Fuck Capitalism

Capitalism, capitalism. How do I loath thee? Let me count the ways….

Few would argue with the conclusion that greed, selfishness, ruthlessness, and egocentrism are qualities that all of us humans possess, to varying degrees of course. Equally compelling is the argument that nearly all of us are capable of acting with kindness, compassion, justice, honesty, generosity, and empathy. Yet despite the sweeping epidemic of unnecessary suffering caused by torrential waves of avarice, self-centeredness, and brutality, our filthy moneyed elite, their well-compensated sycophants, and countless millions of deeply inculcated members of the working class defend the sacred cow of capitalism with the zeal of the Sicarii. What a brilliant way to conduct human affairs and organize ourselves socioeconomically! Not only do we embrace the inevitability of our human frailties; we willfully and perpetually embrace a system that ensures that the worst elements of the human psyche will predominate AND which amply rewards those who act the most reprehensibly.

One of the idiocies advanced as a logical argument to justify the continued existence of the abomination of capitalism is that while it may be flawed, it is still better than any alternative. If capitalism is the best humanity can do, it's time to cash in our chips and leave Earth to our non-human animal counter-parts. They may not have opposable thumbs and formidably sized frontal lobes, but at least they don't engage in the systematic destruction of themselves and the rest of the planet. However, before we act too hastily and engage in mass seppuku, perhaps it would make more sense to implement a mass reorganization of our socioeconomic structure, basing the new paradigm on far more egalitarian, sustainable, democratic, just, and rational principles. Or we could just keep destroying each other and the fucking planet….

Perhaps most disturbing of all is the way in which capitalism's relentless advocates have managed to bamboozle billions of people into equating it with democracy. Diabolical to its core, but sheer genius nonetheless. Concluding that capitalism and democracy are somehow synonymous is a bit like saying that Dick Cheney and the milk of human kindness relate to one another in even a very remote fashion. (Have you seen the myriad pictures of his evil grimaces floating around the Internet? Despicable creature that he is, he doesn't even attempt to mask his malevolence). Capitalism is naturally hierarchical, authoritarian, and brutal. Corporations, the legal vehicles for the plutocracy to maximize their profits while minimizing liability, are structured as tyrannies. What the hell is democratic about dog eat dog, law of the jungle, and every man for himself? Besides, if we uber-capitalists here in the United States are truly "democratic," and we "elected" a depraved idiot like W. to what is ostensibly the most powerful position in the world, what does that say about us?

>>120
he values his time more than disproving something you obviously didn't put any effort in.

>>121
I'm not >>118 but >>119 isn't going to get very far with a statement like that. And if he values his time so much, what the hell is he doing on /newpol/ then?

>>122
i never said he didn't value going to /newpol/
i said he didn't value replying to a strawman critique of capitalism without acknowledging that its not how the system is intended to be implemented.
I dont know how many times i have to say this but
capitalism=/=corporatism.
Its like if i critiqued communism without acknowledging that the soviet union was NOT a good example of communism in action.

>>123
capitalism=/=corporatism.Its like if i critiqued communism without acknowledging that the soviet union was NOT a good example of communism in action.Just like the former Soviet Union was not an example of communism in action, neither is the USA (in particular) a good example of capitalism in action. Having said that, looking back throughout history, I cannot find a single civilization that used capitalism as its economic engine that didn't have some corporatist elements within it as well in practice. Going by this logic, it would seem antistatism is about as untenable in practice as is Marxism (which also had a stateless society in the end, at least in theory).

Having said that, looking back throughout history, I cannot find a single civilization that used capitalism as its economic engine that didn't have some corporatist elements within it as well in practice.
Most if not all "recorded" history has been under "statist" type of societies so i would understand if there was few to no examples of a total free market. The only reason the U.S. grew so much at its inception was because it was a qwazi free market at some point before all the state regulations, specifically the restrictions on foreign trade.

Going by this logic, it would seem antistatism is about as untenable in practice as is Marxism (which also had a stateless society in the end, at least in theory).

Well like i said, there was a point in time where there was stateless societies and for the most part they worked fine like medieval Ireland until England finally invaded it hundreds of years later.

I wouldn't say anti statism is "as" untenable because marxism requires taking control of the state first to dissolve it while most other forms of anti statism acknowledge that the best way to dissolve it is through education and tolerance for mostly anything but statism.

Statism is tenable in the short run for sure but in the long run.....well lets just say that the U.S.(which can be said to be one of the best "states" if not the best) will most definitely fall in our lifetime.

>>125
Most if not all "recorded" history has been under "statist" type of societies so i would understand if there was few to no examples of a total free market. The only reason the U.S. grew so much at its inception was because it was a qwazi free market at some point before all the state regulations, specifically the restrictions on foreign trade.
That was also a time where you had child labor, no workplace safety regulations, etc. Not exactly a time that people want to go back to.
Well like i said, there was a point in time where there was stateless societies and for the most part they worked fine like medieval Ireland until England finally invaded it hundreds of years later.
As much as Cromwell may have been a bastard to the Irish, I can't say that it has been entirely a bad thing (ignoring The Troubles, and all the other political bullshit). Ireland also had a primitive form of monarchy during the medieval era, so I don't think it is as "stateless" as you're claiming it to be. Perhaps weakly statist, but so was over half of Europe at the time.
I wouldn't say anti statism is "as" untenable because marxism requires taking control of the state first to dissolve it while most other forms of anti statism acknowledge that the best way to dissolve it is through education and tolerance for mostly anything but statism.
See, that seems to make as much sense as "once communism is achieved, the state will magically wither away", which pretty much means that in practice, has no basis in reality. When it comes down to it, it's all just theory. It's a nice theory, but that's about it.
Statism is tenable in the short run for sure but in the long run.....well lets just say that the U.S.(which can be said to be one of the best "states" if not the best) will most definitely fall in our lifetime.
The US on its current path (if no major change happens) is doomed to break up like the former Soviet Union, in which case the individual states will end up being their own republics (think Vermont before it entered the Union). There will still be "statism", but it'll be more decentralized and local. Or, such states will coalesce together and keep the name (instead of 50 states, you now have half that).
Also, I wouldn't say that the US is one of the best, or the best state. When you have huge income inequalities, rising obesity, decline in literacy, numeracy, a burgeoning culture of anti-intellectualism, a religious minority gaining more strength in the political system, and culture, etc. The US' neighbors in the anglosphere are also suffering under similar problems, but not anywhere as bad as the US is, and certainly that goes for countries in continental Europe, and while none of these places have governments as  bureaucratic as the US', they aren't exactly "free market", either.

>>122
I'm sure even if I did prepare a long rebuttal that addressed all of his points, it would achieve nothing. He would still be bitching about what has helped him so much and what has given him his privilege in society.

>>126
That was also a time where you had child labor, no workplace safety regulations, etc. Not exactly a time that people want to go back to.

Well personally i dont see anything wrong with "child labor" as long as its voluntary, now you can make the case that it is coercive because they need it to buy resources but if thats the case then you should really blame the state who claims vast portions of unused land for itself and does not allow for those children and their families to settle and be self sufficient.

You seem to imply that the goal of anti statism is to recede all of the technological and cultural advancements, which is not the case, all the things you desire of a society can and will be provided to you in a stateless society, the only difference is that there wont be a group of people with the monopolistic presumed legal right to use violence in a geographical area.

As much as Cromwell may have been a bastard to the Irish, I can't say that it has been entirely a bad thing (ignoring The Troubles, and all the other political bullshit). Ireland also had a primitive form of monarchy during the medieval era, so I don't think it is as "stateless" as you're claiming it to be. Perhaps weakly statist, but so was over half of Europe at the time.

Meh i guess Iceland was a better example but nonetheless i believe the people there would have eventually outgrown the monarchy.

See, that seems to make as much sense as "once communism is achieved, the state will magically wither away", which pretty much means that in practice, has no basis in reality. When it comes down to it, it's all just theory. It's a nice theory, but that's about it.
I can kinda agree with you on communism but the fundamental principle of market anarchy/ anti statism and many other forms of it is that it is how all humans organize naturally when in non-coercive situations and it works in practice every single day.

"it is how states cooperate with one another without a state above them, and it is how people within the state cooperate without a state above them
it is the natural social organization of humans
absent bullshit religions about monopolies on violence
that's all market anarchism is"

to claim that that doesn't function in reality shows nothing but staggering ignorance of what's being discussed.

huge income inequalities
explain further because im not sure which ones you are talking about

rising obesity
People who are perfectly healthy are defined as "obese" look at this for more...
http://www.hulu.com/watch/196879/fat-head

decline in literacy
I agree and this is because of state intervention and forced attendance.

a religious minority gaining more strength in the political system
When you have a system that in its inception used religious and ideological justification it should be no surprise that people who already are indoctrinated would seek to gain power over it when threatened with the possibility of its collapse.

But really as big as the religious majority is you cant deny the steady rise of atheism throughout the last century.

>>118
0/10 cry moar
you're just butthurt that STI finally permabanned you

>>128
Well personally i dont see anything wrong with "child labor" as long as its voluntary, now you can make the case that it is coercive because they need it to buy resources but if thats the case then you should really blame the state who claims vast portions of unused land for itself and does not allow for those children and their families to settle and be self sufficient.
There are environmental factors that largely prevent that from happening. The world population as it stands cannot be sustained without modern agriculture. And with the world as globalized as it is, the US will not likely be an agrarian nation again (unless peak oil affects the world as much as they claim it will).
You seem to imply that the goal of anti statism is to recede all of the technological and cultural advancements, which is not the case, all the things you desire of a society can and will be provided to you in a stateless society, the only difference is that there wont be a group of people with the monopolistic presumed legal right to use violence in a geographical area.
Like Marxism, this sounds like a wonderful theory. THEORY, of course, being the key word.
Meh i guess Iceland was a better example but nonetheless i believe the people there would have eventually outgrown the monarchy.
Well, of course, the southern portion is now a republic.
I can kinda agree with you on communism but the fundamental principle of market anarchy/ anti statism and many other forms of it is that it is how all humans organize naturally when in non-coercive situations and it works in practice every single day.
Doesn't seem like it would quite work well as it scales up. In more modern times, I've only seen stateless societies work in little communes and such. You'd probably have a better time convincing people of that.
explain further because im not sure which ones you are talking about
Wages aren't up to prices. And don't tell me it's because of minimum wage (it's not). Wages should be double than what they are now.
People who are perfectly healthy are defined as "obese" look at this for more...http://www.hulu.com/watch/196879/fat-head
Well, it's not just McDonald's that helps it along, but also the fact that junk food is generally quite cheap. It's a good example of how loosely-regulated supermarkets, fast food chains, etc. really are. Multinationals are strong enough to where they will exert their force wherever they may do so, state or no state.

I agree and this is because of state intervention and forced attendance.
I would disagree. Other governments and countries spend much less of a percentage on their education systems and their students come out with much better results in literacy, numeracy, etc. Finland, for example, usually comes out on top in the world for education, in the 1970s, their education was shit. They've eliminated their standardized testing, and reformed the system, and now it's one of the best in the world. Japan, also comes out top in education, as well as one of our anglosphere neighbors, Australia. They also are all compulsory (meaning forced attendance). None of these countries' education systems are free market in any sense of the word, either. If the free market is the cure-all for everything, how is it that these countries largely outpace the US in education with their non-market based education systems?
When you have a system that in its inception used religious and ideological justification it should be no surprise that people who already are indoctrinated would seek to gain power over it when threatened with the possibility of its collapse.
Well, it's cultural as well (I see you selectively quoted what I wrote). If they cannot gain power through government, they'll just find some other way.
But really as big as the religious majority is you cant deny the steady rise of atheism throughout the last century.
This has pretty much been happening in the western world for quite a while, the US is just playing catch-up for the most part.

I'm against libertarianism, and what you're advocating because most western countries and the US have been going in more market-orientated directions as of the past few decades (as their governments have been moving further to the right). Even UK's Labour party (now pretty much a right-wing party) which claims to uphold social democratic principles, has pretty much abandoned most of them in favor of a more neo-liberal approach, going further in that direction, will exacerbate the problems we're seeing now, not solve them, or at the very least, keep them to a minimum.

"Here is some sincere advice to US protesters: dress better. I’m not kidding. You may think you’re paying homage to the peace-loving hippies, but the masses of America--the people whose support you’re going to need--fucking hate hippies. Take a lesson from the protesters of the 20s and 30s. Dress cleanly and neatly. Hell, wear a tie. Remember, our great-grandparents were the ones who effected real social change, e.g, the forty hour work week. Our pot-smoking parents failed where our suit wearing grandparents succeeded."

>>130
There are environmental factors that largely prevent that from happening. The world population as it stands cannot be sustained without modern agriculture. And with the world as globalized as it is, the US will not likely be an agrarian nation again (unless peak oil affects the world as much as they claim it will).

People have always found ways to survive in the environment or they move, my point still stands about states claiming plots of good land that it does not use for itself.

Like Marxism, this sounds like a wonderful theory. THEORY, of course, being the key word.

Because statism has worked in practice to the extent that it has pursued a more peaceful and tolerant society. Statism has failed in all areas it claims to be needed for.

-There's still war and on a bigger scale, note that these wars are mostly only possible because of the debt of the war being shouldered on the people.

-Millions are imprisoned everyday for nonviolent crimes being judged under laws they never consented to.

-People are being robbed on a global scale due to fiat currency, deficit spending, and forced ponzi schemes like social security.

-Parents are forced to pay and send their kids to school where they are forced to learn under a strict standard.

-Restrictions on trade and business so that big businesses dont have much competition.

-The ideological control that you are showing me at the moment by defending it so persistently. (Stockholm Syndrome)And its not even just Stockholm, the state makes you want to die for it or at least those who do anyways and kill those who disagree like me who are of no threat to you. You cannot claim to say "live and let live" while supporting a state, "an act of state is an act of war", i do not think the solution to having a "better society" is to "force" people to abide by a standard of which i think is right(or utilitarian), you, or the majority by that matter.
Like-minded people will get together and naturally emerge building their own societies how they see fit and if they fail well at least everyone who didn't agree with them didn't have to suffer THEIR consequences.

Now you can say statism has "partially" succeeded but that's a subjective standard i would not like to have.
 
Doesn't seem like it would quite work well as it scales up. In more modern times, I've only seen stateless societies work in little communes and such. You'd probably have a better time convincing people of that.

Yeah, states DO THAT. And just because a state was able to "take over" a stateless society, that does not mean statism is by any means "better".

Wages aren't up to prices. And don't tell me it's because of minimum wage (it's not). Wages should be double than what they are now.
"should be"- so you think you should have a say in how an employer spends his money?

Well, it's not just McDonald's that helps it along, but also the fact that junk food is generally quite cheap. It's a good example of how loosely-regulated supermarkets, fast food chains, etc. really are. Multinationals are strong enough to where they will exert their force wherever they may do so, state or no state.

Why do you blame the supplier for supplying what the people WANT.
You really dont know how corporations are products of the state do you?
If you cant understand that then i REALLY now know you arent an econ major.

I would disagree. Other governments and countries spend much less of a percentage on their education systems and their students come out with much better results in literacy, numeracy, etc. Finland, for example, usually comes out on top in the world for education, in the 1970s, their education was shit. They've eliminated their standardized testing, and reformed the system, and now it's one of the best in the world. Japan, also comes out top in education, as well as one of our anglosphere neighbors, Australia. They also are all compulsory (meaning forced attendance). None of these countries' education systems are free market in any sense of the word, either.

child abuse is allowed there(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-jg90JNksE) and indoctrination does wonders,
tests dont mean shit, intelligence is for the most part subjective, i can say that because they still believe in a state it doesn't matter how many tests they can pass they still fail in my book.

If the free market is the cure-all for everything, how is it that these countries largely outpace the US in education with their non-market based education systems?

Because the Education system in the U.S. is not free market?
All forms of teaching still are FORCED to abide by the state standard which i would NOT call free by any means.

Well, it's cultural as well (I see you selectively quoted what I wrote). If they cannot gain power through government, they'll just find some other way.

Then maybe you DON'T WANT A GROUP OF PEOPLE HAVING THE PRESUMED LEGAL RIGHT TO USE FORCE OVER A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA SO THAT THEY CANT DO THAT.

I'm against libertarianism, and what you're advocating because most western countries and the US have been going in more market-orientated directions as of the past few decades (as their governments have been moving further to the right).

ITS NOT LIBERTARIANISM, its Anti Statism/Anarcho Capitalism/
im sympathetic towards libretarianism because they seek a smaller gov but they are still statist. Its not all right, im indifferent and tolerant of libertarian socialism(aka vanilla anarchy, mutualism, and anarcho syndicalism.

Even UK's Labour party (now pretty much a right-wing party) which claims to uphold social democratic principles, has pretty much abandoned most of them in favor of a more neo-liberal approach, going further in that direction, will exacerbate the problems we're seeing now, not solve them, or at the very least, keep them to a minimum.

Or you could not be an authoritarian and REALLY let people live how they want in the context of their like-minded societies, either way its going to happen, i know mankind's mostly ignorant but if they can overcome religion they can overcome the state.

tl;dr but might i just interject to point out that while yes, lines on a map are bullshit and politicians are theiving bastards by nature, on the other hand we do need [a plurality of] large recongised authorities, e.i. accrediting education, verifying and setting medical standards and so on.
[un]fortunately things aren't bad enough yet for us to really know what needs to change, and invariably once change does come we'll realise with hindsight that more is needed. the circle of life chaps...

>>132
You think rapists consent to rape laws? You're going to have to define the problem better than that.

>>134
Then they would live in a rapist society?

The only "laws" that would be implemented in the different societies would be ones people are willing to go to war for.
I believe rape, murder, theft, etc... would mostly be opposed.

It’s pretty simple.
Capitalism = Greed
Greed = Evil
Therefore: Capitalism = Evil

Of course, we are stuck with Capitalism until people who oppose it propose an alternative.  What is it? Communism according to Marx?  PARECON (Participatory Economics) according to Michael Albert? Something else?

>>135
The rapists in those societies won't reveal who they are or move.

Do I really have to explain this shit to you?

>>137
Is that you Obama?

>>137
Yeah because that TOTALLY cant happen now as well.
Do I really have to explain this shit to you?

>>139
Enlighten me.

>>139
For the record, I was talking about rapists not living in a society that allows rape.

>>139
So the rapists are living in a society that does not allow rape.

>>139
Rape.

>>140
>>141
>>142
>>143
They will probably be asked to consent to the common law of that society beforehand, if they don't then they will not be allowed to join that society. If he rapes then he will be punished accordingly to the local law. I don't see the difference having a state makes.

>>144
There is no difference because this society has a state as well, you're just calling it "local law".

>>145
State:a person or group with the "presumed" legal right to initiate force in a geographical area, without the consent of mostly everyone in that society.
Even if they do consent there is major smoke and mirrors about supporting policies by proxy that the individual himself would not support.

Stateless: a person or group of people (depends on the society) with the legitimate right to initiate force in a geographical area where everyone in that area has consented to said laws, but the scope would probably be reduced drastically most probably not including unused plots of land. People would be more informed on what services they want provided to them and would have a choice(in some societies) whether or not to opt in.

I cant give you all the answers, im not a central planner, all i know is that people can and will organize without a state, after all and that's the way it was before Statism and it worked fine then and it will work even better in the future. There was a time where people didn't have "gods" to regulate them and they lived just fine, why is the state any different?

>>146
There was a time where people didn't have "gods" to regulate them and they lived just fine, why is the state any different?
Because deities, in all likelihood, don't exist; states do. And "statism" has more or less existed as long as human civilization has. Even in the days of the Fertile Crescent and ancient Mesopotamia. I'd say "statism" is an extension of tribalism, not so much religion. And even atheists won't like to admit it, but even if you take religion out of the equation, human beings are tribal in nature. You're never really going to take that away completely.

>>146
all i know is that people can and will organize without a state
So they'll organize and create their own little state, and then it's back to square one (note: this is how most constitutions were written in most western democracies). What stops people from doing that? Nothing. Your arguments for anti-statism seem to be akin to dividing by zero.

>>147
Because deities, in all likelihood, don't exist; states do. And "statism" has more or less existed as long as human civilization has. Even in the days of the Fertile Crescent and ancient Mesopotamia. I'd say "statism" is an extension of tribalism, not so much religion. And even atheists won't like to admit it, but even if you take religion out of the equation, human beings are tribal in nature. You're never really going to take that away completely.

Statism is an arbitrary claim there is no inherent manifestation of it in reality, its an ideology.
What you said can be construed as saying "god is everywhere so therefore he exists".

Tribes are not states and they are anti statist in nature because the scope of their influence does not supersede their "homesteaded" land.

>>148
So they'll organize and create their own little state

It wont be a state because its built from the bottom up and most if not ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN THE SOCIETY ACTUALLY CONSENTED, and why the fuck do you think people will go back to statism after they went through all the trouble to get rid of it in the first place? Its like saying you want to build a bridge then after you do, you now want to destroy it.

People in modern society only support the state because its the status quo and not on any kind of merit(and if they do its only on ones that can be achieved in a stateless society as well), "statism is dead" but people dont want to admit it, they like to stay in their little shell and live their simple lives which is fine if they arent going to open their mouths and show their ignorance.

Your arguments for anti-statism seem to be akin to dividing by zero.
Actually they are dividing by 1 because it all goes back to the individual.

>>132
People have always found ways to survive in the environment or they move, my point still stands about states claiming plots of good land that it does not use for itself.
The land designated for national parks weren't really used all that much to begin with. Having them protected from any future development is not a bad thing.
Because statism has worked in practice to the extent that it has pursued a more peaceful and tolerant society. Statism has failed in all areas it claims to be needed for.-There's still war and on a bigger scale, note that these wars are mostly only possible because of the debt of the war being shouldered on the people.-Millions are imprisoned everyday for nonviolent crimes being judged under laws they never consented to.-People are being robbed on a global scale due to fiat currency, deficit spending, and forced ponzi schemes like social security.-Parents are forced to pay and send their kids to school where they are forced to learn under a strict standard.-Restrictions on trade and business so that big businesses dont have much competition.Most of those issues are American-centric, especially the wars. There are coalitions of other nations involved in them as well, but not to the extent that the US is, coupled with its pig-headed nationalism to boot.
I, of course don't agree with #2, either. #3 is just more hand waving, not really an argument. #4 I disagree with. Education is there to protect developing minds from the poisonous memes that can inhibit reasoning and critical thinking (on top of teaching the basics, and whatnot). The kind of stuff mentioned in #5, I don't agree with, either.
-The ideological control that you are showing me at the moment by defending it so persistently. (Stockholm Syndrome)And its not even just Stockholm, the state makes you want to die for it or at least those who do anyways and kill those who disagree like me who are of no threat to you. You cannot claim to say "live and let live" while supporting a state, "an act of state is an act of war", i do not think the solution to having a "better society" is to "force" people to abide by a standard of which i think is right(or utilitarian), you, or the majority by that matter.
Like-minded people will get together and naturally emerge building their own societies how they see fit and if they fail well at least everyone who didn't agree with them didn't have to suffer THEIR consequences.
No. I've looked carefully at things, and I've realized that governments can do good for their people, just as they're capable of doing awful things. This wasn't because I was told/taught this, or that this is the way things are. I came to the conclusion, myself, with a thinking brain.
Now you can say statism has "partially" succeeded but that's a subjective standard i would not like to have.
Whatever you say.
Yeah, states DO THAT. And just because a state was able to "take over" a stateless society, that does not mean statism is by any means "better".
Communes are all over the place, and are only a search away. I've found a local one that's being formed a little over 50 miles from where I live. There's no law or regulation on the books that stops people from forming and/or joining one.
"should be"- so you think you should have a say in how an employer spends his money?
When it affects the livelihood of his or her employees, yes I do.
Why do you blame the supplier for supplying what the people WANT.
This may be biased, due to my being slightly misanthropic, but most people are fucking morons, who in fact, really don't know what they want half of the time. If I really didn't give a shit in the most outré manner possible, then sure, everyone can do whatever they liked and not care what it does to the rest of society or someone else. But the fact that I do somewhat give a shit, and the fact that I have to deal with the aforementioned morons, means that things need to be reformed. Health care is high enough, there doesn't need to be more of a burden than there already is (the Fat Head film is not the typical example, full of obesity crankery, not really an argument there).
You really dont know how corporations are products of the state do you?
At this point, it doesn't matter. No matter what country they're in, multinationals will exert their force (as long as it's profitable to do so). They would be McDonald's even in fucking Somalia if it were profitable enough.
If you cant understand that then i REALLY now know you arent an econ major.
Please. You're a twenty-year old uploading videos on YouTube about your no-state theories (you aren't as educated in economics as you pretend to be).
Also, speaking about McDonald's (and other fast food chains), the fact that they now have nutritional information right there on the box (this should have been done a long, long, time ago) makes people think twice about their behavior via a feedback loop. You can read more about that in regards to real-time displays on posted speed-limit signs, and how it changes people's behavior. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/ff_feedbackloop/
child abuse is allowed there(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-jg90JNksE) and indoctrination does wonders,
The case with Chinese mothers/parents is a cultural problem, not so much a state one (though, child abuse should of course be dealt with). Countless centuries of being subjected to cultural memes and practices passed down through countless generations and continuing to practice them in a culture (Western) where such parental upbringing is seen as alien and abhorrent. You could make the case of this being the result of at least five decades of loose immigration policies, but that's another symptom of rampant globalization. I'm not against globalization entirely, but some alternative form of it that's not based solely on profit and mindlessly shifting labor, goods, and people about.

I didn't mention PRC as one of the countries, the only Asian country I mentioned was Japan. Perhaps Japanese kids undergo similar parenting, I don't know.
tests dont mean shit, intelligence is for the most part subjective, i can say that because they still believe in a state it doesn't matter how many tests they can pass they still fail in my book.
Ah, testing. The never-ending trumpet card that is always being shouted to improve education in the US, which bring me to my next point:
Because the Education system in the U.S. is not free market?
The education systems of the countries that I mentioned aren't free market, either. Not by a long shot. West Virginia, is attempting to emulate some of the educational reforms that Finland used that has their education system now often ranked number 1 in the world. Very good article and video about that. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/29/education.wv.finland/index.html They also completely eliminated their standardized testing, and measure success of teachers and students by more sane, sensible, and efficient means.
All forms of teaching still are FORCED to abide by the state standard which i would NOT call free by any means.
The results of Finland and other countries that don't lag far behind it in education speak for themselves. At the end of the day, Finnish students (most of them) will probably end up voting for the Social Democrats come next election, as a way of saying "Thanks for continuing to maintain one of the world's best education systems". To say this is violent coercion is truly stretching the definitions of those words.
Then maybe you DON'T WANT A GROUP OF PEOPLE HAVING THE PRESUMED LEGAL RIGHT TO USE FORCE OVER A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA SO THAT THEY CANT DO THAT.
No need to shout, we're not animals here.
ITS NOT LIBERTARIANISM, its Anti Statism/Anarcho Capitalism/
I'm aware of the differences, but they're all just theories.
im sympathetic towards libretarianism because they seek a smaller gov but they are still statist.
Okay.
Its not all right, im indifferent and tolerant of libertarian socialism(aka vanilla anarchy, mutualism, and anarcho syndicalism.
Libertarian socialism, that's what Chomsky supports. I've never really cared too much about Chomsky's political views beyond what he wrote about various CIA-backed coups (attempted and successful) and how corporate media acts as a propaganda device. Another nice little theory that's good for kicking the ol' peanut around.
Or you could not be an authoritarian and REALLY let people live how they want in the context of their like-minded societies, either way its going to happen, i know mankind's mostly ignorant but if they can overcome religion they can overcome the state.
Labour was less authoritarian back in the early 70s and 80s. How they are today is not the same party they were back then. Hence why they're colloquially known as "New Labour". Not terribly much difference between the mainline parties. The Lib Dems I guess are still a decent party. It would be nice if the US had a multi-party system, too.

>>149
Statism is an arbitrary claim there is no inherent manifestation of it in reality, its an ideology.
Going by that logic, yours is just an ideology, too.
What you said can be construed as saying "god is everywhere so therefore he exists".
Not really. States do exist, and have done things. I'm still waiting for God to come out and do something, obviously that won't happen, because mostly likely he doesn't exist. I wouldn't exactly conflate the two.
Tribes are not states and they are anti statist in nature because the scope of their influence does not supersede their "homesteaded" land.
Neighboring tribes fight and cooperate with each other all the time. It's just the same thing repeated on a much larger scale.
It wont be a state because its built from the bottom up and most if not ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN THE SOCIETY ACTUALLY CONSENTED, and why the fuck do you think people will go back to statism after they went through all the trouble to get rid of it in the first place? Its like saying you want to build a bridge then after you do, you now want to destroy it.
Because people, in general are fucking morons. If that's what they want, that's what will happen.
People in modern society only support the state because its the status quo and not on any kind of merit(and if they do its only on ones that can be achieved in a stateless society as well), "statism is dead" but people dont want to admit it, they like to stay in their little shell and live their simple lives which is fine if they arent going to open their mouths and show their ignorance.
I could say stuff like "human civilization is dead!", doesn't mean it's going to happen.
Actually they are dividing by 1 because it all goes back to the individual.
Cute.

>>150
>>151
Alright fuck it im making a video so i can articulate this better.

Statism vs anti-Statism

No one knows or cares why both of you hide behind meaningless fag terminology to promote an argument that no one understands.

Dear faggots. Statism and socialism aren't the same thing.

>>154
Statism and socialism aren't the same thing.
Try telling that to AntiStatist.

>>153
>No one knows or cares why both of you hide behind meaningless fag terminology to promote an argument that no one understands.
It's not hard to understand at all

>>154
How do you collectivize something without a state? Socialists seem to think they are immune to corruption and somehow magically don't suffer from the same problems as every other society.

>>154
>>157
State socialism and Libertarian Socialism are 2 different things.

Capitalism and corporatism need not be the same thing, you know.

There have been countless "statist" governments throughout history that didn't follow the teachings of Karl Marx. Most precede his existence.