RE: "That Guy's" Response to Robert Kiyosaki of Rich Dad/Poor Dad on Anarcho-Capitalism
“I don’t believe that government can solve our problems, but I don’t believe that anarchy can either. I don’t believe that any system can.”
As you pointed out, we are not trying to replace one tyrannical system with another. We are walking away from the tyrannical system and making it obsolete through voluntary interaction instead.
He has probably been well programmed to hate the term "anarchist." This is one reason I use the label "voluntaryist." It doesn't seem to have the immediate visceral response when seen or heard. @consentualist uses another label for similar reasons.
Is it voluntary? Has everyone consented? Those are not difficult questions to answer, yet sadly so many people fail to understand the serious moral implications involved.
Another friend of mine, who is not on Steemit yet, came up with a simple flow chart:
I hadn't thought about Roberts position in this way but I do agree. But my thing is....is he wrong? I think he's come to understand, because he's uttered on several occasions how "STUPID" people are and i agree to an extent but he say's it with such conviction that it can get annoying, that you can't change people for the better, people are going to do what they want and you can either use that to your advantage or not. He's a CAPITALIST at heart which means he's only concerned with CAPITALIZING off of opportunities.
Have you read "How to win friends and influence people"?
Well in reading that I constantly contemplated the idea of what it means to persuade someone to do something and at the end of the day Persuasion is a form of Manipulation. Most people DESPISE criticism but LOVE to be praised, well how can an individual become a better person if they are already so great that they don't need criticism? You can't, and for this reason many people will always be pawns because they hate people who actually tell them the truth cuz its hard to face but love those who constantly lie to them long as they say something nice.
Now if one understands this, you are faced with two questions: Be noble and become hated, ostracized and poor or give the people what they want (not what they need) and you'll enjoy the luxuries this world as to offer. He doesn't hide the fact that he's a pure capitalist but he probably understands very well, as you stated, how labels can be dangerous so why shouldn't he play the game in the way that would best serve him?
I believe the underlying question or idea that is being contemplated is of Morality but the thing about morality is...there is no supreme being who decide what's moral and what's not, nor is there any punishment for not being moral. Social Darwinism is a very much real aspect of our society that won't being changing anytime soon, so Robert can spend his one life trying to do what's morally right and die a martyr or be "immoral" and enjoy the only life he has.
I myself don't want to be limited to one school of thought, I see myself as at Stoic Libertarian.
GOOD BOOK
Jeff, relax a bit.
Why are you stressing yourself out.
Deep breaths.
Thanks for the mention @finnian. I have friends who are dead set on "taking back" the term anarchist, but I don't really see the value. While I do describe myself as an anarchist, it's only on of many appropriate terms. I really like consentualist (hence the handle) or voluntaryist as both describe my beliefs very well. Ethical human interactions require consent, and all human action should be voluntary.
That reminds me of some who are trying to take back the term libertarian too. The Gadsden Flag comes to mind as well. Most people flying it today think of it as a symbol of nationalism thanks to the "Tea Party." It is a symbol of rebellion instead.
I like my own flag (based on the Gadsden) better than the Gadsden.
And, I call myself an anarchist, voluntaryist, abolitionist, and/or libertarian depending on how I feel.
I need to buy one of those!
I like that.
Love it!
There is a certain stigma that does goes along with the term Anarchist. It's been associated with terrorist and questionable revolutionist for decades. People associate the term Anarchist with nut jobs or psychco etc. Personally, I don't care for Government either but I would never associate or consider myself as an anarchist due to that stigma. I think people should consider a different term and consider this one dead. But that is just my $.02 for what ever it's worth.
It just means without rulers, and there's nothing wrong with that idea. I don't need or want a ruler. The problem we have though is that it seems a majority of people do want a ruler. How do we coexist with them?
I couldn't tell you that. Maybe absolute freedom is a myth, it's the carrot on the stick waving it in front of us. We're probably plugged into some super computer as we type just like the Matrix.
Anarchists have governance too which means there is a system. The system is different in how it operates, perhaps more decentralized, but it does exist. Even in Bitcoin there is a system in place. You know those mining fees right? You know those Core Developers? It's a technocratic oligarchy.
Reference
Those two things are not the same of course. If I ignore it, will it leave me alone? If yes, it is not a government.
You can have governance without government. Government means, by definition, that it is not voluntary. I can easily voluntarily join a community and live by their standards. If I don't like them, I leave.
I voluntarily agree to do no harm to others or their property too. Most people do that, and no government is needed. Take any largely populated event. Are laws and the government keeping those people peaceful and their interactions voluntary, or are they doing it simply because that's what is ethical?