disorderlyvision
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,314
..
Last edited:
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?"
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.
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.
Which books on that list are the premier or definitive books on the subject of anarcho-capitalism?
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...
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."
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.
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.