Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

There is only one kind of anarchist.

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 8:23:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Not two. Just one. An anarchist, the only kind, as defined by the long tradition and literature of the position itself, is a person in opposition to authority imposed through the hierarchical power of the state. The only expansion of this that seems to me to be reasonable is to say that an anarchist stands in opposition to any imposed authority.

An anarchist is a voluntarist.

http://www.panarchy.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 8:28:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 8:23:50 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Not two. Just one. An anarchist, the only kind, as defined by the long tradition and literature of the position itself, is a person in opposition to authority imposed through the hierarchical power of the state. The only expansion of this that seems to me to be reasonable is to say that an anarchist stands in opposition to any imposed authority.

An anarchist is a voluntarist.

http://www.panarchy.org...

/thread
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 12:05:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's the kind of anarchist who claim to be libertarians. They're not, they're just anarchists who have an agenda of not having to pay their way in society by paying taxes. They want to pretend to support anarchy for themselves only and let everybody else pay the way for them.

Their leaders, such as the Pauls tell them what they want to hear but what they know in their black greedy hearts is impossible.

The people the anarchists want to pave the way for them are mostly poor blacks so that's where the obvious racism fits in.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 2:19:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes. But there is more to say. It isn't immediately clear what that implies.

The difference between Anarchists of the "right" and those of the "left" is that, for those of the right, it is only a political stance opposed to authority against themselves, whereas those of the left hold it more importantly as a philosophy of life that rejects the domination of any individual by another, including by their own hand, by any method. The Anarchist of the left understands that their society will never last unless people work together rather than seeking more power and influence for themselves. Lest it all be undone in time.

Although what they don't understand is that, based on this, there's really no such thing as an Anarchist.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
VaLoR
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 3:08:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 8:23:50 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Not two. Just one. An anarchist, the only kind, as defined by the long tradition and literature of the position itself, is a person in opposition to authority imposed through the hierarchical power of the state. The only expansion of this that seems to me to be reasonable is to say that an anarchist stands in opposition to any imposed authority.

An anarchist is a voluntarist.

http://www.panarchy.org...

I find the anarcho-capitalist permutation confusing. This ideology seems to be growing rapidly on the internet. However, the title seems contradictory to me. Are there any around willing to clarify the anarchist designation?

In spite of the anarchist label, they don't appear to have a problem with an autocratic work environment. After all, they insist, work is voluntary and optional, not coerced! Well, biological requirements for food, water and shelter are not optional. To the anarcho-capitalist, it seems to me that the corporate emperor (CEO) is a proud embodiment of the American dream -- that any one person can become an emperor of his or her own domain, if only he or she works hard enough. This pride/shame ethic is inherently hierarchical and antithetical to anarchist principles, in my view.

By contrast, elected representative governance constitutes a tyranny in the eyes of the anarcho-capitalist.

Am I incorrect in this assessment of cognitive dissonance from the modern free market "libertarian" permutation of anarchism?
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 4:59:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 2:19:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Yes. But there is more to say. It isn't immediately clear what that implies.

The difference between Anarchists of the "right" and those of the "left" is that, for those of the right, it is only a political stance opposed to authority against themselves, whereas those of the left hold it more importantly as a philosophy of life that rejects the domination of any individual by another, including by their own hand, by any method. The Anarchist of the left understands that their society will never last unless people work together rather than seeking more power and influence for themselves. Lest it all be undone in time.

Although what they don't understand is that, based on this, there's really no such thing as an Anarchist.

Beware of trying to think too deeply on this question. The ranks of the anarchists have grown but they won't refer to themselves as anarchists, they will label themselves as libertarians. So the libertarian ranks have grown enormously but understand that they're nothing more than angry disenfranchised people who have lost their direction because of their racist hate for Obama.

After Obama, most who are leftists will return to the left because they will again be able to tolerate a leader who isn't black. And with that move comes the rapid shrinking of the libertarian mindset and the end of their support for racist Rand Paul. He'll return to popularity about on the scale of what his daddy was able to hold onto. 15% at best. Probably less because he's not nearly as smart at hiding is true ugly agenda.

The Obama hate begins to disappear when the election campaign for pres gets fully underway so Rand Paul won't be able to hold onto his popularity long enough to be a serious contender.