- Capitalism and Alternatives -

or call a spade a brush

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on May 12, 1999 at 18:09:10:

In Reply to: You only need to ignore counterevidence posted by Samuel Day Fassbinder on May 11, 1999 at 18:58:19:

: I've already blown Gee's anarcho-capitalist utopia out of the water, by showing that in the absence of government the landlords would hire their own armies to force tenants to pay the rent

You presumed they would, you also presumed than the renters would be stuck to the floor unable to leave.

: I've already shown that Gee's anarcho-capitalist formula is no solution for problems of sexism, racism, classism, driving personal and global politics today; Gee's solution was to denounce such problems as "bad," then refuse to discuss them further.

Bull, what I actually said is that individualism doesnt magically cure anything, but that removing the collective mindset which lumps people together according to 'minority groups' or other meanigless characteristics is part of the problem.

: Gee's anarcho-capitalist formula furthermore holds no hope whatsoever for the destitute millions of the world who live in slums and other degraded areas,

Whom you seem to regard as hapless and unable, who must be tended to by others in order to reach any higher.

: He challenged me to read his guru Julian Simon's big book; I read it so well that Gee gave up the thread.

I waited for it, so where did it end up - I only page down so many times. I find the fact that you regard your piece as so triumphant I had to 'give up' as an amusing indicator of your way of thinking about other people.

Every post to me from you has carried the same tiresome 'look arent I great and he only said....' nonsense. These do not form a means to discussion or even a worthwhile argument. I will have to agree with crimson tide, oddly, you are manipulative in the way you report your exchanges with others and it does you no favours.

: Sorry Gee, the successful capitalists like it that way. That's what's causing the current era of mega-mergers. It's as Chomsky says: socialism for the rich, laissez-faire for the rest of us.

As one involved in communication you may note that capitalism means the *private* ownership of the means of production. Consider this in the light of govt manipulation and claims on property before blaming private ownership.

: To defend individual rights to property is to defend the big businesses that currently hold it.

Therefore may I assume that were a 'clean slate' to be made possible that individual rights to property is quite acceptable, and that your critique of todays actuality is very similar to a libertarians critique.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup