: How dare you call this rambling fool an activist??? He is obviously some sick twsted "anarcho-capitalist"!!!! I mean look at him! Firstly he has a name for his little "anarchist" group. Secondly his speaking manner is disgustingly slang and shows no signs of intelligent thought or factual evidence. It is painfully obvious that this person wouldn't know how to fight back and express a worthy opinion if you gave him a map, a compass and lead him by hand out of the maze. : PS i assume i will be recieving some typica bomb threats from this intelectual giant in my email.
How dare I be called an activist? Anyone trying to make a difference-whether for good or evil-is an activist by definition. Just because I am an anarchist you try to say I am not an activist? I have been active in politics since I was 14 on youth rights and general anti-government causes-as well as opposition to the mega-corporations that control elections and run some countries almost as wholly-owned subsidiaries.
I suppose you could call me an anarcho-capitalist(as I support the underground economy of the street)but there is a huge difference between anarchist capitalism and the behavior of corporate thugs who always run to the government(like McD's did) everytime they get in trouble. These predators should not be called capitalists at all, but economic royalists. They believe in controlling the government so it can exploit the masses for their benefit. Why do you think so many multinationals put their sweatshops in military dictatorships?
If you are an anarchist, you cannot advocate direct government control over the economy(as you oppose government) therefore by default you advocate a free market. Some people think that requires accepting the outrages of mega-businesses that survive by eating all their smaller competitors, but most of these companies NEED the government to back them up. In a society without government, running a sweatshop would soon lead to a strike-and if it turned violent, corporate goons would not have enough manpower or firepower to control the vastly greater number of commoners, in the absence of an appeal to"legitimate" law.
If unions' by comparison, tried to demand exorbitant wages(like $30 an hour for flipping veggie burgers) either they would find themselves replaced by people happy to make a smidgeon less or the business they put the bite on would sink. This sets up a balance of power that makes it more difficult for either to exploit the other. It seems to me that the sweatshop in Vietnam would have a hard time getting strikebreakers without the government systematically denying the people alternative ways to make a living.
Multinationals use local dictatorships in the 3ed world to upset this balance in their favor and increase profits. An anarcho-capitalist approach to gaining control of such a company(once the government is out of the way or beaten) is to go on strike and stay on strike until the company goes bankrupt-then buy all the assets at auction, warning other bidders that they get only the machines, not workers to run them.
You complain about the use of a name for an anarchist organization-anarchist do not object to organization(we SUPPORT it) we only object to compulsory organization(which is called government) so we do not have any reason to object to a name(nor does any other anarchist organization I have seen.
As for why we care about corporate monopoly power, consider this-Government is defined by many as a monopoly of force-one group gets all the guns and all the power as a direct result. Surely this is the worst of all possible monopolies. Since many(not all)corporate monopolies or near-monopolies can't get what they want without force, the only way to legitimize the use of foce is for them to call it "law" and have government troops do the shooting instead of private goons(who would simply be paid back in full and in their own coin).
As for factual evidence, when I was six I thought McD's really did have a clown at every store and it took a family visit to prove to the contrary. When I was in third grade we were issued Ronald McDonald bookcovers which we were REQUIRED to put on our schoolbooks.(here is the force I mentioned earlier). Many ads on children's television tell bald-faced lies from a six-year old's viewpoint-like the milk ads that show a small boy drinking a glass of milk,then instantly doubling in size and chasing away the playground bullies. To a six year old, this is a blunt claim that milk is a growth accelerant. While a teenager or older adult will recognize this as "puffery", a small child will not. The answer is to boycott the offending products-and all other advertisers on shows featuring such ads-not to regulate television(which is a free-speech violation that would soon be used for other purposes,like to keep safe sex info away from teens).
