Political Theory

Re: Individualist Democracy

Individualist — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:07:57 GMT

Marko:

Not bad, it reminds me of this piece: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hein/hein186.html

Democracy properly understood could really only mean anarchy, but unfortunately the word has actually never been properly understood or applied.

As far as lireral translations of the words go; anarchy means "no one rules", and democracy means "the people rule". How the two be reconciled?

Re: Individualist Democracy

wombatron — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:09:51 GMT

liberty student:
Is it possible to be for mutualism, and not be socialist and/or anti-capitalist?

Well, I'm generally for what mutualists call "socialism", and I'm also pretty much for what an-caps call "capitalism". Those words are supposed to opposites, and yet I can qualify as being both. That's why I think that they have zero utility.

Re: Individualist Democracy

Thedesolateone — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:37:44 GMT

liberty student:

Statism teh uber bad.

liberty student:

HAR THIS IS SARCASM DO NOT TAKE IT SERIUS LIKE REST OF TEH INTERWEbZ!!

Obama is teh lux0r n00b

Ron Paul is teh l33t pr0

Re: Individualist Democracy

Marko — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:06:59 GMT

Richard Chambers:

Anarcho-capitalists are not democrats. Start a new thread.

I call anarcho-capitalism individualist democracy. The reason being that existing democracies are collectivist: they legislate according to majority vote, and they do not allow individuals to opt out of the government that is chosen by the majority and start competing agencies to protect their rights.

What do y'all think?

Not bad, it reminds me of this piece: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hein/hein186.html

Democracy properly understood could really only mean anarchy, but unfortunately the word has actually never been properly understood or applied.

nameless:

How about "self-rule"?

Not bad either. But we already have self-ownership,

Re: Individualist Democracy

liberty student — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:09:05 GMT

CorporateGhost:
Rothbard had an LSD phase? really?

No. That is why I used the winking smilie. It means,

HAR THIS IS SARCASM DO NOT TAKE IT SERIUS LIKE REST OF TEH INTERWEbZ!!

Re: Individualist Democracy

CorporateGhost — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:28:28 GMT

liberty student:
But I think people know what anarcho-capitalism is, even if the anarcho bit may be misleading. To those who know, those zany leftists who think that you can voluntarily replicate a tyrannical and unnatural social order and call it libertarian, they seethe when someone brings up AnCap, and even worse, that the Saint of the Left [sic], Murray Newton Rothbard identified as one (must have been during his LSD phase, I know, I know ).

Rothbard had an LSD phase? really?

Re: Individualist Democracy

liberty student — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:08:57 GMT

wombatron:

liberty student:
You are an anti-capitalist.

Not really. I just think the word (along with "socialism", for that matter) has zero utility in an anarchist setting.

Is it possible to be for mutualism, and not be socialist and/or anti-capitalist?

Re: Individualist Democracy

liberty student — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:07:44 GMT

wombatron:
Then I call for a vote for whether or not I get a vote!

Anarchists.

Re: Individualist Democracy

wombatron — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:54:14 GMT

liberty student:
You're not an anarcho-capitalist.

True enough.

liberty student:
You are an anti-capitalist.

Not really. I just think the word (along with "socialism", for that matter) has zero utility in an anarchist setting.

liberty student:
You don't get a vote.

Then I call for a vote for whether or not I get a vote!

Re: Individualist Democracy

liberty student — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:43:41 GMT

GilesStratton:
But in this case, anarchism has historically been a leftist movement. Who was the first self described anarchist? Proudhon. Up until Murray Rothbard no capitalist would ever use the word anarchist to describe themself. Even Tucker and Spooner bought into anti capitalist economics.

You know, you're probably right. And frankly, Proudhon is about as relevant today as he was when he was alive. Not at all.

But I think people know what anarcho-capitalism is, even if the anarcho bit may be misleading. To those who know, those zany leftists who think that you can voluntarily replicate a tyrannical and unnatural social order and call it libertarian, they seethe when someone brings up AnCap, and even worse, that the Saint of the Left [sic], Murray Newton Rothbard identified as one (must have been during his LSD phase, I know, I know ).

I agree with you on a lot of things, but not on your current spin that the state might have some legitimacy. I am as anti-state as ever. States are simply unnecessary, and willbe even more as time progresses. The same with the left, which gets more anarchonistic each day.

Re: Individualist Democracy

liberty student — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:39:34 GMT

laminustacitus:

I despise democracy.

Hear, hear!

Re: Individualist Democracy

liberty student — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:38:33 GMT

wombatron:
To insert my $0.02, I like the term "participatory democracy".

You're not an anarcho-capitalist. You are an anti-capitalist.

wombatron:
I think it sums up a lot of my views very nicely.

You don't get a vote.

Re: Individualist Democracy

wombatron — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:33:47 GMT

To insert my $0.02, I like the term "participatory democracy". I think it sums up a lot of my views very nicely.

Re: Individualist Democracy

laminustacitus — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:36:22 GMT

I despise democracy.

Re: Individualist Democracy

Nerditarian — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:47:32 GMT

GilesStratton:
Even Tucker and Spooner bought into anti capitalist economics.

That seems to me an unfair statement. They weren't anticapitalist so much as capitalism had not been formulated properly yet. Austrianism had not yet left the European continent. They were individualist on economics, 80% of the time. Their main weak points: interest rates and land. In the pre-Bohm-Bawerk world the former is somewhat forgivable. The later is not. But I heard Block quote Rothbard on the media about every dog having his bite: every libertarian being able to support one unlibertarian thing and still being able to keep the name. I think the same should hodl true for capitalist economics. Granted, they did take a big bite. But they're still capitalists.