"Anarchists" rioting in London

[左]

@em3rgentOrdr, I think you don't know what I'm for, or against, by that post. Actually, I've nothing against markets, so long as they aren't capitalist. What I'm for is freedom, which I don't think is possible in a capitalist system.

Saying I oppose private property, and therefore oppose markets, is wrong.

I do oppose states, and government. I encourage people to resist state intrusions into their lives. I oppose laws (well, all laws, but specifically) that restrict freedom.

@BitterTea I don't know all the answers. I also can't be bothered finding out in this case. I'm not an economic theorist, I'm a political philosopher. I would guess that we could work together against statism, but I must make it clear that I have no objection to taxing corporations out of existence. Mainly 'cause I oppose corporations as well.

[1714838071]

1714838071

[1714838071]

1714838071

[Alex Beckenham]

I oppose laws (well, all laws, but specifically) that restrict freedom.

Can you name a law that doesn't restrict freedom?

[em3rgentOrdr]

@em3rgentOrdr, I think you don't know what I'm for, or against, by that post. Actually, I've nothing against markets, so long as they aren't capitalist. What I'm for is freedom, which I don't think is possible in a capitalist system.

Saying I oppose private property, and therefore oppose markets, is wrong.

I do oppose states, and government. I encourage people to resist state intrusions into their lives. I oppose laws (well, all laws, but specifically) that restrict freedom.

I will permit you to form you non-private property markets.  Will you permit me to form private-property markets with my friends?

[左]

I don't care what you do, so long as you don't try and restrict everyone else's freedom.

I think conflict will come though when you try and claim that you and your friends own a factory, but are never seen anywhere near it. Instead, you "hire" people to work the factory for you, giving you a percentage of their labor for the privilege. What will you and your friends do when the workers decide that they'd rather not giving you anything 'cause, well, you aren't actually doing anything?

[BitterTea]

It is the height of foolishness to claim that business owners "don't do anything" just because they are not assemblng widgets with their own hands. They provided the capital, they take the brunt of the risk. If the workers want their own factory, why do you advocate they take it (by force) from those they voluntarily agreed to work for?

Look, I understand that the labor market today is grossly in favor of employers, but I see this as the function of government regulation and privelege granting. In the absense of a state, assuming a sufficiently large portion of the population accepts the premises of anti-statism, I don't see such a distorted labor market forming. However, I feel that there will still be entreprenurial individuals and there wwill be risk averse individuals. I see nothing wrong with the latter voluntarily accepting a wage from the former in return for their work. I do consider it wrong for the latter to suddenly decide he is being exploited, breaking his agreement, and using force against his employer.


How do you feel about this article? http://c4ss.org/content/4043

[MacFall]

...I'm reluctant to tell a member of the general population that I'm an 'anarchist' for fear of what they think anarchy means (like I did), because they watch mainstream news.

Same here. Other terms such as "voluntaryist" or "autonomist" have less baggage, but I find it is much easier to describe what I believe then to try to self-apply a label. It's also a good way to seize the moral high ground with a statement like:

"Violence and coercion against the non-violent are impermissable."

At the very least, one must abandon the argument from morality entirely to argue against the ethics of non-aggression. But people want to think their position is moral, so they will just keep bouncing arguments helplessly against it. At least, that's been my experience. In fact, it's what eventually led me to become a voluntaryst.

[em3rgentOrdr]

...I'm reluctant to tell a member of the general population that I'm an 'anarchist' for fear of what they think anarchy means (like I did), because they watch mainstream news.

Same here. Other terms such as "voluntaryist" or "autonomist" have less baggage, but I find it is much easier to describe what I believe then to try to self-apply a label. It's also a good way to seize the moral high ground with a statement like:

"Violence and coercion against the non-violent are impermissable."

At the very least, one must abandon the argument from morality entirely to argue against the ethics of non-aggression. But people want to think their position is moral, so they will just keep bouncing arguments helplessly against it. At least, that's been my experience. In fact, it's what eventually led me to become a voluntaryst.

Voluntaryism FTW.

[DATA COMMANDER]

If the workers want their own factory, why do you advocate they take it (by force) from those they voluntarily agreed to work for?

When did they use force?

[MoonShadow]

If the workers want their own factory, why do you advocate they take it (by force) from those they voluntarily agreed to work for?

When did they use force?

Read the whole thread.

[luv2drnkbr]

I oppose laws (well, all laws, but specifically) that restrict freedom.

Can you name a law that doesn't restrict freedom?

Roe v. Wade

[FatherMcGruder]

Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws.

[AntiVigilante]

Not sure if this is being discussed yet, but just posting my thoughts on the 'anarchist' label and how I think most people would associate it with the chaotic bullshit they see happening in London today.

The European 'anarchists' are not in favor of a stateless society.  They are, largely, socialists.  Intentional chaos is an intermediate stage outlined by Karl Marx, and in detail in Rules for Radicals.  Karl Marx noted that the majority of any nation has a vested interest in the status quo, even if that same majority can recognize it's flaws.  Thus, the status quo must be disrupted before any substantial change, in this case a socialist revolution, may be successful.  Certainly they don't all believe that they are socialists, but all of those who are rioting are contributing to that end, whether they know it or not.

Of course it's aimless violence which only drives the people further into the loving arms of the government he 'allegedly' wanted to get rid of. That in itself makes the claims of his goals completely suspect. Hence my username.

I have a hairs breadth of patience for paid provocateurs and their idiot entourage.

[deadlizard]

Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws.

consensus facit legem

[benjamindees]

I oppose laws (well, all laws, but specifically) that restrict freedom.

Can you name a law that doesn't restrict freedom?

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

[luv2drnkbr]

Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws.

Its decisions restrict what laws can be made, and while not technically "laws" (as the term is applied to mandates passed by Congress).  By narrowly restricting how laws can be made, it effectively creates laws.

The Constitution says the Supreme Court is the "supreme law of the land".  But yes, technically I did not answer his question.

[FatherMcGruder]

The Constitution says the Supreme Court is the "supreme law of the land".

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article III, sections one and two, which define the Supreme Court, do not give its justices Judge Dredd powers.

[ndonnard]

Not sure if this is being discussed yet, but just posting my thoughts on the 'anarchist' label and how I think most people would associate it with the chaotic bullshit they see happening in London today.

If I really had to choose an exact label for myself, and I could only choose one, I might call myself a 'market anarchist', however I absolutely don't want to be associated with people spray-painting buildings with the 'A' symbol or smashing out the windows of successful and 'posh' businesses.

It's funny, I grew up actually thinking the word 'anarchy' meant 'chaos' and it was only just recently I realised how wrong that definition is, and that the mistake probably came from mainstream TV media, where those kind of rioters are just labelled 'anarchists' in general.

You can probably call youself anarcho-capitalist or private propetry anarchist instead of market anarchist. But it's all about terms, meanwhile the ideas you support are much more important. As I uderstant it's something from  Austrian School of economics,  Murray Rothbard or  Robert Nozick with his "Anarchy, State, Utopia".

[MoonShadow]

Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws.

Its decisions restrict what laws can be made, and while not technically "laws" (as the term is applied to mandates passed by Congress).  By narrowly restricting how laws can be made, it effectively creates laws.

The Constitution says the Supreme Court is the "supreme law of the land".  But yes, technically I did not answer his question.

Um, no it doesn't.  The constitutions says that IT is the supreme law of the land.  The constitution doesn't even grant the Supreme Court the power to judge the constitutionality of laws, that's just something that they assumed they could do, and there isn't really any court capable of overridding that assumption.  Technically, the House of Representives has the power to sensor/override a Supreme court ruling; but this has actually never occured.