Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian

[LTKoblinsky]

LOL
I see the irony now. I hope everybody clicks your links Timelady, that was fun.

Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.

Striking or forcibly and violently taking over and destroying the capitalists' plants and equipment and attacking nonparticipating workers and security? refusing to work and destruction and violence are separate things.

[TimeLady Victorious]

LOL
I see the irony now. I hope everybody clicks your links Timelady, that was fun.

Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.

Striking or forcibly and violently taking over and destroying the capitalists' plants and equipment and attacking nonparticipating workers and security? refusing to work and destruction and violence are separate things.

Because it's okay for industrialists to do it, but not striking workers?

[TimeLady Victorious]

Its slightly less hysterical when I bought the bullets my opponent shoots me with.
Lincolns security forces, how did that work out?
Communist killed by police.
U.S. soldiers killing unionist.
I am supposed to be afraid of capitalists, why?

Because they were the tools of the capitalists in order to keep power.

[LTKoblinsky]

Its slightly less hysterical when I bought the bullets my opponent shoots me with.
Lincolns security forces, how did that work out?
Communist killed by police.
U.S. soldiers killing unionist.
I am supposed to be afraid of capitalists, why?

Because they were the tools of the capitalists in order to keep power.

You're laughable! No where did I say it was Okay for industrialists to shoot workers who refused to work. In  nearly every case you can use, unions refused to work; industrialists hired new workers; the unions struck out at the new workers and industrialists; industrialists hired private security or asked the government to protect their property. Whenever security managed to remove the unions' means of violence, the strikes fizzled and ended.  which part is immoral?

[TimeLady Victorious]

Its slightly less hysterical when I bought the bullets my opponent shoots me with.
Lincolns security forces, how did that work out?
Communist killed by police.
U.S. soldiers killing unionist.
I am supposed to be afraid of capitalists, why?

Because they were the tools of the capitalists in order to keep power.

You're laughable! No where did I say it was Okay for industrialists to shoot workers who refused to work. In  nearly every case you can use, unions refused to work; industrialists hired new workers; the unions struck out at the new workers and industrialists; industrialists hired private security or asked the government to protect their property. Whenever security managed to remove the unions' means of violence, the strikes fizzled and ended.  which part is immoral?

You implied that it was okay of them to do so.

Besides, it was usually the "security" guards that initiated the violence, not the other way around.

[shezmu]

I think you skipped my other point, did you agree with my other point?

[LTKoblinsky]

Its slightly less hysterical when I bought the bullets my opponent shoots me with.
Lincolns security forces, how did that work out?
Communist killed by police.
U.S. soldiers killing unionist.
I am supposed to be afraid of capitalists, why?

Because they were the tools of the capitalists in order to keep power.

You're laughable! No where did I say it was Okay for industrialists to shoot workers who refused to work. In  nearly every case you can use, unions refused to work; industrialists hired new workers; the unions struck out at the new workers and industrialists; industrialists hired private security or asked the government to protect their property. Whenever security managed to remove the unions' means of violence, the strikes fizzled and ended.  which part is immoral?

You implied that it was okay of them to do so.

Besides, it was usually the "security" guards that initiated the violence, not the other way around.

I can cite evidence from your links that this is not the case. Did you even read them?

[TimeLady Victorious]

Its slightly less hysterical when I bought the bullets my opponent shoots me with.
Lincolns security forces, how did that work out?
Communist killed by police.
U.S. soldiers killing unionist.
I am supposed to be afraid of capitalists, why?

Because they were the tools of the capitalists in order to keep power.

You're laughable! No where did I say it was Okay for industrialists to shoot workers who refused to work. In  nearly every case you can use, unions refused to work; industrialists hired new workers; the unions struck out at the new workers and industrialists; industrialists hired private security or asked the government to protect their property. Whenever security managed to remove the unions' means of violence, the strikes fizzled and ended.  which part is immoral?

You implied that it was okay of them to do so.

Besides, it was usually the "security" guards that initiated the violence, not the other way around.

I can cite evidence from your links that this is not the case. Did you even read them?

OK, like what?

FYI, just striking and protesting is not violence.

[LTKoblinsky]

Pullman:

On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful gathering to obtain support for the strike from fellow railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois. Afterward groups within the crowd became enraged and set fire to nearby buildings and derailed a locomotive. Elsewhere in the United States, sympathy strikers prevented transportation of goods by walking off the job, obstructing railroad tracks or threatening and attacking strikebreakers. This increased national attention and fueled the demand for federal action.[5]

Homestead:

Strikers on the steam launch fired a few random shots at the barges, then withdrew

The Pinkerton agents attempted to disembark, and shots were fired. Conflicting testimony exists as to which side fired the first shot. According to at least one eyewitness, the unionists shot first. John T. McCurry, a boatman on the steamboat Little Bill (which had been hired by the Pinkerton Detective Agency to ferry its agents to the steel mill) and one of the men wounded by the strikers, said: "The armed Pinkerton men commenced to climb up the banks. Then the workmen opened fire on the detectives. The men shot first, and not until three of the Pinkerton men had fallen did they respond to the fire. I am willing to take an oath that the workmen fired first, and that the Pinkerton men did not shoot until some of their number had been wounded.

and just for kicks:

the Amalgamated was a hindrance to efficiency; furthermore it was not representative of the workers it admitted only a small group of skilled workers. It was in its own way an elitist, discriminatory organization
Carnegie

[TimeLady Victorious]

I notice you didn't touch the Ford Hunger March.

March 7 was a bitterly cold day in Detroit, and a crowd estimated at between 3,000 and 5,000 gathered near the Dearborn city limits, about a mile from the Ford plant. The Detroit Times called it "one of the coldest days of the winter, with a frigid gale whooping out of the northwest". Marchers carried banners reading "Give Us Work, "We Want Bread Not Crumbs", and "Tax the Rich and Feed the Poor". Communist leader Albert Goetz gave a speech, asking that the marchers avoid violence. The march proceeded peacefully along the streets of Detroit until it reached the Dearborn city limits. There, the Dearborn police attempted to stop the march by firing tear gas into the crowd, and began hitting marchers with clubs. One officer fired a gun at the marchers. The crowd scattered into a field covered with stones, and then began throwing stones at the police. The angry marchers regrouped and advanced nearly a mile toward the plant. There, two fire engines began spraying cold water onto the marchers from an overpass. The police were joined by Ford security guards, and began shooting into the crowd. Joe York, Coleman Leny and Joe DeBlasio were killed, and at least 22 others were wounded by gunfire.

The leaders decided to call off the march at that point, and began an orderly retreat. Harry Bennett, head of Ford security, drove up in a car, opened a window, and fired a pistol into the crowd. Immediately, the car was pelted with rocks, and Bennett was injured. He then got out of the car, and continued firing at the retreating marchers. Dearborn police and Ford security men then opened fire on the retreating marchers with machine guns. Joe Bussel, 16 years old, was killed, and dozens more were wounded. Bennett was hospitalized.[5]

According to Maurice Sugar, attorney for their families, all four of those killed on March 7 were members of the Young Communist League, USA.[6]

About 25 Dearborn police officers were injured by thrown rocks and other debris, however, none were hit by gunfire.[7]

For Pullman:

On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful gathering to obtain support for the strike from fellow railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois. Afterward groups within the crowd became enraged and set fire to nearby buildings and derailed a locomotive. Elsewhere in the United States, sympathy strikers prevented transportation of goods by walking off the job, obstructing railroad tracks or threatening and attacking strikebreakers. This increased national attention and fueled the demand for federal action.[5]

It wouldn't surprise me if the railroad itself did it to their locomotive. Secondly, the Pullman company also had US mail cars attached to their cars, directly in order to get the Feds involved.

the Amalgamated was a hindrance to efficiency; furthermore it was not representative of the workers it admitted only a small group of skilled workers. It was in its own way an elitist, discriminatory organization

Yes, of course Andrew Carnegie would be against unions.

[LTKoblinsky]

You remain laughable. Of course I didn't mention the hunger march. It was a legitimate case of overuse of force. Never mind the fact that the protesters planned to march on and occupy someone else's property. Asserting that Pullman's destroyed their own property or had a conspiracy without any supporting evidence isn't support of your assertion that capitalism is bad. Finally, your assertion that Carnegie hated unions in general is contrary to fact.  My claim was that he hated this particular union.

[TimeLady Victorious]

You remain laughable. Of course I didn't mention the hunger march. It was a legitimate case of overuse of force. Never mind the fact that the protesters planned to march on and occupy someone else's property. Asserting that Pullman's destroyed their own property or had a conspiracy without any supporting evidence isn't support of your assertion that capitalism is bad. Finally, your assertion that Carnegie hated unions in general is contrary to fact.  My claim was that he hated this particular union.

OK.

Let's say I have a big corporation and I can afford to have a large "private security force." Let's say you're occupying a tract of land that I want. What's stopping me from killing you with my superior firepower and taking your land? I have every reason to believe that that could happen in an anarcho-capitalist society.

And, for the sake of argument, let's say that I think it'd be more profitable to initiate violence against you and take your land then conduct any kind of peaceful settlement with you. What is stopping me from doing it in an anarcho-capitalist society?

[Diogenes The Cynic]

You remain laughable. Of course I didn't mention the hunger march. It was a legitimate case of overuse of force. Never mind the fact that the protesters planned to march on and occupy someone else's property. Asserting that Pullman's destroyed their own property or had a conspiracy without any supporting evidence isn't support of your assertion that capitalism is bad. Finally, your assertion that Carnegie hated unions in general is contrary to fact.  My claim was that he hated this particular union.

OK.

Let's say I have a big corporation and I can afford to have a large "private security force." Let's say you're occupying a tract of land that I want. What's stopping me from killing you with my superior firepower and taking your land? I have every reason to believe that that could happen in an anarcho-capitalist society.

And, for the sake of argument, let's say that I think it'd be more profitable to initiate violence against you and take your land then conduct any kind of peaceful settlement with you. What is stopping me from doing it in an anarcho-capitalist society?

Hurp durp, that's not how I envision it!

[TimeLady Victorious]

You remain laughable. Of course I didn't mention the hunger march. It was a legitimate case of overuse of force. Never mind the fact that the protesters planned to march on and occupy someone else's property. Asserting that Pullman's destroyed their own property or had a conspiracy without any supporting evidence isn't support of your assertion that capitalism is bad. Finally, your assertion that Carnegie hated unions in general is contrary to fact.  My claim was that he hated this particular union.

OK.

Let's say I have a big corporation and I can afford to have a large "private security force." Let's say you're occupying a tract of land that I want. What's stopping me from killing you with my superior firepower and taking your land? I have every reason to believe that that could happen in an anarcho-capitalist society.

And, for the sake of argument, let's say that I think it'd be more profitable to initiate violence against you and take your land then conduct any kind of peaceful settlement with you. What is stopping me from doing it in an anarcho-capitalist society?

Hurp durp, that's not how I envision it!

Surprisingly, I've never been able to get a good answer to this question.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

OK.

Let's say I have a big corporation and I can afford to have a large "private security force." Let's say you're occupying a tract of land that I want. What's stopping me from killing you with my superior firepower and taking your land? I have every reason to believe that that could happen in an anarcho-capitalist society.

And, for the sake of argument, let's say that I think it'd be more profitable to initiate violence against you and take your land then conduct any kind of peaceful settlement with you. What is stopping me from doing it in an anarcho-capitalist society?

Hurp durp, that's not how I envision it!

Surprisingly, I've never been able to get a good answer to this question.

Its sacrilegious for you to think it!