NationStates Jolt Archive

Ha! Elitism!They should do the research, shouldn't they?Ha! Hypocrite.

I have. Why don't you address the definition of capital that Mises provided, and is/was agreed upon by Hoppe and Rothbard, who are and were anarchists, respectively.And why are they anarchists? Because they proclaim themselves such. Have you not seen my reply to you or can you just not answer it?

The capitalists are contradicting themselves. First they say that someone should not live off of the fruits of someone else's labor. Then they say that a person should be able to hire a person for a wage, and then keep the rest, which is by definition living off of the fruits of someone else's labor.

When I said that all property had been stolen at some point, here's an example: The settlers came over from Europe from America. There were already people living here. They killed off those people and took their land. Anyone who benefitted from that benefitted from theft. If anything, you should have to prove that the property you have WASN'T stolen from anyone, rather than someone else proving that it was.

Also, BAAWA mentioned that the body has its autonomic functions, then asked if they were authoritarian. (Let me know if I misunderstood this, please.) My answer: yes, they are. A person who has absolutely no food and absolutely no shoes is, for the reasons of the body's autonomic functions, going to need food more than they will need shoes.

Furthermore, Libertovania stated that if a person gives up property of their own free will, then they should have a right to do so. I agree. But giving up the item that you made in a factory to your employer in exchange for a paycheck is of no more free will than the slave who does what his master tells him in exchange for not getting beaten.

Troll:
According to Discordiac, a troll is anyone who disagrees with Discordiac.

Whining little brat. Grow up.

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Ha! Elitism!
They should do the research, shouldn't they?
Ha! Hypocrite.
Not in the least.


I have. Why don't you address the definition of capital that Mises provided, and is/was agreed upon by Hoppe and Rothbard, who are and were anarchists, respectively.
And why are they anarchists?
Because they don't believe that there should be a government/the government is philosophically unjustified, which is the SOLE requirement, as it were, to be an anarchist.

Anything else that anyone else wants to attach to "anarchy" or "anarchist" is just something that shouldn't be there. It's like when people try to say being an atheist means you must be a communist. Same damned thing.

(Also, I happened to have met Professor Hoppe, so I'm quite certain on his views. I can, of course, provide evidence that I have met him.)

The capitalists are contradicting themselves. First they say that someone should not live off of the fruits of someone else's labor.
They shouldn't when it is not earned.

Then they say that a person should be able to hire a person for a wage, and then keep the rest, which is by definition living off of the fruits of someone else's labor.
It's not unearned. Nor is it living off the fruits of someone else's labor in tot, since someone had to provide the job in the first place.

When I said that all property had been stolen at some point, here's an example: The settlers came over from Europe from America. There were already people living here. They killed off those people and took their land. Anyone who benefitted from that benefitted from theft. If anything, you should have to prove that the property you have WASN'T stolen from anyone, rather than someone else proving that it was.
No,

Also, BAAWA mentioned that the body has its autonomic functions, then asked if they were authoritarian. (Let me know if I misunderstood this, please.) My answer: yes, they are. A person who has absolutely no food and absolutely no shoes is, for the reasons of the body's autonomic functions, going to need food more than they will need shoes.
Thank you. Letila must now commit suicide, since anything authoritarian is anethema to Letila.

Furthermore, Libertovania stated that if a person gives up property of their own free will, then they should have a right to do so. I agree. But giving up the item that you made in a factory to your employer in exchange for a paycheck is of no more free will than the slave who does what his master tells him in exchange for not getting beaten.
False. You have a contract with the employer. A slave has no such contract.

Troll:
According to Discordiac, a troll is anyone who disagrees with Discordiac.

Whining little brat. Grow up.

Troll:
According to Discordiac, a troll is anyone who disagrees with Discordiac.

Whining little brat. Grow up.

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Troll:
According to Discordiac, a troll is anyone who disagrees with Discordiac.

Whining little brat. Grow up.

It's not unearned. Nor is it living off the fruits of someone else's labor in tot, since someone had to provide the job in the first place.

When you compare the amount of effort needed to allow someone to have a job compared to the effort needed to work the job, you find that the capitalist is getting paid a lot more for a lot less effort.

Troll:
According to Discordiac, a troll is anyone who disagrees with Discordiac.

Whining little brat. Grow up.

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Vas

When you compare the amount of effort needed to allow someone to have a job compared to the effort needed to work the job, you find that the capitalist is getting paid a lot more for a lot less effort.

I think what you really mean is " :upyours: "

Vas.

This debate is getting sidetracked. Nobody has yet given me a reason why I can't own my tractor/field/etc if I amn't using it. Praying to Proudhon won't help. I've given several reasons why it is moral/necessary. I consider myself to have won this debate until you adress this point to my satisfaction.

As for your definition of coercion I have pointed out how it is either contradictory or leads to stupid remarks like "threatening to leave your wife is coercion". You haven't adressed this well either.

Then it is warped and useless.

The technical term is "French".

They shouldn't when it is not earned.


It's not unearned. Nor is it living off the fruits of someone else's labor in tot, since someone had to provide the job in the first place.


No,


Thank you. Letila must now commit suicide, since anything authoritarian is anethema to Letila.


False. You have a contract with the employer. A slave has no such contract.

I suppose we all have a different definition of what it means to earn something. However, simply being able to provide a job doesn't work, as the slavemasters naturally first had to have their cotton fields (or whatever) for the slaves to work in.
Most of the time people don't have written contracts with their employers, but rather verbal ones: "I'll work for you if you pay me X amount of dollars so I can buy food and not starve to death." The same can be applied to the slaves: "I'll work for you if you don't beat me to death."

If the human body is property, who owns a child?

Do you feel that it is acceptable to benefit from the stealing of someone else? (For instance, if someone steals something and gives it to you (You have no plan worked out beforehand) should you be able to keep it?)

You can argue that rape being illegal reduces freedom as it means someone can't have sex with whoever they want. And that's true. However, rape being legalized means that it's also legal for you to be raped. Very few people, if any, would be willing to be raped in exchange for being able to rape others.

As an anarcho-capitalist, do you advocate direct democracy as a method for dealing with problems?

Obviously I have reasons for asking those questions, but I want to wait to hear an answer to them before I proceed.

This debate is getting sidetracked. Nobody has yet given me a reason why I can't own my tractor/field/etc if I amn't using it. Praying to Proudhon won't help. I've given several reasons why it is moral/necessary. I consider myself to have won this debate until you adress this point to my satisfaction.

"Use" doesn't mean you have to be sitting on your tractor actually using it. I've made this point over and over and over again. The issue is when you charge someone else for its use. OK? I don't accept your definition of necessary, because that's simply necessary in one system and would not be necessary in a system that specifically rejects it. As for moral, you can stick your metaphysical bullshit up your arse.

The issue of using land that's not being used isn't one of circling like a hawk around a farmer's land until he leaves the field and then taking it saying "It's mine now", it's about the taking control of the land in the possession of individuals when it's not their property. It's exactly what the MST are doing in Brazil - http://www.mstbrazil.org/ - ownership based on use and possession, not by title, exploitation and coercion. It's what happened in Ireland in 1932 http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/history/19321945.html.

As for your definition of coercion I have pointed out how it is either contradictory or leads to stupid remarks like "threatening to leave your wife is coercion". You haven't adressed this well either.

You haven't actually bother to read what I've said, so I don't really know why I bother, but, once again:

Coercion is the use of a threat to a person's well-being to make them do something they don't want to do. Threatening to leave your wife CAN be coercive if there are economic consequences backing it up. Threatening someone with being fired is almost always coercive, because it threatens them with economic consequences to force them to do something they don't want to do. There are times when it's completely justified - "stop sexually harassing your colleagues or you'll be fired" - other times it's exploitative - "work Saturday or you'll be fired", "join a union and you'll be fired", etc.

It's quite fucking simple. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your view is that it's totally justified to threaten someone with being fired if you're the boss, right? That means you support coercion. That's fine, you're entitled to your view, but that, quite clearly, means you're not an anarchist. OK?

Vas.

The technical term is "French".

Nice to see some racism coming into this, you're pigheaded American ideas weren't complete without it.

Vas.

It's not unearned. Nor is it living off the fruits of someone else's labor in tot, since someone had to provide the job in the first place.
When you compare the amount of effort needed to allow someone to have a job compared to the effort needed to work the job, you find that the capitalist is getting paid a lot more for a lot less effort.
No, you don't. And here again is a PRIME example of you thinking that effort only means in a physical sense.

They shouldn't when it is not earned.

It's not unearned. Nor is it living off the fruits of someone else's labor in tot, since someone had to provide the job in the first place.

No,

Thank you. Letila must now commit suicide, since anything authoritarian is anethema to Letila.

False. You have a contract with the employer. A slave has no such contract.
I suppose we all have a different definition of what it means to earn something. However, simply being able to provide a job doesn't work,
Point?

as the slavemasters naturally first had to have their cotton fields (or whatever) for the slaves to work in.
So?

Most of the time people don't have written contracts with their employers, but rather verbal ones: "I'll work for you if you pay me X amount of dollars so I can buy food and not starve to death."
And the employer has workers so that s/he can buy food and not starve to death. What--you think every employer is independently wealthy in the first place? You've got a lot of learning to do it you think that.

If the human body is property, who owns a child?
The child owns his or her body, and the parents are the guardians.

Do you feel that it is acceptable to benefit from the stealing of someone else?
No, which is why redistributive schemes are immoral, as well as taxation.

You can argue that rape being illegal reduces freedom as it means someone can't have sex with whoever they want.
Rape impinges upon liberty.

As an anarcho-capitalist, do you advocate direct democracy as a method for dealing with problems?
As far as?

Troll:
According to Discordiac, a troll is anyone who disagrees with Discordiac.

Whining little brat. Grow up.

Point?


So?


And the employer has workers so that s/he can buy food and not starve to death. What--you think every employer is independently wealthy in the first place? You've got a lot of learning to do it you think that.


The child owns his or her body, and the parents are the guardians.


No, which is why redistributive schemes are immoral, as well as taxation.


Rape impinges upon liberty.


As far as?

The point that I was making is that simply providing a job does not permit you to profit from the work of an employee, if so, then simply having a cotton field would permit a slaveowner to have slaves.
Many employers are independently wealthy, of course most aren't. But that isn't the point. Due to the fact that there are more employers than employees, employees will always be more expendable.
Okay, if a child owns his/her own body, is it then acceptable to give the child candy or money in exchange for sex? (And maybe in addition give the parents money.)
Okay, if it's not acceptable to profit from the theft of someone else, then how can you support the current system? (See my above post about the Native Americans being killed off and their land taken.)
I asked about direct democracy insofar as dealing with whatever issues might come up within your society. Someone not respecting another's property rights, for instance.

Troll:
According to Discordiac, a troll is anyone who disagrees with Discordiac.

Whining little brat. Grow up.

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Vas.

Nice to see some racism coming into this, you're pigheaded American ideas weren't complete without it.

So I'm a racist pigheaded American? The word hypocracy springs to mind. Anyway, I'm from Scotland. I was attacking French style intellectual confusion mongering, not the French people.

So I'm a racist pigheaded American? I concur. That was a silly assumption. You're not American. The word hypocracy springs to mind. Anyway, I'm from Scotland. I was attacking French style intellectual confusion mongering, not the French people.Then it is warped and useless.
The technical term is "French".
French:

adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of France or its people or culture.
Of or relating to the French language.

n.
The Romance language of France, parts of Switzerland and Belgium, and other countries formerly under French influence or control.
(used with a pl. verb) The people of France.
Slang. Coarse or vulgar language: Pardon my French.

How precisely did your post not attack the French? You'd think you'd learn about lying about what you've said after last time.

"Use" doesn't mean you have to be sitting on your tractor actually using it. I've made this point over and over and over again. The issue is when you charge someone else for its use. OK? I don't accept your definition of necessary, because that's simply necessary in one system and would not be necessary in a system that specifically rejects it. As for moral, you can stick your metaphysical bullshit up your arse.

The issue of using land that's not being used isn't one of circling like a hawk around a farmer's land until he leaves the field and then taking it saying "It's mine now", it's about the taking control of the land in the possession of individuals when it's not their property. It's exactly what the MST are doing in Brazil - http://www.mstbrazil.org/ - ownership based on use and possession, not by title, exploitation and coercion. It's what happened in Ireland in 1932 http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/history/19321945.html.

You still haven't adressed this point to my satisfaction. BAAWA has pointed out the flaws in your position and until you either refute him or change your mind I can't respect you intellectually.

You haven't actually bother to read what I've said, so I don't really know why I bother, but, once again:

Coercion is the use of a threat to a person's well-being to make them do something they don't want to do. Threatening to leave your wife CAN be coercive if there are economic consequences backing it up. Threatening someone with being fired is almost always coercive, because it threatens them with economic consequences to force them to do something they don't want to do. There are times when it's completely justified - "stop sexually harassing your colleagues or you'll be fired" - other times it's exploitative - "work Saturday or you'll be fired", "join a union and you'll be fired", etc.

It's quite fucking simple. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your view is that it's totally justified to threaten someone with being fired if you're the boss, right? That means you support coercion. That's fine, you're entitled to your view, but that, quite clearly, means you're not an anarchist. OK?

Your definition of coercion is still inadequate and leads to ridiculous conclusions. Until you adress the concerns I've raised properly I can't respect you intellectually.

For instance, you look at being fired as taking something away from someone. It isn't. It's simply ceasing to give them things. If I give you £100 per week for a year and then stop giving you it I haven't coerced you. If I give you £100 per week for tending my garden and then decide I don't want you to tend my garden anymore so I stop giving you the money that is not coercion. If I insist that you do actually tend the garden if you want the money then that is not coercion. "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your's" is not coercing someone into scratching your back.

To claim that having to work in order to eat is coercive is silly and childish. If that is the Ansoc ltd position then it is devoid of common sense.

Of, relating to, or characteristic of France or its people or culture.
Of or relating to the French language.

How precisely did your post not attack the French? You'd think you'd learn about lying about what you've said after last time.
I don't like French culture. That doesn't make me racist as I don't like English people with French culture while I have no beef with French people with English culture. Not liking kebabs doesn't make me anti-Arab. Go shove your political correctness up your disabled French ass.

I haven't lied about anything.

I don't like French culture. I was attacking French style intellectual confusion mongering, not the French people

I never said that

I would take Locke and the Levellers (not the folk-punk group) as the originators of classical liberalism
I haven't lied about anything.
LOL

I said classic liberalism was ORIGINATED BY levellers, Locke etc. As in "has origins in" or "grew out of".
clear?

You still haven't adressed this point to my satisfaction. BAAWA has pointed out the flaws in your position and until you either refute him or change your mind I can't respect you intellectually.

Your definition of coercion is still inadequate and leads to ridiculous conclusions. Until you adress the concerns I've raised properly I can't respect you intellectually.

That's fine by me, you can leave now. Your feelings of inadequacy are not my problem and your lack of comprehension abilities (most clearly shown by your adherence to an Austrian linguistic trick) means I never had any respect for you to begin with. As you have a fundamental inability to comprehend the basic concepts of anarchism, the fact that you attempted to debate in "The anarchist thread" proves your blatant stupidity. I'm not here to teach you anything, I'm not a teacher, so either learn about the terms of the debate or leave. Anyone who claims to be able to critique anarchism without a basic understanding of post-Proudhon property theory (which, by the way, is generally regarded as falling into the libertarian rather than communist thread of anarchism) or fundamental theories on workplace coercion proves themselves to be, basically, a moron.

Vas.

Vas.

For instance, you look at being fired as taking something away from someone. It isn't. It's simply ceasing to give them things. If I give you £100 per week for a year and then stop giving you it I haven't coerced you. If I give you £100 per week for tending my garden and then decide I don't want you to tend my garden anymore so I stop giving you the money that is not coercion. If I insist that you do actually tend the garden if you want the money then that is not coercion. "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your's" is not coercing someone into scratching your back.

To claim that having to work in order to eat is coercive is silly and childish. If that is the Ansoc ltd position then it is devoid of common sense.
You have no sensible reply to this. This is a failing in your philosophy. This is an irrefutable argument.

To move away from the ignorant oxymorons, how about a discussion between anarchists, as this is our thread.

Comrades, what are your views on primitivism? Personally, I find it bizarre and largely incompatible with anarchism as the implications of the idea involve the deaths of somewhere around 4.5 billion people.

I am of the theory that technology should be turned to uses that truly benefit mankind, as decided by the people and not a scientific elite, but to countenance getting rid of technology and "returning" to a primitive state (an impossibility for most primitivists who have never previously experienced it) is the worst kind of romanticism.

Vas.

I'm confused....if calling French ideas "warped and useless" is racist....then isn't it also racist to call American ideas "pigheaded"?
(and it is a legitimate question- although you didn't say all American ideas were pigheaded, you could've insulted just Libertovania, and not all of the country you assumed him to be from)

To move away from the ignorant oxymorons, how about a discussion between anarchists, as this is our thread.
Well since you didn't call it "the communist anarchist thread" it seems to me that all types of anarchists have a right to debate and otherwise discuss anarchist principles here.
So I'm going to post this reply (even though I'm not even technically any kind of anarchist)

It appears that most of you (communist and capitalist alike) are simply to ignorant to see that you all want the same thing! (with the exception of a few I'm sure) You're arguing over whether anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism would be better, but it occurs to me, that a truly anarchist society wouldn't really be either. I'm sure if a group of workers wanted to own their own factory, set their own wages, look out for their own work safety- the other members of the anarcho-capitalist society would not come banging on their door- insisting that someone else take over their shop (well they might try, but I don't think anyone here would participate in a group that is trying to coerce them physically into changing the way they run their business) Similarly, I'd hope if one man opened a shop in an anarcho-communist society and gave people the option of working for him (where of course, if the working conditions were poor they could always leave and return to owning their own business) that the anarcho-communists wouldn't force him out of town either.
Basically, what it comes down to, is to imagine two villages side by side...One is anarcho-communist and the other anarcho-capitalist. We can't really argue over which is "better" since the only way to judge this is by observing how the people act. The anarcho-capitalists believe that all of the people from the other village will come to theirs so they can be rewarded for their labor. The anarcho-communists believe that all of the people from the other village will come to theirs because they will be sure their needs are fulfilled.
Actually, I believe that all the competent people will come to the capitalist village because they can have more because they don't have to give everything away to be divided equally amongst the villagers, while the incompetent people will go to the communist village because they think they will get whatever they want without doing any work. (but this is what we should be debating- rather than trying to choose what is "right" for the people and then forcing it on them)

I agree. Communes can exist and nobody will disturb them. In fact, our general respect for property rights means they have less to fear from us than anyone. I'm just worried they'll try to steal our stuff. Also, I don't want to overthrow the state only to have to fight a civil war if they try to "liberate" the factories.

What part should religion play in politics? Or are they completely incompatible?

Non-conformist Christianity is at the root of anarchism, Proudhon was a Christian, as was Tolstoy, while Christian anarchism continues within the Catholic Workers and others.

Discordianism/Erisianism could be seen as an attempt to create an anarchist religion, or is it just a joke, or is it a religion disguised as a joke disguised as a religion? And beyond that, many elements of neopaganism have strongly individualist anarchist tendencies.

Was Emma Goldman right to say that Nietzsche was an anarchist and, if so, is God dead?

Personally, my view is that religious ideas are simply dressing humans automatically place on ideas they can't quite explain. Religion is a language to express that which we cannot express any other way. Use of this language feeds our imaginations and allows us to think beyond the mundane.

However, once people start to believe in the literal fact of the metaphors, that's when it all goes wrong. As a result, Discordianism/Erisianism is the perfect religion, one nobody can take seriously.

Vas.

clear?Not what it actually means.

Originates:

To bring into being; create: originated the practice of monthly reports.

I accept that you might of been ignorant rather then deliberately lying if it helps. You still haven't shown how neo-liberal economic theory grew out of the Levellers.

I'm confused....if calling French ideas "warped and useless" is racist....then isn't it also racist to call American ideas "pigheaded"?
(and it is a legitimate question- although you didn't say all American ideas were pigheaded, you could've insulted just Libertovania, and not all of the country you assumed him to be from)

There is a particular pigheaded American idea called "anarcho-capitalism", to which I was referring - an Austrian linguistic trick turned into an ideology by people who don't seem to like the term laissez faire capitalists (probably cos of the French).

Vas.

I'm confused....if calling French ideas "warped and useless" is racist....then isn't it also racist to call American ideas "pigheaded"?
(and it is a legitimate question- although you didn't say all American ideas were pigheaded, you could've insulted just Libertovania, and not all of the country you assumed him to be from)That's a reasonable point. (Although Dischordia specifically attacked American ideas whereas Libertovania said that the technical term for "warped and useless" was French. And also attacked French culture. I agree Dischordia's words were ill-chosen but I don't think he's the worst offender). Technically I'd say both of their comments were xenophobic rather then racist.

That's a reasonable point. (Although Dischordia specifically attacked American ideas whereas Libertovania said that the technical term for "warped and useless" was French. And also attacked French culture. I agree Dischordia's words were ill-chosen but I don't think he's the worst offender). Technically I'd say both of their comments were xenophobic rather then racist.

As pointed out above, I was referring to specific ideas I regard as American - anarcho-capitalism.

Vas.

As pointed out above, I was referring to specific ideas I regard as American - anarcho-capitalism.
But I don't think that was any clearer in your original post. As I said, I think your words were ill-chosen.

What I find amusing is a bunch of anarchists getting together to discuss their ideas. Social order doesn't seem to be part of the definition. Just by trying to find a common ground or cohesive purpose makes the anarchist self-defeating.

I tend to see anarchism in the following riddle:

You're going down a river in a four-door canoe, so how many pancakes does it take to fill a pancake house?

Yellow, because snakes have no armpits.

But I don't think that was any clearer in your original post. As I said, I think your words were ill-chosen.
The thought police have spoken. Accept the verdict and move on.

The thought police have spoken. Accept the verdict and move on.Or just pretend you said something different. That's what Libby does.

But I don't think that was any clearer in your original post. As I said, I think your words were ill-chosen.

You're right, I used "you're" instead of "your", quelle horreur! And me a subeditor!

Vas.

For instance, you look at being fired as taking something away from someone. It isn't. It's simply ceasing to give them things. If I give you £100 per week for a year and then stop giving you it I haven't coerced you. If I give you £100 per week for tending my garden and then decide I don't want you to tend my garden anymore so I stop giving you the money that is not coercion. If I insist that you do actually tend the garden if you want the money then that is not coercion. "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your's" is not coercing someone into scratching your back.

To claim that having to work in order to eat is coercive is silly and childish. If that is the Ansoc ltd position then it is devoid of common sense.
Do you need more time to think about this?

What I find amusing is a bunch of anarchists getting together to discuss their ideas. Social order doesn't seem to be part of the definition.

Really? Which definition would that be? The one written on the insides of your eyelids that keeps you awake when you go to bed? Or the ones that anyone who knows anything about anarchism understands?

"... anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals."

From section A.1 of the Anarchist FAQ - http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html

Do you find it amusing that a bunch of Christians get together and pray? Or that a bunch of football players get together in teams? Or any other form of normal and contained within the definition organisation of people?

Vas.

Do you need more time to think about this?

Having to work ***FOR SOMEONE ELSE*** to eat is coercive.

Vas.

Having to work ***FOR SOMEONE ELSE*** to eat is coercive.
Providing yourself with food is your own problem. It isn't my responsibility. If I'm going to provide you with food then it is not coercive to expect something in return. It is simple voluntary trade.
"You scratch my back and I'll scratch your's" is not coercing someone into scratching your back.
Address this.

Providing yourself with food is your own problem. It isn't my responsibility. If I'm going to provide you with food then it is not coercive to expect something in return. It is simple voluntary trade.

Address this.

I have already, you really aren't paying attention. In an extreme situation, whereby the choice is "work for me or you starve", then it is coercive. Thanks to social developments and the greater mobility in word, this rarely happens in the West. However, it does still happen in parts of the world - one employer or starvation. It is NOT voluntary if it's a choice between that or death, which is no choice at all. If people are free to change jobs, with other jobs available to them and a welfare safety net, then it's not particularly coercive. However, your aim to disestablish the state while retaining capitalism would remove this safety net, thus "anarcho-capitalism" means a return to feudalistic "work for me or you starve" and is thus more coercive than what we have now.

How do you kill a man? You can stab him with a knife, you can hit him on the head with a hammer, or you can take all the food and leave him to starve.

How do you coerce a man? You threaten to stab him with a knife, you threaten to hit him on the head with a hammer or you threaten to deny him access to food.

It doesn't matter what the threat is, if you use threaten the well-being of a person to make them do what you want, then it's coercion.

Vas.

So what is a voluntary choice? Is Robinson Crusoe "involuntarily" collecting coconuts, after all its do this or STARVE TO DEATH? Just because there are no better alternatives does not mean you were coerced into a decision. After all, everybody does what they think is the best alternative in every situation. Thus, by your analysis, there is no such thing as a voluntary decision.

You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours isn't coercion. This is what you aren't adressing.

If the farmer grows all the food then it is all his and if you want some you have to scratch his back. You can either do everything for yourself or you can cooperate with others on mutually acceptable terms. There is no other option which preserves freedom.

To single out "economic coercion" for particular attention doesn't make sense. Every interaction can be analysed in economic terms. Bartering of back scratching services, for instance. Or shelf erecting service in as condition for continuation of romantic ties.

I have already, you really aren't paying attention. In an extreme situation, whereby the choice is "work for me or you starve", then it is coercive. Thanks to social developments and the greater mobility in word, this rarely happens in the West. However, it does still happen in parts of the world - one employer or starvation. It is NOT voluntary if it's a choice between that or death, which is no choice at all.
You have a choice to breathe or not, which is the choice between life and death. No choice at all, is it?

If people are free to change jobs, with other jobs available to them and a welfare safety net, then it's not particularly coercive. However, your aim to disestablish the state while retaining capitalism would remove this safety net, thus "anarcho-capitalism" means a return to feudalistic "work for me or you starve"
No, it doesn't.

How do you kill a man? You can stab him with a knife, you can hit him on the head with a hammer, or you can take all the food and leave him to starve.

How do you coerce a man? You threaten to stab him with a knife, you threaten to hit him on the head with a hammer or you threaten to deny him access to food.
Much like communism, right? "He who does not work shall not eat"

To move away from the ignorant oxymorons, how about a discussion between anarchists, as this is our thread.

Comrades, what are your views on primitivism? Personally, I find it bizarre and largely incompatible with anarchism as the implications of the idea involve the deaths of somewhere around 4.5 billion people.
Coincidentally, moves to any flavor of communism involve a lot of deaths...

But I digress.

The people who wish for a return to the primitive are more than welcome to go there and do that for themselves. Of course, most of the people so advocating would last just about half an hour in such a state before they realize just what a stupid decision they made, and would run back to their cell phones, frappacinos and SUVs.

So what is a voluntary choice? Is Robinson Crusoe "involuntarily" collecting coconuts, after all its do this or STARVE TO DEATH? Just because there are no better alternatives does not mean you were coerced into a decision. After all, everybody does what they think is the best alternative in every situation. Thus, by your analysis, there is no such thing as a voluntary decision.

This is ridiculous and you know it.

You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours isn't coercion. This is what you aren't adressing.

If the farmer grows all the food then it is all his and if you want some you have to scratch his back. You can either do everything for yourself or you can cooperate with others on mutually acceptable terms. There is no other option which preserves freedom.

You have your head up your arse sometimes. How many more times have I, and others, to say that this ISN'T the fucking issue. If the farmer, himself, does all the work on his land, he can eat, cook and screw himself with his vegetables for all I care. If, however, he, being rich enough to have bought all the land, hires workers to till the land, more workers to plant the seeds and more workers to harvest - and these workers have no choice but to work for him because he owns all the land - that is NOT voluntary, it's coercive. He controls all the food, he forces others to do his bidding by denying them access to the food other than by doing his bidding, WHILE HIS ONLY CLAIM TO THE FOOD IS THAT HE OWNS THE LAND, NOT THAT HE'S DONE ANY WORK.

To single out "economic coercion" for particular attention doesn't make sense. Every interaction can be analysed in economic terms. Bartering of back scratching services, for instance. Or shelf erecting service in as condition for continuation of romantic ties.

There is a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, offering a reward for an activity (nooky for shelves), compared to a threat to wellbeing for not doing something (whipping for lying). The former is persuasion, the latter is coercion. Denying someone the things necessary for life is coercion.

Vas.

Really? Which definition would that be?

Ummm ... the one in the dictionary.

Anarchy:
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Anarchism:
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority.

Must be nice being able to go through life and make up your own definition of words to fit your agenda.

Do you find it amusing that a bunch of Christians get together and pray?

Yes ... because of Matthew 6:6.

Or that a bunch of football players get together in teams?

No ... because it's difficult to play football by yourself.

[/QUOTE]Or any other form of normal and contained within the definition organisation of people? [/QUOTE]

Only when the definition contains "Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

Ummm ... the one in the dictionary.

Anarchy:
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Anarchism:
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority.

Must be nice being able to go through life and make up your own definition of words to fit your agenda.

It must, writing dictionaries must be such fun. That dictionary is wrong (what the hell right wing dictionary is it anyway?), those who invented anarchism know what anarchism is, so, if you don't mind, I'll stick with the definitions of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin (who wrote the primary definition for that radical publication, the Encyclopaeidia Britannica - http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html.

No ... because it's difficult to play football by yourself.

Bit like starting a revolution. Agitate, educate, ORGANISE.

Only when the definition contains "Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

An incorrect definition. Who's definition of Christianity would you believe? One by Al Qaeda or one by a Christian? The mainstream is opposed to anarchism and it is in its interests to misrepresent it.

Vas.

Like I said in my original post to this thread, all anarchism can be summed up in the riddle ...

You're going down a river in a four-door canoe, so how many pancakes does it take to fill a pancake house? Yellow, because snakes have no armpits.

Make up your own definition and you'll see the light. Until then, continue to attempt to rectify a governed anarchy. It is amusing.

Next I shall discuss Humanists and their inability to say thank you for passing the mustard. The Jewish Oracle is at your disposal.

Like I said in my original post to this thread, all anarchism can be summed up in the riddle ...

You can type shite all you like, but it still doesn't mean you have any kind of point. You're blunt, mate.

Vas.

What part should religion play in politics? Or are they completely incompatible?

Non-conformist Christianity is at the root of anarchism, Proudhon was a Christian, as was Tolstoy, while Christian anarchism continues within the Catholic Workers and others.

Discordianism/Erisianism could be seen as an attempt to create an anarchist religion, or is it just a joke, or is it a religion disguised as a joke disguised as a religion? And beyond that, many elements of neopaganism have strongly individualist anarchist tendencies.

What about the Church of the Subgenius?

Was Emma Goldman right to say that Nietzsche was an anarchist and, if so, is God dead?
Eh--it's a little hard to tell with Freddy. It's possible to stretch the overman idea to individualist anarchism.

Personally, my view is that religious ideas are simply dressing humans automatically place on ideas they can't quite explain. Religion is a language to express that which we cannot express any other way. Use of this language feeds our imaginations and allows us to think beyond the mundane.
Yet it also stunts intellectual growth.

However, once people start to believe in the literal fact of the metaphors, that's when it all goes wrong. As a result, Discordianism/Erisianism is the perfect religion, one nobody can take seriously.
I take it you've not looked at the Church of the Subgenius.

You can type shite all you like, but it still doesn't mean you have any kind of point. You're blunt, mate.

Likewise, I'm sure.

It must, writing dictionaries must be such fun. That dictionary is wrong (what the hell right wing dictionary is it anyway?), those who invented anarchism know what anarchism is, so, if you don't mind, I'll stick with the definitions of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin (who wrote the primary definition for that radical publication, the Encyclopaeidia Britannica - http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html.

There were anarchists before them.

What you're doing is the same as the dictionary putting in for atheism: wickedness. It's got nothing to do with atheism. Similarly, opposing capitalism IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR BEING AN ANARCHIST.

Get it?

I take it you've not looked at the Church of the Subgenius.

Slackers can't organise a party to save their lives.

Vas (speaking from experience).

There were anarchists before them.

Before Godwin? Come off it.

Vas.

Comrades, what are your views on primitivism? Personally, I find it bizarre and largely incompatible with anarchism as the implications of the idea involve the deaths of somewhere around 4.5 billion people.

I don't really advocate primitivism completely, but I do believe there are a lot of good points in it and that advanced technology will do a lot of bad.

[Anarchists] Before Godwin? Come off it.


I'm quite serious. They may not have had a label, but they existed.

I'm quite serious. They may not have had a label, but they existed.

I remember reading that there was someone named Zeno of Citicun who had a lot of anarchistic ideas. He basically believed that people's inherent social nature would encourage them to organize anarcho-communistically if authority was removed.

Slackers can't organise a party to save their lives.

Vas (speaking from experience).

X-Day?

advanced technology will do a lot of bad. Advanced technology do bad? Advanced everything do bad? Are you on drugs? What is so bad about advanced technology? Are you afraid that evil robots of doom are comming to kill you *chuckles*?

Advanced technology do bad? Advanced everything do bad? Are you on drugs? What is so bad about advanced technology? Are you afraid that evil robots of doom are comming to kill you *chuckles*?

This is a question I'm writing an entire book to answer. There are so many kinds of technology that it isn't really possible to explain why they are all bad here.

I'm quite serious. They may not have had a label, but they existed.

This is where you're wrong. They weren't anarchists. They may retroactively fit the Murray Rothbard definition of "anarcho-capitalism", but this is a perversion of anarchist ideas you know anarchists don't accept.

Whatever you might say, Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner were not capitalists. The may have disagreed with the Communists such as Kropotkin or Goldman on the specifics of Proudhon's distinction between property and possessions, but they did not agree with the market based on wage slavery. Thus, Rothbard's creation is a break from the past, a new innovation that contradicts that which came before. It is a description of something quite different from anything in the history of anarchism, individualist or political (meaning syndicalist, communist, socialist or collectivist).

Thus, by contradicting the accepted basis of anarchism - opposition to the state and the capitalism it defends - "anarcho-capitalism" proves itself to have no legitimate claim to the prefix "anarcho". The fact that there were people in the past who fit the definition of "anarcho-capitalists" who didn't call themselves anarchists and who are not (unlike Stirner, Tucker or Spooner) accepted as part of the history of anarchist thought, adds to this. Quite simply, as "anarcho-syndicalism" is laissez faire capitalism in all but name, that is what it is.

Vas.

X-Day?

I think that's what it was called, it was London around a year and a half ago - midget porn and crappy dance music. Not even a hint of polka. Shite.

Vas.

This is a question I'm writing an entire book to answer. There are so many kinds of technology that it isn't really possible to explain why they are all bad here.

Just wondering, have you read any of Feyerabend's stuff? Particularly "Against Method" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm), his outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge.

Vas.

Well then...it's a good thing you guys can see what's important in life. I try to make an actual point for anarchism, and you guys all pick the part where I said Dischordiac shouldn't call Americans pigheaded and argue over semantics instead. I thought this was the anarchist thread. I must have been mistaking in thinking we were dicussing the possibilities of anarchy.

So obviously, for a point more on topic. Is it absolutely necessary to put the hypen after anarcho when using it to modify something else (ex: anarcho-communism) or can you leave it out sometimes?

I'm quite serious. They may not have had a label, but they existed.
This is where you're wrong. They weren't anarchists. They may retroactively fit the Murray Rothbard definition of "anarcho-capitalism", but this is a perversion of anarchist ideas you know anarchists don't accept.
But anarchists do accept it, Mr. No True Scotsman Fallacy.

I'm also speaking of people in ancient times who were proto-anarchists.

Whatever you might say, Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner were not capitalists. The may have disagreed with the Communists such as Kropotkin or Goldman on the specifics of Proudhon's distinction between property and possessions, but they did not agree with the market based on wage slavery.
That's fine, because no such thing has ever existed.

Thus, Rothbard's creation is a break from the past, a new innovation that contradicts that which came before.
No, it doesn't.

Thus, by contradicting the accepted basis of anarchism - opposition to the state and the capitalism it defends - "anarcho-capitalism" proves itself to have no legitimate claim to the prefix "anarcho".
Ah---plagiarism.

Of couse, anarchism HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ONLY ADVOCATING SOCIALISM. Anarchism is only about advocating no government. You'd know that if you'd break down the fucking word.

No more No True Scotsmen from you. They will be dismissed immediately.

I remember reading that there was someone named Zeno of Citicun who had a lot of anarchistic ideas. He basically believed that people's inherent social nature would encourage them to organize anarcho-communistically if authority was removed.

Oh, if you want to bring Ancient Greece into the conversation! It's possible to find examples of virtually every single political idea among the Greeks. Yes, there are some similarities between the Stoics and anarchists, and, arguably, some between Taoism and anarchism (though Taoism's anti-materialism is a problem).

Vas.

I think that's what it was called, it was London around a year and a half ago - midget porn and crappy dance music. Not even a hint of polka. Shite.


I think it was just a Devival, since all of the X-Days have been in the US, it seems.

That's fine, because no such thing has ever existed.

It exists right now. People must sell their labor to capitalists to survive. That is forced and since they must take orders, a form of slavery.

Of couse, anarchism HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ONLY ADVOCATING SOCIALISM. Anarchism is only about advocating no government. You'd know that if you'd break down the fucking word.

No more No True Scotsmen from you. They will be dismissed immediately.

A boss is just a dictator in the workplace. They both order you around. You aren't there by choice but because you need money to survive.

A boss is just a dictator in the workplace. They both order you around. You aren't there by choice but because you need money to survive.
Not really.


Bosses do not always 'rule' by dictat (well not in my experience).

In fact, at one job I had the boss did his best to allow a friend not to be sacked.

PS. How many bosses you had?

That's fine, because no such thing (market with wage slavery) has ever existed.
It exists right now.]
No, it doesn't.

People must sell their labor to capitalists to survive.
The "capitalists" must have people to work for them in order to survive. That is forced--a form of slavery.

See how stupid your Marxist nonsense is?


Of couse, anarchism HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ONLY ADVOCATING SOCIALISM. Anarchism is only about advocating no government. You'd know that if you'd break down the fucking word.

No more No True Scotsmen from you. They will be dismissed immediately.
A boss is just a dictator in the workplace.
Then you've never held a job.

They both order you around. You aren't there by choice but because you need money to survive.
You don't breathe by choice; you breathe because you need oxygen to survive. Nature is an oppressor!

There is no anarchist Right and most anarchists on the left oppose the concept of a market. The ones that don't would agree with your definition of anarchism, though.

I hate to say this, but you're wrong. I don't know what it's like in countries other than Germany, but here we have a growing number of "nationalistic anarchists", recruiting their followers from both extreme right winged scenes and extreme left winged scenes. These "nationalistic anarchists" have a theory of abolishing the state but on the other hand preserving the myth of national community. It's an obscure link between leftwinged, antiauthoritarian ideas, and rightwinged racial thinking.

I hate to say this, but you're wrong. I don't know what it's like in countries other than Germany, but here we have a growing number of "nationalistic anarchists", recruiting their followers from both extreme right winged scenes and extreme left winged scenes. These "nationalistic anarchists" have a theory of abolishing the state but on the other hand preserving the myth of national community. It's an obscure link between leftwinged, antiauthoritarian ideas, and rightwinged racial thinking.

Well, basically, that's where Mussolini's fascism came from. He was originally an anarchist and based many of the social ideas of fascism on Kropotkin. However, that doesn't mean he was still an anarchist. Anyone who advocated nationalism is definitely not an anarchist, whatever they might say. They may use elements of anarchism, but real anarchists will kick their ass any chance they get. Saying they're anarchists is like saying Christians are Jews because of the Old Testament.

Vas.

I think it was just a Devival, since all of the X-Days have been in the US, it seems.

It was part of the European end of the world tour, whatever that was called. It was, however, one of the most boring club nights ever.

Vas.

Well, basically, that's where Mussolini's fascism came from. He was originally an anarchist and based many of the social ideas of fascism on Kropotkin. However, that doesn't mean he was still an anarchist. Anyone who advocated nationalism is definitely not an anarchist, whatever they might say. They may use elements of anarchism, but real anarchists will kick their ass any chance they get. Saying they're anarchists is like saying Christians are Jews because of the Old Testament.

To add to that, both Mao and Ghandi were strongly influenced by Kropotkin and neither of them could be called anarchists either.

Vas.

Well, basically, that's where Mussolini's fascism came from. He was originally an anarchist and based many of the social ideas of fascism on Kropotkin. However, that doesn't mean he was still an anarchist. Anyone who advocated nationalism is definitely not an anarchist, whatever they might say. They may use elements of anarchism, but real anarchists will kick their ass any chance they get. Saying they're anarchists is like saying Christians are Jews because of the Old Testament.

Vas.

Mussolini was an anarchist? I always thought he was a communist, before he was kicked out of the socialist newspaper he worked for, due to his nationalist ideas regarding WWI. Whatever...

I absolutely agree with you, sadly large parts of the right and extreme right movement here have already accepted these strange ideas and even support them.

Mussolini was an anarchist? I always thought he was a communist, before he was kicked out of the socialist newspaper he worked for, due to his nationalist ideas regarding WWI. Whatever...

Basically, Mussolini was a moron and a thug, who changed his mind constantly. "At this time Benito Mussolini started to question every move the country made politically. He change his ideologies everyday and this was a trend that would continue. It was said that if you were the last one to talk to Mussolini it would be your thoughts that were heard across the country." http://www.dickinson.edu/~history/dictators/mussolini_dictator.html#World%20War%20I%20&%20Fascist

I absolutely agree with you, sadly large parts of the right and extreme right movement here have already accepted these strange ideas and even support them.

STRANGE ideas?

Vas.

I see I'm still being ignored...I wonder if that's because I made a good point, or if it was because it was a worthless point.

Since people around here always seem to jump right on top of the worthless points (because they know they can defeat them) I'll assume it was a good point...

Well then...it's a good thing you guys can see what's important in life. I try to make an actual point for anarchism, and you guys all pick the part where I said Dischordiac shouldn't call Americans pigheaded and argue over semantics instead. I thought this was the anarchist thread. I must have been mistaking in thinking we were dicussing the possibilities of anarchy.

So obviously, for a point more on topic. Is it absolutely necessary to put the hypen after anarcho when using it to modify something else (ex: anarcho-communism) or can you leave it out sometimes?

anarcho is a prefix, so, yes, to be gramatically correct, you want to include a hyphen. If you don't like hyphens, use anarchist, as in anarchist communism. Hookay?

Vas.

anarcho is a prefix, so, yes, to be gramatically correct, you want to include a hyphen. If you don't like hyphens, use anarchist, as in anarchist communism. Hookay?

Vas.
god...
*sigh*
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

god...
*sigh*
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

You're going to have to reiterate what your supposed "good point" was, as I seem to have missed it (can't have been that good).

Vas.

Where did all these ancaps come from? There are hundreds of them.

The point that I was making is that simply providing a job does not permit you to profit from the work of an employee, if so, then simply having a cotton field would permit a slaveowner to have slaves.
Many employers are independently wealthy, of course most aren't. But that isn't the point. Due to the fact that there are more employers than employees, employees will always be more expendable.
Okay, if a child owns his/her own body, is it then acceptable to give the child candy or money in exchange for sex? (And maybe in addition give the parents money.)
Okay, if it's not acceptable to profit from the theft of someone else, then how can you support the current system? (See my above post about the Native Americans being killed off and their land taken.)
I asked about direct democracy insofar as dealing with whatever issues might come up within your society. Someone not respecting another's property rights, for instance.

Anyone want to respond to this?

I agree that advanced technology can be very bad. The last thing that this world needs is weapons capable of doing more destruction than nukes.

You're going to have to reiterate what your supposed "good point" was, as I seem to have missed it (can't have been that good).

Vas.
funny then how you responded to the one right before it...
I'll do it later...now...TO THE BEACH
ok well apparently not yet to the beach...

Well since you didn't call it "the communist anarchist thread" it seems to me that all types of anarchists have a right to debate and otherwise discuss anarchist principles here.
So I'm going to post this reply (even though I'm not even technically any kind of anarchist)

It appears that most of you (communist and capitalist alike) are simply to ignorant to see that you all want the same thing! (with the exception of a few I'm sure) You're arguing over whether anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism would be better, but it occurs to me, that a truly anarchist society wouldn't really be either. I'm sure if a group of workers wanted to own their own factory, set their own wages, look out for their own work safety- the other members of the anarcho-capitalist society would not come banging on their door- insisting that someone else take over their shop (well they might try, but I don't think anyone here would participate in a group that is trying to coerce them physically into changing the way they run their business) Similarly, I'd hope if one man opened a shop in an anarcho-communist society and gave people the option of working for him (where of course, if the working conditions were poor they could always leave and return to owning their own business) that the anarcho-communists wouldn't force him out of town either.
Basically, what it comes down to, is to imagine two villages side by side...One is anarcho-communist and the other anarcho-capitalist. We can't really argue over which is "better" since the only way to judge this is by observing how the people act. The anarcho-capitalists believe that all of the people from the other village will come to theirs so they can be rewarded for their labor. The anarcho-communists believe that all of the people from the other village will come to theirs because they will be sure their needs are fulfilled.
Actually, I believe that all the competent people will come to the capitalist village because they can have more because they don't have to give everything away to be divided equally amongst the villagers, while the incompetent people will go to the communist village because they think they will get whatever they want without doing any work. (but this is what we should be debating- rather than trying to choose what is "right" for the people and then forcing it on them) NOW to the beach!!

Basically, what it comes down to, is to imagine two villages side by side...One is anarcho-communist and the other anarcho-capitalist.

Been there, done that:
From the "How is this not coercion?" ( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341099) thread.

The point is that anarcho-capitalist thought is NOT anarchist thought, as anarchism is fundamentally anti-capitalist. Capitalism is based on hierarchy, it is the root of the state.

As yourself this, two villages, side by side. In one, an open anarcho-communist society with free distribution. Everyone works together co-operatively. In the second, an "anarcho-capitalist" society with one large factory and a boss who owns all the houses and the factory and lives in luxury in his mansion on the hill and never works a day, while everyone else lives in slum accomodation working in his factory.

What would happen? Either everyone in village two would leave for village one, adding to their co-operative and boosting production, or there would be a revolution in village two. The example of anarcho-communism would immediately destroy any attempts at creating an "anarcho-capitalist" society for the simple reason that most people would resist paying for that which they can get for free elsewhere. They'll resist wage slavery in favour of a more balanced work life with less hours. The only option for the capitalist would be to force the workers to stay - creating borders and police to control workers, thus re-establishing the state.

Or, more humourously from earlier in this thread in a response to Libertovania (Spas):
*Visions of Spas in his little shop down the road from the communes village as dust gathers on the small amount of produce for sale, the "help wanted" sign peeling off the window, with the happy sounds of the communal food-hall wafting in through the window along with the delicious smells of the wide variety of foods from the co-operative kitchen*

Vas.

News post time:

so apparently the feds are out on a harrassment mission around the midwest/rockies.

Midwest anarchists questioned about RNC, DNC

For Immediate Release
Statement from Kansas Mutual Aid Legal Collective July 22, 2004

Today we received news from friends and activists in Denver, Colorado pertaining to incidents involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and possibly local law enforcement agencies.

It was communicated to us, that two houses in Denver had been raided by the FBI and that at least two people had been arrested. Their charges and situations are not at this time known to us. We do know that they were asked questions about the upcoming election events including the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, as well as questions about "ABC".

According to the person that contacted us, it is not thought that anything of value had been taken from the houses, but multiple checks of identification occurred. Agents were reported to have made threatening statements to individuals who were attempting to record names and badge numbers of those agents that were present.

This comes on the heels of repeated harrasment at the hands of state agencies of activists in New York and Boston, as well as more locally in Kirksville, Missouri, where activists were questioned by FBI and local agencies about upcoming events surrounding the DNC and RNC.

We here at the Kansas Mutual Aid Legal Collective, denounce these strong arm tactics by the state's law enforcement agencies. This crackdown on those planning dissent comes right after the 900th U.S. soldier was killed in Iraq, and support for the state's wars abroad and at home wanes.

We call on all activists, dissidents, radicals... all progressive peoples to join in a solid response to this encroachment on our rights as human beings.

We cannot, and will not be intimidated, nor scared into submission. There has never been a more crucial moment in our history to speak out and show opposition and defiance to those that exploit and dominate us and the rest of the world.

Kansas Mutual Aid will continue to monitor these events and find lawyers, raise legal funds, and provide assistance in whatever way we can.

Fear may be their weapon of choice... solidarity will be ours.

In solidarity, forever.

Kansas Mutual Aid Legal Collective 913-775-1399 kansasmutualaid (at) hotmail.com

Please send any financial contributions to: KMA c/o Solidarity Center 13 W. 14th Street Lawrence, KS 66044

******

Update: 11:53 am central time

At least 20 anarchists in Lawrence have been in some way harrassed by the
FBI. Only one at this point has been directly found and questioned.
The FBI has tried through calling homes, visiting workplaces and
residences, and visiting and calling parents, to harrass and find local
anarchists.

So far, word has come that this is all linked to the Democratic and
Republican National Convention protests during the end of this summer.

If you live in Lawrence, we ask that you please come to the Solidarity!
Center as soon as you read this, as we are sure that this space will come
under pressure soon, and we'd like many witnesses.

Also, if you live in any region and have been harrassed, questioned, or
detained by the FBI or other local officials, please call:
913-775-1399

We are coordinating reports of everything happening and trying to maintain
updating the world about this.

Although things are tense, we will not back down, and will not be pushed
into submission through fear.

Now is the time for all of us to fight their fear with our greatest weapon,
our solidarity.

We are accepting legal funds for the anarchists arrested in Denver, as well
as for any future legal needs at:

Kansas Mutual Aid Legal Collective
c/o Solidarity Center
13 W. 14th Street
Lawrence, KS 66044

Thank you for all your support.

In love and solidarity,
Dave, Kansas Mutual Aid


******

Latest Update: 11:50 AM central time:

At this point the FBI has tried to contact at least 20 local anarchists here in Lawrence by phone calls, visiting workplaces, visiting parents, or their own residences.

Things are heating up here.

Kansas Mutual Aid.



* * * *

Friday July 23 2004 @ 07:10AM PDT:

IMMEDIATE UPDATE:
The FBI has made made contact with the parents of at least one person living in Lawrence, and now word has gotten to us that the FBI has visited at least one anarchist home in Columbia, Missouri!

Please spread this information far and wide... this is a far reaching coordinated effort... being conducted by the join terrorism task forces from various states.

Thanks, Kansas Mutual Aid.

* * * *

An update on our comrades arrested:

At this point, as a point of pure intimidation, our comrades in Denver that
were arrested by the FBI are being charged with failure to pay bike
tickets, and one is being charged with failure to appear in court from a
previous arrest.

The raids on their houses, and the subsequent questioning of comrades in
Denver has been followed by FBI visits to anarchists or relatives of
anarchists in Lawrence and Columbia. This also comes after the FBI made
visits to at least one comrade in Kirksville, Missouri.

This intimidation is happening right before major mobilizations against the
ruling elite in Boston and New York and the Democratic and Republican
National Conventions. We must not be allowed to be intimidated!

We will continue to mobilize, continue to organize, continue to agitate for
a new way of living... and against this culture of exploitation, war,
poverty, prisons, and oppression.

We will continue to update all as we get more news.

If the FBI or any other agenices try to contact you in anyway, please get
in touch with a lawyer first... next, please try to clal us, so we can keep
coordinating this information.

Thanks,
Kansas Mutual Aid Legal Collective
913-775-1399
kansasmutualaid (at) hotmail.com

Send any donations for legal defense to:
Kansas Mutual Aid
c/o Solidarity Center
13 W 14th Street
Lawrence, KS 66044

* * * *

Friday July 23 2004 @ 08:05AM PDT

UPDATE Two un-uniformed people carrying sidearms driving a dark SUV having been spotted knocking on the door and searching the mailbox of a Lawrence anarchist.

We have heard from Denver that the two detained have been transferred out of federal custody and are being held on failure to be appear in court and unpaid parking tickets, respectively.

Nice post, FS. Keep them up. Why haven't you been here lately?

wikapedia has a good anarchist definition and goes into all the different branches of Anarchism such as Anarcho-capitalism (which, whether we choose to to regard it as correct or not, is still a branch of anrachism)

personally, I say F*@K the state, F@*k the police, F**k war and anti drug law and F**k the stupid societies that not only want CCTV everywhere (Britain has the highest number of CCTV cameras of any country in the world) but also enjoy programs such as Big brother (and this is a serious point, is people's glee at watching other 24 hours a day not a worrying sign of the times andthe influence of the state?)

At the very least people watching things like "Big Brother" is a worrying example of the dumbing down of humanity.

At the very least people watching things like "Big Brother" is a worrying example of the dumbing down of humanity.

Oi, I resemble that comment :) You can't be high-brow and political ALL the time (in my defence, I was reading Zmag earlier).

Vas.

Nice post, FS. Keep them up. Why haven't you been here lately?

thanks.

i've been really busy. essentially, i just utterly failed to find a place to live in honolulu and was forced to move back in with my parents for the time being. so i've been running around several different states getting all of my stuff back in order and helping my old housemate saryn move out and clean up our place, on top of spending a few weeks in hawaii looking for a place to live, and spending several weeks before that getting stuff ready to move there.

btw, hawaii is an excellent example of everything that is wrong with landlords and a tiny number of people owning nearly everything and charging everyone else to use it.

Been there, done that:
From the "How is this not coercion?" ( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341099) thread.



Or, more humourously from earlier in this thread in a response to Libertovania (Spas):


Vas.
Well that's a start in the right direction, though I hold to my stance that most people that don't want to work would flock to the communist society, and most people that did want to work would come to the capitalist society (well probably not the one you described, but naturally you would describe a communist anarchy as paradise and a capitalist one as one factory where "the boss" owns everyones' lives- but I'd do the inverse if I wasn't trying to be level-headed)
That still doesn't really say anything as to what would happen in the capitalist-owned factory in the communist village. I mean, I'm sure the answer is that no one would work there...but that's what makes this argument so hard...the fact that no one will listen. I'll just make it easy, instead of saying "well what if someone works for them?" I'll say that I would work for them. So do the communists force us out of town, or take over the factory by force, or what?

edit: I probably shouldn't be trying to argue at all right now...i haven't been getting enough sleep...but whatever...

Now, I'm risking a severe pummeling from both sides from saying this, but be warned, in terms of physical appearance and wrestling ability I'm like a thinner version of william regal, so watch yourselves!

Here goes: The fundamental reason that anarchism fails in my opinion is this: anarchism has the massive fissure between the different schools of anarchism, with the opponents in the different schools of anarchism, such as anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists and plain old anarchists metaphorically lobbing rocks at each other. All sides are implacable, suspecting the other of being stupid and wrong. Why don't we just agree to disagree until the revolution actually occurs, and spend the meantime trying to find common ground? If we can just campaign using mutual central tenants of our beliefs, such as the abolition of the state, we might get somewhere a lot faster than just arguing amongst ourselves about who's wrong or right.

Who's with me?

Now, I'm risking a severe pummeling from both sides from saying this, but be warned, in terms of physical appearance and wrestling ability I'm like a thinner version of william regal, so watch yourselves!

Here goes: The fundamental reason that anarchism fails in my opinion is this: anarchism has the massive fissure between the different schools of anarchism, with the opponents in the different schools of anarchism, such as anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists and plain old anarchists metaphorically lobbing rocks at each other. All sides are implacable, suspecting the other of being stupid and wrong. Why don't we just agree to disagree until the revolution actually occurs, and spend the meantime trying to find common ground? If we can just campaign using mutual central tenants of our beliefs, such as the abolition of the state, we might get somewhere a lot faster than just arguing amongst ourselves about who's wrong or right.

Who's with me?
well that's kind of what I've been trying to say...If we're all anarchists, then none of us believe in forcing any way of life upon our people, be it communism or capitalism or otherwise, so it seems pointless to argue which type is "correct" and which is "not anarchy"

Now, I'm risking a severe pummeling from both sides from saying this, but be warned, in terms of physical appearance and wrestling ability I'm like a thinner version of william regal, so watch yourselves!

Here goes: The fundamental reason that anarchism fails in my opinion is this: anarchism has the massive fissure between the different schools of anarchism, with the opponents in the different schools of anarchism, such as anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists and plain old anarchists metaphorically lobbing rocks at each other. All sides are implacable, suspecting the other of being stupid and wrong. Why don't we just agree to disagree until the revolution actually occurs, and spend the meantime trying to find common ground? If we can just campaign using mutual central tenants of our beliefs, such as the abolition of the state, we might get somewhere a lot faster than just arguing amongst ourselves about who's wrong or right.

Who's with me?

It's quite simple. REAL anarchists realise that, right now, the biggest opposition to anarchism comes, not from the lackeys of capitalism - governments, but from the forces of capitalism itself. The WTO, multinational corporations with their sweatshops and anti-union rules, etc. So, it's impossible for proper anarchists and the oxymorons (anarcho-capitalists) to wok together, because the oxymorons support the very thing that anarchists oppose and fight against - capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is as ridiculous as anarcho-royalism is (and, if you look at some of the policies of those humourous Austrians who created the linguistic trick, you'll see there not that far off that either).

Vas.

It's quite simple. REAL anarchists realise that, right now, the biggest opposition to anarchism comes, not from the lackeys of capitalism - governments, but from the forces of capitalism itself.
Hi. My name is the No True Scotsman Fallacy, and you love to use me.

Capitalism is compatible with anarchism, despite all of your and Letila's whining to the contrary.

Hi. My name is the No True Scotsman Fallacy, and you love to use me.

Capitalism is compatible with anarchism, despite all of your and Letila's whining to the contrary.

No, you're simply trying to argue for an oxymoron. Once again, anarchism was, up to the deluded nonsense of a couple of Austrians who've found work in such illustrious houses of knowledge as Las Vegas University, was opposed to capitalism. As I've said before, arguing that "anarcho-capitalism" is a form of anarchism despite supporting capitalism and property is the same as arguing that humanists are Christians despite rejecting Christ.

Vas.

No, you're simply trying to argue for an oxymoron. Once again, anarchism was, up to the deluded nonsense of a couple of Austrians who've found work in such illustrious houses of knowledge as Las Vegas University, was opposed to capitalism. As I've said before, arguing that "anarcho-capitalism" is a form of anarchism despite supporting capitalism and property is the same as arguing that humanists are Christians despite rejecting Christ.

We reject the state. That's the defining quality of Anarchism. Nobody cares about how you want to use the word and your petty quibbling.

If a nation requires laws or rules to prevent free trade and human corruption, how is it then an anarchy?

Why in an anarchy does one need to look out for their fellow man?

Darwinian-Anarchists unite lol

I'd personally say communism is less compatable with the ideals of anarchy than capatalism. In a communist society a very strong structure needs to be in place and enforced. Communist societies are also compleatly non-dynamic. If they need to change it is almost impossible to. They also have one of the hardest times dealing with ideological and military threats. How would an anarcho-communist state stop someone from becomming a capatilist?

We reject the state.

Congratulations, that makes you a libertarian.

That's the defining quality of Anarchism.

No it isn't. Rejecting hierarchies, including those within capitalism, is the defining quality of anarchism.

Nobody cares about how you want to use the word and your petty quibbling.

You obviously care as you're the main person to have perpetuated the argument (you may not, I started the thread, you quibbled).

The simple fact is that the rambling nonsense of the "anarcho-capitalists" and their attempt to steal the name of anarchism is damaging. It, quite deliberately in my opinion, is an attempt to portray anarchism as hopeless divided between opponents and proponents of capitalism. By deliberately proposing an oxymoron, you damage everyone's position. You are no more an anarchist than humanists are Christians.

Vas.

How is possibly an anarchy if "laws" or "rules" are put upon trade?

"Laws" and "rules" are removed from trade, resulting in free distribution. Contracts are rules and laws.

Why in an anarchy does one need to look out for their fellow man?

The driving force behind real anarchism (and not the oxymoron that is anarcho-capitalism) is humanism. Voluntary co-operation is the basis for social organisation, so the answer is in the question my friend. Anarchism is based upon looking out for one's fellow man, it is it's own motivation.

Darwinian-Anarchists unite lol

Really, why do some people feel the need to show off their ignorance? Not just of anarchism, but of history. One of the biggest critics of "social darwinism" was Kropotkin, "Mutual Aid" was a direct critique of the ideas within it.

As for the rest of your nonsense, all of those points have been addressed previously. Try reading rather than spouting off and showing your ignorance.

Vas.

No it isn't. Rejecting hierarchies, including those within capitalism, is the defining quality of anarchism.

however, you cannot judge the market today that is under "democratic" (i use the term loosly) influences with an anarchist market. Groups like the WTO and such wouldn't work based on sheer numbers. As a globalized anarchy under any sence is impossible, they wouldnt have the international support. And obviously anarchist city-states arent going to send governmental representatives to WTO confrences.


The simple fact is that the rambling nonsense of the "anarcho-capitalists" and their attempt to steal the name of anarchism is damaging. It, quite deliberately in my opinion, is an attempt to portray anarchism as hopeless divided between opponents and proponents of capitalism. By deliberately proposing an oxymoron, you damage everyone's position. You are no more an anarchist than humanists are Christians.


Stalin and Mao would also agree with that statement. LOL, you cant be an anarchist, you dont believe in my anarchism... I'm sure you can fill in the rest

"Laws" and "rules" are removed from trade, resulting in free distribution. Contracts are rules and laws.

ok, im an anarchist in your society, i make food, i dont want to share. WHAT DO YOU DO?

contracts are rules and understandings between people, not government. Communism is a huge contract, you work we feed.

The driving force behind real anarchism (and not the oxymoron that is anarcho-capitalism) is humanism. Voluntary co-operation is the basis for social organisation, so the answer is in the question my friend. Anarchism is based upon looking out for one's fellow man, it is it's own motivation.

I would agree in theory, but im speaking more about aplication. I honestly agree with you 100% about everything IF we are speaking theoretically. While the thought that large numbers of people can and will work togeather is a nice ideal and one i would like to believe, there will always be those who find away to avoid doing their share. In a true communism (or the closest we have seen) the person would be labled an "enemy of the people" and sent to a work camp or be deported in the best case scenarios.

Besides, in a civilization that makes no differentiation between the value of my contribution to society and someone else's is ridiculous. Someone who does the work to become a doctor or what not does deserve more than a welder. Im not making a judgement against welders, just saying that in the grand scheme they are not as essential or rare (ie, if you abslutly need more welders, they arent too hard to find/train comparitivly). While I do believe that there are basic needs of everyone in society that should be available for free, food, water, health care, fire department ect, the luxuries should be there for those who want it.

Your anarchy is basically telling people that they must follow a certain code of ideals and ethics.

Really, why do some people feel the need to show off their ignorance? Not just of anarchism, but of history. One of the biggest critics of "social darwinism" was Kropotkin, "Mutual Aid" was a direct critique of the ideas within it.

Ill be honest, and feel free to discredit any of my argumnts if you want because of this but.... I have never read any anrchist literature before. But once again you are trying to put some kind of limit on anarchy, which in itself is hypocritical. Its fine that we disagree, but because I beleive that society would be better off without some people that makes me less of an anarchist?

Seriously, if a person can't or won't do what is necessary to live in society, why support them?

As for the rest of your nonsense, all of those points have been addressed previously. Try reading rather than spouting off and showing your ignorance.

wow... what nice people we have here. I think i'll take the high road...

Hi. My name is the No True Scotsman Fallacy, and you love to use me.

Capitalism is compatible with anarchism, despite all of your and Letila's whining to the contrary.
No, you're simply trying to argue for an oxymoron.
Nope. I'm arguing for the truth. Anarchism IS ONLY ABOUT THERE NOT BEING A GOVERNMENT/RULERS.

That's it. Nothing more. It's not about socialism, dimwit. It's about there not being a government/rulers. It's not about communism, dimwit. It's about there not being a government/rulers.

You're truly deluded if you think it has anything more to do than there not being a government/rulers.

Whine all you want about supposed "historical meaning"--it's not correct. Now kill your No True Scotsman fallacy, O Deluded One. Because what you're trying to say is the same as saying that someone who's never heard of a god is not an atheist. That person has no belief in god. That person is an atheist. Similarly, someone who argues for no government/rulers is an anarchist, despite your No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Hint: fallacies kill arguments. Stop using them.

We reject the state.
Congratulations, that makes you a libertarian.
It makes him an anarchist, dimwit.


That's the defining quality of Anarchism.
No it isn't.
Yes, it is.

Rejecting hierarchies, including those within capitalism, is the defining quality of anarchism.
No, it's not. It's about rejecting the government/rulers. Heirarchies can still exist. Because heirarchies exist anywhere whether you want them to or not. You have to learn about basic math before you move to calculus. Knowledge is *gasp* HEIRARCHICAL! We can't have that! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

The simple fact is that the rambling nonsense of the "anarcho-capitalists" and their attempt to steal the name of anarchism is damaging.
The simple fact is that such is a No True Scotsman fallacy, and damanging to your claim. We are anarchists, despite your whining.

"Laws" and "rules" are removed from trade, resulting in free distribution. Contracts are rules and laws.
Morality is rules for the group, and enforced with laws (either written or not). Trading involves quid pro quo (that's what the definition of trade has). Want to get rid of morality? You do want to get rid of rules and laws, right? Can't have them, right?

Think before you post.

Nope. I'm arguing for the truth. Anarchism IS ONLY ABOUT THERE NOT BEING A GOVERNMENT/RULERS.

Where's your historical support for that? Cite any but a bunch of oxymoronic Austrians, please. Tucker, Stirner and Spooner have, over and over again, been shown not to support their views. Anarchism has a history stretching back over a century, a bunch of looney Austrians can say what they like, it does NOT invalidate what came before.

Anarchism does not automatically mean socialism, but it DOES oppose capitalism. Your Austrians spout a very deliberate oxymoron, something that continues to damage true anarchism. You're arguing an oxymoron and history points and laughs.

Vas.

Morality is rules for the group, and enforced with laws (either written or not). Trading involves quid pro quo (that's what the definition of trade has). Want to get rid of morality? You do want to get rid of rules and laws, right? Can't have them, right?

Think before you post.

You've proved before that you have a problem writing full sentences and putting your point across, but try to be clear. What the fuck are you trying to say here? And what is a supposed anarchist using a religious term like "morality" for?

Vas.

Where's your historical support for that? Cite any but a bunch of oxymoronic Austrians, please. Tucker, Stirner and Spooner have, over and over again, been shown not to support their views. Anarchism has a history stretching back over a century, a bunch of looney Austrians can say what they like, it does NOT invalidate what came before.

Anarchism does not automatically mean socialism, but it DOES oppose capitalism. Your Austrians spout a very deliberate oxymoron, something that continues to damage true anarchism. You're arguing an oxymoron and history points and laughs.

Vas.

Your view on anarchy is very narrow. Its like saying that the only way to be a capatilist is to follow Smith or a communist to follow Marx.

Obviously BAAWA and myself do not have the same anarchist beliefs as you, but it does mean we have the same general political ideology. (in fact, its economics that we disagree on, and anarchy isnt a form of economics)

Your view on anarchy is very narrow. Its like saying that the only way to be a capatilist is to follow Smith or a communist to follow Marx.

No, my view on anarchy is very broad and fits the historical precedent - anarchism is an ideology that opposes the state and capitalism. This is consistent with both the political (communist/collectivist/syndicalist) and individualist threads of anarchism. It is not, however, consistent with "anarcho-capitalism", as it is impossible to have an anti-capitalist form of capitalism, thus "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron.

Obviously BAAWA and myself do not have the same anarchist beliefs as you, but it does mean we have the same general political ideology. (in fact, its economics that we disagree on, and anarchy isnt a form of economics)

Anarchism is a socio-economic theory, it's not even strictly a political ideology in that it is the exact opposite of most political ideology. Political ideologies tend to dictate a system, whereas anarchism is about creating new circumstances by removing the existing system.

I do not "agree to disagree" with "anarcho-capitalists" simply because the idea of unrestrained capitalism is, quite simply, as repulsive to me as any idea of unrestrained goverment. Capitalism is an economic system based on inequality, exploitation and coercion - three things completely anathema to any true anarchist. Far from having the same general political ideology, political anarchism is completely opposed to what you recommend (I will grant some closeness to the individualist anarchists).

Quite simply, the idea that anarchism opposes the state, in and of itself, is erroneous. The state is opposed because it enforces the inequalities cause of property and capitalism, whether individualist capitalism such as the US or state capitalism such as the USSR (oh yes, the Soviet Union was NOT communist, but state capitalist). However, in some cases and in some countries, the state has moved from its original position and acts somewhat as a defender of the worker - through welfare, worker's rights, health and safesty and environomental controls. Thus, capitalism with the state is preferrable to unrestrained capitalism.

I'll return to a comparison I gave earlier. There are those who argue that, because their "anarcho-capitalism" is based, in part, on a section of what the individualist anarchist argued (taken out of context), they are anarchists. I compared this to the relationship between the Humanist Society, the Presbyterian Church and the Catholic Church. Because the humanists have more in common with the Presbyterians than the Presbyterians have with the Catholic, does that make humanists Christians? No, because believing in Christ is a precondition of being a Christian, just as opposing the inequalities, exploitation and coercion of capitalism is a precondition of being an anarchist.

Vas.

Nope. I'm arguing for the truth. Anarchism IS ONLY ABOUT THERE NOT BEING A GOVERNMENT/RULERS.

Where's your historical support for that?

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government

Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Right there, bitch. Eat it, 'cuz I sure as hell don't see anything about "opposing capitalism" in there.

You are arguing a No True Scotsman, and everyone is laughing at you.

Morality is rules for the group, and enforced with laws (either written or not). Trading involves quid pro quo (that's what the definition of trade has). Want to get rid of morality? You do want to get rid of rules and laws, right? Can't have them, right?

Think before you post.

You've proved before that you have a problem writing full sentences and putting your point across, but try to be clear.
You've proved before that you have a problem comprehending the English language, even when it's placed before you in See-Spot-Run format.

What the fuck are you trying to say here?
That rules exist.

And what is a supposed anarchist using a religious term like "morality" for?
Morality isn't a religious term, dipshit.

Right there, bitch. Eat it, 'cuz I sure as hell don't see anything about "opposing capitalism" in there.

No, dumbfuck, the bizarre act of trying to prove an ideological point with dictionary definitions shows the paucity of your ideas.

A humourous aside - dictionary.com - No entry found for anarcho-capitalism.

If you want official definitions, I point you to the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1910 - http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html, THE most respected definition of anarchism.

You are arguing a No True Scotsman, and everyone is laughing at you.

The few thousand (max) oxymorons may be laughing, but the millions of anarchists around the world will have the last laugh.

Vas.

You've proved before that you have a problem comprehending the English language, even when it's placed before you in See-Spot-Run format.

Very clever.

That rules exist.

So does my chair, what's your point?

Morality isn't a religious term, dipshit.

Yes it is, has been since the 14th Century. It denotes goodness, the concept of duality between good (and therefore evil) is a religious concept, making morality, in its modern (meaning the last half century) use a religious term.

Vas.

Nope. I'm arguing for the truth. Anarchism IS ONLY ABOUT THERE NOT BEING A GOVERNMENT/RULERS.

How is a boss not a ruler? He tells you what to do and you must obey.

Ill be honest, and feel free to discredit any of my argumnts if you want because of this but.... I have never read any anrchist literature before. But once again you are trying to put some kind of limit on anarchy, which in itself is hypocritical.

no, it isn't. anarchism is a specific set of anti-hierarchical political theories and ideals. if you don't fall into that set you are not an anarchist, no matter what you call yourself. if you were to declare yourself in favor of 'anarcho-monarchism' you would be engaging in contradiction, not us for calling you an idiot. likewise, if you proclaimed the virtues of 'anarcho-slavery' you would be being hypocritical, not us when we denounced you and refused to treat you as an anarchist. the limit on being an anarchist is that you have to be anti-authoritarian, against hierarchy wherever possible, and desire to create a classless society.

WTF

seriously, I really hope this isnt representative of anarchists everywhere.

Free Soviets:

If one must follow a set of rules and guidelines to be an anarchist, how is that any differant that the forms of government that exist today that anarchy is suposed to be rising against.

Dischordiac:

ok, first, you have to seperate economics and politics or its no use talking to you. If you are unwilling to seperate two unlike things i wont bother arguing with you any more.

Now, I'm assuming that you are advocating a communist style distribution of wealth. This takes order and rule. How do you stop someone from taking more than they deserve? For this you need more codes and rules. What you are saying is that in your anarchy people must behave in a specific way, and that is hypocritical or oxymoronic or which ever stupid catch phrase you wish to spit out.

In a free market, ie, no rules, the people are free to do what they wish. If people decide to live communistically, they can, but they are not forced. It also allows for those who wish to strive for monetary and material posessions the ability to do so.

I'm not even advocating capatilism really, all I'm saying is that this is ANARCHY, meaning that there is not suposed to be any rules. While people may become exploited by someone with greater wealth, its better than telling them they must do something or live in a certain way.

If one must follow a set of rules and guidelines to be an anarchist, how is that any differant that the forms of government that exist today that anarchy is suposed to be rising against.

Anarchy has certain characteristics that define it as anarchy. You can't be anarchist without having those characteristics anymore than something can be blue without looking blue.

I'm not even advocating capatilism really, all I'm saying is that this is ANARCHY, meaning that there is not suposed to be any rules. While people may become exploited by someone with greater wealth, its better than telling them they must do something or live in a certain way.

Anarchy doesn't mean chaos. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want because some actions infringe on the freedom of others. You can't kill people even in anarchism and no one except murderers would support it if you could.

You are arguing a No True Scotsman, and everyone is laughing at you.

jeebus, is this still your only line? and you still can't use it properly, just like the last time (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5743107&postcount=984) i bothered to argue it with you (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5740615&postcount=977). we are not equivocating on any definitions, nor are we fixing any hasty assertions by ad-hoc exclusions. we are using the same definition that our ideological ancestors have been using for over a century, well before any of you 'anarcho'-cappies showed up. 'anarcho'-capitalism is explicitly excluded by the definitions of anarchism, as used by anarchists throughout our entire history. you disagree with our definition. that's nice, but it doesn't make us guilty of nts. and when you try to use your definition (that we do not accept) against us within the context of our thread about our political movement and theory, it makes you guilty of equivocation.

stop acting all smug because you know the name of one logical fallacy. that wouldn't be a good reason to feel smug even if you could use it properly.

Right there, bitch. Eat it, 'cuz I sure as hell don't see anything about "opposing capitalism" in there.
No, dumbfuck, the bizarre act of trying to prove an ideological point with dictionary definitions shows the paucity of your ideas.
Of course it doesn't, and it's not bizarre. It's quite proper.

I suggest you try the dictionary for the definition of anarchy.


You are arguing a No True Scotsman, and everyone is laughing at you.
The few thousand (max) oxymorons may be laughing, but the millions of anarchists around the world will have the last laugh.
I'm gonna let you in on a little secret:

All around the world, know what most people think of when they hear the word "anarchist"? A wild-eyed, dishevelled bomb-thrower. That's the common usage, and has historical precedent therethrough. So being an anarchist now means that you must be a wild-eyed, dishevelled bomb-thrower.

Eat that, bitch. You just got hoisted on your own petard.

Now I realize though, that you oxymoron ansocs won't get it. That's your own problem.

WTF

seriously, I really hope this isnt representative of anarchists everywhere.

Free Soviets:

If one must follow a set of rules and guidelines to be an anarchist, how is that any differant that the forms of government that exist today that anarchy is suposed to be rising against.

your question is nonsensical.

if the words anarchist or anarchism didn't contain "rules and guidlines" (more accurately called definitions), then the terms would be meaningless. everyone and everything would be anarchists and all ideologies would be anarchism. but that would be silly. words, in order to convey information, must have definitions that in some way limit their use.

if you do not fit the definition of 'anarchist', you are not an anarchist. you are probably something else, and if there isn't a word for it you can make one up. but if the word you make up for yourself implies that you are something that you are not, expect people to complain about it.

You've proved before that you have a problem comprehending the English language, even when it's placed before you in See-Spot-Run format.
Very clever.
Yes, it was, wasn't it?

That rules exist.
So does my chair, what's your point?
That rules exist whether or not you want them to.

Morality isn't a religious term, dipshit.
Yes it is, has been since the 14th Century.
It's not a religious term. It's a valid term in philosophy--something you know nothing of. Morality is the application of ethics--again, something you know nothing of.

I suggest you have a read of Gauthier's Morals By Agreement and Narveson's Respecting Persons In Theory And Practice

How is a boss not a ruler? He tells you what to do and you must obey.
How is your autonomic system not a ruler? It signals your brain and you breathe and your heart beats. You obey.

How is nature not a ruler? You must eat to survive, right? You must obey.

THINK!

Anarchy has certain characteristics that define it as anarchy. You can't be anarchist without having those characteristics anymore than something can be blue without looking blue.

Exactly, but there has to be room for more than one intrepretation of those guidelines. Look at religion, christians have tonnes of sects. Just because someone has a differant view of something doesnt mean that they are to be ostrascised.

Anarchy doesn't mean chaos. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want because some actions infringe on the freedom of others. You can't kill people even in anarchism and no one except murderers would support it if you could.

The phrase "Do what you want so long as it does not infringe on other rights to do what they want" is a libritarian phrase. Anarchy is about personal responsability and supposes in a small society where there is no reason to kill someone nobody will.

Murder is a cop out example for you though, same with like child rape or anyhting like that. Its easy to say "these are bad and cannot be allowed to happen in society", but once you do you create a system of control. For someone to say you cant do something, the rest of society has to give them the authority to do so. Once they do it is no longer an anarchy, but a fascism.

your question is nonsensical.

if the words anarchist or anarchism didn't contain "rules and guidlines" (more accurately called definitions), then the terms would be meaningless. everyone and everything would be anarchists and all ideologies would be anarchism. but that would be silly. words, in order to convey information, must have definitions that in some way limit their use.

if you do not fit the definition of 'anarchist', you are not an anarchist. you are probably something else, and if there isn't a word for it you can make one up. but if the word you make up for yourself implies that you are something that you are not, expect people to complain about it.


Isn't the fundamental ideal of anarchy the rejection of authority and conrtol?

obviously im not saying that the word is meaningless, but you people are giving it too much credit. Its like fascism. All that fascism means is that a single person is the leader of a nation, it has nothing to do with where that person would fit on a political compass or whatever.

Isn't the fundamental ideal of anarchy the rejection of authority and conrtol?

Yes, and that includes capitalists.

obviously im not saying that the word is meaningless, but you people are giving it too much credit. Its like fascism. All that fascism means is that a single person is the leader of a nation, it has nothing to do with where that person would fit on a political compass or whatever.

Actually, fascism is defined as authoritarian capitalism. Authoritarian "socialism" is Marxism or Leninism.

The phrase "Do what you want so long as it does not infringe on other rights to do what they want" is a libritarian phrase. Anarchy is about personal responsability and supposes in a small society where there is no reason to kill someone nobody will.

Murder is a cop out example for you though, same with like child rape or anyhting like that. Its easy to say "these are bad and cannot be allowed to happen in society", but once you do you create a system of control. For someone to say you cant do something, the rest of society has to give them the authority to do so. Once they do it is no longer an anarchy, but a fascism.

It is government that doesn't follow the rules. It is government that says not to kill but starts wars and uses violence regularly.

Isn't the fundamental ideal of anarchy the rejection of authority and conrtol?

obviously im not saying that the word is meaningless, but you people are giving it too much credit. Its like fascism. All that fascism means is that a single person is the leader of a nation, it has nothing to do with where that person would fit on a political compass or whatever.

we are pretty broad. anarchism is (roughly) the political ideology and movement that seeks to end hierarchy and privilege and replace it with a free society without classes based on voluntary organization and the principles of free association, mutual aid, liberty, and equality. as such it is both anti-capitalist and anti-state - amongst other things. but those are its key defining characteristics and always have been.

and fascism means a bit more than just that - it's hard to define because it is semicontradictory, but it has a number of essential elements beyond mere dictatorship.

I want to ask anarchists one thing: Who do you expect to regulate communication, water, electricity, transportation, businesses, etc? In the event of anarchy, who will keep you and your family safe from murderers, rapists, and theives?

Believe it or not, not everybody is a nice, wonderful person like you. With no consequences, I can't imagine a lot of people would behave if they thought they could benefit from it.

ive never associated forms of government with where they would fall ideologically.

Fascism could easily be leftist as a communism could easily be very conservative. The two are once again unlike terms that you want to mesh togeather to form one thing. If you want to talk about anarchy, fine, but if you want to talk about ideology, thats a compleatly differant issue.

How is your autonomic system not a ruler? It signals your brain and you breathe and your heart beats. You obey.

How is nature not a ruler? You must eat to survive, right? You must obey.

THINK!


gee, that's a tough one... perhaps it has to do with the fact that there are other ways to organize human interaction that don't involve the few telling the many what to do? nah - that's way too simple, too obvious.

I want to ask anarchists one thing: Who do you expect to regulate communication, water, electricity, transportation, businesses, etc? In the event of anarchy, who will keep you and your family safe from murderers, rapists, and theives?

Believe it or not, not everybody is a nice, wonderful person like you. With no consequences, I can't imagine a lot of people would behave if they thought they could benefit from it.


Here is a quick one for you

HOW ABOUT YOU DO IT

its personal responsability

Yes, and that includes capitalists.

why? what structure does free market capatilism impose? Is it not the actions of the individuals that exploit the freedom the system allows?

Actually, fascism is defined as authoritarian capitalism. Authoritarian "socialism" is Marxism or Leninism.

Once again you are mixing unlike political elements. Fascism, authoritarianism, and capatilism are compleatly differant things. Most fascisms arent capatilist because the government collects the money, and not the person who rightfully owned it.

It is government that doesn't follow the rules. It is government that says not to kill but starts wars and uses violence regularly.

Ya, great, how compleatly irrevelant

ive never associated forms of government with where they would fall ideologically.

Fascism could easily be leftist as a communism could easily be very conservative. The two are once again unlike terms that you want to mesh togeather to form one thing. If you want to talk about anarchy, fine, but if you want to talk about ideology, thats a compleatly differant issue.


perhaps you should start. ideologies are intimately tied together with forms of government. fascism is definitionally against communism, as much as it is against liberalism. and communism may become 'conservative' in some sense - but that sense could never include capitalism. the ideology of anarchism is anti-capitalist and anti-state.

I want to ask anarchists one thing: Who do you expect to regulate communication, water, electricity, transportation, businesses, etc?

the collectives responsible for the day-to-day running those services and industries, the federations they are part of, the communities they are attached to, and the federations those communities are part of.

In the event of anarchy, who will keep you and your family safe from murderers, rapists, and theives?

people would form various types of community defense organizations.

perhaps you should start. ideologies are intimately tied together with forms of government. fascism is definitionally against communism, as much as it is against liberalism. and communism may become 'conservative' in some sense - but that sense could never include capitalism. the ideology of anarchism is anti-capitalist and anti-state.

You are right about ideas being intimatly tied into government. Also, historically there have been many rulers or governments that have occured out of a reaction against something else. Unfortunatly most of those failed.

Stalin was a communist fascist. As were Stalin and Mao. Would modern communists look back at them with good memories, no, but they were still communists.

I'm not arguing that anarchy wasn't founded on anti-capitalism (had Marx written the Communist Manefesto at this point yet?) but how can it be anti-state and anti-capitalism if the alternative is imposing rules to govern the way people must contribute to the state and how they must spend their earnings (I'm sure you are also for the abolition of currency).

I think what I'm trying to say is that your anarchy (or, true anarchy if it turns out im only quasi anarchist or a compleate phonie) has a dynamics problem. In a system like that, what would happen under a population boom? How would more be produced from a society that HAS to be static. The strongest argument against communism is from an economic sence, because it requires a state to become static from an economic point of view. I challange you to find any state ever in history that has been able to do that.

Here is a quick one for you

HOW ABOUT YOU DO IT

its personal responsability
How 'bout I do what? People don't have the power to regulate the things I listed without setting up government in some form or another. And what happens when a group of people with guns decide they want your house? Normally, you'd report such a thing to the police. However, in anarchy, you'd have little recourse other than, say getting bigger guns and popping a cap in their asses. Which, for society to function, is a really bad system. "The man with the biggest gun wins."

And of course, any nation could invade your perfect little anarchy since the area isn't a sovereign nation and is fair game.

In conclusion, anarchy is stupid and if you disagree with me, you're wrong.

I'm not arguing that anarchy wasn't founded on anti-capitalism (had Marx written the Communist Manefesto at this point yet?) but how can it be anti-state and anti-capitalism if the alternative is imposing rules to govern the way people must contribute to the state and how they must spend their earnings (I'm sure you are also for the abolition of currency).

It hadn't been written yet, but anarchism's opposition to capitalism preceeded Marxism. Marx didn't originate the idea that capitalism was bad.

People don't have the power to regulate the things I listed without setting up government in some form or another.

Really, which essential services in America are still controlled by the government? Next thing you know they will be privitizing the police force.

And what happens when a group of people with guns decide they want your house?

What do you do if people with guns want into YOUR house? Thats a stupid question, in any state, regardless of the law, if people with guns show up at your house, you probably let them in or die. Either A or B.

Normally, you'd report such a thing to the police. However, in anarchy, you'd have little recourse other than, say getting bigger guns and popping a cap in their asses.

The vast majority of crimes are reported AFTER the fact, so provided you survive said armed encounter, then you could deal with them. Now, replace police with society. You show the people around you that these people are unfit to live with you and you take care of it. Bigger guns might work, not giving them food or water would as well.

Which, for society to function, is a really bad system. "The man with the biggest gun wins."

as soon as you can show me some evidence that society would work like that, tell me. You have given no reason for these people to come and take your house.

And of course, any nation could invade your perfect little anarchy since the area isn't a sovereign nation and is fair game.

true, that is why there are no anarchist nations

In conclusion, anarchy is stupid and if you disagree with me, you're wrong.

no, if anyone agrees with you they are ignorant. There are advantages and disadvantages to each system. Congradulations on making a post that does a sub average job at pointing out inherant flaws in anarchy. You smart smart political scientist you, have a cookie.

It hadn't been written yet, but anarchism's opposition to capitalism preceeded Marxism. Marx didn't originate the idea that capitalism was bad.

thanks ;)

How is your autonomic system not a ruler? It signals your brain and you breathe and your heart beats. You obey.

How is nature not a ruler? You must eat to survive, right? You must obey.

THINK!
gee, that's a tough one...
Yes, it is.

perhaps it has to do with the fact that there are other ways to organize human interaction that don't involve the few telling the many what to do?
What about the many telling the few what to do, such as in the market system (the consumers let the producers know what they like and the producers produce it--and there are more consumers for a product than producers)?

Of course, communism is all about the few telling the many what to do.

The problem with capitalism though is that it becomes the rich telling the poor what to do and how to make more money for them.

Of course, communism is all about the few telling the many what to do.

No, that would be capitalism. There are no social classes or bosses in communism.

The problem with capitalism though is that it becomes the rich telling the poor what to do and how to make more money for them.

Exactly.

No, that would be capitalism. There are no social classes or bosses in communism.


of course not, its just a set of rules and guidelines that people MUST follow, or they are an enemy of the people!

You are arguing a No True Scotsman, and everyone is laughing at you.
jeebus, is this still your only line?
I have others, but that's the one that fits.

and you still can't use it properly,
Of course I did.

we are not equivocating on any definitions,
You and Discordiac are narrowly defining anarchism to ONLY mean being anti-state and anti-capitalist, which of course is FUCKING WRONG.

You and Discordiac: No anarchist advocates for capitalism
Myself and others: We're anarchists, and we advocate capitalism
You and Discordiac: Ah, but No True Anarchist advocates for capitalism.

And then you whine about "historic definitions", which has been shown to be a load of horseshit by pointing out that historically, atheism was associated with devil-worship and "wickedness", and of course we know that such is not the case.

nor are we fixing any hasty assertions by ad-hoc exclusions.
Yeah, you are.

Stop trying to act intelligent, because you're not impressing me in the least. You've got a long way to go before you even glimpse the stratospheric intellect that I have.

of course not, its just a set of rules and guidelines that people MUST follow, or they are an enemy of the people!

Actually, in anarcho-communism, at least, you don't have to participate.

Why is it so important to you that you are considered anarchist? Being called anarchist has no real advantages and doesn't help your case at all. People aren't going to take you anymore seriously if you call yourselves anarchists.

Of course, communism is all about the few telling the many what to do.
No, that would be capitalism.
No, that's communism, where you have a small oligarchic group telling everyone what to produce and where to work.

There are no social classes or bosses in communism.
Of course there are.

You and Discordiac are narrowly defining anarchism to ONLY mean being anti-state and anti-capitalist, which of course is FUCKING WRONG.

You and Discordiac: No anarchist advocates for capitalism
Myself and others: We're anarchists, and we advocate capitalism
You and Discordiac: Ah, but No True Anarchist advocates for capitalism.

well, at least you seem to understand how the no true scotsman fallacy could apply in this case. too bad you have the facts of the matter wrong.

us: anarchism is defined as being both anti-capitalist and anti-state as both come from the underlying principle of being in favor of a society without classes and hierarchy.

you: but i'm an anarchist who is in favor of classes and hierarchy.

us: wtf, that doesn't even make sense. that's exactly like saying you are a democrat that wants to have a totalitarian dictatorship that doesn't allow citizens to have any say in anything at all.

Stop trying to act intelligent, because you're not impressing me in the least. You've got a long way to go before you even glimpse the stratospheric intellect that I have.

ah yes, there's that reason i ignore you most of the time.

You and Discordiac are narrowly defining anarchism to ONLY mean being anti-state and anti-capitalist, which of course is FUCKING WRONG.

You and Discordiac: No anarchist advocates for capitalism
Myself and others: We're anarchists, and we advocate capitalism
You and Discordiac: Ah, but No True Anarchist advocates for capitalism.
well, at least you seem to understand how the no true scotsman fallacy could apply in this case.
And does apply

too bad you have the facts of the matter wrong.
Except that I have them correct.

us: anarchism is defined as being both anti-capitalist and anti-state
Except that it's only defined as being anti-state.

as both come from the underlying principle of being in favor of a society without classes and hierarchy.
There's heirarchy in this message board. There's heirarchy in your computer! Turn it off! Turn it off!

Since I have no idea what you mean by "classes" (you have never defined it, and since heirarchies exist in communism, you need to try again, smooth-brain.

you: but i'm an anarchist who is in favor of classes and hierarchy.
And what are "classes", anyway? Marx couldn't tell us. Can you?

us: wtf, that doesn't even make sense.
Of course it does, since anarchism is only about being anti-state.

What you're trying to do is PRECISELY the same as defining atheism as being only the outright denial that there is a god, when in fact it is the lack of belief in the existence of a god.

You're messing up the definition and creating a No True Scotsman fallacy. Deal with it, fucknut.

us: anarchism is defined as being both anti-capitalist and anti-state as both come from the underlying principle of being in favor of a society without classes and hierarchy.

you: but i'm an anarchist who is in favor of classes and hierarchy.

us: wtf, that doesn't even make sense. that's exactly like saying you are a democrat that wants to have a totalitarian dictatorship that doesn't allow citizens to have any say in anything at all.


ok, that makes a lot of sence, but here

Me: I am an anarchist because i dont believe in rule, or government

You: No you aren't a anarchist because you are in favor of classes and hierarchy

Me: No, I'm in favor of no rule or guideline placed on free trade and the economy. Therefore I am willing to accept that there are occupations in society that yeild more lucritive rewards.

To me there is no reason that these two couldnt co-exist. Its assumed that each community in a perfect anarchy would function differantly and independantly of eachother.

Since I have no idea what you mean by "classes" (you have never defined it, and since heirarchies exist in communism, you need to try again, smooth-brain.

A class is where one social group has more power over another. Government officials have power over ordinary people. Bosses have power over workers. Those are examples of classes.

No, that's communism, where you have a small oligarchic group telling everyone what to produce and where to work.

You forget that the producers are also consumers. There is no distinction between them like you seem to think there is. In anarcho-communism, you make stuff and vote on what needs to be made.

well, I couldn't get you all to unite behind my strong ideals of solidarity between the different factions, then appoint me as leader, take over the world in a damn big coup and oppress the lot of you, and announce myself global king-boss, (heh) so I guess I'll throw my hat in the ring. And a controversial hat it is at that.

Anarcho-capitalists are mainly just rich city bankers with nice houses and flash cars that want to carry on getting fat on the flesh of the workers, hopefully with as little intervention as possible from anyone. Ergo they want ultimate power to the corporation as a replacement to the state, making themselves uncontested by any real force such as the state and can use their economic clout to build little armies to oppress the workers... So in conclusion anarcho-capitalists are really fascists (and I only say this about half tongue in cheek)

Now, I don't really know how a purely anarchist system would work in terms of survival and luxury good, their manufacture and distribution, but I'm sure anarcho-capitalism isin't the way forward... speaking of which, can anyone point me towards books or sources on how an anarchist system would work in terms of produce?

Since I have no idea what you mean by "classes" (you have never defined it, and since heirarchies exist in communism, you need to try again, smooth-brain.
A class is where one social group has more power over another. Government officials have power over ordinary people. Bosses have power over workers. Those are examples of classes.
Then consumers have power over the producers. There's already a dictatorship of the proletariat!

No, that's communism, where you have a small oligarchic group telling everyone what to produce and where to work.
You forget that the producers are also consumers.
Actually, I didn't forget that. I'm extending the analogy to show how stupid it is.

There is no distinction between them like you seem to think there is. In anarcho-communism, you make stuff and vote on what needs to be made.
....which means that there are rulers, since the majority wins, right? The minority loses. Ergo, RULERS!

Then consumers have power over the producers. There's already a dictatorship of the proletariat!

I don't think you get it. There is no real producer and consumer classes. Everyone who can produce would be a producer and everyone is also a consumer.

....which means that there are rulers, since the majority wins, right? The minority loses. Ergo, RULERS!

If you believe so, then doesn't that hold true for capitalism as well?

Then consumers have power over the producers. There's already a dictatorship of the proletariat!
I don't think you get it. There is no real producer and consumer classes. Everyone who can produce would be a producer and everyone is also a consumer.
Then there are producer and consumer classes, just like worker/boss classes.


....which means that there are rulers, since the majority wins, right? The minority loses. Ergo, RULERS!
If you believe so, then doesn't that hold true for capitalism as well?
If it does, it does. But then it holds true for all, and thus you have to kill yourself, Letila, since you can't get away from rulers.

Then there are producer and consumer classes, just like worker/boss classes.

You can't be a business owner and an employee at the same time.

You can't be a business owner and an employee at the same time.

Bullshit. You don't know thing-one about small businesses. Here, check out The Service Corps of Retired Executives (http://www.score.org) or The Small Business Administration (http://www.sba.gov)

Anarcho-capitalists are mainly just rich city bankers with nice houses and flash cars that want to carry on getting fat on the flesh of the workers, hopefully with as little intervention as possible from anyone. Ergo they want ultimate power to the corporation as a replacement to the state, making themselves uncontested by any real force such as the state and can use their economic clout to build little armies to oppress the workers... So in conclusion anarcho-capitalists are really fascists (and I only say this about half tongue in cheek)
Hmmm. The state curbs big business and restrains the power of the rich. That makes sense.

Do not misunderstand me, the state exists to preserve the rights and privilages of the rich and powerful, its just that sometimes they have to make token concessions to everyone else to try and keep us all happy and placated. For example, when Coke uses water in India that dries up local reserves and there's an outcry (there was one in britain anyway) the state has to act all holier-than-thou to placate dissent against the corporations.

Whereas under anarcho-fascism, sorry, anarcho-capitalism, it'll just be the endless corporations deciding who does what, a bit like pre-renaissance italy.
Replacing the state and democracy with a plutocracy. What a very noble cause.

Stalin was a communist fascist.

Stalin was a state capitalist, actually, not a communist at all.

Vas.

I'm not arguing that anarchy wasn't founded on anti-capitalism (had Marx written the Communist Manefesto at this point yet?) but how can it be anti-state and anti-capitalism if the alternative is imposing rules to govern the way people must contribute to the state and how they must spend their earnings (I'm sure you are also for the abolition of currency).

It hadn't been written yet, but anarchism's opposition to capitalism preceeded Marxism. Marx didn't originate the idea that capitalism was bad.

In fact, Marx and Engels were heavily influenced by Proudhon.

Vas.

Do not misunderstand me, the state exists to preserve the rights and privilages of the rich and powerful, its just that sometimes they have to make token concessions to everyone else to try and keep us all happy and placated. For example, when Coke uses water in India that dries up local reserves and there's an outcry (there was one in britain anyway) the state has to act all holier-than-thou to placate dissent against the corporations.

Whereas under anarcho-fascism, sorry, anarcho-capitalism, it'll just be the endless corporations deciding who does what, a bit like pre-renaissance italy.
Replacing the state and democracy with a plutocracy. What a very noble cause.
Two words for you, "consumer sovereignty".

Democracy? Ha ha ha ha! How very "Anarchist". Lol.

I'm not in favour of democracy, once again you are misunderstanding me, either wilfuly or ignorantly, but I can forgive you your ignorance.

I am not in favour of democracy. I am an anarchist.

I was merely highlighting that your alternative to democracy seems to be a plutocracy, which would be if anything even worse because your holy corporations would be uncontested

I am perfectly aware of the concept of consumer soveriegnty, but I must admit some ignorance in not understanding how it fully applies here (and this is not sarcasm) perhaps you could enlighten me?

Under anarcho-socialism, everyone is a producer and everyone is a consumer. You can't have one without the other.
Anarchism is the purest form of democracy, assuming that it is based upon a form of direct democracy.
Personally, I don't care whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate form of anarchy. I would rather talk about how it wouldn't work. The argument in favor of anarcho-capitalism is that everyone would voluntarily respect everyone else's property rights. Which might happen for a little while, until someone starts to starve to death. Now, is someone who's starving to death going to respect your property rights just for the sake of respecting your property rights, or are they going to steal food?
Furthermore, capitalism requires that a certain number of people be jobless (and therefore starve to death) otherwise business owners would be unable to profit. (I could explain this if you'd like, but I think it's obvious.)

I am perfectly aware of the concept of consumer soveriegnty, but I must admit some ignorance in not understanding how it fully applies here (and this is not sarcasm) perhaps you could enlighten me?
The idea of consumer sovereignty is summed up in the phrase "the customer is always right". Socialists misunderstand the free market to be "rule by corporations" but in fact, on a real free market, the way to become rich is not to rule but to serve. A corporation must serve its customers. Not only that, but it must serve them better and/or cheaper than anyone else.

Corporations don't dictate what you'll do, you dictate to them. They go to extraordinary lengths to beg you politely to try their product, always mindful that if they slip up you'll find someone else who won't.

Contrast the market with democracy. Democracy is pure lowest common denominator. Everything caters for the majority. By contrast, the market caters for every taste and every budget (or would if it were allowed to). There is no "plutocracy", although those who serve the public best will be wealthier. A system that rewards in proportion to how much you help your fellow man. What could be better?

Under anarcho-socialism, everyone is a producer and everyone is a consumer. You can't have one without the other.
Anarchism is the purest form of democracy, assuming that it is based upon a form of direct democracy.
Personally, I don't care whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate form of anarchy. I would rather talk about how it wouldn't work. The argument in favor of anarcho-capitalism is that everyone would voluntarily respect everyone else's property rights. Which might happen for a little while, until someone starts to starve to death. Now, is someone who's starving to death going to respect your property rights just for the sake of respecting your property rights, or are they going to steal food?

Why would anyone be starving, unless they were too lazy to work? Even those unable to work would be provided for since they wouldn't have to compete with welfare queens for the nation's charity. They could try and steal your food but with widespread gun ownership and protection agencies it would be much less appealing than getting a job.


Furthermore, capitalism requires that a certain number of people be jobless (and therefore starve to death) otherwise business owners would be unable to profit. (I could explain this if you'd like, but I think it's obvious.)
Poppycock.

Why would anyone be starving, unless they were too lazy to work? Even those unable to work would be provided for since they wouldn't have to compete with welfare queens for the nation's charity. They could try and steal your food but with widespread gun ownership and protection agencies it would be much less appealing than getting a job.


Poppycock.

Are you unfamiliar with capitalist economics? Here, let me explain. If everyone is working, then they will organize to get more money. If they get more money, eventually the bosses can't profit. Therefore, there can never be a situation where everyone is working. If there is charity, there can never be enough to feed everyone who isn't working, otherwise you will have the same situation. Therefore, people will be starving to death, whether it's because there's not enough jobs or not enough charity is irrelevent. And I think most people would risk stealing food in spite of the risk of being shot in such a situation.

Are you unfamiliar with capitalist economics? Here, let me explain. If everyone is working, then they will organize to get more money. If they get more money, eventually the bosses can't profit. Therefore, there can never be a situation where everyone is working. If there is charity, there can never be enough to feed everyone who isn't working, otherwise you will have the same situation. Therefore, people will be starving to death, whether it's because there's not enough jobs or not enough charity is irrelevent. And I think most people would risk stealing food in spite of the risk of being shot in such a situation.
As I said, poppycock.

Now, I don't really know how a purely anarchist system would work in terms of survival and luxury good, their manufacture and distribution, but I'm sure anarcho-capitalism isin't the way forward... speaking of which, can anyone point me towards books or sources on how an anarchist system would work in terms of produce?

Start with the classics - Kropotkin's "Conquest of Bread" and "Factories, Fields and Workshops" (there's a variety of different versions, some with updates) - they're somewhat dated (to put it mildly), but the principles are the same. Then try some anarcho-syndicalist stuff like that written by Rudolph Rocker. For a modern take, try "ParEcon" by Michael Albert (I wouldn't agree with all of it, but anarchist ideas are a discussion, not a doctrine).

Vas.

As I said, poppycock.

Well, if it's poppycock, then prove that it's poppycock.

Are you unfamiliar with capitalist economics? Here, let me explain. If everyone is working, then they will organize to get more money. If they get more money, eventually the bosses can't profit. Therefore, there can never be a situation where everyone is working. If there is charity, there can never be enough to feed everyone who isn't working, otherwise you will have the same situation. Therefore, people will be starving to death, whether it's because there's not enough jobs or not enough charity is irrelevent. And I think most people would risk stealing food in spite of the risk of being shot in such a situation.

A large percentage of the population of Australia proves your point :)

Vas.

There would be no legal privilidges for trade unions. Also, labour would most likely be distributed amongst more numerous smaller employers. Thus labour would be difficult to organise for more than a small minority of the population and your argument is irrelevant.

Even then, in the extremely unlikely situation where there were organised unions, if employers weren't making money because they were being screwed by the unions they'd shut up shop and work as employees. This, as you say, would lead to unemployment amongst those who tried to join trade unions. Serves them right for trying to screw people over.

There would be no legal privilidges for trade unions. Also, labour would most likely be distributed amongst more numerous smaller employers. Thus labour would be difficult to organise for more than a small minority of the population and your argument is irrelevant.

Even then, in the extremely unlikely situation where there were organised unions, if employers weren't making money because they were being screwed by the unions they'd shut up shop and work as employees. This, as you say, would lead to unemployment amongst those who tried to join trade unions. Serves them right for trying to screw people over.

Actually, it's much easier to organize a small shop than a large one.

And it is employers who usually do the screwing over. And so your argument is irrelevent. See how irritating that can be? :-)

Oh, and also unions are perfectly capable of organizing without legal priviledges. The priviledges do make it easier, that's true, but it isn't impossible without them.

Actually, it's much easier to organize a small shop than a large one.

But much less bargaining power. If you go on strike in a small business customers will go somewhere else and you'll all lose your jobs. Plus, a small business is far less likely to alienate the workers to that degree. I've worked in lots of small businesses, shops, restaraunts etc, and I've considered my employers friends and respected them. If I had a grievance I'd just tell them and they'd try to sort it.

But much less bargaining power. If you go on strike in a small business customers will go somewhere else and you'll all lose your jobs. Plus, a small business is far less likely to alienate the workers to that degree. I've worked in lots of small businesses, shops, restaraunts etc, and I've considered my employers friends and respected them. If I had a grievance I'd just tell them and they'd try to sort it.

A strike isn't the only form of bargaining power that you can have. There are temporary work slowdowns, shows of solidarity like having everyone wear the same t-shirt, or, hell, you could simply put "out of order" signs on all of the equipment.

Not to mention that there's always the possibility that the customers will support the strike.

With small numerous employers, no legal privilidges and rapidly rising standards of living I just don't see labour unions being important, unless in some sort of welfare type role for their members.

With small numerous employers, no legal privilidges and rapidly rising standards of living I just don't see labour unions being important, unless in some sort of welfare type role for their members.

You'll have to explain the "rapidly rising standards of living" part.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html

Free market => massive wealth creation for everyone. The rich get richer, the poor get...... richer.

Um. Is it possible that you could both be right? I mean, putting aside the 'capitalists can/can't be anarchists' debate, is there any real reason why both visions aren't achievable? And if that is the case, why not have both co-existing?

Please bear with me, I'm reading up on anarchism but it's taking a while 'cos I don't have much spare time outside of work (obviously I'm spending most of my work time making posts like this...).

Um. Is it possible that you could both be right? I mean, putting aside the 'capitalists can/can't be anarchists' debate, is there any real reason why both visions aren't achievable? And if that is the case, why not have both co-existing?

None whatsoever. So long as the Commies don't steal our land or factories. If they do it on their own property that's fine. In fact, they'll get a good deal from us since our respect for property means they won't be invaded. In theory, an AnCap world could consist of nothing but socialist communes. I just don't think they will be able to resist plundering the productive and will end up getting themselves shot.

As Jello noted, umemployment is required in a capitalist society; but that does not mean some people must starve to death. It's called job churn, and it is good for the economy. If you remain unemployed for so long that you starve then that's your own fault.

You would be hard pressed to find an economist who is against the capitalist system...and any "anarchist" who is in favor of protectionism (such as the morons breaking windows back in Seattle) does not know what he/she is talking about.

God bless the 'Seattle morons', they've achieved more than they or you might suspect.

As Jello noted, umemployment is required in a capitalist society; but that does not mean some people must starve to death. It's called job churn, and it is good for the economy. If you remain unemployed for so long that you starve then that's your own fault.

Oh, excuse us, that's right - capitalism is natural, there is no alternative. Look, idiot, we're anarchists, thus we oppose YOUR economy (and that of the oxymorons).

You would be hard pressed to find an economist who is against the capitalist system...

I think you'll find there are quite a few Marxist and anarchist economists who would disagree. Your point, really is, you'd be hard pressed to find a pro-capitalist economist who is against the capitalist system.

and any "anarchist" who is in favor of protectionism (such as the morons breaking windows back in Seattle) does not know what he/she is talking about.

Dumbass - anarchists OPPOSE protectionism, which is WHY they smashed windows of multinationals who have benefitted from protectionism.

Vas.

Um. Is it possible that you could both be right? I mean, putting aside the 'capitalists can/can't be anarchists' debate, is there any real reason why both visions aren't achievable? And if that is the case, why not have both co-existing?

I recommend you read through the thread's archives, because this has been debated in depth here and there really is no point in repeating it again (the oxymorons obviously disagree).

Vas.

Such as?

They did much to bolster the critics of the WTO - which is far from a good thing. Though much blame should be placed on the US government, which waffled in the face of opposition.

And by morons I mean privileged white college students majoring in english...

Well then you have missed the point of the WTO - to remove protectionism...

Actually Marx was not wholly opposed to capitalism...

If you don't mind me asking - what do you do exactly?

Well, yes - the point of the WTO is to remove trade barriers (for good or bad). As an institution itself it has the power to be a great force for good. However, it's only as good as the sum of its parts and so far they haven't added up to much. Not to mention the attempt to push the abominable Multilateral Agreement on Investment, ugh...

Oh, excuse us, that's right - capitalism is natural, there is no alternative. Look, idiot, we're anarchists, thus we oppose YOUR economy (and that of the oxymorons).
Vas.

Nice use of words there (idiot, dumbass)...you must be quite educated..

Youre a Brit - read the Economist once in a while...or better yet, study up on finance...

Well then you have missed the point of the WTO - to remove protectionism...

The "point" of the WTO has been to remove any blocks to multinational corporations buying up and exploiting anything they can get their hands in the countries of the South. Protectionism is fine if you're the US, but not if you're Guatemala, and it's not just "protectionism", it's environmental protections, public requirements, etc.

Actually Marx was not wholly opposed to capitalism...

He saw it as necessary and natural, that's different to supporting it. Also, Marx wasn't a Marxist.

If you don't mind me asking - what do you do exactly?

I'm a journalist, website editor and human rights activist.

Vas.

Well, yes - the point of the WTO is to remove trade barriers (for good or bad). As an institution itself it has the power to be a great force for good. However, it's only as good as the sum of its parts and so far they haven't added up to much. Not to mention the attempt to push the abominable Multilateral Agreement on Investment, ugh...


Yeah, they could do more good...but unfortunately most talks break down into petty bickering. You can't argue with removing agricultural tariffs though!

There are no good trade barriers - Finance 101...

Nice use of words there (idiot, dumbass)...you must be quite educated..

Youre a Brit - read the Economist once in a while...or better yet, study up on finance...

Kiss my white Irish ass, dumbfuck. And I just cancelled my subscription to the Economist after two years because I'm not interested in the propaganda anymore. I'll stick to the New Internationalist, the New Statesman, Zmag, the Nation and Counterpunch, thank you very much.

Vas.

So you are opposed to differing viewpoints? Open your mind...I know it's cool to be an anarchist and against the WTO, but give common sense a chance...oh well, I'm sure you'll grow out of it...

Yeah, they could do more good...but unfortunately most talks break down into petty bickering. You can't argue with removing agricultural tariffs though!

There are no good trade barriers - Finance 101...
I have no idea what '101' means, but I'm pretty sure that the above comment is incorrect. If physics is subject to uncertainty, then economics sure as hell is as well.

Uncertainty in economics - now that would be a thought provoking debate. Beyond the random walk?

Uncertainty in physics? bah! Give me an example.

Who knew writing a little post would cause me to stop working for so long...

I have no idea what '101' means

Sorry about that - It means introductory finance...101 is the first class in a subject at American Universities...

Thanks for the definition, we don't use it over here in Blighty.

As for physics... damn, wish I'd never mentioned it. I still have the mental battle scars from my time at uni! Not sure how serous you were being about uncertainty in physics, but essentially:

If you can pinpoint a particle's position, then it is impossible to measure its momentum and vice versa; you can never know both at the same time. This also applies to other paired physical properties, like energy and, uh, something... It's been a while!

And by morons I mean privileged white college students majoring in english...
If you don't mind me asking - what do you do exactly?


I'm a journalist, website editor and human rights activist.

Ha ha ha. You smoked him right out!

As for physics... damn, wish I'd never mentioned it. I still have the mental battle scars from my time at uni! Not sure how serous you were being about uncertainty in physics, but essentially:

If you can pinpoint a particle's position, then it is impossible to measure its momentum and vice versa; you can never know both at the same time. This also applies to other paired physical properties, like energy and, uh, something... It's been a while!

Arg...you've made me pick up my continuum mechanics book...let's leave this subject well alone...I got out of physics two years ago (after six years) and am damn happy about it...

Energy and time are the relevant conjugate variables.

Amen to that, comrade!

Energy and time are the relevant conjugate variables.
Damn... what is it about anarchy threads and physics? I'm sure Feynman got mentioned earlier as well.

Thanks for the definition, we don't use it over here in Blighty.

We do now.

For example for the first year of my course I did History 101 (biggest pile of wank I have ever had to sit through), and Politics 101 (Introduction to British Politics aka Politics A-level overview).

Damn... what is it about anarchy threads and physics? I'm sure Feynman got mentioned earlier as well.
That was another thread, a guy called 'Feynmania' was posting and I asked if he was named for Richard Feynman (no reply) :(

We do now.

For example for the first year of my course I did History 101 (biggest pile of wank I have ever had to sit through), and Politics 101 (Introduction to British Politics aka Politics A-level overview).
Ah. Shows my age...

As far as I know, English and Welsh (not sure about the Scottish ones) moved towards the American system when the semester system was bought in (two semesters per year). Rather then keeping the original (which I believe was one huge exam at the end) they introduced the modular system. I think it was to give students more flexability in their course.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html

Free market => massive wealth creation for everyone. The rich get richer, the poor get...... richer.

Wow, those are very long. Do you have anything shorter? If not, I might get around to reading them. I may have a copy of "the Wealth of Nations" around here somewhere. But, I digress.
Wasn't there something earlier in this thread (or perhaps another one) of what would be used as currency in an anarcho-capitalist society? And it seemed to be the consensus that it would be gold, as gold as recognized as wealth the world over. But what happens when the gold runs out? Or, more appropriately, is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands? If it's just a commodity, that means that the more one person has, the less someone else has, and therefore there can't be "massive wealth creation for everyone"

Ha ha ha. You smoked him right out!

Wow, yeah, cunning that - ask me a question. Sheesh, I was totally taken by surprise.

Vas (if you'd actually been paying attention, I've said before what I do).

So you are opposed to differing viewpoints? Open your mind...

"Opposed" to differing viewpoints? Come on, please. No, I'm personally opposed to spending my money on something I no longer have an interest in reading. My mind is perfectly open, thank you very much, I simply find the stridently pro-capitalist message of the Economist irritating and boring. That's not opposition, it's personal preference.

I know it's cool to be an anarchist and against the WTO,

TRIPS (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm), GATS (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/serv_e.htm) and Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc034.wpd.html) - three VERY good reasons to oppose the WTO.

but give common sense a chance...oh well, I'm sure you'll grow out of it...

Dahlink, I'm very likely quite a bit older than you are.

Vas.

The point that I was making is that simply providing a job does not permit you to profit from the work of an employee, if so, then simply having a cotton field would permit a slaveowner to have slaves.
Many employers are independently wealthy, of course most aren't. But that isn't the point. Due to the fact that there are more employers than employees, employees will always be more expendable.
Okay, if a child owns his/her own body, is it then acceptable to give the child candy or money in exchange for sex? (And maybe in addition give the parents money.)
Okay, if it's not acceptable to profit from the theft of someone else, then how can you support the current system? (See my above post about the Native Americans being killed off and their land taken.)
I asked about direct democracy insofar as dealing with whatever issues might come up within your society. Someone not respecting another's property rights, for instance.

And no one thusfar answered these points.

As Jello noted, umemployment is required in a capitalist society; but that does not mean some people must starve to death. It's called job churn, and it is good for the economy. If you remain unemployed for so long that you starve then that's your own fault.

You would be hard pressed to find an economist who is against the capitalist system...and any "anarchist" who is in favor of protectionism (such as the morons breaking windows back in Seattle) does not know what he/she is talking about.

How is the "job churn" good for the economy? Sounds to me like it's just a way to keep people making the minimum wage, and not ever receive any benefits.
Economics are largely based upon the laws of whichever country the economist lives in. Since most economists live in capitalist countries, they will be in favor of capitalism.

Currency is a pretty complicated thing - what's is backing most currencies today? Nothing, just the government's word..

Gold is not a very good idea for the reasons you just mentioned...

One global currency would be interesting

Currency is a pretty complicated thing - what's is backing most currencies today? Nothing, just the government's word..

Gold is not a very good idea for the reasons you just mentioned...

One global currency would be interesting

Which is why there shouldn't be one.

Economics are largely based upon the laws of whichever country the economist lives in. Since most economists live in capitalist countries, they will be in favor of capitalism.

Exactly. Not to mention the fact that economists get their money from capitalism.

How is the "job churn" good for the economy? Sounds to me like it's just a way to keep people making the minimum wage, and not ever receive any benefits.
Economics are largely based upon the laws of whichever country the economist lives in. Since most economists live in capitalist countries, they will be in favor of capitalism.

Maybe that's because capitalism is the system that works in the long run

Job churn is good because inefficient companies should fail and lay off workers. These workers can then put their efforts towards other things. Also, workers who are ill suited for a position should be replaced...

Never in my life have I had difficulty getting a job. And I have always made over minimum wage, even when I was 15...

Exactly. Not to mention the fact that economists get their money from capitalism.

Oh, and where does your money come from? Do you think we would even be having this discussion were it not for capitalism and its benefits?

"Holiday in Cambodia" is a really good song

I agree, it is. Though I like "Kill the Poor" better.

Maybe that's because capitalism is the system that works in the long run

Job churn is good because inefficient companies should fail and lay off workers. These workers can then put their efforts towards other things. Also, workers who are ill suited for a position should be replaced...

Never in my life have I had difficulty getting a job. And I have always made over minimum wage, even when I was 15...

Whup de fucking doo and good for you, you smug ignorant git.

Vas.

Whup de fucking doo and good for you, you smug ignorant git.

Vas.

ha ha...thanks, though I prefer smug and arrogant

Maybe that's because capitalism is the system that works in the long run

Job churn is good because inefficient companies should fail and lay off workers. These workers can then put their efforts towards other things. Also, workers who are ill suited for a position should be replaced...

Never in my life have I had difficulty getting a job. And I have always made over minimum wage, even when I was 15...

Just as socialism hasn't ever been tried, capitalism in its purest form hasn't, either. Welfare and social security aren't capitalist ideals.
I always find it to be absurd how people throw around the word "inefficient" and used it to describe very bad things. Democracy is inefficient, in such an instance efficiency runs counter to what is best. Therefore, inefficiency isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Yes, naturally workers can put their efforts towards other things...being hungry, searching for food, etc.
Simply because you've never experienced having trouble finding a job doesn't mean the same is true for other people.

ha ha...thanks, though I prefer smug and arrogant

No, ignorant fits.

Vas.

Oh, and where does your money come from? Do you think we would even be having this discussion were it not for capitalism and its benefits?

Benefits! You mean like sweatshops and pollution? I see no reason why workers without hierarchy couldn't create computers.

Wow, those are very long. Do you have anything shorter? If not, I might get around to reading them. I may have a copy of "the Wealth of Nations" around here somewhere. But, I digress.
Wasn't there something earlier in this thread (or perhaps another one) of what would be used as currency in an anarcho-capitalist society? And it seemed to be the consensus that it would be gold, as gold as recognized as wealth the world over. But what happens when the gold runs out? Or, more appropriately, is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands? If it's just a commodity, that means that the more one person has, the less someone else has, and therefore there can't be "massive wealth creation for everyone"
That was the wealth of nations :)

It might be gold, it might be silver or oil or pretty pieces of paper. Probably gold, though.

If the gold runs out they'll use something else. Also, the amount of money isn't what makes the wealth, if it was the govt would print loads and we'd all be rich. If there were more goods and services being produced but the amount of gold were constant then you'd have deflation, price drops. The same amount of gold would buy you more. The supply of money could be constant but the purchasing power of the money isn't.

If you want a quick and easy primer on Ancap economics try David Friedman's "the machinery of freedom" (not online, unfortunately). Ask BAAWA for anything online and short, he's the economist.

I agree, it is. Though I like "Kill the Poor" better.

Also good

Hypothetical -
If we killed off all the poor people - wouldnt someone just take their place? Shit still needs shoveling

And yes, soup IS good food

Exactly. Not to mention the fact that economists get their money from capitalism.
Funny, most academics here work in state socialist institutions.

That was the wealth of nations :)

It might be gold, it might be silver or oil or pretty pieces of paper. Probably gold, though.

If the gold runs out they'll use something else. Also, the amount of money isn't what makes the wealth, if it was the govt would print loads and we'd all be rich. If there were more goods and services being produced but the amount of gold were constant then you'd have deflation, price drops. The same amount of gold would buy you more. The supply of money could be constant but the purchasing power of the money isn't.

If you want a quick and easy primer on Ancap economics try David Friedman's "the machinery of freedom" (not online, unfortunately). Ask BAAWA for anything online and short, he's the economist.

Silver would have the same problems as gold, but other than the two, the whole world doesn't recognize anything else as a valid form of currency. If it isn't the amount of money that makes the wealth, then what does make it?

[QUOTE=Libertovania]That was the wealth of nations :)



If the gold runs out they'll use something else. Also, the amount of money isn't what makes the wealth, if it was the govt would print loads and we'd all be rich. If there were more goods and services being produced but the amount of gold were constant then you'd have deflation, price drops. The same amount of gold would buy you more. The supply of money could be constant but the purchasing power of the money isn't.

QUOTE]

deflation is a problem - if a pound were worth more in a year than it is now, then people would save instead of spend. That is why governments try to maintain inflation (preferably low however). Ask 1920s and 30s Germany how well printing mass quantities of paper worked out...

Silver would have the same problems as gold, but other than the two, the whole world doesn't recognize anything else as a valid form of currency. If it isn't the amount of money that makes the wealth, then what does make it?


No one uses gold as a backing to currency...The US for one went off gold around 1970. Many governments have their currency tied to either the dollar, the Euro, or the pound sterling

That is true about the gold standard, I wasn't the one who initially made the comment that gold would be useful, though. All right, if not gold, then what would be used as currency, for those of you who think we need such a thing?

The point that I was making is that simply providing a job does not permit you to profit from the work of an employee, if so, then simply having a cotton field would permit a slaveowner to have slaves.

I don't understand your logic here. Trading someone money for labour is not the same as slavery. It's a free voluntary interaction.

Many employers are independently wealthy, of course most aren't. But that isn't the point. Due to the fact that there are more employers than employees, employees will always be more expendable.

Not really. There may not always be more jobs than employees, and wouldn't be if the state would stop mussing things up.

Okay, if a child owns his/her own body, is it then acceptable to give the child candy or money in exchange for sex? (And maybe in addition give the parents money.)
A perfectly legitimate criticism of the standard Lockean rights theory. Most Ancaps I know don't agree with Locke/Nozick.

Okay, if it's not acceptable to profit from the theft of someone else, then how can you support the current system? (See my above post about the Native Americans being killed off and their land taken.)
What do you propose to do instead? They're dead, you can't give it back to them.

I asked about direct democracy insofar as dealing with whatever issues might come up within your society. Someone not respecting another's property rights, for instance.
Democracy would be a very poor way of mediating this dispute. I'd rather pick one wise person to adjudicate it than rely on the average of all the people. The market reflects the concerns of the mass of consumers far better than democracy does.

deflation is a problem - if a pound were worth more in a year than it is now, then people would save instead of spend. That is why governments try to maintain inflation (preferably low however). Ask 1920s and 30s Germany how well printing mass quantities of paper worked out...
So what? More saving = more future wealth. The drop in consumption spending is compensated for by growth in investment spending. Again, BAAWA is the economist so perhaps ask him if he posts again. Throughout 19th century America falling prices were normal.

That is true about the gold standard, I wasn't the one who initially made the comment that gold would be useful, though. All right, if not gold, then what would be used as currency, for those of you who think we need such a thing?
Gold and Silver are obvious and fine choices. D. Friedman has proposed a commodity bundle (e.g. this much iron, this much oil, this much wheat etc) to increase stability, although the transaction costs would increase.

I don't understand your logic here. Trading someone money for labour is not the same as slavery. It's a free voluntary interaction.


Not really. There may not always be more jobs than employees, and wouldn't be if the state would stop mussing things up.

A perfectly legitimate criticism of the standard Lockean rights theory. Most Ancaps I know don't agree with Locke/Nozick.

What do you propose to do instead? They're dead, you can't give it back to them.

Democracy would be a very poor way of mediating this dispute. I'd rather pick one wise person to adjudicate it than rely on the average of all the people. The market reflects the concerns of the mass of consumers far better than democracy does.

Trading someone your money for labor is voluntary sometimes, but not when you're starving to death.

I agree that the state does muss things up, but not as much as the companies do.

BAAWA was the one I initially posted that to. He said that the body was property, and that the child owned it, with the parents the guardians.

I agree that the Native Americans are dead, and that you can't give it back to them. It shows that the current distribution of property is invalid. The solution is to redistribute.

The market isn't a very good indicator of what the mass of consumers want. If something goes on sale and 20% of the people immediately buy it, the market will assume that there's a huge demand for it, when they could be the only people that want it. While it is true that the market will "correct itself" eventually, why pick a system that's guaranteed to make a mistake at all? Isn't one without mistakes a better system?

Oh, and what happens if that wise person decides to try and form a government?

So what? More saving = more future wealth. The drop in consumption spending is compensated for by growth in investment spending. Again, BAAWA is the economist so perhaps ask him if he posts again. Throughout 19th century America falling prices were normal.

We rely on consumer spending to keep the economy going. Take it up with Greenspan and the Fed Reserve if you disagree.

Do you wish to compare economic growth of the 19th century with that of the latter 20th?

Funny, most academics here work in state socialist institutions.

Where? I certainly don't know about many economists working in socialism.

I don't understand your logic here. Trading someone money for labour is not the same as slavery. It's a free voluntary interaction.

But the worker has to sell their labor to survive. Also, selling your labor doesn't just mean working for pay, it means taking orders and essentially renting out your body.

We rely on consumer spending to keep the economy going. Take it up with Greenspan and the Fed Reserve if you disagree.

Do you wish to compare economic growth of the 19th century with that of the latter 20th?

Economic growth is a purely captialistic term and concept. Why do economies have to grow constantly, particularly when the benefits generally create more division between the richest and the rest?

Vas.

Where? I certainly don't know about many economists working in socialism.

But the worker has to sell their labor to survive. Also, selling your labor doesn't just mean working for pay, it means taking orders and essentially renting out your body.

Um, me for one...


Fine, start your own company then...

Letila - have you ever looked into cooperative businesses? You may find them interesting. They are 100% employee owned companies.

Economic growth is a purely captialistic term and concept. Why do economies have to grow constantly, particularly when the benefits generally create more division between the richest and the rest?

Vas.

Unfortunatly while they may be concepts in capatilism, there are basic economic factors that transcent government (as I was saying earlier with the merging of unlike things).

While an economy doesn't need to grow, a society cannot stay the same. It is impossible. Brainwashing aside, there is no way to control that many people so presciesly that the economy of a state would never fluxuate.

What happens if there are too many workers for not enough jobs? Does one just start to produce extra or do you give people worthless jobs and therfore deminish the idea of equal work equal pay.

What about at the onset of a baby boom? Huge numbers of children without an increase in the number of workers.

These are really superficial examples of these fluxuations, admittidly since I dont have a PhD in economics. But to keep a flat economy you need to keep a static society which is, and has proven to be, impossible (failing some kind of super fascist cleansing).

My question to you Dischordiac is, why do you think that someone who spends 15 years in university, works their ass off to become a doctor or lawyer or something of a prestegious position deserves the same as a basic construction worker who hasnt even a high school diploma?

In any fair and equal society, the person who spends more time to contribute a more specialized and prescise contribution to the society should be able to reep the benefits of what they sew. You quickly point out all the negativity of modern capilalism, but you quickly forget how corrupt and poor a economic system communism has shown to be in practice.

Seriously, the harder you work and the more you give to society, the more society should give you. You do nothing, you get nothing.

Where? I certainly don't know about many economists working in socialism.

He is talking about in Britain (no idea about the US or anywhere else).

For example, iirc one of Thatchers favorite economists during the 80's worked at Liverpool University

He is talking about in Britain (no idea about the US or anywhere else).

Britain, socialist. Yeah right.

My question to you Dischordiac is, why do you think that someone who spends 15 years in university, works their ass off to become a doctor or lawyer or something of a prestegious position deserves the same as a basic construction worker who hasnt even a high school diploma?

Do you think it's fair that someone working in a sweatshop for 12 hours should get less money than someone who inherited it?