I debate them all the time in a few anarchist groups.
How to recognize them?
They start with imposing their authority on what not imposing authority is.
They make this distinction between "private" and "personal" property.
The difference is that "personal" is what they have and "private" is what they want to steal.
I can destroy their argument in one sentence now, but they still choose to stay delusional.
The problem is that the less you know, the more useless you are. The less skills you have, the more you blame others for not recognizing your skills etc. If you ask a dumb person if they are dumb they will reply "you are dumb".
I am a big fan of Chomsky, but... he does not know he is criticizing statism, not free trade, which is all capitalism is.
The problem with any system is cronyism. Capitalism is not really any system. But Socialism, that is the only way that could lead to the utopia of Communism, is the totalitarian, 100% of control of the state over life of an individual.
I choose my personal freedom to decide, over other people deciding for me.
I always give them what I want as an individual and ask them how will they convince me it is not what I want:
I am an individual. I want every interaction to be voluntary. I want to create stuff for myself and others. I want to be rewarded according to how my time is useful to others. My life is mine. I own myself. What I create is extension of me. My time is my currency. I can exchange it or keep it. It is my capital. I do not believe in imposed authority.
This is what I want. It is the best for me. I don't care what the collective wants me to do. I choose to interact if I wish. I am the owner of me.
Please prove me wrong, what is better and why.
Make me change my mind without force/imposing you authority/initiating violent aggression towards a peaceful person who does not harm anyone.
How will you impose your authority on me to stop me from trading or keeping my creation and stay delusional about being an anarchist?
And ALWAYS, when they run out of their very weak argument, they just say I'm not an anarchist and "beliebers will belieb" like @freebornangel for example... but fail to say in what exactly.
Yes, I do believe in my personal freedom vs. mob rule. I do believe that as an anarchist I choose the authority I want.
By all logic, there cannot be any other freedom and I believe in freedom.
So they start with imposing their authority on what "no rulers" is... because they chose the authority of Bakunin etc. and I have not... how is this anarchy, if someone chooses the authority for you?
They are just not capable of recognizing their limitations, therefore cannot raise above them. This is how they fail to learn and this is why they are not appreciated by the society... as they have no useful skills.
And as each dumb person, they think they are better than others. Superior morals, intelligence... more awake, spiritual, enlightened... and they spin in their ego-loops... ego-pseudo-spirituality.
So they want to fix everyone, because they fail to fix themselves.
It is a kind of a mix of ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, bigotry, resentfulness... and just total lack of knowledge of anything really.
They really think that because you cannot trust an individual to be free to choose what to do, we need to give the power over our lives to other individuals, who ganged up in a mob. How is this any different from what we have today?
Just much worse, because free trade, even while oppressed by their ideology, managed to create so much. Reduced poverty in half just in 8 years 2004-2012.
They fail to recognize that any change can only be done on individual level. When it is multiplied by more individuals, paradigm shifts itself.
I usually add this:
Do you think I should be free to exchange what I create, value and support people who are useful to me, negotiate my value based on how useful my skills are to others and should helping others be voluntary?
If you do not, you are imposing your rule over me and you are not an anarchist, but a violent aggressor.
Here is my reply to one of them this morning:
Do you think someone calling voluntsryists rapists should do the learning first? "Anarchy" means "no rulers". nothing less, nothing more.
If someone says it is something else, they are already imposing their authority I do not recognize.
I can trade and own my time, which is my capital and still not believe in imposed authority.
If an AnCom says I cannot, they impose authority.
I do not impose authority when I homestead.
What I created is my property and I have the right to defend it from thieves.
It is defense not imposing authority. I can share, but voluntarily, not through imposed authority, which in not anarchy.
Communism is not anarchy. You cannot be the ideology based on total control of your life by others, which is an imposed authority and be an anarchist at the same time.
Only freedom of each individual can work with "no rulers". only Voluntaryism is anarchy.
Just because some retards were dumb enough to make a mistake long ago, it doesn't mean we should not learn.
AnCom is an oxymoron of delusional, emotionally retarded children who need to catch up 200 years of human knowledge.
They are free to fuck off and live tribal life until they become resentful of successful communities and want to attack them. Thieves should extinct. They will slaughter themselves or they should be taken care of with real compassion by healthy people.
Make a list of achievements of AnComs... there is just one: death.
The list for free market starts with this device, internet they use, FB and reducing poverty by half; 4billion people suffer less in just 8 years from 2004-2012. Singapore and Hong Kong became most advanced places on Earth in few decades from fishing villages. US became the richest country in the world... and then socialism destroyed it. Fuck their delusion. Facts do not care about it. AnCom is the dumbest idea... right next to gender.
Here is one from yesterday... and just as usual, they run away, have nothing to defend their idea with, but still choose to stay in their cult and say I'm a "belieber".
Yes, I do believe in logic. Sorry to disappoint you.
And they ride off on the same "superior morality" high horse, they rode in... ubermench I guess :D
If not freedom to own what you created that did not exist, then what freedom?
if not freedom to control and trade what you make, then what freedom?
if not the freedom to be the owner of you labor, then what freedom?
if not freedom to value and support people who create things you need, then what freedom?
if not freedom to negotiate the value of my skills, then what freedom?
if not freedom to value things you value, then what freedom?
the mob rule? the gang-rapers deciding about my life? and how exactly will you impose your authority to rule over me and still be delusional you are an anarchist?
how about we vote to burn you alive because we are cold?
let's take away your stuff, take a shit in your living room and eat you... because you and the ground you built on are community property.
I could go on forever... they cannot go past "I don't even have the skill of addressing your argument".
So the question I guess should be not who is or isn't an anarchist, but who as a free individual can defend their ideology and who cannot and instead wants to impose their authority on others.
Who cannot defend their ideas from simple scrutiny of logic and stubbornly decides to uphold it anyway and why should anyone appreciate people like that?
Straight from the horse's mouth:
I believe that every interaction between humans should be voluntary. I want for each individual to be the only controller of their lives and their property.
I am an individual. I want to create stuff for myself and others. I want to be rewarded according to how my time is useful to others. My life is mine. I own myself. What I create is extension of me. My time is my currency. I can exchange it or keep it. It is my capital. I do not believe in imposed authority.
Labels that fit to my individual choices make me an anarchist, a capitalist, a voluntaryist, but most of all, I AM AN INDIVIDUAL, who does not judge your value by the status you achieved in an imposed, imaginary collective. No matter who you are; if you respect others, respect me, I will always respect you.
I know I am the only owner of my life, my time, my capital.
This is what I want. It is the best for me. I don't care what the collective wants me to do. I choose to interact if I wish. I am the owner of me.
I do not want to harm others in ANY way.
Please do not impose your rule on me.
Tread on me or others and I will will feel morally obligated to stop you.
PEACE AND LOVE IN ANARCHY
If you are interested in off-grid living, homesteading, medicinal plants and alternative lifestyle, check out my other blogs @lostambores and @smokeymcpot
Capitalism... bad word. Free Market... much better. @ironshield
I own my life. My time is my capital. What I create with it, is the extension of me. I decide what to do with it. I am a capitalist. God is considered a bad word, because it implies a sociopathic, cosmic retard, but if you use "nature" it is OK. You can say "higher intelligence" or "protoconsciousness" or "intelligence that unfolds the universe".
I really do not care about dogmas, nor taboos... if a word triggers negative emotions, it is a sign I need to work on it because someone probably programmed some indoctrination into my critical thinking.
But I agree "capitalism" has been high-jacked and twisted, by socialist rulers
what about situations where you don't think you are harming others but they think you are? without a third party and/or good dispute resolution skills on the part of both parties you would have more conflicts that would be resolved by violence.
extortion, theft and terror are bad. let's not build on it, let's build on voluntary interaction.
here are 3 vids that could solve this, but only if you would like it like this. how would you like conflicts to be resolved? join people who share your views and you could thrive in respect for each other through consensus.
political threats of the worst people on the planet are not helping anyone. they are and always have been the biggest threat to humanity. would you start murdering, raping and stealing without the threat of cage or death by people in costumes of higher morality and intelligence?
I would not. These people probably would and this is why they project it on the whole humanity. If people really believe that they need to ask slave owners how to live a moral life, we do not deserve to survive as a specie.
I'm having trouble understanding.
what monopoly? you can choose any of the arbitrary that has the best reviews. nobody has any monopoly. you can defend yourself or hire an agency offering this service... also the one you like, that has the best reviews.
would you? or is this sarcasm? what would stop you? yours truly, who is not a sociopath for example ;)
I agree with the IQ level required. You have to be just right kind of dumb to be programmable to do this job
If we had no police and instead had to hire private protection agencies would you hire one with a reputation for weakness or one that would strike fear into the hearts of your enemies?
If we had no central government to enforce antitrust laws how would you prevent all the alternative protection agencies from forming a monopoly?
Why would they bother to compete with one another instead of consolidating?
You seem to be relying on everyone having what Nietzsche would call a "slave mentality".
The courts have also affirmed the legality of barring those deemed to intelligent from law enforcement.
Yoo, I like this. up and at em cap.
There is not here. Here is not there.
Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 150+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 10
Ways you can help the @informationwar
Thanks for the shout out!
always there for you, when humanity needs a voice of reason. care to rebuttal? or as per usual you will pretend you have an argument, but you will keep it for yourself, because I'm a "belieber"? it seems very weird that you cannot defend your ideas, all you have is "beliebers gonna belieb", but somehow you think you are on some higher moral ground... and not in a sect... well... statists gonna state ;)
Lol, this is why i gave up on this conversation.
Too many facts getting made up on the fly.
and still can't point even one out of all these facts? Why do you choose to believe in the lies you are telling yourself? it is OK. I am wrong sometimes too. I know you invested a lot of belief and time in this attractive idea... if only it wasn't against humanity... as proven every single time. why do you ignore all human knowledge? when you state these things and show nothing to support it only proves you choose to be willfully ignorant and stubborn. I have everything to support my claims. you have literally nothing... as you keep proving. I'm still waiting for this first rational and coherent argument... after all this time you cannot present anything at all and still ride this high horse? how old are you? it does not help to convince anyone. convince me. I like to learn when I'm wrong. this is how I learned that communism is the most evil idea designed by ancient cult... I did go through this stage. I started learning about spirituslity and I understood we are all one... but it can be easily misunderstood who is "we". I was doing the same... I was upset no one understood... but it was me. you need to respect each path. but since you did not grow up to a discussion and keep stating some delusions you are hallucinating... how can anyone reason with you? you state your feelz like they were facts for everyone... each experience is unique. nobody sees the world as you do. I dont think you are a sociopath? you failed to answer one question out of many... you fail to present anything at all to support your claim... I mean... why not be an adult? why do you hate people for having more skills and being successful and valued more? why do you want to decide for others what they should value and live their lives like you tell them? it seems quite sociopathic but I think you are just confused. you want to be Stalin? the floor is yours. what did I make up? :) all the others who destroy your argument with logic also make up... logic? you can't reply to any of us? why? I don't need facts. I can just use simple questions to make you unable to answer without self contradicting. cognitive dissonance belongs in the previous stage of human evolution. continue waking up. it does not end. you just keep learning ;)
I know how you see communism. it is pretty and attractive. but you assume that this is the purpose of humanity to evolve equally in our needs. we will always be different no matter how evolved.
this is the point where I think you are getting confused. human experience will not be human if we all be wanting the same experience. there is a reason why everything has a different experience from fly, through a dog, retard to a genius. this is the beauty of it. do not assume everyone should be on the same path as yours. we would not be needed anymore. I mean consciousness we are as one experiences subjectively the reality through infinity of ways. if you try to be against this nature... it ends in tragedy... as all actions against nature, which we are a part of... are you catching my drift here? heaven for you could be hell for someone else. you do not get to decide. neither you nor any collective. it is about individual experience. only respecting each path which is as valid as yours. you can only defend yourself from anything that aggresses against your path. like I am doing now ;)
Ok, i may have confused what you have said with another conversation i was having.
It appears i am committed to this one now.
Lets find out where we are.
I will start.
First rule by force comes off the table.
Second, the workers keep working, but stop paying.
Third, life goes on.
If you would care to provide what you disagree with, please try to keep it short, when my answers start having too many convoluted quotes, i tend to check out.
So, if you like, why should the workers continue to play the slave role in wage slavery when they can simply refuse to play along in the bankster dystopia while continuing too do the work necessary to have consumer goods, for free?
"A political ideology is a set of principles aimed at establishing or maintaining a certain social system; it is a program of long-range action, with the principles serving to unify and integrate particular steps into a consistent course. It is only by means of principles that men can project the future and choose their actions accordingly.
Anti-ideology consists of the attempts to shrink men’s minds down to the range of the immediate moment, without regard to past or future, without context or memory — above all, without memory, so that contradictions cannot be detected, and errors or disasters can be blamed on the victims.
In anti-ideological practice, principles are used implicitly and are relied upon to disarm the opposition, but are never acknowledged, and are switched at will, when it suits the purpose of the moment. Whose purpose? The gang’s. Thus men’s moral criterion becomes, not “my view of the good — or of the right — or of the truth,” but “my gang, right or wrong.”"
Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 222