User talk:Hixx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Hey! 2 Thanks, but no thanks 3 Hi there 4 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Glassjaw.jpg)

[edit] Hey!

I smell welsh people here... :) Pedro.Moreira 11:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, but no thanks

I had a look and, really, I'm already considering giving up on Wikipedia over the POV-pushing of your lot. Why I'd be interested in wasting my time bashing my head against the brick wall of right-wing sectarians, I don't know. Donnacha 16:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I didn't know believing in freedom on all fronts meant one was a sectarian. In that case I must be a rabid one. --Hixx 16:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The comments on trade unionists are sectarian. Honestly, though, I don't see the point. I shall publish my theories and analyses at some point in the future (hopefully near), so you can all read them then. If you really need me to come in and "explain" where you're wrong with an entire history of anarchism showing where, then I don't think I'll have much impact. Bear-pits are fun sometimes, but there are times when it's just a waste of time. Donnacha 16:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So are countless comments on politicians. Why? Because such a vocation is seen as supportive of the state, as is a trade unionist who is seen as supportive of collectivism. If believing in freedom and the individual is sectarian then so be it. Secondly, I don't "need" you to explain where anarcho-capitalism is wrong, just I am a little intrigued as I've never seen an ANCAP defeated in an arguement by a socialist or 'left' anarchist.

Also, regarding your first comment, classical liberalism and its' child libertarianism is a left-wing ideology which was a reaction against conservatism, stemming out of the break-up of the old whig party. The idea that libertarianism is a right-wing ideology is a common misunderstanding, thanks to the growth of socialism. --Hixx 16:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Classic liberalism was radical, conservatism is right-wing. In a time of monarchy, advocating capitalism was revolutionary. In a time of capitalism, focussing on freeing it from all social control is right-wing at its worst. As for trade unionism, you support the right of the individual to do anything except join together with others in solidarity? More right-wing nonsense. Finally, it's easy to beat an "anarcho"-capitalist in an argument, it's just impossible to get one to admit he's been beaten. Just look at user:anarcho-capitalism's insistence on attributing the labour theory of value to Kropotkin despite Kropotkin's clear rejection of it. It's pointless. Wasting time arguing with an extreme minority is pointless. Donnacha 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wasting time arguing with an extreme minority is pointless. Donnacha 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)". Unquote. Which is why arguing with you is pointless. It's clear that the anarchism you represent is so far removed from reality that your support of it qualifies as cult worship. - Peter Bjørn Perlsø 08:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So you don't define a difference between corporatism and the free market? You've never thought of the state as a tool for big business to pass laws in favour of its' own cause? Surely though, without that tool (the state) businesses would have to compete fairly without support from the state?

As for unions you're alleging that I am against their formation. As a libertarian I feel that anyone may join together in "solidarity" as you put it, as long as that agreement is voluntary and is open to all who wish to join or indeed leave.

As for that user, I cannot speak for him, as I am not him but please do not think that all anarcho-capitalists do is build straw man arguements.

Regarding the 'minority' statement, yes anarcho-capitalism is rather new idea and only has a small amount of supporters as opposed to other, longer-standing ideologies. But alas, the relations between minarchist libertarians and even paleocons with ANCAPS are very strong, indeed Murray Rothbard is extremely influential even if those who were influenced by him are not ANCAPS. --Hixx 17:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the state as a tool for capitalism, seeing as the modern state was created by the bourgeois middle classes to defend emergent capitalism from monarchies. Unless the field is leveled, then businesses will never compete fairly and the field can only truly be leveled by workers taking over.

I never alleged you were against unions, I said that it was clear people on that forum were. If you're not, fine, but anyone who defends bosses against workers is clearly anti-union in the true sense of a union.

Finally, you seem very proud that "anarcho"-capitalists have good relations with right-wingers, which is the antithesis of anarchism. I really don't get why you lot feel the need to try and appropriate the term for something that clearly isn't anarchism by any reading of history. Just use libertarian, every other anti-statist right-winger does. Donnacha 00:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay firstly you say that businesses would never compete fairly until the state is no longer. I agree with you whole heartedly. Then you go on to say that to do this business must be ran by the 'workers'. Firstly who are the 'workers'? Secondly, how do you wish to achieve such a system without coercion and thirdly how will you stop people from having a contractual 'boss'/'worker' relationship if they so wished? Fourthly, how can you ignore what a free market is, that is an economy free of a 'system' or 'policy' that allows people to buy and sell voluntary as they wish? An economy without any coercive control is a free market. A free market is an anarchistic economy as it has no statist or authoritarian control over it. It is completely natural.

Fifthly, you continue to use the terms 'bosses' and 'workers' in such a simplified form as if they're two different blocks altogether. It's shallow to base something as complex as modern society on such a simple duopoly of groups.

Sixthly, I'm proud that anarcho-capitalists have good relations with the political class as it shows that ANCAP and its' supporters are being taken seriously in the mainstream. Why is this important? Because I support a gradualist doctrine of weakening the states hold over people's lives until it becomes a minarchy and then takes the next logical step, that is anarchism.

Lastly, no anti-statist uses the term libertarian unless they use it for others who don't understand the concept of anarchism. Libertarianism, albeit minarchist is still a statist political ideology. Anarcho-capitalism is not.--Hixx 15:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Who are the workers? Those who are paid a wage to work for another, that simple. How do I propose to achieve this? A variety of ways - worker buyouts if tploit here's the money, the establishment of worker co-operatives based on anarcho-syndicalist principles, the recovery of "failed" businesses by the workers (see MNER) and, in the unlikely event of a revolution, workers taking over, with force if necessary (which would more likely be against attempts to retake companies rather than from the bosses themselves). The majority taking that which survives based upon their labour from those who exploit them and profit from that labour is not coercion.

I do not seek to stop people having any kind of relationship they choose, I just do not expect people to choose to be exploited given the choice. Anarcho-communism is a theory, if it happens, I'm right, if not, fine. However, anarchism (without objectives) is activism to create the situation whereby that free choice is possible. As "anarcho"-capitalists support private ownership of the means of production beyond "occupation and use" - factories, fields - you are not interested in providing society with a free choice between communism, collectivism, individualism or a free market. You seek to maintain the fundamental basis of exploitation - which is not the state - private control of capital (capitalism).

You object to the description of the workplace as a duopoly - I don't know where you've worked, but everywhere I have has been clearly divided into management and employee. Management is hierarchical and is backed by the coercive power to sack workers - not just for good reasons (such as inappropriate behaviour), but also cost-cutting to maximise profits or for union membership or a panopoly of other reasons, often petty, that only union organisation can properly prevent.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is taken seriously in the "mainstream" because it's a useful tool for real capitalists. True capitalists are minarchists - they want the state to continue to provide them with security (the police), to fight wars in their interests, to provide them with contracts, but oppose social legislation - healthcare, workers' protection, the whole panopoly of state reforms that have been fought long and hard for by left-wing activists, including anarchists, for two centuries or so. As long as you lot keep fighting against the state in a way that benefits them, that's all well and good.

Finally, you have no idea what libertarian means, do you? Libertarian does not mean minarchist, it used to be mainly as a synonym for anarchism. The Libertarian Party may be minarchist, but most people who know anything about politics understand libertarianism to be anti-statist - increasingly associated with the right unless preceded by the word left or succeeded by the word socialist.

Donnacha 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"The majority taking that which survives based upon their labour from those who exploit them and profit from that labour is not coercion."

Okay, so in your view violently opposing justly acquired property is perfectly acceptable because 'workers' are being 'exploited' by their labour, voluntarily no less. I don't subscribe to the labour theory of value, which this arguement is held upon because it's been refuted for years. All value is subjective based upon one's own self values. Value is not attained by the labour put into it, it is valued on how useful it is to each individual consumer. As for 'the majority' that you included, that doesn't make it any more morally correct. Tyranny of the majority and so forth. Thankyou John Stuart Mill.

You say that a worker is a person who is paid to work for another, an acceptable definition, but that's literally millions of individual people with varying ideals who may or may not be 'bosses' themselves in other endeavors. What makes you think these people would come together and all agree to coercively 'take' businesses off their 'bosses' (who may or may not be workers in another contract themselves)? It's simply too complex to be considered as a duopoly. As for sacking workers without good reason, then of course that is a crime and it is completely correct for the sackee to find legal support from an organisation (such as a union) if he so wished. I'll remind you again, I believe any organisation has an implicit right to exist as long as it is not coercive. On that point do you consider all sacking to be coercive? If a person enters a contract fully-aware that he or she's contract could be terminated for various reasons then I don't see how that is coercive if it's fully understood, just and voluntary?

As for recovering 'failed' businesses by workers, why would they wish to do so? If the business failed then it must have done so because it was no longer profitable. Why would 'workers' wish to control a company that was not profitable any more than any other human being? It doesn't make economic sense.

Next up, if I was a "true capitalist" as you put it, I'd want greater government control over my competitors and a monopoly over my chosen market. I can only attain a monopoly through government legislation by barring entrepreneurs from entering the market. That is corporatism, state capitalism, crony capitalism or whatever way you want to put it, it's not a free market which Anarcho-capitalists support, a free market which can only exist without the state.

"Finally, you have no idea what libertarian means, do you? Libertarian does not mean minarchist, it used to be mainly as a synonym for anarchism. The Libertarian Party may be minarchist, but most people who know anything about politics understand libertarianism to be anti-statist - increasingly associated with the right unless preceded by the word left or succeeded by the word socialist."

Libertarianism is a political ideology, Anarcho-capitalism like any other anarchist school is apolitical. Sure, Anarcho-capitalism comes from the same vein of Libertarian tradition (including elements of individualist anarchism and classical liberalism), but the political ideology of Libertarianism is of course statist no matter how much it may be against big government it still supports a government. To show this difference we have the term Anarcho-capitalism. Asking me to call myself a Libertarian is like asking you to call yourself a Communist. Or on that note, perhaps the term Anarcho-libertarian would be more apt.

You seem proud about 'achievements' on healthcare and so forth. (I take it you mean state health care) Why would you be proud of a system that is paid for by coercive taxes from the state which is an illegitimate territorial monopolist? That doesn't sound very anarchist to me.

Finally, all in all, why do you think the system you support,(which in my view would have to be coercively enforced with human nature being as it is) is better than leaving people buy and sell and offer services as people demand as they wish? --Hixx 17:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly no point in continuing this discussion as you have absolutely no idea what anarchism is about. Go read some Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Goldman, Berkman, Tucker, Spooner et al and come back to me, because you're questioning the fundamental ideas of anarchist theory as if you've never heard them before. To claim that anarchist "schools" are apolitical, when anarchism is a political concept is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Anarchism is of the left, it has always been of the left and will always be of the left. And a bunch of right-wing libertarians who have no understanding of the reality of life, let alone an historical perspective on their views, do not change that. Ridiculous. Donnacha 17:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Referring to anarchists being called apolitical: "The Bakuninists replied to the accusation of abstentionism by pointing out that the term was ambiguous and that it never meant political indifference, but a rejection of bougeois politics in favour of a "politics of work". "Political action, at the time, meant parliamentary action. So to be anti-parliamentarian meant to be anti-political. As the marxists at this moment in time could not conceive of any other political action for the proletariat than parliamentary action, the denial of the electoral mystification was understood as opposition to every form of political action."

Anarchists and statists alike have seen anarchism as an apolitical movement, well, since Bakunin himself. Politics is the state and left and right is the apparatus of that state for those who are statist and wish to make change through that framework. Anarchists do not use that framework and are hence apolitical.--Hixx 17:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Child, please, when you're 31 and have lived life a little and done some more reading, then you can presume to lecture me. Until then, please do not tell someone who's been an anarchist since you were 4 what anarchism is. And, by the way, you've mispelt atheist on your profile page. Donnacha 22:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Quit bothering me then, I already said there was no point in continuing to talk to you. You're a classic example of a modern student, mind closed to new ideas and full of absolute certainty based on minimal knowledge. You asked questions that revealed your absolute ignorance about the ideas you supposedly reject. And if you don't want rudeness, don't continue to ignorantly insult my ideals on my talk page. Donnacha 22:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

Just saying hello. I see you're interested in anarchism. Any time you feel like coming over there and contributing please feel free. (from a sympathizer and a fellow libertarian) Cheers. Doctors without suspenders 03:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sure, I'd love to help out with the anarchism article. For a start, I don't agree with ANCAP being placed so low in the list. It should be in alphabetical order, debated or not. --Hixx 23:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I agree with the placement of anarcho-capitalism. It's largely due to the fact that the article is mostly dominated by the collectivists. They don't give any credence to anarcho-capitalism and refuse to see it as a legitimate form of anarchism. A lot of nastiness and condescending attitudes go on in the talk page which drives plently of libertarians away from the article. It would be great if you would chip in. Doctors without suspenders 00:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Glassjaw.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Glassjaw.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)