Fuck Ayn Rand

[7734¯7IA3]

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

We need a nuclear war to make a fallout world.

Agreed....Which country shall we nuke first?

...and then drink some German Brau...like Stiegl und Furstenburg

[Drake Dun]

I feel an essay coming on about anarchism.

[7734¯7IA3]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

I feel an essay coming on about anarchism.

Are you offering?

[Drake Dun]

Yeah, but not promising. My enthusiasms have been known to suddenly abate for no obvious reason.

[7734¯7IA3]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Yeah, but not promising. My enthusiasms have been known to suddenly abate for no obvious reason.

Ah, c'mon...I'd like to learn more about anarchism so that I can use my enemies' own hegemonic ideology (i.e., postmodernism) in an attempt to fuse anarchism with Nazism...Ha, Ha, Ha, Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Oh Yeahaaaah Ha ha ha haaaah!!!!

I'm laughing like this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCcl...e=channel_page

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Anarchocapitalism just seems like an oxymoron. I can't see how it wouldn't make the gap between rich and poor significantly worse, for one, and would there be rules or regulations for companies? Would they get away with paying their employees very little? Private companies would make up law enforcement...and motivated by greed, whats to say they wouldn't become more corrupt than the current law enforcement?

I know I could look this up but I just can't get a paragraph into the wikipedia article without giving up. All I got out of it was "It would be like the American Old West."

To play Devil's advocate, I think an anarcho-capitalist would State that the private compainies would be checked by the will of the people, who would take their business elsewhere if the other businesses became corrupt.

(Note: if you want to see an economic example of Anarcho-capitalism, check out the auction house on World of Warcraft on a server where the GM's don't pay too much attention to the Gold farmers. )

It's silly and unrealistic I know, but really not that much more than the "members of an anarcho-communist society will spontaneously perform all necessary labour because they would recognize the benefits of communal enterprise and mutual aid."

The more I read about anarchism of any sort, the more I'm convinced that for either of these societies to exist, people would have to stop being dicks, and quite sadly, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

From what I've seen it's like these political philosophers have drawn up a social plan based upon what they want humanity to be, as opposed to what it is. It reminds me of a a construction crew drawing up plans for a magnificent golden palace when all they have access to are logs and nails.

[JCC]

What if companies monopolize basic necessities? If Wal-Mart starts disregarding worker's rights, but there's nowhere else you can buy your food because Wal-Mart bought it all up in this extreme-free-market system, what are you going to do about it? You either conform or you starve. The rich control everything now, and in anarcho-capitalism they still control everything, so all that you fight for is for them to control everything with a little more force.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by Despanan

It's silly and unrealistic I know, but really not that much more than the "members of an anarcho-communist society will spontaneously perform all necessary labour because they would recognize the benefits of communal enterprise and mutual aid."

The more I read about anarchism of any sort, the more I'm convinced that for either of these societies to exist, people would have to stop being dicks, and quite sadly, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

From what I've seen it's like these political philosophers have drawn up a social plan based upon what they want humanity to be, as opposed to what it is. It reminds me of a a construction crew drawing up plans for a magnificent golden palace when all they have access to are logs and nails.

That is why I consider myself to be a disillusioned would-be anarcho-communist. It would be nice if it worked, but it won't. It sucks, but there you have it.
It's my main problem with Marx and the like. I couldn't even get through all the Communist Manifesto because it seemed that he had never interacted with other people. We are, by nature, greedy and lazy (and I certainly don't exclude myself from this).

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by JCC

What if companies monopolize basic necessities? If Wal-Mart starts disregarding worker's rights, but there's nowhere else you can buy your food because Wal-Mart bought it all up in this extreme-free-market system, what are you going to do about it? You either conform or you starve. The rich control everything now, and in anarcho-capitalism they still control everything, so all that you fight for is for them to control everything with a little more force.

I agree with this for the most part (except for: "the rich control everything", they certainly have alot of influence, but that comes with the territory).

I don't think anyone here is actually arguing for Anarcho-Capitalism.

Though I am curious JCC, since there's no "coercive authority" how prescisly is and Anarcho-communist society supposed to prevent that exact same thing from happening?

[KontanKarite]

Where An-Cap expects everyone to 100% be smart and ethical consumers, ie, "Wal-Mart's being a dick, let us, the consumers, boycott them into oblivion.", An-Com simply expects everyone to agree to live on an equal playing field and follow the popular opinion to a T.

In An-Cap, Wal-Mart can become you're new king if you're not careful and the Vegans can ensure you never eat meat again for the rest of your days in An-Com.

There will always be force of violence or force of coercion it seems, unless I'm wrong.

Then again, as a "moderate" anarchist myself, I just find it's the duty of society to embrace more and more liberties and more and more personal responsibilities until centralized government is either not needed anymore or the government itself simply becomes a kind of non-issue, much like how the mods are here.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Then again, as a "moderate" anarchist myself, I just find it's the duty of society to embrace more and more liberties and more and more personal responsibilities until centralized government is either not needed anymore or the government itself simply becomes a kind of non-issue, much like how the mods are here.

Because this site is SO well-run.

[KontanKarite]

My point is that exactly. The members here have taken care of themselves with next to near absence of the mods.

But... in said situation, I have also considered that had this actually been a more personal society, Uni might have gotten her ass kicked a long time ago, killed, or wouldn't have acted at all in the way that she does/did. This would also apply to any and all belligerent trolls as well. But I think because it would be more personal, that these people would have avoided acting bat shit crazy in an effort to not put themselves in a situation they wouldn't find favorable at all.

[Despanan]

But we still have these stupid word-censors, posting rules, and the like, meanwhile spam goes un-deleted, and trolls un-banned until they really get out of hand. The moderators have very little interaction with the members beyond bannings which seem to happen out of the blue, and their reasons are unknown and mysterious.

Honestly I'd say the way CB is run is closer to an anarchist internet paradise than Gnet.

[KontanKarite]

You have a point there and I'm actually guilty of ignoring those parts of G.net that might undermine my opinion. But, in all honesty, if I were to post shitting dick nipples there, I'd be banned pretty quick. Though I also understand that CB is a place the members go to even when they're at work. So... technically, they both kind of fail in the whole censorship arena.

[Despanan]

Didn't you go to Martian Jail for posting shitting dick nipples?

[KontanKarite]

I bear the scars of lava boarding.

[Despanan]

Speaking of which, it's just about time for your 4:00. be sure to wear a shirt you're not too fond of.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That makes no fucking sense.
Anarchism is not some bullshit philosophy to which human life means nothing. Capitalism subjects humans to its cold standards, which allow for inequality and exploitation. It IS an oxymoron to say anarchocapitalism.

I have to admit I left my thought process in my post...

The thing is that "anarcho-capitalism" would work if it was in an ideal world. The needs of competing individuals would protect everyone from the "cold standards."
It would work perfectly as long as everyone was responsible and stood up for themselves to a reasonable extent. But we all know that this is the kind of world view that someone might have if they have no concept of human nature, and instead had observed robots that weren't programmed to invent needs for themselves.
Which is I think the world view that one would have to have for any system to work properly for a long period of time.
Every system allows for inequality and exploitation because none of them take into account the full extent of human nature. Fuck, even capitalism has broken down, I think...

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You could equally say "existence itself is oppressive by its nature." Does that mean anything? No.

On this statement... it could be considered oppressive because it causes us to be bound by our form and needs (consequence of ignoring it is death). On the other hand, if we don't exist, we can't do anything, so existence could be consid
Yeah. I've got nothing on that. What alternative do we have? Non-existence doesn't allow us to do anything. The opposite means nothing as well.
Unless it all means that *everything* is oppressive... :P

[JCC]

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

I have to admit I left my thought process in my post...

The thing is that "anarcho-capitalism" would work if it was in an ideal world. The needs of competing individuals would protect everyone from the "cold standards."
It would work perfectly as long as everyone was responsible and stood up for themselves to a reasonable extent. But we all know that this is the kind of world view that someone might have if they have no concept of human nature, and instead had observed robots that weren't programmed to invent needs for themselves.
Which is I think the world view that one would have to have for any system to work properly for a long period of time.
Every system allows for inequality and exploitation because none of them take into account the full extent of human nature. Fuck, even capitalism has broken down, I think...

This would imply that people could achieve economic equality. Therefore making capitalism obsolete.

[Despanan]

I don't think you would need everyone at the exact same level for everyone involved to behave ethically.

Take a successful restaurant in an ideal, anarcho-capitalist world: The owner of said establishment would use his greater share of the capital to buy the place, put it into service for the community and pay his workers the best wage possible and grant them the best benefits.

Because the workers are happier than other workers at other restaurants they provide better service, which makes more money for the employer, and enables him to provide better food for the community, and he passes his wealth on to his workers as best he can, which in turn makes them better workers, which makes him more profit. As long as he continues to behave ethically, his establishment will be the best in the city and take profits of less-ethical employers. To compete with him for profits and labor the less ethical employers are forced to offer better incentives for people to work for them and everyone wins.

Now that is how it would work in a perfect world, but as we all know, people don't play nice. Employers will get greedy and place unfair demands on their workers, and workers will be lazy and attempt to gain the most from their employers for the least amount of effort. Still complete economic egalitarianism is not necessary for such a system to exist.

[ArtificialOne]

I've perused the post about Ayn. I have to say I've seen no one talk about the context of how her beliefs came to fruition.

Could be after witnessing Communism first hand she saw the flaws and oppression?

Just thought that it's an important part of the convo not being discussed, which is relevant.

I've glided through Atlas, but my true passion isn't economics mixed with politics so.. I'll let the zealots fight that part out.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

I've perused the post about Ayn. I have to say I've seen no one talk about the context of how her beliefs came to fruition.

Could be after witnessing Communism first hand she saw the flaws and oppression?

I think you put your thumb right on it. Basically her whole philosophy is one long hissy fit over collectivism. She obviously wasn't wild about how things were being run in her country of birth.

Welcome back.

[ArtificialOne]

Thanks.

Got a lot of angst to release in the next few, so watch for my rants!!! lol! : >