Capitalism: What do you think?

Capitalism is a distraction, a diversion if you will, from the path of knowledge.

 

And what is the path of knowledge? Communism?..Please!

 

how 'bout anarchy? look out for your own arse

 

No matter what system is in place, the elite will figure a way of exploiting it so they get the lion's share of money so the choice boils down to whether you are for capitalism as a means of robbing you or would you rather be fleeced by some other means?

 

I find anarchy an extremely flawed concept. It's human nature, and is a focal point of our society, to have leaders. If you think of the world/society as one huge community then it's natural for groups of people to be represented by others. Then, as an affect of this it builds into bigger things that's very much money driven.

Anarchy will never be a sustainable system for the modern world, because a) No person, nor country, would be willing to give up their "hard earned" cash; b) the beginning of an anarchist state would be struck with crime and would be far too devastating for the system to co-exist and for it to continue peacefully; and c) the entire economy of one major country - the USA for example - would be completely ruined, thus making a huge problem for other countries and create a snowball-affect that would be catastrophic for many other countries.

 

My ass would be bruised if we lived in anarchy.

 

I would like an anarchy society - Then I could finally live up to my full potential.

 

Does you full potential involve being ass raped by an old black man at gunpoint?

 

Why must a government exist for there to be social order?

 

Because people can't be trusted. Period.

 

Uhhum...


...and sadly enough, people are naturaly confrontational, a higher order needs to exist to settle dispute... otherwise, everything will be settled with violence.

Would you rather have a flawed court system or mass murder on the streets?

The idea of govrnment has existed all throughout human history. Tribes have always had a leader, countries had kings, so on and so forth.

 

But why must our leaders be rulers? I certainly agree that leaders will tend to emerge in any society, however I do not agree that leaders must lead by coercing others into following them. In an anarchist society the leader/follower relationship would not be created for exploitation (obey me because if you don't I'll harm you) but for mutual benefit (obey me and I'll make us both better off).

Please realize that not everyone who is against the idea of the state believes that money and markets should be abolished. In fact I am a huge supporter of markets as any market transaction is inherently voluntary and brings mutual benefit to those involved.

I disagree, if a criminal bothers a community the members of said community will eventually get angry enough to put a stop to their activity, with or without the help of the government.

Not only that but the idea that the state stops crime is a myth, except in the rare case where a crime is committed within the direct vicinity of a police officer the state and its minions only arrive after a crime has already been committed. Not only that but state "justice" is a sick joke whereby the victim is forced to pay to support their victimizers via taxation.

Unsupported assertion. With people free to pursue their own interests free ofgovernment intervention markets will flourish.

 

Why should this matter? If you don't trust someone don't deal with them.

 

You need to go out into the world, meet people, and learn a thing or two about human nature. Your ideal of anarchy is more utopic that the book "Utopia".

 

So every time you disagree with a friend the only thing holding you back from violence is the state?

This is a False dilemma. Social order preceeds government.

Just because something has been believed by the majority of the people in the past does not make it true.

 

It is no more "utopian" then the idea that people magically gain the ability to know what is best for society simply by putting on a badge.

 

I am not violent, yet a large percent of humanity is, if you look at human history.

A majority belief is not necessarily true... yet it still means that people will act on it.

Per example: I think that the Jesus is fictional, and can provide lots of documentation to support it... yet it's not gonna stop anyone from believing in the Jesus.

 

It is.

Ever seen a country under anarchy?

Ahh shit.... look at a modern example... New Orleans... see what happened there when there were no peopl with badges?

 

I never said that "leaders must lead by coercing others into following them".

But isn't money the initial reason for Capitalism? If you have the money, you will have the greed, and by having the greed Capitalism will soon evolve.

And how will you decide what to do with the criminal without a leader?

You can't be serious? So instead of having the tax go back into the support of the criminal, how else do you think we should solve this problem? Kill them so they don't even need a prison in the first place? Put them in a hole and forget about them?

What about the rest of the world? Looking after numero uno, without offering help to others on an economical value, is an entirely selfish thing.

 

The vast majority of violence is committed by the state. Private crime is insignificant when compared to the crimes of the state. For every mass murder you can think of with I can produce an example of war where thousands were killed.

I am well aware that if too many people believe that anarchy is impossible that if will fail. But the same is true of any form of social order, even democracy can fail if people simply do not want it (Iraq is a good example of this). This is not an argument that can be applied to anarchism anymore then any other ideology.

This is a strawman, using the aftermath of one of the greatest natural disasters in U.S. history to prove the impossibility of anarchism is silly. I am not claiming that any situation where government is absent is better then any situation where it is present.

New Orleans lacked social order in the direct aftermath of Katrina, no system be it democracy monarchy communism or anarchism will function when there is no social order.