4 ms·

>Now, I'm an anarchocapitalist and would love to see all of these costs unbundled, so that we each pay only for what we use. Anarchocapitalism isn't anarchisti

by ue_ 10y ago

>Now, I'm an anarchocapitalist and would love to see all of these costs unbundled, so that we each pay only for what we use. Anarchocapitalism isn't anarchistic, as capitalism necessarily entails the establishment of at least two classes: the proletariat and bourgeoisie, defined in terms of the relationship to the means of production. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/daibhidh-anarcho-hucksters-there-is-nothing-anarchistic-about-capitalism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/daibhidh-anarcho-huc...

jessaustin 10y ago
That seems unrelated to the discussion. If GP had said, "I'm a blueberry muffin and would love to see all of these costs unbundled...", could you have responded differently?
- thorawy33 10y ago
  I think you're getting hung up on too specific an idea (unbundling costs). In the linked page on "anarchocapitalism": "They use the term “anarchist”, but at the expense of their credibility — why? Because their self-definition doesn’t hold up to even the most rudimentary questioning." Basically peddling "more of the same" and trying to sound cutting edge by adding "anarcho". It lacks intellectual honesty in the first place. We've been down the laissez faire path (a label pointlessly added before capitalism anyway given the traditional values upheld in capitalism; it wants to be left alone in the first place). It was a disaster, and would be again if we allowed it anymore rope to hang us all with. He's basically peddling that which he rants against: Monolithic economic policy that fits with his preferences.
- ue_ 10y ago
  I was picking up on a point or what I saw as a contradiction or misunderstanding. I see no problem with doing this. It is true that I was not directly attacking or agreeing with his or her position, but I do not see why I must do so when commenting. Ironically in the spirit of libertarianism, feel free to ignore my comment if you find it annoying or off-point.
AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
>Blah blah blah, only my definitions are allowable.

by ue_ 10y ago

jessaustin 10y ago

That seems unrelated to the discussion. If GP had said, "I'm a blueberry muffin and would love to see all of these costs unbundled...", could you have responded differently?

thorawy33 10y ago
I think you're getting hung up on too specific an idea (unbundling costs). In the linked page on "anarchocapitalism": "They use the term “anarchist”, but at the expense of their credibility — why? Because their self-definition doesn’t hold up to even the most rudimentary questioning." Basically peddling "more of the same" and trying to sound cutting edge by adding "anarcho". It lacks intellectual honesty in the first place. We've been down the laissez faire path (a label pointlessly added before capitalism anyway given the traditional values upheld in capitalism; it wants to be left alone in the first place). It was a disaster, and would be again if we allowed it anymore rope to hang us all with. He's basically peddling that which he rants against: Monolithic economic policy that fits with his preferences.
ue_ 10y ago
I was picking up on a point or what I saw as a contradiction or misunderstanding. I see no problem with doing this. It is true that I was not directly attacking or agreeing with his or her position, but I do not see why I must do so when commenting. Ironically in the spirit of libertarianism, feel free to ignore my comment if you find it annoying or off-point.

AlgorithmicTime 10y ago

>Blah blah blah, only my definitions are allowable.