/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3827941]

Recommend me some political books.

[Anonymous No.3827945]

Sorry here's a more accurate pic.

[Anonymous No.3827964]

>>3827945
>Doesn't know what democracy is
>Doesn't know what communism is
>Implies Americans are more free than anarchists

[Anonymous No.3827970]

>>3827945
>monarchism "less free" than Fascism and Nazism

Hahahahahahahah oh god where did you find these OP?

[Anonymous No.3827971]

1984 and animal farm

[AnalCrust !m9jxTLhLcw No.3827974]

>>3827941
>>3827945
I can't decide which one is most retarded...
Just kidding, it's obviously the second one. The first is bad too, though.

[Anonymous No.3827975]

>>3827941
Everything is political so any book will do.

[Anonymous No.3827976]

>>3827941
>conservatism
>GOP
>everything else
uugggghhhh

>>3827945
better

[Anonymous No.3827980]

>>3827945
>Islamo-Fascism

[Anonymous No.3827997]

>>3827945
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.3828009]

All the King's Men

[Anonymous No.3828010]

>>3827997
>communism
>dictatorship

I don't think so Tim.

[Anonymous No.3828013]

>>3828010
Stay sheep Al.

[Anonymous No.3828018]

>>3827997
Holy shit it keeps getting worse

[Anonymous No.3828020]

>>3827997
>this graph however is much more logical since it aligns political ideologies by how much governmental control the state exerts

And why is that a useful criteria, Uncle Smith?

[Anonymous No.3828039]

>>3827941
Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.
Even better, anything by glorious Ayn Rand.

[Anonymous No.3828074]

There, see? Took me 30 seconds.

[Anonymous No.3828077]

Read some Anthony Ludovici or Julius Evola.

[Anonymous No.3828097]

>>3828074
How is anarchism more leftist than communism? Don't they both strive for a classless stateless society?

[Anonymous No.3828108]

>>3828074
>American Conservatism and Liberalism farther right than Fascism

lol

[Anonymous No.3828117]

>>3828097
Yeah, I didn't bother in fixing it from the previous chart.

>>3828108
Fascism sustains it's authoritarian populism in an anti-capitalist speech, while still remaining in it and serving its interests. Both liberals and conservatives are proud defenders of the market. Do you even history?

[Anonymous No.3828120]

>attempting to dichotomize something as vague and wide reaching as a political ideology

Every picture that does this will be wrong. Stop trying.

[Anonymous No.3828125]

Fuck you OP for putting a bullshit image to a pretty good question.

[Anonymous No.3828129]

Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" is pretty good.

[Anonymous No.3828130]

>>3827997
This one's good, but it still falls into the trap of using the fucked up American modern definitions of liberal and conservative. They should be reversed.

[Anonymous No.3828136]

>>3828117
yeah the only thing wrong with the chart is the placement of anarchism
its kind of got its own political spectrum

[Anonymous No.3828139]

>being a leftist or a rightist
>not being a northist

[Anonymous No.3828141]

>>3827997
>communism and nazism beside each other on the left
pls

[Anonymous No.3828142]

>>3828139
>being on the spectrum at all

[Anonymous No.3828143]

>>3827945

[Anonymous No.3828145]

Some 400 pages into this. Really great, if you ask me, although kind of repetitive at times.

[Anonymous No.3828147]

>>3828145
An anarchic society would be a terrible place to live unless you're rich as fuck or have a lot of guns. Why don't people realize this?

[Anonymous No.3828155]

>>3827941

[Anonymous No.3828160]

You could start with On Politics by Alan Ryan and work from there. It's a long but pretty entertaining book that covers political theory from Herodotus to the present day.
He has a long list of recommended reading for each chapter, which should give you plenty to pick from.

[Anonymous No.3828161]

>>3828145
it kind of bugs me that the painting in the cover doesn't portray anarchists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_of_May_1808

[Anonymous No.3828192]

I was very wary of reading about" post-modern/post-structural" governmentality. However, this book analyzed governmentality studies in a systematic, thorough and chronological order that actually made the topic enjoyable

[Anonymous No.3828354]

>>3828147

I suggest you read that book, or indeed any book on anarchism, because the only thing that is evident from what you say is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.3828376]

>>3828354
Anarchy means no government. What's to stop someone coming into your home at night and killing you and enslaving your family? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.3828381]

>dat spectrum
I hope you don't believe this bullshit, OP;

[Anonymous No.3828383]

>>3828376
B-but... muh Non-Aggression Principle!

[Anonymous No.3828386]

>>3828376
Lol.

[Anonymous No.3828391]

>>3828376

Again, read. Jesus christ, dude.

[Anonymous No.3828396]

>>3828376
This is where anarchists laugh at you for not having heard of Quinian Post-Ribbentrop AnarchoPARECONomilogical Republistatiformalism which allows you to do impressive intellectual backflips while simultaneously being grounded no axioms literally no more sophisticated than the non-aggression principle.

OH NO NO NO I'M NOT AN ANARCHIST I'M AN *ANARCHO-SYNDICALIST* LESBIAN PRE-BAKUNINITE POST-STRUCTURALIST, THAT MAKES IT WORK LOL. FREE ASSOCIATION FTW XD

[Anonymous No.3828400]

>>3828396

I consider myself a philosophical anarchist, which is pretty simple.
Also, this made me lol.

[Anonymous No.3828401]

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

You'll learn a lot about politics from this page OP, since you know nothing as of now.

[Anonymous No.3828403]

>>3828391
Your picture implies that the community would defend itself. What's to stop someone from forming an army and taking power for themselves?

[Anonymous No.3828412]

>>3828376
>>3828396

1. Such crimes would be unecessary.
2. Why should this happen more often with ordered anarchy?

This is really dumb. It's like people who are against legalizing drugs who somehow seem think that if, god forbid, it got legalized, EVERYONE would instantly turn to drugs and all of society would fall apart. If the state did disappear, would people suddenly go crazy and kill each other? No. States can fall apart without societies falling apart.

[Anonymous No.3828427]

>2013
>Not identifying as a moral centrist

Obviously the most sustainable and fair society would be one where people's basic needs are taken care of but still allows for growth of big business. Sustainable economy in the long term, maximized personal freedoms, and arguably the most morally justifiable form of government. Come on /lit/ catch up.

[Anonymous No.3828434]

>>3828427
Also a balance of power between corporations and government, who wouldn't want this?

[Anonymous No.3828439]

>>3828412
>Such crimes would be unecessary
Why are they unnecessary? A lot of crimes are unnecessary but people do them anyway.

>Why should this happen more often with ordered anarchy
If there is no central power to stop it, it will happen. Think of all those post-apocalyptic movies where roaming bands of raiders just drive around the place fucking shit up. That is exactly what will happen in an anarchic society unless communities raise their own militia, which also raises the question: who leads the militia? A temporary leader? Who will make him give up his power when the crisis has ended?

[Anonymous No.3828440]

>>3828412
>States can fall apart without societies falling apart
do you even history?

[Anonymous No.3828442]

>>3828412

I'm not involved in your current discussion however I must interject and wager the exact opposite.

That civilized states are only held together by the societies they create.

[Anonymous No.3828447]

>>3828439
This. People who believe in Anarchism are either under the false assumption that people are innately moral, or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis.. Government is a necessary evil to the extent that you are protected from being taken advantage of.

[Anonymous No.3828450]

>>3828442
It's clearly not so black and white. They rely on each other, it's a symbiotic relationship.

[Anonymous No.3828452]

>>3828439
>If there is no central power to stop it, it will happen

The 'central power' would be the society at large. The central tenet of most big anarchist thinkers is just that the individual should have optimal freedom, without impeding on the freedom of others. If you were to attack on someone you would be doing something authoritarian, and this isn't acceptable. So the only 'ruler' would be, I suppose, a moral one.

>Think of all those post-apocalyptic movies where roaming bands of raiders just drive around the place fucking shit up

Come on, man, do you really think so little of people?

[Anonymous No.3828462]

>>3828452
And do you really think so highly of people? Do you really believe that every single person would just swallow the anarchy pill and accept the morals that come along with it that are required for the society to function? Grow up man, don't be so naive.

[Anonymous No.3828465]

I'll just leave this here to make the anarchos look stupid.

[Anonymous No.3828470]

>>3828462

Well, how would you act if there was anarchy? Would you not be a co-operative and good person? I think most people would be this way. The only problem is the state of transition where you have to filter out the chavs and the shitheads who go against society (and this does sound a bit authoritarian).

[Anonymous No.3828474]

>>3828452
>You just killed my brother!
>What are you gonna do about it, punk?
>Well, I'm gonna... I'm gonna...

This is where anarchism falls apart

[Anonymous No.3828476]

[Anonymous No.3828480]

>>3828452
Oh my god are you thick or what

>the individual should have optimal freedom, without impeding on the freedom of others
Who will make sure this happens?

>If you were to attack on someone you would be doing something authoritarian, and this isn't acceptable
You think the fucking Vikings cared if it was acceptable or not to pillage Christian towns and cities?

>So the only 'ruler' would be, I suppose, a moral one
This is also a central tenet of fascism.

At this point I'm going to stop because I'm just repeating what I've already said in my previous post. If there is no law, nobody to enforce order because they "have no right to control by force the action of any other man" (got that from Anarchism wikiquote) things will fall to pieces, and fast. Anarchism relies far, far too much on the goodwill of humanity.

>do you really think so little of people
I do not think little of people, quite the opposite; I think quite highly of them. I'm just being realistic. There will always be scum; criminals and murderers and thieves, what have you. These types of people ruin anarchism.

[Anonymous No.3828486]

>>3828470
I think I would act just as I do now. Remember though that I am an upper-middle class white male who grew up in a stable house hold and took the time to philosophically develop empathy based morals upon which I live my life. Any one who was a criminal before anarchism will be an even bigger criminal without any fear of punishment. Do you really want to live in a world where you may have to fight to defend yourself and family/property on a daily basis?

[Anonymous No.3828489]

>>3828470
>for an anarchic society, we just need to cleanse ourselves of inferiors

Why hadn't we thought of this before?!

[Anonymous No.3828492]

>>3828480

I suppose you might be correct after all. But to be fair, my own anarchism is only a short way of saying "being highly critical and skeptical of authority."

Truth be told I've been finding my own arguments rather stupid.

[Anonymous No.3828493]

>>3828492
I can count on one hand the amount of times people have admitted they might be wrong on the Internet. Respect.

[Anonymous No.3828497]

>>3828492
Remember there are two types of authority though. Most anarchists fear the direct kind which is the government. Most don't stop to consider the indirect kind which is corporations preying on your needs and wants. They essentially create the world you live in through the products they sell. Two types of authority. Fear both and work to keep them in check.

[Anonymous No.3828499]

>>3828474
Having no hierarchical structure doesn't imply having no laws against people going around and killing anyone they feel like. But being at the top of that pyramid usually does, that's why anarchism is actually vastly preferable to what people in favour of those hierarchical systems advocate. I don't think you've demonstrated where the political philosophy 'falls apart' at all.

[Anonymous No.3828501]

>>3828499

Not to mention that most governments kill people all the time and no one really cares. Government is in some way just systematic and legal murder.

[Anonymous No.3828502]

>>3828499
Well what is the law then? Retribution? Are you going to go and punish someone who wrongs you? I guarantee you not many other people will, or are you a subscriber to this theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.3828505]

>>3828501
Also it seems you're implying that people who already have more than anyone else won't use what they have to take the rest.

[Anonymous No.3828508]

>>3828501
A lot of the time that's only when a person compromises national security. I'm not condoning governmental murder or anything, but sometimes it has a just reason.

[Anonymous No.3828509]

>>3828502

Kropotkin writes about how one should care for the antisocial in a brotherly way. So correcting someone is not so much a punishment but moral teaching and trying to integrate the person into society as a functional person who will do no harm to their fellow human beings.

[Anonymous No.3828519]

>>3828509
Makes sense, are you going to integrate those criminals? In case you aren't aware there are such things as psycho/sociopaths. These people are not nearly as rare as you think and they cannot be corrected. Their problem is a neurological one.

[Anonymous No.3828524]

>>3828519

Not sure how to deal with psychopaths, but to be fair they are a problem in any society.

[Anonymous No.3828529]

>>3828519
Lethal injection.

[Anonymous No.3828539]

>>3828524
Yeah but at least in this society they are jailed and removed from society. Well most of them that is. No one seems to be taking them off of wall street and executive positions.

>>3828529
Good. You can be the judge, jury, and executioner! Your view of reality must be the only objectively correct one and thus you can tell us undoubtedly who is guilty and innocent! Thank god we got that one figured out. Oh wait you don"t want to do that? Well you better set up an institution for it. Oh wait...

[Anonymous No.3828543]

>>3828502
Never heard of the just world hypothesis before, my point was that anarchy (going back to it's etymological roots) means without rulers not without rules. If one is against exerting any kind of illegitimate control over someone else's actions it seems only logical that they wouldn't be in favour of an action that results in taking the life of an innocent person, which no sane person would obviously ever consent to.

[Anonymous No.3828545]

>>3828539

They couldn't be removed from an anarchist society?

And it seems most psychopaths enjoy a pretty high status in America.

[Anonymous No.3828550]

>>3828539
What do you propose? Jail them for life? The question of the psychopath is a difficult one indeed.

[Anonymous No.3828555]

>>3828543
And my point which you may have missed is this: Who is going to enforce those rules? Who decides that the rules are moral? Do you not believe in insane people? Also, I'm assuming that you are a middle class american/brit (correct me if I'm wrong) possibly even lower class either way you've seen the best the world has to offer. Do you think people without education or even most people with it take the time to develop morals that would work towards sustaining anarchy? Who is going to educate those people on morals?

[Anonymous No.3828558]

>>3828505 This >>3828501 isn't me I'm this guy >>3828499 but not the one after. I don't see how he's implying that though historically the function of state and military institutions is to do just that (using what you already have to consolidate power and take more from everyone else.

[Anonymous No.3828569]

>>3828545
They could be! But who is going to remove them?

>>3828550
I don't know what I propose, but I would say jailing them for life is a better alternative to allowing them to run free. And it's waaaay better than having an average person make a judgement call on another person's sanity and having them react based on that judgement. Also, don't even get me started on the economics behind all of this. Society isn't here to take advantage of all of you. For the most part it has worked to your benefit.

[Anonymous No.3828575]

>>3828558
I agree with you on that aspect too, but you don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water. You can maintain a military for defense purposes without using it to infringe upon the rights of others.

[Anonymous No.3828583]

>>3828569
In my opinion a life sentence in prison is crueller than a quick death. And it costs the state money.

>And it's waaaay better than having an average person make a judgement call on another person's sanity and having them react based on that judgement
You're sending them to their death no matter what way you're looking at it. A life in prison is not a life.

[Anonymous No.3828585]

>>3828569

Society. You must realise that anarchy is not chaos but rests on a highly organised society.

[Anonymous No.3828586]

imo the ideal punishment for life/death is banishment to some island, like a tiny new Australia. Make them impotent and send them off to fend for themselves.

[Anonymous No.3828589]

>>3828583
Ok what you quoted wasn't addressing the issue of sending people to death. That was addressing the issue that everyone here seems to be ignoring which is, who is going to enforce the laws that others claim can exist without exist without any structure? And who is to say that those laws are moral?

[Anonymous No.3828593]

>>3828586
While they're alive they're still a threat.

[Anonymous No.3828596]

>>3828593
If they're on an island that they can't possibly get off of (have a guard station offshore with sonar or something) what's the matter? They'll just be messing with other condemned people.

[Anonymous No.3828597]

>>3828585
And if that society is enforcing rules, what is the difference between it and a government? You are talking about pure democracy at this point, not anarchy.

[Anonymous No.3828598]

>>3828597

Bingo.

[Anonymous No.3828601]

>>3828596
Who the hell is sending them there? Who is going to pool there resources to send these people there? Remember you have no structure at all. To have structure is to not have anarchy.

[Anonymous No.3828602]

>>3828596
At least make some money off it and film what happens and put it on TV.

[Anonymous No.3828604]

>>3828601
their* A typo on /lit/ must be some form of sacrilege.

[Anonymous No.3828621]

>>3828601
>To have structure is to not have anarchy.

Haha, oh wow. It seems you have no clue what anarchy is and what anarchist thinkers have, well, thought.

[Anonymous No.3828624]

>>3828555
Again it's not a question of "who is going to enforce those rules" it's really more of a socio-economic concern for me, one of equality since like most left anarchists I regard the idea as a more libertarian variety of what many socialists advocate and as for what I said about how no sane person would consent to being murdered by someone else thus no truly libertarian system would allow that doesn't mean "I don't believe in insane people" just that rules should be predicated upon ensuring the protection of people's rights not ensuring the protection of people's power.

[Anonymous No.3828626]

>>3828624
forgot the pic

[Anonymous No.3828632]

>>3828601
>To have structure is to not have anarchy.

Dude, what the fuck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G6kf7XM9Nk

[Anonymous No.3828637]

>>3828601

You have zero clue what anarchy is.

[Anonymous No.3828641]

>>3828626
>privillage
is that supposed to be a pun or something?

although w/r/t 'insane people,' I've been in plenty of mental hospitals and never seen a person who was actually insane, except for maybe the staffers and the people hurt by them

[Anonymous No.3828651]

>>3828601
Have a boat armed to the teeth drop them off. Of course it'd cost money, but a fraction compared to the current system.

>>3828602
Why not? It could be some perilous adventure island where young journalists go to die.

[Anonymous No.3828653]

>>3828447

>Government is a necessary evil
>necessary

Humans did fine without it for ~200 000 years.

[Anonymous No.3828654]

>>3828641
I didn't make that pic, didn't notice the error until now, here's one without the mistake. I almost completely agree with what you say about psychiatric institutions though having seen a few of them myself although I've seen some nursing staff who aren't too terrible, other than that I think you're totally right.

[Anonymous No.3828656]

>>3828653
Oh come on. You're not really this stupid.

[Anonymous No.3828658]

>>3828656

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.3828659]

>>3828654
Fuck! forgot it again

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3828682]

>>3828074
I've actually read some conservative arguments for monarchism that run something like, "Well, if someone owns the state, they'll understand it as their property, and if they understand it as their property they'll take better care of it than a career politician who's going to go work for lobbyists in four years."

anyway:
>politics without any historical context
>idiotic hypothetical solutions no one will ever implement
>ANARCHY MEANS CHOAS WHOS GUNNA BUILD THE ROADS
>your anarchism isn't my anarchism so I don't have to listen to you!
>infographics
>infographics
>infographics
this is worse than /pol/

[Anonymous No.3828777]

>>3828474
This, pretty much

There's no way in hell people will enforce a moral law if there are none

[Anonymous No.3828806]

>>3828777

How do you think tribal people deal with murderers in their midst?

[Anonymous No.3828823]

>>3828806
>tribe
>anarchy

Tribalism is a system of government. A shitty one, but still.

[Anonymous No.3828834]

>>3828470

The problem wouldn't be the lower class dissidents, it would be the upper class ones. They would want to reestablish a state to resume their former luxuries and privileges.

[Anonymous No.3828835]

>>3828823

What on earth are you talking about? A tribe is just a small community of humans. It doesn't entail tribal leaders.

[Anonymous No.3828844]

>>3828823
anarchy
an-archy
an: without
arch: archon (leader)

you will notice this does not imply a lack of structure
bitches don't know 'bout muh etymology

[Anonymous No.3828853]

>>3828474
>being a statist tool who lacks any semblance of entrepreneurial foresight.

i would just start a business that protects people. Now what fag.

[Anonymous No.3828857]

>>3828853
what if I started a business that hurts people

could we have battles

[Anonymous No.3828859]

>>3828853

Not the guy, but:

A business that protects people that chases out competitors w/ force of arms. Protection companies now limited to geographic area. Protection company demands payment from all people within the geographic area under their control. Taxation and military have been reintroduced, a state has been formed again.

[Anonymous No.3828872]

>believing in private property

[AnalCrust !m9jxTLhLcw No.3828873]

>>3827997
I can agree with this if you take into account ONLY the dichotomy statal control/freedom. A line is still a shitty way to make an accurate scheme.
>>3828010
>>communism
>>dictatorship
I have bad news for you, illiterate.

[AnalCrust !m9jxTLhLcw No.3828875]

>>3828844
Most people actually believe anarchy means disorder.

[Anonymous No.3828879]

>>3828872
>what is the tragedy of the commons

[Anonymous No.3828896]

[Anonymous No.3828906]

>>3828879
Resources are depleted way faster by capitalists though for the production of useless bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3828908]

>>3828872
>respecting private property
Pray do the like with what you call my property!

[Anonymous No.3828912]

>>3828906
why would the capitalist produce useless bullshit and lower the market value per unit? the resources are only depleted by the capitalist when they do not own the resources (ie: overfishing).

here's a good video explaining some of this

http://youtu.be/kPy9j3vtKCs

[Anonymous No.3828915]

>>3828519
Wrong. As if it isn't our society that created them in the first place. Well conditioned sociopaths are using their in a constructive matter, not by hurting others. And no, i don't believe in the superpsycho who can't feel anything for any being. It's given that there are some cases that are beyond repair with our current methods. As for the Mansons out there, I believe we aren't ready yet. But psychedelics would be of great help with otherwise basket cases.

[Anonymous No.3828929]

>>3828912
Because it's cheap to produce useless bullshit, and there is a market for it.
It's a simple question of supply and demand, there is alot of copper, therefore we haven't run out of it yet, that isn't to say we don't excravate ridicoulus amounts of copper "more than 96% of all copper ever mined and smelted has been extracted since 1900, and more than half was extracted in only the last 24 years". We don't have as much oil and helium, and we are running out of both. His rationality doesn't make sense at all.

[Anonymous No.3828933]

>>3828912
>why would the capitalist produce useless bullshit

Because there are people willing to buy new iPhones and cars ever couple of years.

[Anonymous No.3828946]

>>3828933
it's not really useless bullshit if the market is demanding it, now is it? if you believe it is "useless bullshit", well that's just, like, your opinion man.
>>3828929
did you watch the video? it IS a simple question of supply and demand. the capitalist mine owner is not going to mine more copper than there is demand for and lower his profit. when the supply of copper dwindles to the point that it is too expensive to extract and use it, the capitalist will invest in other alternatives and reallocate our resources and labor to a more useful and practical alternative. i'm assuming you got two minutes into the video and stopped watching? you say we are running out of these things, but we continue to find oil reserves every day. perhaps it will be an issue once we drain the alberta tar sands in the 23rd century, but that's no reason to stop consuming oil now. necessity and urgency make for great motivating factors for the capitalist.

[Anonymous No.3828967]

>>3828946
of course it's useless bullshit, the market feeds it down our throats and is succesfully removing anything that doesn't require money to enjoy.
Of course i didn't watch the movie, that's a dick move. I'm not forcing a 60 minute David Harvey lecture down your throat to prove my point. We have already run out of hundreds of animal and plant species, but you are saying capitalism will find a way to bring back biodiversity? Or problems with polution?

[Anonymous No.3828972]

>>3828946
>it's not really useless bullshit if the market is demanding it, now is it?

You forget that they have to funnel billions of dollars into the advertising industry every year just to convince people to buy their garbage.

[Anonymous No.3828975]

>>3828946
>it's not really useless bullshit if the market is demanding it, now is it?

Not that guy, and I can kind of see your point, but just because people are lining up to buy something doesn't mean it's useful and not bullshit.

Take any "fitness fad" garbage gadget they come out with yearly. I mean, people were actually buying electro--shock belts to strap to their overspilling guts because they thought it would turn them into Brad Pitt overnight.

Alll this shit ends up on garage sales or in Goodwills within a matter of months, and then another gadget equally useless and equally bullshit comes out.

I refuse to believe people buying this garbage somehow makes it not "useless bullshit".

See also: snake oil.

[Anonymous No.3828985]

>>3828653
>implying they didn't have some form of organizational hierarchy or other societal structure

[Anonymous No.3828988]

>>3828985
Anarchy /= lack of structure or any form of social hierarchy, it just means lack of a state.

[Anonymous No.3828994]

>>3828967
i would gladly listen to any lecture you think would help prove yr point. it's not really a "dick move". i just can't explain it nearly as well as Rothbard can, and it's a complicated subject that takes time to understand.

we've run out of those species because people had no vested interest in preserving them, possibly because no one owned the land they were living on??? as Rothbard points out, many forests in Europe are privately owned and preserved because of this. i don't want to call you a hippie, but i'm not sure why you think every single species that was once living must be preserved?? if we want to preserve everything in its natural state, i guess humans should have continued to live in the jungles as hunter/gatherers instead of ever developing agriculture.

if there was a market demand to bring back biodiversity of course the capitalist would find a way to bring it back, because there would be incentive!! problems with pollution could be solved if the land was privately owned and you could arbitrate against those polluting your land. why do you think people dump their waste into the ocean? because no one can sue you for it. i'm not saying capitalism and "muh free market" can solve everything, but Rothbard does point to some of these things in the lecture i previously linked.

>>3828972
i didn't not forget that, but i'm not sure what yr point is? or what yr solution is?

[Anonymous No.3829012]

>>3828975
well you don't see much demand for "electro--shock belts" today, do you? the market weeds out the useless items as people realize they are useless. this is more a consequence of our consumer culture and idiocy than the market (and no i'm not trying to make special pleas). i clearly oversimplified my point, but frankly calling anything "useless bullshit" is just a matter of opinion.

[Anonymous No.3829022]

>>3828994
>i'm not sure what yr point is?

My point was that the "demand" for this bullshit is artificially created.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3829023]

>>3828912
>the resources are only depleted by the capitalist when they do not own the resources
b-but all property is theft, anon...

[Anonymous No.3829025]

>>3829022
so perhaps we should go back to being subsistence farmers?

[Anonymous No.3829037]

>>3829023
"How can one steal if property is not already extant?"

I'll admit I've never read 'What is Property?' (though it's on my list), but I never understood from whom one could possibly be stealing by making a claim to some property? Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Also why are you using a Bakunin pic with a Proudhon quote?

[Anonymous No.3829149]

>>3828474
Statism:
>Man comes into your house with intention of robbing you
>You shoot him
>State forces you into a lengthy trial and blames you for defensive action

Anarchism:
>Man comes into your house with intention of robbing you
>You shoot him
>Problem solved

[Anonymous No.3829159]

>>3829149
survival of the fitness, boys

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3829160]

>>3829037
idk, I liked the pun
Proudhon's face is on the left, tho
mostly I was referencing people who are anarchists out of entirely sentimental reasons or because capitalism is 'bad' (in the same way that Marx's revolutionary work is much more popular than his extremely long economic analyses of capitalist inefficiency) and I haven't actually read What is Property? either

[Anonymous No.3829177]

>>3828074
>not having a king
Look at these plebs

[Anonymous No.3829181]

>>3828896
most accurate ITT

[Anonymous No.3829184]

>>3829160
Yes, I think even Proudhon regretted saying something so catch-all as "property is theft" because it can be taken entirely out of context. Emotional appeals have no argumentative power and I agree that it is unfortunate that so many fall for them without having a solid base of facts to support their position.

Though I think Marx's revolutionary work is more popular because it is pragmatic and less refutable than his economic analysis (which has been pretty thoroughly refuted).

[Anonymous No.3829188]

>>3827941
I just want to point out that that picture is enormously flawed. Political ideology is not a point along a single axis; rather, ideology (at its most basic) is a location on a plane with the two axes being economic freedom and the other social freedom. Eg, conservatism has high economic freedom for the individual and low social freedom, liberalism has low economic freedom and high social freedom, etc.

[Anonymous No.3829201]

Whatever you do, don't read anything by Ayn Rand. Bitch leans way to right for my taste.

[Anonymous No.3829202]

>>3829188
>liberalism has low economic freedom and high social freedom, etc.
liberalism is all about economic freedom, you moron

[Anonymous No.3829213]

>>3828658
Not that poster, but seriously? alright... well... why don't you point to the ~20,000 years of humans doing well without a state, for me? If you are referring to prehistory, you may want to ask yourself how you know how well they were doing since, ahem, it was PRE history. Furthermore, fighting starvation, disease, anal rot, bears, lions, rhinos, and other spear wielders doesn't sound 'alright' to me... Then there is the fact that all of early history is fraught with slavery, rape, murder, wars (just like today), disease, intolerance, stupidity, religious persecution, anal rot, public burnings, hangins, tearings, wipping, mauling, etc...
I mean SHIT, son.

[Anonymous No.3829225]

>>3829149
Statism
>man comes into your house with the intention of robbing you
>His friends would have done it earlier, but the force of the law deterred them
>He couldn't buy a gun because this is Obama's America
>Later he is arrested and put in jail

Anarchism
>Your child gets raped
>You go to the rapists house to fuck him up (Laws in my hands, bitch!)
> He and a bunch of thugs have formed a posse, all wielding AK47s and 74s and they rape you for fun and chop off your arms
>The townsfolk all fear the rapist colony and they start statism back up.
>The ayatollahs take power

[Anonymous No.3829231]

>>3829225
>He couldn't buy a gun
>So he uses a knife instead
>You also have a knife
>Knife fights everywhere

There would be no problem with statism at all if our rulers weren't fucking failing us.

[Anonymous No.3829235]

>>3829225
>>He couldn't buy a gun because this is Obama's America
lol no
>>You go to the rapists house to fuck him up (Laws in my hands, bitch!)
>> He and a bunch of thugs have formed a posse, all wielding AK47s and 74s and they rape you for fun and chop off your arms
>implying I wouldn't start up my own posse of townsfolk, all armed with the superior AR15 platform

[Anonymous No.3829236]

>>3828142
>being on the spectrum at all
heh

[Anonymous No.3829239]

>>3829235
the gun thing was a bit fatuous, I agree. But I must say I do not want to be in a state of perpetual war.

[Anonymous No.3829242]

>>3829202
not really considering the government's getting more involved in business

[Anonymous No.3829245]

>>3829239
>I do not want to be in a state of perpetual war

and this is why humans aligned with each other and formed states.

[Anonymous No.3829249]

>>3829242
i'm pretty sure that poster means classical liberalism (which is true liberalism) whereas you mean modern American liberalism, which is basically center-right conservatism.

[Anonymous No.3829251]

>>3829177
>having a king that looks like a faggot and would get stomped to death in a street fight

[Anonymous No.3829266]

>>3829249
ok, thanks for the clarification

[Anonymous No.3829269]

>Government refuses to help anyone and individual soldiers always assume that walking, talking human beings are actually zombies

EVERY.

FUCKING.

TIME.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3829291]

>>3829213
Comparing the living conditions of cavemen to modern society seems a little silly, as if they would be much better off if they had a caveman parliament or something. It doesn't make much sense to say that their anarchic condition was simply a product of brutality, since it gets us into a Foucauldian mess of how the state manages to punish more effectively and whether or not that's a good thing. What was your point talking about early history? The slavery that Spartans used, for example, was entirely based around the state (q.e. that helots were slaves because of their nationality)

>>3829231
>knife fights everywhere
Scot detected

[Anonymous No.3829302]

>>3828129
not by itself, no.

[Anonymous No.3829321]

>>3828354
Somalia

Checkmate

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3829358]

>>3829321
actually, while I'm not sure if Somalia is an example of this, many of the more 'developed' African countries have a greater problem with AIDS because of issues with local governance and apathy, whereas the more "anarchic" states (in the more vulgar sense) utilize foreign aid more effectively. I don't remember where I read this, though.

[Anonymous No.3829377]

>>3829358
>source: my ass

[Anonymous No.3829442]

>>3829177
>having a fat guy that only serves the purpose of appearing in celebrity magazines
>anything to do with monarchism

3/10 made me reply

[Anonymous No.3829444]

>>3827941
>democrats
>liberal

Americans are so cute

[Anonymous No.3829477]

>>3828074
>implying libertarianism isn't right wing

[Anonymous No.3829488]

>>3829477
>Implying that it is

Libertarianism can be either

[Anonymous No.3829513]

>>3829477
Libertarianism is an Americentric political stance promoted by corporations that would take yr rights away the second the gov't gets out of their way.

Classical liberalism is where it's at.

[Anonymous No.3829535]

>>3829245
I agree.... are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.3829562]

>>3829535
no i was pointing it out to the other idiots in this thread. but there was no need to resort to ad hominems when someone is agreeing with you. why can't aggressive faggots like yourself just keep quiet instead of spewing yr inane shit all over these boards.

[Anonymous No.3829613]

>>3829513
You obviously don't have a clue about what libertarianism is

[Anonymous No.3829614]

>>3829562
I agree with you though... Ad Hominem refers to trying to argue a point by asserting the opponent is somehow personally deficient.
My shit is insane but we agree.
you accuse me of ad hominem, then call me a faggot.
You call me aggressive for a 5 word post, two words of which are "I agree". Check out your own post. talk about aggressive.
You tell me to shut my gob, and not spew my inane shit, when I merely pointed out anarchism leads to statism... is any one who isn't anarchistic, in your mind, inane, gay, aggressive, and too loud?
If you don't want people to imply you're retarded, get off the internet.

[Anonymous No.3829621]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This book contain all the answers

[Anonymous No.3829624]

>>3829621
>Implying you can put a train back on its tracks
Utopian Detected

[Anonymous No.3829634]

>>3829624
Distopian, if you allow me to correct you.
All Hail Discordia!

[Anonymous No.3829648]

>>3827941
The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt

I finished that book two days ago, and it changed my thinking on politics. I highly recommend it.

[Anonymous No.3829833]

>>3829634
Oh well, I wan't referring to the book. I was talking about how the poster was trying to re-rail the thread.

[Anonymous No.3829840]

>>3828010
You deserve no less than a sea of dot dot dotting.............................................................................................................................................................

[Anonymous No.3829849]

>>3827945
This implies Rachel Maddow wants to enslave us more than Hitler wanted to enslave the Jews... it implies Obama is more controlling than Hitler and that Hilary Clinton must be worse than Henreich Himler...

[Anonymous No.3829864]

>>3829849
That's what American Republicans actually believe apparently.

I heard a guy say the other day, "Obama's house of cards is finally falling apart, socialism at its finest."

[Anonymous No.3829875]

>>3829864
This is sour news. I knew that they compared him to Obama, but I thought that was just (over the top) hyperbole, but apparently they think it isn't far enough; they've got the whole idea of hyperbolic demagoguery backwards.
My question to republicans that believe Obama is actually worse than Hitler: why do you undervalue the lives of jews so much? Was them being sent to slaughter not as bad as obamacare? Perhaps you are a bit, I don't want to say anti-Semitic but, you seem to discount their existence and suffering altogether, as if it is unimportant... are you deranged?

[Anonymous No.3829891]

I would like to have the ablity to exit the game of Tyranny of the Masses or Tyranny of the State. I just wish there was a place somewhere I could settle down away from dumb laws and dumb people, and just make my own living.