OtherGround Forums Trump just became a legend.

5 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30354

"the reason I've defined you as I have is because you seem to have no issue defining others as you see fit so I figured what is good for the goose."

 

:-) Its interesting I started calling Trumpets socialist on here because they call anyone who doesn't agree with them socialist.


In the end, my belief is simply that nobody has the right to force anyone else to do anything.  I'd happily live in an area that ran in a way many would consider socialist, as long as every person choose voluntarily to be part of the area and agreed in advance to whatever rules were put in place.

For me, the issue with things like the wall is I don't see that America or Mexico has any legitimate claim to most of the land near the border.  Most of it neither has ever used or improved, its undeveloped land it should belong to whoever decides to use it.  Plus of course, the wall is terrible for the economy and the free market.  It also interferes with landowners and renters right to freely invite visitors to their property. 

If the market is "protected" it is by definition not a free market.  As soon as the government is controlling the market, you're leaning towards socialism.

5 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5206
Pura Vida -

"the reason I've defined you as I have is because you seem to have no issue defining others as you see fit so I figured what is good for the goose."

 

:-) Its interesting I started calling Trumpets socialist on here because they call anyone who doesn't agree with them socialist.


In the end, my belief is simply that nobody has the right to force anyone else to do anything.  I'd happily live in an area that ran in a way many would consider socialist, as long as every person choose voluntarily to be part of the area and agreed in advance to whatever rules were put in place.

For me, the issue with things like the wall is I don't see that America or Mexico has any legitimate claim to most of the land near the border.  Most of it neither has ever used or improved, its undeveloped land it should belong to whoever decides to use it.  Plus of course, the wall is terrible for the economy and the free market.  It also interferes with landowners and renters right to freely invite visitors to their property. 

If the market is "protected" it is by definition not a free market.  As soon as the government is controlling the market, you're leaning towards socialism.

I don't believe that protectionism means the market isnt free. by definition.  it's like a buffet.  once you're in you can eat whatever you want, but you have to meet the dress code.  free market and free trade are two different things.  

 

calling you a socialist is technically correct though.  you say so yourself, free market anarchism is defined as socialism.

 

5 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30360

I disagree w/wiki.  Socialism is a system where the government controls the means of production.  Free-market anarchism is a system where there is no government.  It is fundamentally the antithesis of socialism.

I guess capitalism could exist within a protectionist country, but the free market by definition requires unrestricted competition.  if i can only trade with certain companies than I am by definition restricted.

5 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5207
Pura Vida -

I disagree w/wiki.  Socialism is a system where the government controls the means of production.  Free-market anarchism is a system where there is no government.  It is fundamentally the antithesis of socialism.

I guess capitalism could exist within a protectionist country, but the free market by definition requires unrestricted competition.  if i can only trade with certain companies than I am by definition restricted.

I disagree with wiki too that being said, it's like the distinction between free market and free trade.  free market anarchism doesn't rely on a vacuum with no government but it does rely on laissez faire capitalism. 

 

it depends if you are a "free market" "anarchist" or a "free market anarchist" 

 

the way I understand the philosophy is that you can have government as a free market anarchist but that government doesn't limit or enforce participation  in a political economy, where as if you are an anarchist who believes in free market you have no government and no limits or enforcements to participation in a political economy, if that makes sense.

5 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 5508
Adrian Street - China just announced they would allow rice imports from the U.S. for the first time in their history.

Read that again.

Trump just sold rice to CHINA.

What a fucking legend.

He just approved, a sham of a company called Fischer Sand and Gravel, a contract worth 400 million dollars. According to WaPo, Trump personally urged the Army Corp of Engineers to award the contract to the company despite the bids not meeting the standards. 

As you would've guessed, this company was a GOP donor. 

Trump, selling post and offices to gop donors is really low. The independent.co.uk has more on the story.

You're right about Trump, what a fucking legend...at being corrupt.

5 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 5509
Pura Vida -

I disagree w/wiki.  Socialism is a system where the government controls the means of production.  Free-market anarchism is a system where there is no government.  It is fundamentally the antithesis of socialism.

I guess capitalism could exist within a protectionist country, but the free market by definition requires unrestricted competition.  if i can only trade with certain companies than I am by definition restricted.

You strike as a guy that's never read anything by Sam P. Huntington. 

5 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 54249
Cuckoldberry Finn -
Pura Vida -

"the reason I've defined you as I have is because you seem to have no issue defining others as you see fit so I figured what is good for the goose."

 

:-) Its interesting I started calling Trumpets socialist on here because they call anyone who doesn't agree with them socialist.


In the end, my belief is simply that nobody has the right to force anyone else to do anything.  I'd happily live in an area that ran in a way many would consider socialist, as long as every person choose voluntarily to be part of the area and agreed in advance to whatever rules were put in place.

For me, the issue with things like the wall is I don't see that America or Mexico has any legitimate claim to most of the land near the border.  Most of it neither has ever used or improved, its undeveloped land it should belong to whoever decides to use it.  Plus of course, the wall is terrible for the economy and the free market.  It also interferes with landowners and renters right to freely invite visitors to their property. 

If the market is "protected" it is by definition not a free market.  As soon as the government is controlling the market, you're leaning towards socialism.

I don't believe that protectionism means the market isnt free. by definition.  it's like a buffet.  once you're in you can eat whatever you want, but you have to meet the dress code.  free market and free trade are two different things.  

 

calling you a socialist is technically correct though.  you say so yourself, free market anarchism is defined as socialism.

 

No it isn't. You're using Wiki and your ridiculous connecting of dots to argue free market anarchism = socialism. He also didn't "say so yourself" at all. He literally explained that it is the opposite of socialism:

 

"Socialism is a system where the government controls the means of production.  Free-market anarchism is a system where there is no government.  It is fundamentally the antithesis of socialism."

 

Why do you blatantly lie about words everyone can read? 

5 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 54250
Cuckoldberry Finn -
Pura Vida -

I disagree w/wiki.  Socialism is a system where the government controls the means of production.  Free-market anarchism is a system where there is no government.  It is fundamentally the antithesis of socialism.

I guess capitalism could exist within a protectionist country, but the free market by definition requires unrestricted competition.  if i can only trade with certain companies than I am by definition restricted.

I disagree with wiki too that being said, it's like the distinction between free market and free trade.  free market anarchism doesn't rely on a vacuum with no government but it does rely on laissez faire capitalism. 

 

it depends if you are a "free market" "anarchist" or a "free market anarchist" 

 

the way I understand the philosophy is that you can have government as a free market anarchist but that government doesn't limit or enforce participation  in a political economy, where as if you are an anarchist who believes in free market you have no government and no limits or enforcements to participation in a political economy, if that makes sense.

Right, so absolutely nothing like actual Socialism. Lol

Edited: 5 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5209
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
Pura Vida -

"the reason I've defined you as I have is because you seem to have no issue defining others as you see fit so I figured what is good for the goose."

 

:-) Its interesting I started calling Trumpets socialist on here because they call anyone who doesn't agree with them socialist.


In the end, my belief is simply that nobody has the right to force anyone else to do anything.  I'd happily live in an area that ran in a way many would consider socialist, as long as every person choose voluntarily to be part of the area and agreed in advance to whatever rules were put in place.

For me, the issue with things like the wall is I don't see that America or Mexico has any legitimate claim to most of the land near the border.  Most of it neither has ever used or improved, its undeveloped land it should belong to whoever decides to use it.  Plus of course, the wall is terrible for the economy and the free market.  It also interferes with landowners and renters right to freely invite visitors to their property. 

If the market is "protected" it is by definition not a free market.  As soon as the government is controlling the market, you're leaning towards socialism.

I don't believe that protectionism means the market isnt free. by definition.  it's like a buffet.  once you're in you can eat whatever you want, but you have to meet the dress code.  free market and free trade are two different things.  

 

calling you a socialist is technically correct though.  you say so yourself, free market anarchism is defined as socialism.

 

No it isn't. You're using Wiki and your ridiculous connecting of dots to argue free market anarchism = socialism. He also didn't "say so yourself" at all. He literally explained that it is the opposite of socialism:

 

"Socialism is a system where the government controls the means of production.  Free-market anarchism is a system where there is no government.  It is fundamentally the antithesis of socialism."

 

Why do you blatantly lie about words everyone can read? 

the founders of free market anarchy define it as socialism so what you say doesn't matter

 

from wiki:

Free-market anarchism,[1] or market anarchism,[2] also known as free-market anti-capitalism[3] and free-market socialism,[4][5] 

you are an uneducated supercilious cunt.  I think you'll be the first on  my ignore list

5 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 54251
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
Pura Vida -

"the reason I've defined you as I have is because you seem to have no issue defining others as you see fit so I figured what is good for the goose."

 

:-) Its interesting I started calling Trumpets socialist on here because they call anyone who doesn't agree with them socialist.


In the end, my belief is simply that nobody has the right to force anyone else to do anything.  I'd happily live in an area that ran in a way many would consider socialist, as long as every person choose voluntarily to be part of the area and agreed in advance to whatever rules were put in place.

For me, the issue with things like the wall is I don't see that America or Mexico has any legitimate claim to most of the land near the border.  Most of it neither has ever used or improved, its undeveloped land it should belong to whoever decides to use it.  Plus of course, the wall is terrible for the economy and the free market.  It also interferes with landowners and renters right to freely invite visitors to their property. 

If the market is "protected" it is by definition not a free market.  As soon as the government is controlling the market, you're leaning towards socialism.

I don't believe that protectionism means the market isnt free. by definition.  it's like a buffet.  once you're in you can eat whatever you want, but you have to meet the dress code.  free market and free trade are two different things.  

 

calling you a socialist is technically correct though.  you say so yourself, free market anarchism is defined as socialism.

 

No it isn't. You're using Wiki and your ridiculous connecting of dots to argue free market anarchism = socialism. He also didn't "say so yourself" at all. He literally explained that it is the opposite of socialism:

 

"Socialism is a system where the government controls the means of production.  Free-market anarchism is a system where there is no government.  It is fundamentally the antithesis of socialism."

 

Why do you blatantly lie about words everyone can read? 

the founders of free market anarchy define it as socialism so what you say doesn't matter

 

from wiki:

Free-market anarchism,[1] or market anarchism,[2] also known as free-market anti-capitalism[3] and free-market socialism,[4][5] 

you are an uneducated supercilious cunt.  I think you'll be the first on  my ignore list

What you literally just said you understand it as, and outlined in your own words, in NO WAY resembles Socialism and in fact is the polar opposite. 

 

You tried clinging to Wiki to back up your desire to call PV a socialist. That failed, so now you're desperate to find some way to spin your arguments. 

 

What you're likely getting confused with, is Mutualism, which is a specific subset that does not believe in private property, which does come closer to Socialism. 

 

You seem to believe free market anarchism is a specific thing, when it is actually a broad term or catchall for a group of varying philosophies that all believe in unregulated markets and no government. 

 

 

Maybe read up a little? This will probably help you:

 

https://study.com/academy/lesson/free-market-anarchism-definition-example.html

 

You can create a free account if you want more than just the first few paragraphs,  but those alone should help. 

5 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 54252
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
Pura Vida -

"the reason I've defined you as I have is because you seem to have no issue defining others as you see fit so I figured what is good for the goose."

 

:-) Its interesting I started calling Trumpets socialist on here because they call anyone who doesn't agree with them socialist.


In the end, my belief is simply that nobody has the right to force anyone else to do anything.  I'd happily live in an area that ran in a way many would consider socialist, as long as every person choose voluntarily to be part of the area and agreed in advance to whatever rules were put in place.

For me, the issue with things like the wall is I don't see that America or Mexico has any legitimate claim to most of the land near the border.  Most of it neither has ever used or improved, its undeveloped land it should belong to whoever decides to use it.  Plus of course, the wall is terrible for the economy and the free market.  It also interferes with landowners and renters right to freely invite visitors to their property. 

If the market is "protected" it is by definition not a free market.  As soon as the government is controlling the market, you're leaning towards socialism.

I don't believe that protectionism means the market isnt free. by definition.  it's like a buffet.  once you're in you can eat whatever you want, but you have to meet the dress code.  free market and free trade are two different things.  

 

calling you a socialist is technically correct though.  you say so yourself, free market anarchism is defined as socialism.

 

No it isn't. You're using Wiki and your ridiculous connecting of dots to argue free market anarchism = socialism. He also didn't "say so yourself" at all. He literally explained that it is the opposite of socialism:

 

"Socialism is a system where the government controls the means of production.  Free-market anarchism is a system where there is no government.  It is fundamentally the antithesis of socialism."

 

Why do you blatantly lie about words everyone can read? 

the founders of free market anarchy define it as socialism so what you say doesn't matter

 

from wiki:

Free-market anarchism,[1] or market anarchism,[2] also known as free-market anti-capitalism[3] and free-market socialism,[4][5] 

you are an uneducated supercilious cunt.  I think you'll be the first on  my ignore list

Lol, so you edit it to add more wiki references? 

 

Of course you think wiki references = fact, and don't care to educate yourself on the many different philosophies that get lumped into free market anarchism. 

 

Then get so butthurt that your own words on how you understand it in no way resemble actual Socialism. You just see the word "socialism" next to the words "free market" and want to call people Socialists. About as juvenile as it gets. 

Edited: 5 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5210
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
Pura Vida -

"the reason I've defined you as I have is because you seem to have no issue defining others as you see fit so I figured what is good for the goose."

 

:-) Its interesting I started calling Trumpets socialist on here because they call anyone who doesn't agree with them socialist.


In the end, my belief is simply that nobody has the right to force anyone else to do anything.  I'd happily live in an area that ran in a way many would consider socialist, as long as every person choose voluntarily to be part of the area and agreed in advance to whatever rules were put in place.

For me, the issue with things like the wall is I don't see that America or Mexico has any legitimate claim to most of the land near the border.  Most of it neither has ever used or improved, its undeveloped land it should belong to whoever decides to use it.  Plus of course, the wall is terrible for the economy and the free market.  It also interferes with landowners and renters right to freely invite visitors to their property. 

If the market is "protected" it is by definition not a free market.  As soon as the government is controlling the market, you're leaning towards socialism.

I don't believe that protectionism means the market isnt free. by definition.  it's like a buffet.  once you're in you can eat whatever you want, but you have to meet the dress code.  free market and free trade are two different things.  

 

calling you a socialist is technically correct though.  you say so yourself, free market anarchism is defined as socialism.

 

No it isn't. You're using Wiki and your ridiculous connecting of dots to argue free market anarchism = socialism. He also didn't "say so yourself" at all. He literally explained that it is the opposite of socialism:

 

"Socialism is a system where the government controls the means of production.  Free-market anarchism is a system where there is no government.  It is fundamentally the antithesis of socialism."

 

Why do you blatantly lie about words everyone can read? 

the founders of free market anarchy define it as socialism so what you say doesn't matter

 

from wiki:

Free-market anarchism,[1] or market anarchism,[2] also known as free-market anti-capitalism[3] and free-market socialism,[4][5] 

you are an uneducated supercilious cunt.  I think you'll be the first on  my ignore list

What you literally just said you understand it as, and outlined in your own words, in NO WAY resembles Socialism and in fact is the polar opposite. 

 

You tried clinging to Wiki to back up your desire to call PV a socialist. That failed, so now you're desperate to find some way to spin your arguments. 

 

What you're likely getting confused with, is Mutualism, which is a specific subset that does not believe in private property, which does come closer to Socialism. 

 

You seem to believe free market anarchism is a specific thing, when it is actually a broad term or catchall for a group of varying philosophies that all believe in unregulated markets and no government. 

 

 

Maybe read up a little? This will probably help you:

 

https://study.com/academy/lesson/free-market-anarchism-definition-example.html

 

You can create a free account if you want more than just the first few paragraphs,  but those alone should help. 

get this through your thick head:

 

the people who are credited with founding the ideology call it socialism, so go argue with them

Edited: 5 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 54253
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
Pura Vida -

"the reason I've defined you as I have is because you seem to have no issue defining others as you see fit so I figured what is good for the goose."

 

:-) Its interesting I started calling Trumpets socialist on here because they call anyone who doesn't agree with them socialist.


In the end, my belief is simply that nobody has the right to force anyone else to do anything.  I'd happily live in an area that ran in a way many would consider socialist, as long as every person choose voluntarily to be part of the area and agreed in advance to whatever rules were put in place.

For me, the issue with things like the wall is I don't see that America or Mexico has any legitimate claim to most of the land near the border.  Most of it neither has ever used or improved, its undeveloped land it should belong to whoever decides to use it.  Plus of course, the wall is terrible for the economy and the free market.  It also interferes with landowners and renters right to freely invite visitors to their property. 

If the market is "protected" it is by definition not a free market.  As soon as the government is controlling the market, you're leaning towards socialism.

I don't believe that protectionism means the market isnt free. by definition.  it's like a buffet.  once you're in you can eat whatever you want, but you have to meet the dress code.  free market and free trade are two different things.  

 

calling you a socialist is technically correct though.  you say so yourself, free market anarchism is defined as socialism.

 

No it isn't. You're using Wiki and your ridiculous connecting of dots to argue free market anarchism = socialism. He also didn't "say so yourself" at all. He literally explained that it is the opposite of socialism:

 

"Socialism is a system where the government controls the means of production.  Free-market anarchism is a system where there is no government.  It is fundamentally the antithesis of socialism."

 

Why do you blatantly lie about words everyone can read? 

the founders of free market anarchy define it as socialism so what you say doesn't matter

 

from wiki:

Free-market anarchism,[1] or market anarchism,[2] also known as free-market anti-capitalism[3] and free-market socialism,[4][5] 

you are an uneducated supercilious cunt.  I think you'll be the first on  my ignore list

What you literally just said you understand it as, and outlined in your own words, in NO WAY resembles Socialism and in fact is the polar opposite. 

 

You tried clinging to Wiki to back up your desire to call PV a socialist. That failed, so now you're desperate to find some way to spin your arguments. 

 

What you're likely getting confused with, is Mutualism, which is a specific subset that does not believe in private property, which does come closer to Socialism. 

 

You seem to believe free market anarchism is a specific thing, when it is actually a broad term or catchall for a group of varying philosophies that all believe in unregulated markets and no government. 

 

 

Maybe read up a little? This will probably help you:

 

https://study.com/academy/lesson/free-market-anarchism-definition-example.html

 

You can create a free account if you want more than just the first few paragraphs,  but those alone should help. 

get this through your thick head:

 

the people who are credited with founding the ideology call it socialism, so go argue with them

No, they all don't. 

Again "free market anarchism" isn't one specific ideology. It is a catchall phrase encompassing multiple different philosophies . 

Adam Smith did not call it Socialism. 

 

Proudhon,  known as the founder of MUTUALISM, did, but Mutualism is different. He felt capitalism was flawed. 

 

There is a HUGE divide within the catchall of "free market anarchism". Between those that believe capitalism and anarchism are compatible (anarcho-capitalism),  and those that do not (Mutualism). 

 

You should seriously get off wikipedia and try actually learning. 

5 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 54254

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

5 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30361
Cuckoldberry Finn -
Pura Vida -

I disagree w/wiki.  Socialism is a system where the government controls the means of production.  Free-market anarchism is a system where there is no government.  It is fundamentally the antithesis of socialism.

I guess capitalism could exist within a protectionist country, but the free market by definition requires unrestricted competition.  if i can only trade with certain companies than I am by definition restricted.

I disagree with wiki too that being said, it's like the distinction between free market and free trade.  free market anarchism doesn't rely on a vacuum with no government but it does rely on laissez faire capitalism. 

 

it depends if you are a "free market" "anarchist" or a "free market anarchist" 

 

the way I understand the philosophy is that you can have government as a free market anarchist but that government doesn't limit or enforce participation  in a political economy, where as if you are an anarchist who believes in free market you have no government and no limits or enforcements to participation in a political economy, if that makes sense.

If it doesn't limit or enforce participation, is it a government?  To me the forced participation and monopoly on violence is what makes it a government.

 

For instance, I would have considered much of the wild west quasi-anarchist. there were little towns and they had rules, but you could ride your horse out of town and setup your own little community if you wanted to, so participation was by choice.

Among groups of people who support freedom I usually identify as a voluntarist, I just think most of the Trumpets and Democrats on here crave government control of everything so much that they couldn't even comprehend the concept of things being voluntary.  

For me its the NAP at the core of what I believe.  No force, no threats of force, no fraud.  As long as you aren't violating one of those three principles nobody has the right to stop you.  

I thought capitalism implied regulation, so to me didn't qualify as free trade.

Appreciate you being willing to turn the conversation with me.  Have a great evening.

 

 

5 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5211
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

Edited: 5 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 54255
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

5 days ago
3/28/02
Posts: 7150
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

you know someone has lost an argument when they use Wiki as their reference

5 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5212
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

that's not a concession, it is me realizing that you're not bringing anything worthy of debate so I am choosing not to engage in debate with you.  instead, I am giving you what you are worth, pithy insults and and ruffle of the hair.

 

for the rest of the room, free market anarchy is socialism as defined by the originators, and is also known as free market socialism according to a reasonably accepted resource

5 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5213
EazyG -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

you know someone has lost an argument when they use Wiki as their reference

you know somebody has lost the argument when they have to redefine the terms and move the goalposts.  

 

you know somebody isnt even in the argument when they take shots from the outside.  it's probably because you have no ideas.

5 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30362
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

that's not a concession, it is me realizing that you're not bringing anything worthy of debate so I am choosing not to engage in debate with you.  instead, I am giving you what you are worth, pithy insults and and ruffle of the hair.

 

for the rest of the room, free market anarchy is socialism as defined by the originators, and is also known as free market socialism according to a reasonably accepted resource

I know most of the current well known and/or written free-market anarchists and none of them would consider it socialist.  In fact, universally its fair to say they consider anarchism and socialism incompatible.

Not arguing what wiki says, but the reality is the term as used today is the literal antithesis of socialism.

But, great touche in our debate to find wiki defining it as such.  Well played sir.

5 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30363
EazyG -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

you know someone has lost an argument when they use Wiki as their reference

Wiki is a great first place to start and most of what is there is easily sourced.  Honestly attacking wiki is a much bigger admission that you've lost an argument than using it is.

In the end I think we can all agree that voluntary trade without government intervention or oversite is NOT socialism though.

5 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30364
Cuckoldberry Finn -
EazyG -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

you know someone has lost an argument when they use Wiki as their reference

you know somebody has lost the argument when they have to redefine the terms and move the goalposts.  

 

you know somebody isnt even in the argument when they take shots from the outside.  it's probably because you have no ideas.

To be fair earlier you kept insisting I wasn't a free market anarchist, that I was instead of socialist.  To now argue that because I am a free-market anarchist I am a socialist is also moving the goalposts.  But I LOVE IT. It made me think and I appreciate that.

5 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 54256
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

that's not a concession, it is me realizing that you're not bringing anything worthy of debate so I am choosing not to engage in debate with you.  instead, I am giving you what you are worth, pithy insults and and ruffle of the hair.

 

for the rest of the room, free market anarchy is socialism as defined by the originators, and is also known as free market socialism according to a reasonably accepted resource

No, it is not. It is you clinging to a term that is not even it's own specific ideology,  rather a catch all phrase for multiple different philosophies. 

 

I've not only broken it down in a basic simple format for you understand,  and given examples of, but I even sourced a link for you to better understand what you're arguing about. 

 

You just can't handle the concept of being wrong, and instead of embracing information people are providing you, you petulantly pretend I didn't offer you facts and information with sourced links that are much more detailed than your wiki generalizations. 

 

What you deem as "not worthy" is in actuality the facts about the broad term you want to pretend is Socialism when you yourself already said it wasn't. 

 

You said you don't agree with wiki. Your words. You also gave your own "understanding" which in no wag resembles Socialism at all. 

 

Your ego is just too massive to concede anything. Ever. 

Edited: 5 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 54258

"I disagree with wiki too..." -Cuck

 

Yet still arguing and using wiki as "proof" that the all encompassing term "free market anarchism" = Socialsm. 

 

One more time for the back of the room. 

 

There are subsets under "free market anarchism" that can be called socialist to a degree. Like Mutualism to an extent as they do not believe in private property. That being said, the general concept of free market anarchism is in no way supporting a Socialist run government. It is in fact, the opposite.