a message to the voting cattle

Dec 2013
33,811
19,364
Beware of watermelons
larken rose breaks it down nicely in this speech. please progressives and socialists take a few seconds out of your day and listen. i know that from time to time i post some things that are a bit brash or provocative but this is not one of those.




https://youtu.be/_5mZ5FBHg0A
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
41,282
29,566
La La Land North
In the first few seconds he made three statements I completely disagree with. That was enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Dec 2015
20,156
20,554
Arizona
larken rose breaks it down nicely in this speech. please progressives and socialists take a few seconds out of your day and listen. i know that from time to time i post some things that are a bit brash or provocative but this is not one of those.




https://youtu.be/_5mZ5FBHg0A


Uhhh.....who in their right mind names a kid Larken Rose? More than likely his name turned him into an obnoxious 12 year old who hated his parents and has now morphed into some kind of BAD-ASS blogger who ends up in prison because he refuses to pay his taxes.
This kind of person is TOTALLY unbalanced. Rose demonstrates some of the same tendencies as the seriously disturbed: suspicious, paranoid, arrogant, skeptical of any kind of domination, authority or hierarchy. If Rose can’t justify authority and power and control, then he thinks authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just.
Anyone who thinks 300 million people can manage their own lives, play fair, and live 'on the honor system' is crazy as a sack of ferrets. Little Larken needs to move to a remote island, wear a loin cloth and shut up.
 
Dec 2013
33,811
19,364
Beware of watermelons
Uhhh.....who in their right mind names a kid Larken Rose? More than likely his name turned him into an obnoxious 12 year old who hated his parents and has now morphed into some kind of BAD-ASS blogger who ends up in prison because he refuses to pay his taxes.
This kind of person is TOTALLY unbalanced. Rose demonstrates some of the same tendencies as the seriously disturbed: suspicious, paranoid, arrogant, skeptical of any kind of domination, authority or hierarchy. If Rose can’t justify authority and power and control, then he thinks authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just.
Anyone who thinks 300 million people can manage their own lives, play fair, and live 'on the honor system' is crazy as a sack of ferrets. Little Larken needs to move to a remote island, wear a loin cloth and shut up.
To think that those same 300 million people should be governed under the same system is not silly?


 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
May 2013
4,632
2,352
Massachusetts
Uhhh.....who in their right mind names a kid Larken Rose? More than likely his name turned him into an obnoxious 12 year old who hated his parents and has now morphed into some kind of BAD-ASS blogger who ends up in prison because he refuses to pay his taxes.
This kind of person is TOTALLY unbalanced. Rose demonstrates some of the same tendencies as the seriously disturbed: suspicious, paranoid, arrogant, skeptical of any kind of domination, authority or hierarchy. If Rose can’t justify authority and power and control, then he thinks authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just.
Anyone who thinks 300 million people can manage their own lives, play fair, and live 'on the honor system' is crazy as a sack of ferrets. Little Larken needs to move to a remote island, wear a loin cloth and shut up.
"His name is stupid!"; "He thinks differently than me!"; "I bet hes a lunatic!"; addressing everything except what he's actually said.

Fucking women, man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Feb 2014
12,580
7,845
nunya
Uhhh.....who in their right mind names a kid Larken Rose? More than likely his name turned him into an obnoxious 12 year old who hated his parents and has now morphed into some kind of BAD-ASS blogger who ends up in prison because he refuses to pay his taxes.
This kind of person is TOTALLY unbalanced. Rose demonstrates some of the same tendencies as the seriously disturbed: suspicious, paranoid, arrogant, skeptical of any kind of domination, authority or hierarchy. If Rose can’t justify authority and power and control, then he thinks authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just.
Anyone who thinks 300 million people can manage their own lives, play fair, and live 'on the honor system' is crazy as a sack of ferrets. Little Larken needs to move to a remote island, wear a loin cloth and shut up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Feb 2014
12,580
7,845
nunya
Interesting prose. Not sure I agree with a lot of it. The author definitely has that egomaniac libertarian I am superior to all attitude. Brings up interesting points. I just cant get past the throne the author has instilled himself on though. At least I listened to all of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Dec 2015
20,156
20,554
Arizona
To think that those same 300 million people should be governed under the same system is not silly?




Silly? That's the best you can do? Silly? The nation you want to live in, Sab, isn't possible. Humans need a social structure because we're a social species. Trusting that humans can moderate their own behavior on their own is just a fantasy. It is naive to think that people are basically good--essentially intelligent and sensible. Most of us do not want to live in a survival of the fittest environment. We do not want sociopaths wandering around. We do not want lynch mobs, wild West or lawlessness.
Regulations are necessary. Don't believe it?? Just pick up a history book.
People drop dead because of unregulated food, water, drugs, air, weapons, cars, bridges, airplanes.........the list is endless.
Surviving without a government would require all of us to gather into small groups for protection. Child abuse and spousal abuse would again be perpetrated with no recourse. Victims of alcoholism or mental illness would have no access to services.

If you like Mr. Rose's 'rosey' utopia without government/taxes/authority/hierarchy, take a look at Somalia. In fact--MOVE TO Somalia. It sounds like the perfect place for you and Larky. There's basically no government in Somalia so you can see what would happen. Without a government, pirates and tribal groups terrorize others. Women and children are mistreated. Disease is rampant. There's no viable business other than crime. Taxes? Probably not.
But hey, if you want to stay in this horrible country, why not live off the grid with well water, septic tank and a burn pit for your garbage. Grow your own food. Teach your own children. You can fantasize about not relying on the government. But then when your four-year-old comes down with cancer, you just might be only too happy to take him/her to the big city hospital for chemo that was studied using federal funding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Dec 2013
33,811
19,364
Beware of watermelons
Silly? That's the best you can do? Silly? The nation you want to live in, Sab, isn't possible. Humans need a social structure because we're a social species. Trusting that humans can moderate their own behavior on their own is just a fantasy. It is naive to think that people are basically good--essentially intelligent and sensible. Most of us do not want to live in a survival of the fittest environment. We do not want sociopaths wandering around. We do not want lynch mobs, wild West or lawlessness.
Regulations are necessary. Don't believe it?? Just pick up a history book.
People drop dead because of unregulated food, water, drugs, air, weapons, cars, bridges, airplanes.........the list is endless.
Surviving without a government would require all of us to gather into small groups for protection. Child abuse and spousal abuse would again be perpetrated with no recourse. Victims of alcoholism or mental illness would have no access to services.

If you like Mr. Rose's 'rosey' utopia without government/taxes/authority/hierarchy, take a look at Somalia. In fact--MOVE TO Somalia. It sounds like the perfect place for you and Larky. There's basically no government in Somalia so you can see what would happen. Without a government, pirates and tribal groups terrorize others. Women and children are mistreated. Disease is rampant. There's no viable business other than crime. Taxes? Probably not.
But hey, if you want to stay in this horrible country, why not live off the grid with well water, septic tank and a burn pit for your garbage. Grow your own food. Teach your own children. You can fantasize about not relying on the government. But then when your four-year-old comes down with cancer, you just might be only too happy to take him/her to the big city hospital for chemo that was studied using federal funding.


3. Do anarcho-capitalists favor chaos?

No. Anarcho-capitalists believe that a stateless society would be much more peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous than society under statism. We see life under States as chaotic - the insanity of war and the arbitrariness of government regulation and plunder. Anarcho-capitalists agree with the "father of anarchism" Pierre Proudhon: "Liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order," and his contemporary Frederic Bastiat, who wrote of the "natural harmony" of the market, that "natural and wise order that operates without our knowledge." ("Economic Harmonies")

4. Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?

No. Anarcho-capitalists tend to be pragmatic, and argue that, no matter how good or bad man is, he is better off in liberty. If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists think that some men are okay and some aren't; and there will always be some crime. We are not expecting any major change in human nature in that regard. Since utopianism by definition requires a change in human nature, anarcho-capitalism is not utopian.

5. Isn't laissez-faire capitalism exploitative?

No. Laissez-faire literally means "let us be!" It means absolutely no government intervention in the economy - a free market. Of course, this is an ideal. Certainly the statist quo is not laissez-faire capitalism! Even in so-called "capitalist" States (really mixed economies), the government engages in all sorts of intervention: taxation, regulation, protectionism, prohibitions, occupational licensure, monopolies on "command posts" of society.


The vital command posts invariably owned monopolistically by the State are: (1) police and military protection; (2) judicial protection; (3) monopoly of the mint (and monopoly of defining money); (4) rivers and coastal seas; (5) urban streets and highways, and land generally (unused land, in addition to the power of eminent domain); and (6) the post office. The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the State's existence, for on its monopoly of force depends its ability to exact taxes from the citizens. If citizens were permitted privately owned courts and armies, then they would possess the means to defend themselves against invasive acts by the government as well as by private individuals. - Murray N. Rothbard, The Myth of Efficient Government Service
With the State - biggest, baddest exploiter of all time - out of the picture, exploitation, in terms of aggression, would all but vanish. It would be a voluntary society, an anarchy.

Some say that property and capitalism is automatically exploitative, because it allows profit and/or private property. We'll answer this claim in the section below called What are the myths of socialism?.


Anarcho-capitalist FAQ
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person