"anarchists" in the past

[JosephTheLibertarian]

"anarchists" in the past were not REALLY anarchists. oh, so the socialists tell you that the anarcho syndicalists in the spanish civil war were anarchists? nope. they used conscription. there goes that!

Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine

The structure of the RIAU was not that of a traditional army. Instead, the RIAU was a democratic militia based on soldier committees and general assemblies. Officers in the ordinary sense were abolished; instead all commanders were elected and recallable. In theory, the RIAU relied on voluntary enlistment instead of conscription, however in practice conscription was used[3]. Regular mass assemblies were held to discuss policy. The army was based on self-discipline, with all of the army’s disciplinary rules approved by soldier assemblies.

This organizational structure was later used in organizing militias created by anarchists in the Spanish revolution and Spanish Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine

what a bunch of liars socialists are. chameleon-like bastards. anarchists? that's bullshit. they were never anarchists. once you begin conscription of something that should be voluntary then you cease to be anarchist or voluntary.

[Conza88]

Anarcho syndicalists can go eat a dick. More of the esoteric agenda continued.

retards the lot of them.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Anarcho syndicalists can go eat a dick. More of the esoteric agenda continued.

retards the lot of them.

lol. the ideal anarcho syndicalist society IS voluntary. people will voluntarily join things like steel workers' guild, iron guild, prostitute guild, you get the point lol there's no telling how complex such a VOLUNTARY society could get. but you cannot stress voluntary strong enough. socialists are some of the most coniving bastards I have EVER met. They are masters of deception. They pretend to be EVERYTHING revolutionary when they are nothing but reactionary parasites living off of the hopes of the unfortunate in society!

[Truth Warrior]

List of Russian anarchists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_anarchists

[qaxn]

from the very text which the wikipedia article you're citing references:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hOd0-HITuhEC&pg=PA111&dq=%22anarchist+portraits%22+makhno&sig=ArbmChwhT2xLIP0dWWO3CgpW-jc#PPA121,M1

also did you seriously just brush off the entire history of anarchism because of makhno? are you simple?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

from the very text which the wikipedia article you're citing references:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hOd0-HITuhEC&pg=PA111&dq=%22anarchist+portraits%22+makhno&sig=ArbmChwhT2xLIP0dWWO3CgpW-jc#PPA121,M1

also did you seriously just brush off the entire history of anarchism because of makhno? are you simple?

a conscription army is not anarchist. they're a bunch of frauds parading as anarchists out there

[JosephTheLibertarian]

List of Russian anarchists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_anarchists

Mikhail Bakunin - he was a member of the "International Workingmen's Association" that demanded 8 hour work days. How is that anarchists?

Peter Arshinov - he joined the same organization that used conscription army, the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine. how is this guy an anarchist?

Lev Chernyi - a REAL anarchist. read his wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Chernyi a victim of crimes against humanity by the Russian government

Vladimir Chertkov & Leo Tolstoy - "christian-anarchists"?

Sam Dolgoff - "he was in the classical anarchist traditions of Mikhail Bakunin" I guess we can dismiss him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Dolgoff

Vera Figner - She was a member of an organization [Narodnaya Volya] that stood for the following: "Narodnaya Volya’s Program contained the following demands: convocation of the Constituent Assembly (for designing a Constitution); introduction of universal suffrage; permanent people’s representation, freedom of speech, press, and assembly; communal self-government; exchange of the permanent army with a people’s volunteer corps; transfer of land to the people; gradual placement of the factories under the control of the workers; and granting oppressed peoples of the Russian Empire the right to self-determination."
These things are NOT anarchist.

Peter Kropotkin - He visited Switzerland in 1872 and became a member of the International Workingmen's Association" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Remember that organization? Definitely not an anarchist.

"Anna Kuliscioff (or Anna Kulischov, Kulisciov; born Anija Rosenstein; cca. 1857,—December 27, 1925) was a Jewish Russian revolutionary, a prominent feminist, an anarchist influenced by Mikhail Bakunin, and eventually a Marxist socialist militant; she was mainly active in Italy." she was definitely not an anarchist. another liar

Anatoly Lamanov - "Chairman of the Kronstadt Soviet of Worker's Deputies" and took part in the Kronstadt rebellion. Evr read the "Petropavlovsk resolution" that Lamanov obviously supported. This means he was not an anarchist.

Gregori Maximoff - might have been a true anarchist. but it's hard to say off-hand without reading his book for instance.

Nikolay Nosov - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Nosov his entry makes him look like a Soviet shill. umm and not one mention of anarchism. what's up with that?

Boris Pilnyak - could've been an anarchist, but it doesn't even say much about him.

"Dmitry Ivanovich Popov was a Left SR and anarchist revolutionary of Russia, the leader of the Third Russian Revolution; later a member of the staff of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Ivanovich_Popov
translation: [b]Dmitry was a statist bastard

"Victor Lvovich Kibalchich (В.Л. Кибальчич) (December 30, 1890 - November 17, 1947) better known as Victor Serge, was a Russian revolutionary and Francophone writer. Originally an anarchist, he joined the Bolsheviks five months after arriving in Petrograd in January 1919, and later worked for the newly founded Comintern as a journalist, editor and translator. He was openly critical of the Soviet regime, but remained loyal to the ideals of socialism and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 until his death." <---this disqualifies him.

Volin - Volin took up arm with Nestor Makhno, this is what Makhno did in his "ree ukraine" "the Makhnoists formed a system of government similar to a republic over the area they controlled, Makhno used forced conscription and summary executions though unlike the Bolsheviks the Makhnoists rarely used forced conscription and summary executions and most Makhnoist "militiamen" enlisted voluntarily."

most is not good enough. Volin was an active member in a statist army disguising itself as anarchist.

no entry on Vlad Tupikin

Lev Chernyi sounds like a real hero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Chernyi

[Conza88]

lol. the ideal anarcho syndicalist society IS voluntary. people will voluntarily join things like steel workers' guild, iron guild, prostitute guild, you get the point lol there's no telling how complex such a VOLUNTARY society could get. but you cannot stress voluntary strong enough. socialists are some of the most coniving bastards I have EVER met. They are masters of deception. They pretend to be EVERYTHING revolutionary when they are nothing but reactionary parasites living off of the hopes of the unfortunate in society!

"The syndicalistically organized state would be no socialist state but a state of worker capitalism, since the individual worker groups would be owners of the capital. Syndicalism would make all repatterning of production impossible; it leaves
no room free for economic progress. In its entire intellectual character it suits the age of peasants and craftsmen, in which economic relations are rather stationary."
Nation, State, and Economy, p. 199

"It is not unfair to call syndicalism the economic philosophy of short-sighted people, of those adamant conservatives who look askance upon any innovation and are so blinded by envy that they call down curses upon those who provide them with more, better, and cheaper products. They are like patients who grudge the doctor his success in curing them of a malady."
Human Action, p. 810; p. 814

[JosephTheLibertarian]

"The syndicalistically organized state would be no socialist state but a state of worker capitalism, since the individual worker groups would be owners of the capital. Syndicalism would make all repatterning of production impossible; it leaves
no room free for economic progress. In its entire intellectual character it suits the age of peasants and craftsmen, in which economic relations are rather stationary."
Nation, State, and Economy, p. 199

"It is not unfair to call syndicalism the economic philosophy of short-sighted people, of those adamant conservatives who look askance upon any innovation and are so blinded by envy that they call down curses upon those who provide them with more, better, and cheaper products. They are like patients who grudge the doctor his success in curing them of a malady."
Human Action, p. 810; p. 814

yeah well. it could work well in some voluntary socities. they would be a trading spot for people and wold most definitely be the place to go if you want a job. I don't believe in universals. we shouldn't have one universal system unless it's entirely voluntary and contractual. anything else is tyranny imo. anarcho syndicalism is a system of guilds or unions. no doubt. but there's no reason why such a society or a guild cannt prosper. the thing is, we already have anarcho-syndicalism, it's what our unions are. you can pay your way into a construction union, get trained, and they will hire you right after you get certified.

fyi, socialists HATE anarcho-syndicalism. they call it fascism

[Conza88]

I guess it's like communists hate fascists.... but their cousins. ;)

Both collectivist.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I guess it's like communists hate fascists.... but their cousins. ;)

Both collectivist.

pretty much. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. but I just say anarchist or voluntaryist around leftists because I don't want to be attacked ;) it's all the same thing really. anyone that says they want a stateless world but ABOLISHMENT of capitalism then I think they don't know what they're talking about. abolishment with force? or voluntary? if they answer "force" then they're statists lol. but they like other people they hold on hard to their beliefs and it always degenerates into ad hominem personal attacks lol. why bother?

[Paulitician]

I always got the impression that anarchists of the collectivist variety were way more likely to throw voluntarism out of the window in order to fulfill other more important ideals (according to them), like "egalitarianism" or "democratization."

[Conza88]

pretty much. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. but I just say anarchist or voluntaryist around leftists because I don't want to be attacked ;) it's all the same thing really. anyone that says they want a stateless world but ABOLISHMENT of capitalism then I think they don't know what they're talking about. abolishment with force? or voluntary? if they answer "force" then they're statists lol. but they like other people they hold on hard to their beliefs and it always degenerates into ad hominem personal attacks lol. why bother?

Since when did you become an anarcho-capitalist? :(

Please don't associate yourself with them... remain a libertarian. ;)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Since when did you become an anarcho-capitalist? :(

Please don't associate yourself with them... remain a libertarian. ;)

same thing?

[Conza88]

same thing?

Since you don't know the difference, then you really shouldn't be calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist. :rolleyes:

Anarcho-capitalist FAQ (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=154417)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Since you don't know the difference, then you really shouldn't be calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist. :rolleyes:

Anarcho-capitalist FAQ (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=154417)

If anarcho-capitalism is a subtype to libertarianism than there's nothing wrong with calling yourself a libertarian when you completely oppose the state. I've called myself an anarchist without adjectives so the same can apply. but that's just semantics.

anarcho-capitalism sounds good.

[Conza88]

If anarcho-capitalism is a subtype to libertarianism than there's nothing wrong with calling yourself a libertarian when you completely oppose the state. I've called myself an anarchist without adjectives so the same can apply. but that's just semantics.

anarcho-capitalism sounds good.

It's not a sub type. It's goes to the logical conclusions - that libertarians fail to. Libertarians propose the state as a necessary evil. It should only protect the life, liberty & property of its people etc.

Non aggression axiom + property rights, what should be law - is exactly what libertarianism is. The state should exist; to protect those rights - well look at how that experiment ended up. And it was precisely that, an experiment. Libertarians / minarchists propose - IF ONLY they stuck to the Constitution. Sorry, but it doesn't quite work like that. Pure Minds don't want to run the lives of others, they don't seek power. As Jefferson surmised. Obviously then, only those who want to rule will seek power. As has happened - NO constitution stopped that; it tried to limit their powers - but obviously it's been circumvented.

The only logical conclusion is that the state is evil, in it's entirety - not - that we need a little bit of evil, (coercion/force/violence) to remain around to protect us.
Evil does NOT sleep. The nature of government is to GROW. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."~ Thomas Jefferson

Government is a weed. Instead of embarking on pruning it with a revolution from time to time. Why not fken kill it? Take the damn weed, that suffocates the tree of liberty - and rip it up! So it cannot continue to grow.

You seem to be all over the shop mate. Libertarian, anarchist, anarcho-capitalist. They all mean different things, and hardly relate to semantics.

Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't "sound" good, it is. :) I'm guessing you've never read / listened to much Rothbard though, have you?

[sailor]

Libertarians propose the state as a necessary evil.

Do they? From what I gather the folks over at Lew Rockwell call themselves libertarians and most of them would dismantle the state altogether.

[Truth Warrior]

Mikhail Bakunin - he was a member of the "International Workingmen's Association" that demanded 8 hour work days. How is that anarchists?

Peter Arshinov - he joined the same organization that used conscription army, the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine. how is this guy an anarchist?

Lev Chernyi - a REAL anarchist. read his wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Chernyi a victim of crimes against humanity by the Russian government

Vladimir Chertkov & Leo Tolstoy - "christian-anarchists"?

Sam Dolgoff - "he was in the classical anarchist traditions of Mikhail Bakunin" I guess we can dismiss him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Dolgoff

Vera Figner - She was a member of an organization [Narodnaya Volya] that stood for the following: "Narodnaya Volya’s Program contained the following demands: convocation of the Constituent Assembly (for designing a Constitution); introduction of universal suffrage; permanent people’s representation, freedom of speech, press, and assembly; communal self-government; exchange of the permanent army with a people’s volunteer corps; transfer of land to the people; gradual placement of the factories under the control of the workers; and granting oppressed peoples of the Russian Empire the right to self-determination."
These things are NOT anarchist.

Peter Kropotkin - He visited Switzerland in 1872 and became a member of the International Workingmen's Association" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Remember that organization? Definitely not an anarchist.

"Anna Kuliscioff (or Anna Kulischov, Kulisciov; born Anija Rosenstein; cca. 1857,—December 27, 1925) was a Jewish Russian revolutionary, a prominent feminist, an anarchist influenced by Mikhail Bakunin, and eventually a Marxist socialist militant; she was mainly active in Italy." she was definitely not an anarchist. another liar

Anatoly Lamanov - "Chairman of the Kronstadt Soviet of Worker's Deputies" and took part in the Kronstadt rebellion. Evr read the "Petropavlovsk resolution" that Lamanov obviously supported. This means he was not an anarchist.

Gregori Maximoff - might have been a true anarchist. but it's hard to say off-hand without reading his book for instance.

Nikolay Nosov - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Nosov his entry makes him look like a Soviet shill. umm and not one mention of anarchism. what's up with that?

Boris Pilnyak - could've been an anarchist, but it doesn't even say much about him.

"Dmitry Ivanovich Popov was a Left SR and anarchist revolutionary of Russia, the leader of the Third Russian Revolution; later a member of the staff of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Ivanovich_Popov
translation: Dmitry was a statist bastard

"Victor Lvovich Kibalchich (В.Л. Кибальчич) (December 30, 1890 - November 17, 1947) better known as Victor Serge, was a Russian revolutionary and Francophone writer. Originally an anarchist, he joined the Bolsheviks five months after arriving in Petrograd in January 1919, and later worked for the newly founded Comintern as a journalist, editor and translator. He was openly critical of the Soviet regime, but remained loyal to the ideals of socialism and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 until his death." <---this disqualifies him.

Volin - Volin took up arm with Nestor Makhno, this is what Makhno did in his "ree ukraine" "the Makhnoists formed a system of government similar to a republic over the area they controlled, Makhno used forced conscription and summary executions though unlike the Bolsheviks the Makhnoists rarely used forced conscription and summary executions and most Makhnoist "militiamen" enlisted voluntarily."

most is not good enough. Volin was an active member in a statist army disguising itself as anarchist.

no entry on Vlad Tupikin

[b]Lev Chernyi sounds like a real hero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Chernyi

Keep it simple. Anarchy = "without a ruler". ;)

[Conza88]

Do they? From what I gather the folks over at Lew Rockwell call themselves libertarians and most of them would dismantle the state altogether.

LewRockwell doesn't call himself a libertarian. ;)

There are many writers who label themselves as different things...

The site remains; Anti-State, Pro Market, Anti-War... so yeah it all fits in with Anarcho-Capitalism. ;)

But yeah, if they don't think the state should exist - they they move from libertarianism into anarcho-capitalism imo.

I don't know any libertarians who want to get rid of:


Even in so-called "capitalist" States (really mixed economies), the government engages in all sorts of intervention: taxation, regulation, protectionism, prohibitions, occupational licensure, monopolies on "command posts" of society.

The vital command posts invariably owned monopolistically by the State are: (1) police and military protection; (2) judicial protection; (3) monopoly of the mint (and monopoly of defining money); (4) rivers and coastal seas; (5) urban streets and highways, and land generally (unused land, in addition to the power of eminent domain); and (6) the post office. The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the State's existence, for on its monopoly of force depends its ability to exact taxes from the citizens. If citizens were permitted privately owned courts and armies, then they would possess the means to defend themselves against invasive acts by the government as well as by private individuals. - Murray N. Rothbard, The Myth of Efficient Government Service

With the State - biggest, baddest exploiter of all time - out of the picture, exploitation, in terms of aggression, would all but vanish. It would be a voluntary society, an anarchy.

Hmm, probably 1, 2, 5 would apply atm. :)

*shrugs*

My neocon mate calls himself a libertarian. He is pretty much a neo-con though. I explained to him, he has no respect for the non aggression axiom, i.e preemptive war; so he fails entirely. He won't listen.

* His form of cognitive dissonance imo. He knows neocons have gotten & are getting a shit wrap, as they deserve - so he changed his label.

Just like the socialists do all the time... Ohhhh we're MODERN liberals now; right Kade? :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

I always got the impression that anarchists of the collectivist variety were way more likely to throw voluntarism out of the window in order to fulfill other more important ideals (according to them), like "egalitarianism" or "democratization." That's my very frequent and strong impression and experience of them too. ;) Seems like cognitive dissonance and mental oppositional compartmentalism. :rolleyes:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It's not a sub type. It's goes to the logical conclusions - that libertarians fail to. Libertarians propose the state as a necessary evil. It should only protect the life, liberty & property of its people etc.

Non aggression axiom + property rights, what should be law - is exactly what libertarianism is. The state should exist; to protect those rights - well look at how that experiment ended up. And it was precisely that, an experiment. Libertarians / minarchists propose - IF ONLY they stuck to the Constitution. Sorry, but it doesn't quite work like that. Pure Minds don't want to run the lives of others, they don't seek power. As Jefferson surmised. Obviously then, only those who want to rule will seek power. As has happened - NO constitution stopped that; it tried to limit their powers - but obviously it's been circumvented.

The only logical conclusion is that the state is evil, in it's entirety - not - that we need a little bit of evil, (coercion/force/violence) to remain around to protect us.
Evil does NOT sleep. The nature of government is to GROW. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."~ Thomas Jefferson

Government is a weed. Instead of embarking on pruning it with a revolution from time to time. Why not fken kill it? Take the damn weed, that suffocates the tree of liberty - and rip it up! So it cannot continue to grow.

You seem to be all over the shop mate. Libertarian, anarchist, anarcho-capitalist. They all mean different things, and hardly relate to semantics.

Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't "sound" good, it is. :) I'm guessing you've never read / listened to much Rothbard though, have you?

hmm. "Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty[2] and seek to minimize or even abolish the state." First sentence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

And it says that one libertarian "school of thought" is Anarcho-capitalism.

I have watched Rothbard and read an essay or two. But that's about it. Why did you tell me to stay as a libertarian if you think anarcho-capitalism is the way to go? The failure of the RP campaign and now the post-primary hate going around within third party vacuum is WHY I feel that the state is useless. Well not exactly. It also doesn't feel philosophically consistent. The state goes. No compromise. That feels consistent. The foundind fathers have failed with their libertarian experiment and so I think it's about time we get rid of it. Why should we care about the failure of the banking industry? It's robbery of the treasury and the "American people." There's a reason why we aren't peaceful. We all want different things. We all have different things that we would like to see. The state cannot satisfy these desires for everyone. Some will get their way while the rest will have to tolerate it. This is INDIRECT DEMOCRACY. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_democracy

It's ok to call what we have a democracy because that's exactly what this is.

[Truth Warrior]

hmm. "Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty[2] and seek to minimize or even abolish the state." First sentence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

And it says that one libertarian "school of thought" is Anarcho-capitalism.

I have watched Rothbard and read an essay or two. But that's about it. Why did you tell me to stay as a libertarian if you think anarcho-capitalism is the way to go?


One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
One who believes in free will
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian

[Conza88]

hmm. "Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty[2] and seek to minimize or even abolish the state." First sentence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

And it says that one libertarian "school of thought" is Anarcho-capitalism.

I have watched Rothbard and read an essay or two. But that's about it. Why did you tell me to stay as a libertarian if you think anarcho-capitalism is the way to go?

Well Anarcho-Capitalism evolved from libertarianism... (Rothbard coined the term, after he realised his stance was contradictory. He takes it further, as I mentioned - to it's logical conclusions. Say Bastiat, or the classical liberals which recon / founding fathers with natural rights / natural law, reconned government should protect the life, liberty & property / pursuit of happiness of the people. It's a necessary evil. (force etc) That should be used to protect people's rights. When I refer to libertarians I usually associate it with people who think there should be public roads, courts, etc. SOME start; however small.

If libertarianism & anarcho-capitalism were the same. Why would Rothbard have invented a new term for it? ;)

They have ALOT in common though. But you again have to define libertarianism.. like there are 'left' libertarianism apparently... chomsky etc etc. :rolleyes: Esoteric agenda again, lol. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

I like Rothbard, though we disagree on a few significant points. Actually I personally agree with and much prefer LeFevre.

http://bkmarcus.com/blog/people/robertlefevre

http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/halfway.php

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well Anarcho-Capitalism evolved from libertarianism... (Rothbard coined the term, after he realised his stance was contradictory. He takes it further, as I mentioned - to it's logical conclusions. Say Bastiat, or the classical liberals which recon / founding fathers with natural rights / natural law, reconned government should protect the life, liberty & property / pursuit of happiness of the people. It's a necessary evil. (force etc) That should be used to protect people's rights. When I refer to libertarians I usually associate it with people who think there should be public roads, courts, etc. SOME start; however small.

If libertarianism & anarcho-capitalism were the same. Why would Rothbard have invented a new term for it? ;)

They have ALOT in common though. But you again have to define libertarianism.. like there are 'left' libertarianism apparently... chomsky etc etc. :rolleyes: Esoteric agenda again, lol. ;)

Yeah. It's easier to say you're an anarcho-capitalist and not get confused with that retarded Chomky stuff. I never read any of his books on linguistics but I think his wanting to ABOLISH private property as dense. He's smart but that's just horrible lol. And how? Will all of the "libertarian socialists" voluntarily give their property up? Or what? It's funny, too. I researched an anarchist organization to join. No surprise when I saw the first organization on my search was a "leftwing" organization that BASICALLY says: we want to use the STATE to ABOLISH private property or capitalism or whatever and sexism and all that populist bullshit to appeal to people. THEN we will "create" a stateless society. I don't buy that for a second. That is a recipe for totalitarianism imo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_organizations here's a list. I don't think there's any anarcho-capitalist organization on that list lol. I'm really ok with people that say, ok. We want anarcho-communism but without violence or forcing anyone. That's fine. But I never met one that says that lol. And that's pretty disturbing. I can't tell if they're purposely hijacking the word and meaning of 'anarchist' or are they just god damn ignorant. Can't tell. I'm inclined to presume the former since I know that they have a long history of being coniving liars and supurb propagandists.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I like Rothbard, though we disagree on a few significant points. Actually I personally agree with and much prefer LeFevre.

http://bkmarcus.com/blog/people/robertlefevre

http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/halfway.php

"And thus we see the government is at once both protector and predator. It is not that governments begin in virtue only to end in sin. Government begins by protecting some against others and ends up protecting itself against everyone. This is the course of history." –Robert LeFevre,The Nature of Man and His Government

This makes sense.

I'm reading his book btw. http://mises.org/story/1970 Is this his book?

What do you disagree with Murray Rothbard on?

hmm. I know Murray Rothbard was a founder of the Libertarian Party. Did he give up on it later on? Maybe that was when he discontinued proclaiming to be a libertarian? I have no idea. Just wondering.

[Truth Warrior]

"And thus we see the government is at once both protector and predator. It is not that governments begin in virtue only to end in sin. Government begins by protecting some against others and ends up protecting itself against everyone. This is the course of history." –Robert LeFevre,The Nature of Man and His Government

This makes sense.

I'm reading his book btw. http://mises.org/story/1970 Is this his book?

What do you disagree with Murray Rothbard on?

hmm. I know Murray Rothbard was a founder of the Libertarian Party. Did he give up on it later on? Maybe that was when he discontinued proclaiming to be a libertarian? I have no idea. Just wondering.

Rothbard thought that participation in politics could be used against government. I do not. I agree with LeFevre and Watner, etc.

Both Carl Watner and I were students of LeFevre in the early 70's.

I think I've read that Murray and Bob had several friendly "spirited" discussions. ;)

http://www.voluntaryist.com/

[sailor]

Nice to have a bit of an exchange. :)



Say Bastiat, or the classical liberals which recon / founding fathers with natural rights / natural law, reconned government should protect the life, liberty & property / pursuit of happiness of the people. It's a necessary evil. (force etc) That should be used to protect people's rights. When I refer to libertarians I usually associate it with people who think there should be public roads, courts, etc. SOME start; however small.
That sounds like minarchism to me.


If libertarianism & anarcho-capitalism were the same. Why would Rothbard have invented a new term for it? ;)
Maybe he felt libertarianism describes both minarchists and anarchists and he wanted to say clearly which one of the two he was?


like there are 'left' libertarianism apparently... chomsky etc etc. :rolleyes: Esoteric agenda again, lol. ;)
To my understanding "Libertarian Communisn" is not what is left libertarian. I understand left-libertarians to be pretty much your standard libertarianis except differing on some cultural/morality issues, for example on abortion. Think George Carlin not Noam Chomsky.


Rothbard coined the term, after he realised his stance was contradictory.
Can you tell us a little more about this? Why did he figure the libertarian label was contradictory?

[Truth Warrior]

I guess it's like communists hate fascists.... but their cousins. ;)

Both collectivist. WWII was merely a "squabble" for control among the the totalitarian socialist "collectivist" brotherhood.<IMHO>

"By their body count, ye shall know them."

[Conza88]

That sounds like minarchism to me.

Have you read Bastiat's, The Law?

"A common element to both types of libertarianism is the conviction of the need to leave more and more space to the free market since it is the only means by which to achieve well-being for the greatest number of people and the only system compatible with subjective values and goals. Libertarians want private citizens to be free to choose on issues such as education, road construction and management, the means of transport and communication, water supplies, postal systems, etc.

The anarcho-capitalists would also entrust to the free market the usual functions justifying the existence of the State i.e. defence and the administration of justice and they propose a system of protection agencies in competition with one another in the same territory. The non-anarchists find
it necessary to preserve the State’s monopoly on the exercise of force and the
administration of justice.

In the opinion of the anarcho-capitalists, the State is an immoral institution because, with its countless monopolies, it tramples on the rights of individuals and is also an inefficient institution for the supply of goods and services. For this reason, they propose a scenario of small communities based on consent which would go beyond the idea of State and nation based on the concept of the monopolistic control of the exercise of force in a given territory."

Can you tell us a little more about this? Why did he figure the libertarian label was contradictory?
"Rothbard himself relates that in the winter of 1949/50, in the course of a conversation with some left-wing students, he realised that it was impossible for him to support the free market in all fields and at the same time be in favour of a State police force, “my whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist."

;) http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Modugno.PDF

[sailor]

WWII was merely a "squabble" for control among the the totalitarian socialist "collectivist" brotherhood.<IMHO>

"By their body count, ye shall know them."

I couldn`t agree. It wasn`t for the Jews. Or the Poles. Or the Russians. For them it was a fight for their very survival. The German Nazis had plans that amounted to the destruction of their very ethnicity.

[Truth Warrior]

I couldn`t agree. It wasn`t for the Jews. Or the Poles. Or the Russians. For them it was a fight for their very survival. The German Nazis had plans that amounted to the destruction of their very ethnicity. The Jews were merely made an on hand convenient "Boogie man" target scapegoat ( common enemy ) for the unification and mobilization of the "socialist" Nazi state.<IMHO>

Kinda like the "Islamo-fascist terrorists" are currently SUPPOSED to be for us today. ;)

It's all just a very EVIL sociopathic, sick and twisted deadly "game". :rolleyes:

[sailor]

The Jews were merely an on hand convenient "Boogie man" target scapegoat ( common enemy ) for the unification of the "socialist" Nazi state.<IMHO>

Kinda like the "Islamo-fascist terrorists" are currently SUPPOSED to be for us today. ;)

It's all just a very EVIL sociopathic, sick and twisted deadly "game". :rolleyes:

Yes. But a Jew that joined the Red Army did so in order to help save his people. He shouldn`t be downgraded to just a pawn fighting in a contest of totalitarisms.

A convenient boogie man or not, the threat to the Jewish people was stil real and that is a fact.

[Truth Warrior]

Yes. But a Jew that joined the Red Army did so in order to help save his people. He shouldn`t be downgraded to just a pawn fighting in a contest of totalitarisms.

A convenient boogie man or not, the threat to the Jewish people was stil real and that is a fact. I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think you need a bigger chess board. The European Ashkenazi Jews were merely an easy "sacrificial pawn" in the "game".<IMHO>

The payoff for the Zionists was the UN and the establishment of "Nation of Rothschild" AKA Israel.<IMHO> ;)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yes. But a Jew that joined the Red Army did so in order to help save his people. He shouldn`t be downgraded to just a pawn fighting in a contest of totalitarisms.

A convenient boogie man or not, the threat to the Jewish people was stil real and that is a fact.

There is no "jewish people" there is only individuals that choose to identify themselves as jewish.

[sailor]

There is no "jewish people" there is only individuals that choose to identify themselves as jewish.

There are only induviduals who choose to think of themselves as a part of the Jewish people. So actually there is a Jewish people.