Because an anarchist loves...

[Denny Crane!]

Corporations?

Mixed state capitalist environments killing people?

Lack of regulation?

Seriously nope. Just a bit of a rant contained in a video about the BP Oil Slick and the lack of accountability and the problems of corporations.

Unless you are really interested the first 3-4 min says it all. Although 8.30 holds some speculative views on contractual law.

[DividerOfZero]

Becuase it's all the Executives faulth. This was their intetion.

Seriously, anarchism is just the new communism. Drugs for intellectuals. The best thing might be if we made some country follow anarchism so that we can get an example of the society it creates, and end this wave just like the commiewave. But afterall all these "waves" are always going to exist and we would run out of countries to create examples with in the end.

[Jingles]

That's rather ironic coming from a monarchist. Good video, btw Denny. Obviously I don't agree with all of it, but food for thought nonetheless.

Also, lol, US government - responsible for 30 million deaths? They would make Stalin proud.

[Denny Crane!]

That's rather ironic coming from a monarchist. Good video, btw Denny. Obviously I don't agree with all of it, but food for thought nonetheless.

Also, lol, US government - responsible for 30 million deaths? They would make Stalin proud.

Thanks for being the only person to seriously reply the rest was just the usual 'insert random generic crap comment into thread with anarchist (or communist I guess) thread title'

Not sure what he was getting at with 30 million deaths, I've never tried to add it up but it wouldn't surprise me. Half a million in Iraq and counting.

You don't agree with it? There wasn't to much to go to far astray ideologically, I mean what is your position on contract law?

[Jingles]

You don't agree with it? There wasn't to much to go to far astray ideologically

Well, I disagreed with his hypothesis that monopolies cannot exist in a free market, but that was it really. I absolutely loved his little rant on education at the end, and frankly I think he's absolutely correct on just about every point - people should definitely remember that students are the customers when it comes to education.

I mean what is your position on contract law?

It sounds bizarre, but then I'm not sure if I understood it correctly or not. I'll probably give the video another watch after dinner.

[Denny Crane!]

Well, I disagreed with his hypothesis that monopolies cannot exist in a free market, but that was it really. I absolutely loved his little rant on education at the end, and frankly I think he's absolutely correct on just about every point - people should definitely remember that students are the customers when it comes to education.



It sounds bizarre, but then I'm not sure if I understood it correctly or not. I'll probably give the video another watch after dinner.

Clearly of course a monopoly can exist around a natural resource or temporarily they would exist in a free market so long as they continued to drive down the price of goods and give good value for money - that is a finite thing and if it isn't backed up by something like a natural resource that can't be obtained or duplicates found elsewhere for the same purpose then they whither.

The question (from my POV being on the other side of the non statist spectrum) becomes how do monopolies and the state interact, for better or worse and I obviously believe the latter

I actually don't think monopolies are inherently evil or wrong, it is troubling around one thing and that is oil because the world simply cannot live without it at the moment, that is rapidly changing but that is another topic (I ran into an MD of an architects firm today who told me about some truly astounding technology on the route to market, off the grid energy production through glycerine and new catalysts for hydrogen production etc etc, and some of the tech going into new ecohousing today is mindblowing)

[The spartan]

Clearly of course a monopoly can exist around a natural resource or temporarily they would exist in a free market so long as they continued to drive down the price of goods and give good value for money - that is a finite thing and if it isn't backed up by something like a natural resource that can't be obtained or duplicates found elsewhere for the same purpose then they whither.

The question (from my POV being on the other side of the non statist spectrum) becomes how do monopolies and the state interact, for better or worse and I obviously believe the latter

I actually don't think monopolies are inherently evil or wrong, it is troubling around one thing and that is oil because the world simply cannot live without it at the moment, that is rapidly changing but that is another topic (I ran into an MD of an architects firm today who told me about some truly astounding technology on the route to market, off the grid energy production through glycerine and new catalysts for hydrogen production etc etc, and some of the tech going into new ecohousing today is mindblowing)

That is the million dollar question, isn't it? How do you get people with money to not interact with people with power? Ultimately, you can't, unless you eliminate either the market or the government, neither of which is a viable option really. So, you tend to end up being libertarian or authoritarian; one saying "Hey, get your government out of my market!" while the other says "Hey! You get your market out of my government!". I tend to fall into the latter group as I am staunch believer that hyperpluarlism has grasped the US government and I would like to see that go away.

[HMS Empire Broadsword]

Anarchism could never work. The guy with the most guns would end up in charge, violence would rule, etc.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Anarchism could never work. The guy with the most guns would end up in charge, violence would rule, etc.

Well done, did your in-depth analysis of anarchist theory lead you to this conclusion, or are you just making sweeping generalizations?

[Denny Crane!]

Well done, did your in-depth analysis of anarchist theory lead you to this conclusion, or are you just making sweeping generalizations?

I'm sure he could do a fantastic critique of Bakunin or Proudhon!

[Squiggle]

Well done, did your in-depth analysis of anarchist theory lead you to this conclusion, or are you just making sweeping generalizations?

Really? Is this how people argue against human nature now a days? "ur just makin generalizations!!!@2!!1!"

[Denny Crane!]

Anarchism is a stinking joke and anyone with a second of political awareness knows it.

Put the anarchists up against the wall first. They are the true enemies of the humanity.

Really? Is this how people argue against human nature now a days? "ur just makin generalizations!!!@2!!1!"

No it is how people react to uneducated rubbish comments like these ^ I'm fine if people disagree with my position so long as they have a reason, so long as they actually understand my position.

[Henrik]

No it is how people react to uneducated rubbish comments like these ^ I'm fine if people disagree with my position so long as they have a reason, so long as they actually understand my position.

Well while my second statement was out of context. Would a society without a centralized, involuntary taxation power be sustainable? I doubt it. Anarchy works on the presumption that people are generally good and smart.

Neither of those is totally true and it takes a small minority of bad people to ruin a society, and enough stupid people and the entire society will collapse as well. No way a full blown nation state could survive with pure anarchy. No community can exist peacefully without some form of rules and people to enforce them.

But an interesting thought occurred to me: what's the difference between believing that anarchy would magically make everything wonderful and fix all our problems and believing that free markets would magically make everything great and fix all our problems? It seems to me that free-marketeers are essentially the ideological descendants of Anarchists for the late 19th and 20th centuries.

[Jingles]

IT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOUR FISH!

[Enemy of the State]

Great video. There is a clear link between big business and government, and they are working together to screw us all over. More government isn't the answer.

I doubt the people making utterly simplistic arguments against Anarchy actually watched the video and know what it is about.

[Big War Bird]

The guy is completely full of it. I don't think he understands the first thing about liability law.

[PoleCat]

Just a bit OT - what's this guy's story? He seems to me to be a British ex-pat living (I'm guessing) in NY State. What's the slant on this "True News" site?

[magickyleo101]

The guy is completely full of it. I don't think he understands the first thing about liability law.

Why? Obviously some of the stuff he's saying is a bit off, but a major function of the corporate form is to limit the liability of investors to their investment.

Ironically, he spends a while harping on how this protects the executives, who don't benefit any more from a corporation than any other form of business where they're the manager.

In any case, though, he's right that corporations are a bit weird.

[Denny Crane!]

Why? Obviously some of the stuff he's saying is a bit off, but a major function of the corporate form is to limit the liability of investors to their investment.

Ironically, he spends a while harping on how this protects the executives, who don't benefit any more from a corporation than any other form of business where they're the manager.

In any case, though, he's right that corporations are a bit weird.

Typically a CEO can benefit more in a corporation while making harmful decisions he is almost completely protected from I always assumed?

[Big War Bird]

Why? Obviously some of the stuff he's saying is a bit off, but a major function of the corporate form is to limit the liability of investors to their investment.

True, but he seemingly is extending that limited liability of investors to executives, which is not right. One can point to any number of cases in which corporate officers have been convicted for and put away for corporate crimes. Corporate executives are liable for their actions, though he maintains the contrary.

Second we says corporate taxes only exist to tax workers to reduce their wages. That is only partially true. Corporate taxesa also drive up costs for consumers and reduce returns for investors.

And he goes on about the Exxon Valdez and forgets to mention that the man most responsible, the captain, was tried for a felony and was ultimately convicted for negligence.

And he is wrong about the ultimate settlement on the Exxon Valdez spill which he claims was $500 million.

Litigation was filed on behalf of 38,000 litigants. In 1994, a jury awarded plaintiffs US$287 million in compensatory damages and US$5 billion in punitive damages. Exxon appealed and the Ninth Circuit court reduced the punitive damages to US$2.5 billion. Exxon then appealed the punitive damages to the Supreme Court which capped the damages to US$507.5 million in June, 2008. On August 27, 2008, Exxon Mobil agreed to pay 75% of the US$507.5 million damages ruling to settle the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska.[11] In June 2009, a federal ruling ordered Exxon to pay an additional US$480 million in interest on their delayed punitive damage awards.[12]

By my count Exxon paid $1.147 billion.





Ironically, he spends a while harping on how this protects the executives, who don't benefit any more from a corporation than any other form of business where they're the manager.

In any case, though, he's right that corporations are a bit weird.[/QUOTE]