Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Anarcho Capitalists and Libertarian

Anarcho
Posts: 887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2010 8:50:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Are there any real differences between these two ideologies?
InsertNameHere wrote: "If we evolved from apes then why are apes still around?

This is semi-serious btw. It's something that seems strange to me. You'd think that entire species would cease to exist if other ones evolved from them."

Anarcho wrote: *facepalm*
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2010 9:34:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Anarcho-capitalist" is a subset of libertarian. The proper question is "Is there any difference between anarcho-capitalist libertarians and minarchist libertarians" and the answer is "Minarchists believe that a monopoly on retaliatory force is acceptable, anarcho-capitalists do not."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2010 9:36:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/29/2010 8:50:07 PM, Anarcho wrote:
Are there any real differences between these two ideologies?

Yes libertarian simply represents a direction on the political compass whereas anarcho-capitalist is the most extreme position in the right bottom corner a in fact you could call Karl Marx a libertarian as he advocated the complete dissolution of government but the four corners of the political compass would be
Bottom Right Anarcho-Capitalist
Bottom Left Anarcho-Communist (Marxist)
Top Left Total Socialism
Top Right Completely government run private life with total free market (I think this may well be impossible)

Also libertarians vary in degrees for example I myself am a minarchist not an anarchist but yet both would be described as libertarian
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2010 9:37:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/29/2010 9:34:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"Anarcho-capitalist" is a subset of libertarian. The proper question is "Is there any difference between anarcho-capitalist libertarians and minarchist libertarians" and the answer is "Minarchists believe that a monopoly on retaliatory force is acceptable, anarcho-capitalists do not."

As far as I understand a minarchist is someone who advocates a "night watchmen" state that so long as your life liberty or property are not directly being violated the government should not be involved
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2010 9:39:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/29/2010 9:36:15 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
you could call Karl Marx a libertarian

No, no you couldn't. Well, you could but you'd be wrong.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2010 9:42:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice. Marx, its founder, concluded that the only way to abolish the class monopolies was to centralize and consolidate all industrial and commercial interests, all productive and distributive agencies, in one vast monopoly in the hands of the State. The government must become banker, manufacturer, farmer, carrier, and merchant, and in these capacities must suffer no competition. Land, tools, and all instruments of production must be wrested from individual hands, and made the property of the collectivity. To the individual can belong only the products to be consumed, not the means of producing them. A man may own his clothes and his food, but not the sewing-machine which makes his shirts or the spade which digs his potatoes. Product and capital are essentially different things; the former belongs to individuals, the latter to society. Society must seize the capital which belongs to it, by the ballot if it can, by revolution if it must. Once in possession of it, it must administer it on the majority principle, though its organ, the State, utilize it in production and distribution, fix all prices by the amount of labor involved, and employ the whole people in its workshops, farms, stores, etc. The nation must be transformed into a vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a State official. Everything must be done on the cost principle, the people having no motive to make a profit out of themselves. Individuals not being allowed to own capital, no one can employ another, or even himself. Every man will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage-payer. He who will not work for the State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison. All freedom of trade must disappear. Competition must be utterly wiped out. All industrial and commercial activity must be centered in one vast, enormous, all-inclusive monopoly. The remedy for monopolies is monopoly." - Benjamin Tucker[1]

[1] http://praxeology.net...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2010 9:44:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/29/2010 9:42:04 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice. Marx, its founder, concluded that the only way to abolish the class monopolies was to centralize and consolidate all industrial and commercial interests, all productive and distributive agencies, in one vast monopoly in the hands of the State. The government must become banker, manufacturer, farmer, carrier, and merchant, and in these capacities must suffer no competition. Land, tools, and all instruments of production must be wrested from individual hands, and made the property of the collectivity. To the individual can belong only the products to be consumed, not the means of producing them. A man may own his clothes and his food, but not the sewing-machine which makes his shirts or the spade which digs his potatoes. Product and capital are essentially different things; the former belongs to individuals, the latter to society. Society must seize the capital which belongs to it, by the ballot if it can, by revolution if it must. Once in possession of it, it must administer it on the majority principle, though its organ, the State, utilize it in production and distribution, fix all prices by the amount of labor involved, and employ the whole people in its workshops, farms, stores, etc. The nation must be transformed into a vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a State official. Everything must be done on the cost principle, the people having no motive to make a profit out of themselves. Individuals not being allowed to own capital, no one can employ another, or even himself. Every man will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage-payer. He who will not work for the State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison. All freedom of trade must disappear. Competition must be utterly wiped out. All industrial and commercial activity must be centered in one vast, enormous, all-inclusive monopoly. The remedy for monopolies is monopoly." - Benjamin Tucker[1]

[1] http://praxeology.net...

Okay let me amend what I said the end result that Marx was looking for and what he wanted would have been a completely libertarian society although he thought necessary for an in between period of socialism he wanted ultimately for the state to be abolished

happy?
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2010 9:51:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/29/2010 9:37:46 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 6/29/2010 9:34:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"Anarcho-capitalist" is a subset of libertarian. The proper question is "Is there any difference between anarcho-capitalist libertarians and minarchist libertarians" and the answer is "Minarchists believe that a monopoly on retaliatory force is acceptable, anarcho-capitalists do not."

As far as I understand a minarchist is someone who advocates a "night watchmen" state that so long as your life liberty or property are not directly being violated the government should not be involved

Correct, and implied by what I said :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2010 9:53:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/29/2010 9:44:08 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay let me amend what I said the end result that Marx was looking for and what he wanted would have been a completely libertarian society although he thought necessary for an in between period of socialism he wanted ultimately for the state to be abolished

Once scarcity was abolished, yes. But to call Marx a libertarian is an attack on language.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2010 10:03:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/29/2010 9:53:36 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 6/29/2010 9:44:08 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay let me amend what I said the end result that Marx was looking for and what he wanted would have been a completely libertarian society although he thought necessary for an in between period of socialism he wanted ultimately for the state to be abolished

Once scarcity was abolished, yes. But to call Marx a libertarian is an attack on language.

I disagree Marx's perfect society would've been the farthest bottom society that could be created on the political compass
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2010 10:04:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/29/2010 10:03:54 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 6/29/2010 9:53:36 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 6/29/2010 9:44:08 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay let me amend what I said the end result that Marx was looking for and what he wanted would have been a completely libertarian society although he thought necessary for an in between period of socialism he wanted ultimately for the state to be abolished

Once scarcity was abolished, yes. But to call Marx a libertarian is an attack on language.

I disagree Marx's perfect society would've been the farthest bottom society that could be created on the political compass

Marx spoke of the State "withering away" as the final stage of establishing a communist society.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2010 10:08:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/29/2010 10:03:54 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 6/29/2010 9:53:36 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 6/29/2010 9:44:08 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Okay let me amend what I said the end result that Marx was looking for and what he wanted would have been a completely libertarian society although he thought necessary for an in between period of socialism he wanted ultimately for the state to be abolished

Once scarcity was abolished, yes. But to call Marx a libertarian is an attack on language.

I disagree Marx's perfect society would've been the farthest bottom society that could be created on the political compass

Hello? There's a left and right on the spectrum too, not just an up and down.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 9:46:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/29/2010 10:03:54 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I disagree Marx's perfect society would've been the farthest bottom society that could be created on the political compass

The key word here is "eventually", after giving rise to the most authoritarian global state in history.

"They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up." - Mikhail Bakunin, libertarian
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 12:00:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Authoritarian is good though. Ok, maybe not quite that authoritarian though... Even I'm not fond of the whole secret police thing and such.