Rise of Anarcho-capitalism on BOS (1 Viewer)

[Anonymous-]

Good or bad?

 

[yoddle]

It has been quite good cos I didn't really know much about libertarianism before, let alone anarcho-capitalism, but i do now. Although the amount of anarcho-capitalists on here appears enormously disproportionate with real life.

Debates got v boring after a while though. And most of them are awfully arrogant.

 

[Slidey]

Good or bad?

Definitely bad. But the Internet has always had a predisposition for harbouring Libertarian whack jobs (I'm not sure if Libertarians are just generally whack jobs or if the Internet attracts those of them that are whack jobs, but based on the seductive stupidity of their ideology I think it's the former).

Here's an article from 1997 on this very issue (he rambles a bit but he hits on some poignant issues): http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

 

[SylviaB]

what a terrible, terrible article

 

[Iron]

anglo-catholicism will soon emerge from the shadows and dominate.
anglo-catholicism will dominate

 

[Planck]

It's interesting to have a full spectrum of ideas discussed and it's nothing but positive.

 

[loquasagacious]

It's interesting to have a full spectrum of ideas discussed and it's nothing but positive.

Agreed. As a general statement even if you disagree with the A-C position their presence helps further develop your skills as a debater and also helps deepen your understanding of your own position.

 

[Will Shakespear]

It's interesting to have a full spectrum of ideas discussed and it's nothing but positive.

the full spectrum from libertarian socialist to minarchist to anarcho-capitalist

 

[SylviaB]

the full spectrum from libertarian socialist to minarchist to anarcho-capitalist

lol libertarian socialist is an oxymoron

faggots

 

[Anonymous-]

lol libertarian socialist is an oxymoron

faggots

lol yeah in the way you say it

but a libertarian socialist is a libertarian on all social issues but not on economic issues

 

[yoddle]

Otherwise known as a 'left libertarian'?

The no-government without the primacy of the markets, which is pretty much anarchy?

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists are idiots not to be taken seriously, they don't realise that their 'stating-the-obvious' principles only apply to ultra developed first world counties.

What good is telling an impoverish african village that it should 'embrace free markets' and 'oppose goverment interferance' if it will only perpetuate the poverty cycle, condeming them to their hitherto sqaulid existence.

It will do nothing to bring them out of there static position, and who are you to deny them the opportunity to progress? By what right do you condem these people to a life where they sit in their own filth, begging for scraps of offal?

 

[Slidey]

It's interesting to have a full spectrum of ideas discussed and it's nothing but positive.

This is true. Being exposed to Libertarianism has certainly improved my own position on civil rights even if I often disagree vehemently economically.

But I tire of arguing the same thing over and over again to every new HSC kid who comes along thinking Libertarianism is the best thing since sliced bread

 

[Planck]

This is true. Being exposed to Libertarianism has certainly improved my own position on civil rights even if I often disagree vehemently economically.

But I tire of arguing the same thing over and over again to every new HSC kid who comes along thinking Libertarianism is the best thing since sliced bread

It's a fairly coherent and internally consistent philosophy, though.

"Wait I can rag on religions... AND do drugs?" <- that's the hook, mostly.

You're just not a fan because you think dog eat dog is oh so barbaric

EDIT: Also where the *FUCK* were you Friday?

 

[ad infinitum]

The reason that I find it so appealing is that you can condense it's entire oeuvre into a simple and easy-to-chant creed, 'End The Fed!'. This easy to use maxim now allows me to use my remaining brain power to tell my fingers to plug my ears and order my larynx to contract, my mouth to open, my eyes to glint, and my brow to sweat, my arm to raise and the phrase 'Hail Ron Paul' to project.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Definitely bad. But the Internet has always had a predisposition for harbouring Libertarian whack jobs (I'm not sure if Libertarians are just generally whack jobs or if the Internet attracts those of them that are whack jobs, but based on the seductive stupidity of their ideology I think it's the former).

Here's an article from 1997 on this very issue (he rambles a bit but he hits on some poignant issues): Libertarianism Makes You Stupid

Which parts of it are poignant? All I see is one giant straw man.

Note the rhetoric is made further meaningless by the "initiate force" concept. When Libertarians think using force is justified, they just call it retaliatory force. It's a bit like "war of aggression" versus "war of defense". Rare is the country in history which has ever claimed to be initiating a "war of aggression", they're always retaliating in a "war of defense".

This point seems to articulate what he is getting at with most of his ramblings in the first part.

The fact the some people claim to be acting in self defense when they are not really is irrelevant. The term "initiate force" is far from meaningless, it is very clear and unambiguous. If you use violence or threats of violence first, you are initiating force. This is wrong.

The stuff about big business is utter nonsense. Most big business gets so big in the first place because of favorable dealing with government. Libertarians favor ending these subsidies and lucrative contracts and allowing everyone to compete on their own merit.

 

[SylviaB]

What good is telling an impoverish african village that it should 'embrace free markets' and 'oppose goverment interferance' if it will only perpetuate the poverty cycle, condeming them to their hitherto sqaulid existence.

you're either a complete and utter moron or a troll. If he former is true:

these shithole nations have had the same cycle of oppressive, ineffective governments for centuries, but oh noes if we end government interference and embrace free markets, it will cause poverty. Oh wait that's already the case.

poverty rates in India were slashed in the late twentieth century because they accepted free trade with western capitalist society (also it greatly decreased the number of men involved in gangs and drug trafficking, and the number of women involved in prostitution)

The fact is, capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history.
people need to be able to earn their own wealth in order to escape poverty.
Leftist governments who (claim to) aim to liberate the poor have only ever really destroyed wealth and made them more dependant upon the state, allowing them to be controlled and exploited

 

[ComingUpForAir]

you're either a complete and utter moron or a troll. If he former is true:

these shithole nations have had the same cycle of oppressive, ineffective governments for centuries, but oh noes if we end government interference and embrace free markets, it will cause poverty. Oh wait that's already the case.

poverty rates in India were slashed in the late twentieth century because they accepted free trade with western capitalist society (also it greatly decreased the number of men evolved in gangs and drug trafficking, and the number of women involved in prostitution)

The fact is, capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history.
people need to be able to earn their own wealth in order to escape poverty.
Leftist governments who (claim to) aim to liberate the poor have only ever really destroyed wealth and made them more dependant upon the state, allowing them to be controlled and exploited

lol, you dunce, India was colonised by the british, and has a long history in terms of economic activity, I'm talking about real, extreme poverty, like that in tiny african villages, etc.
The fact is that these communities are not 'interfered' with by the govement, and are, in fact, 'capitalist' societies, they simply do not have the technology or capital (per capita) to set into motion meaningful economic growth (and thus have been static in terms of living standards for thousands of years).

Another total miss by the dogmatic, uneducated, over-opinionated 'anarcho-capitalist' clowns.
Clowns and thugs.

 

[SylviaB]

The fact is that these communities are not 'interfered' with by the govement, and are, in fact, 'capitalist' societies, they simply do not have the technology or capital (per capita) to set into motion meaningful economic growth (and thus have been static in terms of living standards for thousands of years).

Yeah? Are you saying that more government interference is required?

Clowns and thugs.

Ha! It's the statists like you who are the thugs

 

[SylviaB]

lol yeah in the way you say it

but a libertarian socialist is a libertarian on all social issues but not on economic issues

makes as much sense as an atheist Christian who believes in certain aspects of Christianity like Jesus' teachings, but doesn't hold the main beliefs of Christianity i.e. Jesus is son of god

sure you hold Christian philosophy in some areas, but you can't really call yourself a Christian

similarly, you can hold Libertarian philosophy in some (social) areas, but because you don't hold the central libertarian belief, that government should not use coercion and no one should initiate force etc, which is necessary in a socialist society, you can't really call yourself a Libertarian