Why is Indymedia LA hiding all of the following posts:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/145950.php

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/145959.php

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/145940.php

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/145865.php

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/145863.php

I realize that some of them present a viewpoint that many people here might not agree with, but I thought this Indymedia thing was supposed to be about "democratizing" the media.

How is "hiding" all the ideas you don't agree with helping to promote Democracy?! How is this helping encourage civil debate? HOW IS THIS NOT JUST AS FASCIST & REPRESSIVE AS THE CORPORATE MEDIA'S HIDING THE STORIES THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE?!

I'm very angered by this. I know this post will just be hidden like the rest, but for those of you who see it in the mean time, I think you need to question the convictions of the "ruling collective" running this Indymedia site.

This is Bullshit.

------------------------------------------------

While we try to avoid hiding posts as much as possible (Bullshit, so it seems), the following types of items will merit close scrutiny and may be hidden:

* "Spam" posting; i.e., posts deliberately designed to disrupt the newswire and its basic ability to function. These are posts that are deemed to be devoid of content or analysis and appear to be published with the sole purpose of disruption. (NO)

* Posts the author has requested hidden. (NO)

* Posts that are obviously incorrect or misleading. This includes attempts to spread misinformation or to impersonate another individual. ("misinformation"?? Maybe you don't agree with what these posts say, but "misinformation"?? That's scary -- when a small "editorial collective" gets to impose its point of view on the people who rely on Indymedia for exposure to views that they may not otherwise hear in the mainstream press. What problem is Indymedia solving, if it represses the stories it doesn't like, just like the corporate press??)

* Posts that contain generalized and negative assertions about any race, nation, creed, class, ethnic group, sexual orientation, etc. (Hell NO)

* Posts that advocate the mass physical elimination of a specific race, nation, creed, class, ethnic group, sexual orientation, etc, or that link to websites that advocate the same. (Hell NO)

* Posts that treat the newswire as a personal "bulletin board" with non-political content directed at one or another newswire participants. (NO)

* Unreadable formats (i.e. photos posted as text). (NO)

* Posts titled "test". (NO)

* Duplicate posts (including duplicate photographs). (NO)

* Advertising of products or for-profit services. (NO)

* Pornography, excepting sexually explicit satire. (NO)

We are going to look into this and we will let you know very soon. At first glance those posts seem OK though.

What is not ok?

Opposing views are not welcomed?

What opposing views should one avoid?

Please clarify.

Indymedia deletes the posts of most people that don't agree

with them!

You are hypocrites!

Lets face it, the views of the people that post here are not mainstream and they are in the minority. Freedom of speech goes beyond mainstream. Its a good thing. I just would like clarity,

Libertarian whiner, the IMC reserves the right to regulate the stuff that goes up on the newswire. If you look at the About Us page (which is out of date...) one of the adjectives describing us is "anti-capitalist". These posts are explicitly pro-capitalist. They are disruptive posts, with videos of events where activists are mocked. These posts were put up on mutiple IMC sites. Thus, they are hidden because they are spam.

Are you from that Bureaucrash group? If so, just so you know, *I* hid the Bello item, because I went onto your site and tried to register so I could comment on some articles. However, to register, I had to agree to a "terms of service" which required that I hew to the website's political ideology. Well. I did not agree, and did not check the box, and therefore, was not allowed to comment.

Where is *your* defense of speech, when you vet a person's political ideology before they can even register to post a comment? "Libertarian" indeed. That site's more uptight than the CP of China, and the Chairman's asshole.

You all talk "liberty" but sure don't act it.

BTW, you obviously don't know what the hell Fascism is. If you want to know what FASCISM is, go check out the Save Our State website. Another fascist site you might check out is Bureaucrash.

Here's the thing, though: IndyMedia is supposed to be an open forum for public expression, as I understand it. It's about facilitating diversity, like it says in your mission statement. "Hiding" from view any opinions your small group of regulators disagrees with doesn't do too much to promote diversity; and it certainly doesn't make for a well-functioning democracy...which is what you're after, right? ...or is it a democracy in which only people who agree with you get to have a say?

Bureaucrash is an activist network; not an open forum. Even so, we welcome all criticism, and publish most of the "hate mail" we receive here:

http://bureaucrash.com/node/728

You're welcome to add your voice to the page by clicking on the "Contact" link on the left-hand side of any page of the site.

>>They are disruptive posts, with videos of events where activists are mocked
Yes, diverse opinions can be disruptive. I understand that. But to censor them on the grounds that they're different, and therefore "disruptive"...well, that's pretty scary.

I don't see your site "hiding" any of the posts by the Radical Cheerleaders, or the Billionaires for Bush, or the Yes Men. These groups are all about mocking! (And I personally think it's great -- especially the Yes Men, even though I don't agree with their politics.)

>>*I* hid the Bello item, because I went onto your site and tried to register so I could comment on some articles. However, to register, I had to agree to a "terms of service" which required that I hew to the website's political ideology.
You hid my post because you couldn't join my libertarian activist group??! That doesn't make any sense.

You have a huge open forum to comment on anything you like...including my post. Next time, rather than hiding it, why not express your opinion, and let others express theirs? Let's make this open media thing work. I'm all for it. (Yes - surprise - I agree with you: The corporate media sucks!)

>> Where is *your* defense of speech
You must not have taken too good a look at the site. We're very much working to defend the freedom of speech. I know that any of the Bureaucrashers would gladly defend your right to say whatever it is you have to say, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. But that doesn't mean our website is suddenly a public forum: It's an activist network. This is a public forum. (Or, so I thought.)

>> You all talk "liberty" but sure don't act it
Again, you must not have seen the website.

>>[Dear] Libertarian whiner,
...and just to set the record straight: I'm an anarchist whiner.



sh(A)ne

If you're spamming all this stuff on several different Indymedias then it should be hidden.

Besides, LA-IMC should not be a haven for right-wing, pro-capitalist stories. There are plenty of forums for that kind of material.

You guys have tons and tons of media that will get out the pro-capitialist message. Hell, you have the government and the corporate world behind you. Why do you have to try to use LA-IMC or the other Indymedia sites for your stuff?

This isn't censorship. This site is run by activists that believe in free, non-corporate media, but yeah, they're from the left. Not necessarily with your capitalist or libertarian ideology. They did the work, they started the site and I don't see anywhere in the Mission Statement that saysanything and everything will be posted to the newswire.

If LA-IMC allowed that it would be filled with nothing but spam. The spam gets hidden and they stop posting it. So you might as well stop posting your stuff.



Start your own IMC and post whatever stories you want and we'll see which ones you hide. Until then keep crying because LA-IMC will hide your stories.

The SOS crowd, for example, whines when their stuff gets hidden here, much of it vile personal attacks and racism: but if you try to post on their site you have to go to a special corner of the place, a little "room" for those who "disagree."

They don't want their work disrupted - which is their business, Nazis or not, but then to whine when they are free to post here and only the most hateful fo their crap is hidden, strikes me as pathetic.

"Open Publishing" was a term coined by the IMC to describe the newswire. It's not an "open forum". I think the definition of "Open Publishing" has shifted, but the software we use, sf-active, has a liberal posting policy, without accounts (or accountability), and people can post anonymously. This is important because, sometimes, people need to post anonymously, to protect themselves from, say, deranged anti-immigrant neonazi fascists who glom on to extremist right wing anti-immigrant groups. Or the FBI.

The opennes of the "forum" depends on what you're reading. The stuff in the center column isn't "open" at all, except that people who do the IMC meetings and form the core collective have the right to edit that. The newswire is where I do stuff, and that's mostly just cleaning up the garbage. The "Local" stories are picked by the collective, and I pitch in (it's a relatively objective task). The comments are very open.

So, when I visited your site, and saw the red and black graphics, the little (A) mark here and there, I fully expected a similarly "open" system. No such luck. So, I went and looked up your other stuff, and found you were spamming the IMCs. That put you in the class of folks like News Jukie Scott -- right on the margin of acceptability. At least Scott (whom I dislike) has some interesting links amidst his paranoid ramblings.

Your stuff was largely self-promotional, and focused entirely on mocking the anti-globalization movement. The IMC was birthed by, and still largely staffed by that movement. You make fun of people who probably have less money than you, and you harrass intellectuals with less status than the think tanks your group references, like the Cato Institute.

I think of you all as the middle class, punk rock version of the Protest Warrior brownshirts.

As for your claim to be an "(A)narchist," anarchism is more than an opposition to the state. Anarchy is against all oppression, especially economic oppression. It opposes capitalism (and for many, domination over other animals). I've read a lot about anarcho-capitalism, and it's not anarchist; it's classical liberalism. Even the individualist anarchists opposed capitalism, though they defended some forms of limited private property.

Will never flourish in our current system of government for a number of reasons. Government ,the courts, and the laws would have to change beyond what the majority would ever allow. In a sense the movement is DOA. To think otherwise you would be fooling yourselfs.

Our group has activists all over the country -- all over 22 countries, actually -- so it doesn't seem that posting our information to several Indymedia sites is really all that out-of-line.

As for the "we're anti-capitalists, go away" thing: That's fine -- I totally agree that you should be able to do whatever you want with your website, and censor posts in any way you please. (It's your website -- your property, after all.)

However, I think it's very disingenuous to hold yourself out as a group that's trying to facilitate a free & open exchange of ideas, if you're not going to allow "outsider" points of view. Your list of reasons for "hiding" posts doesn't say anything about hiding articles that the editorial collective doesn't agree with. If that's what you guys do, like I said, that's fine -- but it's really disingenuous to hide that fact from people.

Update your guidelines for "hiding" to include the fact that you hide articles that contain opinions you don't agree with. Don't be sneaky or try to present yourselves as something you're not. That's just wrong.

sh(A)ne

(anti-corporate anarcho-capitalist, who happens to agree with most of your causes...just not your solutions)

BTW, I've asked others in the activist network to help me post this complaint to other Indymedia sites, to make sure that people know what LA.Indymedia is up to. So far, I've received a very supportive response, a sample of which follows: (I'd suggest you read these. People don't want your kind of censorship under the Indymedia banner.)

http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/50842/index.php

http://baltimore.indymedia.org/mod/comments/update/index.php

Since we're on this subject, why was

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/145716.php

hidden?

>anarcho-capitalist

There is no such thing. Anarchism is, by definition, opposed to capitalism.



>Opposing views are not welcomed?

No, nor should they be. You have your own sites. Publish your crap there.



>What opposing views should one avoid?

Disinformation, enemy propaganda, flame wars, gibberish, spam and apologies for ecocide, exploitation and war have no place on Indymedia.



>IndyMedia is supposed to be an open forum for public expression, as I understand it.

Indymedia is supposed to be a credible alternative to the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex, not a soapbox for it's parrots and sycophants and the enemies of the Global Justice Movement.



>"Open Publishing" was a term coined by the IMC to describe the newswire. It's not an "open forum".

Open publishing guarantees anyone the ability to post. It does *not* guarantee that what you post will stay up. It is the editors' job to take out the trash, so we wont have to wade through a bunch of disinformation, enemy propaganda, flame wars, gibberish, spam and apologies for ecocide, exploitation and war to read the news. On the whole, johnk does a pretty good job, though he could probably do better with all the spam and forgeries from SmashTheLeft. The racist spew of of the Minutemen and their supporters doesn't belong here, either. And why on earth are such miscreants as fresca and Bush Admirer allowed to befoul this place with their droppings?

But compared to such utter cesspits of lies and racism as Utah-IMC, NC-IMC, NM-IMC or Pgh.-IMC, this place is doing pretty good.



> people need to post anonymously, to protect themselves from, say, deranged anti-immigrant neonazi fascists who glom on to extremist right wing anti-immigrant groups.

These people are extremely dangerous. They've killed before. They'll do it again. Every IMCista is a potential Alan Berg.

See:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/paranoia-as-patriotism/the-order.html

http://www.wfmu.org/LCD/GreatDJ/berg.html

http://www.the.ohio-state.edu/Production/9697/GodsCountry/godscountry.htm

http://www.missioncreep.com/tilt/talkradio.html

http://www.lehigh.edu/~ineng/stone/trsites.htm

http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/scutari.asp?xpicked=2&item=scutari

http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/lane.asp?xpicked=2&item=lane

http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html

If they target you, don't expect the police to protect you. Cops *never* show up until it's too late. There's a name for people who rely on the police to protect them. They are called "victims." Arm yourself and employ an effective perimeter alarm.



>Or the FBI.

Posting "anonymously" on Indymedia does not protect your identity from the FBI.

See:

http://www.sfbg.com/nessie/24.html

Where in the LA-IMC Mission Statement does it say anything about "trying to facilitate a free & open exchange of ideas".

As far as I'm concerned we can leave that to CNN and Fox News.

You stated "ubiquitous propaganda mill "

Propaganda to me is half truths or not telling the whole story like it is (spinning and slanting). To determin what is propaganda and what is not you need reliable and honest sources that can be objective. None of which I see on this board. Constructive criticism and questioning government is healthy, but to assume government is the root of all evil is not the whole truth. Assumption of an issue without addressing the facts is propaganda.

Conspiracy theories are just that, theories. They are not fact until it is proven. An example of this is Costa Mesa. Wether you agree or disagree with what the city is doing, the propaganda still flies without any facts to back it up. I have yet to see immigration sweeps (fact) Statements to the contrary are propaganda until such time they become fact.

Armed Minuteman are going to injure and kill illegal immigrants crossing the border (propaganda) Minuteman report illegal crossings to Border Patrol (fact).

Bush wire taps communication (fact) It was illegal (propaganda at this time)

.I used the above to demonstrate hot button issues not to start a debate. These are just examples of things I have read on indymedia that at this time have not come true and I would classify them as being propaganda. If you take a honest look at yourselfs and indymedia, you might just wonder who is the sheep.

Independent thought, what a concept.

> They are not fact until it is proven. An example of this is

the *official* conspiracy theory about what is supposed to have happened on 9/11

Prove that one, and maybe we'll consider that maybe, just maybe, the government really isn't evil.

Libertarians: * "Posts that contain generalized and negative assertions about any race, nation[al origin -- as politically critcizing a political entity, like "nations", is perfectly okay], creed, class [except for the ruling/corporate elites], ethnic group, sexual orientation, etc. (Hell NO)."

THEN *WHY* doesn't LA-IMC ban fresca -- or any alternate and obvious, from content, aliases.

LET ME DEMONSTRATE APPROXIMATE FRESCA PARALLELS:

(AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE EVEN HAVE TO *ASK* LA-IMC?)

fresca/Becky: "Face it, before the Jews moved in "palestine" was a veritable shithole."

converse parallel: "Face it, before the Jews and Blacks moved into New York it was a great place to live. Now it's a greedy and criminal shithole!"



fresca/Becky: "If Israel ceased to exist, these "palestinians" would starve to death."

parallel (1932 -- picture a Nuremburg rally): "IF WE NAZIS CEASED TO EXIST, THOSE S0-CALLED "JEWS" WOULD STARVE THEMSELVES AND OUR NATION TO DEATH!!"



fresca/Becky: "I didn't know they let coloreds into the Klan."

parallel: "I didn't know they let Heebs/Jew-boys/kikes/Japs/slopes/wetbacks/darkies/swarthies into the Klan."



Then there is a missing one, now: by fresca Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 9:03 PM.

fresca: referring to "light-skinned coloreds" that can get into the Klan.

parallel: "You must not be one of those hooked-nosed Jews." Or (racial mocking), "You must be one of those Asians/Latinos that can pass for white!"



There is now another missing example now: by JA Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 8:40 PM.

I asked the Editors not to delete those examples. What is LA-IMC doing?: trying to partially cover its tracks?

Now, I don't give two shits about fresca, but its just the principle: all that good 'lefty', One World, and anti-racist stuff that LA-IMC *CLAIMS* to stand for!

cross-reference URLs:

EDITORS, PLEASE BAN FRESCA FOR EXPLICIT & VILE HATE SPEECH AGAINST ARABS AND MUSLIMS

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/146014_comment.php#146129

IRAN VOWS TO PUT ISRAEL INTO "AN ETERNAL COMA" IF ATTACKED

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/145635_comment.php#146013



I SHOULD TURN THIS WHITE ANTI-SEMITE I KNOW OF ON TO LA-IMC AND SEE HOW *LONG* THE "GOOD WHITE LIBERALS" AT LA-IMC -- THE EDITORS -- LET *HIM* GET AWAY WITH *HIS* OVERT, UGLY AND GRAPHIC **ANTI-*JEWISH* ANTI-SEMITIC** SLURS!

-- BEFORE THEY BAN *HIM*!!

you should goto the other indymedia it is much more enforced i.e. san francisco, san diego, compared to the l.a. even on the others they check your comments too.

The assertion that sweeps will happen is based on two prior times when people of Mexican descent were "swept". In the 1930s, a "repatriation" program deported many people to Mexico, including citizens. (I think it was 100,000 people.) In the 1950s, Operation Wetback led to ongoing police sweeps of the communities. Also, more recently, the Border Patrol did sweeps around LA County. So it's reasonable to assert that the new law in Costa Mesa will lead to sweeps.

You stated "the Border Patrol did sweeps around LA County. So it's reasonable to assert that the new law in Costa Mesa will lead to sweeps" (Actually it was Riverside county)

Isn't that part of there job discription?

Point being you are asserting this will happen. There is no evidence that it will. (propaganda) Your just preying on the fears of the illegal immigrant community. Again I have to question your motives? Is it responsible policy for the police not to check a persons legal status if the subject has been arrested for commiting a crime?

The L.A. County Sheriff reported in 2000 that 23 percent of inmates in county jails were deportable, according to the New York Times.

In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the first half of 2004 (which totaled 1,200 to 1,500) targeted illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) were for illegal aliens.

The Los Angeles Police Department arrests about 2500 criminally convicted deportees annually, reports the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.nationalreview.com/dunphy/dunphy200601300847.asp

I am not suggesting that all illegal immigrants are criminals. I am suggesting if they commit a crime they should be deported. We have enough criminals in this country, we do not need more from other countries as well.

Confused, please stop devouring the english language.

You say that, " Propaganda to me is half truths or not telling the whole story like it is (spinning and slanting)." Well that's fine, if that's what you want the word propaganda to mean, just keep in mind that it actually has an assigned definition.

FYI, propaganda can be completely true or it can be completely a lie, it's all in the way it is distributed.

>>Propaganda
n: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

I think 'Confused' is actually just confusing [the issue].

The potential for abuse is being constructed. That's not propaganda.

And until that happens we will most likely read more of these non proofs or as I would say, equivocations from this 'confused' person.

So, the articles on this site can be completely true or a complete lie. That can be said about The Enquirer.

Maybe its not propaganda that should be discussed but ethics. Credible media have ethical responsibility to report facts. Not " potential" Every issue has potential of something.

"The potential for abuse is being constructed. That's not propaganda."

What do you consider abuse? Deporting a person that is illegal in this country and has committed a crime? Your perception of abuse differs from mine. I do not have sympathy for criminals either legal or illegal. On this issue you could say I am not confused.

It goes to the foundation of public safety and where I do not think all illegal immigrants pose these concerns, some of them do.

What would be wrong with deporting the criminal element of the immigrant community?

Oh sorry about "devouring the english language"

From Websters:

Propaganda; Material distributed to win people over to a particular doctrine

Doctrine; Something taught as a body of principles

Principle; A fundamental truth

Truth; Accordance with knowledge, fact or actuality

I could go on but I think you get the point.

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. In some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. Its connotations can also vary over time. For instance, in English, "propaganda" was originally a neutral term used to describe the dissemination of information in favor of a certain cause. Over time, however, the term acquired the negative connotation of disseminating false or misleading information in favor of a certain cause. Strictly speaking, a message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading.

Historically, the most common use of the term propaganda is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments, political groups, and other often covert interests.

Propaganda is also one of the methods used in psychological warfare.

The term propaganda may also refer to false information meant to reinforce the mindsets of people who already believe as the propagandist wishes. The assumption is that, if people believe something false, they will constantly be assailed by doubts. Since these doubts are unpleasant (see cognitive dissonance), people will be eager to have them extinguished, and are therefore receptive to the reassurances of those in power. For this reason propaganda is often addressed to people who are already sympathetic to the agenda. This process of reinforcement uses an individual's predisposition to self-select "agreeable" information sources as a mechanism for maintaining control

It's a major problem on Indymedia:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/01/1709327_comment.php#1711531

>anarcho-capitalist

There is no such thing. Anarchism is, by definition, opposed to capitalism. Yeah, so I've heard. Over and over and over and over again, in almost exactly the same words every time.

It's sort of a dilemma for me: Are the anarchists that are regurgitating this exact response to me ad nauseam (if you’ll pardon the pseudo-pun) saying something that is such an inherently true fact of life that there is no other way of expressing it; or is it that they’ve so unquestioningly accepted this dogma that they respond this way automatically?

The fact that anarcho-capitalists do exist (whether you believe in them or not), clears this dilemma up for me.

It’s amazing to me how many people would rather deny my existence than address my ideas. If you’d like to do the latter, feel free to jump in anytime. (Click here)

sh(A)ne

Dissenters Paradise is not tiny. It is "virtual". It has infinite dimension. Currently there are 260 topics, and 7808 replies. Sure it is a place for those opposed to SOS/MM to come and post opposing views, or ask us questions, while we can also come here to read more opposing views, and participate in discussions, or flames, but that is communication on some level, which is mutually beneficial.

Dissenters are not necessarily restricted from posting in other sections of SOS, so long as you are civil and wish to discuss the topic, not conduct some left-wing flame war. Recently "pepe" was posting throughout the forum. We also know we have a few infiltrators, and are aware, guests, of all ages, can read, our forums freely.

Granted the moderators, both SOS and IndyMedia, periodically clean debris, from the boards. I too have seen my posts, disappear or get locked out.

S*** happens.

I try to keep personal copies, of my posts and responses, for future reference or recycling. Why re-invent the wheel?

BR

---------

Hide It!

by Observer Wednesday, Feb. 01, 2006 at 12:31 AM

The SOS crowd, for example, whines when their stuff gets hidden here, much of it vile personal attacks and racism: but if you try to post on their site you have to go to a special corner of the place, a little "room" for those who "disagree."

They don't want their work disrupted - which is their business, Nazis or not, but then to whine when they are free to post here and only the most hateful of their crap is hidden, strikes me as pathetic.

---------

People *say* they are "anarcho-capitalists" but that doesn't make it true. If I call my self a "winged pig," does that mean I now fly?

For details, see:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html

Anarcho-capitalism belongs in the same category as compassionate conservatism, welfare reform, progressive corporations, military justice, military intelligence, moderate nazism, safe freeways, and some would say adult males. Some of these "anarcho-capitalism" advocates are too thick headed to realize that capitalism (any kind of capitalism) cannot exist without a strong state to keep workers and unions in line, to seize and secure access to raw materials and markets, to threaten and if necessary war against other capitalist areas of the world, to smash anti-capitalist mass movements at home or abroad, and to control pirates, gangsters, robbers and others who would love to deprive wealthy capitalists of their wealth and goods. Others are well aware of this, but use so-called libertarian language to rope in the naive and justify abolishing social services like public heath and public schools.

You forgot "dry water."

and property rights.

Don't EVER forget property rights. What you steal or bully is yours to produce clam combers and dweezle removers, leave the mess for public enjoyment and appropriate further opportunities.

Don't ever forget property rights.

After all, British pirates seized the Falkland Islands long ago, so the islands obviously belong to their descendants. So would any islands seized by Blackbeard the Pirate if he had not unfortuanatly been defeated in a sea battle and had his head cut off before he could seize any islands. And, this is a little off topic, but did you know that Panama City was sacked by two different pirates - Henry Morgan in the 1600's and Bush the Pirate in the 1980's.

Baghdad was seized and devastated by Ghengis Khan in the Middle Ages and by Ghengis Bush in 2003. So just as the earlier barbarian established his property rights hundreds of years ago, the current barbarian has established US control of Iraq's oil and its formerly nationalized economy. It is all just and sane under the, er, sacred law of supply and demand or something like that.

I wrote a long post about anarchism and property rights here:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/146800_comment.php#147305

I think that with the possible exception of Lysander Spooner, anarchists were opposed to private property. Right now, there's some kind of revisionist movement going on among "libertarians" (anarcho-capitalists) to claim individualist anarchism as their heritage. The websites seem to focus on Tucker.

>>People *say* they are "anarcho-capitalists" but that doesn't make it true. If I call my self a "winged pig," does that mean I now fly?
No, but if it's true, it might mean you're a winged pig. (Are you a winged pig?)

If I say, "I am an anarchist", can you look at me & tell otherwise? You have to ask me what I believe, right? ...and if I tell you, "I believe that there shouldn't be any government, or any kind of power structure that lets one rule another", then you kind-of have to take my word for it.

...just like if I say, "I'm not feeling well, because I've read too much dribble tonight," you just kind-of have to go with that. That's all I can do to prove it -- tell you. I can't let you in my head to hear my thoughts; you just have to choose to believe or not believe the words I use to describe them.

sh(A)ne

>>Some of these "anarcho-capitalism" advocates are too thick headed to realize that capitalism (any kind of capitalism) cannot exist without a strong state to bla bla bla bla bla...(I'll get to these in a minute).
Why is it that your preferred brand of anarchists can understand that government isn't necessary to do things like maintain roads, provide education, treat the sick, defend people from rape & murder, etc (which, I'm assuming they understand...since they want to abolish the state)...but they can't seem to get their minds around the idea that the government isn't necessary to secure property rights? What makes defending property rights so unique that they alone among all other rights can only exist with the assistance of the state?

Now to your specifics:

>>to keep workers and unions in line,
I don't think the state does this now; and I certainly don't think that these things need to be done do preserve capitalism. I see unions as a vital part of a free-market. They're voluntary associations of people, who have come together to speak with one voice. There's nothing anti-capitalist about that.

Quite the opposite, unions are only a threat to free-market capitalism when they get the power of the state behind them -- when they get legislation written that makes it legal for them to force non-members to pay union dues, as a condition of their employment. (Some would call this legalized extortion.) When they become political forces, and use the power of the state to place restrictions on business owners' right to freedom of association (etc); just like they're enjoying.

>>to seize and secure access to raw materials
You're confused. When the government seizes & secures raw materials on behalf of business/private interests, it's called, "merchantilism", not "capitalism". Capitalism is what you have when the state keeps its grubby little paws out of the economy. Government impedes capitalism; it doesn't support it.

>>and markets
I'll assume you're talking about free trade agreements. Think about that: A "free trade agreement". That would be, "an agreement not to regulate trade". Yet, take the FTAA agreement for instance -- it's 537 pages worth of rules governing trade! That's not free trade. Once again, that's government working to stifle capitalism, not secure it. The fact that there are government-drawn borders between people of different nations are the only reason there could be for needing a "trade agreement" anyway! Individuals just agree to trade or not to trade. They don't need an agreement in place beforehand. They decide whether trading is in their best interest at that time, and they trade. Done. Again, governments get in the way of capitalism.

>>to threaten and if necessary war against other capitalist areas of the world
Um, yeah. That's not necessary for capitalism. Warring nations don't trade with one another, usually. So, how is that good for capitalism?

Capitalism, unrestricted by nations, prevents war. If I depend on you for something I need, and vice versa, then we can't decide to go to war with one another too easily, can we?

>>to smash anti-capitalist mass movements at home or abroad
I don't see why government is necessary for this. If you believe (as anti-capitalist anarchists do) that crime against people can be prevented without government, then I can't imagine anything an anti-capitalist movement could do that wouldn't come in this category.

>>and to control pirates, gangsters, robbers and others who would love to deprive wealthy capitalists of their wealth and goods
Again, if we don't need government to repress rapists & murderers, then why do we need government to control other types of people who would try to harm us?



>>Others are well aware of this, but use so-called libertarian language to rope in the naive and justify abolishing social services like public heath and public schools.
Yes, because they're evil little shits who just want to keep the little guy down. Fuckers! Or maybe -- ((sit down)) -- maybe they have a vision of the world that's different from yours, that they see as just as good & just as you see yours. Maybe they want a lot of the same things you do, but disagree with you about how best to bring them about. Regardless, it's much easier to just think of people you disagree with as "evil", and "the enemy"; and not worry about what they really think. Just stick with that. It'll get you further.

sh(A)ne

One final point on mutually-beneficial cooperation & voluntary association:

http://www.lejo.nu/sopdroe.html

sh(A)ne

What is this, the comedy hour? The web version of Saturday Night Live? I suggest that you glance through just the first three or four chapters of John Perkins' new book, Confessions of An Economic Hitman, and some of your beliefs in fairy tales might collapse under the impact of colliding with reality. Only a particularly naive grade school student would be likely to believe the nonsense that you are peddling. You know, the kind who believe in the literal truth of the Noah's Ark story. Most of them will grow out of belief in the Easter Bunny and similar things; apparantly you are still marooned on some early stage of mental and emotional development, or at least willing to pretend that you are. Do you ever wonder about the high correlation, at least in the US, between belief in "free enterprise" economic/political/sociological dogmas and belief in fundamentalist Bible myths whose literal "truth" was instilled during childhood?

You might find a more receptive audience if you post your views on the website of your local Chamber of Commerce. If that fails, try the local Elks Club or the Moose Lodge.

More or less, government as we know them in modern industrial society do their job to "manage" capitalism. And they use the power of the state to do so.

It seems that they operate from the premise that unrestricted capitalism would lead to a social revolution where people on the "bottom" would seize power from the capitalists to end their own exploitation.

An example:

FDR thwarted the social revolution during the years of the great depression by moving to strongly manage capitalism with the New Deal, which was an attempt to redistribute wealth in a way that maintained capitalism but still kept the capitalist framework in place and the capitalists in power.

Anyone curious as to what would happen to the "property rights" of the rich and well to do in a US city should read up on the Boston Police Strike of 1919. Huge mobs formed immediately, and looted department stores and stores that catered to the wealthy after brushing aside the feeble resistance of company security guards. This was not in a wild frontier town, but in one of the oldest cities in the nation, with more of a reputation for censoring racy plays and novels than for mob violence. The strike caught the local and national ruling class off guard, and National Guard units formed largely of farmers from western Massachusetts along with bumbling "volunteer police" (most of them American Legion members and Harvard students) proved utterly incapable of coping with working class mobs rampaging through the streets and eager to strike a blow at employers, landlords and bankers. There were not Federal troops nearby, and "order" was restored only after sailors from warships were given rifles and orders to shoot and kill if the crowds did not disperse.

Does anyone really think that things would be all that different if cops and Sheriff's deputies went on strike today in Los Angeles, and there were no troops nearby to take their place because they were all in Iraq, pinned down by 16 year old resistance fighters?

All right people, she's obviously an annoying idiot. Why not make a group decision to ignore her. She'll be extra-obnoxious for a little while, but eventually she'll get bored & go away.

There's no sense arguing with her. I really doubt that she's even Jewish. She sure is doing a good job of making the zionists look like idiots...& maybe that's her game. Who knows? Who cares?

It's a ridiculous issue anyway. "The holy land" -- sure. I was raised Jewish, and one of the first things that triggered my questioning the existence of God was the constant news reports about bloodshed in Israel. It's a 40-mile wide piece of blood-drenched desert sand. If people want to kill & get killed over it, well -- Life wasted.

sh(A)ne

>You might find a more receptive audience if you post your views on the website of your local Chamber of Commerce. If that fails, try the local Elks Club or the Moose Lodge.

That one deserves a recap.

Also, to follow up on Pete Nice, a lot of the anti-trust laws established in the first couple of decades of the 20th century helped quell some antipathy toward capitalism. These laissez-faire liberal ideas shane's espousing sound like they come from that pre-reform era, meaning, it was prior to two waves of reform that helped rescue capitalism. We're flogging a dead horse here.

Now, regarding government impeding capitalism: what is Medicare Part D? That's an insurance racket disguised as socialism. What the "consumers" want is socialized medicine. The "consumers" have been wanting this for decades. It's government that's impeding the full socialization of health care. It's the politicians who are protecting the capitalists against the complete takeover of the system.

"All right people, she's obviously an annoying idiot. Why not make a group decision to ignore her. "

Shane, you must realize that the vast majority of recent posts of mine are by some goof named JA. Clearly.

Not that it really matters, but you might want to consider the fact that you actually refer to yourself as an "anarchist" ( of all the silly, juvenile monikers ) as you refer to ANYONE as an idiot.

Anyway, yet a new idea for the left to ignore or censor contadictory thought or fact.

Nice work.

"Markovian Parallax Denigrate," a classic case:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/1724798_comment.php#1724799