Why is it extreme fiction to think that powerful, ambitious men would take advantage of a power vacuum? Free market intervention via the IMF has horror stories far, far worse than this. Real stories, not fiction. Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Bolivia. Powerful people take advantage of the power vacuum in our country too. Deregulation of derivatives caused the current financial crisis. Deregulating the banks caused the mortgage fraud crisis. Deregulating energy caused the Enron crisis. Business has co-opted our relatively powerful government and led us into war and debt. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and the power of wealthy ambitious men would be unbound. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and what you consider to be oppression would be dwarfed.

When states fail, gangs and warlords always immediately rise up to take advantage of the system.

When I say anarchists and conservative libertarians are naive, I'm not trying to be mean. I think they are blind to the historical constant that powerful, ambitious men will always try and game political systems, and that anarchism, by design, would be completely impotent at stopping them. It is no small coincidence that these powerful, ambitious men support many of the institutions and think tanks that inform your politics. The same people that fund Cato and the Reason Institute also fund PNAC and Freedomworks. Does it not disturb you that Neo-Cons fund your institutions? Does it not disturb you that conservative libertarian heroes like Milton Friedman have backed violence and violent dictators in South America to further their cause? To further your cause?

Anyway, this is why I find conservative libertarianism and anarchism so objectionable. I don't think anarchism could ever happen, because of the paradox that in order to achieve and maintain an anti-state, you would need the power of a state. The reason I oppose a movement that could never get off the ground is that its principles (low taxes, deregulation) are being used as justification for the very tyranny it seeks to abolish.

(PS: check out the documentary: GASLAND. My fiction was based on real events.)

The idiots at freedomain couldn't answer my questions and blocked me. I'm guest_14d3.

[20:20:52] Guest_14d3:
Had a question about anarchy. Any takers?
[20:21:42] Noesis to Guest_14d3:
I'm at least willing to listen.
[20:22:09] Guest_14d3:
How is an anarchy enacted or enforced?
[20:22:38] Guest_14d3:
What's to stop corporations from swooping in and taking control?
[20:22:41] aelephant:
Anarchy is enacted and enforced voluntarily.
[20:22:48] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
corporations
[20:22:51] Noesis to Guest_14d3:
So you haven't listened to Stefan's podcasts, or watched his videos, or read his books, then?
[20:22:54] aelephant:
De-centralization of authority.
[20:22:57] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
are legal fictions created and maintained by governments
[20:23:25] aelephant:
What's to stop you from punching me? I might punch you back.
[20:24:07] Guest_14d3:
Say a corporation comes and takes your property? Who is to stop them?
[20:24:23] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
who is to stop them now lol
[20:24:25] aelephant:
You could arm yourself and practice self-defense.
[20:24:34] Guest_14d3:
The state stops them now.
[20:24:39] aelephant:
You could hire out your self-defense to a protection agency.
[20:24:40] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
my property would be covered with land mines
[20:24:51] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
corporations are created by governments
[20:24:52] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
and preferably id like to have a gatling gun
[20:24:57] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
But who stops the government from taking your property?
[20:25:14] senorbuzco to aelephant:
IMMINENT DOMAIN
[20:25:22] Guest_14d3:
The corporation hires blackwater to demine your home and disable your weaponry. What do you do now?
[20:25:58] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
sooooo how is this different from right now?
[20:26:02] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
where is the cooperation getting fiunding for this?
[20:26:16] Guest_14d3:
The state protects private property. Are you unaware of this?
[20:26:19] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
Why is the corporation willing to pay Blackwater so much to demine my home and disable my weaponry (at considerable threat to their own life and limb)?
[20:26:45] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
The state has no duty to protect. Are you unaware of this?
[20:26:51] Guest_14d3:
Also, if your contention is that your system offers no benefit over the current one, then why are you pushing for it?
Sam left this room.
[20:27:03] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
you're basically saying "once you replace government with government, what happens?"
[20:27:15] Guest_14d3:
The state protects private property. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
[20:27:28] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
That is not what the courts have ruled.
[20:27:33] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
ever heard of imminent domain
[20:27:35] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
or taxes
[20:27:42] Guest_14d3:
How is anarchy enforced. What is to stop the super rich from taking control?
[20:27:52] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
D.C.'s highest court [said] that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."
[20:27:55] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
the super rich USE THE STATE to take control
[20:27:57] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
because they'd go broke
[20:28:30] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
[20:28:41] Guest_14d3:
True, the Rich use the state, but only because they are forced to. Without the state as a middle man, their power would be limitless.
[20:29:04] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
Not at all. The State makes the wealth of the rich much more powerful than it otherwise would be.
[20:29:28] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
whoa, i never thought of it like that before
[20:29:29] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
In an anarchic society $100,000 buys you $100,000 worth of goods
[20:29:35] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
i have to rethink this whole anarchy thing
[20:29:44] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
In a Statist society, $100,000 might buy you a politician
[20:29:48] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
you're making great points
[20:29:51] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
and all of the power that comes along with that
[20:30:43] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
read this brah: praxeology.net/invisible-hands-and-incantations.pdf
[20:30:59] Guest_14d3:
Not at all? You have no idea how things would play out in an anarchy?
[20:31:27] Guest_14d3:
So, say Capitalcorp takes your land by force. What do you do?
[20:31:49] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
whose paying capitalcorp money?
[20:31:56] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
who's*
[20:31:59] Guest_14d3:
Customers.
[20:32:03] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
why?
[20:32:10] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
Why would Capitalcorp take my land by force? I will kill any Capitalcorp agents who come onto my property with the intent of seizing it.
[20:32:36] Guest_14d3:
Capital corp has a private army and they murder you and your family and take your land. What happens then?
[20:32:46] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
game over
[20:32:51] Guest_14d3:
Exactly.
[20:32:56] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
they get to the final level
[20:33:16] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
they beat the world
[20:33:42] Guest_14d3:
They beat the world, indeed.
[20:33:55] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
why would Capitalcorps army be willing to put their life and limb on the line to take my property?
[20:34:25] Guest_14d3:
Because it sits atop some kind of valuable natural resource.
[20:34:38] Guest_14d3:
You are dancing around the question.
[20:34:58] Guest_14d3:
Who is to stop them from taking your land and killing your family?
[20:35:10] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
remeber when i said that corporations are created and maintained by governments, and then you ignored that forever
[20:35:23] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
cuz i do
[20:35:28] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
who's to stop me from taking your land right now and killing your family?
[20:35:37] Guest_14d3:
So, corporations would 'voluntarily' disband?
[20:35:43] Guest_14d3:
I don't get your point.
[20:35:55] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
WHY DO COPROATIONS EXSIST AND HAVE POWER
[20:35:56] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
when companies dont provide a service they go broke
[20:35:57] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
THE FUCKING STATE
[20:36:11] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
THE STATE THAT TAXES ME
[20:36:17] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
AND GIVE IT TO CORPORATIONS
[20:36:19] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
AND THEIR BEHEST
Guest_1746 joined the room.
[20:37:04] Guest_14d3:
You don't think a large business could sustain itself without a government?
[20:37:07] Guest_14d3:
Why is that?
[20:37:29] Guest_14d3:
As long as they turn a profit, they can do as they please.
[20:37:32] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
Do yu listen to the fdr podcasts?
Guest_69fa joined the room.
[20:37:37] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
you*
[20:38:36] Guest_14d3:
What leads you to believe big business is not self sufficient?
[20:38:46] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
subsidies
[20:38:47] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
lol
[20:38:55] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
TAXES
[20:39:11] Guest_1746:
that doesnt make sense
[20:39:19] Guest_14d3:
How so?
[20:39:31] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
Do you listen to the fdr podcasts?
[20:39:48] Guest_14d3:
Exxon Mobile makes billions. They have a product that we cannot live without. They don't need the government to survive.
[20:39:58] Guest_14d3:
Not interested in the podcasts.
Guest_0f56 left this room.
[20:40:15] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
In that case, I'm blockin ya
[20:40:20] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
Show ya how anarchy works
[20:40:21] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
Bye
[20:40:29] Guest_14d3:
put your fingers in your ears.
[20:40:47] Guest_14d3:
Wouldn't want to question your pre conceived notions.

libertarianism is anarchism for rich people.
is the state an oppressive force? damn right it is
is capitalism an even more oppressive and exploitative force? yep

abolish the state and let the principles of capitalism reign free, and the US will look like the voluntaryist utopia that is the congo. or somalia.

we need to imagine a better economic system.
we need more realistic options for egalitarian tribal communities.


also, this is hyperbolic. his cadence and use of visual devices is patronizing bullshittery.

>> ^Psychologic:

"People should have the right to do whatever they want, as long they don't infringe on the rights of others."
So how would a "non-statist" enforce such a principle? The free market?
If someone decides to forcefully take my property then what recourse do I have other than attempting to forcefully retake it?


This is the crux of the problem with anarchism.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Don't forget Joe Stack, Tim McVeigh, the Unibomber and whoever sent all that anthrax though the mail in 2001.


I think that's the first time I've ever heard anarchism described as conservative.

I suspect that because some of you are heavily invested in your political identity, that you forget the majority of people are not. Just because the target of the attack was a Democrat does not mean that was the reason she was targeted, nor does it mean the attacker was a Republican.

Cenk mentions John Hinckley, the guy who shot Reagan; he's a perfect example. He didn't give a shit that Reagan was a Republican; he had originally been stalking Carter. He wanted to shoot a President because he was convinced it would impress Jodie Foster and that she would love him.

Calls to tone down the violent rhetoric, metaphorical or not, are welcome. However, by making the assumption that this shooting was caused by that rhetoric and tying your entire argument to it, you run the risk of having your argument thrown out if it turns out Loughner just really hates bleached-blondes or sailors' wives.

1. somehow they attributed this to "anti-americanism", like they hear from their right wing radios that democrats/liberals/lefties/socialists are always screaming about how terrible everything american is and burning flags, somehow in their brains un-nationalism=nationalism=fascism.

4. clinton and obama also increased military spending. we fought tons of proxy wars under the clinton administration and obama has just shifted the focus from iraq to afghanistan. and i can't argue that. they're right. even though they completely skimmed over 8 years of hyper-patriotism.

7. TSA porno-scanners. obama reauthorized the patriot act. also, can't argue with them, except theyre still ignoring the last 8 years.

8. so they're mormons, and historically, the government has interfered with the church. they see the whole prop 8 fiasco as modern day proof of that. and government is trying to legislate for the church, not the other way around.

9. no, corporate power is not protected. this socialist administration is infriging on them and the epa wants to bankrupt all the businesses.

10. unions are the enemy. nurses unions are the reason all of the hospitals in california are in trouble. labor unions are evil. theyre the mafia. blah blah blah. labor unions are fascist organizations funding the obama administration to take out the middle class. this list has a liberal bias.

11. obama killed all the student loans. there is no more access to student loans anywhere, eventhough i am currently living off of student loans. also, academia is where terrorist sympathizers hide out. which explains why her 2 most liberal children are working on graduate degrees in liberal things like physics and disability studies. and her conservative children didn't go to college. my brother and i are really the close minded fascists. if you point out my moms graduate degrees she says she got it during the clinton administration then she went and got a job with it outside of education. unlike my brother and i who don't actually have real jobs. even though my brother works for the military and the military pays for his education. nothing makes any sense.

12. they related this one to the ex con that works for my stepdad. he's finally off drugs and making an honest living and obama won't take his ankle bracelet off probably because he is a white non-violent offender. i'm not even sure what that has to do with the topic, but thats the anecdote they shared with me.

most of what they say doesnt make any sense to me. and vice versa. but i find if i break things down into really small individual issues then we agree like... climate change isnt man made... but it is bad for the planet to dump all of our trash in the ocean and bury toxic waste and cut the tops off all the mountains and burn things into the atmosphere. .... but there is not such thing as global warming.

or our border with mexico is a huge security risk and people in el paso are terrified of the drug wars raging in juarez and we need to deport all the undocumented workers and close our border for good until mexico sorts their shit out.
but women and children who flee from mexico are refugees and should be treated as such.

even when we talk about anarchism, they like anarchism. but if you were to say i was left wing and had radical leanings... they'd freak the fuck out.

so their values and morals are mostly intact, and theyre mostly just like mine... we just use different languages and theyre not worried about atrocities that happen in other places.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Wow, that's nuts. How did they spin 1, 4 and 7-12? >> ^peggedbea:
omg! i've actually gone through this exact list with her and her husband before and the most bizarre thing happened - they attached every single point to "liberals". the phenomenon here is that the language has been changed. the world "liberal" is no longer derived from the word "liberty". it simple means "ugly nazi fascist death monsters"
and the word "liberty" now means "liberty in christ".
i shoplifted a copy of "the overton window" over the summer and read it aloud to my friends, the entire thing is chocked full of doublespeak. the introduction itself is almost entirely doublespeak. and sometimes i read articles on fox's website, or the drudge report or whatever for fun. it's loaded with doublespeak. almost every article uses some device to change the meaning of language. it's brilliant.
one of my best friends brother is a linguist at UF. i'm pretty sure when those boys come back to texas for christmas we're going to have a serious discussion about this.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Have you tried explaining to her what fascism is?
Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3

Wall of text warning. No tl;dr. Learn to read dammit (see what I did there?).

@quantumushroom

Unusual post from you there qm. But again you miss the point (what did you expect?).

First off, religion necessarily has an effect on society otherwise no one would care if you adhered or not (i.e. there would be no religious wars, no religious-based hatred etc.). The problem is not that religion enhances your sense of well-being, it's that as a consequence (or side effect if you will) you close yourself off from people of a different religion and from contrary opinions on many different matters: you trade freedom of thought for psychological safety and by doing that you deserve neither. Now, if you're a "religious scientist" type then your either not really religious or not really a scientist. Compartmentalization can only get you so far.

Second, wtf does any of this has to do with liberalism? Your tangent does not intersect my argument at any point. I bet you can't derive for shit. Do you even know what derivation is?

Third, atheism is neutral. Atheism is to theism as amoralism is to moralism. The antonym to moral is not amoral but immoral. In the same way, the antonym to theism is non-theism. A non-theist can be religious, he simply does not believe in a deity or deities. Atheism was a term invented by theists to vilify non-theist and polytheists. It has been adopted by non-religious people like "nigger" has been adopted by African-Americans, as a way of empowerment. It encompasses many views, most of them non-religious. It does not mean atheists cannot suffer from the same delusions as religious people, only that they are less likely because by identifying and refusing to accept the kind of bad thinking that goes on in religious circles, they have inoculated themselves to a point.

Fourth, on the contrary one could say that there have never been a religion without a state. Every religion needs a vector of power to affirm its authority and convert others. The Jews in Pharaonic Egypt formed a state within a state, electing their own leaders and applying the laws of Abraham to their brethren, much like Muslims try to do in western countries by following sharia law and even trying to make it official. I would go so far as to say that religion is the prototype of the state. Look at Buddhism. Not a year after the Buddha died and already sects formed and tried to control the movement he started. The conflicts may not have been overtly violent, but they were power struggles and as such quite far from the detachment from worldly matters taught by the Buddha. All prophets are dictators. Their intentions may be good, but it will always turn sour when they're gone as they, and not their god or teachings, are really what unify their followers. The continuation depends not on the person or the teachings but on the institutions that they or their successors build, just like a state. You could see what I mean if you had read the Leviathan of Hobbes (that's not what he says, but the parallels he makes and his insistence that religion is necessary for the state's well-being goes in this direction). This, to me, argues for anarchism but of course with people like quantumushroom - not to mention the potential for greed and cruelty still in all of us - I would have to say we are not ripe for it just yet. It may well be that a great part of the population will need to be forced to become atheists just to live among an atheist society comfortably, like atheists were once forced to recant their views in religious societies. While it would mean some psychological violence, as long as we stay in a democratic state it would not do more damage than what religion does now and I believe it would benefit humankind in the long run.

@Gallowflak

Nowhere did I say atheists were more rational than the religious. In fact, most rationalists (like Descartes) are religious for various reasons, one which I will explore below. I said that atheists are more reasonable and detached in their understanding of the world. Now, while "reasonable" comes from "reason" it does not mean here that a reasonable person uses more reason than another. It means that a person is more sensible than another. For example, there are no empirically verifiable evidence of a god or gods. Any religious person not mentally ill will agree. They may argue for the acceptance of anecdotal evidence or of natural phenomena as "acts of God", but just saying something doesn't make it so and anecdotal evidence is not verifiable/repeatable by a third-party and thus of very little value. So there doesn't seem to be any evidence for deities, even Pascal admitted that fact in the frickin 17th century, that's why he had to make a wager with non-believers: he tried to say that by betting on an infinite reward you cannot lose (many think that Pascal says the odds are infinite, but that would be empirical. Pascal says that since god is presumably infinite, and that you presumably gain this infinity when you die, you should take the bet since by doing so you lose nothing in this life. Of course the last part I think is false, also the dying part. Only the "god is infinite" has any kind of weight and it is very light). Of course he didn't really understand mathematical infinity and thus didn't realize that doing so meant you only had an infinitesimal chance of winning in return.

Digression aside, this means that the natural state of a rational being would be non-theistic. Only non-rational belief (based on logical fallacies or the sentiment of faith) or logical arguments based on non-empirical premises can lead to the existence of a god as part of one's thinking. Thus, while not necessarily non-rational, religious thinking most of the time is. In other cases, when dubious premises are used, we would say that the conclusions are not reasonable, meaning that they do not agree with our raw, unfiltered experiences of the world. This is exactly why many religious persons and theists resort to rationalism, as it lets them bypass primary experience in order to define god a priori as the creator of our experiences by some logical argument with dubious premises. Of course this comes from an empiric viewpoint, but then again rationalists don't have a monopoly on reason even though they let us empiricists have a monopoly on experience: that's where the Kantians enter, but that's a story for another time I'm afraid.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Top 200 Chomsky Lies


I love how they label the nuanced statements of Chomsky as "The Lie" and their half-truthy reinterpretation of them as "The Truth".

Example:

The Lie: “I have never considered myself a ‘Marxist,’ and in fact regard such notions as
‘Marxist’ (or ‘Freudian,’ etc.) as belonging more to the domain of organized religion than of
rational analysis.”

The Truth: Previously, Chomsky had said: “in my opinion, a Marxist-anarchist perspective
[on politics] is justified quite apart from anything that may happen in linguistics.” He had also
declared: “I wouldn’t abandon Marxism.”


Here's the last quote in context, from a printed interview and thus easily cited out of context:
"[Chomsky:] [...] But I don't see any reason to abandon the notion anarchism just because it has some strange periphery that uses it [namely, the right-wing anarcho-capitalists].
[Interviewer:] Just as you wouldn't abandon Marxism.
[Chomsky:] Yes, like I wouldn't abandon Marxism. After all, we're not interested in making heroes and identifying ourselves with them, but of finding what's valid in various ideas and concepts and actions that have some use for us."

So, Chomsky says we can't abandon either anarchism or marxism as wholes just because of some extremist interpretations. How does that say he is a Marxist? It does not, of course, unless you are a paranoid anti-communist trying to discredit Chomsky by associating him with what you consider an Evil ideology.

Also, you must understand that being a scholarly discussion, Marxism is here strictly differentiated from Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc. Marxism only refers to the initial political doctrine as expounded by Karl Marx.

As we can see, the cited text is taken out of context and made to imply much more that it actually says. Of course this is the typical modus operandi of the right, because let's be honest: their only arguments are those that appeal to our greed and selfishness. Better to demonize the opposition and thus appear angelic by default.

Geesus and blankfist,
Yes, citizenship is bestowed upon birth in most countries, and yes, taxes are a pretty basic, common sensical part of a successful civilization. (I'd lurve to here some examples to the contrary if you've gottem) There aren't many countries that don't have taxes. The few exceptions are failed states like Darfur and Somalia.

If you don't like living in a modern civilization, you can either go galt and move to darfur, go off the grid -unibomber style- or work from the inside to change our system to something more anarchical. The last one probably won't happen, because I don't think there has ever been a successful country that didn't have taxes, so just basic common sense is your enemy in this fight.

Beyond all this, I'd think you two would be more happy, because we are about to see government elected on all that free market rhetoric that you both so oft spew.

A huge wave of corporate candidates wrapped in the flag, waving free market ideology have been swept into office, taking over a majority of state legislatures, governors mansions and the house. That combined with a supreme court in the pocket, a filabustable senate and a President who doesn't like to use executive orders very often (which is basically the only thing he can do from here on out), means that free market ideology will have free reign. I expect you will see much privatization, deregulation and tax cuts in areas that benefit big business. Also, Iran is back on the table, because markets just love all the money there is to be found in the weapons of war and the plunder of resources. Tax giveaways to the super-rich are also taking a front seat.

It's ugly, smelly and not too bright, but it's still your baby, it has your DNA. Kiss the baby.

Old Media Noob- "How much sideboob did you catch hold of?"

Anarchic Media Mogul- "... this isn't about snagging tons of rad, Swedish sideboob; I'm the captain of the ghost ship Wikileaks, and my anonymous crew need me as a man of legend... unshakable from my quest to free all information."

O.M.N.- "About those anonymous minions; some seem to not agree with you leaking names of operatives and whatnot, since, you know, Taliban's got computers too."

A.M.M.- "... who said that... was it Jake? Did you interview Jake? OMG that retard..."

O.M.N.- "Yeah, and some other folks are kinda like, 'woah, Julian is tweaking on being the big dogg of a group that one would assume would run fine in 2010 without a big dogg, or any set leaders for that matter, especially ones allegedly copping sideboobage'."

A.M.M.- "...I'm outta here."

You are so hung up on fitting yourself (and others) into strict isms. It's OK to take a little from here and there. Not only is it OK, but it is individualist. You are more complex than any ism. 2 cents.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I've got a bit of cognitive dissonance to deal with at the moment because I can't say I'm one thing or another. I still believe in a limited Minarchist government, even though it's immoral. Oh the inner political demons! I do lean heavily to the Voluntaryist side, though. They're making a lot of sense to me these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I wasn't busting your chops, I just didn't know what the black flag stood for, so I wikied it and posted it on your page.

I support your switch to pure anarchism, but don't most anarchists reject 'free-market'-y type stuff?

I've got a bit of cognitive dissonance to deal with at the moment because I can't say I'm one thing or another. I still believe in a limited Minarchist government, even though it's immoral. Oh the inner political demons! I do lean heavily to the Voluntaryist side, though. They're making a lot of sense to me these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I wasn't busting your chops, I just didn't know what the black flag stood for, so I wikied it and posted it on your page.

I support your switch to pure anarchism, but don't most anarchists reject 'free-market'-y type stuff?

I wasn't busting your chops, I just didn't know what the black flag stood for, so I wikied it and posted it on your page.

I support your switch to pure anarchism, but don't most anarchists reject 'free-market'-y type stuff?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
What can I say? Minarchism was proving to be a specious hold out while debating statists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#Black_flag

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Black Flag
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black Flag may refer to:

* A flag that is black: see List of black flags
* The black flag, an international symbol in anarchist symbolism
o An alternative translation for the name of the anarchist Russian group Chernoe Znamia
o Black Flag (newspaper), an anarchist newspaper
o Czarny Sztandar (1903), a Białystok anarchist organisation
o Chernoe Znamia (1905), a Geneva anarchist newspaper
* Black Flag (insecticide), a brand of insecticide
* Black Flag (band), American hardcore punk band
* Black Flag, a ghost town in the Goldfields of Western Australia
* Black Flag Army, a militia operating around Hanoi in the late 19th century
* Black flag, one of the racing flags used to summon drivers to the pits
* Black Flag Wing Chun, a Chinese martial arts style from the province of Fujian
* A common name for the weed, Ferraria crispa
* A Black Flag Disqualification, which is when a black flag is raised at the start, anybody over the line when there is less than one minute until the start is disqualified.

I mostly agree Doc. Allow me to explain;

Libertarianism is not the antonym of socialism, but of authoritarianism. Yes, I know - so why paint socialism as 'nanny state' government-runs-everything-and-makes-all-decisions-for-you authoritarianism? I know you didn't, but blankfist and many others do.

The "minimum" clearly includes infrastructure, security, and justice. Yup, right on. What is 'infrastructure'? Some would say roads and airports. Others (like me) would expand it to include hospitals, schools, etc. Security would include protection from exterior forces, but also from the elements, from starvation, from criminals, etc. Security has to mean security for people, not just property. Justice is the fun one. Justice is not just prisons, justice is not just laws - justice includes a human element, an element of dignity.

Many 'socialist' states are generous and compassionate - many are very generous. Socialism does not preclude generosity or compassion, just like libertarianism does not guarantee it. In fact, many socialist countries are far more charitable than the U.S. Would you suggest people in Sweden or Norway (which both give the most to charity by % of GNI) are apathetic zombies?

This is the problem I have with rhetoric - it often ignores easily verifiable facts. I would gladly support a libertarian society with minimal government if all people were in good health with access to good educations and a level-playing field, but that doesn't exist anywhere I know of. Oddly enough, the closest thing to just, equal societies I can think of are the socialist countries at the top of that ^ wikipedia list.

I went ahead and answered Blankfist's loaded questions, I hope he can answer mine.>> ^Doc_M:

Libertarianism is not the antonym of socialism, but of authoritarianism.
It is as broad as any other political ideology. Libertarianism is not anarchism, just as socialism is not communism.
Minimizing government is not eliminating government. The "minimum" clearly includes infrastructure, security, and justice, amongst other things.
In a small society, charity is the libertarian welfare, a personal decision to care for those who need care. In a large society such as ours, some level of gov't involvement and social organization is useful (quite possibly even required) for support of those who would otherwise slip through the cracks. Given good enough organization, charity could manage care, but some amount of socialism seems to be required for the simple fact that not all people are generous or compassionate. However, to generate a society in which these two virtues are completely irrelevant is socially self-destructive, perpetuating a child-like state of apathetic obedience. When government enforces compassion, the word becomes meaningless.

Libertarianism is not the antonym of socialism, but of authoritarianism.
It is as broad as any other political ideology. Libertarianism is not anarchism, just as socialism is not communism.
Minimizing government is not eliminating government. The "minimum" clearly includes infrastructure, security, and justice, amongst other things.

In a small society, charity is the libertarian welfare, a personal decision to care for those who need care. In a large society such as ours, some level of gov't involvement and social organization is useful (quite possibly even required) for support of those who would otherwise slip through the cracks. Given good enough organization, charity could manage care, but some amount of socialism seems to be required for the simple fact that not all people are generous or compassionate. However, to generate a society in which these two virtues are completely irrelevant is socially self-destructive, perpetuating a child-like state of apathetic obedience. When government enforces compassion, the word becomes meaningless.