That's right, I'm an Anarchist.
I believe in free markets, voluntaryism, capitalism (real capitalism, not corporatism), I believe in treating people equally and I believe there is never a a good excuse to use violence, fraud, coercion or force, except in self defense.
I also believe that there is no way in hell I'm going to see what I would consider an ideal government (or lack thereof) in my lifetime. Not unless someone like Ron Paul get's elected for president, of course.
Simply put: Too many fear the idea of anarchy. There is way too much uncertainty. Too many people are used to government being there. Too many believe that even bad government is better than no government or too little government.
The United States started out as a great experiment. The government was small enough and the checks were in place. They set up what they believed was the best kind of government, a limited government. We all see how that turned out. Somehow that limited government isn't so limited anymore. The government we have now is the government they were trying to prevent.
I believe that just as government has taken power inch by inch, slowly eroding liberty, that the best way to gain it back is by slowly reversing the process, inch by inch. Ron Paul would be a good kick start. I know some think that the government he advocates is very close to perfect, but I think of it as just better than what we have, and a start in the right direction.
The right direction of course being the direction that leads us towards true liberty and anarchy. He is an Austrian economist, of course. Which means he would do things like ending the federal reserve, bringing us sound free market competing currencies, eliminating the minimum wage, ending senseless wars, and getting the government to stop obsessively regulating small businesses. I like the idea of having more money, since, you know, freedom isn't free.
I really do think that if we had someone like Ron Paul in office it would pave the way for someone who likes governing even less to come in afterwards, and then again even less after them and so on, until we eventually have an ideal society in which an individual can live.
So I'll vote for Ron Paul, or any other presidential candidate who understand Austrian free market economics. If Ron Paul doesn't get on the ticket I may vote for Gary Johnson, but last I heard he doesn't understand Austrian economics at all. Which is a real shame.
That's the way I see it.
 |
| There's that symbol again. |
I also believe that there is no way in hell I'm going to see what I would consider an ideal government (or lack thereof) in my lifetime. Not unless someone like Ron Paul get's elected for president, of course.
Simply put: Too many fear the idea of anarchy. There is way too much uncertainty. Too many people are used to government being there. Too many believe that even bad government is better than no government or too little government.
The United States started out as a great experiment. The government was small enough and the checks were in place. They set up what they believed was the best kind of government, a limited government. We all see how that turned out. Somehow that limited government isn't so limited anymore. The government we have now is the government they were trying to prevent.
I believe that just as government has taken power inch by inch, slowly eroding liberty, that the best way to gain it back is by slowly reversing the process, inch by inch. Ron Paul would be a good kick start. I know some think that the government he advocates is very close to perfect, but I think of it as just better than what we have, and a start in the right direction.
 |
| This is one of my favorite Ron Paul pics. |
I really do think that if we had someone like Ron Paul in office it would pave the way for someone who likes governing even less to come in afterwards, and then again even less after them and so on, until we eventually have an ideal society in which an individual can live.
So I'll vote for Ron Paul, or any other presidential candidate who understand Austrian free market economics. If Ron Paul doesn't get on the ticket I may vote for Gary Johnson, but last I heard he doesn't understand Austrian economics at all. Which is a real shame.
That's the way I see it.
You keep calling yourself an anarchist, but you support the oppression of the working class by the parasitical capitalist class.
ReplyDeleteYou can be a capitalist or an anarchist, but not both. Claiming to be an anarchist while holding to capitalist dogma reveals a critical lack of historical and theoretical knowledge on the subject.
I'm happy to say that there is a cure for your ignorance, Mr. Anonymous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalism_and_Austrian_economics
DeleteBy checking out the information at that link and exploring beyond you can begin a whole new journey into the world of Austrian economics. Enjoy, and if you have any questions feel free to ask! I may not be one of the many experts in the field, but I am studied, and I know where to find answers if I don't have them myself.
A capitalist calling him/herself an anarchist calling me ignorant? Well, that's certainly rich.
DeleteAre we playing the link game?
Fair enough, here are some links from me to you in that case.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
(Specifically the part about "anarcho"-capitalism and anarchism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
(Since wikipedia seems to be something you like to point to, I'll point you to wikipedia as well)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
(First person to call himself anarchist (a socialist))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque
(First person to call himself libertarian (an anarcho-communist))
Also, you realize of course that "anarcho"-capitalism is a term built on a critical lack of historical and theoretical knowledge on what makes someone an anarchist, right? In the words of one of your own messiahs:
"Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."
- Murray N. Rothbard
Not that it really has any bearing. This is just another laissez-faire capitalist blog shouting into nothingness. Sociopathic individualism of your kind can't build mass movements, so it is only really "dangerous" in the sense that self-entitled privileged individuals are "dangerous".
In any case, once you wake up to the failure of capitalism to address the issue of oppression (perhaps once you try being oppressed for a moment instead of merely feeling oppressed due to your inability to sufficiently oppress others), read some Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Makhno, Durutti, Chomsky or any other of the many, many different ACTUAL anarchist writers out there (nearly all of them, but not quite ALL of them, socialists and communists too).
The black and red flags will be waiting for you, comrade.
I'm sorry to see that Mr. Anonymous put so much effort into trolling this blog, when it is just "shouting into nothingness". Unfortunately, it was truly a waste. You see, there are a lot of different ways to look at anarchism. I don't agree that all anarchists are socialists, or communists. I happen to be an individualist, if that hasn't been made clear yet. I only subscribe to anarchism so much that I don't believe we should have a ruling hierarchy. Is it so bad that I don't believe in the use of force for wealth distribution? Mr. Anonymous sure thinks so.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you reading this, I would like to point out that I have full power over what comments are posted to this blog, and I decided to let these through to show you what I deal with every day.