Libertariabs and capitalists.

[Crystalclear]

A thing I hear from socialists I know is that anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are all the very rich or business owners. I do not agree on this point and think that there are a lot more people who are libertarian or anarcho-capitalist.
What is the opinion of other users on this board?

 

[Iceweasel]

Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.

 

[KNB]

Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.

If Republicans want smaller government then why is marijuana illegal?

Reefer Madness (1936) - IMDb
Hemp for Victory (1943) - IMDb

Controlled Substances Act
1972 Shafer Commission - Table of Contents
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1635ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr1635ih.pdf
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute



Also, what's a "Libertariab"?

 

[Crystalclear]

Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.

Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology that supports a pure form of capitalism and free market without government interference (so no subsidies and regulations). And almost all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. But the thing I hear very often is that the only people who support this ideology are rich business owners. I personally think that this socialist statement is bullshit and that a lot of middle-class citizens also have good reasons to support anarcho-capitalism. What do other users think of the earlier mentioned socialist statement?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.

Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology that supports a pure form of capitalism and free market without government interference (so no subsidies and regulations). And almost all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. But the thing I hear very often is that the only people who support this ideology are rich business owners. I personally think that this socialist statement is bullshit and that a lot of middle-class citizens also have good reasons to support anarcho-capitalism. What do other users think of the earlier mentioned socialist statement?

Then why doesn't Wallstreet ever support a libertarian candidate?

The fact of the matter is that the socialists and statists have pushed economic policies via the Fed that have unfairly benefitted the rich, all the while railing against "trickle down economics".

The entire argument from the Marxists on this is a fuckin joke.

 

[Crystalclear]

Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.

Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology that supports a pure form of capitalism and free market without government interference (so no subsidies and regulations). And almost all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. But the thing I hear very often is that the only people who support this ideology are rich business owners. I personally think that this socialist statement is bullshit and that a lot of middle-class citizens also have good reasons to support anarcho-capitalism. What do other users think of the earlier mentioned socialist statement?

Then why doesn't Wallstreet ever support a libertarian candidate?

The fact of the matter is that the socialists and statists have pushed economic policies via the Fed that have unfairly benefitted the rich, all the while railing against "trickle down economics".

The entire argument from the Marxists on this is a fuckin joke.

Totally agree with this. I do also believe that a totally free market will not help the very rich because of more competition and this will then lead to low costs for products. Communist countries are more likely to create a very rich group of people. I believe pure capitalism will prevent the existence of predator companies.

 

[Moonglow]

Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology that supports a pure form of capitalism and free market without government interference (so no subsidies and regulations). And almost all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. But the thing I hear very often is that the only people who support this ideology are rich business owners. I personally think that this socialist statement is bullshit and that a lot of middle-class citizens also have good reasons to support anarcho-capitalism. What do other users think of the earlier mentioned socialist statement?

Then why doesn't Wallstreet ever support a libertarian candidate?

The fact of the matter is that the socialists and statists have pushed economic policies via the Fed that have unfairly benefitted the rich, all the while railing against "trickle down economics".

The entire argument from the Marxists on this is a fuckin joke.

Totally agree with this. I do also believe that a totally free market will not help the very rich because of more competition and this will then lead to low costs for products. Communist countries are more likely to create a very rich group of people. I believe pure capitalism will prevent the existence of predator companies.

Every form of economic theory has produced a wealthy class..throughout history...

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Then why doesn't Wallstreet ever support a libertarian candidate?

The fact of the matter is that the socialists and statists have pushed economic policies via the Fed that have unfairly benefitted the rich, all the while railing against "trickle down economics".

The entire argument from the Marxists on this is a fuckin joke.

Totally agree with this. I do also believe that a totally free market will not help the very rich because of more competition and this will then lead to low costs for products. Communist countries are more likely to create a very rich group of people. I believe pure capitalism will prevent the existence of predator companies.

Every form of economic theory has produced a wealthy class..throughout history...

This, I agree with. You simply can't force equality.

The fact of the matter is that people are not born equal or into equal circumstance, even if you were to remove money from the equation altogether.

Some people are born with greater mental capacity than others, some people are born to parents and families that will raise them with values that are conducive to success and some aren't.

No matter what system you implement, at some point the most driven and capable will emerge at the top. Period.

That said, a market allowing for maximum amounts of competition is quite literally the most effective way of making sure large companies don't have the opportunity to excessively gouge consumers, simply by virtue of artificially large costs leaving opportunities for competitors to undercut and still profit. In other words, a freer market means less ability for the richest and largest companies to use market domination to everyone else's detriment.

 

[Pogo]

Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.

Bullshit.

Nobody believes in government comes in sizes, but Liberalism advocates minimalist government.

 

[Iceweasel]

Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.

If Republicans want smaller government then why is marijuana illegal?

Most of them probably believe that more potheads will cause more problems and won't necessarily shrink the size of dependents of the state.

Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology that supports a pure form of capitalism and free market without government interference (so no subsidies and regulations). And almost all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. But the thing I hear very often is that the only people who support this ideology are rich business owners. I personally think that this socialist statement is bullshit and that a lot of middle-class citizens also have good reasons to support anarcho-capitalism. What do other users think of the earlier mentioned socialist statement?

Purity is a religious concept, not economic. There is no such thing as a pure economic system since all these theories about how a pure form of this economic system or that economic system is just mental masturbation. It's impossible to have any economic system with no regulation and I've never heard any Libertarian, conservative or otherwise call for it. Anarchy is self rule and no system is self ruled so whoever coined the term anarcho-capitalism is an idiot, if the term even exists. It's an oxymoron.

Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.

Bullshit.

Nobody believes in government comes in sizes, but Liberalism advocates minimalist government.

You just repeated what I said and called it bullshit. Weird.

 

[bripat9643]

Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist. We are currently a small faction among libertarians, but we're growing fast. The reason people become anarcho-capitalists is the fact the phrase "limited government" is an oxymoron. Once you have government, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society. "Limited government" is a concept similar to "limited melanoma." A democracy will never be a stable situation. It inevitably blows up.

 

[The T]

Never heard of anarcho-capitalist before but a libertarian, conservative or liberal can be a capitalist. Libertarians and conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. Liberals believe in bigger and more intrusive government for everybody else.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist. We are currently a small faction among libertarians, but we're growing fast. The reason people become anarcho-capitalists is the fact the phrase "limited government" is an oxymoron. Once you have government, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society. "Limited government" is a concept similar to "limited melanoma." A democracy will never be a stable situation. It inevitably blows up.

And why we were never meant to be a Democracy. And you're correct. A true Democracy is MOB Rule...and yes after awhile the MOB turns on itself...

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist. We are currently a small faction among libertarians, but we're growing fast. The reason people become anarcho-capitalists is the fact the phrase "limited government" is an oxymoron. Once you have government, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society. "Limited government" is a concept similar to "limited melanoma." A democracy will never be a stable situation. It inevitably blows up.

Words can often come down to semantics. I like to use the term smaller government vs. limited because limited means there is an overseeing agency that limits exactly what it can do or not do. We have the Constitution to put limits on government but it's a guideline, not an enforcement agency.

Let's say a company has no problem dumping raw waste into a lake, how would an anarcho-capitalist handle it? I would support government health and environmental regulations but oppose government wage controls. That in my mind separates me from a socialist.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist. We are currently a small faction among libertarians, but we're growing fast. The reason people become anarcho-capitalists is the fact the phrase "limited government" is an oxymoron. Once you have government, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society. "Limited government" is a concept similar to "limited melanoma." A democracy will never be a stable situation. It inevitably blows up.

Words can often come down to semantics. I like to use the term smaller government vs. limited because limited means there is an overseeing agency that limits exactly what it can do or not do. We have the Constitution to put limits on government but it's a guideline, not an enforcement agency.

Let's say a company has no problem dumping raw waste into a lake, how would an anarcho-capitalist handle it? I would support government health and environmental regulations but oppose government wage controls. That in my mind separates me from a socialist.

Government health and environmental regulations give corporations free passes to pollute up to a certain point, whereas absolute private property rights under anarcho-capitalism would make it illegal to pollute other peoples' property.

 

[editec]

A thing I hear from socialists I know is that anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are all the very rich or business owners. I do not agree on this point and think that there are a lot more people who are libertarian or anarcho-capitalist.
What is the opinion of other users on this board?

There is no such animal as an archno-capitalist...unless you mean organized crime.

But being ORGANIZED pretty much means it cannot also be anarchist.

Clearly you have been misinformed, but I seriously doubt its from any socialists.

REAL socialists typically know what words like anarchy means.

Libertarians seem to be a tad confused tho..so maybe that's who lead you astray.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist. We are currently a small faction among libertarians, but we're growing fast. The reason people become anarcho-capitalists is the fact the phrase "limited government" is an oxymoron. Once you have government, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society. "Limited government" is a concept similar to "limited melanoma." A democracy will never be a stable situation. It inevitably blows up.

Words can often come down to semantics. I like to use the term smaller government vs. limited because limited means there is an overseeing agency that limits exactly what it can do or not do. We have the Constitution to put limits on government but it's a guideline, not an enforcement agency..

The Constitution is an abject failure at keeping the government small or limited, however you want to look at it. Whether you call it "small" or "limited," the fact remains that it always ends up being huge, colossal, all pervasive government. So long as you have a government of any kind, it will continue to grow and eat away at the fabric of society until the later collapses.

Let's say a company has no problem dumping raw waste into a lake, how would an anarcho-capitalist handle it? I would support government health and environmental regulations but oppose government wage controls. That in my mind separates me from a socialist.

The lake would be privately owned, and the owners would sue the polluters. However, there would never be any polluters in the first place because the owners wouldn't allow industry to dump toxic waste into their lake. Pollution only occurs in the public domain. It never occurs on private property. That's why all publicly owned (or non-owned) property should be sold. Government has no business owning lakes, rivers or streams.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist. We are currently a small faction among libertarians, but we're growing fast. The reason people become anarcho-capitalists is the fact the phrase "limited government" is an oxymoron. Once you have government, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society. "Limited government" is a concept similar to "limited melanoma." A democracy will never be a stable situation. It inevitably blows up.

Words can often come down to semantics. I like to use the term smaller government vs. limited because limited means there is an overseeing agency that limits exactly what it can do or not do. We have the Constitution to put limits on government but it's a guideline, not an enforcement agency.

Let's say a company has no problem dumping raw waste into a lake, how would an anarcho-capitalist handle it? I would support government health and environmental regulations but oppose government wage controls. That in my mind separates me from a socialist.

Government health and environmental regulations give corporations free passes to pollute up to a certain point, whereas absolute private property rights under anarcho-capitalism would make it illegal to pollute other peoples' property.

Well, I'd need to see a definitive term definition. Anarcho sounds like anarchy to me. I am very opposed to crony capitalism and am more a free market capitalist guy. I'm unclear how the anarcho-capitalist enforces rules against polluting someone else's property. Doesn't that require government?

 

[bripat9643]

A thing I hear from socialists I know is that anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are all the very rich or business owners. I do not agree on this point and think that there are a lot more people who are libertarian or anarcho-capitalist.
What is the opinion of other users on this board?

There is no such animal as an archno-capitalist...unless you mean organized crime.

That's funny because millions of people would disagree with you.

But being ORGANIZED pretty much means it cannot also be anarchist.

Duh . . . Wrongo! "Organized" does not equate to government.

Clearly you have been misinformed, but I seriously doubt its from any socialists.

REAL socialists typically know what words like anarchy means.

Libertarians seem to be a tad confused tho..so maybe that's who lead you astray.

"Anarchy" means "without government." It appears to be you who doesn't understand the meaning.

 

[bripat9643]

Words can often come down to semantics. I like to use the term smaller government vs. limited because limited means there is an overseeing agency that limits exactly what it can do or not do. We have the Constitution to put limits on government but it's a guideline, not an enforcement agency.

Let's say a company has no problem dumping raw waste into a lake, how would an anarcho-capitalist handle it? I would support government health and environmental regulations but oppose government wage controls. That in my mind separates me from a socialist.

Government health and environmental regulations give corporations free passes to pollute up to a certain point, whereas absolute private property rights under anarcho-capitalism would make it illegal to pollute other peoples' property.

Well, I'd need to see a definitive term definition. Anarcho sounds like anarchy to me. I am very opposed to crony capitalism and am more a free market capitalist guy. I'm unclear how the anarcho-capitalist enforces rules against polluting someone else's property. Doesn't that require government?

Look into something called "The Private Law Society."

The Idea of a Private Law Society - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Daily

That will explain how it works.

 

[occupied]

The whole ideological group that looks at the state of big business capitalism and financial institutions and sees too much regulation are just nuts. Big banks and big business pretty much run wild as it is because practically all politicians are owned and controlled by them. Of course they have a host of counter-intuitive theories that say that shit-canning the regs will somehow prevent so much plutocratic bullshit but I have never heard an argument that did not sound suspiciously like that voodoo invisible hand hogwash.