this post was submitted on
2 points (54% like it)
13 up votes 11 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

all 56 comments

[–]drobilla 6 points7 points ago

Power hierarchies are power hierarchies, and they have the same problems regardless. There is no special magic attribute of government that makes it any different - things are not only oppressive when the state imposes them, that is utter nonsense.

Anarchism is to be ANti power hierARCHY. Capitalism is for the power hierarchy of wealth.

The disdain is because you are capitalists with the audacity to call yourselves anarchists. You're not. At all.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

things are not only oppressive when the state imposes them, that is utter nonsense.

You are correct, I was oversimplifying if. Things are only oppressive when anyone or anything imposes them on you. That being said, how is capitalism coercive if no one imposes it on you?

Anarchism is to be ANti power hierARCHY. Capitalism is for the power hierarchy of wealth.

I wouldn't say capitalism is for the power hierarchy of wealth, but rather that it allows it. Additionally, striving to gain power is part of human nature. How is that to be overcome? How do you control that basic human desire without being coercive yourself and without taking a position of power yourself?

Also, how can you possible avoid power positions, or at least mini hierarchies? Is know one in charge when the group gets together to vote? What if there is a task that needs to be done, but no one wants to do it? It there a person who tells someone else they need to do it or does it just not get done? I am honestly interested, so if you have any articles or information on any of this, let me know.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

I wouldn't say barbarism is for the power of coercive physical violence, but rather that it allows it.

If you are against coercive relationships and believe that striving to gain power over others is part of human nature, why not pursue a market economic system that disincentivizes such behavior rather than rewards it?

[–]totalbummer24 0 points1 point ago

the desire for power will only be part of human nature so long as we accept it to be inevitable. "it's just the way it is." is never an excuse.

in my opinion, as for direct democracy, yes, one person would be appointed, but their position is one of service, not power. oh, and the idea is not that you are imposing capitalism, it's that the imposition is capitalism itself. capitalism is inherently hierarchical, that's how it survives and grows.

[–]wbhyatt 0 points1 point ago

if striving to obtain power is essntial to human nature, than why can't people rule others? what's wrong with the state then?

[–]PsyErryDay -4 points-3 points ago

gags

I do love a nice warm cup of sectarian supremacy in the morning.

[–]dbzer0 3 points4 points ago

Hint: You can't be sectarian against people not in the same group.

And "Sectarian supremacy" doesn't even make any sense. Stop combining words together just because they sound cooler.

[–]briesa37 6 points7 points ago

Anarchists don't like anti-state capitalists because you support economic coercion. Private property inevitably leads to wealth accumulation and exponentially growing inequality. In a small community, someone with enough accumulated wealth and property could effectively become a new state, or worse. If they own the property you live on, control your access to water, employ you and control your livelihood, then they are capable of excersizing incredible coercive authority over you, even without violating your NAP.

There's no getting around it. Anarchists are anti-coercion, not just anti-state. We are against the state and capitalism because they are coercive relationships. We may have some things in common and could theoretically coexist peacefully in a liberated society, but we are not allies. If anarchists made common cause with everyone who shared one or two of our beliefs, we'd find ourselves working with authoritarian communists, republicans, capitalists, and all sorts of scum.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Anarchists don't like anti-state capitalists because you support economic coercion.

How is capitalism coercive if it is not forced upon anyone?

How is communism (or anything else) not coercive if it is forced upon people?

Private property inevitably leads to wealth accumulation and exponentially growing inequality.

I agree that it can lead to wealth accumulation, but I don't see property ownership in a stateless society as a cause of exponentially growing inequality. Do you happen to know of any articles on the subject? (I'm genuinely interested btw, I'm always open to change my ideas).

In a small community, someone with enough accumulated wealth and property could effectively become a new state, or worse. If they own the property you live on, control your access to water, employ you and control your livelihood, then they are capable of excersizing incredible coercive authority over you, even without violating your NAP

I don't really buy this. If someone today tried to start slavery again in the western world, even if they were the richest person in the world, people would stand up and fight to prevent that. Similarly, once people realize how the state is coercive and unethical, people will stand up and fight it if someone tries to start a new state once they have already experience statelessness.

Also, we don't claim everyone will follow the NAP and we don't have to change human nature to make an-cap work.

[–]Voidkom 3 points4 points ago

There's 5 cows in a village, all 5 cows are owned. There's a high demand for cow milk. Explain how this doesn't lead to coercion in a capitalist village...

Here's how I see the situation will unfold. You want cow milk. I have a cow. I sell my cow milk for insanely high prices, because the demand is high as well. You can't produce your own cow milk, because all 5 cows are owned. I will however, allow people to milk my cows, but I get to keep all the milk. But because there's so many people that want to work for me so they can afford my cow milk, I get to decide how much you'll earn. If you don't like it, I can always provide the opportunity to someone with lower standards than you, good luck getting my cow milk then.

Result: High demand in cow milk, low supply in cow milk. Low demand in labor, high supply in labor. Price of cow milk skyrockets, price of labor plummets.

[–]Cleyre 0 points1 point ago

Those cows not for anyone. That milk is for their calves. I will intervene against any threats towards these cows or their babies' food.

(I just couldn't hold it in)

[–]konquererz 1 point2 points ago

And one person essentially controls it all.

[–]PsyErryDay 1 point2 points ago

Import the milk from one village over...

[–]mattmcneany 4 points5 points ago

Here's how I see the situation will unfold. You want cow milk. I have a cart. I import cow milk for insanely high prices, because the demand is high as well. You can't produce your own cow milk, because all 5 cows are owned. I will however, allow people to work on the cart, but I get to keep all the milk. But because there's so many people that want to work for me so they can afford my cow milk, I get to decide how much you'll earn. If you don't like it, I can always provide the opportunity to someone with lower standards than you, good luck getting my cow milk then.

[–]PsyErryDay -1 points0 points ago

Milk is a bad example for the point you are trying to make, there will almost always be competition in milk.

[–]mattmcneany 0 points1 point ago

Not if the bourgeois control all the fucking cows. Then, without any (governmental or union) oversight, there's exactly as much milk as benefits the milk price fixing cartel to the greatest extent.

[–]SpicyCage -3 points-2 points ago

Really? That's the best argument you've got?

"Not in my dystopian hypothetical example! Then anarcho-capitalism would devolve into statism!"

This is really, truly, fundamentally no different than any ancap I've seen who's constructed a similar hypothetical scenario, then denounced anarcho-communism as "inherently statist" as a result.

Seriously. I am disappoint.

[–]mattmcneany 0 points1 point ago*

Fair point, it wasn't the best argument against anarcho-capitalism. Here is my own personal take on what Anarcho-Capitalism means if anything. I think the argument quickly becomes one of semantics, for me there is no definition of Capitalism that is consistent with the goals of Anarchism as a means of abolishing hierarchical government or limiting such.

However, given that it was feudalism, something I'd guess many of us see as a primative form of capitalism simply by the fact that a sub-set of society owned the land and land was often the only means of production, followed by primitive capitalism that generated the current state-capitalist/corporatist modus operandi the onus is on you to explain how abolishing corporations and the state will lead to a different result ultimately.

The state as we have it not really represents the interests of both the ancien regime as well as the bourgeois and one can't reject a Marxist analysis of class out of hand, you can't say: 'Class is Dead' or 'There is no such thing as Class'. It's not, there is. There are thousands of examples every year of how it's not. Look at Hurricane Katrina, or The Haitian earthquake, or crime statistics or life expectancy for almost any inner city in any country. This needs to be taken into account when looking at the way the world works. Further, Class cannot be seperated from Capitalism, Capitalism requiers a class structure; the more Capitalism the more class structure forms and becomes entrenched within society.

Socilising the means of production makes everyone equal, then we all have the same amount of labour we can employ, if you want to use markets to place value on that labour that mutualism but it still requiers the abolition of private property. Under the current system the bourgoise generally aren't managers, they're simply bussiness owners who make a profit as a result of ownership whether or not they have talet does not matter, as they can't fail. Sure, some people loose out on the stock market but the general trend is always upwards.

If we abolish the system but leave in place the fundamental mechanisms that generated that system, in the long term all we're doing is swapping one elite for another, equally picked out by a combination of luck and their ancestors ability to shit on the working class.

Capitalism is simply the rich man's tool for staying rich. Like a casino, some small number of lucky and skillful individuals might walk away winners but state or no state: The House Always Wins.

FFS: Stop down-voting the guy just because he's saying ANCAP things. He was right, it wasn't the strongest argument against capitalism.

[–]SpicyCage 0 points1 point ago

Aw, shucks. Thanks for the (up)vote of confidence. :)

[–]SpicyCage 1 point2 points ago

Well, as I see it, any so-called "anarcho-capitalist" who can't even admit that all (or any) of that is true, is brought on by the actions of capitalists in the here and now, and would be made worse by the elimination of the state without some sort of replacement theory of justice in property rights (perhaps reached through some sort of, dare I say, communally-decided measure?) isn't just a non-anarchist, but is also an idiot or a dictator-in-the-making (depending on his/her level of intelligence).

Also, thanks for the (up)vote of confidence.

brofist

[–]SpicyCage -1 points0 points ago*

There's 5 cows in a village

How big is this village?

all 5 cows are owned.

How did they come to be owned?

I will however, allow people to milk my cows, but I get to keep all the milk. But because there's so many people that want to work for me so they can afford my cow milk, I get to decide how much you'll earn.

Unless you (or your puppet government) don't get to define what "money" is. In which case, you'll have to work for whatever the workers decide to be paid. Particularly if they unionize and decide they wanna be paid in milk.

Not to mention: Milk spoils. That's a nice little monkey wrench in any evil, despotic plot that even the most shrewd of capitalists would concoct. The whole point of getting the cows milked is to spread the milk out so you can get something of a more tangible value in return. And the way you maintain value in that "something," particularly in the case of money that is communally defined, is to do business with the community.

Don't forget, you have a cow. Other people have the other 4. Guess who's going out of business?

But all of this is aside from the main point of anarcho-capitalism anyway: Is it wrong to tell people how to conduct their affairs? Is it wrong to force people to be reliant on others for their own happiness and well-being? Or would it instead be more moral for people to allow themselves to deal with one another and work things out in their own terms?

[–]Voidkom -1 points0 points ago

How did they come to be owned? My ancestors saw some wild cows, they claimed them and got passed down, tough luck.

Unless you (or your puppet government) don't get to define what "money" is. In which case, you'll have to work for whatever the workers decide to be paid. Particularly if they unionize and decide they wanna be paid in milk.

I'll just refuse to hire you people, I'll just hire the next guy here who is in desperate need of money.

Don't forget, you have a cow. Other people have the other 4. Guess who's going out of business?

Nobody, they think my plan is genius and apply it as well, as happens in the world of today.

Is it wrong to force people to be reliant on others for their own happiness and well-being?

Yes, which is the whole point of why we're against capitalism.

[–]SpicyCage -1 points0 points ago*

My ancestors saw some wild cows, they claimed them and got passed down, tough luck.

Well, then, yeah. Tough luck. If only there were a theory of justice in property rights that threatened your monopolistic ownership of the means of production.

I'll just refuse to hire you people....

You must REALLY like cow's milk, then.

Nobody, they think my plan is genius and apply it as well, as happens in the world today.

So far, I've seen no theory of justice in property rights, no appreciation of monetary value, and monopolistic ownership of the means of production. In short, I haven't seen how you've constructed any representation of anarcho-capitalist society.

Yes, which is the whole point of why we're against capitalism.

I can see that. But what I don't think you're seeing is that anarcho-capitalism isn't capitalism as it actually functions in the world today (edit - nor is it capitalism as it functions in the scenario you've constructed). That's why your dystopian, hypothetical, cow milk-craving village is a poor analogy.

EDIT: For crying out loud, you're an anarchist with at least the bourgeois luxury of internet access. Can you remember how you reacted to the word "anarchist," "anarchism," or even "anarchy" before you became familiar with the spirit that animated those words? That's what you're doing with "anarcho-capitalism," based solely on your use of the term "capitalism."

[–]wbhyatt 0 points1 point ago

i think the disdain isn't really in the word "capitalism," but more about private property and what it can do

[–]Voidkom 0 points1 point ago*

You, my friend, are disillusioned. It's how capitalism will ALWAYS function. If a select few people can claim things theirs, with property rights, it ALWAYS results into the devaluation of labor and the limitation of people's freedom.

[–]SpicyCage 0 points1 point ago*

anarcho-capitalism ≠ a select few people claiming property rights over the masses - If such a situation arises from an anarcho-capitalist society, then they aren't living in an anarcho-capitalist society.

Likewise if a territorial warlord conquers a vast section of an anarcho-communist society, then they're not living in an anarcho-communist society.

It's not a matter of being disillusioned. It's a matter of recognizing the similarities between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism (particularly at the fundamental level), and also recognizing that anarcho-capitalism is not the same thing as capitalism.

At least, not in the sense that anarchists have traditionally used the term.

Is that really such a bad thing to realize? That anarcho-capitalism isn't capitalism?

[–]wbhyatt 0 points1 point ago*

wage slavery - the idea that in a world of private property, one must seek the man with the most for a handout. he must participate in wage labor because he doesn't have the necessary tools to survive (water, food, shelter, etc...). the only reason he has to enter into wage labor is because of the concept of private property, or sectioning off items from another man. Private property inevitably leads to coercion.

[–]slapdash78 6 points7 points ago

It's not complicated. You dismiss anarchism. The disdain is reciprocal. The philosophy is without rulers. Governors and the governed are merely one form. By defending systemic property, you defend [absentee] proprietors against the dispossessed; esp. those reciprocating beyond litigious avenues of recourse. The adjectivals are foci. Plenty without adjectives support ancoms, anfems, anpacs, etc., and vice versa. Nor does this detract for other efforts. We fight amongst ourselves plenty, but what you perceive as infighting is, in actuality, ancap entryism. We already have individual artisans, market anarchists, and pacifistic supports. All AnCap has done is replace faith in the sovereignty with faith in the market, nationalism supplanting statism, and hollowly proclaimed [im]moral superiority. Likewise, favoring personal autonomy in lieu of individual sovereignty for all. There's nothing non-violent about property enforcement; private or public. Usury or taxation; mercenary security or public officers... The state is a parasitic controller of capital like any other. Coercion and force are the escalation the moment restitution / compliance is refused.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

The philosophy is without rulers.

see some of the questions I had about power in my response to drobilla

By defending systemic property, you defend [absentee] proprietors against the dispossessed;

I already discussed how i don't think in reality it would be that big of a problem. We can disagree. Anyways, what do you have to say regarding overcoming human nature in regards to the desire for property ownership?

ancap entryism

I disagree with this, but I see why many others might think this. It has to do with our differing definitions of anarchism. It would be much easier to practice that tactic against free market statists.

All AnCap has done is replace faith in the sovereignty with faith in the market, nationalism supplanting statism, and hollowly proclaimed [im]moral superiority.

This is just a lack of understanding of what an-cap really is.

There's nothing non-violent about property enforcement; private or public.

I agree

Usury or taxation

Not the same at all, no one is forced to take out a lone, yet people have no say on whether they get taxed or not.

mercenary security or public officers

Not the same at all. And are you saying you would have no security? Regardless of if they are for hire, or if they are doing it for the community, or any other reason, they always have someone's self interest in hand.

The state is a parasitic controller of capital like any other

Kind of vague, care to expand?

Coercion and force are the escalation the moment restitution / compliance is refused.

I agree

As I've said before, any articles you have that dispute anything I've said, feel free to send them to me. I'm not opposed to changing my views.

[–]slapdash78 2 points3 points ago

Hierarchy has meaning which is not any-and-all tree-like structuring. It is, by definition, people ranked, top-down, or the dominion of the hierarch. Anarchism is not dissuasive of expertise subject to your own reason. More, anarchistic writings are riddle with critiques of power relations. A decent place to start is radical parenting.

What you perceive as not a problem is the cause behind proliferating policing as renters and the dispossessed abound. Whether or not ownership claims are typical lends no credence to dispossession and enforcement. Though, what you think about evolution and human nature may be wrong.

... People are taxed in being charged for use / access by non-productive owners-rulers. The choice is one of between taxing owners. That you think it's legitimate for capital owners, or made legitimate through [re]investment or time immemorial, is selective reasoning and a false premise. Wealth and power are not mutually exclusive.

How people or proprietorship is defended is irrelevant. Calling systemic entitlements, defended by private security or public policing, righteous in comparison to impoverished peoples doing the same is, again, selective reasoning. What AnCap sees as defense against violent thieves, anarchism views as defense of thieves wielding violence.

If you want to learn about capitalism and the state you need to consider socialism / communism.

[–]mattmcneany 1 point2 points ago

That's fucking beautiful mate. Need to re-read it a few times now.

[–]JackalsNose 3 points4 points ago

I'm highly interested in this post because at times I consider myself an an-cap and associate with these people.

However as time goes on I've become more interested in the homesteading principle and don't believe people should have 'deeds' to buildings or land that they aren't using in their day to day life. If you use it, it is yours. This allows people to have their possessions but not their vacation houses that have to be locked up to prevent the locals from using them. It also doesn't allow one person to 'own' multiple factories since he can't be using all of them at once.

I'm not sure where this leaves me on the anarchist spectrum and I'm constantly trying to work it out. Transhumanist sounds cool though since I am an Engineer it interests me greatly. Anarcho-pacifism also sounds great.

[–]DogBotherer 0 points1 point ago

Sounds like you're gravitating towards mutualism, but you ought to spend some time reading Lockean (proviso) theories of property, plus critiques, mutualist theories of property plus critiques, etc.

[–]wbhyatt 0 points1 point ago

sounds more like mutualism and occupancy/use

[–]RebelWithoutASauce 2 points3 points ago

I would suggest, that all capitalism is crony capitalism. Anarchism is about creating an egalitarian society, capitalism (of any kind) creates society where there are those who have, and those who have not. And those who have have power over those who have not.

Unless you are going to have some kind of incorruptible overbearing economic authority that: 1. Does not allow inheritance. 2. Redistributes wealth when each person dies. 3. Sets a limit on how much wealth one person can have. 4. Strictly enforces equal value for equivalent labor.

Otherwise, I honestly do not understand how these "free" markets protect anyone, or do not just devolve into what we have now. Why does it matter if it is the government is giving corporation unfair advantages or if the wealthy just give those advantages to themselves with their wealth, power, and property? To be honest, I would actually prefer a little government regulation to some wild west free market.

Why? Because, be sure of it, without some government regulations that people fought and died for, the wealthy will union-bust. And they will union bust HARD.

[–]wbhyatt 1 point2 points ago

it's funny how the people who call themselves Anarchists have trouble understanding what Anarchism is.

[–]slapdash78 3 points4 points ago

It's less funny when you realize they've convinced themselves that non-aggression is synonymous with non-violence when in reality the violence is outsourced, or obfuscated, to yet another profiteering entity.

[–]thenoorys 1 point2 points ago

memmeziere do you support absentee ownership and landlordism? This is likely where I disagree with you. And, as an an-cap, what is it that you don't like about Mutualism?

[–]robertmd 1 point2 points ago

The biggest thing I think some people falsely think is that we want the whole world to be capitalist and everyone must participate in capitalism. That could not be further from the truth. In reality, we want people to do whatever the hell they want, so long as they are not initiating force against someone else. We just prefer to partake in capitalism because we think it will bring us the greatest happiness. We do not care if you want to get together and create a commune to live and work on. We do not care if you want to get a large group of workers together to start a company run by and for the workers. We do not care if you want to make resource for resource exchanges instead of using cash. The only people who participate in capitalism do so voluntarily, the only people who dedicate their lives to a god do so voluntarily, the only people who collectively get together and own the means of production do so voluntarily, etc. Capitalism is only oppressive when the state imposes it, communism is only oppressive when the state imposes it, religion is only oppressive when the state imposes it, etc.

A capitalism that doesn't trend toward a totality is a capitalism that fails. Capitalism cannot exist in isolation, nor sustain itself on its own terms. It has to spread, by any means, otherwise it uses up both its renewable and nonrenewable resources -- and it fails to profit. The dream of a stateless capitalist town living peacefully next to a commune of some sort ends when the workers in the capitalist town fatigue, or the trees are all milled, or the invisible hand cannot quickly enough swat away a disease. Then, we shall see how coexistent and live-and-let-live capitalism is.

A side note on property: It is human nature for people to claim territory as their own, just like most other large animals out there. For humans to accept that property should be mutually owned by everyone or that the concept of property does not exist, a fundamental change in human nature will need to take place. I am not saying this can’t happen, just that I don’t think it will happen anytime soon.

Talking about human nature... in 2012....

[–]SpicyCage 1 point2 points ago*

Notes worth mentioning:

  • Rothbard was pro-community-owned property (roads, workers' coops, etc.)

  • Anarcho-capitalism is anti-monopoly

  • Anarcho-capitalism is pro-union & pro-commune

  • Anarcho-capitalism is anti-absolute-property rights (see: Lockean proviso, Rothbard's advocacy of a "theory of justice" in property rights)

  • Anarcho-capitalism's support of privately-owned means of production is shared by individualist anarchism, even down to private protection firms (Tucker) and the private printing of money (Spooner)

The last one is actually very important. Without a state to define what "money" is, imagine the difficulty in trying to arrange for yourself a market-based monopoly when everyone else just gets together, forms their own currency, and starts doing business with your competitors?

r/@ may disagree with the tactics, but the spirit is the same:

Unilateral ownership of the means of production leads to severe inequality and misery, and the decentralization of capital is a requirement to establish anarchy.

EDIT - Also, two more notes:

  • Rand & Nozick were not anarcho-capitalists, despite what some self-proclaimed ancaps believe. And Friedman's "utilitarian" philosophy was highly contested by Rothbard on the grounds that it would ultimately lead to a coercive, authoritarian society.

  • I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I don't view that as an excuse to make mean-spirited statements based on, for example, the quotemining of Rothbard from An Anarchist FAQ. ಠ_ಠ

[–]slapdash78 0 points1 point ago

Maybe don't neglect that both Tucker and Spooner came to consider themselves socialists.

[–]SpicyCage 0 points1 point ago

Socialism meant something else in those days, too. :/

[–]slapdash78 2 points3 points ago

That meaning remains in anarchism. That is, worker(s) or community owned. Not state or absentee owned.

In other words, support for stakeholders not parasitic shareholders and their politico.

[–]SpicyCage 0 points1 point ago

That meaning...

Was different. It wasn't as cut-and-dry as worker/community-owned, particularly in regards to Tucker, his publications and the readers of said publications. And even in that regard, Tucker certainly didn't come to regard himself as a socialist, he started out that way. If anything, he came to regard himself as an Stirnerite contractarian. If you own something, that ownership must be demonstrated, unless you sign something saying you don't own it (such as an employment contract).

[–]wbhyatt 0 points1 point ago

Tucker used the same definition of socialism as Kropotkin and Bakunin used. Their applications and extensions of their beliefs from this definition, however, were different. Tucker and Spooner opposed wage labor and deemed it exploitative.

[–]SpicyCage 0 points1 point ago

Tucker actually approved of wage labor, but only if the workers were being paid the actual cost of their labor. Spooner believed that everyone should be his/her own employer, and that mutual banks would be established to help bring this about. They both believed in socialism (or in solving the inequality between employees & employers, and to eliminate the "usury" of profit as much as possible), but they weren't communists.

[–]wbhyatt 2 points3 points ago

Tucker actually approved of wage labor, but only if the workers were being paid the actual cost of their labor.

In this way, he hated capitalism because he was against the idea of profit. I agree, they were not communists, but they both believed that the worker should receive the full fruits of his/her labor.

[–]DogBotherer 0 points1 point ago

Dunno about that. But it certainly hadn't become a movement so dominated by State socialists.

[–]wbhyatt 0 points1 point ago

Anarchists today still use the same definition.

[–]DogBotherer 2 points3 points ago

Anarcho-capitalism is mixed towards unions at best. The genuine ones are pro freedom of association, but almost all feel picketing is somehow "violent" and breaches the NAP.

[–]SpicyCage 1 point2 points ago

I doubt, to a large extent, that is anything close to true.

[–]DogBotherer 1 point2 points ago

Just going on the posts and articles I've read...

[–]SpicyCage 1 point2 points ago

Well, to be fair, I have seen a lot of those people as well. Particularly from the Rand-worshipping cults Rand-inspired camps.

[–]boston1994 -1 points0 points ago

I don't support your view, but I also acknowledge that you'll continue to exist because not everyone will want to live in a system where they means of production are collectively owned, and I have no desire to force anyone to live within my preferred system.

[–]QueerCoup 0 points1 point ago

I'm having trouble finding the questions in all that rhetoric.