Somewhat accurate; it certainly won't be easy to divorce big business from government, but than neither will communist revolution.

Again, communism isn't doing well in the 'ideas' department either.

Dialectics? What a crock of shit.

At least our answers aren't: "It's inevietable!"

Actually, the GD was caused by governement intervention, primilarily, interest rates.

This debate is like we are saying the Emporor has no clothes whereas the anacro-capitalists respond: "He is wearing clothes, they are just threadbare and he has better clothes at home in his wardrobe".

It's rediculous. They arn't serious, they don't have any sort of plan for implementing their fanasty version of "good capitalism". They are just apologists who use fiction to try and show that in some other dimension, under some other set of circumstances, the realities of life in capitalism wouldn't be so bad.

They are capitalism's version of Utopian socialists who spend their time imagineing a perfect system if only they had a magic want to implement it. As materialists we actually have a view of how states work and how they came about and why they exist as they do and, most importanly, how they could be changed.

Of course. Revolution is never easy and there are lots of ideas of how to achieve worker's power. I have heard many of these arguments, but I'm still waiting for the argument that explains how to achieve "good capitalim" when, in my view, your plans would be vigerously and brutally opposed by real capitalists like Wal-Mart and so on and so on.

There are a lot of bad ideas out there everywhere. I happen to agree with Dialectics since I see the world as contantly in motion and changeing not A=A staticness. But you still haven't laid-out the plan for what happens when Wal-Mart has a coup and overthrows your perfect-sytem because it would take power away from them (i.e. their biggest power, the power of the capitalist state).

WTF? The Great Depression was before WWII. You need to do some reading. Still, in responce, so it was bad government that caused the Depression. What about the Depression in the 1870s? What about various other depressions and recessions? Oh yeah, it was all bad government intervention. Well maybe if capitalism wasn't prone to chaos, capitalist governments wouldn't try to controll the anarchy of the market so much. Ahh, someday my capitalist-system-prince will come and deliver me from the realities of capitalism.

I have often enquired about a capitalist revolution, but there seem to be few that are interested in addressing this idea. Would you say that revolution is necessary for capitalism?

To be fair many neo-Marxists and revisionists ignore this part of Marx's work, it is more contestable amongst the modern left, and many subscribe without ever coming accross it. I have often wondered how well Marx brought this in. Just as I have wondered about Hegel in general.

In a debate about minarchism, arguing against someone who isn't a minarchist or anarcho-capitalist (Myself) you deign to bring up anarcho-capitalism.

Let's stay on topic.

I have all kinds of plans, most of them consist of voters not being stupid, so I throw them out.

Personally, I think all forms of utopian thinking will fail, anarcho-capitalism, communism, and to a degree, minarchism.

The Demos ruin everything.

The magic is that there is no magic.

Earth will suck from now to eternity.

As soon as everyone realizes that, we can get some actual change started.

'How'?

This is a democracy (Sort of), how do you think?

We vote in leaders who don't bow to Wal Mart.

Either we do that, or we're ultimately fucked.

What does that have to do with anything?

Government fiat money caused the great depression. Credit expansion was too great and interest rates far to low in the 20's which lead to overproduction and underconsumption and then deflated the currency once the stock market crashed.

The Fed did the 2 worst things it could have done and the Depression is entirely the government's fault.

They quite often were. Depression of 1870's? Money supply was reduced.

What happens is a market readjustment, often minor, is made worse by government bungling.

Why do prices adjust in capitalism? What purpose do prices serve?

I'll be honest: Smarter, better people.

Not likely.

I should think so.

Dialectics is laughable. It adds no new knowledge of anything, merely that something is dialectical.

"Night and day are dialectical" is meaningless. It adds no new information.

You can't make predictions using it, only observations, and only evident observations at that.

Gravedigger

Well you're right in a way. Worker's movements aren't in any worker's interest, as they are generally disasterous to the economy.

It might be a little painful, but it's easy to produce a small government, all we need to do is take the currently massive one and cut it down to size.

The book he was quoting from doesn't exist, so we'll never know.

I'm not convinced. Democracy is a system where some people have more power than others. The majority, for instance, would have more power than a minority. A system where a majority is able to confiscate the wealth of a minority via democracy does not equate to freedom for everyone, only one particular group.

Private ownership is not synonymous with slavery unless it is people that are being owned. You'll find that 'owning' people tends to be a breach of their rights, to which all men are entitled under a minarchy. You seem to assume that our ideology is as contradictory as your own.

What would the tiny elite have to start with? Everything would be privately owned and nothing could legally be confiscated. Taxation would be minimal, so it wouldn't have much money to go on the rampage with even if it did. What about your system? How does that safeguard from the tiny elite. Elites seem to be more prominent in countries with socialist, Stalinist, or whatever the lastest phrase for it is, governments, so how is this problem going to be addressed?

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion, or what you mean by 'enough'.

Monopolies are extremly rare and can only really be enforced with a government gun.

One has to question what the definition of corporate crook and petty crook is, or whether what we live in today can honestly be called laissez fair capitalism. I don't.

I don't think Wal-Mart will make much of a fuss when it realises that it's interests no longer lie in currying the favour of the government.

That does not imply staticness, only the non-contradiction of identity.

What's stopping Wal-Mart from having a coup right now?

Severian

That does not equate to one rule for one group and one for another. Because I can afford a car and my neighbour cannot does not grant him the right to confiscate either my car or my money. If such behaviour was allowed, then we would be politically unequal. He would have the right to confiscate my money, whereas I would not have the right to confiscate his. He becomes my master, I become his slave. So much for the classless society.

Publius

Me too. This is going to sound a bit self-contratulatory, but the main reason I liked Rand's work was because it conicided with my own ideas.

Hegemonicretribution

One would have to ask whether it could actually be called a revolution. I don't plan on taking anything or killing anyone. Although many, many people from the publice sector will be looking for new jobs.

Socratic dialectics are actually a valid form of argument though, and very successful at that.

How would you bring about capitalism then, that is without revolution. Just as the ruling class don't want to give up their power to libertarian leftists, they don't want to, to the truest free-marketers either. They have made the state a bigger part than even Keynes would care for, and it doesn't seem to be going away.

Economic freedom could arguably be seen as being stepped up, but not so social freedom.

http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/pr.htm
http://FreeStateProject.org

Explain.

True. To be honest, I don't see a 'real' libertarian revolution as likely or even possible.

I want so very much to be able to say it will happen. But it won't. I just accept it and move on and do what I can with what I have.

I would argue they go hand in hand.

If I was to give an example it would simply be the classic one of piety, although I have used similar tactics in debates before. Of course it works best against weaker opponents.

Essentially this is the reason many become disillussioned with the left. To be honest none of us "know" if anything will happen either way. If history has taught us anything though these things are not easy, and do take time. Which peasants would have dreamt of an end to feudalism?

Dissent itself is very important at the moment, regardless of how much of an opposition there appears to, the fact it is there is important to everyones lives. Western "cultural" hegemony would be a fate worse than death in my oppinion. Whatever happens, reduction of state power is a common goal for many, and that should be the crux of any opposition movement initially. My immediate concern would not be the putting down of a revolution, because this does not appear immediate, but rather the putting down of the possibility of a revolution.

Apparently not. Even though in some cases free trade could be in the process of being steped up, I would not say the same for social freedom. If you maintain economic freedom as part of freedom as a whole that is part of another issue. However the governments that could arguably (at least when it suits them) be seen to be increasing economic freedom, could not be said to be doing the same for social freedom.

Trade union - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

As indicated in the preceding quotation, unions were illegal for many years in most countries. There were severe penalties for attempting to organize unions, up to and including execution.

When were unions illegal?

At the good old times of "night watchman" State...

When did they cease to be illegal?

Quote:

Despite this, unions were formed and began to acquire political power, eventually resulting in a body of labour law which not only legalized organizing efforts, but codified the relationship between employers and those employees organized into unions.

When the monsterous "welfare" State took over...

Luís Henrique

Luís Henrique
Not according to Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward:
"(Welfare programs arise) from the need to stem political disorder during periods of mass unemployment, and to enforce low-wage work during periods of economic and political stability. The institution of relief is thus best understood, not as charity, but as a system for regulating the poor."

Unions are not mentioned, nor are they credited for the creation of the welfare state.

Notice that I wrote "when", not "because", "for", or "so that".

Luís Henrique

The U.S. hasn't represented a 'minarchist state' since before Lincoln.

Since the abolition of slavery, then?

Just a coincidence, I presume?

Luís Henrique

Luís Henrique
So if "small government" equals slavery then what does "big government" equal, freedom? (laughs)

No, because of what Lincoln did in regard to the money supply, the power of the Federal Government (Taking away the writ of Hebeas Corpus and arresting dissenters).

The war was a tarrif issue as much as a slavery issue. Lincoln was trying to destroy the Right of Nullification.

He succeeded.

THe abolition of slavery was only an ancillary benefit of the war.

In any case... a "minarchist State" wouldn't be incompatible with slavery, would it?

Luís Henrique