It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
Rothbard, Mises, Hoppe, etc..
Did you know Rousseau was entirely against representative government?
The social contract theory that the statists love to shout from the roof tops was originally philosophized to entail sovereign individuals acting in micro-republics whereby the people organized an ran government themselves.
The General Will applies only to very small republics, republics that are so small that the sovereign people themselves ran the general government and made the rules. Rousseau was entirely against the artificial man created by representative government.
"The size of nations and to a large extent the states, these are the principle cause of human misfortunes."
"Nearly all small states, republics and monarchies alike flourish by reason of being small."
-Rousseau.
Now if government operated as such, I really wouldn't have a problem with it because I COULD MOVE to somewhere that wasn't run by a group of sadist control freaks.
He's talking about cities of people less than a few thousand, where everyone would enact direct government without representation.
At the time of his writing, there were no cities that even had a population of more than 50,000.
When these guys wrote of a social contract, they were expressly talking along the lines of direct sovereign individuals coming to agreement with each other about the rules of social conduct in their society.
NOT some elected fascist turd making decisions supposedly on their behalf and robbing them of their money.
I'm sure who ever taught the philosophy classes you took left that little part out.
[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]
Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
So I do ask another question of you if I may, which is more important, maximum freedom or maximum happiness?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Communists incessantly whine about private corporations monopolizing markets, so I have to scratch my head when they demand that the State be given an ultimate monopoly on force and violence.
Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.
Anarchists fight nationalism by rejecting it and exposing it's racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism and xenophobia.
Recently, a right-wing fascist movement known as the 3rd Positionists has used the strategy of using left-wing symbols and images while pushing a right-wing social agenda. Just as Adolf Hitler used the name "National Socialist" for his political party and Spanish fascists used the term "National Syndicalist", 3rd Positionists use the labels "National Bolshevik", "National Libertarian", and "National Anarchist" to try to trick radicals into supporting their racist, antisemitic, and homophobic ideals. Common is embracement of the theories of Otto Strasser or the Strasser brothers and the idea of a "true socialist" National Socialism that is supposed to be different from Hitler's National Socialism... but of course if they really believed in socialism they would not be racist/nationalist.
A worrying trend in recent years has been the use of the word (in Britain and the USA) to describe elements on the far Right supposedly opposed to the State. Thus a recent article in 'The Washington Post' on the opponents of "big government" in the Republican party was entitled 'Beware the lure of the libertarians' and referred to "libertarian Republicans"!
Of course these "libertarians" are against the State only in so far as it sometimes gets in the way of their being able to exploit the poor more thoroughly. They want to roll back the Welfare State, but their opposition to the State doesn't extend to dismantling the Army, Police, or to challenging the concept of government itself.
These people would more correctly be called free-marketeers and laissez-faire capitalists. Thatcher and Reagan resurrected this old tradition and now the world's full of their offspring, from Yeltsin and Berlusconi to the "Labour" and "socialist" parties who follow the same agenda these days to varying degrees.
A recent article in 'The Guardian' on the growing far Right militia movement in the US ('Adolf's US army') used the term "libertarianism" to describe the groundswell against big government shown in the Republican landslide in recent mid-term elections. Middle America has apparently had enough of high taxes, attempts at gun control etc., and at one extreme militias are being established in the backwoods to train for the coming show-down with Federal government. (What can you say, the Waco spirit obviously lives on unfortunately).
Despite the critics clamoring for "maximum efficiency" rather than revolutionary methods, anarchist collectives often produced more than before the collectivization. In Aragon, for instance, the productivity increased by 20%.[8] The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy (it should be noted that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes). 8.^ G. Helsey, Anarcosindicalismo y estado en el País Valenciano, 1930-1938, Madrid (1994)
Originally posted by mnemeth1
If you were to actually bother looking at any published anarcho-capitalist economist's web site, they almost all have a link to antiwar.com.
Originally posted by Someone336
The arguments you present are just as utopian, pie-in-the-sky dreams as those of communists.
Originally posted by jitombe
reply to post by mnemeth1
America is a country of 300+ million people who have different opinions on how this country should be governed.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK
The State doesn't protect anything but itself.
It does that very well.
Originally posted by -PLB-
It seems to me this proposed system exists all over the world already, where the government has no or little control. What all these places have in common is that violence reigns.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Which is why democracy is tyranny.
299,999,999 others have no right to run my life and I have no right to run their's.
ANARCHISM is about individual freedom. But it is also about building a society that has a fair system of wealth distribution. For this reason, anarchists consider themselves to be democrats. As anarchists we don't believe that other people can bring about the changes that we need - we believe that we must do it for ourselves. This means putting in place a type of decision making system in which all people can participate in - this is the best way to ensure equality...
...Take one example - work. Under anarchism, the workplace would be democratic. Unlike now, workers would decide on the main matters in their own workplace: What type of work should be done? Where and how? Under what type of working conditions? Where should the profits from work go?
In today's world, it is done the opposite way. Most decisions about any place of work are taken by the management. These management's, in turn, are usually appointed by shareholders - people who do not work. This situation would not be tolerated in an anarchist society. Matters concerned with the workplace are for the workers alone to decide on. Under anarchism it will the workers' assembly and not the (elected) manager who will be the supreme authority in any workplace. This will be one of the major contrasts between today's world and a future anarchist society.