An Anarchist Revolution Or Nothing

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:38 am

Cygnus wrote:

What we need are restrictions that prevent the greedy men from taking advantage. We need government as a watchdog.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

IOW: who watches the watchers?

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 29, 2008 Posts: 48

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

What we need are restrictions that prevent the greedy men from taking advantage. We need government as a watchdog.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

IOW: who watches the watchers?

In a democracy we do, at least in theory. In reality most of us aren't even paying attention, but I don't suspect that would improve if there were no government.

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:19 pm

Cygnus wrote:

What we need are restrictions that prevent the greedy men from taking advantage. We need government as a watchdog.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

IOW: who watches the watchers?

MrSmith wrote:

In a democracy we do, at least in theory. In reality most of us aren't even paying attention, but I don't suspect that would improve if there were no government.

You sure about that?

Remember what happened to Wendy's business during that whole "finger in the chili" incident, even after it was shown to be a fraud?

When it's your money directly at stake: you watch. Intently. Why do people switch phone service? Why do people buy certain cars? Because they watch their money.

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:56 pm

Knight wrote:

When it's your money directly at stake: you watch. Intently.

Not because I want too, only because I have too.

Quote:

Why do people switch phone service? Why do people buy certain cars? Because they watch their money.

and sometimes for other reasons like aesthetics, different or better quality services, etc.

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:37 pm

Knight wrote:

When it's your money directly at stake: you watch. Intently.

MockingGods wrote:

Not because I want too, only because I have too.

I see no difference here. You have to watch it to ensure you're getting the best deal possible, because that's what you want.

Knight of BAAWA wrote:

Why do people switch phone service? Why do people buy certain cars? Because they watch their money.

MockingGods wrote:

and sometimes for other reasons like aesthetics, different or better quality services, etc.

Sometimes, yes. But better quality services means they're watching their money to get what they feel is the most for it.

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 29, 2008 Posts: 48

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

What we need are restrictions that prevent the greedy men from taking advantage. We need government as a watchdog.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

IOW: who watches the watchers?

MrSmith wrote:

In a democracy we do, at least in theory. In reality most of us aren't even paying attention, but I don't suspect that would improve if there were no government.

You sure about that?

Remember what happened to Wendy's business during that whole "finger in the chili" incident, even after it was shown to be a fraud?

When it's your money directly at stake: you watch. Intently. Why do people switch phone service? Why do people buy certain cars? Because they watch their money.

Knight I believe that we're talking about two different things. You're referring to the tendancy of people to attempt to get the most out of their money. I agree normally we do, it's one of the virtues of a free market. By "watchers" I meant the government and specifically oversite committees and regulatory agencies. These are orginizations that in theory should be protecting us from unscrupulous buisness practices. Most of us pay nowhere near enough attention to their actions and motives.

Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:06 am

MrSmith wrote:

Knight I believe that we're talking about two different things.

Could be.

MrSmith wrote:

You're referring to the tendancy of people to attempt to get the most out of their money. I agree normally we do, it's one of the virtues of a free market. By "watchers" I meant the government and specifically oversite committees and regulatory agencies.

Yeah, those have worked very well, haven't they?

MrSmith wrote:

These are orginizations that in theory should be protecting us from unscrupulous buisness practices. Most of us pay nowhere near enough attention to their actions and motives.

Quite so.

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:49 am

Knight wrote:

I see no difference here. You have to watch it to ensure you're getting the best deal possible, because that's what you want.

You might be confusing desire (want) with necessity. Capital driven models necessitate “getting the best deal”, but this isn’t necessarily a practice I desire to perform. Personally, I’d prefer a system where competition in the form of “deals” didn’t exist. It might rid us of this incessantly aggressive and irritating trend to advertise everything.

MrSmith wrote:

My point was simply that I do not believe for a second that capitalism is imposed upon us.

Capitalism has become so pervasive it would be nearly impossible for an individual to divorce himself from the system. In that sense, I do believe it is imposed.

Quote:

For good or bad it's what developed once we "evolved" beyond an agrarian/feudal economy.

I agree.

Quote:

I just don't believe that anarchy would result in the end of capitalism.

You're right, probably not.

Quote:

There may be examples of non-reciprical small scale tribal economies, but I haven't seen anything that suggests we would just stop being capitalistic naturally.

If our current trend to replace human labor with machine labor continues, I can envision a time in the future when there becomes a glut of unemployed humans simply because there is no necessity of their labor. Capitalism exists as a means to reciprocate labor. If labor becomes mostly unnecessary, the capitalistic models may begin to dissolve.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Apr 22, 2005 Posts: 980

spartacus wrote:

If Capitalism stays we are finished, but if it will vanish we will happily survive.

And if we uninvent the wheel we can reduce car accidents to zero.

Utter nonsense.

The Learned Joined: Nov 30, 2004 Posts: 106

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

What we need are restrictions that prevent the greedy men from taking advantage. We need government as a watchdog.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

IOW: who watches the watchers?

Good point, and if memory serves correct that was the point of the satire "Animal Farm" as well.

Nothing is perfect but believing government needs to restrict people goes past socialism into the realm of communism - a failed economic and social system.

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:33 am

Who watches the watchers?

i.e. get rid of all the watchers. Now there's a dumb idea if I ever heard one.

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:36 am

Stuz719 wrote:

spartacus wrote:

If Capitalism stays we are finished, but if it will vanish we will happily survive.

And if we uninvent the wheel we can reduce car accidents to zero.

Utter nonsense.

Assuming capitalism is some kind of techological advance, something I am not convinced of, the thing you must remember is that technology is neutral. Yet you infer that the invention of the wheel (and of capitalism)was an inherent positive good. It's not.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Apr 22, 2005 Posts: 980

kmisho wrote:

Stuz719 wrote:

spartacus wrote:

If Capitalism stays we are finished, but if it will vanish we will happily survive.

And if we uninvent the wheel we can reduce car accidents to zero.

Utter nonsense.

Assuming capitalism is some kind of techological advance, something I am not convinced of, the thing you must remember is that technology is neutral. Yet you infer that the invention of the wheel (and of capitalism)was an inherent positive good. It's not.

Hmm, technology is neutral? Like mustard gas and Zyklon B?

I'm also unconvinced that capitalism is a technological advance of some kind, although it could be argued, I'd suggest, that it is as it requires a concept of "capital" that may represent a sociological/socio-political advance.

Generally speaking I agree with you, that it's about the technology's application, although you may be heading down the path of absolute morality with that one, so I won't travel all the way along with you, I'm afraid.

I was merely pointing out the idiocy of Spartacus' aim of making capitalism "vanish".

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:08 am

Stuz719 wrote:

kmisho wrote:

Stuz719 wrote:

spartacus wrote:

If Capitalism stays we are finished, but if it will vanish we will happily survive.

And if we uninvent the wheel we can reduce car accidents to zero.

Utter nonsense.

Assuming capitalism is some kind of techological advance, something I am not convinced of, the thing you must remember is that technology is neutral. Yet you infer that the invention of the wheel (and of capitalism)was an inherent positive good. It's not.

Hmm, technology is neutral? Like mustard gas and Zyklon B?

Exactly my point. There is nothing about technology itself that tends toward positive (or negative) use.

Quote:

Generally speaking I agree with you, that it's about the technology's application, although you may be heading down the path of absolute morality with that one, so I won't travel all the way along with you, I'm afraid.

I thought that's what you were doing. If you think morality will forever be subject to adjusment, we agree.

Quote:

I was merely pointing out the idiocy of Spartacus' aim of making capitalism "vanish".

I think his heart's in the right place, but his head hasn't caught up with it yet.

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:14 am

kmisho wrote:

Who watches the watchers?

i.e. get rid of all the watchers. Now there's a dumb idea if I ever heard one.

Especially since only you are the one talking about it.

Dumbass. Learn to NOT create strawmen, you fucking moron.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore