Cipher - how do your views make sense of the following: If a private corporation were to develop a monopoly on all property, such that all land, energy and travel were at their discretion, is there not scope for a substantial imposition on ones capacity to actually *do* anything? 'Negative liberty' (freedom from interference) is pretty fucking useless without 'positive liberty'. (power to do stuff)
Utiliitarianism - doctrine of irresponsibility?
- Thread starter Blowtus
- Start date
Anarchy...communism...two words that by their very nature form an oxymoron when in proximity and not negated.
As for me, I grow tired of beating what appears to be a dead horse amongst statists who are so willing to surrender liberties unto an institution, which if unchecked or trusted beyond the tip of a sword, becomes a voracious beast as seen throughout history.
However, I shall look into this anthropological argument, as 'Columbia University' is a red flag (both literally and figuratively). I despise nothing more than communism or anything coming forth from that bearded troll Marx, and shall take pleasure in refuting it. However, I am taking summer classes so this will take some time.
In the meantime, by all means look into Dr. Paul's 'Manifesto'.
P.S. tell Karl that the blood of hundreds of millions are on his hands.
I could care less about Karl Marx. I never mentioned him and your ranting about him and communism seems to indicate your are not familiar with anarcho-communism as a distinct theory and practice that is different from traditional Marxism/Leninism/Maoism. Ever heard of Peter Kropotkin? Or Mikhail Bakunin? Both were vehement critics of Marx along with dozens of other anarchist writers who have little or no connection with Marx. It is a pretty clear fact from anthropological research that hunter-gatherer people live without a state and are egalitarian in a socio-economic sense, hence by definition they would practice a type of anarcho-communism. this is of course a generalization with exceptions to the rule, but mainstream anthropology has undergone a pretty significant shift in the past half century in regards to its perception of what living in a "state of nature" consists of. You really should catch up so you don't sound like a pompous know-it-all who is actually substantially uninformed. And your skepticism of Columbia University is pretty ridiculous. There are many, many anthropologists all around the world who have a similar take on things as Morton Fried. His book is a useful introduction and was written in 1967. Here are a dozen other anthropologists off the top of my head who share a similar perspective to Fried. Richard B. Lee, Colin Turnbull, Susan Kent, James Woodburn, Tim Ingold, Kirk and Karen Endicott, Nurit Bird-David, Raymond C. Kelly, Brian Ferguson, Frank Marlowe, Mark Nathan Cohen. Now get busy reading and stop wanking to Ron Paul.:Smokin:
I logged in under my old username on accident. This post was written by the person who wrote under the name Insurrectionary. Sorry for the confusion.
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
I may well have jumped the gun on this one, most likely on account of my own distastes. This warrants further research on my part, and shall certainly be re-examining in greater detail into the arguments in better context.
Many of Dr. Paul's arguments, though, I already agreed with before they were made on account that they were corroborated by my own study of history and of economics.
Many of Dr. Paul's arguments, though, I already agreed with before they were made on account that they were corroborated by my own study of history and of economics.
Similar threads
