Favorite War Room Posters

[Jack V Savage]

So you think a rothbardian anarcho capitalist society would be considered communism? I disagree

A "Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society" is a contradiction in terms modified by a reference to a crank.

 

[Pwent]

A "Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society" is a contradiction in terms modified by a reference to a crank.

So you refuse to acknowledge the concept of an anarcho capitalist society?

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you refuse to acknowledge the concept of an anarcho capitalist society?

I acknowledge the concept, but I also acknowledge that it is a contradiction, as anarchists over time have generally recognized.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

that was his argument he had with me, that if you are not for redistributing wealth downwards, than you are actually for redistributing wealth upwards since without government prevention, all wealth would flow upwards

he used it as a larger argument that right wingers are for wealth redistribution, but towards the rich, for the above reasons

if he had a second argument with you, or added upon it with you. i cant comment

Same argument. You just refuse to see or acknowledge it. Like a can't see the forest for the trees kinda thing.

It's pretty simple really. If you can understand how government enables wealth (via copyrights, police protection, etc) then you should be able to grasp that without downward redistribution it's a one-way system upward.

 

[Greoric]

Should change this thread to "People I agree with".

Best poster I disagree with the most, is @Greoric

Best Poster is @Arkain2K hands down. Opinions are a dime a dozen. People actually putting in work to find good content.....gold.

That's a damn flattering honor to have. I noticed we identify the source of the problems differently, although, interestingly, it seems like we end up identifying and addressing the same ones.

 

[Vitor CroCop]

Sure. I agree he's very good in many respects. But if the content bores me (i.e. Venezuela) then what? At some point I think it's the subject matter attracting you as well. So at then it becomes a matter of topics you like.

Drive it home for me though. Pick one of my threads and (within it) tell me how the OP and subsequent discussion I engage in comes up short. I'd appreciate the learning experience since my threads generate jack and shit for traffic.

I feel your pain brah

 

[Greoric]

Same argument. You just refuse to see or acknowledge it. Like a can't see the forest for the trees kinda thing.

It's pretty simple really. If you can understand how government enables wealth (via copyrights, police protection, etc) then you should be able to grasp that without downward redistribution it's a one-way system upward.

Why would government be the only institution capable of enabling and protecting property rights? Do most people want them? If there's a demand, especially at that margin, why wouldn't there be a supply?

 

[Greoric]

I acknowledge the concept, but I also acknowledge that it is a contradiction, as anarchists over time have generally recognized.

How do you arrive at "contradiction" when its just an incorrect prediction the original anarchist advocates made about how society would be organized in the absence of a compulsory funded monopoly, given what we know about biology and evolutionary psychology?

Edit: Also, another red herring out of you.

 

[Greoric]

Sure. I agree he's very good in many respects. But if the content bores me (i.e. Venezuela) then what? At some point I think it's the subject matter attracting you as well. So at then it becomes a matter of topics you like.

Drive it home for me though. Pick one of my threads and (within it) tell me how the OP and subsequent discussion I engage in comes up short. I'd appreciate the learning experience since my threads generate jack and shit for traffic.

Without looking at your thread topics, I'd guess its your area of discussion. You're a thinker that enjoys ideas, as opposed to the majority of people (even within the WR) that just enjoy talking about people or events [Enter Socrates' quote on average, mediocre, and great minds].

 

[Jack V Savage]

How do you arrive at "contradiction" when its just an incorrect prediction the original anarchist advocates made about how society would be organized in the absence of a compulsory funded monopoly, given what we know about biology and evolutionary psychology?

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction because anarchism is necessarily communistic, and capitalism requires a strong state. If you had the slightest familiarity with the history of anarchist thought, you'd already know what I was referring to, but that would require curiosity and reading rather than just watching Molyneux videos.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Why would government be the only institution capable of enabling and protecting property rights? Do most people want them? If there's a demand, especially at that margin, why wouldn't there be a supply?

A couple weeks ago I tried to discuss with you some ideas originally put forth by another poster and you blew me off in somewhat rude fashion. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how do you think I should respond?

 

[Greoric]

A couple weeks ago I tried to discuss with you some ideas originally put forth by another poster and you blew me off in somewhat rude fashion. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how do you think I should respond?

Because you were expecting me to make Fawlty's argument for him.... Here I'm just expecting you to follow through and detail your own.

Apologies for the rudeness though.

 

[Greoric]

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction because anarchism is necessarily communistic, and capitalism requires a strong state. If you had the slightest familiarity with the history of anarchist thought, you'd already know what I was referring to, but that would require curiosity and reading rather than just watching Molyneux videos.

Per usual you've ignored my actual arguments and substituted in your own strawman. A+

How about we stay focused here though? Given that the original anarchist advocates proposed a perfectly equal and altruistic society without a state, why couldn't they have just been incorrect about how society would organize itself?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Because you were expecting me to make Fawlty's argument for him.... Here I'm just expecting you to follow through and detail your own.

Apologies for the rudeness though.

Apology accepted.

And no, I was expecting you to make your own arguments on points you agreed had merit because, this incident aside, I enjoy our discussions. And my interaction with @Pwent is over his claim to being on @Jack V Savage's level in the field of economics. My goal isn't to argue Jack's argument. My goal is to demonstrate his inability to even grasp Jack's argument undermines his boastful claim. The difference between the argument being a means to an end vs. the end.

 

[Fedorable]

this one is good:

I still like this one:

 

[Jack V Savage]

Per usual you've ignored my actual arguments and substituted in your own strawman. A+

How about we stay focused here though? Given that the original anarchist advocates proposed a perfectly equal and altruistic society without a state, why couldn't they have just been incorrect about how society would organize itself?

You didn't make any arguments. Funny considering how you always parrot one of Molyneux's catchphrases relating to that.

That's not what original anarchist advocates proposed. Who are you referring to? I would think of people like Godwin or Proudhon as original anarchist advocates. And I don't see any evidence that they were incorrect about how society would organize itself. We have lots of examples of stateless societies that have actually been observed, and the way they are organized is much closer to what they advocated than it is to capitalism. One would think that sincere "anacho-capitalists" would want to try to explain that or to rethink their own ideas on that basis.

 

[Greoric]

Apology accepted.

And no, I was expecting you to make your own arguments on points you agreed had merit...

That's a fine distinction, but at that point they were pretty undeveloped for me to be opining. My original objective was to push you on to him, because I would have rather read your rebuttals than try to make up a depth for his argument I didn't have.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Without looking at your thread topics, I'd guess its your area of discussion. You're a thinker that enjoys ideas, as opposed to the majority of people (even within the WR) that just enjoy talking about people or events [Enter Socrates' quote on average, mediocre, and great minds].

Let's face it most threads the generate traffic are dumpster fires started by people looking for an Echo chamber

 

[Greoric]

You didn't make any arguments. Funny considering how you always parrot one of Molyneux's catchphrases relating to that.

That's not what original anarchist advocates proposed. Who are you referring to? I would think of people like Godwin or Proudhon as original anarchist advocates. And I don't see any evidence that they were incorrect about how society would organize itself. We have lots of examples of stateless societies that have actually been observed, and the way they are organized is much closer to what they advocated than it is to capitalism. One would think that sincere "anacho-capitalists" would want to try to explain that or to rethink their own ideas on that basis.

What examples do you have in mind? They were perfectly egalitarian?

 

[Greoric]

Let's face it most threads the generate traffic are dumpster fires started by people looking for an Echo chamber

And catchy layouts...