There’s another interpretation of that. The first person I ever heard express any Libertarian ideas was my brother. He has never held a job more strenuous than a paper route and lived with our mother until her death. He inherited the house and, if he’s frugal, enough money to not starve for the rest of his life.
I wonder how much Libertarianism appeals to people as a way to not take responsibility for their current situation in life. He may believe that he’d be living a fabulous life if only our bloated, stifling, and unfair government wasn’t holding him back. But that doesn’t make it true.
She was absolutely, vehemently anti-anarchist. The end of Atlas Shrugged describes a society in which the bureaucratic government collapsed, and a new society was poised to begin rebuilding. This has nothing to do with anarchy.
Our young Libertarian friend did not specifically mention getting rid of the EPA, but many Conservatives want to get rid of it.
I’m old. I grew up in the '60s and '70s. I was too young to take notice of the Cuyahoga River catching fire in 1969 – hey there were Apollo missions to watch! – but I do remember flying over L.A. when the smog was so thick you could barely see the ground from 10,000 feet. I remember smog thick enough that you couldn’t see the mountains, and I notice this on TV shows I used to watch when I was a kid (Dragnet, Adam-12, Emergency!). I remember the ‘ecology movement’, and the pictures of festering pools of toxicity. I remember watching The Rise And Fall Of The Great Lakes in elementary school, and the brown froth that surprised our time-traveling voyageur.
I guessing rEVOLution is in his 20s, since he mentioned college. In his world, the level of pollution that there was when I was a child never existed. To him – or at least people of his strain who rail against the EPA – the agency just makes stupid rules that get in the way of making money. But I have experienced the changes that have taken place since the agency was established in 1970. Say what you will about Nixon and the Republican Party, but give them credit for the EPA.
This country is better for the EPA than it would be without it. And the same with the other agencies that were specifically mentioned.
:rolleyes: No-one’s screaming here. Mischaracterizing my post isn’t going to advance your counter-argument (not that you made one). Yes, they exist, but they’re not anarchists. Like I said, no-one who advocates capitalism is.
Just because you claim it doesn’t make it so. They advocate the destruction of all government; thus, they’re anarchists. Rolling your eyes doesn’t change that.
That’s not what anarchism is. That might be what anarchism advocates, but that’s not the sum of anarchism, sorry. Advocating a stateless society (which, actually, anarcho-capitalists really don’t - for how can you have capitalism without State support? Please cite for me the anarcho-capitalists who advocate the destructive removal of all government) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist. Anarchism is a movement of the Left, and it remains so, despite all attempts to co-opt it by Libertarians. Any right-anarchism is a lie.
The rolleyes was at your deliberate mischaracterization of my tone as “screaming”, not your ill-informed mischaracterization of anarchism. Ad hominem is no argument, like I said.
Then you’re demanding that everyone not only automatically know your idiosyncratic definition of a common term, but hew to it unquestioningly, which incidentally means that you don’t have to honestly refute anyone who disagrees with you on the subject: You can merely claim they’re misusing the key word and so their argument is invalid.
That is dishonest.
Further:
Unless you’re an anarcho-capitalist, you cannot possibly know what they believe in their heart of hearts. They do advocate the abolition of all government and a stateless society, and that’s all you can honestly say unless you’re one of them.
There’s nothing idiosyncratic about it - “Anarchism” is a term of art and is best defined by those who, you know, actually identify as anarchists, and by how they have for centuries.
All it takes is a search on “Anarchism and capitalism” and “Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism” in to refute the ridiculous false notion that this is something I’ve personally constructed, as an argument shut-down no less. The question of whether anarcho-capitalists are really anarchists has been discussed in the anarchist community for decades. There’s still a little debate (mostly sustained by the anarcho-capitalists themselves and their “individual anarchist” fellow-travellers), but the general feeling in the anarchist mainstream is no, they’re a redwash.
Conveying to the seemingly politically-ignorant an understanding of what members of a movement actually think, is not anywhere near the same solar system as “dishonest”, and certainly not as dishonest as ad hominem comments on your debate opponent’s tone.
I don’t have to - I can go by what they’ve publicly said, it’s damning enough.
I can also honestly say they equally strongly believe in capitalism (it’s in their name, for fuck’s sake) and that’s all I’ve referenced. No mind-reading needed.
And this is where your argument breaks down: There is legitimate debate on this issue which you refuse to take seriously for political reasons. Therefore, acting as if it is unequivocally wrong to refer to anarcho-capitalists as anarchists is dishonest. It isn’t unequivocally wrong, it is conditionally wrong, contingent on your political stripe.
The only people continuing the debate are the anarcho-capitalists. For left-anarchists, the debate was settled ages ago. I take their claims of being anarchists no more seriously than the claims of Scientology to be a legitimate religion.
No, it’s not dishonest in the least to say this is a settled issue for actual anarchists - it’s kind of like how global warming is a settled issue despite the vocal loony deniers. Actually, a lot like that, given the political spectra of both outside groups strongly overlap there.
And the only stripe that counts is the solid black one. Like I said, it’s anarchists who should get to decide whether other groupings actually share their ideology.
It’d be like if Methodists decided they’d actually like to be known as Catholics, because after all, they believe in Jesus and isn’t that the only thing that matters? Pope? What Pope? That doesn’t count!
Well, anarchists count anticapitalism the way Catholics count the Pope. It matters.
MrDibble, you continue to be unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between factual and political correctness: It is factually correct that, according to the relevant definition of anarchy which most people use, anarcho-capitalists are anarchists. It is, however, politically incorrect to call anarcho-capitalists anarchists according to anarcho-syndicalist thought, which you subscribe to.
Words mean what they majority says unless there’s a context which redefines them. Anarcho-syndicalists, therefore, don’t have a monopoly on the word ‘anarchist’ any more than the GOP has a monopoly on the term ‘republican’; in Iowa, saying you’re a republican means something vastly different than saying you’re a republican in Queensland, just like how saying you’re an anarchist in a Noam Chomsky web forum means something different from saying you’re an anarchist in a Ron Paul or Milton Friedman web forum.
So your high-handed attitude is factually incorrect and linguistically unfounded.
