Freedomain Radio

"Anarcho"-capitalists believe that property rights should trump human rights. They believe that human beings have no rights at all and that property, THINGS, have all the rights. They have no conception nor any desire for justice. They are also fixated on inanimate objects rather than human beings. And they fetishize the ownership relation, believing that all things should be owned / anthropomorphized. They are mentally ill and they are extremely repellent.

In "anarcho"-capitalist philosophy, a person is a thing to be owned. They will cheerfully admit this except they will give you a song and dance about how people should own themselves. The only problem is that ownership is distinguished from possession precisely in that you can sell, lease and destroy an owned thing. So a person who owns their body (as opposed to possessing it as their human right) is by definition capable of selling it. So "anarcho"-capitalists literally believe in slavery.

This should not be any kind of surprise to you since the "freedom to contract" (ie, absolute bindable contracts) is literally nothing more than the ability to enslave your future self to the word of your present self. You could contract yourself out for a billion years of labour as the scientologists do. Or you could enter into a contract you later find despicable because your values were fundamentally altered in the meantime. The propertarians care not because they have successfully enslaved you and they expect you to be obedient.

In fact, the logical extension of the freedom to contract is that you can abduct and kidnap someone, rape and torture them until they break, and then have them "freely" sign a contract which retroactively legitimizes what you did to them by declaring themselves to be your slave. After all, physics does not recognize a difference between future and past, so why should contracts? If you can enslave your future selves, then why not be allowed to enslave your past selves?

Propertarians love slavery. Their "freedom of property" is enslaving all humanity to objects, things. Their freedom of contract is nothing but outright slavery. And even their "owning yourself" is just their attempt to hide their love of slavery in plain sight.

"Anarcho"-capitalists, right-libertarians, market fundamentalists and satanists ARE SLAVERS.

Oh and I call them Satanists because the Satanic Bible was in fact inspired by Ayn Rand. And because it's really all the same thing, right-libertarianism being about the legalisms of egotistical shitbags while satanism is the rituals of egotistical shitbags.

I totally agree with you comrade.

Die capitalist pigs!!!

Stefan Molyneux:

Really?

Funny, after I read this I realized I didn't wonder at all. 

WTF is this? I mean, was there ever a point in time (if it exists, since you claim it does not) in which you actually re-read something you wrote and thought "this makes sense"?

You could have asked these quite ridiculous questions without needless ad hominem attacks, but it is too late. We have all already seen your character, and I would be surprised if anybody dignified that post with a rebuttal. You are clearly not in pursuit of the truth.
 

Nasikabatrachus:

I wonder what the intention is behind this post.

I think a search for wisdom and truth. 

Nasikabatrachus:

I wonder what the intention is behind this post.

Molyneux:

Really?

You have said that intentions don't make any difference.

Carlos Morales:

Hell yea I worship Satan

De night time is de right time...

You have said that intentions don't make any difference.

Stef has said that intentions don't make any difference when discussing whether or not a person was hurt by an action. But intentions obviously matter for other discussions, such as a discussion about whether or not a person's action is productive relative to the persons' intent.

I am curious about your intention because you posted a second time, and I didn't expect that you'd ever be back after the needlessly confrontational first post. Below are some possible goals and the actions that would logically follow to achieve those goals.

1. If you wanted to debate in pursuit of truth, you probably would have been polite, and you would have avoided ad homonym attacks.
2. If you believe that our beliefs violate human rights, and you value human rights, then the rational action would be to try to persuade us to join your side without insulting us because insolence can only prevent us from seeing your point.
3. If you want to damn us, then why not just say, "Damn you guys!" or "You're all demon spawn." It would have saved time, and I'm pretty sure we're already damned, so it doesn't really make a difference how you do it.

What is the goal of what you wrote, and was your post useful for achieving the goal?

Ethan:

Or, There Is No Such Thing As "Anarcho"-Capitalism

In fact, the logical extension of the freedom to contract is that you can abduct and kidnap someone, rape and torture them until they break, and then have them "freely" sign a contract which retroactively legitimizes what you did to them by declaring themselves to be your slave. After all, physics does not recognize a difference between future and past, so why should contracts? If you can enslave your future selves, then why not be allowed to enslave your past selves?

This would violate the first principle of anarcho-capitalism: The non-aggression principle or do not initiate force upon someone else or their property.  Any such "contract" would be a shame and no one who would sign it could be held morally to abide it.  However, that is our alternative...no compunction in human interactions. 

Also, what you are describing is the current state of affairs not a prediction of what AnCapistan would be; call it democracy, a republic, an empire, a social democracy, a fascistic state (in truth, the USA is all of these) but it is precisely the presence of the state that causes all the ills you describe.  Past generations have passed legislature that people of today are supposed to "freely" follow (using a more appropriate analogy to your future-self one) and consider moral.  The generations of today are damning their issue to wage slavery and poverty thorough contemporary profligacy.  All that you claim free-marketeers and anarcho-capitalists of being guilty of is precisely what we want to do away with by getting rid of the democracy/monarchy/dictatorship/republic/etc. that causes these crises.  Listen to a few podcasts or read a book, you'll figure out that a true free market proponent is not someone who supports NAFTA but that the word, like liberal, has been co-opted and used as a smear for people to whom it does not even apply.  It is like you calling a dog a cat!