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.

 

Those Pesky Anarchists

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Of course laws create crime, without laws, nothing would be a crime. If you legalize drugs, there will no longer be drug related crimes.

For the rest, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Of course law enforcement won't stop all crimes, but denying it will prevent any crime at all is silly. Just look for example at a countries such as Singapore or Saoudi Arabie. Those have some of the most strict law enforcements in the world, and are also among the lowest crime rates in the world. Not saying I agree with the strict enforcement in such countries, but it does show a clear correlation. If you look at countries where there is no enforcement at all, you will find very high crime rates. I know of no example that shows otherwise.

As for a system that works with privatized police force, look for example at South Africa. There the police lost all control, and if you want to be protected you need to buy it. Now take a look at the crime rate of that country.


Read learn and research = stop inserting foot in mouth:

www.libertarian.ie...

For a New Liberty
12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts
Murray Rothbard
Police Protection
The most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law and courts, however, has been neglected by historians until very recently. And this was also a society where not only the courts and the law were largely libertarian, but where they operated within a purely state-less and libertarian society. This was persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe.
For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has written:

'There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice. There was no trace of State-administered justice.'

More here: www.mises.org...

And from one of our founding fathers:

Society Is a Blessing, but Government Is Evil

Mises Daily: Thursday, March 06, 2008 by Thomas Paine

[This excerpt from the writings of Thomas Paine can be found in the third chapter of Liberty and the Great Libertarians, edited by Charles T. Sprading.]

A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together...

Read more here: mises.org...




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Do you think that a medieval system that seemingly worked (as we have totally no crime figures) for a tribal culture would work nowadays for the huge cities? Social control no longer exists, so can't be utilized to prevent crimes. For something like that to work, everything must drastically change, starting with the terminations of most of the population.

Come on people, stop dreaming. We humans need some form of control, else it becomes a mess. A state is currently the best solution, a system based on tribes is not.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Of course laws create crime, without laws, nothing would be a crime. If you legalize drugs, there will no longer be drug related crimes.

For the rest, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Of course law enforcement won't stop all crimes, but denying it will prevent any crime at all is silly. Just look for example at a countries such as Singapore or Saoudi Arabie. Those have some of the most strict law enforcements in the world, and are also among the lowest crime rates in the world. Not saying I agree with the strict enforcement in such countries, but it does show a clear correlation. If you look at countries where there is no enforcement at all, you will find very high crime rates. I know of no example that shows otherwise.

As for a system that works with privatized police force, look for example at South Africa. There the police lost all control, and if you want to be protected you need to buy it. Now take a look at the crime rate of that country.


Read learn and research = stop inserting foot in mouth:

www.libertarian.ie...

For a New Liberty
12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts
Murray Rothbard
Police Protection
The most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law and courts, however, has been neglected by historians until very recently. And this was also a society where not only the courts and the law were largely libertarian, but where they operated within a purely state-less and libertarian society. This was persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe.
For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has written:

'There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice. There was no trace of State-administered justice.'

More here: www.mises.org...

And from one of our founding fathers:

Society Is a Blessing, but Government Is Evil

Mises Daily: Thursday, March 06, 2008 by Thomas Paine

[This excerpt from the writings of Thomas Paine can be found in the third chapter of Liberty and the Great Libertarians, edited by Charles T. Sprading.]

A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together...

Read more here: mises.org...



Do NOT equate tribalism with Capitalism. Plain and simple.

While tribal/band societies are a great example of a long-term, sustainable, anarchist human community, they DID NOT operate with a monetary system, private property, any real concept of ownership, and they behaved communally. Capitalism does not exactly foster this kind of thing, and at the very least is environmentally unsustainable. Also, the real definition of "Libertarian" has been lost and perverted to right-wing use, it's original use was anything but what a modern American conservative espouses. However, there can be Libertarians which are both right and left wing, just as there can be authoritarians of both wings.

A couple videos which may be of interest to you and the OP:






posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Chomsky and that other guy are morons.

"Capitalists have not been opposed to the state" - give me a break. Of course businessmen have not been opposed to the state, but as soon as they seek to have state intervention in the markets - THEY ARE NO LONGER CAPITALISTS.

They could be called corporatists, mercantilists, fascists, or whatever else have you that involves statist interventions, but they are not "free market capitalists" - since free market capitalism is necessarily devoid of state interference.

Chomsky argues that the public has no say in markets - give me a freaking break. The market is the most democratic system we have today. Everyone gets to vote with their dollars. If the public doesn't like a product or service, they will not buy it. They will drive the corporation out of business if they are not providing a good or service at the market price.

Chomsky is the biggest hoodwinking statist liar on the planet that advocates violence against the innocent.

Does the public have a say in putting the defense industry out of business? No. The STATE decides to buy, the public has no say.

Does the public have a say in putting a public school out of business that only has a 50% graduation rate? - NO, the STATE will continue to fund that criminal school no matter what the public wants.

Every time Chomsky opens his fat lying mouth my blood boils



[edit on 22-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Chomsky argues that the public has no say in markets - give me a freaking break. The market is the most democratic system we have today. Everyone gets to vote with their dollars. If the public doesn't like a product or service, they will not buy it. They will drive the corporation out of business if they are not providing a good or service at the market price.
[edit on 22-8-2010 by mnemeth1]


But, who ever has the most dollars gets the most votes... and once monopolization begins to take hold consumer freedom suffers. Eventually you end up with a corporate nightmare.

Property = theft.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Chomsky argues that the public has no say in markets - give me a freaking break. The market is the most democratic system we have today. Everyone gets to vote with their dollars. If the public doesn't like a product or service, they will not buy it. They will drive the corporation out of business if they are not providing a good or service at the market price.
[edit on 22-8-2010 by mnemeth1]


But, who ever has the most dollars gets the most votes... and once monopolization begins to take hold consumer freedom suffers. Eventually you end up with a corporate nightmare.

Property = theft.


That's not really true, because for example, Bill Gates can not run Microsoft by buying his own products indefinitely.

If THE PUBLIC did not like the Windows operating system, Bill Gates could not keep the company from going bankrupt no matter how rich he was.

This is NOT TRUE of things like public schools that have 50% graduation rates. When the STATE runs the schools, they are not held accountable to anyone.

In a broad sense those who have the most money, in a REAL capitalist system, have that money because they have provided the most benefit to society. They have created and sold something of great value and society has rewarded their work by buying their products.



[edit on 22-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Chomsky and that other guy are morons.


Call Chomsky what you like but he's ANYTHING BUT a moron, liar or a statist. You've gotta be kidding me. Chomsky is one of the premier intellectuals of our time. He's one of the most knowledgeable public figures in recent history and he actively works to fight TPTB... wtf more do you want from the guy? Because he eloquently lays out the obvious/documented failures of both states and markets he's a moron? Sorry, but just because his perspective turns your stomach doesn't make it moronic or untrue.


"Capitalists have not been opposed to the state" - give me a break. Of course businessmen have not been opposed to the state, but as soon as they seek to have state intervention in the markets - THEY ARE NO LONGER CAPITALISTS.


The VAST MAJORITY of Capitalists do not oppose the state, you wouldn't even have to do a survey to conclude this. When they seek to have state intervention in the markets... they're essentially still Capitalists- just because they corrupt and bend government to their will doesn't mean they ceased to be Capitalists. IN FACT, they'd be idiot Capitalists if they DIDN'T utilize the power of government to expand their power, profit, and influence. It's business as usual. Just because they do not live in a vacuum doesn't mean that Capitalists aren't still Capitalists. Capitalism... IN THE REAL WORLD... ends with plutocracy.


They could be called corporatists, mercantilists, fascists, or whatever else have you that involves statist interventions, but they are not "free market capitalists" - since free market capitalism is necessarily devoid of state interference.


Call em what you'd like... I call Capitalists all those things when they fit the bill. However, we've NEVER had purely free markets, and any taste we've had of free markets has meant serious suffering by the working underclass, it's simple- Capitalism supports a big boss man, when you have big boss men (whether in government or markets) you're going to have top-down oppression and tyranny, PERIOD.


Chomsky argues that the public has no say in markets - give me a freaking break. The market is the most democratic system we have today. Everyone gets to vote with their dollars. If the public doesn't like a product or service, they will not buy it. They will drive the corporation out of business if they are not providing a good or service at the market price.


VOTING WITH YOUR DOLLAR IS NOT DEMOCRACY. One of the biggest pieces of PROPAGANDA we've ever been fed is that our markets are somehow Democratic because of supply/demand. This is a SERIOUSLY skewed and narrow-minded view of the market... overly idealistic and unrealistic at that. The REALITY of markets is that the public really doesn't have a truly Democratic say, and let's say hypothetically we did... do you really think that various companies would foster the transparency, openness, submissiveness, and compassion necessary for an informed and powerful enough public to actually have sustainable/effective/sensible impact on markets? No. We can already see that companies have to be FORCED to disclose crucial information about business practices, pollution, treatment of workers, wages, discrimination, and so on. This is absolutely not to say that we SHOULDN'T hold businesses accountable via our consumer power or that we shouldn't engage in boycotts... but to think that that alone is good enough to bring about the best possible future for humanity... it's beyond silly, it's sick and wrong.


Chomsky is the biggest hoodwinking statist liar on the planet that advocates violence against the innocent.


Is your name Glenn Beck by any chance...?

Your statement is complete BS so I don't even know how to address it. But please prove your assertions and don't give me any weak runaround arguments... Chomsky is practically an Anarchist without giving himself the exact title of one.


Does the public have a say in putting the defense industry out of business? No. The STATE decides to buy, the public has no say.


Theoretically the public DOES have a say when we vote in representatives to government. Of course our system is faulty and has been corrupted by special interests (namely multinational corporations who take the lion's share of the legal-bribery cake). If we vote the right people in we could theoretically have the defense industry funding slashed... but think about it, your pals on the right (and even many on the left) wouldn't go for that for one minute, and thus the crux of government propaganda/jingoism. We spend more than almost the entire world combined on military... and somehow we have a raging deficit and can't afford simple social safety nets? It's disgusting. I personally don't have much faith that we can vote the military industrial complex down to an agreeable size... but I won't say it's impossible either. The market sure as hell wouldn't solve this problem though, business booms when wars are waged. The only thing worse than government militaries are private mercenary armies... just look at Iraq, sure the Blackwater goons are getting paid more and equipped with bigger weapons, but they're also responsible for the worst atrocities as well. They are unaccountable to the will of the public... though without governments sure, the war would not have been waged in the first place, but this is a circular argument which hinges on a lack of government and not the implementation of laissez-faire.


Does the public have a say in putting a public school out of business that only has a 50% graduation rate? - NO, the STATE will continue to fund that criminal school no matter what the public wants.


Public schools do not quite operate as businesses do. And to simply put a school out of business would put thousands of kids out of schooling. I personally despise the public school system... but it doesn't seem like many private/charter schools are much better, aside from being cushy for the wealthier kids. What we need is a RADICAL culture transformation in how we teach our young and prepare them for the future as an adult. Personally I think homeschooling/unschooling can play a large part in that.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


You probably won't get a reply or at least one with the honest effort you put into your post.





mnemeth1:

That's not really true, because for example, Bill Gates can not run Microsoft by buying his own products indefinitely.

If THE PUBLIC did not like the Windows operating system, Bill Gates could not keep the company from going bankrupt no matter how rich he was.


Your citing MircoSoft as an example to your un-regulated capitalist society? That's pretty rich brother.

Your ideology is worse then a burnt out hippy living in the hills








[edit on 23-8-2010 by Connector]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
That's not really true, because for example, Bill Gates can not run Microsoft by buying his own products indefinitely.

If THE PUBLIC did not like the Windows operating system, Bill Gates could not keep the company from going bankrupt no matter how rich he was.

This is NOT TRUE of things like public schools that have 50% graduation rates. When the STATE runs the schools, they are not held accountable to anyone.

In a broad sense those who have the most money, in a REAL capitalist system, have that money because they have provided the most benefit to society. They have created and sold something of great value and society has rewarded their work by buying their products.


If the public did not like the Windows OS, but he was able to monopolize the market, you would have no choice but to purchase his product. He would be able to do this in a Free Market system with out any kind of regulation.

The people, not having the voting power because he holds the majority, would be unable to sway him from his unassailable positions. You would have no child labor laws, you would have no 8 hour day, and you would have no minimum wage.

With out a regulatory body controlling corporations the notion of "corporate take over" is a far more violent one. Nothing is there to stop clandestine operations being undertaken by the companies that could afford it against those who couldn't. Or even worse, against the people themselves. There by consolidating far more power than you and I could ever hope to achieve to maintain balance.

The very act of gaining capital deprives another of it. Property creates hierarchies that deprive one group while rewarding another. Also, the rate of growth amongst those who have the most capital in comparison to those who do not is exponential as it passes through the generations. Further depriving even more and forcing them to cow-tow to the upper echelons of society.

Capitalism, while wanting to be a one, is not a meritocracy. Oligarchical rule would form quickly from a clean slate and take hold even faster if we were to throw this switch while operating under the economical rules we currently function under.

This is why property is theft.

Giving people the power to pay for education does not mean you will have a better education. It means people will have the ability to control what education their child receives.

There is a big difference between what I desire for my children and what a Christian Fundamentalist desires for theirs. One is education, one is indoctrination. If you were unlucky enough to be born in one of these families your entire life would be over. Reason does not dictate the decisions of all people.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Originally posted by mnemeth1
That's not really true, because for example, Bill Gates can not run Microsoft by buying his own products indefinitely.

If THE PUBLIC did not like the Windows operating system, Bill Gates could not keep the company from going bankrupt no matter how rich he was.

This is NOT TRUE of things like public schools that have 50% graduation rates. When the STATE runs the schools, they are not held accountable to anyone.

In a broad sense those who have the most money, in a REAL capitalist system, have that money because they have provided the most benefit to society. They have created and sold something of great value and society has rewarded their work by buying their products.


If the public did not like the Windows OS, but he was able to monopolize the market, you would have no choice but to purchase his product. He would be able to do this in a Free Market system with out any kind of regulation.


Various flavors of Unix have been free and open-source for about 20 years. Mac OSX is really just a very user-friendly version of Unix. The same goes for Ubuntu, to a slightly lesser extent. Consumers overwhelmingly chose Windows because it was familiar to them and they didn't want to learn Unix/Linux. Unix-style OS's are the standard amongst most (non-.NET)programmers and system admins.

Windows isn't a very good case-study, if you're trying to argue against free-market ideology.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




So tell me, how many people have anarchists killed over the last century?


Anarchists killed 19,500 people in Darfur Sudan starting in 2003, and is an excellent example of Anarchy at work.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Thank you mnmeth for yet another interesting post, and provoking topic.
The video was a riot. Ive been swinging a torch threatening my wheatfield for sometime, with no positive yeild results.

As to the libs/conservatives/add label, your STATE approved talking points are much appreciated. I am very glad you are gun owners, that way you can properly protect the STATE and our STATE approved freedoms, from any STATE sanctioned threat. Be it anarchists or terrosists both pose the same problems.

STOP YOUR DEFIANCE OF THE STATE

HAIL THE STATE



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by theWCH

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Originally posted by mnemeth1
That's not really true, because for example, Bill Gates can not run Microsoft by buying his own products indefinitely.

If THE PUBLIC did not like the Windows operating system, Bill Gates could not keep the company from going bankrupt no matter how rich he was.

This is NOT TRUE of things like public schools that have 50% graduation rates. When the STATE runs the schools, they are not held accountable to anyone.

In a broad sense those who have the most money, in a REAL capitalist system, have that money because they have provided the most benefit to society. They have created and sold something of great value and society has rewarded their work by buying their products.


If the public did not like the Windows OS, but he was able to monopolize the market, you would have no choice but to purchase his product. He would be able to do this in a Free Market system with out any kind of regulation.


Various flavors of Unix have been free and open-source for about 20 years. Mac OSX is really just a very user-friendly version of Unix. The same goes for Ubuntu, to a slightly lesser extent. Consumers overwhelmingly chose Windows because it was familiar to them and they didn't want to learn Unix/Linux. Unix-style OS's are the standard amongst most (non-.NET)programmers and system admins.

Windows isn't a very good case-study, if you're trying to argue against free-market ideology.


Wouldn't Unix be a better example of open-source rather than free-market? I suppose a free-market would support open-source (though copyright in a free-market is kind of a foggy question). However, if we want to be specific, Unix/Linux has become more of an open/free part of the OS/programming commons, at least far more so than Windows. Unix seemed to have been born of a free market of ideas rather than profits/products.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by theWCH
 


I disagree because Microsoft doesn't have the ability to go kill people who use it and the people who created it. They can not form an army and wipe out all the consumers who do not want to purchase their product. So other people can compete in a regulated market. A Free Market doesn't mean we are actually free.

With out a regulating body there is nothing to stop Corporate Warfare. This is why this is a terrible idea. Everyone is always stating that the Iraq war is being fought for corporate interests. Imagine a world where there would be no subterfuge because it would all be legal.

You would have the formation of the corporate state and corporations would go to war as opposed to nations. This a terrible alternative to our current system because while government is corrupt it does have to placate the people. The corporate state does not.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




So tell me, how many people have anarchists killed over the last century?


Anarchists killed 19,500 people in Darfur Sudan starting in 2003, and is an excellent example of Anarchy at work.


First of all- they're NOT Anarchists. Second of all, this is NOT an excellent example of Anarchy at work because it involves corrupt government, land grabbing, and a whole host of other factors that completely muddy any fair representation of INTENTIONAL Anarchy. Of COURSE lawlessness can be a problem in many areas when combined with ethnic tensions, resource scarcity, and corrupt outside forces (which essentially INCLUDES a form of law/authority no matter how despotic/illegitimate) but the Darfur situation is messy and by no means represents a push towards peaceful/sustainable Anarchist society.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Well, yes, it's actually a perfect example of what Anarchy is really like. No real government, no laws, everyone just out for themselves, pretty much a textbook case of anarchy. Complete with the inevitable genocide, because again, humans are territorial predators.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by theWCH

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Originally posted by mnemeth1
That's not really true, because for example, Bill Gates can not run Microsoft by buying his own products indefinitely.

If THE PUBLIC did not like the Windows operating system, Bill Gates could not keep the company from going bankrupt no matter how rich he was.

This is NOT TRUE of things like public schools that have 50% graduation rates. When the STATE runs the schools, they are not held accountable to anyone.

In a broad sense those who have the most money, in a REAL capitalist system, have that money because they have provided the most benefit to society. They have created and sold something of great value and society has rewarded their work by buying their products.


If the public did not like the Windows OS, but he was able to monopolize the market, you would have no choice but to purchase his product. He would be able to do this in a Free Market system with out any kind of regulation.


Various flavors of Unix have been free and open-source for about 20 years. Mac OSX is really just a very user-friendly version of Unix. The same goes for Ubuntu, to a slightly lesser extent. Consumers overwhelmingly chose Windows because it was familiar to them and they didn't want to learn Unix/Linux. Unix-style OS's are the standard amongst most (non-.NET)programmers and system admins.

Windows isn't a very good case-study, if you're trying to argue against free-market ideology.


Wouldn't Unix be a better example of open-source rather than free-market? I suppose a free-market would support open-source (though copyright in a free-market is kind of a foggy question). However, if we want to be specific, Unix/Linux has become more of an open/free part of the OS/programming commons, at least far more so than Windows. Unix seemed to have been born of a free market of ideas rather than profits/products.


IMO, Unix is THE example of open-source, and I think that in a free-market (at least theoretically) freedom of ideas is every bit as important as profits.

Linux is often associated with socialism/communism because a lot of the early developers supported that ideal. And that's fine -- I LOVE the open-source community, and I learn a lot from reading open-source code.

I just think that open-source software is some perverse form of proof that free-markets work -- in an odd way. Gnumeric is better than Excel (and it's free) but people use Excel for some reason (that I don't entirely grasp). OSX is better than Vista, but most people still opted to use Vista. I don't understand why so many people would do things that I think are so irrational, but I think that it's great that they have the right to make those choices.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by theWCH]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Well, yes, it's actually a perfect example of what Anarchy is really like. No real government, no laws, everyone just out for themselves, pretty much a textbook case of anarchy. Complete with the inevitable genocide, because again, humans are territorial predators.


Please re-read my original reply because you seem to have missed my points.

It is by NO MEANS a textbook or perfect example of functioning Anarchist society. In some ways it is an example of one, but a poor example overall.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by NoHierarchy]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by theWCH

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by theWCH

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Originally posted by mnemeth1
That's not really true, because for example, Bill Gates can not run Microsoft by buying his own products indefinitely.

If THE PUBLIC did not like the Windows operating system, Bill Gates could not keep the company from going bankrupt no matter how rich he was.

This is NOT TRUE of things like public schools that have 50% graduation rates. When the STATE runs the schools, they are not held accountable to anyone.

In a broad sense those who have the most money, in a REAL capitalist system, have that money because they have provided the most benefit to society. They have created and sold something of great value and society has rewarded their work by buying their products.


If the public did not like the Windows OS, but he was able to monopolize the market, you would have no choice but to purchase his product. He would be able to do this in a Free Market system with out any kind of regulation.


Various flavors of Unix have been free and open-source for about 20 years. Mac OSX is really just a very user-friendly version of Unix. The same goes for Ubuntu, to a slightly lesser extent. Consumers overwhelmingly chose Windows because it was familiar to them and they didn't want to learn Unix/Linux. Unix-style OS's are the standard amongst most (non-.NET)programmers and system admins.

Windows isn't a very good case-study, if you're trying to argue against free-market ideology.


Wouldn't Unix be a better example of open-source rather than free-market? I suppose a free-market would support open-source (though copyright in a free-market is kind of a foggy question). However, if we want to be specific, Unix/Linux has become more of an open/free part of the OS/programming commons, at least far more so than Windows. Unix seemed to have been born of a free market of ideas rather than profits/products.


IMO, Unix is THE example of open-source, and I think that in a free-market (at least theoretically) freedom of ideas is every bit as important as profits.

Linux is often associated with socialism/communism because a lot of the early developers supported that ideal. And that's fine -- I LOVE the open-source community, and I learn a lot from reading open-source code.

I just think that open-source software is some perverse form of proof that free-markets work -- in an odd way. Gnumeric is better than Excel (and it's free) but people use Excel for some reason (that I don't entirely grasp). OSX is better than Vista, but most people still opted to use Vista. I don't understand why so many people would do things that I think are so irrational, but I think that it's great that they have the right to make those choices.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by theWCH]


Ahh, but still open-source seems to be a better example of a free, socialized commons of ideas/technology/knowledge. Perhaps it shares elements with free-markets... at the moment I don't see why it can't represent both in a way. Of course open-source products can be used in markets, but are primarily independent of economic markets since there is no private ownership of open-source software, instead being shared equally and freely amongst all who wish to use it. A free market of ideas seems best represented by decentralized/socialized commons than laissez-faire Capitalism.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


I think the main problem with finding a good example of anarchy is that the closest examples are always in poor areas. And there will almost always be other groups than the state that take over authority. Although you can't really conclude the same will happen when anarchy is introduced in a wealthy society, the risk that this will happen is very real. There is, by definition, no mechanism that will prevent this from happening. So I guess that situations like Darfur are the closest you will get to anarchy on a large scale.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join