From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Oct 20 2002 - 18:08:32 MDT
--- Alexander Sheppard <alexandersheppard@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How can there be such a thing as "anarcho-capitalism"?
>
> I mean, private property itself is the hugest state intervention in
> the
> natural order of things around. The state exists to protect private
> property... that's what it is, it is the thing which enforces the
> existance of private property. It's a common organization formed by
> those whom people are subservient to to protect thier wealth by
> force.
As you are likely just a leftist troll trying to stir up trouble, I'll
reply concisely here.
A private property owner needs no state to protect their property, they
only need their natural right, recognised all the way back to
Aristotle, to keep and bear arms. The state's only interest is in
perpetuating itself by confiscating the private property of private
individuals, and being used by leftists like yourself to tell
individuals what they are allowed to do with what property they
magnanimously allowed to keep in their posession.
Your lack of ability to comprehend this is a quite typical indicator of
a normal leftist's lack of general intelligence.
The term 'anarcho-capitalism' is, if anything, a redundancy, much like
the term 'stupid leftist'. One need not say both words to communicate
the desired concept.
>
> What is socialism? Well, one dictionary defines it as communal
> control of
> the means of production. Another says that it is either communal or
> state
> control of production. Now you can use the clause of 'state' in the
> latter
> definition to declare that tyrannies like the USSR and the PRC are
> socialistic, but I don't think that's in the spirit of socialism. If
> you look at socialist literature, another thing they mention is
> classlessness. You certainly can't have classlessness in the midst
> of tyranny, that's about as massive a political oxymoron as you can
> have. So,
> there is no really no such thing as 'authoritarian socialism', this
> is something that was made up to scare people, it has no basis in
> reality.
Another display of left wing cluelessness. ANY sort of socialism is
anti-anarchy, specifically because the act of communal ownership of
property mandates STRUCTURE to manage that property for everyone. Since
'an-archy' means 'without structure', any system that requires
structure to mediate between the natural needs and demands of
individuals, rather than purely chaotic market mechanisms.
Since capitalism mandates chaotic market mechanisms to function,
capitalism is therefore without structure.
Where left wingers get confused is by conflating the concept of
corporations with the concept of capitalism.
A capitalist can easily be for capitalism and against concepts of
corporations as limited liability entities. Such capitalists are the
only true anarchists (since governments are themselves corporations).
I could go on and on, detailing the errors of Proudhon and Bakunin in
the formation of their so called 'socialist libertarianism', but that
is a separate issue that I will only waste time on if someone is truly
interested, willing to have their minds changed, and not just trolling
the list for tao.org.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:40 MST