Kaizerdave Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 Theres a fella called Cameron, who hosts a channel called 'Libertarian Socialist Rants'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI6a7WySFsUIt's got about 19,000 subscribers and he seems pretty popular, though his latest video about Feminism has put him lower on the scale thankfully...He believes that jobs should be collectively owned by the 'Workers' and that equality is more important than liberty and individualism.But what confuses me about his whole philosophy which he never seems to answer is... How can a free, anarchist society exist, and at the same time have a force involved that states that all businesses need to be collectively owned and managed?Surely an element of large force is necessary in order for businesses to go by those terms. Seriously the kids a nut.But could anyone give me any guidance or information on why An-Com is stupid?
Alan C. Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 Watch this: Read this: The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists 1
SamuelS Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 I think you summed it up pretty well...if liberty isn't the highest goal, and you've got a duty to others, they're just statists in anarchist clothing, IMO...maybe he should check out Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson -- http://mises.org/document/6785/ -- since that seems to be a major area of ignorance with the socialist types.
AustinJames Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 ...what confuses me about his whole philosophy which he never seems to answer is... How can a free, anarchist society exist, and at the same time have a force involved that states that all businesses need to be collectively owned and managed? There is a reason that he never answers this: the answer would be so packed with contradictory information his entire argument would self-detonate. But could anyone give me any guidance or information on why An-Com is stupid? I think you nailed it with your question. The easiest way to invalidate anarcho-communist arguments is to ask how collective ownership works without a central authority. The answer is, it doesn't. Also, point out that the most important means of production is the human reproductive system; would they advocate common ownership over sex? Would I have to ask permission from everyone in the world before having a child? Would I have to get the consent of every worker on the planet to produce anything? Many an-coms do this slippery thing where they attempt to distinguish personal property from private property, but it's easy to counter because the foundation is so shoddy. They claim that personal property extends to the things you use, but the absurdity of that standard reveals itself when you ask a few questions. If a horse is used for riding, then it must be personal property; but if the same horse is used for plowing, is it then collectively owned? How can something be both personally and collectively owned simultaneously? Or is the horse owned by all when it is plowing, but owned by one when it's not? How does the collective tend the horse? That is, how can everyone on the planet contribute to feeding and shoeing and boarding the horse? These actions must be performed by individuals, and how can an individual on the other side of the world have equal property rights in a horse they do not even know exists? If you focus on property rights and how they are enforced, the arguments quickly dissolve. 2
Recommended Posts