Ask an Anarchist!

[civver_764]

Wouldn't this invite a sort of mob rule though? How would you prevent things like laws that discirminate against a certain race or laws banning certain religions from passing? Especially if your society lacks a centralized government. Who's there to protect people's rights, especially minorities?

^ I'd like an answer to that to, I once attended an anthropology lecture where the speaker contended that cultural homogeneity was essential to an anarchist community.

I echo this question.

Well, for starters, it is unlikely that a racist or a sexist or a homophobe would even be attracted to the idea of anarchism in the first place. Most of the anarchists I've met are pretty big on individual liberty lol.

However I can see where it would become a concern over time, the people who found an anarchist society are not the only people who are going to live on it. So yes, I and anarchism in general gives a great deal of thought to this problem.

I want to stress that just because there is a constitution or whatever you want to call it does not mean there is an absence of tyranny of the majority. I would even say that in representative democracy it is a greater problem. I mean, people will point to landmark Supreme Court cases and champion them but it took almost years after the constitution was written to take place. What really happened here was a change in public opinions towards race and sex and the like. Hell, we're still having problems with homophobia. Twenty, thirty years ago proposing gay marriage would have gotten you laughed at.

So representative democracy, "the rule of law", etc. do not protect anyone's rights. It's all public opinion. Racists will still elect racists into office, sexists will still elect sexists.

With anarchism, however, these authoritarian social ideas are directly challenged. Anarchists want to abolish all sorts of hierarchy, not just economic and political hierarchy. Indeed it seems pretty clear to me that most of these social problems are due to the culture and society we have in place today that enforces these things.

The system of direct democracy is much more capable of dealing with these issues than representative democracy. If a minority feels their rights are being violated they are free to speak up at any association or assembly and argue their side. They are not isolated from the political process, connected only through the chance that enough candidates who endorse their interests are elected and then that they actually stay true to their word, they have the same opportunity to argue their case to everyone else up front.

It should also be noted that most things do not require community decisions. It is a very strict structure. The idea of, for instance, the community deciding what other people can and cannot do in their bedrooms is absurd. Most of these issues will be dealt with individual to individual.

So if the state is good at that and other things, they why is the state not able to justify itself?

Being the lesser of two evils does not make something good or justified.

How should large projects like highways and airports be put together?

Through participatory work groups.

If I steal somebody's car, what happens?

Well the community would be pretty pissed off at you.

* Who arrests me?

Volunteer members of a community militia most likely.

* Who decides under what statute I would be charged under?

There wouldn't really be any set in stone laws, certainly not in the form of a written constitution. The party who you harmed(by taking their car) who either work out an agreement with you, or if they(or you, I guess) were unsatisfied they would take the matter up with a third party(probably the community as a whole).

* Who is the jury in the trial? (Is there a trial? What's that process?)

While it would vary from place to place, the jury would still be drawn randomly. That's if there was a trial at all. Many times disputes can be worked out without involving any third parties. If there was a trial though, they would reach an agreement wherein some consequence is exacted on the "guilty" party. I'm not actually sure if the judge or the jury would decide this, I imagine it would vary between different communities. But generally if someone stole your car they would probably have to do some sort of service for you, or else the community will "boycott" them, so to speak. You wouldn't be able to reap the benefits of what was being produced.

* Who can be appointed to be the judge? If it is a non-hierarchical society, can there even be judges?

They would be appointed by popular vote.

* If it is decided that I'd be punished, what is stopping the system from having me tortured?

That is a hierarchical relationship and certainly an unnecessary one and so it goes against the very principle of anarchism.

Most anarchists don't want to deal with criminals in terms of revenge, and prisons would not exist. The more dangerous members of society, such as psychopaths and murderers, would probably be kept in mental hospitals for their own safety and the safety of the community.

What grand projects could be accomplished by an anarchist country, as opposed to one such as the 20th century United States? Could a Hoover Dam, Space Program, or Internet have been created without some form of government?

Of course. Why not?

Is not the definition of anarchism lack of a state? How do anarcho-capitalists NOT count? Or did you mean just for this particular thread.

Anarchism comes from a greek word meaning "no rulers". A boss is a ruler.

Also, how would you consider anarchism should be instituted? Violent or non Violent? If non Violent, how?

Direct action.

1. Aren't anarchists supposed to be about individual freedom? Yet you have consistently defended communism and socialism as "real anarchism". Why do you support communism yet call yourself an anarchist?

Because communism is the ideology that empowers the individual.

2. Don't you think it's contradictory to call yourself an anarcho-collectivist when, in fact, individual freedom in the form of anarchy is completely contradictory to collectivism?

No I don't. Unlike you collectivism does not equate to Stalinism for me.

4. Anarchism is supposed to be a form of ethics, yet you have consistently advocated the use of force for controlling members of a community and taxation. How do you square this up with your supposed anarchist beliefs

It's a counterweight to the problems of capitalism.

1) How do you cope with living on a planet where Anarchy has no place and the State rules above everything? Starting, for example, from the means of survival which depend on money which is clearly an alien concept to Anarchism

It's pretty easy to think of an anarchistic area as one "nation", just organized differently, and able to exchange goods with other nations.

]2) How can there be direct democracy without a state? What would people vote about?

Associations between workplaces, prices of different goods, etc. It would vary widely.

3) There can't be real anarchy in any part of the planet until when there are states in other parts of the planet, do you agree (because States only recognize other States, and Anarchy is not a State)? This kinda contradicts your claim that Anarchy is not Utopia. Why if not.

A state could recognize an anarchistic area as a country, just organized differently.

How do you feel about the protests in London today?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11829102

Did they go too far?

Are they even anarchists?

I'm a fan of protests, but starting fires could actually hurt people and is a bit too far.

And I have no way of knowing if they are sincere in their beliefs. Starting fires doesn't mean you believe something else all of a sudden. I do think a lot of people have hijacked the ideology just because they like to smash stuff.

 

[Ajidica]

Being the lesser of two evils does not make something good or justified.

But still, if the state is unjustified and should eventually be done away with, why do you support measures to strengthen it and affirm its presence?

How would Anarchism handle individuals who feel a state is ultimately good? I generally take the position of Lassalle. He asserts that it is not the state that is unjustified, but that structure of the state makes it unjustified. When the state shifts to direct democracy, then it can serve to uplift the proletariat rather the just protect the bourgeoisie interests.

If myself, and like minded individuals decided to create a state, would Anarchism band together and destroy it?

 

[civver_764]

But still, if the state is unjustified and should eventually be done away with, why do you support measures to strengthen it and affirm its presence?

I don't see how that strengthens it.

If myself, and like minded individuals decided to create a state, would Anarchism band together and destroy it?

Well first of all I'm not exactly sure what your "state" would entail.

We would argue against it and inform people who became subject to it of it's abuses. I don't think people would declare war on it or anything. If it got to the point where enough wanted to be part of a state again then guys like me would just start over in convincing people that it is against their interests.

 

[BuckyRea]

I am eager to, but have yet to, read something in this thread to show me that "anarchism" is an actual philosophy rather than simply a complaint without offering a solution.

For instance, we read in here that the world would be happier if there was a federation of very small communities. But isn't that federation going to be a government that overarches these small communities?

Could this federation mediate or prevent fights between communities that have conflicting interests? Then... wallah! you have a government.

On the other hand, if there is no force for mediating or containing aggression... then once any conflict between competing interests results in shows of force, even short of actual fighting, then the winning small anarchistic community has... wallah! effectively established government over the losing small anarchistic community.

Doesn't anarchy depend on everybody being content, unassertive, and forcibly shakled to zero population growth and geographically relocated to non-urban communities? I won't argue that such a world order couldn't be superimposed by some tyrannical force seeking to implement this radical global restructuring. But I do gently suggest there might be some form of larger-than-local form of governance involved in setting up the whole deal.

A highschool Freshman is wearing an anarchy shirt (red A in a circle). An upperclassman punches him. He reports the assault to the principal. Is this ironic?

I wasn't trolling. I'm actually curious. This happened when I was in school.

You shouldn't have hit that kid.

 

[civver_764]

Could this federation mediate or prevent fights between communities that have conflicting interests? Then... wallah! you have a government.

A non-hierarchical and voluntary one.

Doesn't anarchy depend on everybody being content, unassertive, and forcibly shakled to zero population growth and geographically relocated to non-urban communities? I won't argue that such a world order couldn't be superimposed by some tyrannical force seeking to implement this radical global restructuring. But I do gently suggest there might be some form of larger-than-local form of governance involved in setting up the whole deal.

Of course disputes will arise, and there are various non-hierarchical ways of dealing with them. I don't see what problems you have with the method I offered previously and how it is someone contradictory to anarchism.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, for starters, it is unlikely that a racist or a sexist or a homophobe would even be attracted to the idea of anarchism in the first place. Most of the anarchists I've met are pretty big on individual liberty lol.

I am aware, however I think a lot of people who aren't supporters of anarchism would still participate in the process of it. For instance, I am not a vocal supporter of anarchism, nor do I think its the best system, but I see the benefits and actually think anarchism as you are describing it done correctly could be better than what we have, and if that was what people deciding they wanted, I would certainly help my community in it. However, done correctly is a key term. There are bound to be bigots who will take control somewhere. Would it ever be justified for a community to attack another community to stop this?

I want to stress that just because there is a constitution or whatever you want to call it does not mean there is an absence of tyranny of the majority. I would even say that in representative democracy it is a greater problem. I mean, people will point to landmark Supreme Court cases and champion them but it took almost years after the constitution was written to take place. What really happened here was a change in public opinions towards race and sex and the like. Hell, we're still having problems with homophobia. Twenty, thirty years ago proposing gay marriage would have gotten you laughed at.

Just a curiosity question, just because there are no rulers does that mean there are no rules? One way I could see it going on is the Founders of anarchism writing an unchangable Bill of Rights or a very difficult to change bill of rights, but I'm not sure if you support that or if you just support "The majority have chosen, let them choose."

So representative democracy, "the rule of law", etc. do not protect anyone's rights. It's all public opinion. Racists will still elect racists into office, sexists will still elect sexists.

Representative Democracy is still democracy though, which is why I champion Constitutional Republic, with a monolithic Bill of Rights with criminal penalties for politicians interfering with it.

But in a direct democracy, who do you punish before it becomes a problem? Nobody, you can't do anything. Our system, frankly, sucks, but I am not supporting our system. If you want to support anarchism, you have to come up with a way that a bunch of people who are actually opposed to the system enforcing strict morality or taking away other people's rights. Because frankly, if anarchism were founded, it would be against the will of a lot of people. I'm not inherently against that, if a system best protects everyone's rights, I am OK with going against the will of the majority, but most people, on average, are very moderate, small l libertarians. Only about half the population supports same sex marriage, most oppose legalized drugs, and most would execute a lot more people than we are now. So these things would probably be happening in an anarchist society. Considering how strongly you support same sex marriage and drug use being legal, and how you consider the death penalty tyrannical and anti-human rights, I don't see how you would stop those things in an anarchist society.

And only hoping it doesn't get worst by certain people voting to take kids away from other people, to make homosexuality a crime (Which I could see happening in ultraconservative areas), exc. How will you stop this?

The system of direct democracy is much more capable of dealing with these issues than representative democracy. If a minority feels their rights are being violated they are free to speak up at any association or assembly and argue their side. They are not isolated from the political process, connected only through the chance that enough candidates who endorse their interests are elected and then that they actually stay true to their word, they have the same opportunity to argue their case to everyone else up front.

Yet some communities will be bigoted, and it would be easy to vote to silence them...

It should also be noted that most things do not require community decisions. It is a very strict structure. The idea of, for instance, the community deciding what other people can and cannot do in their bedrooms is absurd. Most of these issues will be dealt with individual to individual.

Is it absurd to ban bestiality (Animal abuse since they don't consent) in your bedroom? Or worse, is it absurd to ban child molestation in your bedroom? Of course not. Some things in your bedroom must be regulated. The problem is though, most people are STUPID and will therefore regulate other people more than needed.

The only way I can see it working is setting up a temporary dictatorship of libertarians and letting them set the laws temporarily. But that would likely last a long time and wouldn't totally be an ethical way of transition.

Being the lesser of two evils does not make something good or justified.

While it would vary from place to place, the jury would still be drawn randomly. That's if there was a trial at all. Many times disputes can be worked out without involving any third parties. If there was a trial though, they would reach an agreement wherein some consequence is exacted on the "guilty" party. I'm not actually sure if the judge or the jury would decide this, I imagine it would vary between different communities. But generally if someone stole your car they would probably have to do some sort of service for you, or else the community will "boycott" them, so to speak. You wouldn't be able to reap the benefits of what was being produced.

Let's say they refused and decided to take the boycott? Would you feel it unethical to deny them all benefits until they comply, even if this means their death by starvation?

Most anarchists don't want to deal with criminals in terms of revenge, and prisons would not exist. The more dangerous members of society, such as psychopaths and murderers, would probably be kept in mental hospitals for their own safety and the safety of the community.

I see your point about revenge, but is not justice important at least to a degree? Does the one who was raped or the one who saw his children murdered have no right to see the criminals brought to justice?

Anarchism comes from a greek word meaning "no rulers". A boss is a ruler.

As is a mob or the community as a whole.

No I don't. Unlike you collectivism does not equate to Stalinism for me.

Even I, being opposed to communism, agree on this point.

We would argue against it and inform people who became subject to it of it's abuses. I don't think people would declare war on it or anything. If it got to the point where enough wanted to be part of a state again then guys like me would just start over in convincing people that it is against their interests.

Is there ever a case for war in an anarchistic society? Here meaning, organizing a militia of people who take up arms to accomplish something, not necessarily by organized army like it is currently.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Well, for starters, it is unlikely that a racist or a sexist or a homophobe would even be attracted to the idea of anarchism in the first place. Most of the anarchists I've met are pretty big on individual liberty lol.

However I can see where it would become a concern over time, the people who found an anarchist society are not the only people who are going to live on it. So yes, I and anarchism in general gives a great deal of thought to this problem.

Yes, but as you said, you're creating a society, which means that you're going to have people that aren't necessarily anarchists, non-racists, etc.

I want to stress that just because there is a constitution or whatever you want to call it does not mean there is an absence of tyranny of the majority. I would even say that in representative democracy it is a greater problem. I mean, people will point to landmark Supreme Court cases and champion them but it took almost years after the constitution was written to take place. What really happened here was a change in public opinions towards race and sex and the like. Hell, we're still having problems with homophobia. Twenty, thirty years ago proposing gay marriage would have gotten you laughed at.

So representative democracy, "the rule of law", etc. do not protect anyone's rights. It's all public opinion. Racists will still elect racists into office, sexists will still elect sexists.

The thing you have to realize though, no matter how many laws there are protecting minorities, there will still be racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, anti-Semites, etc. Whatever society, whenever, will still have to deal with these people. The thing is, although in our society, a person like that could get elected into office, they can't do anything that would be against the law we have in place. For example, say some racist from, I don't know, Colorado gets into office, and he really has a thing against black people. He can try to push a law through that would make it so every Sunday is hang-a-black-person-day, but since we have laws against such things, the supreme court will just knock it down.

With your system though, without the centralized government, or law system, you seem to be putting the power into the hands of those people. And there would be nothing to stop that person from signing a black hanging law, especially if a majority of the people were racist.

With anarchism, however, these authoritarian social ideas are directly challenged. Anarchists want to abolish all sorts of hierarchy, not just economic and political hierarchy. Indeed it seems pretty clear to me that most of these social problems are due to the culture and society we have in place today that enforces these things.

Racism, or rather hate of people who aren't you, is a natural thing, I doubt it's because of the system of governess, or the economic system we have now. We are generally predisposed to hating someone who is different. It hearkens back to the time when we were simple hunter gatherers, living in tribes, if we didn't hate anyone who wasn't in our tribe, or were friendly with every outsider that came near us, then we'd probably end up dead.

The system of direct democracy is much more capable of dealing with these issues than representative democracy. If a minority feels their rights are being violated they are free to speak up at any association or assembly and argue their side. They are not isolated from the political process, connected only through the chance that enough candidates who endorse their interests are elected and then that they actually stay true to their word, they have the same opportunity to argue their case to everyone else up front.

That's the thing, they're a minority. Which means that the population of people that believe in what they believe is significantly smaller than the majority. Which means even if they all rallied together to fight against discrimination, their vote would still be smaller than the majority's vote. And if you have a direct democracy, that generally means they're not going to get a say in the political process. And if you don't have a central system of law, that means there's nothing protecting them from being discriminated against by the majority, such as passing laws that prevent them from having certain liberties, or outright banning them.

 

[amadeus]

There wouldn't really be any set in stone laws, certainly not in the form of a written constitution. The party who you harmed(by taking their car) who either work out an agreement with you, or if they(or you, I guess) were unsatisfied they would take the matter up with a third party(probably the community as a whole).

Can you define "community?" I ask because I live in a city with 300,000+ people and I doubt all of them are interested in hearing my case about taking some guy's car.

That is a hierarchical relationship and certainly an unnecessary one and so it goes against the very principle of anarchism.

Most anarchists don't want to deal with criminals in terms of revenge, and prisons would not exist. The more dangerous members of society, such as psychopaths and murderers, would probably be kept in mental hospitals for their own safety and the safety of the community.

But now aren't you just substituting involuntary admission to mental hospitals for prisons?

 

[Perfection]

Through participatory work groups.

What are these and how would they put together a large project like a freeway system?

 

[Gogf]

Q: What is anarchism?
A: Anarchism is a political ideology that obviously preaches the abolition of the state, and generally wants to restructure society in a directly democratic manner.

What would be the role of democracy in the society you advocate for?

I can give you a general outline though. The world would be highly federalized into different communities(probably towns/townships/cities) that would be run through direct democracy. These different communities would be connected much like they are today and broader decisions between them would probably be run in assemblies with appointees from different communities(different from representatives in that they basically have to do exactly what their "constituents" tell them to do). The internet could even be used for this and human appointees would not even be necessary.

Okay this does not sound like any kind of anarchism I have ever heard of. What you're describing is radical federalism.

4. Anarchism is supposed to be a form of ethics, yet you have consistently advocated the use of force for controlling members of a community and taxation. How do you square this up with your supposed anarchist beliefs|

Anarchism is a political philosophy, not a system of ethics.

 

[Karalysia]

Please delete

 

[Gogf]

It's more likely that your preconceived notions of anarchism and what it entails are wrong.

Could you perhaps elaborate on that...?

 

[_random_]

To what extent would a hierarchical organized religion be tolerated in an anarchist society?

 

[Karalysia]

Please delete

 

[Harvin87]

This hole anarchist thing is naive... like if we don't knew men.

 

[Luckymoose]

Do you realize that anarchy is a phase that all youths go through and one day you will accept a real ideology?

 

[civver_764]

I am aware, however I think a lot of people who aren't supporters of anarchism would still participate in the process of it. For instance, I am not a vocal supporter of anarchism, nor do I think its the best system, but I see the benefits and actually think anarchism as you are describing it done correctly could be better than what we have, and if that was what people deciding they wanted, I would certainly help my community in it. However, done correctly is a key term. There are bound to be bigots who will take control somewhere. Would it ever be justified for a community to attack another community to stop this?

You seem to have some false impressions about anarchism. For starters, the direct democracy is not really for the purpose of passing "laws" but for the purpose of managing the economy. Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that the whole world will just turn anarchist one day. It's going to be a (likely) long process of direct action. There's not going to be a revolution in an area where people are social authoritarians because that would be contradictory.

Just a curiosity question, just because there are no rulers does that mean there are no rules? One way I could see it going on is the Founders of anarchism writing an unchangable Bill of Rights or a very difficult to change bill of rights, but I'm not sure if you support that or if you just support "The majority have chosen, let them choose."

There are no set in stone rules, but the community will probably have to deal with disputes between it's members much like our court system does today.

Let's say they refused and decided to take the boycott? Would you feel it unethical to deny them all benefits until they comply, even if this means their death by starvation?

They could live off the land by themselves if they wanted, I mean we wouldn't take away any food they decided to go grow but they wouldn't be able to enjoy a more comfortable life inside the community. If they keep stealing people's cars more authoritarian action will (sadly) have to be taken.

I see your point about revenge, but is not justice important at least to a degree? Does the one who was raped or the one who saw his children murdered have no right to see the criminals brought to justice?

Justice /=/ revenge.

Is there ever a case for war in an anarchistic society? Here meaning, organizing a militia of people who take up arms to accomplish something, not necessarily by organized army like it is currently.

Depends on who you ask, I would say in self-defense only.

Yes, but as you said, you're creating a society, which means that you're going to have people that aren't necessarily anarchists, non-racists, etc.

It's highly unlikely that they would make up a majority in any area that had participated in overthrowing other hierarchies and if there are then they will be combated from within the system.

The thing you have to realize though, no matter how many laws there are protecting minorities, there will still be racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, anti-Semites, etc. Whatever society, whenever, will still have to deal with these people. The thing is, although in our society, a person like that could get elected into office, they can't do anything that would be against the law we have in place. For example, say some racist from, I don't know, Colorado gets into office, and he really has a thing against black people. He can try to push a law through that would make it so every Sunday is hang-a-black-person-day, but since we have laws against such things, the supreme court will just knock it down.

Take a moment to recall the process in which anti-racist laws were put in place. First they had to use direct action and raise public support, and then they had to hope that enough people were elected to make these laws and pass them. Direct democracy removes that tedious second step and clearly makes it easier.

Plus do you really thing people are just going to become racists in the absence of a state? The opposite would obviously be true. With more individualistic principles in play people will be less likely to conform to authoritarian social ideas and think for themselves.

Racism, or rather hate of people who aren't you, is a natural thing,

That's simply untrue. Racism is the product of authoritarian governments trying to justify their exploitation of other humans.

I doubt it's because of the system of governess, or the economic system we have now. We are generally predisposed to hating someone who is different.

[citation needed]

It hearkens back to the time when we were simple hunter gatherers, living in tribes, if we didn't hate anyone who wasn't in our tribe, or were friendly with every outsider that came near us, then we'd probably end up dead.

This pseudo-sociology is not very convincing.

Can you define "community?" I ask because I live in a city with 300,000+ people and I doubt all of them are interested in hearing my case about taking some guy's car.

In the case of a small crime like someone stealing your car, your local neighborhood would suffice(or even some friends/family, it could be literally anyone). If you guys weren't satisfied with the decision there would be a pre-delegated court like I described that would deal with this. The court wouldn't be made up of all 300,000 people but if they thought the court was abusing it's power they could of course recall it. There would probably be a constant rotation of the people serving in the court to avoid this sort of thing.

But now aren't you just substituting involuntary admission to mental hospitals for prisons?

Yes, it is a necessary evil. The main distinction is that there is an active attempt to rehabilitate them.

What are these and how would they put together a large project like a freeway system?

I mean I'm not an engineer or anything but I assume they would just hold assemblies to decide this sort of thing and each different group of "specialized workers"(such as the engineers) would offer advice and they would come to conclusions.

What would be the role of democracy in the society you advocate for?

To manage inter-syndicate economic relations, mostly.

Okay this does not sound like any kind of anarchism I have ever heard of. What you're describing is radical federalism.

I think you just don't know what anarchism is.

Could you perhaps elaborate on that...?

Anarchists on the left at least have always preached for "radical federalism" and that is what has been associated with it. I mean, I'm just going with the definitions here.

To what extent would a hierarchical organized religion be tolerated in an anarchist society?

I think that organized religion is antithetical to libertarian values and I don't see something like the Catholic Church getting a great deal of respect. Teaching kids religion would be unheard of.

However, no one is going to be killed because they believe in God, of course. You can have your own private beliefs for whatever reason, it's just that using those beliefs to try and instill fear in others would be looked down on and combated.

Most anarchists are atheists anyways.

Do you realize that anarchy is a phase that all youths go through and one day you will accept a real ideology?

Spoiler :

=/

 

[civver_764]

How do you cope with the fact that in a hypothetical anarchy the collectivist communities would struggle to maintain subsistance living through dumpster diving and donation dependence of the capitalist anarchist regions, while the individualists would enjoy unimaginable wealth through distribution of the millions of different factors of productions according to monetary price mechanism and production level formulation through time preference information carried through interest rates, neither of which are praxeologically possible without the premises of ownership that define capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism and real anarchism would not co-exist.

 

[Berzerker]

if voluntary hierarchy is fine, why cant I sell my labor to a "boss" or somebody who needs it?

 

[Traitorfish]

How do you cope with the fact that in a hypothetical anarchy the collectivist communities would struggle to maintain subsistance living through dumpster diving and donation dependence of the capitalist anarchist regions, while the individualists would enjoy unimaginable wealth through distribution of the millions of different factors of productions according to monetary price mechanism and production level formulation through time preference information carried through interest rates, neither of which are praxeologically possible without the premises of ownership that define capitalism.

Ideologically-motivated hypotheticals do not constitute "facts".

Do you realize that anarchy is a phase that all youths go through and one day you will accept a real ideology?

Noam Chomsky is 82 years old.