(July 30, 2016 at 2:04 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Exactly. We call the enforcing arm "government".

...or vigilantes. Is it safe to assume proponents of anarcho-capitalism prefer vigilantism to government?

They're not exactly marketing this well - and I used to subscribe to similar ideals years ago. They aren't workable -or- desirable IMO.

(July 30, 2016 at 3:25 am)paulpablo Wrote: With regards to people forming their own organisations to take control of roads who have appointed leaders in guessing these would be against the laws in an anarchist capitalist society.

Laws?

Clearly, I need to educate myself better on capitalist anarchy. Who's making these laws? Because it sounds like a government to me.

(July 30, 2016 at 3:36 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(July 30, 2016 at 2:58 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: And you explained in a concise nut shell why anarcho-whatever is all complete nonsense.

Again, not that I don't see flaws in anarchist capitalism, but I think you could probably describe most political systems on paper and literally point out thousands of flaws.

A lot of people would say democracy is a good idea, but then if you look at the situation with the brexit.
Lots of people were saying democracy is a good idea but oh shit, the people voted for the wrong option!
And it is a fact for better or for worse that you are letting millions of illogical, indoctrinated, uneducated people vote for an important decision.

I'm not saying I'm against democracy or for anarchist capitalism just to clarify.
I don't believe that there really is a perfect government system.

For sure.  The problem is that models of government are all idealistic to some degree, and people on the ground vary very much in their world views.

And, not to put to fine a point on it, I think the American party primaries show that a huge percentage of people, under ANY system, are fucking morons.

(July 30, 2016 at 9:00 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 30, 2016 at 3:25 am)paulpablo Wrote: With regards to people forming their own organisations to take control of roads who have appointed leaders in guessing these would be against the laws in an anarchist capitalist society.

Laws?

Clearly, I need to educate myself better on capitalist anarchy. Who's making these laws? Because it sounds like a government to me.

Yeh me too, I don't know all the ins and outs of it.

Stefan molyneux videos are the best to watch on the subject.

(July 30, 2016 at 12:47 pm)abaris Wrote:

(July 30, 2016 at 12:34 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Except the warlords would be business men and the religious fanatics....well they would still be the same.

You have to take it one step further. Such as asking, who runs the army? Is it a competitive branch too? So what would be the marching orders? Most likely on the lines of Al Capone, to take out the competition. Interventionalism would be raised to a whole new level. Corporation A might be interested in the resources of a certain place and since they're commanding at least a portion of the army, what would prevent them from simply taking them by force?

Same goes for police, obviously. Competing companies owning competing police forces would end up in brawls, in the best of cases and most likely in bloodshed.

We're talking about the so called Anarcho Capitalist model this guy feels like promoting, after all. That means, absence of any stately order and all in the hands of business.

The other thing is that left wing versions of Anarcho-whatever would likely end up the same way. I sometimes wonder how in the world Anarchy can be divided into more then one model. It's not like an absence of laws and governments would end up working differently because someone labeled it differently. All of them rely on people behaving in an unrealistic manner.

(July 31, 2016 at 10:52 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: The other thing is that left wing versions of Anarcho-whatever would likely end up the same way.

Course they would. Anarchy, like any other social model, builds on the idea of an ideal humanity. The ideal changes from idea to idea, but they all need an ideal to function. Which, of course, will never happen.

(July 23, 2016 at 9:49 pm)Bob Kelso Wrote: I've always thought of myself as liberal leaning, and perhaps that's still true for hardcore right-wingers but recently I've found myself backing away from the liberal side of the arena. Even more recently, as the insane cries from the SJW crowd have grown louder and more prevalent, the backing away has become a forced sprint. I say forced because it's not as if many of my ideals have changed (I mean who doesn't change as they grow older) but that the left has rezoned them to center-right. 

Frankly I'm fine with it, the less association I have with mad third-wave feminists, whiny bitches looking for equality of outcome, and race baiting twats the better.

It's interesting because historically the left has been on the side of free speech. Nowadays the left is the champion of safe-spaces and calling everyone a racist and trying to censor people, I do feel like it pushes some people to the right. At some point the rest of us will stop caring about getting called a racist by other white people too.

(July 29, 2016 at 9:52 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 10:43 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Damn, who AREN'T we fucking these days?!

Me, I couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a fistfull of roofies.

Remember: the women take the roofies, not you. That should probably help. [emoji13]

I don't know what a roofie is.

But if it's something sexually depraved that involves a hot woman and my rooster, count me in.

(August 1, 2016 at 9:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(July 29, 2016 at 9:52 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Me, I couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a fistfull of roofies.

Remember: the women take the roofies, not you. That should probably help. [emoji13]

So you're saying I may just not remember those times?

There's hope yet!