political structures are capitalists in the same manner that you are, but exist within a system that is most demostratablely anti-capitalist.

You really don't know of what you speak.

The capitalists living off of the cumulative interest they collect from borrowers are also rulers.

That's called "rent seeking", and is not capitalism. 

 If a society's government can fund the education of its members in a non-profit manner,

But it can't.  The educators must make a living.  Said another way, they must make a profit, otherwise they will have to find some other way to eat.  It's unavoidable.

 it will weaken the capitalist usurer kings.

There is no such thing, and there never has been.

Why would it make sense?  Education has always been a for-profit, vocational venture.

Has it? If so, why does it have to be?

See above.

Ownership is authoritarian when you come to own or maintain ownership of something through authoritarian means. Simply owning the product of your labor, and not using it to extort from others the product of their labor is not authoritarian. Rent Seeking is extortion though and therefore authoritarian. Some anarchists might argue that private ownership is always authoritarian, but I disagree.

There, I fixed that for you.

[benjamindees]

That's called "rent seeking", and is not capitalism. 

Well, capitalism is not necessarily rent seeking.  But rent seeking requires capital.

But it can't.  The educators must make a living.  Said another way, they must make a profit, otherwise they will have to find some other way to eat.  It's unavoidable.

Not true.  Parents can home school their kids.

[MoonShadow]

That's called "rent seeking", and is not capitalism. 

Well, capitalism is not necessarily rent seeking.  But rent seeking requires capital.

Um, no.  Rent Seeking does not require capital.  Taxation is rent seeking.  Corporations lobbying for subsidies is rent seeking.  Enimnet Domain is rent seeking.

Rent seeking is not when a landlord charges rent, that's a contract.

But it can't.  The educators must make a living.  Said another way, they must make a profit, otherwise they will have to find some other way to eat.  It's unavoidable.

Not true.  Parents can home school their kids.

Yes, but if parents wish to have their kids educated by others, then those others still need to get paid.  Even homeschooling parents need to earn a living, so if homeschooling interferes with that ability, the kids' education will suffer or their quality of life will suffer, and probably both.

[jpent]

I was under the impression that 'rent-seeking' in the pejorative essentially meant businesses using various means (usually the state) to try to subvert the market's tendency to drive profits to 0, essentially allowing them to use their market position to receive a continuous stream of profit rather than receiving profit based on innovation.

[benjamindees]

Okay well if you want to use "rent seeking" to mean something besides seeking rent then rent requires capital and interest is not "rent seeking".

[MoonShadow]

I was under the impression that 'rent-seeking' in the pejorative essentially meant businesses using various means (usually the state) to try to subvert the market's tendency to drive profits to 0, essentially allowing them to use there market position to receive a continuous stream of profit rather than receiving profit based on innovation.

That's one way to look at it.  Rent seeking is the pursuit of any market advantage via government influences.

[MoonShadow]

Okay well if you want to use "rent seeking" to mean something besides seeking rent then rent requires capital and interest is not "rent seeking".

I'm using the term in the economic context, not the common usage.

[benjamindees]

Father McGruder, if you could take a minute out from kicking ass for the Lord, please tell us why owning things is inherently authoritarian.

Christ, I've been waiting for someone to make that reference. Have you actually seen Dead Alive or did you watch me make that reference in IRC?

I've seen the clip on YouTube a few times, but not the whole movie.

Ownership is authoritarian when you come to own or maintain ownership of something through authoritarian means. Simply owning the product of your labor, and not using it to extort from others the product of their labor is not authoritarian.

So, is locking the door on my house "maintaining ownership through authoritarian means"?  If I were to rent out something I own, like tools for instance, to others, would that be "extorting the product of their labor"?

Capitalist profit is extortion though and therefore authoritarian.

How is it extortion?  You have to pay the capitalists?

[jago25_98]

In the same way the meaning of the word `Hacker` has changed meaning, so the word `Anarchy` means something completely different.

Why not coin a new phrase for goodness sake!

[Anonymous]

In the same way the meaning of the word `Hacker` has changed meaning, so the word `Anarchy` means something completely different.

Why not coin a new phrase for goodness sake!

Im an alpacifist.

[em3rgentOrdr]

In the same way the meaning of the word `Hacker` has changed meaning, so the word `Anarchy` means something completely different.

Why not coin a new phrase for goodness sake!

Im an alpacifist.

I'm an non-aggressionist adherent of non-aggressionism.

[The Script]

In the same way the meaning of the word `Hacker` has changed meaning, so the word `Anarchy` means something completely different.

Why not coin a new phrase for goodness sake!

Im an alpacifist.

I'm an non-aggressionist adherent of non-aggressionism.

I'm a nonarchist. 

[左]

I'm an anarchist. But for people too stupid to listen to my explanation of what I mean by the term, I also use the term libertarian socialist.

[MoonShadow]

I'm an anarchist. But for people too stupid to listen to my explanation of what I mean by the term, I also use the term libertarian socialist.

Which is a contradiction in terms.

[benjamindees]

I'm an anarchist. But for people too stupid to listen to my explanation of what I mean by the term, I also use the term libertarian socialist.

Which is a contradiction in terms.

Depends.