'S made up bullshiznit.
Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Bookchin, they're all vomiting in their graves. (Just like my avatar.)
Down with an-caps!
I defer to your obviously superior knowledge of anarchism. ;)
If you need to denounce an idea based solely where it is on the political spectrum, you don't have an argument against it. Its a giant ad populum argument.
Despite my awesome undead anarchist assassin avatar, I don't know much about anarchist theory, so if anyone knows more please speak up, but:
Anarcho-capitalism was thought up (finding it hard to find a neutral verb) by Murray Rothbard in like, I don't know, the sixties or something.
Wikipedia sez he "synthesized elements from the Austrian School of economics, classical liberalism, and 19th-century American individualist anarchists."
So, from what I'm picking up, anarcho-capitalism derives its "anarchism" from a small subset (19th-century American individualists) of a small subset (individualists) of the anarchist movement.
I have to confess that I don't know much about the Stirner wing of anarchism, but a quick, and I do stress quick, glance at the pages of Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner (whom I had never heard of, either) looks like they're pretty squarely on the broader (i.e., non-Marxist) left. Most strands of anarchism (dudes mentioned above and their followers, Black Bloc-types, anarcho-syndicalists, liberals with fits of delusion like Chomsky, etc.), though, are without a doubt "far left."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if you're denouncing an idea because of a misunderstanding of where it is on the political spectrum, that's even worse.
It is however, judging by recent history, quite possibly very effective in the general political discourse.
Meh. What goes around, comes around. In 2008 people were saying the Republican party was on life-support; now's it is the Democrat's turn. By 2018 or 2022, pundits will be pontificating about the impending doom of the Republican party again.
As long as it's all about the Benjamins, nothing will ever change. Nothing can ever change. Thanks, SCOTUS! :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
I agree with your assessment, but disagree in some respects.
The Democrats are a "big tent" coalition that really should tear apart at the seams, but doesn't. It's because their leadership is ironclad in standing unified and speaking with one voice. The various factions of the Democrat party stay with it because they know eventually a piece of meat will be thrown their way.
Think about it: How many times have you heard the phrases "Let me be clear" and "double-down" in the last six years? Too numerous to count. Even when they promise the moon and everyone in the room knows they can't deliver, they promise it that more strongly - AND NO ONE CALLS THEM OUT ON IT! It works every time. It is amazing how they play the political game. They outfox Republicans before the Republicans have changed out their PJs each day.
As for Republicans, one must remember that a large portion of the population who vote Republican are voting against Democrats. They are *not* Republican loyalists. That's why you have the shaky alliance of "big money", "evangelicals", "2nd Ammendment supporters", and other "conservative" causes. Heck, a good chunk of Republican office holders are Republican only because there isn't another, viable choice.
The true Republicans (e.g House leadership, soon-to-be Senate leadership) don't know how to play politics. They put the jerseys on, show up on the court, and the Globetrotters (Democrats) wear them out. I always laugh when a liberal gets upset at a Republican - even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. Trust me, any consternation a Republican causes a Democrat is a temporary thing.
The recent election probably scared Republicans more than it did the Democrats. The Republicans have the ball and they'll play defense again. When the Democrats have the ball, they play offense - no matter what.
One talk show host called the Congress that passed the Affordable Care Act the "Kamikaze Congress" and it was an apt description: "push, push, and when in doubt, push some more (but we never doubt because we're Democrats)." Victory, no matter the cost! It's awesome.
If the Republicans played the same way, we'd really have fun theater to watch. As it is now, well, we're suffering under the two-party system our Founding Fathers warned us about.
With the passing of the Seventeenth Ammendment, the two major political parties pretty much changed our government forever. The states have little true representation - only the parties are represented in Congress. Democrats and progressives have been systematically changing the discourse in the country towards their points of view for over 100 years. In effect, they wanted something, strove endlessly to achieve it, and are practically there. They are monolithic in their resolve to achieve and brush aside opposition. They have no shame, no mercy. They are the ultimate political predators. They are quite simply amazing to behold.
I meant slightly longer recent history and the decades long project to cast Democrats as radical liberals even as they shifted further to the right.But if you're denouncing an idea because of a misunderstanding of where it is on the political spectrum, that's even worse.
It is however, judging by recent history, quite possibly very effective in the general political discourse.
Meh. What goes around, comes around. In 2008 people were saying the Republican party was on life-support; now's it is the Democrat's turn. By 2018 or 2022, pundits will be pontificating about the impending doom of the Republican party again.
As long as it's all about the Benjamins, nothing will ever change. Nothing can ever change. Thanks, SCOTUS! :P
Oh...that. My bad. Obviously I thought you were referring to the 2014 mid-terms.
Most strands of anarchism (dudes mentioned above and their followers, Black Bloc-types, anarcho-syndicalists, liberals with fits of delusion like Chomsky, etc.), though, are without a doubt "far left."
I honestly didn't know that. I've always kinda thought that anarchism is the extreme version of Libertarianism...shrink the government until there is no government.
There was an amusing anecdote that I heard from an an-cap, though.
Apparently, Bastiat and Proudhon were both elected delegates to the National Assembly, or whatever it was, that resulted out of the 1848 revolution before the ascension to power of Napoleon II. Apparently, they sat next to each other in the Assembly and spent the long hours arguing vociferously with each other about everything under the sun. But when it came time to vote, they always voted the same.
[Looks out the window]
Oh, here's Mr. Comrade.
Vive le Galt!
...
To once again quote George Carlin.
The democrats are the party of no ideas, and the republicans are the party of bad ideas.
Both parties push trickle down economics, free trade, militarism, security/prison state, corporate welfare, deregulation, etc. On the issues that really matter*, they just play good-cop-bad-cop, and the result is that the rich have been getting richer, and the middle class and poor have been getting poorer for my entire life.
*Note: There are issues like gay rights and abortion where there are some differences, and I don't want to imply those are not important to a segment of the population, but in general it comes down to money/lobbying and not any kind of morality or belief system.
Most strands of anarchism (dudes mentioned above and their followers, Black Bloc-types, anarcho-syndicalists, liberals with fits of delusion like Chomsky, etc.), though, are without a doubt "far left."
I'd need more than your unsupported say-so on that, I'm afraid. Even your Wikipedia article describes Rothbard as closer to hard right than hard left. E.g.:
* To Rothbard "all socialism seemed to me monstrously coercive and abhorrent." That's not a left-wing sentiment.
* He instead embraced praxeology, the strictly a priori methodology of Ludwig von Mises. Okay, following a hard-right methodology.
* He vilified Adam Smith, calling him a "shameless plagiarist" who set economics off-track, ultimately leading to the rise of Marxism. Surely a left-wing economist would approve of Marxism.
etc., etc.
* Rothbard embraced "historical revisionism" as an antidote to what he perceived to be the dominant influence exerted by corrupt "court intellectuals" over mainstream historical narratives. Right, there's the nail in the coffin. He's an outright Fascist.
I mean, seriously, there's literally nothing in that article that suggests that Rothbard was anything other than somewhere-right-of-Mussolini.
* Rothbard embraced "historical revisionism" as an antidote to what he perceived to be the dominant influence exerted by corrupt "court intellectuals" over mainstream historical narratives. Right, there's the nail in the coffin. He's an outright Fascist.I mean, seriously, there's literally nothing in that article that suggests that Rothbard was anything other than somewhere-right-of-Mussolini.
I think the term "historical revisionism" isn't used the same as we generally use it now:
"In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history."
But everything controlled by private money (including police, military, etc.) was Mussolini's definition of fascism. I think he also advocated some kind of "Egoists acting out of fear of each others brute force" kind of whacko stuff.
EDIT: He seemed to have beliefs that were kind of all over the map by today's standards - supported torture and enslavement of criminals, was against military intervention, was against fractional reserve banking, supported the gold standard.
Oops! You are correct Orfamay. I guess the term itself isn't necessarily bad, but this guy is accused of being a holocaust denier.
I think the term "historical revisionism" isn't used the same as we generally use it now:
* Rothbard embraced "historical revisionism" as an antidote to what he perceived to be the dominant influence exerted by corrupt "court intellectuals" over mainstream historical narratives. Right, there's the nail in the coffin. He's an outright Fascist.I mean, seriously, there's literally nothing in that article that suggests that Rothbard was anything other than somewhere-right-of-Mussolini.
I think not. Here's the full quote:
Rothbard embraced "historical revisionism" as an antidote to what he perceived to be the dominant influence exerted by corrupt "court intellectuals" over mainstream historical narratives.[5](pp15, 62, 141)[101] Rothbard wrote that these mainstream intellectuals distorted the historical record in favor of "the state" in exchange for "power, prestige, and loot" from the state.[5][page needed] Rothbard characterized the revisionist task as "penetrating the fog of lies and deception of the State and its Court Intellectuals, and to present to the public the true history".[101] He was influenced by and a champion of Harry Elmer Barnes. Rothbard endorsed Barnes's revisionism on World War II, favorably citing his view that "the murder of Germans and Japanese was the overriding aim of World War II". In addition to broadly supporting his historical views, Rothbard promoted Barnes as an influence for future revisionists.[104]
Given that Barnes was explicitly a Holocaust denier, and that Rothbard is specifically championing Barnes' views of World War II, I think he's a "historical revisionist" in the standard sense of "anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying, apologist for Fascism."
I agree with your assessment, but disagree in some respects.
The Democrats are a "big tent" coalition that really should tear apart at the seams, but doesn't. It's because their leadership is ironclad in standing unified and speaking with one voice. The various factions of the Democrat party stay with it because they know eventually a piece of meat will be thrown their way.
Democrat.
Leadership.Ironclad.
Democrat?!?!? The party who's new animal will be the possum the second truth in advertising laws apply to political campaigns?
What is your support for this sentiment? Look at the voting record. Republicans will act in lock step: every. single. one of them. to block legislation. The democrats always have more than a few blue dogs voting the other way.
Think about it: How many times have you heard the phrases "Let me be clear" and "double-down" in the last six years? Too numerous to count.
I don't know how those phrases, which are overused by both sides, relate to your thesis.
Even when they promise the moon and everyone in the room knows they can't deliver, they promise it that more strongly - AND NO ONE CALLS THEM OUT ON IT!
Right. Just look at the promises to repeal obama care, put god back in schools, repeal obamacare, restore america to the mythical 1950s glory, repeal obama care, stop common core, squeeze the polar bears for oil, repeal obamacare and repeal obamacare.
Promising things you can't deliver is the definition of politician, not democrat.
It works every time. It is amazing how they play the political game. They outfox Republicans before the Republicans have changed out their PJs each day.
The democrats aren't better, they just settle for the lower DC on the bluff check. The republicans disparity between what they say they want and what they do is bigger, and trying to convince people that their policies are for the best are a lot harder.
As for Republicans, one must remember that a large portion of the population who vote Republican are voting against Democrats. They are *not* Republican loyalists. That's why you have the shaky alliance of "big money", "evangelicals", "2nd Ammendment supporters", and other "conservative" causes. Heck, a good chunk of Republican office holders are Republican only because there isn't another, viable choice.
Well, democrats used to have a left wing...
The true Republicans (e.g House leadership, soon-to-be Senate leadership) don't know how to play politics. They put the jerseys on, show up on the court, and the Globetrotters (Democrats) wear them out. I always laugh when a liberal gets upset at a Republican - even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. Trust me, any consternation a Republican causes a Democrat is a temporary thing.
I suppose the liberal bias of reality catches up with everyone eventually. I just wish it would happen by the faster process of reasonable examination of the evidence rather than people riding on massive misinformation campaigns being removed from the voter rolls by old age.
The recent election probably scared Republicans more than it did the Democrats. The Republicans have the ball and they'll play defense again. When the Democrats have the ball, they play offense - no matter what.
Like.. getting the 1996 republican healthcare plan in 2011?
One talk show host called the Congress that passed the Affordable Care Act the "Kamikaze Congress" and it was an apt description: "push, push, and when in doubt, push some more (but we never doubt because we're Democrats)." Victory, no matter the cost! It's awesome.
Its also wildly inaccurate. Republicans agreed to it: they stopped filibustering, and believe me, it was not because they suddenly questioned the wisdom of the philibuster. Obamacare is a compromise between single payer and the old system. It makes huge corporate profits for big insurance companies, and is a huge tax on the middle class that avoids a smaller tax on the upper class, which is how single payer would have been funded. It is a very republican plan, it barely taxes the rich at all.
If the Republicans played the same way, we'd really have fun theater to watch. As it is now, well, we're suffering under the two-party system our Founding Fathers warned us about.
Said founding fathers are the ones who made the party system the second washington said "Later!". Its the inevitable consequence of a winner take all system.
The only thing that was keeping local parties going was the inability to coordinate that many people accross such vast distances. The telegraph delt them a blow, the radio killed them, but television burried them and poured on the concrete.
With the passing of the Seventeenth Ammendment, the two major political parties pretty much changed our government forever. The states have little true representation
I don't see how that logic follows. If the senators are a direct appointee of a politician (and thus a member of the party), aren't they MORE in the hands of the political machine than the people if they can be appointed? Look what happened Rod Blagojevich had the opportunity to do just that. He put it on ebay. Having that happen every time is what you're talking about as opposed to an election by the people they're supposed to be representing.
Even then I'm really not weeping for the alleged rights of one level of government over the other. If you can show me where PEOPLE are being oppressed because of the 17th amendment I might care.
only the parties are represented in Congress. Democrats and progressives have been systematically changing the discourse in the country towards their points of view for over 100 years.
Yes. Because gosh darn it to heck its a shame the black people can vote.
And women. And you can't have an 11 year old working in a tannery. And your water can't have cholera in it. And we can send someone to the moon.All of these were, at one point, dangerously progressive ideas. How on earth with all the wonderful things that they've done (or horrible things we've stopped doing) did progressive become a perjorative?
In effect, they wanted something, strove endlessly to achieve it, and are practically there. They are monolithic in their resolve to achieve and brush aside opposition. They have no shame, no mercy. They are the ultimate political predators. They are quite simply amazing to behold.
Times change. Do I need to get off your lawn now? :)
Old men are repositories of failed ideas. Then they get replaced by someone that knows something slightly better. That this happens isn't due to any amazing work on the part of the democrats, that it happens so slowly is due to the amazing rhetoric of the republicans. They can completely deny reality by running on nothing but Grarg.
Just keep the government out of Social Security, Jeff. :P
I know you're being snarky here, but I have a thought (dangerous I know),
They've never been in Social Security. No politician at the federal level contributes to Social Security, they instead contribute to some sort of pension they draw from for life after leaving office, even if they were only elected for a single term in office. Force them to lose their pension and have it go into SS and I think you would find that SS would be the most solvent, strongest, and robust system in the Country. Force'em to use the ACA and watch the same thing happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I have to choose between Bush 3 or Clinton 2 next election I swear by all that good and holy that you will see Muad'Dib burn like a raging wall of apathy.
If I have to choose between Bush 3 or Clinton 2 next election I swear by all that good and holy that you will see Muad'Dib burn like a raging wall of apathy.
Frightening. Could be worse; they could pool all of that money and run together (in an insanely parallel universe)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Down with the ACA; let's go straight to single-payer. Say what you like about wait times...the simple truth is that single-payer is outperforming us almost everywhere in the developed world. For whatever reason, the free market isn't delivering efficient healthcare (personally, I think it has to do with the highly price inelastic nature of the demand for healthcare services, but that's another thread).
People with a good bit of money have been on insurance their whole lives, so nothing is pre existing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I have to choose between Bush 3 or Clinton 2 next election I swear by all that good and holy that you will see Muad'Dib burn like a raging wall of apathy.
Glen Beck/Sarah Palin in 2016!
He cried for America, now it is America's turn to cry!
People with a good bit of money have been on insurance their whole lives, so nothing is pre existing.
Yup.
Don't get me wrong...the ACA is an improvement. It just doesn't go far enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bugleyman 2016!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bugleyman 2016!
Banjo?
Bugleyman 2016!Banjo?
I don't know this Banjo fellow, but can I assure you I'm a wholly independent third party who supports Bugleyman purely out of respect for his keen insight!
Well that and his dashing good looks. If I could see him. Which I can't. Because third party.
I don't know this Banjo fellow, but can I assure you I'm a wholly independent third party who supports Bugleyman purely out of respect for his keen insight!
Well that and his dashing good looks. If I could see him. Which I can't. Because third party.
Thank you, unaffiliated citizen!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're just a few IRS forms away from being a SuperPAC.
More forms? Why do you hate the 1st amendment?
Seriously though, I'm actually several million dollars short of being a SuperPAC. :P
I'm sorry, I meant that Not bugleyman's sockpuppet is a few forms away.
Maybe...I don't know anything about that guy.
You're just a few IRS forms away from being a SuperPAC.More forms? Why do you hate the 1st amendment?
Seriously though, I'm actually several million dollars short of being a SuperPAC. :P
Only Millions? ;p
I was a republican for many years but I can hardly recognize the party anymore. Republicans leaders these days just revel in being willfully ignorant. I can't tell if it's the masses that are asking ignorance of their leaders or the leaders pandering to the ignorant masses.
The denial of facts and science just drives me absolutely crazy. As much as the Democrats frustrate me I can't fathom handing government over to politicians that pretend climate change does not exist, defund stem cell research, think abstinence = sex education.
If the "big tent" of the GOP can't makes room for guys like Jon Huntsmans then it's not a tent I want to be under anymore.
Most strands of anarchism (dudes mentioned above and their followers, Black Bloc-types, anarcho-syndicalists, liberals with fits of delusion like Chomsky, etc.), though, are without a doubt "far left."
I'd need more than your unsupported say-so on that, I'm afraid. Even your Wikipedia article describes Rothbard as closer to hard right than hard left.
Agreed. As Comrade Jeff says, I meant to say that all anarchists* are Far Left except for Murray Rothbard who, as near as I can tell, tried to steal the label "anarchist" from the Left in the same way that Hayek stole the term "libertarian" from us (well, not me, I'm still holding out for the dictatorship of the proletariat) earlier.
This thread, and Harry Reid's (? I think, maybe someone else) histrionics earlier this year (last year?) sadly suggest that Murray was somewhat successful.
:(
---
*Possible exceptions for weirdo "individualists" that I am unfamiliar with.
This is probably my favorite piece of dialogue from the last season of The West Wing:
I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. And I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there if you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes. So, every day until the end of this campaign, I'll answer any question anyone has on government, But if you have a question on religion, please go to church.
There were issues regarding religion and government in NYC (probably Boston too), I think around 1880-1910. Several laws, lawsuits, etc. A lot of it concerning private schools and religion. Basically some of the Protestants were worried about Catholics taking over and trying to enforce their religion on them (or their kids). Which gets kind of at this idea.
Some minor, but vocal, groups in the Republicans really want to make a state religion. The thing I don't get is how are they going to decide which one? And who is in charge of it? Will it be Lutheran? Baptist? Methodist? Catholic? Will the others be illegal, etc.
It's like the religious people are all united together trying to achieve this, but each group secretly thinks they'll be the one in charge. Or more innocently, because right now they're contrasting themselves against Islam they've forgotten that they've actually fought wars between each other and once a common foe is dispatched they'll end up turning on each other.
Giving the government authority over religion is just inviting the government to tell you that you're worshiping wrong. It seems like they haven't figured this out yet.
So ends my anti-religion in politics rant, probably securing defeat for myself should I ever seek office.