You confuse Fascism, Mercantilism, and Capitalism, and garble them into one big lump. This to me is indicative of the egalitarian mindset, to which I am the opposite. Capitalism is in essence laissez-faire free-markets. I don't know how you can claim we have anywhere near a capitalist system, when the system has equal parts Fascism & Socialism, and a tiny little ounce of Capitalism. Our current system is not Capitalist.
Ah, I forgot. In your mind, the word "capitalism" is used correctly only by you and your fellow anarcho-capitalists since, at the earliest, the 1970s. By your definition of capitalism, capitalism has never actually existed. So for the past few hundreds of years, everyone who has used capitalism to refer to then existing or prior existing conditions was wrong until anarcho-capitalists came along and suddenly stumbled upon the correct definition of capitalism.
I don't "confuse" Fascism, Mercantilism, and Capitalism - I recognize, correctly, that they are interconnected and related. But go and twist semantics to suit your little ideology, if that's the game you want to play. I'll be waiting whenever you want to have a real debate about what capitalism is.
I furthermore cannot see how you confuse my positions as to not disturb the current status-quo. I think the one being intellectually dishonest here is yourself. I am no socialist. I never will be. I am a capitalist, propertarian. This means I support the abolishment of all subsidies, the Federal Reserve, IRS, all taxation, all regulation, and all initiations of force & violence. Furthermore, I by nature of being a capitalist, fully support world-wide free-trade, and the voluntary exchange of all persons. How you, can think I support Fascism, is beyond silly.
First, I never said you supported Fascism - you're the one throwing the F bomb around not me. Second, you're absolutely correct that you'll never be a socialist, after all, it's impossible to become a socialist if you aren't open-minded. Third, you do not actually oppose all initiations of force and violence, as you hold private property to be so important that the initiation of force and violence on behalf of the abstraction is perfectly acceptable to you - so don't pretend to be an opponent of violence because you're absolutely not.
I use bourgeois not in an economic class sense, but in the sense of our rational interests. Lets for example say, that in a free-market, the world would become more inegalitarian, I would have no fundamental problem with that. I do not believe that we as humans are either born egalitarian, nor is nature egalitarian. I like Rothbard, believe that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, and like Herbert Spencer believe that the natural course of events will give rise to the most successful in a fully free-market. Any attempt to use force to bring about dis-equilibrium of nature, is itself tyrannous, and an affront to the natural liberties of the people. This is my interest -- the bourgeois interest.
Haha, you sure do love creating new definitions of things as you go! And once again, you do favor the used of force to bring about "dis-equilibrium" of nature, because you support the use of violence to preserve the artificial right of one person to own the entire planet. Do you believe a contract in which a person has sold himself into perpetual bondage should be enforced? You mentioned earlier how fond you were of "world-wide free-trade, and the voluntary exchange of all persons."
Do I believe though that a free-market brings about a more egalitarian society than the one we have now? Of course. Do I care? No. This is why I classify myself in the bourgeois interest. Lest, I remind you also, that the bourgeois throughout history have been the people who have fought for the liberties of the people, fought against conformity and the status-quo, and have fought for and achieved a more productive world (which has been systematically destroyed the past 100 years).
LOL, so the bourgeois society no longer exists, as of 100 years ago? Ahahaha please elaborate on your theory of history.
I wonder if you have ever heard of these Free-Market institutes -- Foundation for Economic Education, Future Freedom Foundation, & the Ludwig von Mises Institute? You believe that these three institutes do not attempt to bring about a radical social reform to restore free-markets & liberty? LOL. I think you should re-think your current positions.
I've attended several FEE week-long seminars in New York, have watched many FFF videos, and own at least 40 books purchased from the Mises Institute. I went through that phase. Then I decided to expose myself to other points of view. It's funny how many people criticize Marx and dismiss his name immediately, yet have never even read his work. These are often the types of people I would encounter writing for the Mises Institute, the Freeman, etc.
And LOL if you think any of these organizations have truly "attempted" to bring about a radical social reform. Sitting around and debating about how your private defense forces would work is not activism, and is not "radical" in the slightest.
