All Hail American Victory!

[Phaedrus]

eek

So we'll add the basics of capitalism and the Libertarian platform to the increasing number of topics with which you are unacquainted?

Geez, for years the only thing that has kept the British from being genocide cadidates in my view were my grandmother and the fact that generally speaking even the most puerile, foppish, unpleasant Brits were usually very well-versed in a broad number of topics. Dear old gran's dead now, and here you are farking up the other thing.

JR

I have heard of "Deadwood" but I do not watch much TV so cannot say.

I will say that the so-called "Wild West" was a much more free and peaceful place than it has been portrayed by Hollywood over the years. And let's face it, Hollywood is the primary source of "information" on the pre-20th century American West for most people.


Phaedrus

 

[JinnRikki]

I have heard of "Deadwood" but I do not watch much TV so cannot say.

I will say that the so-called "Wild West" was a much more free and peaceful place than it has been portrayed by Hollywood over the years. And let's face it, Hollywood is the primary source of "information" on the pre-20th century American West for most people.


Phaedrus

I watch very little TV myself these days but do try and watch HBO series such as Deadwood and the Sopranos, they are clearly a cut above the run of the mill TV fare.
As far pre-20th century American West history I know that much of the crap we've been fed glazed over some very disturbing facts. The virtual destruction of a race of people and the raping of their land and resources under the auspices of capitalism wasn't found in the text books of my school.

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by JR:

The virtual destruction of a race of people and the raping of their land and resources under the auspices of capitalism wasn't found in the text books of my school.

Can you give me an example of this?

(Odds it has nothing to do with advancement of capitalism are pretty steep you know ... vs. government self-worship and religious fruitbats, which are almost exclusively destructive forces in the history of American exploration, some of whom may have coincidentally made money in the process ...)


Phaedrus

 

[xpanda]

Apparently anarcho-capitalists oppose coercion, so goodness knows how they can make a profit. Yet another oxymoron in there...
I presume they ignore the fact that poverty is a form of coercive violence that can be used to gather a profitable workforce.

I wonder if there has been a time in history when 'poverty' was not aided by a coercive force, ie the Church, or any form of central authority. Could slavery, for example, exist if there were no threat of force en masse by a ruling elite?

Anarcho-capitalism, so far as I have been able to discern, provides the best opportunity for true individual achievement as it relies entirely on the absence of a central authority. The question is, how long would it take for a new central authority to emerge? After all, when humans began to roam, none existed. We've seen several forms since then.

 

[eek.]

The bushmen in Southern Africa have it figured out.

Their customs are geared to exclude anything that causes
personal antagonism. There is, therefore, no ownership of
property.

http://www.encounter.co.za/article/90.html

http://www.kalahari-san.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

As soon as you have ownership, that's when your problems start.

There's always one monkey that wants all the bananas on the tree.
And the really smart monkeys get the other sucker monkeys to collect bananas for them.

 

[eek.]

It could be argued that the Bushmen (and like minded individuals) are the most advanced humans in the world.

They recognised at an early stage that control and ownership of resources/people (whatever) are the core drivers of conflict, and they consciously decided to reject this approach.
That is something no animal could ever do because it requires cognitive reasoning.

So while ants fight over trees with sweet sap, monkey troops fight over banana trees and the West wages war over various property/resources, no such problems exist in Bushman society.

The downside is while they have consciously adopted a no-conflict system the conflict/ownership system used by the lower order monkeys of the Western world (as well as by all other inferior creatures) has given them an unstoppable technical and military superiority that will squish the Bushmen.


The downside for the West with its ownership/control system is eternal never ending conflict.

 

[Phaedrus]

You've brought up the Bushmen thing before, but as typical you mix in specious reasoning to arrive at an idiotic conclusion.

The Bushmen are practicing a basic form of communism, which can work on a small scale. Even uber-capitalists (that's what my ex-wife calls me, which I find very flattering, although it isn't meant in such a manner) acknowledge this.

But they are not the "most advanced humans in the world" for the precise reason that their social structure breaks down if you attempt to impose it on a complex society, where allocation of resources becomes a critical concern. They are the most primitive, and non-Bushmen who argue the opposite are just poorly informed (or chronically stupid.)

Ants and monkeys and so forth are not exemplary of any aspect of capitalism. They fight over their trees because without the trees they will die.

Total lack of understanding of capitalism, communism, history, Bushmen, ants, monkeys, bananas etc. Absent the obviously false example of ants and monkeys, can you demonstrate how private property inevitably leads to conflict?


Phaedrus

 

[JinnRikki]

history of American exploration

Phaedrus

When, in your mind, does exploration turn into exploitation?
The pioneers went west young man in search of the American Dream, that dream is based on capitalism isn't it?
The Native Americans had lived for quite sometime sans the benefits of capitalism. They didn't understand the white mans idea of what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine. Unfortunately for the red man the whites had Jeebus on their side (and all those fire sticks).
Lewis and Clark were explorers. The rest were exploiters.

 

[eek.]

can you demonstrate how private property inevitably leads to conflict?

What? You want me to find a link where old dude A kills old dude B over a disagreement about a hedge???
Or are you after a list of private security firms who protect property?
Or a list of police forces among whose primary functions are property protection?
Or would you like a selection of pictures of modern assault rifles that are "great for home and property defence purposes"
Or perhaps a guard dog website?
Or a burglar alarm company?
Or a security fence website?
Or a security camera company?

Not to mention the entire fuxxing judiciary, probation service and prison system.

The conflict generated by private ownership alone has spawned a massive industry to maintain it.

jeez
...and you call me specious...


Ownership, private or otherwise, is one of the primary foundationstones of conflict in society.
Whether you like that or not is irrelevant.


And we haven't even touched colonialism or countries...

 

[eek.]

Ants and monkeys and so forth are not exemplary of any aspect
of capitalism. They fight over their trees because without the trees they
will die.

You must be tired from the new rugrat and the house stuff P, because
you have utterly missed the point of the post.

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by JinnRikki:

When, in your mind, does exploration turn into exploitation?

What, in your mind, does that have to do with my question?

The pioneers went west young man in search of the American Dream, that dream is based on capitalism isn't it?

Not now, and certainly not way back when. True, many explorers were among the earliest manifestations of the entreprenuerial spirit that made America the greatest, strongest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world, but you have to take into account the overall cultural ignorance of the time. (Note that this does not excuse anything in particular, but a study of history is useless without studying the often paradoxical issues of cultural norms through history. Consider the [trite] example that some of the greatest champions of freedom in history owned slaves.)

The Native Americans had lived for quite sometime sans the benefits of capitalism. They didn't understand the white mans idea of what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine. Unfortunately for the red man the whites had Jeebus on their side (and all those fire sticks).

And what does Jesus have to do with capitalism? The original hippy was a capitalist exploiter extraordinaire eighteen centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution?

The settlers had a few other things on their side, like diseases to which the natives had no immunity. Smallpox wiped out an estimated 95% of the Mandan tribe in one winter. Capitalism didn't do that either.

Lewis and Clark were explorers. The rest were exploiters.

Why those two, and no others? Because they were federal employees?


Phaedrus

 

[xpanda]

For people who bet offshore - a 'not quite legal' enterprise for most of us - and who spend their time on a non-gov't-regulation-inspired watchdog website, I am amazed at how offended by capitalism this group is. Anyone reading this is wallowing in it right now.

I've been slowly wrapping my head around the notion of anarcho-capitalism (I needed first to distinguish it from corporatism) since arriving here and reading P's commentary ... gotta say, I'm damn near converted.

 

[RobFunk]

I made believers of this barbaric idealolgy look like a fool today, and I had a lot of fun doing it.

 

[xpanda]

I made believers of this barbaric idealolgy look like a fool today, and I had a lot of fun doing it.

Well, when you consider that the greatest massacres in human history were at the hands of a central authority and governing power - the Holocaust, the Crusades, 60 years of non-stop war since WWII, etc. - it's hard to imagine individuals, with private interests to concern themselves with, engaging in anything of the sort. Only those with an allegiance to a mythical ideal such as the nation-state or Church would consider a career in which they wilfully put themselves on death's door for very little money, when none of their direct interests are at stake. Face it, in today's design, militaries protect the wealthy, not the average folks. Certainly it isn't sold that way tho. If Germany had been capitalist and not actually a country, Hitler would never have been able to organise his final solution. Not a chance.

Given the above examples of barbarism in recent human history, I can't see how anarcho-capitalism could be worse.

First and foremost, humans need to end war. The best way to do this is to abolish central power.

 

[RobFunk]

Short sighted. Very Ambiguous thinking, X.

Anything looks good when you put it next to the worst examples in history.


Government is flawed, but not the concept there of.

You are just giving up. And the other guy is just finding an eloquent way to say F-U to everyone.

 

[xpanda]

There's not been a day in my life when there wasn't a war. And it's not John Smith with the laundromat gunning down Abdul Alakan of the restaurant. It's gov't to gov't and the citizens are the ones doing the dying. For what? I mean, who really gains here?

For as much as the right on this board support Bush in Iraq, had Bush not done so, none of them would have gone all vigilante-like and hunted down Saddam himself. It's not in his interests to do so. But with a gov't ...

Government isn't just flawed. It's fatally flawed. How do you ignore those examples? They're horrifying. And they're the whole point; none of them should have happened. Something like it could happen again.

Maybe I just have more faith in everyday individuals. I think generally speaking, people want to get along. Life is just easier that way.

 

[xpanda]

I do love the irony of my avatar right now, though.

haha

 

[eek.]

But places without any central authority have always struggled X, like the Bushmen they get buried by more organised heirarchal societies via hostile takeovers.

More recently we have East Africa, where opportunity exists, there are billions in private cash sloshing about, and nothing particularly unique has occured.

As Rob pointed out, the fatal flaw in any system is people.
The advantage our system has is money, which is objective, unlike subjective humans and their 'systems'.

This objectivity works for both Governments and Companies/enterprises.

 

[xpanda]

But places without any central authority have always struggled X, like the Bushmen they get buried by more organised heirarchal societies via hostile takeovers.

Which is of course the inevitability that Phaedrus doesn't seem to mention -- central authority would no doubt re-surface in a new form. But wouldn't it be great if for awhile we were all left alone to go about our business as we see fit?

 

[RobFunk]

And that is the whole point of my arguement xpanda.

It takes one guy with a corrupt mind and a lot of chips to phuck every one over. It's pretty much happening in America right now, so you can see my distaste for it.

Smaller government and no government are close to the same damn thing.