Search results

Are you trolling or serious?

Minchin is highly economically right wing isn't he? He's probably not mainstream enough to be leader if so. Besides, who will build teh roadzz

love it

tinfoilhat, my point here is yes you could "try central planning", but it wouldn't be very effective. In the same way that "yes you could try tippy toe walking to brisbane from sydney" but it wouldn't be as effective as getting on a plane or driving in your car.

You missed my sentence immediately after that where I clarified what I meant I fully acknowledge that democracy is a flawed system and support a change to anarchism. I'm not sure you're understanding the point of the profit motive. The profit motive is used as a signal for businessmen to produce...

I'm not saying it's impossible to centrally plan at all, I'm saying it's impossible to centrally plan and allocate resources in an efficient manner. As in, to use central planning is to waste resources and make people's lives poorer than they would otherwise be.

Well to really get anywhere within democracy you often have to make compromises and you can't really stick to your principles because the game is played in such a way that you can't stick to those principles. Look at the libertarian party in the US, Murray Rothbard and stuff were originally...

No, it's also a bad idea cos central planning is impossible. More accurately speaking, rational economic calculation is impossible under central planning. Google the socialist calculation problem for info on this. Not only is communism bad in practice, it's also a terrible theory. I'm so...

This is government

Lucas Neill is pretty shit, he's probably a little too aggressive and makes rash decisions as a defender imo

Voting and following a democratic path of changing government requires a lot of specific time and energy in political campaigning as opposed to talking about why the state is illegitimate/hindering society's progress. To argue that ACists should "play the game" is missing the broader overall...

Ok waf: 1. I agree that 10 is better than 20, but the point here is that just always choosing the "lesser of the two" won't bring any kind of real change in a positive direction. All it could ever do is slow the growth of the state, and that's not a desirable position because I prefer zero...

Already answered that in this post wat

moll, if your post is directed towards me then you are misrepresenting/misunderstanding my position: 1. i don't support an authoritarian one party system, this is the opposite of what I want as a free market anarchist 2. This is a commonly cited "problem" used to justify the imposition of a...

The "choice" is much broader than that, the kid might want to go and start working, to get some experience, make some money and start producing. And even if the kid wants to go play in the forest, eventually he has to grow up, and he knows that. His parents and social pressure to not be a leech...

Well what "clear scientific reasoning" suggests that children should not leave school earlier than 15? As far as I'm aware, the state legislates that children should be at government schools (or government allowed schools, even in the case of "private schools") from the ages of 6-15, I think...

If his only counter argument is that anarchism is a "wank", well he's certainly not doing a good job :santa: First off, you claim "cience as though it is "on your side". This claim doesn't even really make sense, since I'm not suggesting that children reach "biological adulthood" at 13, I'm...

Leaving the ad hom aside, I think there is a very fundamental way in which a person who doesn't vote is "defying the system". If the system is "let's all vote on what policy to impose on everyone" and some people stop voting well then clearly they are defying the system. So I think you're having...

I promote using non-political solutions, such as non-voting. (this doesn't mean I support violent revolution either) what I'm proposing is a change in the fundamentals You're going to need to explain this again, it's not all too clear what you're saying. Well there are a few things: 1. my own...

Statism + private property - as you seem to propose, is a contradiction. Free market anarchism is the only way to truly allow for private property, otherwise it's just "we'll violate your private property rights to tax you, but then protect you using that money" - which is a clear contradiction...