Here, “nation states” does not refer to the actual landmass their borders engulf, but rather to the abstract concept of differentiating between human populations on the basis of laws that merely exist within our minds and areas of land based on virtual lines that equally only exist in our minds
It’s a nice thought, but it’s an “if everyone did X there wouldn’t be any problems” solution, which can be generally dismissed as useless. Here, “X” is “not care about any concept of nationality,” which is one of the biggest stretches I’ve ever seen this technique used for.
Ok, let me do the same thing you just did to show you that your argument doesn’t make any sense:
Capitalism is a nice thought, but it’s an “if everyone did X there wouldn’t be any problems” solution, which can be generally dismissed as useless. Here, “X” is “simply let the markets regulate everything,” which is one of the biggest stretches I’ve ever seen this technique used for.
My point is, capitalism means way more than that. Everyone who claims that capitalism merely means “let the markets decide” obviously does not know what capitalism is. Same applies to anarchism.
Capitalism is a nice thought, but it’s an “if everyone did X there wouldn’t be any problems” solution, which can be generally dismissed as useless.
I mean… yeah, that’s exactly what capitalism is. The people who dpn’t want to do X (X = free markets) want to regulate them, which is like, anyone who supports labor laws, anti-monopoly regulations, etc. Socialists, basically; precisely because everyone doesn’t believe in capitalism.
The only difference is that more people are willing to believe in free markets than in total deregulation, so a capitalistic society is a more likely / stable philosophy than an anarchic one.
You still seem to think that “anarchism” means total abolition of rules and order, but that is simply not what it means. This confusion with what it’s actually called, anomia, is so common, that Wikipedia even mentions this right in the beginning of their respective articles
Here, “nation states” does not refer to the actual landmass their borders engulf, but rather to the abstract concept of differentiating between human populations on the basis of laws that merely exist within our minds and areas of land based on virtual lines that equally only exist in our minds
It’s a nice thought, but it’s an “if everyone did X there wouldn’t be any problems” solution, which can be generally dismissed as useless. Here, “X” is “not care about any concept of nationality,” which is one of the biggest stretches I’ve ever seen this technique used for.
Ok, let me do the same thing you just did to show you that your argument doesn’t make any sense: Capitalism is a nice thought, but it’s an “if everyone did X there wouldn’t be any problems” solution, which can be generally dismissed as useless. Here, “X” is “simply let the markets regulate everything,” which is one of the biggest stretches I’ve ever seen this technique used for.
My point is, capitalism means way more than that. Everyone who claims that capitalism merely means “let the markets decide” obviously does not know what capitalism is. Same applies to anarchism.
I mean… yeah, that’s exactly what capitalism is. The people who dpn’t want to do X (X = free markets) want to regulate them, which is like, anyone who supports labor laws, anti-monopoly regulations, etc. Socialists, basically; precisely because everyone doesn’t believe in capitalism.
The only difference is that more people are willing to believe in free markets than in total deregulation, so a capitalistic society is a more likely / stable philosophy than an anarchic one.
You still seem to think that “anarchism” means total abolition of rules and order, but that is simply not what it means. This confusion with what it’s actually called, anomia, is so common, that Wikipedia even mentions this right in the beginning of their respective articles
If there’s that much confusion, how are you so sure your definition is correct?
But, I’m interested. What is the real definition that you use?