tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post113745269712936499..comments2024-02-26T10:25:52.212-08:00Comments on The Radical Libertarian: The relationship between anarchy and capitalismAaron Kinneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-29981158759953833672016-04-18T01:19:41.855-07:002016-04-18T01:19:41.855-07:00I like this article alot dont get me wrong it was ...I like this article alot dont get me wrong it was a very well written article and alot of it was very true.<br />but i do have to say you contradicted yourself alot. first you say anrchism is not compatible with capitalism but than you say all the ways they are similar and actually work together.<br />Personally though i believe anarchism and capitalism are alot alike and definately can work together they both are based off self ownership and self wealth and the persuit of your own happiness. both are voluntary and peacefull philosophies that could fix our cruel world but both have been lied about as evil and corrupt. thats the problemAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-15890899200194069722008-06-13T03:44:00.000-07:002008-06-13T03:44:00.000-07:00I recently listened to an audio book entitled Basi...I recently listened to an audio book entitled Basic Economics: a citizen's guide by Thomas Sowel. In the later chapters of this book the author described how unreliable protection of property rights will restrict flow of capital in an economy. Simply put, an investor is less likely to invest in an area where his investment can be taken from him. This is usually done by governments with socialist/communist policies, for example african dictatorships that can nationalize property or enforce high taxes. Any government that excersizes such policies cannot benifit from free markets and large capital investments. Eliminating this threat to capitalism through a philosophy of anarchism seems only natural to me. However this doesn't eliminate all threats. Thugs, gangs, strong-arming competition and other criminals can diminish property rights as well and so there must be some kind of protection. In this though capitalism needs law and order to thrive. I think the best way to accomplish this is through an impartial court of reason with the authority to uphold rulings. If you take away the impartiality, through privatisation, or its authority to enforce rulings then it cannot operate in a capacity to protect property rights. I suppose the anarchist would have to ask him/herself whether or not such a court would constitute as government. When I think of government I think of legislatures that use force and coercion to press there values on an individual. It was legislation that enforced segregation on blacks and it was the court that allowed a black individual, in brown vs. board of education, to stand up against all the power, wealth and popularity of that legislation to be free of it. I do not believe that a court in which an individual can argue a dispute on equal footing with another individual, corporation or collective no matter how powerful and succeed based on the merit of their arguments and evidence presented can be contrary to the anarchist ideal. In fact isn't this its very essence? If there is going to be a society in which the weak can challenge strong without inequity then there must be a stage to lend them that authority. However we can forego tyrannical legislatures, oppressive sovereigns, corrupt politicians and the rob peter to pay paul rhetoric of contemporary government to do this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-1138061703752485012006-01-23T16:15:00.000-08:002006-01-23T16:15:00.000-08:00"Wow! Franc you left Objevtivism?"Yes."Do you have..."Wow! Franc you left Objevtivism?"<BR/><BR/>Yes.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Do you have a formal statement why you left Objectivism?"<BR/><BR/>What the fuck ? I'm not a politician, a judge, or royalty, so no, I don't write "formal statements" when I change my mind about something.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"I am an communist-anarchist, and I disagree with your discussion. Capitalism requires law, which places it outside the anarchist family."<BR/><BR/>Read my entry again. Capitalism does not require "law", which I don't even believe exists. Only voluntary action.Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-1137688822608840512006-01-19T08:40:00.000-08:002006-01-19T08:40:00.000-08:00This is a good post for clearing up confusion over...This is a good post for clearing up confusion over the mixing of anarchism and capitalism.<BR/><BR/>Why does anarchism have such a stereotype of spiky haired punk rockers? People like Franc and Stefan certainly dont fit that stereotype. <BR/><BR/>I bet that there are tons of anarchists who dont dress like punk rockers nor listen to Sid Vicious. Its funny that the anarchist stereotype is so strong, at least in America. I think anarchist brings with it a more stereotypical preconceived image with it than atheist does!Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.com