abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Human beings are not property.
No, I'm not interested in trading ideas with a neofeudalist, I'm here to ridicule ancaps.
A question for Libertarians.
- Thread starter MidwesternGro
- Start date
Human beings are not property.
No, I'm not interested in trading ideas with a neofeudalist, I'm here to ridicule ancaps.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Human beings are not property in the sense that they can be owned by others. I don't dispute that. For lack of a better term, when I say people "own themselves" , I mean they have the right to determine their path, but not the path of others that agree to peaceful reciprocity.
Well I'm just here looking for a clean bathroom. Damn they are so hard to find.
Dumb question possibly, but can you tell me what an ancap is?
I thought anti - capitalist. But your slant and your usage of the term seems to preclude that.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Anarcho capitalist. He keeps trying to put me in that box. Close, but no cigar.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
People are not property at all.
"If I offer my labor at the lowest price, if I consent to have you live off my labor, it is certainly not because of brotherly love for you. And no bourgeois economist would dare say that it was, no matter how idyllic and naive their reasoning becomes when they begin to speak about reciprocal affections and mutual relations which should exist between employers and employees. No, I do it because my family would starve to death if I did not work for an employer. Thus I am forced to sell you my labor at the lowest possible price, and I am forced to do it by the threat of hunger." ~Mikhail Bakunin
Put that in your opposition to coercion.
"If I offer my labor at the lowest price, if I consent to have you live off my labor, it is certainly not because of brotherly love for you. And no bourgeois economist would dare say that it was, no matter how idyllic and naive their reasoning becomes when they begin to speak about reciprocal affections and mutual relations which should exist between employers and employees. No, I do it because my family would starve to death if I did not work for an employer. Thus I am forced to sell you my labor at the lowest possible price, and I am forced to do it by the threat of hunger." ~Mikhail Bakunin
Put that in your opposition to coercion.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
"anarcho-capitalism" aka voluntaryism aka American libertarianism
The two terms are mutually exclusive.
Capitalism needs the state because it needs a medium of exchange.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This is correct but for the reason. The state exists to serve the ruling class and protect private property.
Capitalism is privatization of the economic infrastructure and resources.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Some people are self employed. They feed themselves. You act as if there is no free will and that anybody that has ever accomplished something had to do it at the expense of others.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Nope. Mediums of exchange can be whatever two consenting parties agree to, it doesn't require an uninvited and unwanted third party such as a coercive government.
I prefer to use terms like "free market" and am not interested in defending what exists today,( "capitalism") as moral and just.
Having a medium of exchange is how one emasses wealth.
The wealthiest wheat farmer in the world is just a guy with a shed full of wheat without a medium of exchange.
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
I will pay you 12 quail, two ounces of silver, and a rake
You just described the barter system.
A universally accepted medium of exchange can only be money.
Money can be gold or silver, it has been salt in the past, and it can be a fiat currency.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Mediums of exchange needn't be universal. The medium only needs to work for the parties doing the exchange.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I will pay you 12 quail, two ounces of silver, and a rake
I have a rake, how about tossing in that fine hoe?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The fact is capitalism and anarchism are mutually exclusive terms. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical and inevitably leads to inequality.
Free trade is not synonymous with capitalism.
Free trade is not synonymous with capitalism.
They need to be universal in a capitalistic system.
Ever tried to pay your phone bill with a sack of potatoes, bullets, or even gold?
Verizon only takes dollars or master cards.
The human condition inevitably leads to inequality.
If you think capitalism is unequal, check out the other guys.
A better way, thus far, has only been demonstrated in works of science fiction.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Until some dickwadd Supreme Court Justices get involved and play interstate commerce games....but I digress.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Switch carriers..... and I don't need a rake, but I will be flush with quail soon.
