|
Anarchism is inherently rooted in lack of hierarchy and acceptance of collectivism. One of these capitalism is unable to survive without and the other capitalism opposes. There is no such thing as an AnCap no matter how much they want to try to distort anarchism to fit their fygm world view.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
tbp posted:Both are ridiculous and not suited to the real world. Thank you grandpa, now tell me how "socialism sounds good on paper. "
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
In libertopia, if a penniless child crawling through the desert dying from thirst comes upon a water fountain owned by John Galt, and John Galt charges 5 cents per drink, would he be justified in denying the penniless child a drink?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Since An-Cap isn't true anarchism and anarchy is inherently tied to Marxism and Kropotkinism, it would be a silly question to ask what an Ancap would do in an anarchic society because they wouldn't be part of one. However, in an anarchic society there would not be private property (differentiated between personal property, ie the items one uses on a day to day basis), and so generally a collective of people running a factory that polluted the local area would not happen as they would be polluting their own homes and land so would vote not to run the factory in that manner. The current economic model where profit motive trumps all other concerns and derived from the money lust of the wealthy that do not live in the polluted community would be untenable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Jrod, when you use the terms legal and illegal, who do you imagine as enforcing those things and by what methods?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
You cannot have private property rights without a state to enforce it unless you're advocating a return to the old west style of enforcement.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
80% of libertarians voted for Romney and 5% for Obama. So 85% of libertarians voted for a statist in 2012. Hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
I agree with eliminating IP also. I have a question Jrode, you previously said that if someone successfully shows that pollution put out by a factory harmed that individual, that the factory should have to give recompense (I'm paraphrasing here). Who is going to force the factory/owner to do that? Who does the individual prove the harm to? What power is utilized to ameliorate the victim? Edit: Here's the quote jrodefeld posted:You CAN bring up charges against someone for causing pollution. But, like any other property rights invasion, you have to demonstrate some harm. If you can demonstrate that harm, then the aggressor should be forced to pay you restitution. You mention bringing up charges. With whom do you file these charges? What authority is utilized? How do you "force" someone to pay restitution in libertopia? Arri fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:If I can ethically shoot a trespasser walking across my lawn, can't I ethically burn down a polluting factory? It's only ethical if the owner happens to be occupying it at the time. Jrod, what's wrong with collective ownership of land by the community that resides on it and utilizes it? The only conflict comes into play when a person wants to hoard the land for themselves and accumulation of wealth. The community in that instance would, in my opinion, be fully entitled (<- lol) to self defense. Do you not agree, and why? Arri fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
UPS sends next day/second day letters all day every day. They don't (when I worked for them) really offer a ground letter service. The reason people don't use it over the post office is because of how much more expensive it is. I know this because I worked for UPS for a time. So, in actuality, the service he is asking for exists, he just doesn't want to pay for it, lol.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It is illegal for UPS to offer anything besides next day close by/second day far away letters. It's illegal for them to offer a "ground" letter service. It is illegal for their letter services to be cheap, because the USPS holds a monopoly on such service, by longstanding law. And it's important that the USPS gets to hold that monopoly because it means that delivery to people who want to live 200 miles from civilization gets subsidized by routine business correspondence that doesn't leave the same section of the city. I see now. Yeah, UPS doesn't deliver to quite a few addresses that only the postal service will provide service to because of its federal mandate. In his mind does that mean poor people born in rural areas should just pack up their bootstraps and thumb it to the nearest city? I'm guessing it does.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:16
|
|