Kakugo: Back when I was studying at the university there was a strong Greek community there; I even shared my dorm with some of them at a time so I learnt a little about them and their country. What can I say? This "outburst" was just waiting to happen. The country is pretty much bankrupt, ruined by poor (by any standards) economic choices and irresponsible (again by any standard) government spending. The still-ongoing armament race with Turkey and the 2004 Olympics are perceived by many as the final nails in the coffin. Young people have few choices: Athens is not London or Berlin, finding a job is not so easy. The brightest and the better educated either flee the country or have to line up after the "recommended" to get a decent job: not everybody wants to spend the rest of his life working in a kiosk, living on welfare or selling souvenirs in the Plakas. Ever since the Euro was introduced prices have soared while salaries have increased little; trying to appease the Euro-nutters in Bruxelles by force is draining the country of the precious little energies it has left. In such conditions it's natural to expect that somebody will get so desperate and angry as to riot. It pretty much the same situation France has in her banlieus : desperation, hopelessness, misery... the State is able to keep things (barely) under control by using an admixture of strength and promises but when an extraordinary event happens the bomb will explode. Of course being very localized events it is easy for the State-run medias to blame everything on "vandals", "anarchists" etc, it's easy to scare the rest of the population into thinking that the protestors should be dealt with quickly and brutally since they are the "bad guys". Divide et impera: has something changed?
Back when I was studying at the university there was a strong Greek community there; I even shared my dorm with some of them at a time so I learnt a little about them and their country. What can I say? This "outburst" was just waiting to happen.
The country is pretty much bankrupt, ruined by poor (by any standards) economic choices and irresponsible (again by any standard) government spending. The still-ongoing armament race with Turkey and the 2004 Olympics are perceived by many as the final nails in the coffin. Young people have few choices: Athens is not London or Berlin, finding a job is not so easy. The brightest and the better educated either flee the country or have to line up after the "recommended" to get a decent job: not everybody wants to spend the rest of his life working in a kiosk, living on welfare or selling souvenirs in the Plakas. Ever since the Euro was introduced prices have soared while salaries have increased little; trying to appease the Euro-nutters in Bruxelles by force is draining the country of the precious little energies it has left.
In such conditions it's natural to expect that somebody will get so desperate and angry as to riot. It pretty much the same situation France has in her banlieus : desperation, hopelessness, misery... the State is able to keep things (barely) under control by using an admixture of strength and promises but when an extraordinary event happens the bomb will explode. Of course being very localized events it is easy for the State-run medias to blame everything on "vandals", "anarchists" etc, it's easy to scare the rest of the population into thinking that the protestors should be dealt with quickly and brutally since they are the "bad guys". Divide et impera: has something changed?
Wow things sound pretty bad in Grecce. Just out of curiosity, is Grecce a social democracy?
These are the people that some would suppose we should ally with.
Some people seem to have a very poor sense of cause and effect. The policemen aren't necessarily the problem. The state is, it's the state who arrogate themselves a monopoly on defence, not the police. The people are just filling a job for which there is demand, albeit by the state. We can't expect the ignorant to do better, they'll go wherever the wages are. (Exactly why we need to developing competitors with the state. However this isn't the place to discuss strategy.) Now, don't get me wrong, the police are generally savage brutes on a power trip who only too eager to get their guns and start shooting. But so are these leftist thugs. They're not anarchists by any means, what's worse is seeing people who adopt the name libertarian and spout what they clearly believe to be nonsense about the NAP. Or perhaps they're just adopting some silly anti authoritarian attitude.
Stop the apologetics, the government aren't the only ones who will coerce you.
The thing is, the state whilst it exists, should be encouraged by libertarians to do as much good (or as little harm, perhaps more appropriately) as possible. Right now this means upholding property rights, and going in there and dealing with these alleged anarchists (the violent ones only) with as much violence as necessary, much as a private provider of defence would do.If that means the police getting out their guns and teargas then so be it.
It's amusing and yet sad to see so many children egging thugs on to do what they would and could never. The libertarians support this stuff are probably the same people who cross the street and hold their wallet when they see a black man. Don't get me wrong, I've never been in a fight and not for any moral reasons but because I'd more than likely get knocked out by whoever I'm fighting. At least I admit it, drop the rhetoric guys.
(When are we going to drop the label anarchist?)
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: The policemen aren't necessarily the problem. The state is, it's the state who arrogate themselves a monopoly on defence, not the police.
GilesStratton: The people are just filling a job for which there is demand, albeit by the state.
GilesStratton: (When are we going to drop the label anarchist?)
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
GilesStratton:The thing is, the state whilst it exists, should be encouraged by libertarians to do as much good (or as little harm, perhaps more appropriately) as possible. Right now this means upholding property rights, and going in there and dealing with these alleged anarchists (the violent ones only) with as much violence as necessary, much as a private provider of defence would do.If that means the police getting out their guns and teargas then so be it.
Yeah, but are you sure the capitalist shop owners are entitled to any protection? I'm pretty sure our vandarchist buddies will be happy to point out that the police are the state, and the state exists to protect capitalist property as they exploit the proletariat by selling him stale potato chips and single ply toilet paper.
GilesStratton:(When are we going to drop the label anarchist?)
Until 2 days ago, I wouldn't have considered it. But seeing so many mindless and retarded people who call themselves anarchists, I'm now inclined to entertain the idea.
liberty student: Until 2 days ago, I wouldn't have considered it. But seeing so many mindless and retarded people who call themselves anarchists, I'm now inclined to entertain the idea.
I had thought about dropping the term before but I am now certain that we MUST. I am SICK of confused Marxists claiming the term.
ryanpatgray:I had thought about dropping the term before but I am now certain that we MUST. I am SICK of confused Marxists claiming the term.
It's not even that they are confused. A lot of them are down right ignorant and militant.
I like anarcho-capitalist, but I don't like that the anarcho bit indicates that it is related in any way to the communists or syndicalists. I/we don't have a compatible understanding of economics (human action) or property with them, which I consider to be pretty fundamental.
ryanpatgray: liberty student: Until 2 days ago, I wouldn't have considered it. But seeing so many mindless and retarded people who call themselves anarchists, I'm now inclined to entertain the idea. I had thought about dropping the term before but I am now certain that we MUST. I am SICK of confused Marxists claiming the term.
I think we're going to have too. Besides most anarchists despise, why would we want to ally with people WHO hate us!
ugggh, these anarchists?
in another forum a communist, or anarcho-socialist was telling me to look into these anarchist rioters in Greece..he called these leftists "real anarchists" i guess these are the people this socialist was talking about. what a bunch of losers
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
I just started a thread proposing the term nonaggressionist. What do you think of this idea?
ryanpatgray: I just started a thread proposing the term nonaggressionist. What do you think of this idea?
I prefer "Voluntaryist".
fezwhatley: ugggh, these anarchists? in another forum a communist, or anarcho-socialist was telling me to look into these anarchist rioters in Greece..he called these leftists "real anarchists" i guess these are the people this socialist was talking about. what a bunch of losers
Yeah I hear ya. I'm beginning to think that most leftist anarchists have a mental defficiency.
Nick. B: Kakugo: Back when I was studying at the university there was a strong Greek community there; I even shared my dorm with some of them at a time so I learnt a little about them and their country. What can I say? This "outburst" was just waiting to happen. The country is pretty much bankrupt, ruined by poor (by any standards) economic choices and irresponsible (again by any standard) government spending. The still-ongoing armament race with Turkey and the 2004 Olympics are perceived by many as the final nails in the coffin. Young people have few choices: Athens is not London or Berlin, finding a job is not so easy. The brightest and the better educated either flee the country or have to line up after the "recommended" to get a decent job: not everybody wants to spend the rest of his life working in a kiosk, living on welfare or selling souvenirs in the Plakas. Ever since the Euro was introduced prices have soared while salaries have increased little; trying to appease the Euro-nutters in Bruxelles by force is draining the country of the precious little energies it has left. In such conditions it's natural to expect that somebody will get so desperate and angry as to riot. It pretty much the same situation France has in her banlieus : desperation, hopelessness, misery... the State is able to keep things (barely) under control by using an admixture of strength and promises but when an extraordinary event happens the bomb will explode. Of course being very localized events it is easy for the State-run medias to blame everything on "vandals", "anarchists" etc, it's easy to scare the rest of the population into thinking that the protestors should be dealt with quickly and brutally since they are the "bad guys". Divide et impera: has something changed? Wow things sound pretty bad in Grecce. Just out of curiosity, is Grecce a social democracy?
Well, which European country isn't? Up until 2000-2001 Greece had pretty bad inflation and an alarming public debt but tax rates were relatively low and, what's more important, life was very cheap: people could get along even with low wages. This all changed when EU parameters had to be met and Euro inflation kicked in. The desperate race for "modernization" which hit the government in the light of the 2004 Olympics was probably the straw which broke the camel's back.
It must also be understood that Greece has both very strong nationalist and socialist pushes inside. Greece has always had one of the strongest communist parties outside of the Soviet block (except when it was outlawed by the military junta of course) and despite claims to the contrary and big smiles on television tensions with the neighbours (mainly Turkey, but also Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria etc) are still very strong. Most Greek youths are actually happy to be conscripted into the military: they have not the same "besieged stronghold" mindset of the Israelis but are quite close.
No, you've erected a gigantic straw man by conflating this type of thing with the actual libertarian left. Stop it, it's highly disingenous. I never suggested allying with anything like this.
The thing is, the state whilst it exists, should be encouraged by libertarians to do as much good (or as little harm, perhaps more appropriately) as possible.
What is that supposed to mean though? That's so vague that for all intents and purposes, it functions as a minarchist position - I.E. the state's role should be limited to police, courts and defense and since we have the state control of those services it should fully be enforced.
Angry people rioting are not anarchists. Anarchists, at least on this board, hold a high regard for private property (how these property rights are derived is another question), but I can't foresee one of us turning over someone else's car for third party's action.
I think this is where anarcho-capitalism comes into conflict with anarch-syndicalism. That car was never their property in the first place to flip over.
From what you're telling the only conclusion I can draw is that there no good things in Greeks political future.
Brainpolice:What is that supposed to mean though? That's so vague that for all intents and purposes, it functions as a minarchist position - I.E. the state's role should be limited to police, courts and defense and since we have the state control of those services it should fully be enforced.
No, it means that we can hypothetically advocate the state doing certain things as a second best.
Brainpolice:No, you've erected a gigantic straw man by conflating this type of thing with the actual libertarian left. Stop it, it's highly disingenous. I never suggested allying with anything like this.
Funny, I recall saying "some" not "Brainpolice".
Kakugo:Well, which European country isn't?
Switzerland to some extent.
liberty student:Until 2 days ago, I wouldn't have considered it. But seeing so many mindless and retarded people who call themselves anarchists, I'm now inclined to entertain the idea.
The thing is, I'd actually go further than this and deny that we are anarchists at all:
Wikipedia:The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἀναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without a leader, head or chief"
Now for some defintions,
Chief:
the head or leader of an organized body of people; the person highest in authority
the head or ruler of a tribe or clan: an Indian chief.
Head:
the position or place of leadership, greatest authority, or honor.
a person to whom others are subordinate, as the director of an institution or the manager of a department; leader or chief.
Leader:
a person or thing that leads.
a guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group.
Whatever word you adopt, heads, leader and chiefs are still clearly a part of any libertarian society.
He never mentioned you, but it is interesting that you rush in to defend yourself regardless.
It's not a strawman. Francois Tremblay was cheering it on, and he runs the market anarchist blog carnival, and identifies clearly and very publicly as left.
And it's not just Tremblay but the remainder of the anti-capitalists as well, who seem to think that destruction of property (regardless of it's ownership status) is "anarchism".
liberty student: Brainpolice:No, you've erected a gigantic straw man by conflating this type of thing with the actual libertarian left. Stop it, it's highly disingenous. I never suggested allying with anything like this. He never mentioned you, but it is interesting that you rush in to defend yourself regardless. It's not a strawman. Francois Tremblay was cheering it on, and he runs the market anarchist blog carnival, and identifies clearly and very publicly as left. And it's not just Tremblay but the remainder of the anti-capitalists as well, who seem to think that destruction of property (regardless of it's ownership status) is "anarchism".
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Well said Nitro. I have to check out Darian Worden, I don't think this is the first time you have referenced him.
liberty student: Nitroadict:There's a difference between viewing violence as possible, & viewing it as inevitable. I don't care if your a perpendicular libertarian, if you think violence is justified beyond a self-defense basis (which also means not going on the offensive once "first blood" was drawn by The State, as I'm sure some would love to rationalize that), you are not libertarian. You're right, of course.
Nitroadict:There's a difference between viewing violence as possible, & viewing it as inevitable. I don't care if your a perpendicular libertarian, if you think violence is justified beyond a self-defense basis (which also means not going on the offensive once "first blood" was drawn by The State, as I'm sure some would love to rationalize that), you are not libertarian.
You're right, of course.
I dunno, there is truth to this I think:
“When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operations, it is sound military strategy to take the flight to the enemy.”
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
GilesStratton:The thing is, the state whilst it exists, should be encouraged by libertarians to do as much good (or as little harm, perhaps more appropriately) as possible.
Been reading Chomsky?
ThorsMitersaw: liberty student: Nitroadict:There's a difference between viewing violence as possible, & viewing it as inevitable. I don't care if your a perpendicular libertarian, if you think violence is justified beyond a self-defense basis (which also means not going on the offensive once "first blood" was drawn by The State, as I'm sure some would love to rationalize that), you are not libertarian. You're right, of course. I dunno, there is truth to this I think: “When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operations, it is sound military strategy to take the flight to the enemy.”
Worked brilliantly in Oklahoma, didn't it?
ThorsMitersaw: GilesStratton:The thing is, the state whilst it exists, should be encouraged by libertarians to do as much good (or as little harm, perhaps more appropriately) as possible. Been reading Chomsky?
GS lost me there; the apolgetic strategy does not have seemed to have worked before.
Nitroadict: ThorsMitersaw: liberty student: Nitroadict:There's a difference between viewing violence as possible, & viewing it as inevitable. I don't care if your a perpendicular libertarian, if you think violence is justified beyond a self-defense basis (which also means not going on the offensive once "first blood" was drawn by The State, as I'm sure some would love to rationalize that), you are not libertarian. You're right, of course. I dunno, there is truth to this I think: “When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operations, it is sound military strategy to take the flight to the enemy.” Worked brilliantly in Oklahoma, didn't it?
no but I do not think that is cause to completelty throw the principle out. Nor do I really think this is some slant towards preemptive strike or what not.
If you aren't willing to use force to assault the state when it treads on you, what is the point in the second amendment? You may as well be totally disarmed.
I've pretty much decided to start referring to myself as a Rothbardian Libertarian for the most part instead of an anarchist primarily due to the silly associations people draw because of ass-hat rioters and looters like these.
Unfortunately, 'Rothbardian Libertarian' is even more obscure than 'Anarcho-capitalist' to most people....
Also, I'd use force against anyone in self-defense, and I am not against using strategic force against aggressors when it is rationally justified and necessary for survival. Riots and looting like this are never rationally justified, and are certainly not strategic. I do believe violence should only be used as a last resort and should certainly never be glorified or romanticized.
No, Chomsky encourages. Claiming that it is required for us to do certain things until we can be free from it. I never said anything of the sort, and there's nothing contradictory on the one hand saying we need competition in the production of defence and arbitration, and on the other than the institution that currently arrogates itself a monopoly on defence and arbitration should uphold property rights.
Nitroadict:GS lost me there; the apolgetic strategy does not have seemed to have worked before.
What I'm saying is essentially that the government should try to do as least harm as possible. This means that the production of defence should be aimed at upholding property rights. Yes, I disagree with their territorial monopoly of defence, I think the state is as evil and inefficient as the next person on here. On the other hand, most of us would agree that it is evil because it violates property rights. As such, I don't understand the big deal with me advocating the police enforcing and protecting property rights whilst the government exists.
Well, its "make the best of a bad situation." Even if the police did protect us, there would still be an issue of taxation. but agreed. So long as they do take our money as taxes, they ought to at least uphold their obligation they claim to have, to protect life, liberty, and property.
That being said, who wouldn't use violence to protect himself against a burgler? and who wouldn't if adequetly armed, wouldn't protect himeslf against 4 or 5? (even if he isn't armed it may be better to fight than not) and that is all government is, is a successfull criminal gang. the only difference between the U.S. Gov't and the Bloods and UAB's is that the U.S. has more people, more money, and more guns!
Violence would have been unacceptable for the founders if they hadn't been able to win!
But I would agree that passive non compliance is a better card to play, and is more effective and so on... with violence there is always the danger that it will get out of control like the French Revolution.
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
Attackdonkey:But I would agree that passive non compliance is a better card to play, and is more effective and so on... with violence there is always the danger that it will get out of control like the French Revolution.
Yeah I agree. I think it's safe to say that this what happened at the Grecce riots, and in the long run will do more harm than good.
Nick. B:Yeah I agree. I think it's safe to say that this what happened at the Grecce riots, and in the long run will do more harm than good.
Also, seeing authoritarian Marxists as allies as many social anarchists do doesn't help. They always end up taking over and letting the anarchists do the dirty work, and then its up against the wall to face the firing squad (literal or figurative). Same thing happened in Catalonia, Ukraine, and even the US (when the Maoists took over SDS and the New Left).
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron: Nick. B:Yeah I agree. I think it's safe to say that this what happened at the Grecce riots, and in the long run will do more harm than good. Also, seeing authoritarian Marxists as allies as many social anarchists do doesn't help. They always end up taking over and letting the anarchists do the dirty work, and then its up against the wall to face the firing squad (literal or figurative). Same thing happened in Catalonia, Ukraine, and even the US (when the Maoists took over SDS and the New Left).
Sadly I agree, the anarchist community have to realise that for the majority of their history they have been either the pawns or the butt of the joke for a stronger political movement. Until they realise that they accomplished little on their own, they will continue to elitist snobs that people tend to avoid.
Nick. B: Sadly I agree, the anarchist community have to realise that for the majority of their history they have been either the pawns or the butt of the joke for a stronger political movement. Until they realise that they accomplished little on their own, they will continue to elitist snobs that people tend to avoid.
Problem is, aside from abolishing government, no anarchist proper would want to DO anything as such.
They want people to do it themselves. I think lots of people feel they can't do that, and more importantly, that others can't ( = classic socialist arrogance).
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
To Liberty Student, on your post from pages back, attacking those playing third person shooters, drinking beer and smoking pot, I would like to make an objection.
I know around 50 people who play the most violent TPSs, drink a lot of beer, and smoke a lot of pot, and ~ 10 of them are my best friends. Certainly my best friends have never initiated aggression against anyone, and to the best of my knowledge, none of the others have. Please justify any claims you make against anyone. Playing violent games is a lifestyle choice that should for no reason coincide with a decreased sense of human value and any reneging on the NAP (not that many of my friends display any interest in politics/economics).
Otherwise excellent points - the whole point of our creed is to me never initiating violence, and complete individual sovereignty, with private property as an extension of the self. Noone can claim to be libertarian and yet support aggression except in defence. However I think you generalise somewhat in your attacks on anarcho-communists (etc) and I think if they truly stick to individual sovereignty, respect for private property and free association, there is no objection we can make against them. If they want to (freely) organise themselves into societies they may, so long as they don't try and coerce me out of my legitimate property.