Ego:I'm typing up a separate response, but I refreshed and saw this. This simply proves my point in another thread that "anarchist" is now synonymous with "black flag-waving car-burning leftist".
That's a stereotype that started because of the Haymarket Riot in Chicago. There's a difference between calling yourself one and being one. Listen to the leaders of the conservative movement and look how conservatism is defined. Now look at what the leaders of the anarchist movement are saying and how anarchy is defined. The leaders are following their given definition and the people that agree with are called conservatives, liberals, anarchists etc. Conservatives are following the definition of their philosophy, which happens to be full of nationalism, theocracy, and general intolerance of all things radical. How many violent anarchists have you met?
Ego: ...because I have encountered the exact same reaction that she has. As soon as I explain what I actually believe, though, they change their attitude from, "we probably agree, but you're much more radical than I am", to, "YOU'RE AN EVIL RIGHT-WINGER WHO WON'T MAKE THE RICH PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE".
...because I have encountered the exact same reaction that she has.
As soon as I explain what I actually believe, though, they change their attitude from, "we probably agree, but you're much more radical than I am", to, "YOU'RE AN EVIL RIGHT-WINGER WHO WON'T MAKE THE RICH PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE".
If they are trying to force you to pay then they are STATIST, it's that simple. Tell them that.
I've met several, as a matter of fact! Google "anarchist" or "leftist anarchist", and you'll see the contemporary meaning of anarchist; it's not a peaceful supporter of free-markets and voluntaryism, it's a leftist who believes that property is theft.
Speaking of which... Brainpolice, have you been keeping up with that thread?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
That's a stereotype that started because of the Haymarket Riot in Chicago.
Right, that was the major incident that the state used to tar the image of anarchism ever since then. And it's important to note that many of the actual leading anarchist thinkers of the time denounced the riots. Including Tucker.
liberty student: Even the agorists, don't drop completely out of statist society.
Even the agorists, don't drop completely out of statist society.
You keep showing your ignorance of Agorism.
Please, read the New Libertarian Manifesto - specifically Revolution: Our Strategy - then tell me how Agorism isn't about gradual change.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Ego: I'd rather have rampant warfare over rampant welfare.
I'd rather have rampant warfare over rampant welfare.
Statements like these make me thankful that there is a God who does judge the hearts and minds of men.
minorgrey: Ego:I'm typing up a separate response, but I refreshed and saw this. This simply proves my point in another thread that "anarchist" is now synonymous with "black flag-waving car-burning leftist". That's a stereotype that started because of the Haymarket Riot in Chicago. There's a difference between calling yourself one and being one. Listen to the leaders of the conservative movement and look how conservatism is defined. Now look at what the leaders of the anarchist movement are saying and how anarchy is defined. The leaders are following their given definition and the people that agree with are called conservatives, liberals, anarchists etc. Conservatives are following the definition of their philosophy, which happens to be full of nationalism, theocracy, and general intolerance of all things radical. How many violent anarchists have you met?
This is spilling over from another thread. Check out this thread, starting on this page.
Nic, I'm typing up another response, but I'll say this.
A welfare system is a war in which one side isn't fighting back.
Ego: Nic, I'm typing up another response, but I'll say this. A welfare system is a war in which one side isn't fighting back.
Which side is "fighting" then? The welfare recipients? Hardly. They are rather passive in the matter. If anything, they are victimized by the welfare system and placed in a state of dependancy.
The leftists are fighting (and winning).
I don't advocate violent revolution against leftists (they would win), but I've certainly had a few discussions with leftists in which I've brought up the idea. They looked at me as if I were a savage: "You would use violence to get what you want??".
When I explain to them that they are using violence to get what they want, and I'm the one fighting in self-defense, they look at me with a glazed look in their eyes.
Brainpolice: That's a stereotype that started because of the Haymarket Riot in Chicago. Right, that was the major incident that the state used to tar the image of anarchism ever since then. And it's important to note that many of the actual leading anarchist thinkers of the time denounced the riots. Including Tucker.
Out of all the historical events that have happened in anarchist history I think this is the most pivotal one. Much of the animosity between individualists and socialists comes directly from this riot. It caused this massive rift we're seeing today and many groups are trying to work on unifying again.
I'm all for calling the welfare system a war, but if you seriously believe that war - the ones with bombs, blood, guns, bullets, nukes, and depleted uranium - is even close on the scale of evil to trapping poor people in a system and taking money away that is typically supported by those being expropriated, you're nuts as well as evil.
Ego: The leftists are fighting (and winning). I don't advocate violent revolution against leftists (they would win), but I've certainly had a few discussions with leftists in which I've brought up the idea. They looked at me as if I were a savage: "You would use violence to get what you want??". When I explain to them that they are using violence to get what they want, and I'm the one fighting in self-defense, they look at me with a glazed look in their eyes.
And since you say that "the leftists" are the side that's fighting, I'm assuming you think that "the rightists" are the side that's not fighting back? Well, I'm sorry to bring this to your attention if it hasn't been already, but the poor-laws are not the entirety of the welfare state, and "the right" often supports the rich-laws portion of the welfare state (and sometimes even the poor-laws).
Why do you keep falling back on the political left-right dichotomy? It's gotten rather silly.
Do you want to address the content of that post?
Well duh, they are statists! They might not have figured it out yet but many anarchists understand that different economic solutions are going to exist and forcing one out is against their principles.I’ll say it again; if the person is talking about force then don’t align with them. There are plenty of voluntaryist anarchists out there to work with.
I don't think I've ever disputed that...
Ego: I don't think I've ever disputed that...
Actually for the past few hours you've basically been argueing that the entirety of the "anarchist left" aren't voluntaryists and that they support random violence. The entire point of the OP is that any personal preferance for economic organization is compatible with anarchism so long as it is persued through free association and competition. Hence, in a free society one might have to have some tolerance for other forms of organization, which might include worker's collectives or unions or communes. But since you seem so intolerant of other personal preferances, particularly anyone associated with the anarchist "left", you assume that they must inherently be your enemies. I proclaim them to be my friends so long as they extend the same attitude that I do towards them - mutual tolerance, not forcing the other into our preference systems or organizations.
I could go back and find at least a half-dozen posts in which I've stated I want to side with anyone who wants to shrink the state; I've actually spent the last few hours fighting your glorification of self-described leftist anarchists as free-market voluntaryists.
Google leftist anarchist and you'll find that the contemporary meaning is something entirely different.
Ego: I could go back and find at least a half-dozen posts in which I've stated I want to side with anyone who wants to shrink the state; I've actually spent the last few hours fighting your glorification of self-described leftist anarchists as free-market voluntaryists. Google leftist anarchist and you'll find that the contemporary meaning is something entirely different.
I've already pointed out that there are no self-described "leftist anarchists" or "anarcho-socialists", for that would seem redundant to most anarchists. And I have not glorified anyone, all I have done is pointed out that there are certain segments or factions within socialism that are entirely voluntaryist, while you continually ignore any distinctions at all between them. What you have done is repeatedly deny that there are any self-described libertarian socialists or traditional anarchists who do want to eliminate the state and who do not advocate forcing anyone into their prefered forms of organization. The entire point of this thread has gone right over your head the whole time because you obviously have an irrational bias and intolerance against anything that is even remotely associated with the words "left" or "social" or "socialist".
Why don't you just link what you're reading?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap