Libertariabs and capitalists.

[Iceweasel]

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.

The problem is that you have a simple view. Most businesses are not "big business" and there are too many regulations, more added on a regular basis. What you refer to is cronyism with big government and there does need to be a checks put in place. The regulations tend to favor big business and cronyism, that's the problem.

 

[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.

The problem is that you have a simple view. Most businesses are not "big business" and there are too many regulations, more added on a regular basis. What you refer to is cronyism with big government and there does need to be a checks put in place. The regulations tend to favor big business and cronyism, that's the problem.

I will agree with that in theory but my comment had more to do with the somewhat faith-based political beliefs of many libertarians rather than how things actually are. To me many of their calls for massive deregulation have no basis in reality and studiously ignores the unintended consequences of letting capitalists run amok, I feel there is too much of that already, especially in the financial industry.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe refers to anarcho-capitalism as a private law society. So does the society require government to enforce the law, or, more accurately, an organization with a monopoly on enforcing the law? The AnCap says no, the market can provide for law more efficiently.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

the lake could be owned by the polluter...and they would still pollute..case in point. The residue pond at the Tyson's plant in the town I live by..

 

[Moonglow]

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.

The problem is that you have a simple view. Most businesses are not "big business" and there are too many regulations, more added on a regular basis. What you refer to is cronyism with big government and there does need to be a checks put in place. The regulations tend to favor big business and cronyism, that's the problem.

Big corporations love regulations, it keeps competition down..

 

[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?

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

Most Republicans are wrong because the war on drugs is wrong. Nixon started the drug war after the 1972 Shafer Commission advised him to legalize marijuana.

This was thirty years after "Marihuana" was legalized to save America during World War II, and people getting high didn't matter at all. Cannabis means Industry and Commerce.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf

You wouldn't believe how different America would be today if pot had not been legalized in 1942. Americans need to understand that every right and every privilege that we enjoy is due to the legalization of marijuana.

 

[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.

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.
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.

Is someone confuserated on the distinction between "intrusive" and "minimalist" then?

Help is on the way -

Liberal:

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

 

[Iceweasel]

Most Republicans are wrong because the war on drugs is wrong. Nixon started the drug war after the 1972 Shafer Commission advised him to legalize marijuana.

This was thirty years after "Marihuana" was legalized to save America during World War II, and people getting high didn't matter at all. Cannabis means Industry and Commerce.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf

You wouldn't believe how different America would be today if pot had not been legalized in 1942. Americans need to understand that every right and every privilege that we enjoy is due to the legalization of marijuana.

Goddamn, you are a one note band. First, I'm not a Republican, I'm not registered in the state as belonging to a party. And not all Republicans are clones. And not everyone that agrees with drug laws is a Republican. I realize you are probably already working on your fourth bowl this morning but ....jeesh.

 

[Iceweasel]

Is someone confuserated on the distinction between "intrusive" and "minimalist" then?

Help is on the way -

Liberal:

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Today's liberal do not fit the dictionary term. They re-label pretty much everything to forward their agenda. The classic liberal you refer to would be called a libertarian today.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Semantically it appears that an "anarcho-capitalist" is an simply an anarchist who makes a profit.

They look like this:

Seriously, it sounds like corporatocracy -- government of, by and for the richest. Which means on this planet they look more like this:

​

Ultimately it means an authoritarian; one who grovels at authority, defined as "he who has the most cash". Or as popularly termed - "elitism"


-- to be distinguished from anarcho-syndicalism...

Anarcho-syndicalists versus the First Estate:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA[/ame]

 

[Pogo]

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.

The problem is that you have a simple view. Most businesses are not "big business" and there are too many regulations, more added on a regular basis. What you refer to is cronyism with big government and there does need to be a checks put in place. The regulations tend to favor big business and cronyism, that's the problem.

I will agree with that in theory but my comment had more to do with the somewhat faith-based political beliefs of many libertarians rather than how things actually are. To me many of their calls for massive deregulation have no basis in reality and studiously ignores the unintended consequences of letting capitalists run amok, I feel there is too much of that already, especially in the financial industry.

One is tempted to observe here that the left side here believes people are basically good while corporatia needs to be controlled lest it get out of line; whereas the right believes the exact opposite.

 

[Pogo]

Is someone confuserated on the distinction between "intrusive" and "minimalist" then?

Help is on the way -

Liberal:

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Today's liberal do not fit the dictionary term. They re-label pretty much everything to forward their agenda. The classic liberal you refer to would be called a libertarian today.

Then you might be conflating "liberals" with "leftists". This just in: Joe McCarthy is expired. He tried the same thing.

Meanwhile I think we're all still waiting for some definition of "libertariabs". Sounds like something to do with aerobics.

 

[occupied]

The problem is that you have a simple view. Most businesses are not "big business" and there are too many regulations, more added on a regular basis. What you refer to is cronyism with big government and there does need to be a checks put in place. The regulations tend to favor big business and cronyism, that's the problem.

I will agree with that in theory but my comment had more to do with the somewhat faith-based political beliefs of many libertarians rather than how things actually are. To me many of their calls for massive deregulation have no basis in reality and studiously ignores the unintended consequences of letting capitalists run amok, I feel there is too much of that already, especially in the financial industry.

One is tempted to observe here that the left side here believes people are basically good while corporatia needs to be controlled lest it get out of line; whereas the right believes the exact opposite.

Mostly correct, I personally believe that unaccountable power is abhorrent to freedom. Why libertarians want practically all economic power to not be answerable to the public at large is mystifying.

 

[Iceweasel]

One is tempted to observe here that the left side here believes people are basically good while corporatia needs to be controlled lest it get out of line; whereas the right believes the exact opposite.

Not this one because I am not guided by my emotions. Corporations are made up of people, there is no us vs. them. Start a business then listen to some asshole righteous liberal tell you that you are basically evil because you want to put money in your pocket at the end of the day. NO one is greedier than a liberal. They talk smack but want the absolute most for what they do, if anything and pay the least. 27 years of business has taught me that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Semantically it appears that an "anarcho-capitalist" is an simply an anarchist who makes a profit.

They look like this:

Seriously, it sounds like corporatocracy -- government of, by and for the richest. Which means on this planet they look more like this:

​

Ultimately it means an authoritarian; one who grovels at authority, defined as "he who has the most cash". Or as popularly termed - "elitism"


-- to be distinguished from anarcho-syndicalism...

Anarcho-syndicalists versus the First Estate:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA[/ame]

So basically you wiki'd anarcho-capitalism, read maybe one or two sentences, and then dismissed it. "Oh,



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Pogo]

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.

Semantically it appears that an "anarcho-capitalist" is an simply an anarchist who makes a profit.

They look like this:

Seriously, it sounds like corporatocracy -- government of, by and for the richest. Which means on this planet they look more like this:

​

Ultimately it means an authoritarian; one who grovels at authority, defined as "he who has the most cash". Or as popularly termed - "elitism"


-- to be distinguished from anarcho-syndicalism...

Anarcho-syndicalists versus the First Estate:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA[/ame]

So basically you wiki'd anarcho-capitalism, read maybe one or two sentences, and then dismissed it. "Oh,

No, I looked at the elements of the word, combined "anarchy" and "capitalist" and followed where those definitions led me. The next step was to find a Ferengi. The image I chose from Google Images happened to be associated with Wiki. The horse led the cart, not the other way 'round. And where it lives on Wiki is a page on Ferengi, not anarcho-capitalism. I have yet to even look up anarcho-capitalism (or "libertariab") -- I figure that's the job of those who invoke the terms. Wiki doesn't post here.

 

[Pogo]

One is tempted to observe here that the left side here believes people are basically good while corporatia needs to be controlled lest it get out of line; whereas the right believes the exact opposite.

Not this one because I am not guided by my emotions. Corporations are made up of people, there is no us vs. them. Start a business then listen to some asshole righteous liberal tell you that you are basically evil because you want to put money in your pocket at the end of the day. NO one is greedier than a liberal. They talk smack but want the absolute most for what they do, if anything and pay the least. 27 years of business has taught me that.

The statement isn't emotional; it's philosophical. It analyzes views of human nature.

But for a guy who claims not to be trafficking in emotion, you invoked "asshole" and "evil" before your second sentence was done. So much for that.

 

[Iceweasel]

The statement isn't emotional; it's philosophical. It analyzes views of human nature.

But for a guy who claims not to be trafficking in emotion, you invoked "asshole" and "evil" before your second sentence was done. So much for that.

"One is tempted to observe here that the left side here believes people are basically good while corporatia needs to be controlled lest it get out of line; whereas the right believes the exact opposite."
Yes, I know it's philosophical. It's what assholes think. One need not be emotional to recognize the trait.

 

[Pogo]

The statement isn't emotional; it's philosophical. It analyzes views of human nature.

But for a guy who claims not to be trafficking in emotion, you invoked "asshole" and "evil" before your second sentence was done. So much for that.

"One is tempted to observe here that the left side here believes people are basically good while corporatia needs to be controlled lest it get out of line; whereas the right believes the exact opposite."

Yes, I know it's philosophical. It's what assholes think. One need not be emotional to recognize the trait.

--- and once again you're the one flinging the emotion. My musing contains no value judgments; you so far have invoked "evil", "righteous", "greedy", "talking smack" and "asshole" (twice) -- the last as an attempted ad hominem before a point has even been made.

Perhaps you're just not cut out for this musing stuff.

But for anyone else without their hair on fire the question is open: are people basically good, or do they need an authority figure to lead them around? If so, is that authority figure necessarily that entity in possession of the most capital?

 

[kaz]

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.

An anarcho-capitalist is a fancy name for an anarchist