Collectivists Posing As "Anarchists" Demand $3B From Google

[Alan C.]

Collectivists Posing As “Anarchists” Demand $3 Billion From Google

 

A group of anti-capitalist protesters referring to themselves as “anarchists” demonstrated outside the home of Digg founder and Google Ventures partner Kevin Rose on Sunday, and demanded that Google hand over $3 billion to fund the creation of “autonomous, anti-capitalist, and anti-racist communities throughout the Bay Area and Northern California.”The protest was allegedly organized by a group called The Counterforce, and they call Rose a “meta-leech” who is to blame for the rising cost of living in the Bay Area. Rose has invested heavily in several tech startups, and these startups have moved to the Bay Area to run their businesses. The protesters claim that the tech companies that Rose invested in are overtaking the area and driving out people who are less wealthy:

 

“Venture capitalists enable these tech-workers by funding their startups. With the success of each startup, more and more ambitious tech-workers flock to the city and displace underemployed service workers to the cities at the far reaches of the BART line. These workers must then commute back to San Francisco or Oakland every morning, in most cases to perform menial tasks for the entitled scum who drove them out in the first place.”

 

The Counterforce group abhors capitalism, technological companies and innovations, and entrepreneurs. In their public statement, they believe this $3 billion will create a society where “no one will ever have to pay rent and housing will be free. With this three billion from Google, we will solve the housing crisis in the Bay Area and prove to the world that an anarchist world is not only possible but in fact irrepressible.” The Counterforce takes themselves seriously, too- if Google doesn’t acquiesce to their demand, they say to “get ready for a revolution neither you nor we can control.”

 

. . .

 

Interestingly, this protest group was able to make their demonstration possible because of Google. In their statement, it’s noted that Microsoft Word, MacBook, Samsung Nexus (powered by Google), Gmail, and Youtube are among different tech products and services used by The Counterforce in their protests.

 

[TheMatrixHasMe]

If the "Counterforce Group" abhors capitalism, then it goes without saying that they should be able to create a sustainable society without the $3 billion.

 

Sad to see so many people lost in crazy.

[nathanm]

And lo did the kindly Kevin Rose emerge from from his home with flowing white beard and robe, riding atop a mighty stallion.  Young girls scattered rose petals on the path before him.  He greeted the protesters with a wave of his hand and all fell silent.  Four servants then came bearing an oversized novelty check bearing the sum of three billion dollars, payable to the poor and downtrodden childen whom he had so regrettably neglected.  As Kevin spoke his earnest apologies to the teeming crowd, their tears soon gave way to cheers as they realized that work was now a thing of the past and eternal prosperity was their future.  Kevin dismounted his horse and shook their hands, caressed their heads and hugged them all. Just then the clouds parted and beams of sunlight shone down upon them, heralding a new day for all the goodly people of San Francisco.

[Josh F]

can you imagine the $3 billion dollar mess they would create with their dumb ideas?  Then who cleans up that failed social experiment?

[st434u]

With stuff like this it should become obvious why claiming that you are an "anarchist" or that you support or want "anarchy" is a terrible idea... But I guess this is not the place to start a semantics discussion about the word.

[JamesP]

But you can't really back down from the word itself if you argue for applying morality universally. "Thou shalt not steal" immediately demonstrates that the government is immoral.

 

"So, what, you're an anarchist, then?"

 

That question is a learning opportunity. The concept of anarchy is unavoidable when discussing morality, so it's probably better to find a way to make friends with the word instead of regarding it as an enemy.

[Josh F]

With stuff like this it should become obvious why claiming that you are an "anarchist" or that you support or want "anarchy" is a terrible idea... But I guess this is not the place to start a semantics discussion about the word.

Same for all labels, just because an asshole is an atheist doesn't mean I should stop calling myself an atheist.  The label isnt too important to me though, I think its just about applied values.

[st434u]

That question is a learning opportunity. The concept of anarchy is unavoidable when discussing morality, so it's probably better to find a way to make friends with the word instead of regarding it as an enemy.

 

You may be right, and I don't regard the word as an enemy, I just ignore the word and choose to frame things differently. Like: No, I don't want chaos, I want law and order, just the kind that the market would provide as opposed to the kind that the State provides, which is already quite chaotic.

 

Same for all labels, just because an asshole is an atheist doesn't mean I should stop calling myself an atheist.  The label isnt too important to me though, I think its just about applied values.

 

Well it's different because to the statheist atheist, atheism is at most an opportunity to attack religious people, but it's not the basis for why he worships the State. For most self-described anarchists, the anarchistic ideology is to steal and destroy, and their ideal system is one of total communism, which they call anarchy.

 

And to make things worse, for most non-self-described anarchists (just about everyone else), the word means exactly the same thing!

 

So you have a situation where the word means chaos for 97% of people, and it means communism (which leads to chaos) for 2.99%... And it only means something else for the remaining 0.01%... You guys may be right that the etymological root of the word suggests something closer to what we want... But at a certain point, I think you have to admit that linguistics is based on consensus, and even if a word was originally used to describe one thing, if now everybody thinks it means something else, there's no point in continuing to try and convince them that their usage of the word is wrong.

 

For instance, gay used to mean happy. But if a guy goes around telling everybody that he's gay, with a big smile on his face, they're gonna assume something weird is going on.

[Josh F]

So what word do you recommend?

[st434u]

I like statelessness. Voluntaryism is also good, although it tends to be confused with volunteerism. Other good terms include things like "pure private law society" or "pure private property system".

 

At the end of the day, though, I'm not so much concerned with labels as I am with getting the message through without misunderstandings. So if someone (like Stef, or most people here) uses terms like "anarchy" and explain what they mean, there's no problem.

 

The only problem is when these are used in titles, and most people never get to read the content because the title drives them away thinking they already know what that's all about. We all do that to some extent.