public protection is not solved by PRIVATE defense agencies . I am highlighting PRIVATE because as the name says these agencies don't provide public and collective protection . As my dilemma about private property only a governmental entity can hire such an agency for public protection . Participatory communities use workers militias inside their communities to protect their communities that's the best option in an anarchist society . Because these militias will have the same outlook and interests as their communities because they are part of it they are part of this organic unit .

We didn't steal it we adapted the term to the political realm . POLITICALLY we created the word . The thing is you peopl STOLE it the term had already a political use and your tradition stole it and put an entirely different political meaning to it . I am not talking about philosophy here i am talking strictly political. If your tradition saw that the term was already in use in a political sense why they still adopted it ??

And this all goes back to why I am against the ridiculous amount of money Rockefeller had. Idk the exact numbers, but for a small percentage of what every person that rich has that is completely unnecessary, there are numerous people in poverty, many of which have no homes and live day to day wondering if they will eat. Many of these people worked hard not to end up like this, many didn't, but all crumbled under the pressure created by an unjust system, and that system is not the government (at least not only), it is capitalism. I have no problem with Rockefeller having as much wealth as he did. What I do have a problem with is him having it at the expense of those people.

Oh, btw, there is no problem with rebates and discounts, as you said, but I have a total problem with SECRET rebates, which Rockefeller was partaking in, as well as secretly buying out companies and having employees of those secretly owned companies spy on other companies, and even sending goons out to threaten violence on opposing companies who didn't oblige with their wishes.

No matter what, whether it be in society or in business, you need a unified body (preferably the inhabitants of that society) to regulate corruption and crime, otherwise the criminals will be allowed to run amok.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

no ,

THAT'S PUBLIC PROTECTION , THE TAX PAYERS PAY THE STATE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEM TROUGH VARIOUS STATE INSTITUTIONS , THE POLICE , THE ARMY ETC. ARE STATE INSTITUTIONS . In anarcho-capitalism does who don't posses property that being the whole working class will not protected second PDA's won't provide PUBLIC PROTECTION . The public at large won't be protected only certain individuals who pay will be protected . Tax payers put collectively their money into the state so they can be protected in anarcho-capitalism there is no such thing because collective capital is non existent .

Secondly there is no government in what you call government in form of democracy , because a direct democracy within an anarchist framework works whit out any central authority , rulers , CEO's or other FORMS of authority . Communities organize themselves in participatory communities , libertarian municipalities , free communes , federations of free communes etc. These communities are based on self-government through direct, face-to-face democracy in grassroots neighborhood and community assemblies. There is NO STATE here nobody governs the people the people govern themselves starting from an individual basis to a societal basis. As far as structure is concerned, a state involves the politico-military and economic domination of a certain geographical territory by a ruling elite, based on the delegation of power into the hands of the few, resulting in the state (centralized authority). In a system of federated participatory communities, however, there is no ruling elite, and thus no hierarchy, because power is retained by the lowest-level units of confederation through their use of direct democracy and mandated, rotating, and re-callable delegates to meetings of higher-level confederal bodies. This eliminates the problem in "representative" democratic systems of the delegation of power leading to the elected officials becoming isolated from and beyond the control of the mass of people who elected them and eventually becoming a state . Representative Democracy creates a state trough centralizing power into the hands of a few . These professional RULERS take care of society . We anarchists don't do it like that. These communities are bind together trough voluntary free agreement and free association everything is based on self-assumed obligations . These communities are no more "statist" than the act of promising and keeping ones word.

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

and also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Even a direct democracy is a form of government. I think you're the first person I ever came across that said that democracy isn't a form of government.

There is no "majority rule" in participatory democracy . As i already said these communities are bind together trough voluntary free agreement and free association everything is based on self-assumed obligations . These communities are no more "statist" or governmental than the act of promising and keeping ones word. Proudhon's comment that "the true meaning of the word 'democracy'" was the "dismissal of government." Bakunin argued that when the "whole people govern" then "there will be no one to be governed. It means that there will be no government, no State." Malatesta, decades later, made the same point -- "government by everybody is no longer government in the authoritarian, historical and practical sense of the word." These communities are not "law-making bodies" in the modern sense of the term, and thus not statist or governmental . We can flaunt definitions all around but lets see what a government does and acts . And how a governments works .

Collective initiative is needed and collective capital is needed for PUBLIC PROTECTION in order my neighborhood to be protected we the people inside the neighborhood need to create collective capital so we can hire a PDA so they can defend our neighborhood , the whole perimeter of the neighborhood . In anarcho-capitalism there is no collective capital a family individually can hire the PDA but the PDA protects the family and their house not the streets and the whole public domain .

This sounds a lot like how private insurance works and, well, I don't think I much need to explain this. How many people aren't insured around the world? A lot, no? I rest my case.

I think that you are thinking of this wrong. Let me draw a parallel. The terms "atheist" and "anarchist" draw parallels in different ways. The main is that they both begin with the prefix "a" meaning "without". It does not necessarily mean "against" like you may think. An atheist is not necessarily "against" God or the idea of God, but he doesn't believe it exists, that's all. Some anarchists, including myself, will tell you that we don't believe the state or the idea of government exists outside of as a concept that we have to believe in. Government then becomes like the fairies in Peter Pan. We have to reinforce our belief in them constantly or they will cease to exist. The only thing this type of anarchist is "against" per se is the belief itself and people making themselves a slave to this belief, just as atheists are against religious folks doing the same thing.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Quote (eboyd)

(and what is funny is, no matter what you say, all I have to answer is "well then it isn't pure capitalism anymore, is it?" or "you're ignoring the proposed problem" so basically I'm in a win-win here ).

Quote (eboyd)

You can't say that the market will self regulate. The only thing you can do is define corrupt practices as not corrupt making it so that everything is acceptable in business, but when these practices lead to corporate giants (an oligarchy) in collusion with each other to set market pricing norms (not too far fetched an idea for a group of greedy individuals), we are back to the great American way of "the rich get richer and the poor get fucked over". We're talking the possibility of poverty rate hikes increasing astronomically while a small few just gain more wealth by the day because of their greed. What do you propose to have in place to prevent this (and what is funny is, no matter what you say, all I have to answer is "well then it isn't pure capitalism anymore, is it?" or "you're ignoring the proposed problem" so basically I'm in a win-win here ).

Stop talking about this poverty nonsense. Look at Slovakia, it went from being a centrally planned economy to an almost completely free market system and right now has the lowest poverty rating in the world. In fact, it's a thriving country now thanks to an almost pure capitalist economy. It has the highest sustained GDP growth in the European Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Slovakia

Added (08/Dec/09, 5:45 Pm)
---------------------------------------------

Added (09/Dec/09, 5:58 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
So are we able to conclude that Standard Oil really held no monopoly in the oil market?

If the Standard Oil Company had a monopoly, or exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling their products, then it wouldn't make sense that the prices were at the lowest at the time of their most success. Regulation negatively affected the people because they had to start paying more their products.

You say workers get neglected while CEOs make a ton yet you don't show any evidence that supports that...

But if you want to end this debate, you're the boss. All I know is you were asking why Capitalism has gained esteem and you haven't shown me any argument that has been that strong.