(April 14, 2010 at 7:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you don't deny it, then why argue it? You quote extreme socialism back at us, why is that? I'm undecided on cheaper labour from abroad. Exploitation is more the point where capitalism is concerned. And I don't care how you want to wrap it up, it's all greed to me.I'm not arguing it...you are. This thread was about anarcho-capitalism in a Libertarian society; you went off on a tangent about slavery, to which I responded by telling you it was a pathetic argument (post #28). You clarified your point again, and I re-iterated why it was a stupid argument (post #33). You then change your argument by saying that businesses try to get the cheapest labour possible, a point on which I agreed and you knew I agreed on since we've discussed it before. I further re-iterated why bringing slavery into the discussion was ridiculous when the topic is anarcho-capitalist Libertarianism (post #37). Are we following the same conversation?
(April 14, 2010 at 7:36 pm)Saerules Wrote: Anarcho ≠ anarchy?The 'anarcho' in anarcho-capitalism refers to anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy advocating the total elimination of the state in favour of a free market that controls everything through natural means. I happen to disagree with anarcho-capitalism and side with a personal brand of minarchism (where the courts, law-enforcement, and healthcare are provided by the state).
Quote:If it is anarchy, then there are no regulations in the entire system. There is no concern with social justice in libertarianism (as per my dictionary, seeIndeed, there would be no regulation in an anarchist society other than the natural regulation that grows out of society anyway. I've already said that I'm a minarchist, and I support minimal government regulation.Dictionary Wrote:The adherents of libertarianism believe that private morality is not the state's affair and that therefore activities such as drug use and prostitution, which arguably harm no one but the participants, should not be illegal. Libertarianism shares elements with anarchism, although it is generally associated more with the political right (chiefly in the U.S.). Unlike traditional liberalism, however, libertarianism lacks a concern with social justice.
Yes, I believe that private morality is not the state's affair. I think people should be allowed to do whatever they like with their own bodies, as long as they don't endanger others or infringe on the rights of others. As for not having a concern about social justice, a Libertarian would have no problems with the majority of liberties espoused by social justice. In fact a Libertarian takes these liberties as natural rights. We hold that everyone has and should have an even playing field in terms of social issues; everyone is born as an equal human, but under different circumstances. Women should no more be treated as slaves than black people, but this doesn't mean that they are guaranteed a position at a company (Libertarians oppose affirmative action since it is discriminatory given the assumption of natural rights).
Quote:Are you, or are you not, using anarcho to mean anarchy? Are you, or are you not, using libertarianism to mean "an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."? It appears that you are arguing simply for the abolishment of regulations... but then you have told us that laws (which are regulations, and in our countries (US, UK) socially derived) supersede business actions... and you simply can't have them both at once (no regulations and laws). Would you like to explain how you figure it is possible to have them both at once?I'm arguing for a free market, in other words, the abolishment of regulations on the market. This has nothing to do with social laws that protect people from each other. An example of a social law is a law criminalizing murder (since it violates the right to life, a natural right). Social laws are separate from economic laws, but they can coincide. For instance, if a company were to hire someone to kill another, the company (or more importantly, the people behind the company and the order) would be brought to trial under the social law. There would be, however, no regulation of the market in terms of economic laws. Business would pay no tax, would be able to trade freely, would be able to hire freely, etc.
Quote:I hope we all understand what you mean by capitalism... considering that we are constantly arguing socialism vs capitalism of late.I hope so, but the amount of veering off-topic and general misinterpretation of my stance leads me to believe otherwise.
