• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Communisum in our Schools.

I've NO use for any "variant" of Socialized Theft. Nor, any "Teacher" Stealing from Children.:(

I've no use for that. I've simply even less use for your inaccurate references to political economic terminology that have no relation to the confiscatory practice that you describe.

So in other words, YOU simply re-define what type of property an individual is allowed to possess and the proclaim that any involuntary confiscation of such property isn't theft as long as it serves the ends of "collective ownership?"

Was that supposed to be a sound reply? I've made the distinctions between private and possessive property rather clear in the past; private property involves a monopoly of control over a productive resource that permits the "owner" to compel others to perform labor in a hierarchical arrangement under him in order to gain access to that resource, whereas possessive property merely involves personal ownership of items that cannot be used for this purpose. A watch is an example of possessive property; a watch factory is an example of private property. The elimination of private property brings with it the elimination of a major source of labor market coercion, and is thus far less authoritarian than the institution of private property itself.

All forms of forced collectivism are indistinguishable from each-other.

I haven't referred to forced collectivism; I've referred to collectivism which involves a reduction of force and coercion through the elimination of private property in the manner that was elaborated upon above. Study up. :2wave:
 
I haven't referred to forced collectivism; I've referred to collectivism which involves a reduction of force and coercion through the elimination of private property in the manner that was elaborated upon above. Study up. :2wave:

No, you study up. Human beings exist in an environment of relative scarcity proportional to their desires, and their existence has always depended on their ability to meet their individual material needs. Private property is thus a natural right - civilization beyond the hunter-gatherer level is downright impossible without recognizing it to some degree. Failure to recognize material property rights is indistinguishable from rape, torture, and murder (which are violations of an individual's property rights over one's body)!

And stop calling yourself libertarian, you're not fooling anyone but yourself.
 
:bs


:no:

:prof


Prove it. I have never yet seen or heard about any state-level comparison where private schooled and homeschooled children did not come out ahead academically.

I suppose Podunk USA with one public school and one private school might come out that way on a county-level, but on a larger scale than that I'd have to see the proof.

Memorial High School Test Scores | Eau Claire, WI | Education.com

The two private schools in our area did not post test results, but considering that the Public school is above average out of the three...
 
Private property is thus a natural right

Evidently your Rothbardian talking points weren't well-rehearsed. You've failed to account for the distinction between private and possessive property that I've commented on and have said nothing of the coercion permitted through anti-democratic monopolistic control of a productive resource. Not especially "libertarian" or "anarchist" of you. :2wave:

And stop calling yourself libertarian, you're not fooling anyone but yourself.

The term "libertarian" was first coined by the anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque and has a long and proud history of association with legitimate minarchist and anarchist ideology before its misappropriation and corruption by pseudo-libertarian capitalists. The more accurate term for those authoritarians is "propertarian."
 
You're thinking of libertarianisme - a French faux amis. In modern English, libertarianism always means economic freedom, which implies very strong individual property rights.
 
Evidently your Rothbardian talking points weren't well-rehearsed. You've failed to account for the distinction between private and possessive property that I've commented on and have said nothing of the coercion permitted through anti-democratic monopolistic control of a productive resource. Not especially "libertarian" or "anarchist" of you. :2wave:



The term "libertarian" was first coined by the anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque and has a long and proud history of association with legitimate minarchist and anarchist ideology before its misappropriation and corruption by pseudo-libertarian capitalists. The more accurate term for those authoritarians is "propertarian."

The Term "anarchist", means to me, a creature to be left in the gutter, with its throat cut. From ear to ear. ;)

Prove me wrong.:lol:
 
Last edited:
You have to keep in mind that Aggie believes there is only one "true" type of anarchism -- his own flavor of it -- and to him, all anarchists must be socialists.
 
The Term "anarchist", means to me, a creature to be left in the gutter, with its throat cut. From ear to ear. ;)

Just check that he's not an Anarcho-Capitalist first.
 
You have to keep in mind that Aggie believes there is only one "true" type of anarchism -- his own flavor of it -- and to him, all anarchists must be socialists.

As if it need be said..."One who builds on Destruction,,,has no Foundation".:lol:

But what do I know?:roll:
 
You're thinking of libertarianisme - a French faux amis. In modern English, libertarianism always means economic freedom, which implies very strong individual property rights.

Nope! I'm referring to Dejacque's publication of Le Libertaire, an anarchist journal which was of course avowedly socialist. But as long as you're referring to Wikipedia, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism"]the "libertarianism" article[/ame] does not seem to be your friend:

Libertarian socialists—the first political activists to adopt the term libertarian in the mid-19th century—are opposed to all illegitimate structures of authority and hierarchy both in personal relations and in the larger social order; accordingly this includes examples such as opposition to state power and certain forms of private property, as well as to the structured hierarchies that manifest themselves in relations among men and women, students and teachers, or parents and children.

I do agree with the comment about economic freedom, which accounts for the incompatibility of libertarianism with capitalism.

The Term "anarchist", means to me, a creature to be left in the gutter, with its throat cut. From ear to ear. ;)

Prove me wrong.:lol:

:)

zapatista-babe.jpg


There's a Zapatista libertarian for you. Does that help?

You have to keep in mind that Aggie believes there is only one "true" type of anarchism -- his own flavor of it -- and to him, all anarchists must be socialists.

Actually, the vast majority of all existing anarchists believe that. While anarchism as I define it is a political philosophy that has existed for 160 years and has been promoted by millions, "anarcho"-capitalism is a marginal Internet philosophy that has never achieved the slightest semblance of implementation...or even influence, for that matter.
 
Nope! I'm referring to Dejacque's publication of Le Libertaire, an anarchist journal which was of course avowedly socialist. But as long as you're referring to Wikipedia, the "libertarianism" article does not seem to be your friend:



I do agree with the comment about economic freedom, which accounts for the incompatibility of libertarianism with capitalism.



:)

zapatista-babe.jpg


There's a Zapatista libertarian for you. Does that help?



Actually, the vast majority of all existing anarchists believe that. While anarchism as I define it is a political philosophy that has existed for 160 years and has been promoted by millions, "anarcho"-capitalism is a marginal Internet philosophy that has never achieved the slightest semblance of implementation...or even influence, for that matter.

You post a picture of a young idiot with a gun. Face masked...In hiding.:lol:

Like you.:lol:
 
Yes, and we're all very impressed. :roll: Meanwhile, it's pretty easy to imagine a state of anarchy which isn't socialist.
 
That's a very limited area, not something I'd generalize from.

Try this:

CAPE | Outlook 12/01

You called BS when I said that the Public Schools around where I live outperform Private Schools. I just responded.

Also, you posted a link from a site promoting Private Schools. It is a pretty biased source. I won't call BS, but it isn't that great of a source.
 
You post a picture of a young idiot with a gun. Face masked...In hiding.:lol:

Like you.:lol:

Well, we'd have to assume that you made a remotely intelligent comment if you wanted an intelligent response. Unfortunately, since not only that post but this entire thread illustrates the opposite...:2wave:

Meanwhile, it's pretty easy to imagine a state of anarchy which isn't socialist.

That's likely only because of your politically uninformed delusions. The standard rightist will refer to Somalia or some state of chaos or disorder because they don't understand the nature of anarchism as involving stateless socialism.
 
You called BS when I said that the Public Schools around where I live outperform Private Schools. I just responded.

Also, you posted a link from a site promoting Private Schools. It is a pretty biased source. I won't call BS, but it isn't that great of a source.

You ARE "Allowed to State your "Location"...:lol: Stand Tall.:2razz:
 
That's likely only because of your politically uninformed delusions. The standard rightist will refer to Somalia or some state of chaos or disorder because they don't understand the nature of anarchism as involving stateless socialism.

No, I believe the failing would be yours, when you assume either 1) I'm a "standard rightist," or 2) I'm referring to Somalia.

If you think either of these things, you have little imagination. This is also true if you can't imagine an orderly anarchy without socialism. As I said, it's pretty easy.

Nice strawman, though.
 
This has certainly been quite enthralling...so let's hear of this majestic glory of non-socialist anarchism (a contradiction in terms).

:roll:

How difficult is it to imagine a situation where there is no government and no collective of any kind, save beyond perhaps the family unit?

For me, not hard. For you, maybe it's different.
 
For me, not hard.

Oh...so you're referring to organization along the lines of primitive society (which was often communal nonetheless), and not industrialized society, which would require a complex economic system...unless there's something else you'd like to share with us? :2wave:
 
Oh...so you're referring to organization along the lines of primitive society (which was often communal nonetheless), and not industrialized society, which would require a complex economic system...unless there's something else you'd like to share with us? :2wave:

If you limit your imagination only to what's gone before or what exists now, you end up with . . . well, limited imagination.
 
Oh...so you're referring to organization along the lines of primitive society (which was often communal nonetheless), and not industrialized society, which would require a complex economic system...unless there's something else you'd like to share with us? :2wave:

No,,, just a Primate.:lol: "Stealing" from another doesn't mean a Liberal gained advancement to the next level of Civilization. It means,,,it's a Liberal.:lol:
 
Last edited:
If you limit your imagination only to what's gone before or what exists now, you end up with . . . well, limited imagination.

Of course, of course! So...by all means, kindly describe non-socialist anarchism in actual detail for us.


I'm not sure what this incoherence means, and I have little interest in finding out. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom