# Lifestyles & Discussion > Family, Parenting & Education > Books & Literature >  For the Anarchists...

## disorderlyvision

..

----------


## UnReconstructed

thanks cuz

----------


## Brassmouth

I could be wrong, but a quick survey of the list of writers seems to indicate that they are all anti-capitalists. 

They aren't real anarchists.

----------


## Conza88

No-one here supports any of that.. unless they're a collectivist.

Again - non-archist / anarcho-capitalist / voluntariyst / anti-monopolist etc...

It avoids confusion.. fight smarter, not harder.

Language is key.

----------


## South Park Fan

Yeah, I was hoping for some anarcho-capitalist literature.

----------


## BuddyRey

LOL!  This site lists Voltairine de Cleyre, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker in the page on "lesser" anarchists.

What's even more unforgivable is that they've omitted Murray Rothbard completely!

Still, this is a good find.  Thanks for sharing!

----------


## disorderlyvision

..

----------


## UnReconstructed

You can gain knowledge from anyone.  I've never read Chomsky but I would like to.  Just like anything else, you have to keep your guard up.  I am actually reading a book now from an author that is highly regarded on this forum and is associated with the Mises Institute but I have some problems with his ideas.  I'm still going to read at least this book and see what I can pull from it.

----------


## disorderlyvision

[.

----------


## Optatron

> You can gain knowledge from anyone.  I've never read Chomsky but I would like to.  Just like anything else, you have to keep your guard up.  I am actually reading a book now from an author that is highly regarded on this forum and is associated with the Mises Institute but I have some problems with his ideas.  I'm still going to read at least this book and see what I can pull from it.


best guards are

"what would convince me I am wrong"

"Does this standard apply to everything else I believe consistently, if not, what makes this case special"

"if this theory works, does reality show it?"

----------


## Andrew-Austin

That site is weak.




> best guards are
> 
> "what would convince me I am wrong"
> 
> "Does this standard apply to everything else I believe consistently, if not, what makes this case special"
> 
> "if this theory works, does reality show it?"


You know, you would be better off taking that quote out of your signature. Conza kinda easily beat you in that debate.

----------


## Optatron

> That site is weak.
> 
> You know, you would be better off taking that quote out of your signature. Conza kinda easily beat you in that debate.


Kinda easily?

When the thread was locked?

Saying property yes, privacy no, but then saying property and privacy are not separate (or not different)?

What's wrong with keeping his quote? Did I say I put it there because I disagree or want to embarrass him?

----------


## Theocrat

For those willing to overcome the bias of anarcho-capitalism, Anarchopedia chronicles anarchy from all sides of the spectrum. It goes to show that anarchy is just as confusing and splintered as anarchists are willing to admit. There is no general consensus within the anarchy community as to which form of anarchy is the best.

----------


## Conza88

> For those willing to overcome the bias of anarcho-capitalism, Anarchopedia chronicles anarchy from all sides of the spectrum. It goes to show that anarchy is just as confusing and splintered as anarchists are willing to admit. There is no general consensus within the anarchy community as to which form of anarchy is the best.


Anarcho-capitalists are not 'anarchists'... * Are Libertarians "Anarchists"? - Murray N. Rothbard*


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=155927 




> Which books on that list are the premier or definitive books on the subject of anarcho-capitalism?


ODDLY SILENT TO THE QUESTIONS POSED THEOCRAT.

----------


## Optatron

> For those willing to overcome the bias of anarcho-capitalism, Anarchopedia chronicles anarchy from all sides of the spectrum. It goes to show that anarchy is just as confusing and splintered as anarchists are willing to admit. *There is no general consensus within the anarchy community as to which form of anarchy is the best.*


if there was, would that be anarchy?

----------


## Master

Thank you for this.

----------


## UnReconstructed

> Anarcho-capitalists are not 'anarchists'... * Are Libertarians "Anarchists"? - Murray N. Rothbard*...


This is a long ass read just for this:




> Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."



Ironic that Rothbard's statement is collective in that he is putting all anarchists groups together.

----------


## Conza88

> This is a long ass read just for this:
> 
> Ironic that Rothbard's statement is collective in that he is putting all anarchists groups together.


Ironic? lulwut.. 

Is it "ironic" to call the myriad of different 'types' and blends of public ownership of the means of production - socialism?! 

Hmm?  All those types of "anarchy" have the same thing in common. They would impose a ruler / coercion / hatred of capitalism.

Now, be my guest.. call yourself whatever the fck you want... just don't get pissed because I think you're retarded for associating yourself with people who violate the non aggression axiom (principle) and private property rights.

Good luck to you and all the best in spreading the message of Liberty... just a shame you are choosing a less effective road?

Are you trying to refute the dichotomy presented? If so, then you best provide a better rebuttal.

----------


## UnReconstructed

Now you're being collective.  Thank you for allowing me the freedom to put on whatever tag I choose... not sure where you got the idea that I was trying to spread any message or that I cared what you thought of my association.

I also am not trying to refute anything.  I am a big fan of Rothbard but I must critique everything that I read.  Rothbard is not God and I give him no allowance.  Putting people in covey holes is collective regardless of who does it.

As far as non-aggression, you could learn to temper your words with a little more tenderness.  Maybe you could reach more with whatever message you are trying to spread.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> For those willing to overcome the bias of anarcho-capitalism, Anarchopedia chronicles anarchy from all sides of the spectrum. It goes to show that anarchy is just as confusing and splintered as anarchists are willing to admit. There is no general consensus within the anarchy community as to which form of anarchy is the best.


If this is all you've read about anarchism, it's no wonder you're still confused!

----------


## Conza88

> Now you're being collective.  Thank you for allowing me the freedom to put on whatever tag I choose... not sure where you got the idea that I was trying to spread any message or that I cared what you thought of my association.


_Nope._ Absolutely hilarious. I am "being collective"? lmao, that doesn't even make any sense. Check a dictionary champ. 

Those anarchist groups belong together. There is nothing _ironical_ about it. That's what happens when you establish a dichotomy  




> I also am not trying to refute anything.


Except you'll have to if you want to make an argument to support your position, that it is 'ironical'.




> I am a big fan of Rothbard but I must critique everything that I read.  Rothbard is not God and I give him no allowance.  Putting people in covey holes is collective regardless of who does it.


As do I. Were there any "anarchists" who were not "irrational collectivists" back then? Keeping in mind, what those people identified themselves as 




> As far as non-aggression, you could learn to temper your words with a little more tenderness.  Maybe you could reach more with whatever message you are trying to spread.


And others could learn to be intellectual honest... maybe then they'd get somewhere, you know - admit they haven't read jack$#@! about anarcho-capitalism, and then decide they will.

Free pdf's for crying out loud.

----------


## UnReconstructed

You are a collectivist and your anger is childish.  I have no argument to make.  You are the one arguing.  Allow me to be a little collective myself and draw the conclusion, that you must be female.  You seem always in an effort to prove something... always debating with someone.

----------


## Conza88

> You are a collectivist


No argument, because you ain't got one. You're wrong.




> I have no argument to make.


Understandable. So you're working with faith... :eeK:




> You are the one arguing.  Allow me to be a little collective myself and draw the conclusion, that you must be female.  You seem always in an effort to prove something... always debating with someone.


See sig. Defend Liberty, truth and justice. And no, you failed in your "collective".

Thanks for completely ignoring and not addressing any of my points.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *You are a collectivist* and your anger is childish.  I have no argument to make.  You are the one arguing.  Allow me to be a little collective myself and draw the conclusion, that you must be female.  You seem always in an effort to prove something... always debating with someone.


huh?   In my experience, Conza is one of the _least_ collectivist RPFers (and his anger in this thread seems quite justified).

----------


## UnReconstructed

> Thanks for completely ignoring and not addressing any of my points.


you know it cuz

----------

