- Capitalism and Alternatives -

You mean the non-competition principle.

Posted by: Lark on September 30, 1999 at 11:43:42:

In Reply to: the other threats to liberty posted by Gee on September 28, 1999 at 18:26:34:

: You go to militia sites? Havent tried many of them.

Yes, their organisation structure etc. is remarkably like the IRA or other puesdo-socialists, how can people who find even the capitalist controlled democracy of the status quo so objectionable agree with things like hierarchy and democracy within their units?

Aside from that their reading list wasnt actually very good they arent even up on current libertarian texts and as usual completely ignorant of other political views.

: : and they go ten guns against the state but seem entirely unconcerned with the other threats to liberty,

: As I said, some of them recognise the construvt of an 'incorporated' entityt as a potential threat regardless of whether its a business or a government.

No Gee, I think you do and that's probably because of the debates in here, they don't or if they do they don't show it. Can you honestly say that you or any AC you know has posted messages here or elsewhere to the effect of "damn that McDonalds denying freedom of speech" no it's "damn that state it wants to take away our rifles" or something to that extent.

: : if a lot of Libertarians admited the Markets faults, realised that real capitalism, your words not mine, demanded a great deal of civic virtues

: In order to be of use it would require that a great majority adhere reasonably well to the non aggression principle. The optimisim is based upon the fact that a great majority of poeple do anyway, without needing to be steered by laws, because they find it to be in their interest to do so.

The non-aggression principle? You mean the non-competition principle. The ability of one set of people to defeat another in a fight etc. or kill them is competition like any other. Facist competitiveness is nothing more than the philosophy of capitalism taken to a fanatical extreme.

:So libertarians would think of people as ready in this regard, but not in the sense of allowing themselves to be pawns of the state in pursuing a 'share' of the governments captured loot.

Sounds a bit rehtorical, what about the captured loot that Microsoft etc. has acquired? Surely the heroic stock broker is behaving exactly as you have said but in a different context.

: : I mean the guy who says "look at the state it is so corrupt lets organise a militia" and then becomes a scab preventing workers organising agianst an employer

: Why would he do that? I'm all for organisation if its appropriate, but against a union barring other willing people from entering work. Thats hardly 'solidarity' among workers - its hoarding jobs.

So what kind of organisation would you suggest? strikes are about preventing work, if scabs get in then the whole exercise is pointless, it's like the state turning up at Waco or somewhere and the guy in charge of the armory unlocking the door for the Feds while the rest of the people are on route to try and prevent it.

It is hardly solidarity among workers if the bastards are trying to cross a picket line.

: : Your telling me, the idea of the benevolent business person crosses all political boundaries though I know lots of socialist stock and share brokers,

: I wonder if they really qualify as 'socialists'

My thought exactly they arent ken on tax evasion like the rest though and they have used tactical exchanges of shares etc. to try and sabotage some bastard businesses etc. so I'm not as hard on them as all that. Again socialism isnt voluntary poverty.

: : Well status maybe, I'm probably using that word in the wrong context, they have very different "ranks" in the order of things though don't they? As a result their remmuneration would be different, right? And remmuneration equals power.

: Ah, you meant some were in more demand than others.

Demand equals power no? They shouldnt be allowed to use this to their advantage, for instance, the police are in demand because they give the illusion of order when as the socialist Tom Paine suggested the vast majority of order exists not because of the state, maybe even in spite of it.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup