On 07/11/2017 01:08 AM, grarpamp wrote:

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:

...

oooh they haz FACEBOOK page! (I'll stick with Deek Jackson) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXv40mWpJsU A failure of many youtube anarchists is that they're too busy (and to credit, ok at) talking state facts, bashing, and smashing... and not enough talking anarchism... ie: what it means, how people can live it, how to get things done. People know getting done from school in other systems, capitalism, communism, etc... but not anarchism. So won't jump onboard without seeing how it can work in practice. Youtubers take note.

I see that failure to 'talk it as you walk it' as an end result of living in an atomized society. Herd instinct can get people to do something in unison to, umn, repressively desublimate (aka 'vent') ... but it won't get people to stop talking past each other and collaborate on unified strategies towards social goals. Because, as seen in corporate environments, which the ejumicational system indoctrinates us to comply with, collaboration (and cooperation) REALLY mean "It works for me.", and "what's in it for me?", and as pavolv's experiments (which Pynchon illustrated so well) showed, it takes more intense and longer-lasting counter-stimulus to undo the conditioning. No such thing exists in American society, at least for white people. Rr

...

Ps. I wonder if I can 'expense' that junket to Anarchapulco? Depends if it's in your business or employment plan. Playing the blockchain or any other sub-angle might get easier traction.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 04:22:59AM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote:

Here is where I start to have questions. To my understanding, anarchy is the rejection of heirarchies.

Assertions (such as this e.g.) are easy to throw out. The trick is to catch yourself using, speaking, or projecting any assertion, and so "to my understanding" was a -great- prefix which we don't often see used. *) On "the food chain" there is a natural hierarchy, e.g.: - water, air and soil -> microbiome -> plants -> animals/fish -> humans (Yes some humans stop lower on the food chain hierarchy than others - doesn't change the existence of the hierarchy.) Anarchists are typically fond of affirming self evident facts, at least where there might be any doubt :) *) Software hiearchies are abundant - the hiearchy of addressing page tables and a zillion (precise number) more such hierarchies. *) Every second level contract implies a hierarchy: E.g. you and I make a contract - you pay me in food, I create a website for you, then I go and sub-contract the website development out to a graphic artist, JS coder and DB admin. Here's probably what we could all agree on: Hierarchy's by fiat are almost always worthy of rejection. Even a so-called "benevolent dictatorship", if it is at all imposed, rather than entirely "by the free will of all involved" therefore has some element of coercion (since it's not entirely "by free will") and therefore such a hierarchy, --by definition-- can never be truly benevolent. (At least, some would say.)

Isn't anarcho-capitalism therefore an oxymoron?

If everything is entirely voluntary, everyone is well educated and therefore no one enters into fundamentally unfair/enslaving "free will contracts", then no, there is no oxymoron - but that's a lot of pre-conditions required to establish such an utopia :D

The existence of currency inherently creates a heirarchy based on the amount of currency one owns, does it not?

Yes. But only if the "right" to print/mint/coin/issue currency is a by-fiat right (e.g. punishable by statutory crime for "violation" of the rule). It might seem a sort of awkward conversation, but that's because it is, and it is because we are essentially uneducated in what anachism even means, and so we use old-world concepts, and easily get misunderstood (even IF we are "clear in our own mind") :) HTH and good luck,

On 07/11/2017 10:59 AM, Razer wrote:

CrimetInc Ex-Worker Podcast #18: "What Anarchism Isn’t, Pt 1: Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism"

With transcript: https://crimethinc.com/podcast/18

No time to play the podcast right now (though I will later) - but here's my "elevator speech" on the AnCap Bullshit: "Capitalism can not exist without armed State authorities to define and enforce the so-called rights of absentee landlords. Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, just a super fashionable name for direct rule by gangs of billionaires who get to do literally anything they want." The only reason to add the prefix an- or anarcho- to the name of a 19th century political theory or ideology is to make it sound hip and fashionable. :o)

On 07/11/2017 04:25 PM, juan wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:31:23 -0400 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:

...

On 07/11/2017 10:59 AM, Razer wrote:

...

CrimetInc Ex-Worker Podcast #18: "What Anarchism Isn’t, Pt 1: Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism"

With transcript: https://crimethinc.com/podcast/18

No time to play the podcast right now (though I will later) - but here's my "elevator speech" on the AnCap Bullshit:

"Capitalism can not exist without armed State authorities to define and enforce the so-called rights of absentee landlords. Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, just a super fashionable name for direct rule by gangs of billionaires who get to do literally anything they want."

The only reason to add the prefix an- or anarcho- to the name of a 19th century political theory or ideology is to make it sound hip and fashionable.

modern 'anarcho capitalists' are fucking idiots, fake libertarians, corporate apologists and the like.

However, the liberal tradition based on common sense morality, rights to life, liberty and property, and its obvious anarchist (no state) conclusion isn't just a '19th' century political theory'. Not sure what you want to accomplish with that label...

"Liberal" is such a broadly defined term that I don't think of it as a political or economic theory so much as a propaganda buzzword roughly meaning "socially permissive in a good sense." In propaganda advocating for Liberalism its connotations include generosity, fairness and tolerance. In propaganda advocating against Liberalism its connotations include naivety, larceny and evil. When I say "19th century" political and economic theory, I generally mean Capitalism, Communism and hybrid variants like Socialism - not because they were invented then, but because they became widely known and instances were implemented about then, as adaptations to the Industrial Revolution.

"A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. "

See? That's liberal anarchism. And that's not from the 19th century. That's paine's "Rights of Man" - 1791 - so it's 18th century.

That sounds like Anarchism to me.

And here's some more 18th century stuff

"... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

That sounds like Representative Democracy. In a society that consistently teaches and promotes Anarchism it might work, as long as the units of governance do not exceed a scale permitting "ordinary people" to observe and understand the activities of State and private power centers on a continuing basis, enabling effective feedback via both the ballot box /and/ direct action on the ground.

So, now, get this : no fucking CONSENT, no government. And of course the government created by the supreme scumabag(s) who wrote that was and is one the most corrupt and hypocritical tyrannys in history.

But regardless of the frauds involved with it, liberal/libertarian anarchism is a pretty solid 'theory'.

Oh, those bothersome buzzwords! Unless one explicitly defines them, they tend to mean whatever promoters and their audiences wants them to mean, in a self congratulatory context. In propaganda application as Identity Politics brand labels, "Liberal" and "Libertarian" often mean approximately opposite things in practical application: Liberal generally suggests a preference for a Nanny State that devotes itself to providing a comprehensive safety net to assure that nobody suffers poverty or persecution. This general idea gets a lot of support from people with a deep investment in social conformity and highly formalized status hierarchies i.e. academic degrees as a basis for employment discrimination. Libertarian generally suggests a minimalist State that only arbitrates disputes between members of an economic ruling class, leaving everything but tort law (and its enforcement at gunpoint) to the private sector. This general idea gets a lot of support from our "temporarily embarrassed millionaires": Me-first individualists who just know that if their inferiors stopped conspiring to keep them down, they would accomplish Great Things. I do not think of Anarchism as a form of government or economics. Rather, I consider it a body of theory and practice relevant to resisting the concentration and abuse of power in the hands of an elite minority. Humans do compete for dominance, some more than others, and once a specialized ruling class has acquired control of significant territory and its inhabitants, a feedback cycle sets in that continues to concentrate more power in fewer hands. This process does not end well, and restraining it by what some call "direct democracy" may delay or prevent the worst abuses of power. Among all these ideas, I really want to promote the a definition of Anarchism as a theory of politics and economics as a dynamic system of power relationships between and among competing groups, with emphasis on methods for redistributing power down the status hierarchy, preventing dominance by elite minorities to the fullest practicable extent. As such, Anarchism provides a general purpose tool kit for troubleshooting and attempting to repair Utopian political/economic regimes. :o)

On 07/12/2017 03:18 PM, juan wrote:

That may be one of the meanings, but it seems kinda obvious that overall, 'liberal' comes from 'liberty'.

Liberty, as the US "Founders" understood it, meant the liberty to own property, including humans. Just sayin'. That per Richard Hofstadter in his commonly used in the kolige-kerr-ick-u-lum alt-his-story book "American Political Tradition" Rr

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:20:10 -0400 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:

...

...

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:31:23 -0400 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:

...

On 07/11/2017 10:59 AM, Razer wrote:

...

CrimetInc Ex-Worker Podcast #18: "What Anarchism Isn’t, Pt 1: Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism"

With transcript: https://crimethinc.com/podcast/18 No time to play the podcast right now (though I will later) - but here's my "elevator speech" on the AnCap Bullshit:

"Capitalism can not exist without armed State authorities to define and enforce the so-called rights of absentee landlords. Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, just a super fashionable name for direct rule by gangs of billionaires who get to do literally anything they want."

The only reason to add the prefix an- or anarcho- to the name of a 19th century political theory or ideology is to make it sound hip and fashionable.

modern 'anarcho capitalists' are fucking idiots, fake libertarians, corporate apologists and the like.

However, the liberal tradition based on common sense morality, rights to life, liberty and property, and its obvious anarchist (no state) conclusion isn't just a '19th' century political theory'. Not sure what you want to accomplish with that label... "Liberal" is such a broadly defined term that I don't think of it as a

On 07/11/2017 04:25 PM, juan wrote: political or economic theory so much as a propaganda buzzword roughly meaning "socially permissive in a good sense."

That may be one of the meanings, but it seems kinda obvious that overall, 'liberal' comes from 'liberty'. But since 'liberal' is a political term as well, it has been subjected to a lot of abuse and turned into a newspeak term. But, I don't speak newspeak +)

...

In propaganda advocating for Liberalism its connotations include generosity, fairness and tolerance.

Which is in line with the traditional meaning to some extent. Fairness and tolerance have clear political connotations.

...

In propaganda advocating against Liberalism its connotations include naivety, larceny and evil. And that's because 'liberal' is also used to refer to 'progressive' fascists in the US and UK and the rest of the anglosphere. Left wing fascists like obomba and tony blair and their accomplices. So 'liberal' can obviously be newspeak.

...

When I say "19th century" political and economic theory, I generally mean Capitalism, Communism and hybrid variants like Socialism - not because they were invented then, but because they became widely known and instances were implemented about then, as adaptations to the

...

...

"A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. "

See? That's liberal anarchism. And that's not from the 19th century. That's paine's "Rights of Man" - 1791 - so it's 18th century. That sounds like Anarchism to me.

and to which of school of political philosophy did paine belong?

...

...

And here's some more 18th century stuff

"... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" That sounds like Representative Democracy. yes that would indeed be a form of representative government but *only* for *individuals* who *individually* consent to it.

So, again, what happens to the people who DON'T consent?

My point is, the formulation in the declaration of 'independence' is taking anarchism for granted. It should be obvious that consent implies the ability to agree or to NOT agree. And if you don't agree to be RULED by any government, then what?

...

In a society that consistently teaches and promotes Anarchism it might work, as long as the units of governance do not exceed a scale permitting "ordinary people" to observe and understand the activities of State and private power centers on a continuing basis, enabling effective feedback via both the ballot box /and/ direct action on the ground.

...

So, now, get this : no fucking CONSENT, no government. And of course the government created by the supreme scumabag(s) who wrote that was and is one the most corrupt and hypocritical tyrannys in history.

But regardless of the frauds involved with it, liberal/libertarian anarchism is a pretty solid 'theory'. Oh, those bothersome buzzwords!

Well they are buzzwords when used by some people, sure.

...

Unless one explicitly defines them, I gave very accurate historical sources to make clear what liberal is supposed to mean.

...

they tend to mean whatever promoters and their audiences wants them to mean, in a self congratulatory context.

In propaganda application as Identity Politics brand labels, "Liberal" and "Libertarian" often mean approximately opposite things in practical application:

Liberal generally suggests a preference for a Nanny State that devotes itself to providing a comprehensive safety net to assure that nobody suffers poverty or persecution.

Yes, that's what political 'liberalism' means in the anglosphere now. But of course modern liberals are actually totalistarians who will beat to death anyone who is not 'politicaly correct',

While a 'classical' liberal like paine correctly noted that society doesn't need a state, the modern 'liberals' are fully fledged statist totalitarians.

In spanish for instance "liberal" still means "liberal". That is, in spanish the correct name for a guy like paine who advocated 'rights of man' and anar

...

This general idea gets a lot of support from people with a deep investment in social conformity and highly formalized status hierarchies i.e. academic degrees as a basis for employment discrimination. yes, those are the social 'democrats', 'progressive', left wing fascists in the US, UK, and vassal states like australia, etc.

...

Libertarian generally suggests a minimalist State that only arbitrates disputes between members of an economic ruling class, Well statist 'libertarians' advocate a 'mininal' state that allegedly arbitrates the disputes of all subjects. "Equality before the law" and bla bla.

...

leaving everything but tort law (and its enforcement at gunpoint) to the private sector. That's an innacurate caricature of what liberalism, now rebranded as libertarianism in the anglo world, is supposed to be.

Though I readily admit that the majority of self described libertarians may subscribe to something like what you described, or similar variations.

...

This general idea gets a lot of support from our "temporarily embarrassed millionaires": Me-first individualists who just know that if their inferiors stopped conspiring to keep them down, they would accomplish Great Things.

I'm not sure what a me-first individualist is, though I suspect it's some kind of fake individualist.

...

I do not think of Anarchism as a form of government or economics. Rather, I consider it a body of theory and practice relevant to resisting the concentration and abuse of power in the hands of an elite minority.

Well, yes, as a broad description.

...

Humans do compete for dominance, some more than others, and once a specialized ruling class has acquired control of significant territory and its inhabitants, a feedback cycle sets in that continues to concentrate more power in fewer hands. This process does not end well, and restraining it by what some call "direct democracy" may delay or prevent the worst abuses of power. Yes, although that's not exactly anarchism. Rather it's playing into the hands of the ruling elite, partially fixing their system so that it can last a lot longer - or forever.

...

Among all these ideas, I really want to promote the a definition of Anarchism as a theory of politics and economics as a dynamic system of power relationships between and among competing groups, with emphasis on methods for redistributing power down the status hierarchy, preventing dominance by elite minorities to the fullest practicable extent. As such, Anarchism provides a general purpose tool kit for troubleshooting and attempting to repair Utopian political/economic regimes.

:o)

On 07/12/2017 09:27 PM, juan wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:21:33 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:

...

On 07/12/2017 03:18 PM, juan wrote:

...

That may be one of the meanings, but it seems kinda obvious that overall, 'liberal' comes from 'liberty'.

Liberty, as the US "Founders" understood it, meant the liberty to own property, including humans.

Just sayin'.

the founding fuckers knew pretty well what liberty meant, becuase they knew what SLAVERY meant. It's kinda obvious that anybody who has the concept of slavery also 'understands' freedom.

So the founding fuckers babbled about liberty (which they understood perfectly well) while being slave owning psychos.

They just created an orwellian tyranny 200 years before orwell. Got to give them credit for that.

Well yeah... "Liberty" meant rich people thumbing their noses at the Crown that made them rich by setting them up in business with land grants, slaves, legal institutions and some amount of military protection. For the peasant class, "Liberty" was a false promise of equal rights before the law and the belief that everybody would get rich quick once the Crown stopped taxing the Colonies. Today, "Liberty" can have as many meanings as their are market segments under the Right Wing umbrella, but all these meaning have one thing in common: Direct rule by our billionaires.

On 07/13/2017 11:35 AM, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

Well yeah... "Liberty" meant rich people thumbing their noses at the Crown that made them rich by setting them up in business with land grants, slaves, legal institutions and some amount of military protection.

For the peasant class, "Liberty" was a false promise of equal rights before the law and the belief that everybody would get rich quick once the Crown stopped taxing the Colonies.

This is a pretty cynical view of the founders, who while they may have been aristocratic in some mundane sense (having money), they were also simply knowledgeable enough and enlightened that they wanted to defend their rights as equals rather than suck dick for some imagined divine rights given to kings.

Any time I talk about politics or political history in a crowded room, someone is certain to dismiss what I say by calling it "cynical." Don't feel bad - one of the smartest people I ever knew called me that just yesterday. For reals. As for "the founders," they did indeed want to defend their rights as equals - within their own class as wealthy individuals, vs. those closer to the center of power in England. They also "wanted to" defend their right to abuse and exploit their social inferiors, as shown by the fact that they did so: First by employing slave labor including transportees from England, and chattel property imported from Africa; then by refusing to pay the wages due Revolutionary War soldiers they contracted with to fight their battle against the Crown. The Colonial ruling class did not organize a Revolution to obtain freedom from anything but their contractual obligations to the Crown. Our current crop of Constitutional scholars seem to largely agree that the Convention was called for the primary purpose of creating a Federal authority capable of putting down armed uprisings against major land holders who refused to pay their debts to foolish peasants.

...

Today, "Liberty" can have as many meanings as their are market segments under the Right Wing umbrella, but all these meaning have one thing in common: Direct rule by our billionaires.

No, while a fashionable position of those who smoke dope. There is only indirect rule by billionaires and lazy ass liberals who aren't willing to take their disagreements with the police state to court.

The sole function of the State is to support economic activity, and absent organized resistance leveraging the massive numerical superiority of penniless peasants, that means facilitating the interests of billionaires at everyone else's expense. In Libertarian Fantasy Land, incorruptible Courts can exist, and tort litigation takes place on a level playing field not matter how many orders of magnitude separate the income and assets of the contending parties, i.e. the resources they can bring to bear to manipulate both fact and process. The eagerness of idealists of all stripes to self-mutililate for the benefit of their social betters, once cleverly enough lied to, will never cease to amaze me. I have come to think of it as a defining feature of "civilization," possibly THE defining feature. But then, I'm an anarchist and everyone knows that means lunatick. Better not to look too closely at the ideas articulated above, lest they draw one into a delusional frame of reference from which there can be no escape. :o)

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:31 AM, \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/11/17, Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:

...

"Capitalism can not exist without armed State authorities to define and enforce the so-called rights of absentee landlords. Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, just a super fashionable name for direct rule by gangs of billionaires who get to do literally anything they want."

The only reason to add the prefix an- or anarcho- to the name of a 19th century political theory or ideology is to make it sound hip and fashionable.

No, that is not true. Capitalism, as an economic method, is devoid of power absent that given strictly by "law of supply and demand". The current capitalism you see today is a result of conquest and usurptation of massive amounts of unearned labor in the form of fossil fuel and nuclear energy.

Marxos

More accurately, what we have today isn't capitalism but corporatism. Someone who had a glimmer of a clue once said something along the lines of: "Capitalism follows the logic of the cancer cell". That's not accurate, but it's close. Corporatism is the proper target - eliminate the laws and practices that enable corporations, and especially those that shield them (and their owners) from liability and responsibility, and we'd be much better off. Kurt

On 07/13/2017 12:11 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:

Careful. Who funds the operations of corporations? The fact is that the American people are a bunch of freetards who have never taken control of thier own government beyond checking a box ONCE every FOUR YEARS.

Beg to disagree: As an example, the original Labor Movement forced the Robber Barons to accept a settlement negotiated through State institutions. The New Deal worked, not just in the U.S. but also in Germany where the Nazi party applied many features of that model and pulled the country back from the brink of starvation. Even given the then-prevailing German tradition of unconditional obedience to authority, they would most likely have rebelled against the excesses of the Nazi agenda had the Party not earned their loyalty by literally saving their country from total ruin. Likewise, the U.S. Civil Rights movement obtained massive concessions via economic and information warfare, again resulting in a negotiated settlement between organized peasants and their rulers. Conditions favorable for a massive popular uprising seem to be on the way in the United States right now, as a consequence of geophysical and geopolitical factors no amount of Super Science or etc. can wish away. Now would be a good time to brush up on one's political warfare techniques, and start looking for winning teams to join up with - or for that matter, to start one's own. http://pilobilus.net/strategic_conflict_docs_intro.html Don't let the "nonviolent" thing put you off: Everyone from Mao Tse Tung to the authors of current U.S. Army counter-insurgency manuals agrees, an armed uprising can not succeed without a /much/ larger base of non-combatant supporters. As a matter of historical fact, revolutions are won or lost before the first shot is fired. ;o)

On 07/14/2017 08:07 PM, juan wrote:

this is a really nice touch to the American Picture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

Damn, dude. You kinda sorta read my mind from time to time. :o)

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 08:40:01AM -0700, Kurt Buff wrote:

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:31 AM, \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 7/11/17, Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:

...

"Capitalism can not exist without armed State authorities to define and enforce the so-called rights of absentee landlords. Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, just a super fashionable name for direct rule by gangs of billionaires who get to do literally anything they want."

The only reason to add the prefix an- or anarcho- to the name of a 19th century political theory or ideology is to make it sound hip and fashionable.

No, that is not true. Capitalism, as an economic method, is devoid of power absent that given strictly by "law of supply and demand". The current capitalism you see today is a result of conquest and usurptation of massive amounts of unearned labor in the form of fossil fuel and nuclear energy.

Marxos

More accurately, what we have today isn't capitalism but corporatism.

Someone who had a glimmer of a clue once said something along the lines of: "Capitalism follows the logic of the cancer cell".

That's not accurate, but it's close. Corporatism is the proper target - eliminate the laws and practices that enable corporations, and especially those that shield them (and their owners) from liability and responsibility, and we'd be much better off.

Nicely said! Arbitrary power. This is the underlying principle of many statute laws - arbitrary power, whether it's corporations, copyrights and patents, police immunity and a zillion (precise number) other evils. And indeed, as Marxos said, most "lazy arse Whites" are too well fed and enjoying their shiny things to ever stand up in any "court of law" to proclaim an injustice. And yet in a heartbeat they do proclaim "the rule of law" and "democratic principles".

On 07/11/2017 10:12 AM, jim bell wrote:

*From:* Razer <g2s@riseup.net>

Anarchast is the world's largest anarchist/anarcho-capitalist video

...

podcast in the world with 3 million views on Youtube and millions of audio downloads as well as being broadcast on satellite radio across the world and on more than 40 terrestrial radio stations in the US.

...

Here is where I start to have questions. To my understanding, anarchy is the rejection of heirarchies. Isn't anarcho-capitalism therefore an >oxymoron?

No. Anarchy is the rejection of non-voluntary heirarchies. Nothing against having heirarchies which are voluntarily accepted by all participants. Jim Bell

Hierarchy implies coercion. Rr

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 04:22:59 -0400 Kevin Gallagher <kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu> wrote:

Here is where I start to have questions. To my understanding, anarchy is the rejection of heirarchies. Isn't anarcho-capitalism therefore an oxymoron? The existence of currency inherently creates a heirarchy based on the amount of currency one owns, does it not?

currency? You actually mean property? But since you mentioned currency, what sort of economic system with no 'currency' are you proposing? One with no economic exchanges, I should guess?

for completness' sake I suggest people search for "jeff berwick chile scam" "jeff berwick chile scam mcelroy"

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:15:19 -0700 Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:

Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises for starters,

conservative garbage would

be an eye opener for you.

Kurt

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:16:26 -0400 Kevin Gallagher <kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu> wrote:

On Jul 12, 2017 4:32 AM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:15:19 -0700 Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises for starters,

...

conservative garbage

That may or may not be true, but either way I gain an advantage from reading it. If I agree with the messages in the readings, then I gain a new viewpoint. If I disagree, I understand how they think and can perhaps better counter their viewpoints through better counter-examples, etc.

Oh yes. I never said "don't read them". As a matter of fact I've some selected reading material here : https://web.archive.org/web/20010722102558/https://www.lewrockwell.com/rothb... "A RIGHT-WING POPULIST PROGRAM" 4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error. 5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society. To top it off, one has to bear in mind that this guy rothbard who asserted that "cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment" was the Master of Libertarian ANARCHISM. Or at least that's what a bunch of lunatic conservaties posing as libertarians would have people believe...

would

...

be an eye opener for you.

Kurt

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Kevin Gallagher <kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu> wrote:

Thanks to everyone for your replies!

On Jul 11, 2017 9:16 PM, "Kurt Buff" <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Kevin Gallagher <kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu> wrote:

...

Here is where I start to have questions. To my understanding, anarchy is the rejection of heirarchies. Isn't anarcho-capitalism therefore an oxymoron?

No, anarcho-capitalism is grounded in the understanding that free trade among free people is a the only road to peace and prosperity. People arrange themselves in hierarchies all the time, and it's no crime if they do so freely.

For the life of me I can't think of any heirarchies that aren't, at least in part, founded on deceit or force (or both). Can you please give an example of one?

Go into almost any small business with a few employees. By small, I mean under 500 employees. If the employees are happy, you have your answer.

It's often a benefit. This is as opposed to anarcho-syndicalism or various other flavors of anarchism, which are grounded in the belief that money and trade are evil and that love and unicorn farts are sufficient to sustain life.

I do not know these schools of anarchism, but that doesn't seem like a fair assessment.

It is fair.

...

The existence of currency inherently creates a heirarchy based on the amount of currency one owns, does it not?

No, it does not. There are lots of things to unpack in that statemen/questiont, but I'll just mention two: - Currency isn't money, as such - Fiat currency creation is used by anti-capitalist forces to enrich the few at the expense of the rest of us, destroying capital in the process.

Reading some Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises for starters, would be an eye opener for you.

Fair enough. I will give some of this a read. If I have any questions, can I reach out to you after I have read some?

Sure. If you're really going to read, I'd start with https://www.mises.org. In particular, if you're looking for a quick start, you could do worse than these, which are all free, and available in several formats: The Anatomy of the State: https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays https://mises.org/library/egalitarianism-revolt-against-nature-and-other-ess... For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto: https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto What Has Government Done to Our Money? https://mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money If you want the master works, then these are the place to dive in - again, free: Human Action: https://mises.org/library/human-action-0 Man, Economy and State, with Power and Market https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market Kurt

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:47 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:08:00PM -0700, Kurt Buff wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Kevin Gallagher <kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu> wrote:

...

Thanks to everyone for your replies!

On Jul 11, 2017 9:16 PM, "Kurt Buff" <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Kevin Gallagher <kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu> wrote:

...

Here is where I start to have questions. To my understanding, anarchy is the rejection of heirarchies. Isn't anarcho-capitalism therefore an oxymoron?

No, anarcho-capitalism is grounded in the understanding that free trade among free people is a the only road to peace and prosperity. People arrange themselves in hierarchies all the time, and it's no crime if they do so freely.

For the life of me I can't think of any heirarchies that aren't, at least in part, founded on deceit or force (or both). Can you please give an example of one?

Go into almost any small business with a few employees. By small, I mean under 500 employees. If the employees are happy, you have your answer.

Just because someone is happy at their work, doesn't mean they aren't a wage slave.

"Anarcho-capitalism" has more in common with fascism and post-industrial feudalism than any real ideal of freedom and life without coercion. For a fair idea of how it might play out, just look back 150 years to the gilded age - the government was a fuck of a lot smaller, the masses were dirt fucking poor, and they were kept that way by private squads of pinkertoon goons hired by the bosses. This is "anarcho-capitalism".

You have a dim and rather confused vision of history. Kurt

On Jul 12, 2017, at 8:19 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>

...

"Anarcho-capitalism" has more in common with fascism and post-industrial feudalism than any real ideal of freedom and life without coercion. For a fair idea of how it might play out, just look back 150 years to the gilded age - the government was a fuck of a lot smaller, the masses were dirt fucking poor, and they were kept that way by private squads of pinkertoon goons hired by the bosses. This is "anarcho-capitalism"

It is dangerous and misleading to compare that era with today. The Interstate Highway System didn't begin until the early 1950's. Except in cities, America didn't have what we would recognize as "roads" until the 1920's. In 1900, half of the population lived on farms. Most people didn't have telephones until the 1920's. The idea that the large majority of goods would travel at least 1000 miles to the consumer was preposterous.

Did people live "well" by today's standards? Certainly not. Was most of the deficiency due to oppression by the evil capitalists? Not at all.

It is virtually impossible to conceive of a modern, national economy without roads, trucks, airplanes, etc.

So, when you say, "the masses were dirt fucking poor", by today's standards that was true. But not by some conspiracy. Jim Bell

They were poor by the standards of the day. I find it an instructive comparison: the rich will do and get away with whatever they can to maintain their position. And some of them (and many more aspirants) have taken on the oxymoronic moniker of "anarcho-capitalist" in the interest of perpetuating a false narrative about liberty, when all they give a shit about is money. And, maybe some "A-C" are genuinely confused, maybe some are just assholes ;)

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:13:58 -0400 Kevin Gallagher <kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu> wrote:

For the life of me I can't think of any heirarchies that aren't, at least in part, founded on deceit or force (or both).

That's a good point. So called 'anarcho capitalists' are not anti-authoritarians at all, and in that regard they are not anarchists at all.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 08:01:28 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:

On 07/11/2017 09:15 PM, Kurt Buff wrote:

...

people arrange themselves in hierarchies all the time

If there's any saving grace to the earth-raping technology we've unleashed on ourselves, for better or worse, it's the empowerment that technology gives us to break with that way of 'doing business'.

Spoken like a true pentagon propaganda agent. Are you talking about the 'technology' that made surveillane of the world's population possible? Newsflash for you! Technology isn't mepowring you at all. Well, unless you are talking as representative of the pentagon. In which case yes, technology gives you a lot of 'empowerment'.

Rr

On Jul 12, 2017 7:22 PM, "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:

Hey, I'm fine with love, but for the unicorn farts I'll need plenty of good air freshener.

Unicorn's farts have cotton-candy smell, are colorful like rainbows and full of shining glitter. #love (* o *) <3 They're pretty sensitive creatures and faint when someone creates fake news and "alternative facts" to defend vile politicians. The poor fairies are even more fragile than unicorns and almost die when it occurs. Tsk, tsk... Bad, bad politicians! :((

On Jul 12, 2017 9:28 PM, "Razer" <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: On 07/12/2017 03:44 PM, Cecilia Tanaka describes Unicorn poots as:

colorful like rainbows and full of shining glitter.

Hemorrhoids. That's where the glitter comes from. Unicorn Hemorrhoids. Citation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTuL_M4HDdc Unicorn's farts smell good and are beautiful and useful. <3 https://youtu.be/LqL4DRZ2EkA Unfortunately, I didn't know about the hemorrhoids... Poor unicorns! I always wanted to be an unicorn, but I hate to feel pain... :'( https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMy0xNjk0ZWZhYTRlYzUzMmU0...