NationStates Jolt Archive

Britain, socialist. Yeah right.

Well it isn't that socialist anymore. But note I did mention Thatcher. Britain was still fairly socialist when she came into power.

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

ok, sweatshops are not a biproduct of capatilism, they are a product of globalization into non-industralized and militiristic districts that oppress their people to gain revenue from large corporations to continue to go to war.

Ya, it sucks.

1. But, in a non globalized economy, which an anarchy would undoubtly have, buisnuss would stay small and specialized to its community so that it continued to be supported by the comunity.

2. Nike wouldnt exist in an anarchistic free market because there would essentially be no market beyond the immediate people that were in your surrounding community or possibly neighbouring comunities.

3. You are pointing to a fact that humans like to take advantage of others. Communism is the most optimistic form of economics on the planet, and very fragile because of this. People WILL take advantage of eachther in any system, the system might as well be able to take care of those people.

4. You still haven't given a valid argument for why a trained proffessional and high school drop out deserve the same from a society when obviously one provides much more than the other to society.

ok, sweatshops are not a biproduct of capatilism, they are a product of globalization into non-industralized and militiristic districts that oppress their people to gain revenue from large corporations to continue to go to war.



Are you serious?
MNCs don't like to invest in unstable countries that are likely to be involved in conflicts. International trade lessons the chance of war.

Poor countries that trade grow faster (& richer) than those that do not - proven again and again

Sweat shops are temporary - it is merely a step on the way to industrialization...don't like them? Then go back to chasing goats around.

Are you serious?
MNCs don't like to invest in unstable countries that are likely to be involved in conflicts. International trade lessons the chance of war.

Poor countries that trade grow faster (& richer) than those that do not - proven again and again

Sweat shops are temporary - it is merely a step on the way to industrialization...don't like them? Then go back to chasing goats around.

lol, shows what i know

Are you serious?
MNCs don't like to invest in unstable countries that are likely to be involved in conflicts. International trade lessons the chance of war.

Poor countries that trade grow faster (& richer) than those that do not - proven again and again

Sweat shops are temporary - it is merely a step on the way to industrialization...don't like them? Then go back to chasing goats around.

It's all and well to pretend that sweatshops are ok when you aren't the one working in them. Imagine you are the one who spends 12+ hours a day working in terrible conditions.

It's all and well to pretend that sweatshops are ok when you aren't the one working in them. Imagine you are the one who spends 12+ hours a day working in terrible conditions.


Life sucks doesnt it?

Yeah, I've done the 60 hour/week construction job...that's why I decided college was a good idea...

Why don't you get a good paying job and give all your money to them?

It's all and well to pretend that sweatshops are ok when you aren't the one working in them. Imagine you are the one who spends 12+ hours a day working in terrible conditions.

Thats great, but compleatly irrevelant to the issue

From a NeoFiles (http://www.life-enhancement.com/neofiles/) interview with Robert Anton Wilson (http://www.rawilson.com/main.shtml)

"I don’t think politics is all that important. Spending too much time focused on politics leads to total despair with the state of the human race. But if you look at the whole spectrum of human behavior, I think the science and the arts are driving it. I think the sciences and the arts relate to a lot more of human behavior than politics does. They’re going to try to stop developments in science but they’re not going to stop it and it’s going to change everything. I think we’re going to have major breakthroughs in biotech in the next five-ten years and they can’t do a damned thing to stop it. It’s going to change the whole world..."

+++++FOR+++EXAMPLE+++++

Evolving Towards Telepathy (http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Transitory_Human/column.aspx?articleID=2004-04-26-4)
Demand for increasingly powerful communications technology points to our future as a "techlepathic" species
By George Dvorsky

[An exerpt follows:]

"...Indeed, humanity appears to be on the cusp of a rather remarkable development: We are, for all intents and purposes, about to become a telepathic species. Such a development will occur this century and it will likely happen in three major phases.

"The first generation of telepathic devices will likely be of the subvocal variety in which communication travels one way, much like a normal conversation. The second phase will also involve unidirectional transmission, but consciousness (i.e. language center output) will be output instead of subvocalized speech. And the third phase will likely involve the seamless bidirectional transference of consciousness and emotions to one or more receiving persons—in other words, telepathy in the truest sense. It's highly probable that the medium of exchange for such communication will be the Internet, or its future form, the global mind or Noosophere.

"Given such an endowment, human cooperation and performance, particularly in team environments, will be greatly enhanced—whether it be a search and rescue team or a prog rock band. Indeed, artists will undoubtedly exploit such advancements by creating unimaginably powerful expressions that involve the transference of conscious and emotive experiences."

+++++++++

"The world is like a ride in an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it, you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly colored and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time and they begin to question, is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, "Hey, don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride..." And we... we kill those people." ~Bill Hicks~

++++++++++

From http://www.rawilson.com/papers.shtml

I see the power game resting on three levels of force and fraud. First, earliest and still most powerful is the government racket itself, the monopoly on force (military power, police power, etc.) which allows the governing group to take tribute (taxation) from the enslaved or deluded masses. Second, derivative from this primordial conquest, is the landlord racket, the mammalian monopoly on territory which allow's the king's relations (lords-of-the-land) or their successors, today's "land-lords," to take tribute (rent) from those who live within the territory. Rent is the daughter of taxation; the second degree of the same racket. Third, the latest in historical time, is the usury racket, the monopoly on the issue of currency which allows the money lords to take tribute (interest) on the creation of money or credit, and on the continuous circulation of the money or credit every step of the way. Interest is the son of rent, the rent of money. Since most people engaged in nefarious practices are, in my opinion, very loathe to acknowledge what they are doing, and are addicted to the same hypocrisies as the rest of humanity, I think all power groups quite sincerely believe that what they are doing is proper, and that anybody who attacks them is a revolutionary nut. Outside of the Klingons on Star Trek, I have never encountered a real predator who justifies himself on Stirnerite or Machiavellian grounds. I really think Saroyan was right, naïve as it sounds, in saying that "every man is a good man in his own eyes."

(Preceding was written in 1976; following was written in 1979)

The difference between Conspiracy Digest and myself is that CD defines the Power Elite as somebody else. I always define the Power Elite as myself and my friends. CD and I are in basic agreement that certain kinds of power are vested in (a) those who monopolize weaponry, i.e. governments, (b) those who monopolize land, i.e. landlords, and (c) those who monopolize currency, i.e. banks of issue. We disagree in that CD regards these traditional monopolies as possessing the only kinds of power that matters on this planet; and I recognize another kind of power, Brain Power. Brain power (the work of all artists, scientists, and symbolizers since the dawn of humanity, but particularly those of the Nineteenth Century) created the "real world" over which monopolists fight each other in the Twentieth Century. Similiarly, Brain power right now, today, is creating the "real world" of the Twenty-First Century, over which the monopolies will then be struggling. The Brain people create the realities over which the Power people fight each other, and the Brain people even create the techniques of the fight...

++++++++++

Inevitable Interdependent Technological Revolution Evolving Networks Will flatten the hierarchical pyramid of power into a human-scaled web of interelated, and relatively equal, relations.

For more information please refer to:

http://journal.planetwork.net/article.php?lab=pantic0704

{Thanks to http://www.fusionanomaly.net/anomalog/ for the link}

Anarchy = An + Archy

An = Anti, Against, Anathema, etc.

Archy = A suffix properly meaning a rule, ruling, rulers.

Therefore, "Anarchy" would mean opposition to rule, ruling, and rulers to include any and all forms of Hierarchy, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Plutarchy, Patriarchy, Matriarchy, Paedarchy, Aristarchy, Autarchy, Cryptarchy, Demarchy, Ecclesiarchy, Endarchy, Ethnarchy, Gymnasiarchy, Heroarchy, Heterarchy, Hoplarchy, Hyperarchy, Iatrarchy, Pollarchy, Polyarchy, Synarchy, Thearchy, and Timarchy.

Therefore, an Anarchist, would be in opposition to the imposition of rules, being ruled, and/or ruling others, etc. All other definitions are anathema to the soul of the word.

If your "Anarcho-Communist" society engages in any form of rules, ruling, and/or rulers it is a contradiction -- an oxymoron.

If your "Anarcho-Capitalist" society engages in any form of rules, ruling, and/or rulers it is a contradiction -- an oxymoron.

If your "Anarcho-Socialist" society engages in any form of rules, ruling, and/or rulers it is a contradiction -- an oxymoron.

This discussion is not getting any of us closer to a less hierarchical world. Abandon the monitors. PRISONERS OF THE EARTH, COME OUT! Not only have the chains of the Law been broken, they never existed; demons never guarded the stars, the Empire never got started, Eros never grew a beard.

No, listen, what happened was this: they lied to you, sold you ideas of good & evil, gave you distrust of your body & shame for your prophethood of chaos, invented words of disgust for your molecular love, mesmerized you with inattention, bored you with civilization & all its usurious emotions.

There is no becoming, no revolution, no struggle, no path; already you're the monarch of your own skin--your inviolable freedom waits to be completed only by the love of other monarchs: a politics of dream, urgent as the blueness of sky.


[Cf. http://www.sonic.net/~ric/go/church/gov_types.htm]

riiiight...now pass the bong....

No, no. You pass tha duchie on tha LEFT hand side. Not the riiiiiight!

(Oh, wait... That's a rule. Never mind...)

Here, toke up, Snaggletooth.

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

no. it isn't. my definition is the definition used by the people who invented the political ideology of anarchism and first applied the word to that ideology. it has a history of continuous usage under our definition for over 150 years, and this usage is shared by a worldwide movement that calls itself anarchist.

There's heirarchy in this message board. There's heirarchy in your computer! Turn it off! Turn it off!

yes, there is hierarchy in this forum. and you will notice that as a rule i don't call the mods on you, or anyone else.

but there isn't hierarchy in my computer (though there was hierarchy in the corporations that made it). is hierarchy another one of those terms you don't understand?

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.

class, specifically social class, is a very common and incredibly useful concept in social science. i would express surprise that you don't understand it, but i've read enough from you to fix that. a class is, generally speaking, a group within a society that has relatively the same position or social status. different societies have different basic classes and different levels of stratification. a classless society would be a society where everyone had equal access to power, prestige, and resources. any 'communism' with hierarchy or unequal access to power, prestige, and resources isn't.

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.

no, it isn't.

and even if we accepted your definition of anarchism as a valid alternative - which we don't - you still wouldn't have nts. since we have been completely up front about our definition at all times and 'anarcho'-capitalism is explicitly excluded by that definition, there is no ad-hoc exclusion being made to prop up our hasty definition. no equivocation, no ad hoc exclusions = no "no true scotsman".

a class is, generally speaking, a group within a society that has relatively the same position or social status. different societies have different basic classes and different levels of stratification. a classless society would be a society where everyone had equal access to power, prestige, and resources. any 'communism' with hierarchy or unequal access to power, prestige, and resources isn't.

i should probably also add that there are several distinct classes within capitalist society. the basic ones are those who can make a living purely through ownership of capital and those who must sell their labor in order to do so. then there are some further finer distinctions, but that is the underlying class structure of capitalism. your place within one of these classes has an immense effect on your access to power, prestige, and resources; with nearly all of those things going almost exclusively to people in the owning class.

This thread sure is growing fast. The original Anarchist Thread took months to reach 65 pages. This one is already halfway there.

This discussion is not getting any of us closer to a less hierarchical world. Abandon the monitors. PRISONERS OF THE EARTH, COME OUT! Not only have the chains of the Law been broken, they never existed; demons never guarded the stars, the Empire never got started, Eros never grew a beard.

No, listen, what happened was this: they lied to you, sold you ideas of good & evil, gave you distrust of your body & shame for your prophethood of chaos, invented words of disgust for your molecular love, mesmerized you with inattention, bored you with civilization & all its usurious emotions.

There is no becoming, no revolution, no struggle, no path; already you're the monarch of your own skin--your inviolable freedom waits to be completed only by the love of other monarchs: a politics of dream, urgent as the blueness of sky.


thats probably one of the best posts so far

ok, sweatshops are not a biproduct of capatilism, they are a product of globalization into non-industralized and militiristic districts that oppress their people to gain revenue from large corporations to continue to go to war.

That's why sweatshops existed before neoliberalism ("globalization") and why countries that aren't fighting wars (Brazil, Dominican republic, etc.) also have sweatshops.

This thread sure is growing fast. The original Anarchist Thread took months to reach 65 pages. This one is already halfway there.

though i think this forum's pages have a different number of posts on them than the old ones. cause the old anarcho-thread over in the archives now clocks in at 87 pages instead of 65.

Anarchy is bad, mmkay?

Why? Because then I could just shoot you and take everything you had. The strong prey on the weak.

And let's be honest with ourselves. We're mostly geeks here, we ARE the weak.

;)

Me.

Why? Because then I could just shoot you and take everything you had. The strong prey on the weak.

And let's be honest with ourselves. We're mostly geeks here, we ARE the weak.

And I suppose government officials are somehow immune to this tendency. :headbang:

*Walks into the thread, puts his finger to his chest like he's pressing a button, and explodes making a huge blast.*

a dream (my dream at least) anarcho-capitalist society would be one in which all (or nearly all, at least) businesses were owned by the employees. Everyone would be a capitalist, and people would be rewarded based on how much they contribute and how efficient they are (which is ALWAYS a good thing when you are speaking of production)
(the current) Puppet CEOs who actually have no abilities would be the ones starving (along with the current jobless people with no abilities) People who are good "businessmen" can go into advertising or be drug reps or something (as an engineer, I have basically resented the b-school kids cause they work 1/4 as hard and get 4 times the stuff we do)
And in the instance where employees do not own the business, I support organization for better treatment. If the employees really aren't making enough, then of course they should ask for more. If their demands are unreasonable then the company will fail or else they will see that it is unreasonable. If they are reasonable, then either they will be met, or the company will again fail. (And I don't think a demand that will cut the CEO's earnings from 75x that of a floor worker's to 50x that of the same worker's is really unreasonable) I think, if anything, having that amount of unemployment is a bad thing, because it does allow the boss to exploit workers.
And...the last thing I can think of for now, small businesses are indefinitely better than large multinationals. For one, because as was mentioned earlier, the employer is friends with the employee, and is so more likely to treat him with respect and give him the benefits he deserves. Even Ayn Rand believed in small businesses and competition (and if I remember correctly she was a pretty big capitalist)
Anyway, where is the coercion/all that other stuff you hated in capitalism that makes it anti-anarchy in a world where all the employees owned the businesses where they were employed?

us: anarchism is defined as being both anti-capitalist and anti-state
Except that it's only defined as being anti-state.
no. it isn't.
Yes, it is.

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

my definition is the definition used by the people who invented the political ideology of anarchism and first applied the word to that ideology.
Which is wrong.

it has continuous usage under our definition for over 150 years, and this usage is shared by a worldwide movement that calls itself anarchist.
Mine has continuous usage longer.


There's heirarchy in this message board. There's heirarchy in your computer! Turn it off! Turn it off!
yes, there is hierarchy in this forum. and you will notice that as a rule i don't call the mods on you, or anyone else.
Yet you still use a computer, which has programs that use heirarchical structure, and if you think that a computer doesn't have other heirarchies, then you simply have no idea how a computer works. Let me inform you: there are many heirarchies in a computer. The processor and memory bus have precedence over the PCI bus, for instance. The PCI bus contains different devices which have different priorities and permissions (normally done with IRQs-Interrupt ReQuests). THe motherboard has something called a BIOS, which the operating system uses to understand what each device is. Without that BIOS (or something like it), the OS doesn't grok how to talk to the devices.

I've built over 800 systems and fixed another 3,000. I know what the hell I'm talking about.


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.
class, specifically social class, is a very common and incredibly useful concept in social science.
Is it? Show me.

i would express surprise that you don't understand it, but i've read enough from you to fix that. a class is, generally speaking, a group within a society that has relatively the same position or social status.
And that means?

different societies have different basic classes and different levels of stratification. a classless society would be a society where everyone had equal access to power, prestige, and resources. any 'communism' with hierarchy or unequal access to power, prestige, and resources isn't.
Isn't what?


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.
no, it isn't.
Yes, it is.

and even if we accepted your definition of anarchism as a valid alternative - which we don't - you still wouldn't have nts.
Yes, I would.

since we have been completely up front about our definition at all times and 'anarcho'-capitalism is explicitly excluded by that definition,
Which makes it NTS. You are ad-hoc excluding anarchocapitalism for no valid reason at all, other than the fact that you don't like capitalism. Well, you can't do that and not create NTS. Sorry, asshole.

i should probably also add that there are several distinct classes within capitalist society. the basic ones are those who can make a living purely through ownership of capital and those who must sell their labor in order to do so. then there are some further finer distinctions, but that is the underlying class structure of capitalism. your place within one of these classes has an immense effect on your access to power, prestige, and resources; with nearly all of those things going almost exclusively to people in the owning class.
I should probably add that nowhere in that does such mean that every person in the "class" thinks alike, acts alike, and wants alike, regardless of what the Marxists tosswads would like to have people think.

Yes, it is.

You simply can't rely on dictionary definitions to understand a complex political theory. Believe it or not, there is no national institute of dictionaries that decides what words mean.

Yet you still use a computer, which has programs that use heirarchical structure, and if you think that a computer doesn't have other heirarchies, then you simply have no idea how a computer works. Let me inform you: there are many heirarchies in a computer. The processor and memory bus have precedence over the PCI bus, for instance. The PCI bus contains different devices which have different priorities and permissions (normally done with IRQs-Interrupt ReQuests). THe motherboard has something called a BIOS, which the operating system uses to understand what each device is. Without that BIOS (or something like it), the OS doesn't grok how to talk to the devices.

I've built over 800 systems and fixed another 3,000. I know what the hell I'm talking about.

Last time I checked, we hadn't achieved AI yet. That means none of these components are sentient and there is no more hierarchy there than there is of a rock over the ground holding it up.

I should probably add that nowhere in that does such mean that every person in the "class" thinks alike, acts alike, and wants alike, regardless of what the Marxists tosswads would like to have people think.

I know, but it is a social category like gender or age group.

Why does it matter so much to you that you are called "anarcho"-capitalist? Why not simply stateless capitalist? Being called anarchist has no advantages. It actually makes it less likely that people will take your views seriously.

Benefits [of capitalism)! You mean like sweatshops and pollution?
You mean like the mess in the former communist eastern European states?

And yes, they were communist.

You simply can't rely on dictionary definitions to understand a complex political theory. Believe it or not, there is no national institute of dictionaries that decides what words mean.



Last time I checked, we hadn't achieved AI yet. That means none of these components are sentient and there is no more hierarchy there than there is of a rock over the ground holding it up.
Well you should check again. Although machines are not (yet) sentient, we have created various forms of AI. Some of my friends are creating a video game using some different types to create hierarchies in fact... There is like individual AI for the people at the head of the army and swarm technology for the lower ranks...

Why does it matter so much to you that you are called "anarcho"-capitalist? Why not simply stateless capitalist? Being called anarchist has no advantages. It actually makes it less likely that people will take your views seriously.
Well if it doesn't matter to you, I guess we'll just take it and you can call yourselves stateless communists.
Works both ways, sweetie.

(why do I even bother anymore? all I get on this thread is ignored)

Yes, it is.
You simply can't rely on dictionary definitions to understand a complex political theory. Believe it or not, there is no national institute of dictionaries that decides what words mean.
Ok then. Let's try a *philosophy* dictionary.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a4.htm#anar
anarchism

Belief that an ideal human society should have no organized government, often accompanied by a practical disregard for the authority of existing governments and by a proposal for abolishing them. Prominent modern anarchists include Godwin, Proudhon, and Bakunin.


http://www.saint-andre.com/ismbook/A.html
Anarchism (Doctrine and Movement in ethics and politics) — Anarchism was a sometimes violent political movement around the turn of the century, but the word also describes a moral-political ideal of a society untouched by relations of power and domination among human beings. This moral ideal has most often expressed itself in what is the technical meaning of the term, namely the total absence of government. Anarchism, in this sense, differs from the position of classical liberalism or libertarianism in politics (which upholds not a lack of government but limited government), but in its moral sense (the abolition of force and domination from human relations) it is consonant with a rational ethics. Note, however, that this ethical aspect is overshadowed in popular understanding by the political aspect, and by the former political movement. [Reference from pacifism.]

I don't see anywhere in there where it says "reliance on collectivism/socialism/capitalism", do you?

Hint: you can't win. Stop trying.


Yet you still use a computer, which has programs that use heirarchical structure, and if you think that a computer doesn't have other heirarchies, then you simply have no idea how a computer works. Let me inform you: there are many heirarchies in a computer. The processor and memory bus have precedence over the PCI bus, for instance. The PCI bus contains different devices which have different priorities and permissions (normally done with IRQs-Interrupt ReQuests). THe motherboard has something called a BIOS, which the operating system uses to understand what each device is. Without that BIOS (or something like it), the OS doesn't grok how to talk to the devices.

I've built over 800 systems and fixed another 3,000. I know what the hell I'm talking about.
Last time I checked, we hadn't achieved AI yet.
So what?

That means none of these components are sentient and there is no more hierarchy there than there is of a rock over the ground holding it up.
Non sequitur.

I just demonstrated heirarchy in a computer. Believe me, I know what the fuck I'm talking about. Heirarchies don't have to be about human interaction, dumbshit. They can be anywhere. Knowledge is heirarchical. Computer programs are heirarchical.

Why does it matter so much to you that you are called "anarcho"-capitalist?
Why does it matter so much to you to deny capitalism as anarchistic?

Why not simply stateless capitalist?
Because anarchist is proper.

Being called anarchist has no advantages. It actually makes it less likely that people will take your views seriously.
I'm also an atheist. A lot of people scoff at that, too. I say so the fuck what.

"And I suppose government officials are somehow immune to this tendency."

If you're even TRYING to imply that the exploitation of the public by Government officials in a democracy, be it constitutional monarchy, representative democracy, or republic, are remotely as close the the type of Strong preying on Weak that would exist in an Anarchy, you're not being purposefully obtuse.

Let me give you all a good explanation of Anarchy, and why it's stupid:

Anarchy: Something*Positive Style (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp12102002.shtml)

Me.

...Yet you still use a computer, which has programs that use heirarchical structure, and if you think that a computer doesn't have other heirarchies, then you simply have no idea how a computer works. Let me inform you: there are many heirarchies in a computer. The processor and memory bus have precedence over the PCI bus, for instance. The PCI bus contains different devices which have different priorities and permissions (normally done with IRQs-Interrupt ReQuests). THe motherboard has something called a BIOS, which the operating system uses to understand what each device is. Without that BIOS (or something like it), the OS doesn't grok how to talk to the devices.

I've built over 800 systems and fixed another 3,000. I know what the hell I'm talking about...

damn but you're an arrogant ass - i'm going back to ignoring you now.

but first, the above is a classic example of equivocation. 's when you shift meanings of a word in a fallacious attempt at an argument.

and

Which makes it NTS. You are ad-hoc excluding anarchocapitalism for no valid reason at all, other than the fact that you don't like capitalism. Well, you can't do that and not create NTS. Sorry, asshole.

me: xundi is defined as bant and hefu. no true xundi is not hefu.
you: but i want to define xundi only as bant. therefore true xundi can be not hefu.
me: too bad. we are talking about xundi as i defined it.
you: no true scotsman fallacy!
me: no, it isn't. i have kept a consistent definition and under that definition it is true that no true xundi is not hefu, in exactly the same way that no true vegan eats steak. now if you want to redefine xundi to allow not hefu in the context of your own argument, that's fine. but that has no bearing on this argument. you are trying to argue through equivocation. which means that your argument is fallacious, not mine.

some of us have had a lot more philosophy courses than you, and by all appearances did much better in them than you did.

"some of us have had a lot more philosophy courses than you, and by all appearances did much better in them than you did."

But your grasp of logical fallacy is slim, at best.

Beyond that, your grasp on the needs of society are small. Human society can not exist on a large enough scale for actual society to occur without someone in a higher place of power over the others, and some form of social heirarchy. Otherwise you end up with the strong preying heavily upon the weak. Read the comic I linked. Bear that in mind, as much as it's a joke, it's the truth of the matter, and anyone who espouses Anarchy and then tries to say they know so much more about philosophy and human nature is obtuse.

Me.

Let me give you all a good explanation of Anarchy, and why it's stupid:

Anarchy: Something*Positive Style (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp12102002.shtml)

Me.

the word you and that comic are looking for is anomie. popular culture often confuses anomie for anarchy, but they are not the same. besides, when we say anarchy in this thread we are talking about the political theory of anarchism. if you would like some good introductions to it, feel free to ask.

Suffice it to say I know what Anarchism is.

It's also a broken concept for the very same reasons.

In order to come to the conclusion that Anarchism is going to succeed, you have to selectively observe the fact that people will be happy if they are on equal footing with others, and everyone is provided for.

The selective observation fallacy is ingrained in that deduction, because you're taking the time to ignore that the reason Capitalism works better than any other economic system right now, and why Democracy is the best of all current governments right now, is that the single most driving force in human nature is Greed. People want, and they will do what they must to get what they want.

Anarchism, in and of itself, though not necessarily a bad idea, is as implausible as true Communism, due to the fact that, until humanity is able to provide everything everyone wants at all times, it is doomed to failure.

The problem is that human Greed is a bottomless well and can not be filled.

In order to conclude that Anarchism is "good", you have to selectively remove that statement from the equation.

Me.

Beyond that, your grasp on the needs of society are small. Human society can not exist on a large enough scale for actual society to occur without someone in a higher place of power over the others, and some form of social heirarchy. Otherwise you end up with the strong preying heavily upon the weak.

i highly recommend looking into the social structures of pre-state human cultures, especially those with immediate-return economies, before so glibly dismissing radical human egalitarianism.

"i highly recommend looking into the social structures of pre-state human cultures, especially those with immediate-return economies, before so glibly dismissing radical human egalitarianism."

Apparently you missed the part where I made mention of size. The size of human society now is such a point that the pre-state human cultures are irrelevant.

I would highly recommend reading what I actually said before glibly dismissing my statements.

Pre-State human cultures, by the by, had their own pecking orders. Mostly Despostistic. Despotism is, by far, not Anarchism. It is the strongest leading the pack. Pre-State human cultures were mostly pack-oriented cultures. Humans are, after all, predatorial. We do now, and always have, had a pecking order. There is someone at the top that leads, all the way down to the bottom.

The only times that there was a non-pecking order, you're looking at simplistic communities. Well guess what, there are towns in the US practicing the same policies. Everyone works for the betterment of all. Beyond a small, simple community, it is neither effective nor plausible to run a society.

Me.

the word you and that comic are looking for is anomie. popular culture often confuses anomie for anarchy, but they are not the same. besides, when we say anarchy in this thread we are talking about the political theory of anarchism. if you would like some good introductions to it, feel free to ask.

I thought anomie was things like Trigun and Inuyasha. :D

Apparently you missed the part where I made mention of size. The size of human society now is such a point that the pre-state human cultures are irrelevant.

I would highly recommend reading what I actually said before glibly dismissing my statements.

Pre-State human cultures, by the by, had their own pecking orders. Mostly Despostistic. Despotism is, by far, not Anarchism. It is the strongest leading the pack. Pre-State human cultures were mostly pack-oriented cultures. Humans are, after all, predatorial. We do now, and always have, had a pecking order. There is someone at the top that leads, all the way down to the bottom.

The only times that there was a non-pecking order, you're looking at simplistic communities. Well guess what, there are towns in the US practicing the same policies. Everyone works for the betterment of all. Beyond a small, simple community, it is neither effective nor plausible to run a society.

Total BS. If hierarchy were voluntary and natural, it wouldn't require so much military and police force to maintain. We must be forced to submit to authority, even when we have been brainwashed for all our lives. No one pays taxes willingly.

We need something to help explain why capitalism is wrong. Any suggestions, Disc and FS?

"We need something to help explain why capitalism is wrong. Any suggestions, Disc and FS?"

Pure Capitalism is wrong. That's not even something that's worth arguing, everyone should know it by now.

The thing you have to bear in mind is what is the best solutiong for the current economic breakdown of society?

I allude to a comment by Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the absolute worst government, besides all the other ones."

The same falls for Capitalism, or, more specifically Socio-Capitalism. It's the worst economic policy out there, unless you look at any of the other ones.

Capitalism has its faults, and they can be glaring at times, but it is, as a whole, and with some moderation/modification, the best economic policy to use at this time. We haven't found anything better that works on as grand a scale as it does, besides a Socialism/Capitalism hybrid (which I lovingly call Socio-Capitalism :) ), and it gives the greatest push to the advancement of human society.

Anarchism is a step back, unless implimented far, far in the future of humanity. By that I mean centuries.

Me.

Apparently you missed the part where I made mention of size. The size of human society now is such a point that the pre-state human cultures are irrelevant.

argument by assertion. we know that radically egalitarian societies can exist because we have seen them. you'll need to argue why it is impossible for there to be egalitarian societies with a larger number of people in them, especially in light of the anarchist theories on how to organize large organizations in an egalitarian manner.

and actually, you said, "Human society can not exist on a large enough scale for actual society to occur without someone in a higher place of power over the others", which is just downright false. unless you meant something different by 'actual society' than i would mean by it.

Pre-State human cultures, by the by, had their own pecking orders. Mostly Despostistic. Despotism is, by far, not Anarchism. It is the strongest leading the pack. Pre-State human cultures were mostly pack-oriented cultures. Humans are, after all, predatorial. We do now, and always have, had a pecking order. There is someone at the top that leads, all the way down to the bottom.

unfortunately, your anthropology if a number of decades out of date. band and tribe societies were/are more or less uniformly egalitarian with only a minimum amount of hierarchy grudgingly tolerated - and some without any at all.

I thought anomie was things like Trigun and Inuyasha. :D

groan. what a terrible pun.

"argument by assertion."

I'm glad you found a little website that lists Fallacious Arguments, but I'm not really impressed. If you feel it's argument by assertion, instead of just saying it's argument by assertion, would you care to show HOW it is and then proceed to debunk it afterwards? I think we can all Google "Fallacious Arguments" and feel proud of it. ;)

"we know that radically egalitarian societies can exist because we have seen them. you'll need to argue why it is impossible for there to be egalitarian societies with a larger number of people in them, especially in light of the anarchist theories on how to organize large organizations in an egalitarian manner."

I have. So should I point out "Selective Reading"? Or no? I'm going to go with "no", because I'm not pretentious. (Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning the special olympics. . .) I'll just stress it in a different way:

The greater the quantity of people you have in any given situation, the greater the needs of society, since there is a greater drain on society as a whole, there will be haves and have nots. Even if it's just that YOU got berries, and *I* got melons. I wanted berries, damnit!

In small quantities of people, such problems are easily mitigated, however, due to human nature, the greater the blob of people, the greater the dissonance between them. You're going to have greater amounts of crime, whether or not everyone is provided for, and you're going to have people who feel that they are sharing an unfair burden of the load for the rest of society, and not going to want to work as hard.

In an egalitarian or anarchistic society, they are still provided for, there is no real "punishment" for not pulling your weight. In a Socio-Capitalistic society, you have the penalty of not getting paid, and ergo not having what you need to accomplish.

Whenever you have a larger group, the begrudging nature of not wanting to have a pecking order becomes easier to overcome through Mob Mentality. All you need is one charismatic, power-hungry individual, and it's all over.

Look at Soviet Russia for a prime example. Lenin may have had good plans, but it all fell to shit when Stalin decided he wanted more control.

"unfortunately, your anthropology if a number of decades out of date. band and tribe societies were/are more or less uniformly egalitarian with only a minimum amount of hierarchy grudgingly tolerated - and some without any at all."

Unfortunately, a minimum amount of hierarchy is what makes Despotism different than Dictatorship. You have one leader, and you have all the followers.

Humans are predators, and like most other predatory mammals, we're pack animals. There is, and was, an alpha male. Females have generally always been on a lower rung than males (more hierarchy! Yay!), and you had a pecking order. When the alpha male dropped, a new one took over.

The point at which you say "more or less uniformly egalitarian" is where the concept behind the whole basis of your assertion that Anarchism is the way to go falls apart. Once it becomes less uniform, it's no longer anarchistic.

At all.

Me.

I thought anomie was things like Trigun and Inuyasha. :D

BTW, is that Vash in your signature (I've been thinking that a while but never got a good chance to ask)

secondly, please tell me what is wrong with my post on the last page? (I think that's where it is)

"and actually, you said, "Human society can not exist on a large enough scale for actual society to occur without someone in a higher place of power over the others", which is just downright false. unless you meant something different by 'actual society' than i would mean by it."

As a mention, I should have been more clear. I meant "actual society" in the concept of the scale we have it now. Country-size and higher.

My bad. :)

Me.

BTW, is that Vash in your signature (I've been thinking that a while but never got a good chance to ask)

Yes, it is.

"and actually, you said, "Human society can not exist on a large enough scale for actual society to occur without someone in a higher place of power over the others", which is just downright false. unless you meant something different by 'actual society' than i would mean by it."

As a mention, I should have been more clear. I meant "actual society" in the concept of the scale we have it now. Country-size and higher.

An anarchist society would be organized mostly around the communal level. It would be much more decentralized than our society.

In an egalitarian or anarchistic society, they are still provided for, there is no real "punishment" for not pulling your weight. In a Socio-Capitalistic society, you have the penalty of not getting paid, and ergo not having what you need to accomplish.

Ever heard of social pressure?

Humans are predators, and like most other predatory mammals, we're pack animals. There is, and was, an alpha male. Females have generally always been on a lower rung than males (more hierarchy! Yay!), and you had a pecking order. When the alpha male dropped, a new one took over.

Now you're trying to justify sexism, you gorean b******.

"An anarchist society would be organized mostly around the communal level. It would be much more decentralized than our society."

The decentralization being the core problem.

"Ever heard of social pressure?"

Social pressure is a red herring and a moot point. It doesn't work now, what makes you suspect it will work in an anarchistic society? Then you have to take into account that social pressure will increase the effects of Mob Mentality, which will allow for a much easier ascent into power by a single individual.

"Now you're trying to justify sexism, you gorean b******."

I think you have too many asterisks in the last word there.

And as a mention, let's cut the personal attacks. I made no attempts to justify a damn thing. I said nothing about the right/wrong aspects, ethics, or morality of men being historically higher on a social structure than women. I simply stated that, historically, that's how it is.

Am I wrong?

I mean, I know there are some small cases where that is not the case (Such as England having a Queen, Egypt having Cleopatra, etc), but, historically speaking, men have been on a higher level than women.

I don't necessarily think it's RIGHT that that's the case, but that IS the case.

So let's try not to divert the discussion from the topic to the person. Stating something that has been made abundantly clear throughout history does not mean you are giving justification to it. Just stating that it is.

Oh, and btw, Gor is stupid.

Me.

Edit: Y'know something? I would like to think that on a politics forum, I wouldn't have to make statements such as that to defend myself from any assertions I've made. I would like to think it should be abundantly clear to people that stating facts about how the world has worked throughout the history of man does not suddenly and directly mean that you agree with such a concept. I would like to think that, on a politics forum, that you shouldn't be required to say that you feel that both genders have their strengths and weaknesses, and the two counter-act each other well, and that you believe there are things men will always be better at and things women will always be better at, for instance, men are generall more powerful, whilest women are generally smarter. I would like to think that people are capable of understanding that on their own...

Then I remember this is a thread about Anarchy... And am reminded I should not make such assumptions. :|

The greater the quantity of people you have in any given situation, the greater the needs of society, since there is a greater drain on society as a whole, there will be haves and have nots. Even if it's just that YOU got berries, and *I* got melons. I wanted berries, damnit!

In small quantities of people, such problems are easily mitigated, however, due to human nature, the greater the blob of people, the greater the dissonance between them. You're going to have greater amounts of crime, whether or not everyone is provided for, and you're going to have people who feel that they are sharing an unfair burden of the load for the rest of society, and not going to want to work as hard.

except that there won't be haves and have-nots as each would have equal access to social wealth. we already make far more than enough stuff for everybody who isn't caught in the grips of an addiction to conspicuous consumption, and would have even more if so much of our social wealth wasn't being monopolized by the elite.

i see no particular reason to think crime would be anymore of a problem than it is in any society other than your say so, and plenty that leads me to believe that the abolition of classes - and therefore poverty and the associated social conditions - will drastically reduce it. and other sources of societal conflict and such just mean that we will need to have social structures in place to deal with them, just like any other society. not the least of which is an anti-authoritarian and egalitarian ethics, and an anarchistic educational system.

In an egalitarian or anarchistic society, they are still provided for, there is no real "punishment" for not pulling your weight. In a Socio-Capitalistic society, you have the penalty of not getting paid, and ergo not having what you need to accomplish.

well, other than the general ethic an anarchist society would have to have to exist and that people who try to freeload beyond whatever limit a community has set will have to deal with sanctions of some sort. diffuse sanctions are still effective as sanctions.

Whenever you have a larger group, the begrudging nature of not wanting to have a pecking order becomes easier to overcome through Mob Mentality. All you need is one charismatic, power-hungry individual, and it's all over.

thus the importance of explicit egalitarian structures of control and decision making. mob mentality is really a problem of structureless or dysfunctional group dynamics rather than group dynamics in general. anarchist mass organizations both historically and in the present haven't fallen prey to mob mentality, despite their egalitarian structures. and some of them have been downright huge.


Unfortunately, a minimum amount of hierarchy is what makes Despotism different than Dictatorship. You have one leader, and you have all the followers.

that's not what that means. seriously, these societies were remarkably egalitarian, often having absolutely no status distinctions at all other than those based purely on being skilled at a particular thing. and those were usually extremely down-played to prevent anyone getting a big head about it. they certainly wouldn't stand for being dominated by some power-hungry jerk, and would actually go out of their way to actively discourage them before they became a problem in the first place.

The point at which you say "more or less uniformly egalitarian" is where the concept behind the whole basis of your assertion that Anarchism is the way to go falls apart. Once it becomes less uniform, it's no longer anarchistic.

At all.

Me.

i meant that nearly all of the hundreds of band and tribe societies were radically egalitarian, with a few exception. not that some in those societies were more equal than others.

"except that there won't be haves and have-nots as each would have equal access to social wealth. we already make far more than enough stuff for everybody who isn't caught in the grips of an addiction to conspicuous consumption, and would have even more if so much of our social wealth wasn't being monopolized by the elite."

That's not entirely correct. In order for there to be equal access to social wealth, especially in a situation where the majority of the most sought after commodities are limited (oil for instance), there would need to be some definitive concessions made by many, not even remotely the "elite", as you put it. Just people in general, and people won't want to make those concessions. You're trying to take an ideal that is only expoused by a minority and apply it to the majority. In a nutshell, it doesn't work.

"i see no particular reason to think crime would be anymore of a problem than it is in any society other than your say so, and plenty that leads me to believe that the abolition of classes - and therefore poverty and the associated social conditions - will drastically reduce it."

Well, that's fine and dandy that you see no particular reason to think that, and have made quite a baseless assessment about the abolition of class, but that's, frankly, not the case. If only it were the case, this world would be a much better place, however...

Your knowledge of Philosophy is pretty well established throughout the comments we've had back and forth, however the problem with Philosophies involving politics and/or economics is that, without a base, if not expansive, knowledge of Psychology and Sociology, all of it is a bunch of baseless conjecture.

The problem with the anarchism concept is that it selectively ignores considerable chunks of human sociology, and a massive amount of psychology, in deciding what will and will not work. You have to ignore the impact of Greed upon people, because it is basing a good amount of the assumptive conclusion on the concept that if everyone has the same thing as everyone else, they will no longer want for more.

Past evidence has shown that, as a general rule, that will not be the case. All it takes is one or two individuals who have a bit of charisma and want to have more than everyone else, and the whole thing can, and will, come crashing down, for they will convince others of their own perceived failings of the system, and others will come to agree that they want more, as well. Mob Mentality takes over, and the entire thing is bunk.

In order to honestly portray that something as idealistic as Anarchism is a feasible Political or Economic policy, you have to basically toss the base concepts of human nature out the window, and accept that humans will follow an ideal. Humans aren't like that, everyone's ideals are different, and it doesn't take much to convince most people that a particular ideal is flawed.

They're referred, in the bible, as "lambs" for a reason. . .

"well, other than the general ethic an anarchist society would have to have to exist and that people who try to freeload beyond whatever limit a community has set will have to deal with sanctions of some sort. diffuse sanctions are still effective as sanctions."

That fails by basing in the concepts that such ethics will become absolute.

"thus the importance of explicit egalitarian structures of control and decision making. mob mentality is really a problem of structureless or dysfunctional group dynamics rather than group dynamics in general. anarchist mass organizations both historically and in the present haven't fallen prey to mob mentality, despite their egalitarian structures. and some of them have been downright huge."

Mob Mentality is a problem of human psychosis. It's easier to follow than it is to lead, or work evenly on keel with another. People LIKE to be led. Mob Mentality is a direct result of human psychology, not of dysfunctional group dynamics, or even group dynamics in general.

And please feel free to give me some examples of these "downright huge" concepts, I'd love to hear it. :)

"that's not what that means. seriously, these societies were remarkably egalitarian, often having absolutely no status distinctions at all other than those based purely on being skilled at a particular thing. and those were usually extremely down-played to prevent anyone getting a big head about it. they certainly wouldn't stand for being dominated by some power-hungry jerk, and would actually go out of their way to actively discourage them before they became a problem in the first place."

Such as what? You haven't yet given a single example beyond "It happened". Do me the favor of citing a few examples, here. I know what I've read, and I've read a lot, I'm curious as to where you're getting your information. I don't need sources or any such garbage, I'm not that anal, but it would be nice to know which specific societies you're speaking of.


Me.

"that's not what that means. seriously, these societies were remarkably egalitarian, often having absolutely no status distinctions at all other than those based purely on being skilled at a particular thing. and those were usually extremely down-played to prevent anyone getting a big head about it. they certainly wouldn't stand for being dominated by some power-hungry jerk, and would actually go out of their way to actively discourage them before they became a problem in the first place."

Such as what? You haven't yet given a single example beyond "It happened". Do me the favor of citing a few examples, here. I know what I've read, and I've read a lot, I'm curious as to where you're getting your information. I don't need sources or any such garbage, I'm not that anal, but it would be nice to know which specific societies you're speaking of.

rest of the big post when i'm not so tired, but this is easy so it gets it now. the examples i know best are the !kung, mbuti, hadza, and inuit. others i only know generalities. but really, anything on this page (http://boas.ukc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/uncgi/Ethnoatlas/show_groups?r=72&rv=1&c=70&cv=1) probably makes the grade.

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.
How would that make it more valid? Most wealth today has been added to and traded around enough so that you can say those who hold it more or less deserve it. To redistribute it would be (is) very harmful.

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?

Why would they assume that? An entrepeneur that made mistakes like that wouldn't stay in business very long. It is socialism, with the lack of price coordination, which is guaranteed to make mistakes.

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?
Greenspan is an asshat.

Why would comparing those things tell you anything useful?

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

Every state university in the world, perhaps?

rest of the big post when i'm not so tired, but this is easy so it gets it now. the examples i know best are the !kung, mbuti, hadza, and inuit. others i only know generalities. but really, anything on this page (http://boas.ukc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/uncgi/Ethnoatlas/show_groups?r=72&rv=1&c=70&cv=1) probably makes the grade.
You seem to know quite a lot about this. Would I be correct if I said hunter gartherer societies tended to be egalitarian whereas agricultural societies tended to have property rights?

There seems to be a fundamentally flawed concept here: That there is one correct government and social system.

Anarchy, Communism, Socialism, Fascism ... people seem to suffer from a need to point to each and say "these points are wrong, therefore this concept is wrong."

Humans are not a stable species. There is no such thing as a "right" society, or a "wrong" society. 2500 years ago the Athenians adopted Capitalism ... it was logical for the time, it worked, it made them a prosperous society. The growing wealth led to powerful leaders, which led to Tyranny (this is not anti-capitalist, the first Athenian Tyrants were very talented men who did a lot for their citizens), and when Tyranny failed they moved onto Democracy.

The point? People adopt a society that works, and then change it as they change. Some people like to yell about how wonderful modern Democracy is, but let's face facts ... choosing who gets to screw you over for the next four years is not my idea of great government. It just works for now.

A century from now we could have an anarchy, a socialist society, a democracy where people vote for the policies they choose, rather than the politicians. The central fact of this society will be that it works for its time. If it doesn't, it won't last.

To be a true beliver in chaos, you shouldn't bid for anarchy, because anarchy is just another self-contained "one way is right" system. You should just live for the moment and enjoy the fact that tomorrow will be different from today.

The point? People adopt a society that works, and then change it as they change.
What do you mean by works? Did the Chinese live for thousands of years under a despotic emperor because it "worked"?

To cut a long story short ... yes, they did. They didn't see their leaders as "despotic" - the Chinese saw the Emperor as a benevolent father figure who protected them from their barbaric neighbours. Someone who represented the customs and traditions that kept a society strong over thousands of years.

When outside influences managed to invade, the government changed. New systems came into place, new traditions were formed, and the empire fell.

The Chinese Empire worked, until change forced it to adopt a new society. That's why global unification is such a dangerous idea - it runs the risk of a society that has no outside influences and is incapable of change.

"An anarchist society would be organized mostly around the communal level. It would be much more decentralized than our society."

The decentralization being the core problem.

"Ever heard of social pressure?"

Social pressure is a red herring and a moot point. It doesn't work now, what makes you suspect it will work in an anarchistic society? Then you have to take into account that social pressure will increase the effects of Mob Mentality, which will allow for a much easier ascent into power by a single individual.

"Now you're trying to justify sexism, you gorean b******."

I think you have too many asterisks in the last word there.

And as a mention, let's cut the personal attacks. I made no attempts to justify a damn thing. I said nothing about the right/wrong aspects, ethics, or morality of men being historically higher on a social structure than women. I simply stated that, historically, that's how it is.

Am I wrong?

I mean, I know there are some small cases where that is not the case (Such as England having a Queen, Egypt having Cleopatra, etc), but, historically speaking, men have been on a higher level than women.

I don't necessarily think it's RIGHT that that's the case, but that IS the case.

So let's try not to divert the discussion from the topic to the person. Stating something that has been made abundantly clear throughout history does not mean you are giving justification to it. Just stating that it is.

Oh, and btw, Gor is stupid.

Me.

Edit: Y'know something? I would like to think that on a politics forum, I wouldn't have to make statements such as that to defend myself from any assertions I've made. I would like to think it should be abundantly clear to people that stating facts about how the world has worked throughout the history of man does not suddenly and directly mean that you agree with such a concept. I would like to think that, on a politics forum, that you shouldn't be required to say that you feel that both genders have their strengths and weaknesses, and the two counter-act each other well, and that you believe there are things men will always be better at and things women will always be better at, for instance, men are generall more powerful, whilest women are generally smarter. I would like to think that people are capable of understanding that on their own...

Then I remember this is a thread about Anarchy... And am reminded I should not make such assumptions. :|

Social pressure does work, though, even if only to a limited extent. There are social pressures against welfare (at least here in the US) and therefore many people don't go on welfare. There are also social pressures against hitting women, etc.

Oh, and lastly:
"What we call human nature is in actuality human habit."

Furthermore, "society as a whole" doesn't need to become anarchist. They can stay with capitalism or feudalism or whatever else they want to have. Only the people that wish to live in an anarchist society need to.

How would that make it more valid? Most wealth today has been added to and traded around enough so that you can say those who hold it more or less deserve it. To redistribute it would be (is) very harmful.

Why would they assume that? An entrepeneur that made mistakes like that wouldn't stay in business very long. It is socialism, with the lack of price coordination, which is guaranteed to make mistakes.

It would make it more valid because that's the only way of assuring that the people who *should* have the money, land, etc. have it. By *should* I mean, if the Native Americans had survived, and given their property to someone, who survived and gave their property to someone else - inheritance rights, basically. The right to give voluntarily was taken away. The fact that wealth today has been added to and traded around is irrelevent, as it was based upon theft. The idea of money laundering is the same, essentially all wealth has been laundered, and therefore irrelevent.

Well, then if I'm wrong about how the market "works" then tell me, how does it go about determining prices?

Oh, and to answer the question about doctors/lawyers, etc: While many people are doctors and lawyers for the money, many others are doctors and lawyers for the simple fact that they want to be doctors and lawyers. Sometimes you have to work hard to be what you want.

Furthermore, "society as a whole" doesn't need to become anarchist. They can stay with capitalism or feudalism or whatever else they want to have. Only the people that wish to live in an anarchist society need to.

Err ... so if 60% of Pittsburgh, PA, USA wants to become an Anarchist society and the rest wants to become a Theocracy, this is a doable situation? Entire populations of people don't spontaneously say "Anarchy ... YAY! I'm in, where's me bike?".

Human habit doesn't change overnight. As Libertovania kindly pointed out with the example of China, without a good reason to evolve a society does not change at all. There has to be a strong impulse - a good reason to move towards Anarchy or a Theocracy.

And note that by "a good reason" I do not mean an online philosopher mumbling "capitalism's bad, m'kay", or a an Anarchist wannabe announcing "Ye cannae c'ntrol meh" just before requesting a tax return. You need a major crisis or a shift in the values of an entire population before government change is practical.

It would make it more valid because that's the only way of assuring that the people who *should* have the money, land, etc. have it. By *should* I mean, if the Native Americans had survived, and given their property to someone, who survived and gave their property to someone else - inheritance rights, basically. The right to give voluntarily was taken away. The fact that wealth today has been added to and traded around is irrelevent, as it was based upon theft. The idea of money laundering is the same, essentially all wealth has been laundered, and therefore irrelevent.

Well, then if I'm wrong about how the market "works" then tell me, how does it go about determining prices?
What makes you think they'd have given it to their children? What about the one's who didn't have children? Perhaps you'd like to start a "Normans out" movement to "liberate" England?

There's more to property rights than just the "mixing labour" argument. They also have beneficial consequences without which the mass of humanity would perish. If there were no property claimed it would be better to assign it arbitrarily than continue without it, considerations of justice notwithstanding.

The price is determined (I think) by (literal or metaphorical) bargaining between buyer and seller. (metaphorical in that the seller might say to himself "what will be acceptable to my customers?")

Err ... so if 60% of Pittsburgh, PA, USA wants to become an Anarchist society and the rest wants to become a Theocracy, this is a doable situation? Entire populations of people don't spontaneously say "Anarchy ... YAY! I'm in, where's me bike?".

What if it's Pittsburgh and Boston rather than 2 halves of Pittsburg?


Human habit doesn't change overnight. As Libertovania kindly pointed out with the example of China, without a good reason to evolve a society does not change at all. There has to be a strong impulse - a good reason to move towards Anarchy or a Theocracy.

And note that by "a good reason" I do not mean an online philosopher mumbling "capitalism's bad, m'kay", or a an Anarchist wannabe announcing "Ye cannae c'ntrol meh" just before requesting a tax return. You need a major crisis or a shift in the values of an entire population before government change is practical.
That's the most sensible thing that's been posted on this thread yet.

Err ... so if 60% of Pittsburgh, PA, USA wants to become an Anarchist society and the rest wants to become a Theocracy, this is a doable situation? Entire populations of people don't spontaneously say "Anarchy ... YAY! I'm in, where's me bike?".

Human habit doesn't change overnight. As Libertovania kindly pointed out with the example of China, without a good reason to evolve a society does not change at all. There has to be a strong impulse - a good reason to move towards Anarchy or a Theocracy.

And note that by "a good reason" I do not mean an online philosopher mumbling "capitalism's bad, m'kay", or a an Anarchist wannabe announcing "Ye cannae c'ntrol meh" just before requesting a tax return. You need a major crisis or a shift in the values of an entire population before government change is practical.

They could either persuade the other 40% to change their minds, or move somewhere else and start it there.

What makes you think they'd have given it to their children? What about the one's who didn't have children? Perhaps you'd like to start a "Normans out" movement to "liberate" England?

There's more to property rights than just the "mixing labour" argument. They also have beneficial consequences without which the mass of humanity would perish. If there were no property claimed it would be better to assign it arbitrarily than continue without it, considerations of justice notwithstanding.

The price is determined (I think) by (literal or metaphorical) bargaining between buyer and seller. (metaphorical in that the seller might say to himself "what will be acceptable to my customers?")

I never said that they would've given it to their children. Scroll up and see.
If the price is determined by bargaining between buyer and seller, how does that create a fixed price?

I never said that they would've given it to their children. Scroll up and see.
If the price is determined by bargaining between buyer and seller, how does that create a fixed price?
You don't know who they'd have given it to so you can't redistribute it in a "fair" way. Every cent was minted by the treasury using stolen resources, does nobody own anything then?

Prices aren't usually fixed. Most prices vary slightly from store to store. They are similar though because if they weren't the customer would go somewhere else. This "threat" (coercion, Dischordic?) is part of the bargaining process. To dissect the idea imagine Crusoe and Man Friday trading on an island. -> mutual bargaining. How do things change if Raquel Welch turns up offering a better trade to Crusoe?

You don't know who they'd have given it to so you can't redistribute it in a "fair" way. Every cent was minted by the treasury using stolen resources, does nobody own anything then?

Prices aren't usually fixed. Most prices vary slightly from store to store. They are similar though because if they weren't the customer would go somewhere else. This "threat" (coercion, Dischordic?) is part of the bargaining process. To dissect the idea imagine Crusoe and Man Friday trading on an island. -> mutual bargaining. How do things change if Raquel Welch turns up offering a better trade to Crusoe?

Because you don't know who they'd have given it to, redistribution is the only acceptable way of doing things. If everybody gets an equal piece, then you are guaranteed that the rightful person will have received at least a part of what they deserve, unlike the current situation. This isn't an ideal situation, mind you, but it is more valid than the current distribution.

If prices aren't usually fixed, then why were you saying earlier that unfixed prices weren't good?

Because you don't know who they'd have given it to, redistribution is the only acceptable way of doing things. If everybody gets an equal piece, then you are guaranteed that the rightful person will have received at least a part of what they deserve, unlike the current situation. This isn't an ideal situation, mind you, but it is more valid than the current distribution.

i/ there is no "rightful" owner since the trade never happened.

ii/ you also guarantee some people get less than they deserve.

iii/ what's an "equal piece"? The concept doesn't make sense without a reasonably stable market. (and massive redistribution will create massive instability)

It's not more valid at all.

If prices aren't usually fixed, then why were you saying earlier that unfixed prices weren't good?
You mean when we were discussing inflation? Fixed as in "inflation free" and fixed as in "the same as other similar goods" are different concepts.

i/ there is no "rightful" owner since the trade never happened.

ii/ you also guarantee some people get less than they deserve.

iii/ what's an "equal piece"? The concept doesn't make sense without a reasonably stable market. (and massive redistribution will create massive instability)

It's not more valid at all.

You mean when we were discussing inflation? Fixed as in "inflation free" and fixed as in "the same as other similar goods" are different concepts.

Determining the rightful owner is to act as though the trade had happened. Otherwise you've just justified theft. If I kill you and steal from you, this is justified from what you've just said.

People are currently guaranteed that they have less than they deserve. This is the only way of rectifying that at all.

An equal piece is determined by asking "which part do you want?" to everyone. If everyone picks the beach, they get a smaller piece. If a few people pick the mountains, they'd get a larger piece than the people on the beach. If everyone wants land with many natural resources, they'd get a small chunk of land with lots of natural resources on it.

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).

Nonsense. Economic growth measures only economic factors and not increases in the provision of education, healthcare, etc. A society can produce the same amount yet still grow on a social level.

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.

I'm sorry, but in the cases where communism actually existed, it was not corrupt. The state capitalist systems of the Lenin or Stalin do not count. Your premise is that the ONLY result of education and hard work should be financial. That's what's wrong. I'm an anarchist, I support the principle of a non-monetary system, where the impetus is social.

What about the question of opportunity? Did your construction worker have the opportunity to go to medical school? Could he afford it? To claim that because the doctor was in a superior economic position and was able to spend 15 years studying, he deserves more is bizarre. To redress this situation, a free education system needs to be developed, giving open access to all to education. Now, in this situation, some people have to work to provide the resources for those who spend 15 years studying. It's a social investment from which society should benefit, and not the individual with skills society paid for.

The final question is one of ability. To say that the person with sufficient academic ability to proceed to further education and be trained as a doctor is superior than a person with the skills to construct buildings is both classist and also akin to racism, sexism and homophobia. How? Individual skills and abilities, while they can be advanced through training, are innate. They are personal talents with which the person is born. To organise society based on innate characteristics is what we regard as prejudiced when that characteristic is race, gender or sexual preference. In fact, we go so far as to acknowledge it in the case of physical or mental disability - that it's wrong to disadvantage someone because their abilities are less than those commonly accepted as "normal". However, in the mainstream, society accepts without question the superiority of the academically gifted person over the manual labourer - a form of prejudice we could call "talentism".

The solution to this is to take value judgements out of the equation and to organise society on the basis of: "From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs" - in other words, true communism.

Vas.

Determining the rightful owner is to act as though the trade had happened. Otherwise you've just justified theft. If I kill you and steal from you, this is justified from what you've just said.

No. But if I had no heirs and you bought a car with the money wouldn't Henry Ford legitimately own the money?

People are currently guaranteed that they have less than they deserve. This is the only way of rectifying that at all.
On the contrary it compounds the problem.

Nonsense. Economic growth measures only economic factors and not increases in the provision of education, healthcare, etc. A society can produce the same amount yet still grow on a social level.

These are economic factors. They are goods and services, are they not?

a dream (my dream at least) anarcho-capitalist society would be one in which all (or nearly all, at least) businesses were owned by the employees.

I recommend you look into anarcho-syndicalism.

Vas.

You mean like the mess in the former communist eastern European states?

And yes, they were communist.

"From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs."?

Vas.

Anarchism is a step back, unless implimented far, far in the future of humanity. By that I mean centuries.

Yup, all the way back to Ancient Greece and the concepts of true democracy.

Vas.

No. But if I had no heirs and you bought a car with the money wouldn't Henry Ford legitimately own the money?

On the contrary it compounds the problem.

The only case where the situation you described would apply is that if you made the choice not to give your property to anyone at all. But I highly doubt that you'd be content with the idea of your murderer receiving your property.
Saying that Henry Ford legitimately owns the money is the same as saying that it's acceptable for a third party to profit from theft. Is it acceptable to profit from theft, or isn't it?

If it compounds the problem, how so?

Every state university in the world, perhaps?

State funded != socialist, unless everyone is paid the same. The government funding it may be socialist, but the institution itself is not.

Vas.

Yup, all the way back to Ancient Greece and the concepts of true democracy.

Yesirree. The good ol' days when all the citizens gathered to participate together in guiding society. Except women, children, slaves, foreigners, and the poor ... but hey, everyone who mattered, right?

Athens was a form of democracy, but it wasn't a "true" democracy.

In terms of social equality Sparta was way in the lead. They had introduced the shocking concept that women should actually be allowed outside the house and let participate in society, and had the gall to suggest that maybe money wasn't that great an invention.

If you start seeing any society or government as perfect, you're in for a bit of a shock when it gets introduced. Just ask Trotsky (you may need to pull the ice pick out of his brain first).

Yesirree. The good ol' days when all the citizens gathered to participate together in guiding society. Except women, children, slaves, foreigners, and the poor ... but hey, everyone who mattered, right?

Athens was a form of democracy, but it wasn't a "true" democracy.

In terms of social equality Sparta was way in the lead. They had introduced the shocking concept that women should actually be allowed outside the house and let participate in society, and had the gall to suggest that maybe money wasn't that great an invention.

Read what I said - the concepts of true democracy. Anarchists trace their ideas back to Zeno and the Stoics - http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html.

If you start seeing any society or government as perfect, you're in for a bit of a shock when it gets introduced. Just ask Trotsky (you may need to pull the ice pick out of his brain first).

Trotsky was an authoritarian bollix, just ask Makhno.

Vas.

These are economic factors. They are goods and services, are they not?

Not when they're provided freely, they don't count towards economic growth. This is the number one criticism of using GDP as a measure of a country's wealth.

Vas.

I recommend you look into anarcho-syndicalism.

Vas.
How about you just give me a reply, from your own mind, since you seem to have one?

An interesting read. Just one point:

When men are reasonable enough to follow their natural instincts, they will unite across the frontiers and constitute the cosmos. They will have no need of law-courts or police, will have no temples and no public worship, and use no money - free gifts taking the place of the exchanges.
Zeno

What was Zeno on when he came to the conclusion humans are or will ever be reasonable, and where can I get a puff?

Edit: Ah yes, here it is -

Progress is not made by reasonable people.
George Bernard Shaw

Greenspan is an asshat.

Why would comparing those things tell you anything useful?


Ok ok...

Deflation -> people less likely to spend -> demand for goods decreases -> companies make less money -> workers are laid off -> spiral continues

For an example of widespread deflation in action, take a look at the Great Depression of the 1930s

The latter 20th century had much more economic growth than the 19th...but of course deflation was rarely across the board and long lasting...so it's not a really good example...

What was this about again? Oh right, what to use as currency....

some of us have had a lot more philosophy courses than you, and by all appearances did much better in them than you did.


Hmm...philosophy courses...I don't if I would be boasting about that...see you in the soup line...

No, no. You pass tha duchie on tha LEFT hand side. Not the riiiiiight!

(Oh, wait... That's a rule. Never mind...)

Here, toke up, Snaggletooth.


heh heh, thanks buddy

deleted

Post by: Requel

"There seems to be a fundamentally flawed concept here: That there is one correct government and social system.

"Anarchy, Communism, Socialism, Fascism ... people seem to suffer from a need to point to each and say "these points are wrong, therefore this concept is wrong."

"Humans are not a stable species. There is no such thing as a "right" society, or a "wrong" society. 2500 years ago the Athenians adopted Capitalism ... it was logical for the time, it worked, it made them a prosperous society. The growing wealth led to powerful leaders, which led to Tyranny (this is not anti-capitalist, the first Athenian Tyrants were very talented men who did a lot for their citizens), and when Tyranny failed they moved onto Democracy.

"The point? People adopt a society that works, and then change it as they change. Some people like to yell about how wonderful modern Democracy is, but let's face facts ... choosing who gets to screw you over for the next four years is not my idea of great government. It just works for now.

"A century from now we could have an anarchy, a socialist society, a democracy where people vote for the policies they choose, rather than the politicians. The central fact of this society will be that it works for its time. If it doesn't, it won't last.

"To be a true beliver in chaos, you shouldn't bid for anarchy, because anarchy is just another self-contained "one way is right" system. You should just live for the moment and enjoy the fact that tomorrow will be different from today."

Preach on, my brother, preach on! If it is degrading to be a slave, how much more so to choose your master?

The frustrating thing about trying to imagine how an Anarchist society would react to this or that situation, or how it would be structured, or how its economy would function, is that there are very few historical examples to go by. Any description tends toward speculation, but if we take the basic idea of Anarchy – no leaders, no bosses, no kings, no coercion to comply with conventions, etc. – we end up with an extremely tolerant society; one in which ALL forms of economic organization would be tolerated so long as they did NOT include hierarchical forms of domination. (And Hierarchy is not as "bad" as Domination. Artisan guilds (and then the Labor Unions they belong to) need a hierarchy based on skill level. What they don't need is the skilled dominating the unskilled.)

So, let's speculate a little: We could say that in such a society the motivations to kill, rape, “steal”, commit violence, etc. would be greatly reduced because in place of hierarchical organization, interdependent organization would flourish. People would know one another better, respect each other as sovereign individuals, and realize that we are all in this together.

Also, the sexual repression that leads to rape would hopefully be lessened. Ideally, in a tolerant and open society, anyone who wished to find a sexual partner would be able to find one, whether that means going to a prostitute or going to a homosexual bathhouse without fear of gay-bashing. When society embraces its sexuality fully, there will be no such thing as a sexual deviant. All repressed thoughts will be expressed openly. Forcing someone to have sex with you wouldn’t really be necessary.

On the other hand (and this is where I think many who equate Anarchy with "complete social collapse" are coming from) we could say that without the “authorities” to enforce a code of morality that dope, guns, and fucking in the streets would be commonplace. Well, I’m all for the dope and the fucking, but the guns I could do without.

(And let us never forget that as far as murders and violence goes, hierarchical governments are the indisputable winners in the genocidal sweepstakes! You know what I mean? Who starts wars? Who keeps them going? NationStates do. Always have. Always will. How do NationStates react to civil disturbances, political opposition, peaceful protests? They bring out the riot police, pepper spray, rubber bullets, water cannons, nightsticks, tear gas, and eventually the “National Guard” with the real bullets, real cannons, etc. They tend to confront threats to their status quo with violence and threats of violence.

NationStates attempt to hold a monopoly on violence. They say that they (the military and police) are the only ones allowed to wield nuclear weapons, long-range bombers, armored personnel carriers, aircraft carriers, sub-machine guns, teargas, etc. Why? Because they need these things to enforce their monopoly on force. I do believe that a well-armed citizenry is the only protection against tyranny. The US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment “guaranteeing” the right to bear arms was not easily given, and is constantly challenged by well-meaning people. I despise violence, and I would rather resort to non-violent means rather than direct confrontation, but I wouldn’t hesitate to use force in self-defense. I’m running on a million tangents right now…back to the matter at hand.)

How does a society prevent violence without also resorting to violence? By teaching its children that violence only leads to more violence. By removing the motivations to resort to violence. By teaching its children how to reason, how to communicate, how to negotiate, etc. without resorting to killing anyone. By teaching that cooperation is as important, if not more so, than competition. Our current culture is so lopsided towards competition; it is no wonder violence is considered a legitimate solution to one’s problems. (This culture needs a big ole’ estrogen injection! Too much testosterone in the water supply!) This sort of movement towards the yin of cooperation in tandem with the yang of competition will, as Requel and others have stated, perhaps take centuries. Do you fault us for trying?

This all reminds me of something I’ve read somewhere (I think it was in The Hero With 1000 Faces, by J. Campbell.) Psychologically speaking, young men feel oppressed by their fathers and wish to destroy them, thereby paving the way for the new generation. (Or something like that.) To sublimate this tendency of sons to aim their anger at their fathers, the older generations redirect the anger towards that society’s outcasts, foreigners and heretics. King/Dad, in order to save his own guilty neck, points towards the “other,” the foreigner , and says, “See? Here are the evil-doers! We must destroy them before they destroy us!” Of course, the King/Dads of each nation then sit back on the thrones while the young men go off to kill one another. The luckiest of the King/Dad’s end up with more resources/territory. The sons just end up dead.

In an Anarchist society, I hesitate to speculate, this sublimation of the Oedipal drive to destroy the father would hopefully be better understood. The lack of patriotism, nationalism, etc. inherent in an anti-King/Dad society would prevent the redirection of anger. Any anger towards the older generation would be directed directly at the older generation which would be expected to answer the complaints of the youngsters in a more enlightened manner, rather than simply pointing the finger at “them.”

We would all do well to consider Rianne Eisler's Dominator/Partnership theories. Here's a quick summation: http://www.ru.org/71eisler.htm

"The dragon of Chaos wore a far more honorable face in the East, where it was known as the Tao. For ancient sages like Chuang-Tzu, the subtle order of natural chaos was rich and bountiful compared to the bankrupt legalism and moralistic strictures of Confucian civilization -- which paradoxically produced the very disorder it wanted to suppress. The Taoists felt that only by tearing down the State of things -- including ordinary consciousness -- could we return to the golden age, the mixed-up harmony symbolized by the wonton (which derives from Mr. Hun-tun, Chuang-Tzu's lord of chaos). If these anarchic dreams could not be realized in society -- as Lao Tzu hoped to do -- then at least they could be realized in the body, through spiritual and physical practices which would open up the spontaneous chaos within. " - Erik Davis - _Spiritual Chaos?_ http://www.techgnosis.com/chaos.html

And harm ye none, do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love under Will, Love is the Law.

And harm ye none, do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love under Will, Love is the Law.

Amen, my brother!

Vas.

Fantastic post Autonomous

lol
*bong*

BooYaKASha!!!
Respeck!

No, ignorant fits.

Vas.



Just noticed this...

Yes...how could my credentials ever measure up to a journalist/web developer...

(hanging head in shame)


I would really like to have the anarchist view on coops - please take a look and tell me what you think of the idea...

http://www.justpeace.org/mondragon.htm

Ok ok...

Deflation -> people less likely to spend -> demand for goods decreases -> companies make less money -> workers are laid off -> spiral continues

For an example of widespread deflation in action, take a look at the Great Depression of the 1930s

The latter 20th century had much more economic growth than the 19th...but of course deflation was rarely across the board and long lasting...so it's not a really good example...

What was this about again? Oh right, what to use as currency....
I'm only an armchair economist but how does this go?

deflation -> less consumer spending -> more saving -> lower interest rates -> more investment.

Would a little bit of deflation really be any worse than a little bit of inflation?

The only case where the situation you described would apply is that if you made the choice not to give your property to anyone at all. But I highly doubt that you'd be content with the idea of your murderer receiving your property.
They didn't nominate an heir so there is no "if". What about the nanny of the butcher of the son of the guy who murdered you? Do you really care if she gets the money? Why should she donate some of it to some poor Bolivian? She did, after all, do the work.

Saying that Henry Ford legitimately owns the money is the same as saying that it's acceptable for a third party to profit from theft. Is it acceptable to profit from theft, or isn't it?
When ownership is so confused as to be unassignable I think of it as unowned and thus up for grabs.

If it compounds the problem, how so?
Why would an equal distribution be any fairer than the current one? It's likely to be much less so since most people or their ancestors have done something (besides robbery) to earn their wealth.

I'm only an armchair economist but how does this go?

deflation -> less consumer spending -> more saving -> lower interest rates -> more investment.

Would a little bit of deflation really be any worse than a little bit of inflation?



Interest rates drop - to zero - and no one would be willing to loan money; they would be better off holding on to their cash. Not that anyone would want to borrow as money becomes harder and harder to earn. That is, your paycheck decreases but your debts remain the same.

Now the people already deep in debt really get screwed...and banks begin to fail as people default on their loans.

But yeah, in moderation it is not a big deal...and it is ok when it is due to better/cheaper methods of production...

G-D DAMMITT! I'm bored again!

"People who talk about Revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth." (Raoul Vaneigem - 'The Revolution Of Everyday Life')

Why would an equal distribution be any fairer than the current one? It's likely to be much less so since most people or their ancestors have done something (besides robbery) to earn their wealth.


A common misconception is that there is a set amount of wealth available in the world. This is just not the case. You should not be concerned about who is born wealthy and who is not. It is irrelavant. Your ability to become successful and rich are not diminished because Ford Jr. is born into money.

Think like a capitalist - worry about yourself.

And yes, life isn't fair.

G-D DAMMITT! I'm bored again!

"People who talk about Revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth." (Raoul Vaneigem - 'The Revolution Of Everyday Life')


Class struggle? --> go get a job...it's only noon in NY...how the hell did you guys let hillary become your rep? I want answers!

Just noticed this...

Yes...how could my credentials ever measure up to a journalist/web developer...

(hanging head in shame)

Web editor, dahlink, editor.

I would really like to have the anarchist view on coops - please take a look and tell me what you think of the idea...

http://www.justpeace.org/mondragon.htm

Coops? The places you keep chickens?

The Catholic Workers are largely an anarchist organisation (even though they insist on keep that religion stuff) and anarchists have historically been among the main proponents of co-operatives. Just look at the Jura Federation.

Vas.

Snaggletooth wrote: "Class struggle? --> go get a job...it's only noon in NY...how the hell did you guys let hillary become your rep? I want answers!"

Yes, I am bored with all this nit-picking economic mumbo-jumbo.

I do have a job -- now how does that affect my everyday life? It confines me to a boring space in which my only release is posting to discussions like this one. I'm working at my job, I'm so happy. More boring by the day, but they pay me.

I, personally, did not "let" Hillary become my rep. No one truly represents me, except me. The rumor is that a pathetically small percentage of the electorate voted in an election and Ms. Rodham-Clinton received a majority of said votes.

Now consider this: if only 50% the electorate votes, and 50% of those voters choose candidate A, (45% choose B, 5% choose C) then only 25% of the electorate is actually represented. Even IF the 2000 US Presidential election had not been stolen, Albert Gore would only be representing one quarter of the population. Hoo-Ray for Democracy!

They didn't nominate an heir so there is no "if". What about the nanny of the butcher of the son of the guy who murdered you? Do you really care if she gets the money? Why should she donate some of it to some poor Bolivian? She did, after all, do the work.

When ownership is so confused as to be unassignable I think of it as unowned and thus up for grabs.

Why would an equal distribution be any fairer than the current one? It's likely to be much less so since most people or their ancestors have done something (besides robbery) to earn their wealth.

It's irrelevent if they did something to earn their wealth, it was earned on a foundation of theft. The Natives who owned the land did something to earn their wealth, too. Either it's acceptable to profit from stealing or it isn't. If it is, then redistribution is also acceptable, (assuming that you view that as thieving) and if it isn't, then you'd still have to view the current situation as unacceptable.

You seem to know quite a lot about this. Would I be correct if I said hunter gartherer societies tended to be egalitarian whereas agricultural societies tended to have property rights?

what can i say, anthropology and archaeology blew my mind.

every culture has some system of assigning who gets to use what, and those could probably be reasonably called property rights - which is why i'm usually careful to say that i'm against capitalist property rights. the property rights in agricultural societies have varied quite a lot between them and most are very different from modern capitalist conceptions of property rights in the west.

but yes, on the whole foraging people have tended to be a lot more egalitarian than large-scale agriculturalists. though lots of horticulturalists were still just as egalitarian, and there are even a few cultures engaging in large-scale agriculture that have been.

the rise of hierarchy is probably tied to food storage and production, but not in a direct way. it looks (to me, anyway) like one of the possible outcomes, but not the only one. the problem we run into is that the rise of hierarchy is correlated to certain developments in food production in a couple of societies; societies that then proceeded to kick the crap out of their neighbors until they covered the globe. some of these societies didn't get as far with the ass kicking as others, and some didn't get as far with the hierarchy.

the two basic ways that the requirement of long-term food planning (having to farm and guard your particular peice of land all year, at least) and food storage might have allowed the rise of hierarchy come from needing protection - in both the real and mafia sense - and the ability of some to amass wealth at the expense of others - first through food and then by using that food to get other stuff. these two things are fairly well linked, because people offering 'protection' always demand tribute themselves.

but there is also another factor at work, the fact that those moving upwards in the newly forming hierarchy were also able to shift the circulation of wealth (usually through reciprocal gift giving at the time) into a more favorable position for themselves. first they arranged it so that almost all of the food and other wealth in circulation went through them, so that everybody was perpetually in their debt. secondly they institutionalized that perpetual debt so that they were able to start amassing a large percentage of that wealth instead of just serving as a centralized distribution point for it.

the people that wound up at the top of the hierarchy monopolized food and wealth and power as best they could. which clearly left them in charge and also divided society into the elite, those that were getting by, and those that were not.

Interest rates drop - to zero - and no one would be willing to loan money; they would be better off holding on to their cash. Not that anyone would want to borrow as money becomes harder and harder to earn. That is, your paycheck decreases but your debts remain the same.

Now the people already deep in debt really get screwed...and banks begin to fail as people default on their loans.

But yeah, in moderation it is not a big deal...and it is ok when it is due to better/cheaper methods of production...
Why do interest rates have to drop to zero? And if people are saving instead of spending, why would they need to borrow money- they want to invest what they currently have, not get more.
As for people in debt, I certainly don't know how that works...what is refinancing?

...Yet you still use a computer, which has programs that use heirarchical structure, and if you think that a computer doesn't have other heirarchies, then you simply have no idea how a computer works. Let me inform you: there are many heirarchies in a computer. The processor and memory bus have precedence over the PCI bus, for instance. The PCI bus contains different devices which have different priorities and permissions (normally done with IRQs-Interrupt ReQuests). THe motherboard has something called a BIOS, which the operating system uses to understand what each device is. Without that BIOS (or something like it), the OS doesn't grok how to talk to the devices.

I've built over 800 systems and fixed another 3,000. I know what the hell I'm talking about...
damn but you're an arrogant ass - i'm going back to ignoring you now.
Coward.

And I'm arrogant because...I know what I'm talking about?

Fucking chickenshit coward.

But since you're ignoring me, it doesn't matter does it? You don't care to know how much of a coward you are.

"We need something to help explain why capitalism is wrong. Any suggestions, Disc and FS?"

Pure Capitalism is wrong. That's not even something that's worth arguing, everyone should know it by now.
No, everyone shouldn't and doesn't. Educate us.

You mean like the mess in the former communist eastern European states?

And yes, they were communist.
"From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs."?
Yep

YepSubstantiate or fuck off.

Yep

No, there was nothing communistic about them. Who owned and managed the means of production? Was there free distribution?

No, everyone shouldn't and doesn't. Educate us.

Capitalism is based on "from each according to need, to each according to greed" or more seriously, some people work while others get rich off their labor.

Yep
Substantiate or fuck off.
I love how you always respond to his oh-so-intelligent posts, but I can't get anyone to say a damn thing in reply to mine
(not talking to you specifically, just all the ansocs generally)

Capitalism is based on "from each according to need, to each according to greed" or more seriously, some people work while others get rich off their labor.
Capitalism is not based on anything of the sort anymore than anarchism is based on running around killing everyone or communism is on a corrupt government controlling your every motion and forcing you into poverty (or anything else that people stupidly believe communism is)

The basis of capitalism, to put it in a form similar to the marxism, is From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability

I don't understand why if you and I work at the same job, and I am twice as able as you and thus produce twice as much, why we should be paid equally- or why I should be paid less than you because you have 4 kids and I only have 2. I should be punished for being productive and responsible?

Now of course, that's not how capitalism works in the world today, partly due to massive amounts of government preferences, giving lots of stupid privilieges to whoever is the biggest corporation, thus keeping small businesses out of the market. And partly due to government-mandated unions- instead of letting the workers unite at their own will- government unions do more harm than good for the workers. In a free capitalist society, employers would have to compete among each other, not just with prices, but also with worker safety and salary. If the competition pays their workers 4.00 more an hour and gives them better benefits (as well as general worker safety) then you won't be in business long....

Why do interest rates have to drop to zero? And if people are saving instead of spending, why would they need to borrow money- they want to invest what they currently have, not get more.
As for people in debt, I certainly don't know how that works...what is refinancing?


If inflation is 10%, the interest rate must be at least that high or no one would invest. Conversely, during deflation rates drop because no one wants to borrow. There is no point in investing when the interest rate is zero - you will just be getting back what you put in. Remeber what investments are - the assumption of debt (bonds).

Stocks? Well that is just equity. Who wants to be the owner of a company that is crippled by deflation (sinking sales/profits). Furthermore, stockholders are the last to get compensated when a company dissolves - usually they receive nothing.

In the end, you would be better off putting your money in your mattress.

Refinancing - Simply using a more favorable loan to pay off one with high interest. Say your credit score has increased. You can now get a lower interest loan from the bank and pay off your higher interest mortgage.

I love how you always respond to his oh-so-intelligent posts, but I can't get anyone to say a damn thing in reply to mine
(not talking to you specifically, just all the ansocs generally)I'm not actually an anarchist, but hey, blow yourself away. What specifically are you asking?

what can i say, anthropology and archaeology blew my mind.

every culture has some system of assigning who gets to use what, and those could probably be reasonably called property rights - which is why i'm usually careful to say that i'm against capitalist property rights. the property rights in agricultural societies have varied quite a lot between them and most are very different from modern capitalist conceptions of property rights in the west.

but yes, on the whole foraging people have tended to be a lot more egalitarian than large-scale agriculturalists. though lots of horticulturalists were still just as egalitarian, and there are even a few cultures engaging in large-scale agriculture that have been.
Very interesting. A few questions, though.

i/ So you agree that agriculture and private property tended to go together. But which came first? Did private property precede agriculture or did agricultural societies lead to private property (this is what I would guess since it would lead to more efficient agriculture)

ii/ I think you're wrong about govt leading to private property (if this is what you were implying) since property preceded govt, especially preceding govt involvement in the justice system.

iii/ Would you agree that foraging societies were more egalitarian since their groups were essentially cooperative enterprises or an extended family? Would you also agree that agriculture allows a more independent existence where ventures are confined to immediate family, generally, and that this could have led to more exclusive property rights?

iv/ How does one research this? How good is the evidence? Is it mostly informed guessing or solid science?

Sliders, it may help if you repost the questions that you want to have answered. Sometimes we have so many questions to answer that we forget some. Speaking for myself, anyway.

i/ So you agree that agriculture and private property tended to go together. But which came first? Did private property precede agriculture or did agricultural societies lead to private property (this is what I would guess since it would lead to more efficient agriculture)

Agriculture tended to come first and private property was usually enforced by invaders. The idea that feudalism (lords and royals claiming to own ALL property in their domain) led to more efficient agriculture is complete nonsense.

ii/ I think you're wrong about govt leading to private property (if this is what you were implying) since property preceded govt, especially preceding govt involvement in the justice system.

Yup, the origin of modern government was to challenge the power of royalty. It generally coincided with the clash between emergent middle classes and the monarchy/aristocracy. Over what? Property! The purpose of modern government was to defend the property "rights" of the middle classes against the overarching claims of kings and lords.

iii/ Would you agree that foraging societies were more egalitarian since their groups were essentially cooperative enterprises or an extended family? Would you also agree that agriculture allows a more independent existence where ventures are confined to immediate family, generally, and that this could have led to more exclusive property rights?

We're back to Proudhon here. You're, once again, ignoring the distinction between possession (land that you use) and property (land you own and charge others for the use of). Basically, you need to show how agriculture led to landlordism, not to individual farms.

Vas.

Agriculture tended to come first and private property was usually enforced by invaders. The idea that feudalism (lords and royals claiming to own ALL property in their domain) led to more efficient agriculture is complete nonsense.

Yup, the origin of modern government was to challenge the power of royalty. It generally coincided with the clash between emergent middle classes and the monarchy/aristocracy. Over what? Property! The purpose of modern government was to defend the property "rights" of the middle classes against the overarching claims of kings and lords.

We're back to Proudhon here. You're, once again, ignoring the distinction between possession (land that you use) and property (land you own and charge others for the use of). Basically, you need to show how agriculture led to landlordism, not to individual farms.

Who the f**k asked you? If I wanted propaganda I would have asked you for it. I asked Free Soviets some questions about a subject which I'm interested in and he understands. You clearly don't understand anthropology so piss off and let the grown ups talk.

Capitalism is based on "from each according to need, to each according to greed" or more seriously, some people work while others get rich off their labor.

Capitalism is not based on anything of the sort anymore than anarchism is based on running around killing everyone or communism is on a corrupt government controlling your every motion and forcing you into poverty (or anything else that people stupidly believe communism is)

The basis of capitalism, to put it in a form similar to the marxism, is From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability

I don't understand why if you and I work at the same job, and I am twice as able as you and thus produce twice as much, why we should be paid equally- or why I should be paid less than you because you have 4 kids and I only have 2. I should be punished for being productive and responsible?

Now of course, that's not how capitalism works in the world today, partly due to massive amounts of government preferences, giving lots of stupid privilieges to whoever is the biggest corporation, thus keeping small businesses out of the market. And partly due to government-mandated unions- instead of letting the workers unite at their own will- government unions do more harm than good for the workers. In a free capitalist society, employers would have to compete among each other, not just with prices, but also with worker safety and salary. If the competition pays their workers 4.00 more an hour and gives them better benefits (as well as general worker safety) then you won't be in business long....

a dream (my dream at least) anarcho-capitalist society would be one in which all (or nearly all, at least) businesses were owned by the employees. Everyone would be a capitalist, and people would be rewarded based on how much they contribute and how efficient they are (which is ALWAYS a good thing when you are speaking of production)
(the current) Puppet CEOs who actually have no abilities would be the ones starving (along with the current jobless people with no abilities) People who are good "businessmen" can go into advertising or be drug reps or something (as an engineer, I have basically resented the b-school kids cause they work 1/4 as hard and get 4 times the stuff we do)
And in the instance where employees do not own the business, I support organization for better treatment. If the employees really aren't making enough, then of course they should ask for more. If their demands are unreasonable then the company will fail or else they will see that it is unreasonable. If they are reasonable, then either they will be met, or the company will again fail. (And I don't think a demand that will cut the CEO's earnings from 75x that of a floor worker's to 50x that of the same worker's is really unreasonable) I think, if anything, having that amount of unemployment is a bad thing, because it does allow the boss to exploit workers.
And...the last thing I can think of for now, small businesses are indefinitely better than large multinationals. For one, because as was mentioned earlier, the employer is friends with the employee, and is so more likely to treat him with respect and give him the benefits he deserves. Even Ayn Rand believed in small businesses and competition (and if I remember correctly she was a pretty big capitalist)
Anyway, where is the coercion/all that other stuff you hated in capitalism that makes it anti-anarchy in a world where all the employees owned the businesses where they were employed?

Note: I did look into syndicalism a little bit at dischordiac's advice
I don't get why though...perhaps now if you had a point you'd like to share it with me
But please read the 2nd through the final sentences in this post first
If necessary, I can break all my posts down into 1-2 sentences at a time so you can all be bothered with reading them

Anyway, where is the coercion/all that other stuff you hated in capitalism that makes it anti-anarchy in a world where all the employees owned the businesses where they were employed?From my point of view there isn't one. Though I'd argue the principle should be extended to non-employment related issues.

Note: I did look into syndicalism a little bit at dischordiac's advice
I don't get why though...perhaps now if you had a point you'd like to share it with meBecause syndicalism believes that workplaces should be controlled by those who work there would be my guess.
But please read the 2nd through the final sentences in this post first
If necessary, I can break all my posts down into 1-2 sentences at a time so you can all be bothered with reading themOh, get over yourself darling. I'll randomly insult you every so often if you really want me to.

Substantiate or fuck off.
Check their constitutions, bitch.

Now fuck off.

Check their constitutions, bitch.

Now fuck off.So you believe everything politicans say. Bless you BAAWA. Your faith is touching if rather stupid. Do you believe the GDR was democratic as well?

Check their constitutions, bitch.

Now fuck off.

That doesn't make them communist. As hard as it is for you to believe, you are not something based on whether you call yourself it. Do you believe that China is a people's republic in reality?

No, there was nothing communistic about them. Who owned and managed the means of production?
The people, who were represented by the politburo and the general secretary.

Was there free distribution?
Communism isn't about free distribution.

Capitalism is based on "from each according to need, to each according to greed"
Prove that greed is bad.

or more seriously, some people work while others get rich off their labor.
You keep denying it, but you believe that labor = physical labor only. How sad.

So you believe everything politicans say.
Check their constitutions.

Your illiteracy is saddening.

That doesn't make them communist.
It does in this case.

As hard as it is for you to believe, you are not something based on whether you call yourself it. Do you believe that China is a people's republic in reality?
Sure is.

I like you BAAWA...

hell, you can come over and fuck my sister

Check their constitutions.
Doesn't make them true.
Your illiteracy is saddening.As is your inability to question politician's motives.

So BAAWA are you ignoring the question about whether you consider the GDR democratic? And do you consider everyone who calls themselves a capitalist to be such?

We're back to Proudhon here. You're, once again, ignoring the distinction between possession (land that you use) and property (land you own and charge others for the use of).
There is no such distinction, no matter what Proudhon said or you whine about. It is an utterly false dichotomy.

It does in this case.


Sure is.
Well if you want to call an apple an orange then be my guest. Seems kind of strange though...

Doesn't make them true.
It does in this case.

So BAAWA are you ignoring the question about whether you consider the GDR democratic?
It was.

Why is it so hard for you to fathom that those countries were communist? It boggles the mind that you'd be so stupid as to think they weren't.

Well if you want to call an apple an orange
I'm calling an apple an apple

Of course you are. Have a condescending pat on the head, free of charge.

Who the f**k asked you? If I wanted propaganda I would have asked you for it. I asked Free Soviets some questions about a subject which I'm interested in and he understands. You clearly don't understand anthropology so piss off and let the grown ups talk.

If you want to have a private discussion, get the fuck off this public board.

Vas.

Note: I did look into syndicalism a little bit at dischordiac's advice
I don't get why though...perhaps now if you had a point you'd like to share it with me

If the workers control the factory, that's not capitalism, it's syndicalism. Everyone cannot be a capitalist, it's logistically impossible.

Vas.

It was.You belive the GDR was truly democratic?
You don't even believe what you're saying now BAAWA.
Why is it so hard for you to fathom that those countries were communist? It boggles the mind that you'd be so stupid as to think they weren't.Because I'm right and you're wrong. You've provided no facts beyond "well their politicans say it and politicans always tell the truth". Do you actually believe anything you claim to. Or are your politics best summed up as "trollist"?

If the workers control the factory, that's not capitalism, it's syndicalism. Everyone cannot be a capitalist, it's logistically impossible.

Vas.

Not true - anyone can own equity...even poor folks like me


..not to mention the purchase of debt

There is no such distinction, no matter what Proudhon said or you whine about. It is an utterly false dichotomy.

So, your contention is, there is no difference between the house a person lives in and the house they own and charge rent for? Whatever your political view of the difference and whether they're equally justifiable, there is a fundamental and obvious difference between the house you use and the house you charge others for the use of. In capitalist terms as much as anything else, the former is your home, the latter a business investment.

So cop on to yourself, the distinction is there. Quibble all you like about the political reading of the distinction, but the difference is clear as day to anyone with half a brain.

Vas.

Not true - anyone can own equity...even poor folks like me


..not to mention the purchase of debt

In principle, yes, but in practice? I mean worldwide.

Vas.

In principle, yes, but in practice? I mean worldwide.

Vas.


Hmm...well I don't know if I can comment on the state of the world at present.

And I forgot to mention - land ownership --> individuals can join together to purchase mortgages (REIT - Real Estate Investment Trust)...so technically I own land...the free market is great at coming up with instruments like this

You keep denying it, but you believe that labor = physical labor only. How sad.

And you think that capitalists work 100 times harder than workers.

And you think that capitalists work 100 times harder than workers.
I've pointed out a million times that you don't think labour and income should be correlated either. It's impossible to measure and irrelevant anyway.

I've pointed out a million times that you don't think labour and income should be correlated either. It's impossible to measure and irrelevant anyway.

Does that mean you concede that capitalism doesn't reward hard work?

Does that mean you concede that capitalism doesn't reward hard work?
By working harder you earn more than you otherwise would. Thus capitalism rewards hard work. It rewards other things too, such as saving, investment and prudent allocation of resources. Socialism rewards none of these things.

Edit/addition: By the way, you must be delighted with Dischordic. How does it feel not to be the Anarchist village idiot anymore? :)

By working harder you earn more than you otherwise would. Thus capitalism rewards hard work. It rewards other things too, such as saving, investment and prudent allocation of resources. Socialism rewards none of these things.

So? I'm not impressed by saving at all. Now actually making stuff, that impresses me.

Edit/addition: By the way, you must be delighted with Dischordic. How does it feel not to be the Anarchist village idiot anymore?

Actually, I never was. The neonazis once were.

Why oh why do I still come in here periodically?

So? I'm not impressed by saving at all. Now actually making stuff, that impresses me.

"Actually making stuff" really isn't that difficult, that's why it isn't rewarded nearly as highly as intelligent use of resources. Also, because there has been a shift from physical evolution to social and mental evolution through technology the power to succesfully use your brain to create a favorable situation has become more valuable to society than the average factory or farm worker.

Actually, I never was. The neonazis once were.

Letila, I hate to break it to you in this harsh way, but from the moment you started calling yourself an Anarchist you became the Anarchist's Village idiot. The only way you can escape it is to stop calling yourself and Anarchist and preaching a sickly twisted version of Anarchism based primarily on your misunderstanding of the early anarchist writers or to become a whole lot smarter really quickly. Since I don't expect the latter to happen I leave you to find the only remaining solution to your predicament.

"Actually making stuff" really isn't that difficult, that's why it isn't rewarded nearly as highly as intelligent use of resources. Also, because there has been a shift from physical evolution to social and mental evolution through technology the power to succesfully use your brain to create a favorable situation has become more valuable to society than the average factory or farm worker.

But without the farmer, we wouldn't even be alive. You actually believe that it is easier to work in the hot sun or in a sweatshop then it is to manage stock?

Letila, I hate to break it to you in this harsh way, but from the moment you started calling yourself an Anarchist you became the Anarchist's Village idiot. The only way you can escape it is to stop calling yourself and Anarchist and preaching a sickly twisted version of Anarchism based primarily on your misunderstanding of the early anarchist writers or to become a whole lot smarter really quickly. Since I don't expect the latter to happen I leave you to find the only remaining solution to your predicament.

Misunderstanding of the early anarchist writers? I had no idea that Proudhon and Kropotkin were actually capitalists. Thanks for pointing it out.

Why oh why do I still come in here periodically?

Word, homey. Word.

[Translation from the Ebonic to Standard English: "I reckognize and respectfully agree with the position of my esteemed colleague."]

"I do think that women could make politics irrelevant by a kind of spontaneous co-operative action the like of which we have never seen, which is just so far from people's ideas of state structure and viable social structure that seems to them like total anarchy, and what it really is very subtle forms of inter-relation which do not follow some hierarchal pattern, which is fundamentally patriarchal. The opposite to patriarchy is not matriarchy but fraternity. And I think it's women who are going to have to break the spiral of power and find the trick of co-operation." ~Germaine Greer, as quoted in Sinead O'Connor's album, Universal Mother~ :fluffle:

When the first evidence of prehistoric societies where men did not dominate women began to be unearthed in the 19th century, the scholars of that day concluded that since they were not patriarchies they must have been matriarchies. But matriarchy is not the opposite of patriarchy: it is the other side of the coin of a dominator model of society. The real alternative to a patriarchal or male-dominant society is a very different way of organizing social relations. This is the partnership model, where, beginning with the most fundamental difference in our species between male and female, diversity is not equated with inferiority or superiority, dominating or being dominated.

Models are abstractions. But societies that orient primarily to one or the other of these models have characteristic configurations or patterns. These patterns, however, are discernible only when we look at the whole picture. In other words, the reason these patterns were not generally seen in the past is that scholars were looking at an incomplete and distorted picture--one that excluded no less than one-half of the population: women.

For example, from the conventional perspective focusing only on the activities and experiences of men, Hitler's Germany, Khomeini's Iran, the Japan of the Samurai, and the Aztecs of Meso America would seem to represent completely different cultures. But once we also look at the situation of women in these societies, we are able to identify the social configuration characteristic of rigidly male-dominated societies. We then see striking commonalities. First, all these otherwise widely divergent societies are rigidly male-dominant. Second, they are characterized by hierarchies of domination and "strong-man" rule, both in the family and state. Third (as is required to maintain hierarchies of domination) they are characterized by a high degree of institutionalized or socially accepted violence, ranging from wife and child beating within the family to aggressive warfare on the larger tribal or national level.

Conversely, we also see striking similarities between otherwise extremely diverse societies where there is more gender equity--societies where to be considered "real men" males do not have to be dominant. Characteristically, such societies tend to be not only much more peaceful but also much less hierarchic and authoritarian. This is evidenced by anthropological data (i.e., the BaMbuti and Tiruray), by contemporary studies of trends in modem societies (i.e., Scandinavian nations such as Sweden, Norway, and Finland), and by the prehistoric and historic data detailed in The Chalice and the Blade and Sacred Pleasure, some of which has been briefly presented in the previous section.

The larger picture that emerges from this gender-holistic perspective also indicates that, contrary to popular misconceptions, male dominance and male violence are not innate. Clearly throughout history not all men have been violent. And today many men are consciously rejecting their stereotypical "masculine" roles -- for example, the men who are today redefining fathering in the more caring and nurturing way once stereotypically associated only with mothering.

In short, the problem in dominator societies is not men. It is rather the way male identity must be defined in male-dominant societies where, by definition, "masculinity" is equated with domination and conquest-- be it of women, other men, or nature.

To maintain this type of society, boys must be systematically socialized for domination, and therefore, for violence. Male violence has to be idealized - as we see in so much of our normative literature celebrating violent "heroes" (for example, the Biblical King David, the Homeric Ulysses, and modern "he-men" such as Rambo :sniper: ). Indeed, in these societies violent behavior patterns are systematically taught to males from early childhood through toys like swords, guns, and violent video games, while only girls are systematically socialized for nurturing, compassion, and caring.

Not only that, in these societies sex becomes an act of male conquest and domination, as in the common description of men's affairs with women as "scoring." In addition, the family structure of these societies has to be one where men rule, women serve, and children learn early on that it is very dangerous to challenge orders, no matter how unjust.

Of course you are. Have a condescending pat on the head, free of charge.
Have a condescending diaper change in return, free of charge.

You belive the GDR was truly democratic?
Absolutely it was.

Are your posts best summed up as "trollish", since you provide no substance such that all I need do is gainsay you?

So, your contention is, there is no difference between the house a person lives in and the house they own and charge rent for?
Not in terms of property ownership rights, no. And that IS what is being discussed.

You keep denying it, but you believe that labor = physical labor only. How sad.
And you think that capitalists work 100 times harder than workers.
Nope. That's the standard refuted-to-death Marxist tosswad whining strawman.

Do try again when you've grown up.

And again you give me nothing but one liners. *shakes head*

But without the farmer, we wouldn't even be alive. You actually believe that it is easier to work in the hot sun or in a sweatshop then it is to manage stock?

Have you ever actually worked in the sun in a field? I have, it's the most boring, mindnumbing job ever and it's indescribably easy. All my instructions taken together are shorter than your average post. A person who simply manages stocks is considered a non-contributor in a Capitalist economy. Stock trading does not in any way affect GDP or other economic indicators. Your example isn't very good, so I'll give you a better one. "You actually believe that it is easier to work in the hot sun or in a sweatshop than (not then) it is to manage a company?" My answer is, absolutely it's easier to work in the sun or in a sweatshop than to manage a company. When you factor in the amount of schooling necessary to become the CEO of a major corporation or to reasonably create and manage your own business, as well as the stress, long hours, and mentally grueling material I would say that managing a business is far more difficult than, say, picking tomatos.

Misunderstanding of the early anarchist writers? I had no idea that Proudhon and Kropotkin were actually capitalists. Thanks for pointing it out.

That's a clever little word twist you did there. At no point did I say that either Proudhon or Kropotkin was a capitalist. What I said was that you are misunderstanding them. You are, for some reason, locked into this idea that the world consists of capitalists and other and that if ones is not a capitalist one is an other and if one is not an other one is a capitalist. That is simply not the way it is. You read Proudhon's treatises on property and come out the other side a fervent anti-capitalist, but you haven't actually done any thinking for yourself. You seem fixated on this idea that the primary differences between "Capitalism" and "Anarchism" (I use the quotation marks because your definitions of these words seems to differ slightly from most people's) is the treatments of property and money. Fundamentally there are differences in the treatments of property and money, but more importantly it is the fixation of property that seperates Capitalism and Communist or Collectivist Anarchism. Property cannot be eliminated, no matter how a society chooses to organize itself. You might say there is "private" and "public" property in Capitalism while in Communist Anarchism there is only "public" property, but there is no inherent difference in the objects themselves, only your perception of them. Anarchism makes a demand, and that demand is that all property be voluntarily accepted, not forced through coercion and force. The institutions of the state represent a source of coercion and force and therefor are contrary to the ideals of Anachy (Anarchy, as much as it seems like it, is not anti-state just because it can be, it is anti-state because the state represents a force contrary to the ideals of Anarchy). The institutions of Capitalism can, but do not necessarily represents force and coercion in the same way that the state necessarily represents force. Because of this, Capitalism is not inherently contrary to Anarchy. With that said, eliminating force from a society would be nearly impossible no matter how you organized it. The real issue with Anarchy in general is that an entirely pacifistic society could not realistically exist.

I'm sorry, I'm really tired and that was kind of rambling and disjointed, if you're confused let me know and I'll try to clarify later whem I've slept.

Absolutely it was.

Are your posts best summed up as "trollish", since you provide no substance such that all I need do is gainsay you?No, darling. I don't bother, because whereas Libertovania obviously believes what he's saying I don't believe you do. Hence your complete refusal to provide sources when challenged.

Absolutely it was.

Are your posts best summed up as "trollish", since you provide no substance such that all I need do is gainsay you?

No, darling.
I'm not your darling.

I don't bother,
Then you're a troll.

because whereas Libertovania obviously believes what he's saying I don't believe you do.
Your problem.

Hence your complete refusal to provide sources when challenged.
Liar.

I'm not your darling.Temper Temper.


Then you're a troll.That's the standard refuted-to-death Marxist tosswad whining strawman.Now try to grow a brain.Fucking chickenshit coward. And let's not forget your reply to Hint: insulting intelligent people who happen to disagree with you ain't the best policy, honey.Hint: I don't care. Mr Pot, have you met Mr Kettle?


Your problem.
Not entirely. You seem to be a perfect case study of what Orwell called the "natural decline of the ruling class." It's why I don't put you on ignore. Your lack of a clue cheers me up immensely.

Liar.Where's your source for either a) the GDR being democratic or b)the means of production in Russia being controlled for The people or that China is a people's republic?

I'm not your darling.
Temper Temper.
What are you talking about?


snip

Mr Pot, have you met Mr Kettle?
What are you talking about?


Your problem.
Not entirely.
Yeah, it is.

You seem to be a perfect case study of what I call "Poseurus Ignoramus"

Liar.
Where's your source for either a) the GDR being democratic
They held elections for the politburo.

or b)the means of production in Russia being
controlled for the people
The soviet constitution.


The people
or that China is a people's republic?
The People's Republic of China. Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Have you ever actually worked in the sun in a field? I have, it's the most boring, mindnumbing job ever and it's indescribably easy. All my instructions taken together are shorter than your average post. A person who simply manages stocks is considered a non-contributor in a Capitalist economy. Stock trading does not in any way affect GDP or other economic indicators. Your example isn't very good, so I'll give you a better one. "You actually believe that it is easier to work in the hot sun or in a sweatshop than (not then) it is to manage a company?" My answer is, absolutely it's easier to work in the sun or in a sweatshop than to manage a company. When you factor in the amount of schooling necessary to become the CEO of a major corporation or to reasonably create and manage your own business, as well as the stress, long hours, and mentally grueling material I would say that managing a business is far more difficult than, say, picking tomatos.

That same justification could be used for slavery. Slaves got the simple job of farm work while the owner had to manage things.

The institutions of the state represent a source of coercion and force and therefor are contrary to the ideals of Anachy (Anarchy, as much as it seems like it, is not anti-state just because it can be, it is anti-state because the state represents a force contrary to the ideals of Anarchy). The institutions of Capitalism can, but do not necessarily represents force and coercion in the same way that the state necessarily represents force. Because of this, Capitalism is not inherently contrary to Anarchy. With that said, eliminating force from a society would be nearly impossible no matter how you organized it. The real issue with Anarchy in general is that an entirely pacifistic society could not realistically exist.
I tend to agree with what you're saying
I wonder how a soceity could be anarcho-communist without force and coercion...what do you do if someone who you were counting on decided to sell all their wheat to another country instead of giving it to the community? (or otherwise)
What do you do if people don't want to give away the fruits of their labors?

Capitalism is based on "from each according to need, to each according to greed" or more seriously, some people work while others get rich off their labor.Capitalism is not based on anything of the sort anymore than anarchism is based on running around killing everyone or communism is on a corrupt government controlling your every motion and forcing you into poverty (or anything else that people stupidly believe communism is)

The basis of capitalism, to put it in a form similar to the marxism, is From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability

I don't understand why if you and I work at the same job, and I am twice as able as you and thus produce twice as much, why we should be paid equally- or why I should be paid less than you because you have 4 kids and I only have 2. I should be punished for being productive and responsible?

Now of course, that's not how capitalism works in the world today, partly due to massive amounts of government preferences, giving lots of stupid privilieges to whoever is the biggest corporation, thus keeping small businesses out of the market. And partly due to government-mandated unions- instead of letting the workers unite at their own will- government unions do more harm than good for the workers. In a free capitalist society, employers would have to compete among each other, not just with prices, but also with worker safety and salary. If the competition pays their workers $4.00 more an hour and gives them better benefits (as well as general worker safety) then you won't be in business long...

The basis of capitalism, to put it in a form similar to the marxism, is From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability

Then why is the inheritor richer than the sweatshop worker? Clearly, capitalism doesn't always reward people on the basis of ability and work.

I don't understand why if you and I work at the same job, and I am twice as able as you and thus produce twice as much, why we should be paid equally- or why I should be paid less than you because you have 4 kids and I only have 2. I should be punished for being productive and responsible?

I don't understand why someone who has never worked a day in their lives should get 500+ more money than a sweatshop worker.

I wonder how a soceity could be anarcho-communist without force and coercion...what do you do if someone who you were counting on decided to sell all their wheat to another country instead of giving it to the community?

Then the people supplying them with fertilizer, water, etc. would simply quit giving them what they need to grow wheat. That isn't coersion unless you think markets are also coersive.

What do you do if people don't want to give away the fruits of their labors?

Simply don't share with them. Free association.

What are you talking about?



What are you talking about?I just think it's amusing that someone who seems to exist on here merely to hurl insults whines when someone responds in kind.



Yeah, it is.

You seem to be a perfect case study of what I call "Poseurus Ignoramus"
So what have you done to further the cause of "anarcho"-capitalism? Or are you just an internet warrior?


They held elections for the politburo.With no oppositon allowed. Besides, by that argument every western "democracy" is communist. Oh, wait. That is what you believe.


The soviet constitution.Proves nothing. Specific examples of the system in practice please.



The People's Republic of China. Kinda says it all, doesn't it?Then what are you complaining about? You live in the capitalist west.

Then why is the inheritor richer than the sweatshop worker? Clearly, capitalism doesn't always reward people on the basis of ability and work.
This is kind of a good point...however, we clearly can't think of inheritors as people....it's still rewarding their father/grandfather/whoever actually earned the money. The inheritors are just a possesion of the person with the abilities

I don't understand why someone who has never worked a day in their lives should get 500+ more money than a sweatshop worker.
Do you see how that in no way answers the question I asked? People that do nothing but spend will eventually squander all their money- [this part is the answer to your question] they get the money because that's what the person who gave them the money wanted.[/answer] Please don't think any capitalists picture Paris Hilton as our role model. We want capitalism because we want to work. And hey, even she is working now- and many people find The Simple Life entertaining :eek: and those are the people you want to support with your labor.

Then the people supplying them with fertilizer, water, etc. would simply quit giving them what they need to grow wheat. That isn't coersion unless you think markets are also coersive.
But you DO think that markets are coercive. Now do you see how that's not an acceptable answer. "I'm against coercion and what you want is coercive." "But this thing you suggest is coercive" "But what YOU said is coercive, too." The markets being coercion does not exclude you from preaching coercion, as you've just admitted.

Simply don't share with them. Free association.
However, if they don't share their produce with you, you won't have any of it. But see, you not sharing with them won't hurt them, because they are getting stuff from the capitalists they sold their produce to. And then other people might see how they are benefitting from not sharing with the community. (my argument is getting really weak here...I'm not thinking well right now so...any other ancaps feel free to speak up)

This is kind of a good point...however, we clearly can't think of inheritors as people....it's still rewarding their father/grandfather/whoever actually earned the money. The inheritors are just a possesion of the person with the abilities

Even the laziest rich kid is a human. They are not property and if they are, capitalism is even worse than I thought.

But you DO think that markets are coercive. Now do you see how that's not an acceptable answer. "I'm against coercion and what you want is coercive." "But this thing you suggest is coercive" "But what YOU said is coercive, too." The markets being coercion does not exclude you from preaching coercion, as you've just admitted.

Markets, while inherently flawed, are not in themselves coersive. It is capitalist markets where labor is for sale and must be sold that is coersive.

However, if they don't share their produce with you, you won't have any of it. But see, you not sharing with them won't hurt them, because they are getting stuff from the capitalists they sold their produce to. And then other people might see how they are benefitting from not sharing with the community. (my argument is getting really weak here...I'm not thinking well right now so...any other ancaps feel free to speak up)

All I can say is that they would be extremely unpopular. If they don't care about the respect of others, then that won't bother them, but if they expect anyone in an anarcho-communist society to take them seriously, they blew it by refusing to share and instead trying to get rich.

Then why is the inheritor richer than the sweatshop worker? Clearly, capitalism doesn't always reward people on the basis of ability and work.
So what?

I don't understand why someone who has never worked a day in their lives should get 500+ more money than a sweatshop worker.
I don't understand why they shouldn't.

Even the laziest rich kid is a human. They are not property and if they are, capitalism is even worse than I thought.



Markets, while inherently flawed, are not in themselves coersive. It is capitalist markets where labor is for sale and must be sold that is coersive.



All I can say is that they would be extremely unpopular. If they don't care about the respect of others, then that won't bother them, but if they expect anyone in an anarcho-communist society to take them seriously, they blew it by refusing to share and instead trying to get rich.
nice job again failing to answer the most legitimate of my questions
You are certainly a winner

This is kind of a good point...however, we clearly can't think of inheritors as people....it's still rewarding their father/grandfather/whoever actually earned the money. The inheritors are just a possesion of the person with the abilities

However, if they don't share their produce with you, you won't have any of it. But see, you not sharing with them won't hurt them, because they are getting stuff from the capitalists they sold their produce to. And then other people might see how they are benefitting from not sharing with the community. (my argument is getting really weak here...I'm not thinking well right now so...any other ancaps feel free to speak up)

I really dont care if someone inherits wealth. They will either invest the money, creating more jobs and businesses, or piss it away. Most wealth is tied up in companies, not stuck in someone's mattress...

As far as your second argument goes - youre right, they will be able to trade with capitalists outside the community. And too bad for them when the farmer decides to sell his food elsewhere.

What happens when there is a poor crop? How will they feed themselves? Those with stockpiles will sell/trade it at a very favorable markup...hmmm, sounds like the russian revolution...

What are you talking about?
I just think it's amusing that someone who seems to exist on here merely to hurl insults whines when someone responds in kind.
If only you could show the whining.....


Yeah, it is.

You seem to be a perfect case study of what I call "Poseurus Ignoramus"
So what have you done to further the cause of "anarcho"-capitalism?
Irrelevant.


They held elections for the politburo.
With no oppositon allowed.
Doesn't mean it wasn't democratic.


The soviet constitution.
Proves nothing.
No, it proves it perfectly.

That same justification could be used for slavery. Slaves got the simple job of farm work while the owner had to manage things.

Ok... so being a slave is easy, that doesn't justify it in any way. Think a little harder next time.

I notice, also, that you ignored my longer (and more meaningful) comment. You seem to have a knack for doing that.

I notice, also, that you ignored my longer (and more meaningful) comment. You seem to have a knack for doing that.
Yeah no kidding
I have to wonder why the more frustrated I get, the more I want to post here...

Very interesting. A few questions, though.

i/ So you agree that agriculture and private property tended to go together. But which came first? Did private property precede agriculture or did agricultural societies lead to private property (this is what I would guess since it would lead to more efficient agriculture)

ii/ I think you're wrong about govt leading to private property (if this is what you were implying) since property preceded govt, especially preceding govt involvement in the justice system.

iii/ Would you agree that foraging societies were more egalitarian since their groups were essentially cooperative enterprises or an extended family? Would you also agree that agriculture allows a more independent existence where ventures are confined to immediate family, generally, and that this could have led to more exclusive property rights?

iv/ How does one research this? How good is the evidence? Is it mostly informed guessing or solid science?

i/ well, sorta. in lots of agricultural societies, ownership of the land is vested either in the village, or the clan (though many of them would say that it actually belongs to the gods and they are merely borrowing it) - and your access to it is based on your membership in that clan or village. which isn't really all that different from how foraging societies view the land. of course, in other societies all land was owned by the god-king. but certainly, the conceptions of ownership changed as food production and living style did.

private ownership, by either a ruler or a farmer, most certainly happens after the start of active planting, because societies in the earliest stages of agriculture weren't yet settled down into full-time villages. they would plant some food and come back for it later without tending it or protecting it while it grew (and even earlier, they weren't actively planting so much as accidently planting by disposing of food waste or, well, shitting). they didn't really have a sense of personal ownership over either the field or the future food, nor any way to enforce one even if they cared to try - but there was no reason to do so considering there was plenty of food around other than that.

iii/ i think one of the arguments going around to explain forager egalitarianism has a lot to do with a couple of factors. first, hunting is mostly a cooperative activity but gathering can be done entirely on your own once you know how to do it, and you can live on gathering alone at least for awhile. which means that in order to keep people together in a group you have to keep them happy. and people do not like being dominated by others or feeling left out or 'less' than somebody else. so if things aren't going the way you like it is easy to up and leave. second, groups among foragers are very fluid. they break apart and come together in all sorts of different combinations and people are always off visiting their third cousins or whatever in some other group. so again, up and leaving is fairly easy for anyone. third, egalitarian foraging socieites are very aware that there is the possibility (they would probably say danger) of people trying to declare themselves better or more important than others and have social norms aimed at keeping things level and making sure nobody gets a big head. and fourth, every one has and can make hunting implements - which means that everyone is armed or can become so easily. so if some jerk does force or intimidate his way to some amount of power, he is very likely to be conspired against and killed.

really, foragers were a lot more based around individuals and immediate family groups that decided to live and hunt together sometimes, while agriculturalists were based around the extended family groups needed to provide all the necessary labor. in general, hunter-gatherers were a lot more independent than any agriculturalists. in the societies of agriculturalists that wound up conquering the world, people actually became trapped and bullied into working really hard mainly to provide for an elite that owned the land, with no good options for escape.

iv/ the actual data comes from both archaeology and from anthropological studies of still extant foraging cultures. given the limitations of both of those fields, its pretty good, and probably as good as its likely to get. of course, interpretations of prehistoric evidence or second hand accounts will vary based on the things you focus on, but no worse than any other social sciencey type thing (and usually quite a bit better). packed away somewhere i have an excelent book and article list - i'll see if i can find it sometime.

oh yeah, and could i ask any of you that haven't already done so to drop by my thread, NationStates Political Compass (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343596) and poste your political compass scores? thanks.

Letila, I hate to break it to you in this harsh way, but from the moment you started calling yourself an Anarchist you became the Anarchist's Village idiot. The only way you can escape it is to stop calling yourself and Anarchist and preaching a sickly twisted version of Anarchism based primarily on your misunderstanding of the early anarchist writers or to become a whole lot smarter really quickly. Since I don't expect the latter to happen I leave you to find the only remaining solution to your predicament.
I don't know, Disko-dick makes Letila sound like James Earl-Jones.

If simply holding elections makes a country democratic then I guess that means Iraq was democratic, as well.

Not in terms of property ownership rights, no. And that IS what is being discussed.

"Rights" are a political question, not an absolute. As I said, you can disagree, from an ideological position, on how to treat the difference between one and the other, but you have denied that the distinction exists at all, which is nonsense. Stop shifting the goalposts, political anarchists (meaning communist/collectivist/syndicalist) recognise a difference between the two and have based their arguments on that difference. You, as an oxymoron, refuse to recognise it, which makes you a capitalist. Capice? You with me to here?

Now, here is where you seem to have difficulty - anarchism is less an ideology and more a kind of historical discussion. It has developed over time, has conflicting elements and no dogma. However, in all historical threads of anarchism, one thing remains true - an opposition to capitalism. The alternatives have differed, but the opposition remains. In fact, the other most common element - opposition to the state - isn't constant, as, for example, Spooner and Chomsky, both argued at times that a limited state might be required. A divergence in the history of anarchism to supporting capitalism is, thus, a step too far - it takes it outside the fundamental basis of the discussion. I've made the comparison before, but it still holds true - humanism grew out of non-conformist Christianity and shares many of its characteristics. However, the jetisoning of the religious element means that humanism is no longer part of Christianity. The difference between humanists and you oxymorons is that they're not bizarre enough to try and claim the name of that which they oppose.

Vas.

If only you could show the whining.....Accusing me of trolling when you operate solely in insults.



Irrelevant.
I'll take that as a "yes, I am solely an internet warrior". So "anarcho"-capitalism is going to arise from thin air. For an atheist you're awfully religious.


Doesn't mean it wasn't democratic.In terms of "rule by popular consent" it does. Are we using the 'special' BAAWA dictionary again?


No, it proves it perfectly.I asked you to prove that was how the Soviet system worked in reality. You still haven't. Hence my claim that you don't back up your views with sources when challenged is proved. And you deliberately edited out the second part of that quote. To repeat:

Then what are you complaining about? You live in the capitalist west.

I tend to agree with what you're saying
I wonder how a soceity could be anarcho-communist without force and coercion...what do you do if someone who you were counting on decided to sell all their wheat to another country instead of giving it to the community? (or otherwise)

No problem. Membership of the "community" - read commune - is voluntary. If a person decides to sell that which they have produced through their own labour, assuming there is a market in existence elsewhere, that's fine. The issue would be if they tried to sell that which was the work of others - ie. capitalism.

What do you do if people don't want to give away the fruits of their labors?

Nothing. There is more than enough food produced on this planet for every man, woman and child to be well fed all the time, with much left over. The problem is distribution and exploitation (farmers starving while producing food to sell). If a person wished to be a solo traveller and produce for themselves and keep their products for themselves, no problem what so ever. They would, however, probably get very bored of what only they could produce. Yes, the possibility of trade (should a market remain) would be open to them, but, realistically, wouldn't a system of free distribution be more attractive? A system where you share in the products of the community not based on what work you do, but what there is to share. The ability of the capitalist to increase their personal production would be seriously curtailed by the fact that there would not be the usual pool of wage slaves available. Whatever about the capitalist himself preferring to work and trade, why would someone submit to their rule for only a fraction of their own product when the commune offers them a far better deal?

Vas.

I don't understand why they shouldn't.

That's what makes you not an anarchist. It's quite simple, whether or not you support an idealistic version of capitalism, anarchism is based on trying to achieve equality and justice. If you don't see how inherited wealth is a problem (something that is quite clearly a problem for a free market, as it grants the wealthy a position of greater power in any transfer of resources), then you're an elitist.

Vas.

No problem. Membership of the "community" - read commune - is voluntary. If a person decides to sell that which they have produced through their own labour, assuming there is a market in existence elsewhere, that's fine. The issue would be if they tried to sell that which was the work of others - ie. capitalism.

What if I trade something I made for something you made, and then trade that for something else? Is that "capitalism"? By what bizarre reasoning is it only acceptable to trade a good once?

Nothing. There is more than enough food produced on this planet for every man, woman and child to be well fed all the time, with much left over. The problem is distribution and exploitation (farmers starving while producing food to sell). If a person wished to be a solo traveller and produce for themselves and keep their products for themselves, no problem what so ever. They would, however, probably get very bored of what only they could produce. Yes, the possibility of trade (should a market remain) would be open to them, but, realistically, wouldn't a system of free distribution be more attractive? A system where you share in the products of the community not based on what work you do, but what there is to share. The ability of the capitalist to increase their personal production would be seriously curtailed by the fact that there would not be the usual pool of wage slaves available. Whatever about the capitalist himself preferring to work and trade, why would someone submit to their rule for only a fraction of their own product when the commune offers them a far better deal?

Vas.
The commune only offers them a better deal if they have tremendous needs. Someone with tons of ability and very little need is hurt greatly. Someone with little to no ability and tons of need, however, will be helped greatly.

This is why I assume that, in the scenario where the capitalist village is right next door to the communist village, all the people with greater need than ability will go to the ansoc society and all those with greater ability than need will go wherever the hell else they can find.

Also, while yes, in the world, there is a great surplus of food produce every year, it's rather naive to think that the same would be true for your commune. The commune is going to be very small- what's the chance you'll even have one other person growing wheat? Also, you won't want to overproduce, because that will be a total waste, which the commune wouldn't be able to afford.
Also, where do get all your stuff? Farming equipment, parts for televisions, cars, computers, glass for windows?

edit: oh, and I noticed how you also left out the most important question- the one you (pl.) obviously can't answer

If worker A is twice as able as worker B at the same job, and worker A thus produces twice as much, why should worker B be paid the same, or even greater than worker A? Sure, worker A only has 2 kids while worker B has 4, but surely we shouldn't punish worker A for being responsible, right?

What if I trade something I made for something you made, and then trade that for something else? Is that "capitalism"? By what bizarre reasoning is it only acceptable to trade a good once?

You know full well that's not what I meant.

Vas.

The commune only offers them a better deal if they have tremendous needs. Someone with tons of ability and very little need is hurt greatly. Someone with little to no ability and tons of need, however, will be helped greatly.

This is why I assume that, in the scenario where the capitalist village is right next door to the communist village, all the people with greater need than ability will go to the ansoc society and all those with greater ability than need will go wherever the hell else they can find.

Based on what? Do all doctors work for profit, or do most of them tolerate awful conditions and poor pay because they want to help the sick? Do the best computer programmers right now work for Microsoft, or are they in the pool of people developing open source? Am I working as an editor for a national broadcaster, or did I give that up to focus on human rights work? The vast majority of people would be satisfied with being comfortable and not rich.

Also, while yes, in the world, there is a great surplus of food produce every year, it's rather naive to think that the same would be true for your commune. The commune is going to be very small- what's the chance you'll even have one other person growing wheat? Also, you won't want to overproduce, because that will be a total waste, which the commune wouldn't be able to afford.

This is total nonsense. What makes you think the commune will be very small? What makes you think there's only one commune and not a federation of communes pooling resources? What exactly makes you think that agricultural abilities of a commune would be less than those in capitalism when it's likely to be the very same farm workers now working for a fair share of the produce rather than a wage?

Also, where do get all your stuff? Farming equipment, parts for televisions, cars, computers, glass for windows?

Eh, make it? Worker appropriation of the means of production is fundamental to any revolutionary form of socialism/communism. And before you trot out that this is theft, go read Proudhon. And then go look at how anarcho-syndicalism in Catalonia in the 1930s was organised.

edit: oh, and I noticed how you also left out the most important question- the one you (pl.) obviously can't answer

If worker A is twice as able as worker B at the same job, and worker A thus produces twice as much, why should worker B be paid the same, or even greater than worker A? Sure, worker A only has 2 kids while worker B has 4, but surely we shouldn't punish worker A for being responsible, right?

Oh yes we can, it's called free distribution - Nobody gets "paid" for anything. As it's impossible to calculate fairly how much people deserve to be paid for work, you turn it around an install a system of free and fair distribution based on need unconnected with the amount of work carried out. By your logic, handicapped people should receive nothing, less able people should receive a small amount, while physically strong workhorses should receive most. Why? This is discrimination based on capacity - a natural trait, thus is akin to any other form of discrimination based on natural traits beyond the control of the individual, such as race or gender.

Vas.

You know full well that's not what I meant.

To be fair it's very difficult to know what you mean a lot of the time. You accept that trading a hat for a pair of shoes is fair. It is voluntary and harms nobody else and so liberty demands it be allowed.

What about a hat for a haircut? Again, that is a fair trade.

What about a haircut for a gold ring? No qualitative jump.

What if the gold isn't a ring but a coin? Surely the shape of the gold makes no difference.

What if you give me a hat, I give my mate Kip a pair of shoes, and he gives you a haircut. It's the same situation but with 3 people instead of 2. Can't see how that changes it.

What if you give me 2 hats, I give one to Kip, and he cuts your hair? It's all still voluntary.

What if you give me 2 coins, I give one to Kip and let him borrow my scissors, and he cuts your hair. Then we have "capitalism". Free, voluntary and uncoercive.

It is irrelevant what our particular economic conditions are. Each of us agreed to every step. Where does this break down in your little head?

"Rights" are a political question, not an absolute.
So what?

As I said, you can disagree, from an ideological position, on how to treat the difference between one and the other, but you have denied that the distinction exists at all, which is nonsense.
No, it's not.

Stop shifting the goalposts, political anarchists (meaning communist/collectivist/syndicalist)
No, those are oxymorons.

recognise a difference between the two and have based their arguments on that difference.
So you ansoc oxymorons agree. Good.

Now, here is where you seem to have difficulty - anarchism is less an ideology and more a kind of historical discussion.
Now here is where you seem to have difficulty: anarchism is simply about there not being a state (viz. the PHILOSOPHY DICTIONARY definitions I provided to your fellow oxymoron Letila).

It has developed over time, has conflicting elements and no dogma. However, in all historical threads of anarchism, one thing remains true - an opposition to capitalism.
WRONG!

The only thing that has remained true is opposition to the state, not opposition to capitalism, which for some reason you oxymorons don't get (and frankly, if you call 170 years or so historical, you've got another thing coming).

Save your oxymoronic whining for someone who hasn't done the research.

Accusing me of trolling when you operate solely in insults.
Just responding in kind, troll.

I'll take that as a "yes, I am solely an internet warrior".
I'll take that as a "yes, The Holy Word is a troll"

In terms of "rule by popular consent" it does. Are we using the 'special' BAAWA dictionary again?
No such thing.

I asked you to prove that was how the Soviet system worked in reality.
Which I did.

I don't understand why they shouldn't (have inherited wealth)That's what makes you not an anarchist.
Non sequitur. That has nothing to do with there not being a state, oxymoron.

It's quite simple, whether or not you support an idealistic version of capitalism, anarchism is based on trying to achieve equality and justice.
No it's not. It's about there not being a state, oxymoron.

If you don't see how inherited wealth is a problem (something that is quite clearly a problem for a free market, as it grants the wealthy a position of greater power in any transfer of resources),
No it doesn't, oxymoron.

then you're an elitist.
Non sequitur, oxymoron.

I don't understand why they shouldn't.

There's a thing called justice. It simply isn't just for people to work for 12+ hours day just to survive while others live off inheritance.

What if I trade something I made for something you made, and then trade that for something else? Is that "capitalism"? By what bizarre reasoning is it only acceptable to trade a good once?

That would probably be unnecessary because of free distribution.

The commune only offers them a better deal if they have tremendous needs. Someone with tons of ability and very little need is hurt greatly. Someone with little to no ability and tons of need, however, will be helped greatly.

This is why I assume that, in the scenario where the capitalist village is right next door to the communist village, all the people with greater need than ability will go to the ansoc society and all those with greater ability than need will go wherever the hell else they can find.

Everyone benefits in communism because no one has to truly take orders. If you went to the capitalist village, chances are, you'd have to sell your labor and take orders. If money is all that matters to you, then that's fine, but if you want equality and freedom, that wouldn't be good enough.

Also, while yes, in the world, there is a great surplus of food produce every year, it's rather naive to think that the same would be true for your commune. The commune is going to be very small- what's the chance you'll even have one other person growing wheat? Also, you won't want to overproduce, because that will be a total waste, which the commune wouldn't be able to afford.
Also, where do get all your stuff? Farming equipment, parts for televisions, cars, computers, glass for windows?

A confederation of communes and syndicates. I actually have a book I'm writing that explains how an economy without markets and money might work.

If worker A is twice as able as worker B at the same job, and worker A thus produces twice as much, why should worker B be paid the same, or even greater than worker A? Sure, worker A only has 2 kids while worker B has 4, but surely we shouldn't punish worker A for being responsible, right?

Worker A values wealth over family. I personally don't see why that's impressive or worthy of reward. In capitalism, worker A wouldn't necessarily get paid well if they are in a third world country working in a sweatshop.

I don't understand why they shouldn't.
There's a thing called justice. It simply isn't just for people to work for 12+ hours day just to survive while others live off inheritance.
Yes, it is. Grow up.

Want to see how your argument fails?

"It simply isn't just that some people were born with the ability to be stronger/with better eyesight/without a harelip/etc. and others were born not like that. We need to make everyone metaphysically equal".

That is your argument, little one. It's been taken to its logical extension, and if you don't like it--TOUGH FUCKING SHIT. Grow up.

Just responding in kind, troll.As you respond to everyone who disagrees with you in the same way...*Gasps in horror*. That means that almost everyone on the internet is a troll. Apart from you obviously.


I'll take that as a "yes, The Holy Word is a troll"Still avoiding the question I see. What are you trying to hide?


No such thing.Well, you certainly don't use the same defination of "proof" as us mere mortals.


Which I did.Go on then. Use your "superior intellect" to explain how you did that. I notice your still avoiding my other point. You really are an intellectual coward.

Yes, it is. Grow up.

Want to see how your argument fails?

"It simply isn't just that some people were born with the ability to be stronger/with better eyesight/without a harelip/etc. and others were born not like that. We need to make everyone metaphysically equal".

That is your argument, little one. It's been taken to its logical extension, and if you don't like it--TOUGH FUCKING SHIT. Grow up.

You are truly selfish. You don't care about anyone but yourself. I can't believe you are willing to let millions of people suffer so you can continue to live off your inheritance.

Just responding in kind, troll.
As you respond to everyone who disagrees with you in the same way
Nope. Only poseurs who don't take the time to do any research.


I'll take that as a "yes, The Holy Word is a troll"
Still avoiding the question I see.
You asked no question, liar.


No such thing.
Well, you certainly don't use the same defination of "proof" as us mere mortals.
I certainly do.


Which I did.
Go on then. Use your "superior intellect" to explain how you did that.
Since I did, there's no need.

I notice your still avoiding my other point.
You had no other point, liar.

Yes, it is. Grow up.

Want to see how your argument fails?

"It simply isn't just that some people were born with the ability to be stronger/with better eyesight/without a harelip/etc. and others were born not like that. We need to make everyone metaphysically equal".

That is your argument, little one. It's been taken to its logical extension, and if you don't like it--TOUGH FUCKING SHIT. Grow up.
You are truly selfish.
And you're a fucking thief. You want to steal from everyone you can. Keep your hands off my stuff. It's not yours. You have no right to it.

You don't care about anyone but yourself.
Hysterical nonsense.

I can't believe you are willing to let millions of people suffer so you can continue to live off your inheritance.
I can't believe that:
1. You think I have some sort of inheritance.
2. You want to steal from others. Fucking immoral piece of shit.
3. You think that wanting to keep what is yours is somehow WRONG.
4. You think that being born and having your parents love you and give you something means that you don't deserve it. Fucking stupid. Give back everything your parents ever gave you NOW or forever be a hypocrite.

Grow up.

And you're a fucking thief. You want to steal from everyone you can. Keep your hands off my stuff. It's not yours. You have no right to it.

"Mine" and "yours" are merely the result of the government enforcing property laws. A piece of land you've never walked on can be yours if the government uses force to keep people you don't want on it off.

Hysterical nonsense.

If you're willing to perpetuate such injustice, then you are selfish.

I can't believe that:
1. You think I have some sort of inheritance.
2. You want to steal from others. Fucking immoral piece of shit.
3. You think that wanting to keep what is yours is somehow WRONG.
4. You think that being born and having your parents love you and give you something means that you don't deserve it. Fucking stupid. Give back everything your parents ever gave you NOW or forever be a hypocrite.

I just want the wealth to go back to the people who made it rather than a select few. Capitalists steal from the sweatshop workers and people paying rent. They rely on the force of the government or in your case, "defence" corporations, to terrorize people into submitting to capitalist demands.

Nope. Only poseurs who don't take the time to do any research.
Link to one example.


You asked no question, liar.What have you personally done to advance the cause of anarcho capitalism? Clear enough.



I certainly do.Liar.



Since I did, there's no need.Demonstrate how you did. Stop evading BAAWA. It's noticable not even your "anarcho"-capitalist allies are jumping to your defence on this one. If you did do this it'll be obvious by your explanation. But you can't. So you'll attempt to avoid this one again.


You had no other point, liar.Hey, if you keep just repeating personal attacks I might forget to quote myself.Then what are you complaining about? You live in the capitalist west. Quote where you answered this. Again, I know you won't. Because you're an intellectual coward. I blame the parents.

Worker A values wealth over family. I personally don't see why that's impressive or worthy of reward. In capitalism, worker A wouldn't necessarily get paid well if they are in a third world country working in a sweatshop.
How does worker A value wealth over family? He values his family over worker B's family, if that's what you mean. And, if anything, he values family more than worker B because he only had two children, who he can spend plenty of quality, personal time with- and that's much harder with more children. You might find the time to spend with all your children together, but they won't get personal time. It's like the argument for smaller class sizes.
note: I will respond to other comments later, the comment that my parents don't love me because they didn't have more children than they could support just pissed me off especially much.

How does worker A value wealth over family? He values his family over worker B's family, if that's what you mean. And, if anything, he values family more than worker B because he only had two children, who he can spend plenty of quality, personal time with- and that's much harder with more children. You might find the time to spend with all your children together, but they won't get personal time. It's like the argument for smaller class sizes.
note: I will respond to other comments later, the comment that my parents don't love me because they didn't have more children than they could support just pissed me off especially much.

That really wasn't my point. My point was that worker A had their priorties wrong if they are interested mainly in wealth.

Yes, it is. Grow up.

Want to see how your argument fails?

"It simply isn't just that some people were born with the ability to be stronger/with better eyesight/without a harelip/etc. and others were born not like that. We need to make everyone metaphysically equal".

That is your argument, little one. It's been taken to its logical extension, and if you don't like it--TOUGH FUCKING SHIT. Grow up.

I don't really think that's his argument (though given I haven't read the entire thread; it seems to me he's essentially making a Rawlsian social justice case, though I doubt he knows he's doing it.). A better way to put it would be
"any inequalities, particularly those created/maintained/preventable by society, which are not the result of of individual effort or merit, should be viewed as politically negotiable [and possibly structured either along an average utility or justice as fairness model]."

In short, we don't need to make everyone "metaphysically equal", but rather certain of these inequalites are effectively socially/politically created, and as such are open, in my mind, to bargaining. I certainly think, at least from a historical perspective, inheritance is one of these inequalities.

That really wasn't my point. My point was that worker A had their priorties wrong if they are interested mainly in wealth.
I never said they were interested primarily in wealth, so you still haven't answered the question. Worker A just wants to give his family the best he can. And if he is more able, he's not doing the best for them, under a communist society, because he has to give something that should be his away to someone else.

So there are 5 workers in a factory, and the factory produces 15 things. A produces 5 of them, B produces 4, C produces 3, D produces 2, and E produces 1. Now, you seemed to believe before that if one person produces something, they should be allowed to do with it as they will (of course in a normal factory you don't have 1 person produce any 1 thing on their own- but that's what makes this theoretical) So, either there is free distribution, and everyone gets 3 things, or there is capitalism, and A gets 5, B gets 4, C gets 3, D gets 2, and E gets 1. Naturally, capitalism doesn't currently work this way, because of salary, but I'm totally against salary for this sort of thing. I have an office job for the summer. The first day I came in, they gave me a stack of stuff and said "File this. When you come back tomorrow I'll tell you what else to do, cause this will take you all day." 3 hours later, I was searching for something to do. I finished what they thought would be 9 hours of work in 3 hours, and so only got 3 hours pay for it...Grrr....
However, I can now use the money I'm making to buy Season 1 of Quantum Leap for my boyfriend. If I lived in a commune, I wouldn't have made any money to spend on dvds- it would've just been part of my public duty- since my family's need didn't change any.
(see, how if you have more people working, in capitalism, there is more money coming in, even if your need stays the same- you don't get that in communism. Wheether you've got 1, 2, 3, or 7 family members working, you'll get the same amount for it)
Course, I don't know how you all feel about children and family. I kinda figured in a ansoc village you couldn't very well have family (other than communal family- huh...kinda like communal baths...), yet Letila seems very concerned with the well-being of worker A's family.

And you're a fucking thief. You want to steal from everyone you can. Keep your hands off my stuff. It's not yours. You have no right to it.
"Mine" and "yours" are merely the result of the government enforcing property laws.
...such as the right to your own body?

A piece of land you've never walked on can be yours if the government uses force to keep people you don't want on it off.
So what?


I can't believe that:
1. You think I have some sort of inheritance.
2. You want to steal from others. Fucking immoral piece of shit.
3. You think that wanting to keep what is yours is somehow WRONG.
4. You think that being born and having your parents love you and give you something means that you don't deserve it. Fucking stupid. Give back everything your parents ever gave you NOW or forever be a hypocrite.
I just want the wealth to go back to the people who made it rather than a select few.
IOW: you want to steal from the people who have wealth.

Capitalists steal from the sweatshop workers
Prove it. And no, you can't use the refuted-to-death Labor Theory of Value or Marx. You have to use something that isn't a load of bullshit.

and people paying rent.
Let's say that you let someone use your car, but you tell them only on the condition that they fill the tank up. Guess what: their money used to fill the tank up is RENT! Is that wrong to ask that someone pay for what they use, hmmmm?

They rely on the force of the government or in your case, "defence" corporations, to terrorize people into submitting to capitalist demands.
Hysterical nonsense. Get back to me when you're not in your stark-raving-mad mode.

I don't really think that's his argument (though given I haven't read the entire thread; it seems to me he's essentially making a Rawlsian social justice case, though I doubt he knows he's doing it.). A better way to put it would be
"any inequalities, particularly those created/maintained/preventable by society, which are not the result of of individual effort or merit, should be viewed as politically negotiable [and possibly structured either along an average utility or justice as fairness model]."

In short, we don't need to make everyone "metaphysically equal", but rather certain of these inequalites are effectively socially/politically created, and as such are open, in my mind, to bargaining. I certainly think, at least from a historical perspective, inheritance is one of these inequalities.
While I do see what you are saying, and it's very kind of you to try to defend them, Dischordiac said earlier in the thread (though Letila may disagree with him), that you shouldn't reward someone based on their physical abilities, because they were born with these abilities, and can't control them. Which, I would assume, also means that doctors should be equal to waitresses even though the doctors generally display much more individual effort and merit.
(I'm not even talking inheritance at this point)
I just don't get a society where someone who contributes x amount of something to the commune should be rewarded equally (or greater than) someone who contributes 2x amount.

This is without a doubt, leading to a society where people will be judged solely on looks. Think about that for a second...is that really a place where y'all think you'd be best off?

...

hey, long time no see

Nope. Only poseurs who don't take the time to do any research.
Link to one example.
Of?


You asked no question, liar.
What have you personally done to advance the cause of anarcho capitalism? Clear enough.
And this is relevant how?


Since I did, there's no need.
Demonstrate how you did.
Since I did, there's no need.

It's obvious that you're illiterate.



You had no other point, liar.
Hey, if you keep just repeating personal attacks I might forget to quote myself.
So what?

I still wait for some other point that you claim you made. And no, asking me "why are you complaining about this" is not a point. Try something real, smooth-brain.

So there are 5 workers in a factory, and the factory produces 15 things. A produces 5 of them, B produces 4, C produces 3, D produces 2, and E produces 1. Now, you seemed to believe before that if one person produces something, they should be allowed to do with it as they will (of course in a normal factory you don't have 1 person produce any 1 thing on their own- but that's what makes this theoretical) So, either there is free distribution, and everyone gets 3 things, or there is capitalism, and A gets 5, B gets 4, C gets 3, D gets 2, and E gets 1. Naturally, capitalism doesn't currently work this way, because of salary, but I'm totally against salary for this sort of thing. I have an office job for the summer. The first day I came in, they gave me a stack of stuff and said "File this. When you come back tomorrow I'll tell you what else to do, cause this will take you all day." 3 hours later, I was searching for something to do. I finished what they thought would be 9 hours of work in 3 hours, and so only got 3 hours pay for it...Grrr....

Don't tell me that anarcho-communism rewards laziness until you confront the fact that some people work in sweatshops for very low wages while others inherit millions.

However, I can now use the money I'm making to buy Season 1 of Quantum Leap for my boyfriend. If I lived in a commune, I wouldn't have made any money to spend on dvds- it would've just been part of my public duty- since my family's need didn't change any.

DVDs would still exist. As for how they would be distributed, I'm not sure. It's really up to the community to decide when anarcho-communism is put into practice.

Course, I don't know how you all feel about children and family. I kinda figured in a ansoc village you couldn't very well have family (other than communal family- huh...kinda like communal baths...), yet Letila seems very concerned with the well-being of worker A's family.

Anarchism doesn't necessarily advocate the abolition of family. I'm told that Marx believed the post dictatorship ancom (the eventual goal of Marxism) predicted by historical materialism would have no families. I don't have a problem with families as long as they don't become a way for parents to push children around.

Yes, it is. Grow up.

Want to see how your argument fails?

"It simply isn't just that some people were born with the ability to be stronger/with better eyesight/without a harelip/etc. and others were born not like that. We need to make everyone metaphysically equal".

That is your argument, little one. It's been taken to its logical extension, and if you don't like it--TOUGH FUCKING SHIT. Grow up.
I don't really think that's his argument (though given I haven't read the entire thread;
I simply took Letila's argument to its logical conclusion. Letila wants fairness and equality for all. Letila wants no one to gain anything or have any power from something they did not earn, period. That MUST mean metaphysically as well.

it seems to me he's essentially making a Rawlsian social justice case, though I doubt he knows he's doing it.). A better way to put it would be "any inequalities, particularly those created/maintained/preventable by society, which are not the result of of individual effort or merit, should be viewed as politically negotiable [and possibly structured either along an average utility or justice as fairness model]."
Which of course means that the more able are slaves to the less able. Gauthier and Narveson sliced apart Rawls' nonsense.

In short, we don't need to make everyone "metaphysically equal"
You have to or else you can't have true equality ala Letila's view.

but rather certain of these inequalites are effectively socially/politically created, and as such are open, in my mind, to bargaining. I certainly think, at least from a historical perspective, inheritance is one of these inequalities.
I don't. I see nothing wrong with inheritance. If there's anything wrong with inheritance, then there's something wrong with giving to charities, grants and endowments. It's all the same bundle: a person giving his or her property to someone else or a group because s/he feels that such person or a group deserves it. Letila, et al, feel that THEY AND THEY ALONE are the arbiters of "deserve", which is the biggest load of horseshit ever and shows the childish mindset of such people.

What about slavery? Do you approve of that? If not, then why?

I simply took Letila's argument to its logical conclusion. Letila wants fairness and equality for all. Letila wants no one to gain anything or have any power from something they did not earn, period. That MUST mean metaphysically as well.

I guess I don't really understand what you mean by metaphysical in this context then; given my understanding of his argument, he is probably referring mainly to social inequalities rather than any other particular discrepancies. For example, I doubt he would agree with deliberately inflicting sadness in the happy in order to make them as depressed as everyone else.

Which of course means that the more able are slaves to the less able. Gauthier and Narveson sliced apart Rawls' nonsense.


Could you contextualize this please? While many people have of course claimed to 'slice apart' virtually any given philosopher, I think it's incumbent for you to at least date the works in question, as Rawls continued writing up until his death a few years ago. Many (I would argue virutally all) of the concerns put forward by the libertarians following 'Theory of Justice' are clarified and corrected in 'Justice and Fairness' and 'Political Liberalism'. I also don't really appreciate this truncated Socraticism of yours. I have done my best to be clear in my criticisms (not simply stating "Rawls!" or something) and I would be very pleased to see you respond in kind.

I don't. I see nothing wrong with inheritance. If there's anything wrong with inheritance, then there's something wrong with giving to charities, grants and endowments. It's all the same bundle: a person giving his or her property to someone else or a group because s/he feels that such person or a group deserves it. Letila, et al, feel that THEY AND THEY ALONE are the arbiters of "deserve", which is the biggest load of horseshit ever and shows the childish mindset of such people.

Obviously inheritance has been, historically speaking, dictated by society. It doesn't take much to realize this- over the last thousand years alone, the terms and rules through which inheritance occurs changed dramatically.

Well, if et al includes myself, I don't think I'm the arbiter of 'deserve' at all. As, first and foremost, a political liberal, I have considerable faith in the ability of properly structured democratic institutions in regards to the best distribution of inheritance: I simply feel that it is not a clear cut matter (i.e. an estate tax is not inherently immoral). While I can understand why people both support and oppose such a tax, I think claims to a moral high ground in this kind of matter are largely baseless, on both sides.

Personally, I think that a limited estate tax is reasonable and appropriate in most cases and with discretion.

Of?A lack of research on my part. Or me refusing to answer any question- unlike you.

And this is relevant how?Because, when you choose to introduce terms like "poseur" into the debate whether you're anything other then a keyboard warrior is entirely relevant.


Since I did, there's no need.No BAAWA. Refering to a constitution is not proof of how a historical system worked. Prove that the Russian system moved from "each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" in practice with sources.

It's obvious that you're illiterate.
*Yawn* Are you still on a trust fund?

So what?

I still wait for some other point that you claim you made. And no, asking me "why are you complaining about this" is not a point. Try something real, smooth-brain.When you've argued that China was a people's republic solely because it's goverment described itself as such, then yes, it's entirely relevant. Other questions you've evaded:

1. What the problem with children being sent up chimneys is if you don't believe economic exploitation exists.

2. Why you don't refer to your political ideology as Laissez Faire capitalism when it's a much more universally recognised term. What are you trying to cover up?

And a new one specially for you.

Don't you think you should come clean on here about BAAWA being a group specifically set up to troll? Busted, geekboy.

I simply took Letila's argument to its logical conclusion. Letila wants fairness and equality for all. Letila wants no one to gain anything or have any power from something they did not earn, period. That MUST mean metaphysically as well.
I guess I don't really understand what you mean by metaphysical in this context then;
Everyone has to be utterly identical in every single possible smegging little itty bitty way. Otherwise, people will have different abilities, and obviously it's not just that some people have them and others don't just by virtue of birth! Y'see, if it's not just that someone inherits money by being the son or daughter of someone (in essence, virtue of birth), then necessarily it must also not be just for any metaphysical differences by virtue of birth. Virtue of birth is the SOLE criteria here. I'm just showing how stupid it is.

given my understanding of his argument, he is probably referring mainly to social inequalities rather than any other particular discrepancies. For example, I doubt he would agree with deliberately inflicting sadness in the happy in order to make them as depressed as everyone else.
That's what socialism/communism is all about: spreading the misery.


Which of course means that the more able are slaves to the less able. Gauthier and Narveson sliced apart Rawls' nonsense.
Could you contextualize this please?
Have you read Gauthier's Morals By Agreement or Narveson's Respecting Persons In Theory And Practice (real question--I would like to know)?

If not, then I can at least recommend a review of Gauthier's book here (http://www.idiom.com/~arkuat/meme/gauthier.html) and a little something (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/narveson1.html) from Narveson.

While many people have of course claimed to 'slice apart' virtually any given philosopher, I think it's incumbent for you to at least date the works in question, as Rawls continued writing up until his death a few years ago.
His Theory of Justice and Justice As Fairness

Many (I would argue virutally all) of the concerns put forward by the libertarians following 'Theory of Justice' are clarified and corrected in 'Justice and Fairness' and 'Political Liberalism'.
No--he just repeated the same crap.

I also don't really appreciate this truncated Socraticism of yours.
That would be your problem.


I don't. I see nothing wrong with inheritance. If there's anything wrong with inheritance, then there's something wrong with giving to charities, grants and endowments. It's all the same bundle: a person giving his or her property to someone else or a group because s/he feels that such person or a group deserves it. Letila, et al, feel that THEY AND THEY ALONE are the arbiters of "deserve", which is the biggest load of horseshit ever and shows the childish mindset of such people.
Obviously inheritance has been, historically speaking, dictated by society. It doesn't take much to realize this- over the last thousand years alone, the terms and rules through which inheritance occurs changed dramatically.
So has the notion of women's place in society. So what?

Well, if et al includes myself, I don't think I'm the arbiter of 'deserve' at all.
You must if you in any way, shape, or form involve yourself or want to in the affairs of someone else's decision to give his or her money to his or her children/relatives via a will.

As, first and foremost, a political liberal, I have considerable faith in the ability of properly structured democratic institutions in regards to the best distribution of inheritance: I simply feel that it is not a clear cut matter (i.e. an estate tax is not inherently immoral).
Taxation is inherently immoral. It is theft.

While I can understand why people both support and oppose such a tax, I think claims to a moral high ground in this kind of matter are largely baseless, on both sides.
One side advocates theft. The other the enshrinement of property rights. I think it's quite clear.

Personally, I think that a limited estate tax is reasonable and appropriate in most cases and with discretion.
Obviously, I do not.

Of?
A lack of research on my part.
That you didn't know what was in the soviet constitution.


And this is relevant how?
Because, when you choose to introduce terms like "poseur" into the debate whether you're anything other then a keyboard warrior is entirely relevant.
No, it's not, poseur.


Since I did, there's no need.
No BAAWA. Refering to a constitution is not proof of how a historical system worked.
Yes, it is.

That the Russian system moved from "each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" in practice with sources.
The workers toiled in factories because they were able and had to meet the needs of the Politburo members, who needed dachas and Zils.
From....to.... Simple.


It's obvious that you're illiterate.
*Yawn* Are you still on a trust fund?
*Yawn*. Wake me when you're coherent.


So what?

I still wait for some other point that you claim you made. And no, asking me "why are you complaining about this" is not a point. Try something real, smooth-brain.
When you've argued that China was a people's republic solely because it's goverment described itself as such
It was a republic of the people. A people's republic. QED.

Other questions you've evaded:
I've never evaded any.

1. What the problem with children being sent up chimneys is if you don't believe economic exploitation exists.
Only happened in Charles Dickens' books.

2. Why you don't refer to your political ideology as Laissez Faire capitalism
Because it's anarchocapitalism. Why are you so afraid of that term? Does it scare you that much?

And a new one specially for you.

Don't you think you should come clean on here about BAAWA being a group specifically set up to troll?
Of course it's not.

Get ready to be shown up:
http://www.sonic.net/~wooly/

Busted, troll-boy.

Everyone has to be utterly identical in every single possible smegging little itty bitty way. Otherwise, people will have different abilities, and obviously it's not just that some people have them and others don't just by virtue of birth! Y'see, if it's not just that someone inherits money by being the son or daughter of someone (in essence, virtue of birth), then necessarily it must also not be just for any metaphysical differences by virtue of birth. Virtue of birth is the SOLE criteria here. I'm just showing how stupid it is.

So genetic differences justify socially-created differences? Don't you care at all about how authoritarian the implications are?

That's what socialism/communism is all about: spreading the misery.

And spreading the happiness. In communism, a decent life is no longer the monopoly of the rich.

Taxation is inherently immoral. It is theft.

Good, finally something we agree on.

One side advocates theft. The other the enshrinement of property rights. I think it's quite clear.

Property is inherently violent. Enshrining property means using force against those who need it to keep it in the hands of those who don't need it.

Everyone has to be utterly identical in every single possible smegging little itty bitty way. Otherwise, people will have different abilities, and obviously it's not just that some people have them and others don't just by virtue of birth! Y'see, if it's not just that someone inherits money by being the son or daughter of someone (in essence, virtue of birth), then necessarily it must also not be just for any metaphysical differences by virtue of birth. Virtue of birth is the SOLE criteria here. I'm just showing how stupid it is.
So genetic differences justify socially-created differences?
Prove that socially created differences are inherently wrong.

Don't you care at all about how authoritarian the implications are?
There are no authoritarian implications.


That's what socialism/communism is all about: spreading the misery.
And spreading the happiness.
You can't spread happiness when you're spreading the misery, unless you're one of those sick fucks who gets off on the misery of others.

In communism, a decent life is no longer the monopoly of the rich.
Jealousy.


Taxation is inherently immoral. It is theft.
Good, finally something we agree on.
But property is theft, isn't it? And taxation takes someone else's theft and thieves it to someone else, right?


One side advocates theft. The other the enshrinement of property rights. I think it's quite clear.
Property is inherently violent.
No it's not. Not even your whining that "you need force to protect your property" will make property inherently violent.

Enshrining property means using force against those who need it to keep it in the hands of those who don't need it.
Who the fuck are you to determine who needs what? Seriously. Who. The. Fuck. Are. You. To. Determine. That? It's. Not. Your. Fucking. Life. Stay. The. Fuck. Out. Of. Everyone. Else's. Life.

Well, despite the fact that this message board proclaims itself to be a discussion, the Capitalists seem to be greatly outnumbered. I would argue here, but I get the feeling that this will boil down to a point where it will seem similar to the religious debates I get in (I'm a atheist). No matter how hard the free-market supporters argue, no matter what reasons they put forth, the Marxists and Socialists will respond that people will fall into some golden ideal, where everyone will gladly (though force may be used by the enforcers of Communism, of course) give up their freedoms and work. From each according to their ability to each according to his need is a fundamentally flawed statement. The thing people would be most afraid of showing would be ability- you would only have to work harder. Nobody would actually do any work. Then, everyone would be obsessed with showing that their need was greater than everyone else's- and making sure that nobody else was taking more than their fair share of goods (sounds like a friendly neighborhood, eh?). If I believed in hell, a socialist society like that would be in the lowest circle of it.

No matter how hard the free-market supporters argue, no matter what reasons they put forth, the Marxists and Socialists will respond...
You are almost correct. If you post something as intelligent (or as long) as what you just said, the communists won't respond at all. If you want them to respond, try this:

"You're wrong, loser."

That will probably get a response, although probably not a very well thought out one...

general question for everybody...
(obviously we're mostly anti-government)
So what current day country would you most like to live in- just government wise, not considering climate or scenery or anything...?

Sliders has a "general question for everybody...
(obviously we're mostly anti-government)
So what current day country would you most like to live in- just government wise, not considering climate or scenery or anything...?"

I carry my country around on my back. It's my own personal "Turtle Island" as they say. I'm the mobile-nation known as Harry, AKA: "A Sovereign Individual from whose consent Governments purport to derive their "just powers." I give no such consent. In Harry, the whole of the Law is to do what I will. I choose to reside on the island of Paumanok on the Eastern coast of the continent known as "North America." It's nice here. Please come visit some time. I've been building a nice little Temporarily Autonomous Zone in the backyard. It pops up from time to time, and it sure is fun while it lasts.

After the smoke clears and the bottles are emptied, I go back to the Temporarily Authoritarian Zones patrolled by the paranoid defenders of the parental fashion police always in search of taboos and the scofflaws breaking rules. I walk incognito through the halls of church, state, school, and office; a white guy with a short haircut, clean shirt, and shiny shoes can act like he belongs anywhere. Social conditioning is a game with rules. All games can be learned. All loopholes, wormholes the other side, can be exploited. Accents can be learned. Nothing is capital "T" True. Everything is Permitted. I mean you no harm. Don't lead me. Don't follow me. Just Inspire me or let me be.

I've got Maslowe's Hierarchy of Needs pretty well covered today. I can breathe, I'm not thirsty, I got enough to eat, not too hot, not too cold, not very tired, hmmmm.... How are you? Nice to meet you. I'm sorry, you must really feel horrible... I wonder how the rainforests are doing this year? Are "we" still cutting them down like wheatfields? I hope those starving kids in... where is it this month? Darfur? Or, wait, that's a massacre or something, not a famine... Fames, Limos, Thanatos, Eros, Pandora's Box. Hope beyond all hope. I could use a sandwich. Stately plump Buck Mulligan....

Well, despite the fact that this message board proclaims itself to be a discussion, the Capitalists seem to be greatly outnumbered. I would argue here, but I get the feeling that this will boil down to a point where it will seem similar to the religious debates I get in (I'm a atheist). No matter how hard the free-market supporters argue, no matter what reasons they put forth, the Marxists and Socialists will respond that people will fall into some golden ideal, where everyone will gladly (though force may be used by the enforcers of Communism, of course) give up their freedoms and work. From each according to their ability to each according to his need is a fundamentally flawed statement. The thing people would be most afraid of showing would be ability- you would only have to work harder. Nobody would actually do any work. Then, everyone would be obsessed with showing that their need was greater than everyone else's- and making sure that nobody else was taking more than their fair share of goods (sounds like a friendly neighborhood, eh?). If I believed in hell, a socialist society like that would be in the lowest circle of it.

While I agree that the Marxists and Socialists do tend to respond that people will fall into some golden ideal, the idea that people will voluntarily respect property rights is also a golden ideal.

Prove that socially created differences are inherently wrong.

They create coersive authority.

There are no authoritarian implications.

The sweatshop worker vs. the rich kid. One lives in poverty and works in terrible working conditions and the other doesn't work at all.

You can't spread happiness when you're spreading the misery, unless you're one of those sick fucks who gets off on the misery of others.

So you'd rather have happiness for the few and misery for the many?

But property is theft, isn't it? And taxation takes someone else's theft and thieves it to someone else, right?

Yes, but it's the government, not the workers receiving it. The workers are the ones being robbed.

Jealousy.

Greed.

No it's not. Not even your whining that "you need force to protect your property" will make property inherently violent.

How do you think "defence" corporations will keep people off property? By asking nicely? No, they will force them off.

Who the fuck are you to determine who needs what? Seriously. Who. The. Fuck. Are. You. To. Determine. That? It's. Not. Your. Fucking. Life. Stay. The. Fuck. Out. Of. Everyone. Else's. Life.

I determine my own needs. Who are you to decide that sweatshop workers don't deserve freedom?

How do you think "defence" corporations will keep people off property? By asking nicely? No, they will force them off.
I don't see how you can think human nature encourages theft, yet advocate anarchism AND communism. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that both of these ideologies kind of assume people to be inherently good.

I wonder how the rainforests are doing this year? Are "we" still cutting them down like wheatfields?
You mean cutting them down to MAKE wheat fields
me<-------------not the biggest fan of "totalitarian agriculture"

That you didn't know what was in the soviet constitution.What I actually said was that constitutions had no bearing on the reality of how a system is run. Nice try though.



No, it's not, poseur.Still evading the question then, coward. Namecalling won't change the fact that you're obviously too scared to answer.



Yes, it is.So, by your logic, you are a)living in a free market and b)are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness.


The workers toiled in factories because they were able and had to meet the needs of the Politburo members, who needed dachas and Zils.
From....to.... Simple.Kindly provide your defination of need. Or just evade the question again.



*Yawn*. Wake me when you're coherent.What part of "are you still on a trust fund" was your "superior intellect" unable to understand?



It was a republic of the people. A people's republic. QED.Prove it was run by the people in practice. With sources.


I've never evaded any.Apart from the questions listed in this post you mean.


Only happened in Charles Dickens' books.http://www.swan.ac.uk/history/teaching/teaching%20resources/debates/presentations/chimneysweepspresentation.htm I expected more from you. I didn't think you'd be stupid enough to let yourself get caught in an outright lie. And you're still evading the question of if it would be allowed under an "anarcho-capitalist" system or not. And if not, why not?


Because it's anarchocapitalism. Why are you so afraid of that term? Does it scare you that much?I can honestly say it doesen't scare me at all. If I thought you had any chance of putting it into practice it might do. But it has no chance of ever becoming a popular movement. Partly because, as you demonstrate, it's adherents have no wish to make it such. I'm just intrigued on why you deliberately use a term unknown to most people.

Of course it's not.

Get ready to be shown up:
http://www.sonic.net/~wooly/

Busted, troll-boy.Let's have a look at some quotes from the site, shall we?It's the attitude that while they certainly deserve the respect and consideration due any human on this planet, their particular *ideas* do not deserve respect, and once they are cheeky enough to express those ideas on a Newsgroup, they are fair game for any insult.So your claim that you only insult people if they insult you first is shown to be a lie. And now we'll move on to the kind of posts you need to become a knight. (As an aside, what's all that about? Supposed adults feeling the need to call themselves "knights" and "warlords". I suspect serious compensation issues.Admit it, you don't have a fucking clue about anything you didn't get while suckling the pseudo-academic teat of the local godbot representative while he was emptying your wallet and lining up your offspring for sodomization.

You lick the pus from festering boils on the asses of week-dead sheep, you sophomoric, fly-infested, halitosis-breathing wart on the **** of humanity.
You suck the dicks of little boys and are disappointed when they don't cum
down your throat. You douche yourself with raw sewage in a vain attempt to
disguise the vile putrescence dripping from your mold-encrusted twat. You
can fit seven vibrators up your ass at once, and you do. You eat what you
vomit without bothering to scoop it out of the toilet first. You are a disgrace to Marge Schott. You save your used tampons for soup seasoning. You like to suck the diarhea from your mother's ass with a flexi-straw. Your family laughs about you behind your back. Everyone else laughs aboutyou to your face. Your boss keeps a file of the stupid things you say. In two filing cabinets. You would buttfuck little girls if you only had a dick. You would shove your cat's head up your vagina again if you could ever catch it after the first time. Your daddy used your face for target practice with his .44 Magnum cock. You enjoy the music of Yanni.

MAN I HATE STUPID PEOPLE LIKE YOU. FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!Case closed, troll.

I don't see how you can think human nature encourages theft, yet advocate anarchism AND communism. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that both of these ideologies kind of assume people to be inherently good.

If by inherently good, you mean that they will coöperate instead of competing even when doing so is harmful, then yes, otherwise, no.

Well, despite the fact that this message board proclaims itself to be a discussion, the Capitalists seem to be greatly outnumbered. Not from what I can see. You've got Libertovania and Sliders on here as well. Even if it was the case, it doesen't preclude a discussion surely?I would argue here, but I get the feeling that this will boil down to a point where it will seem similar to the religious debates I get in (I'm a atheist). No matter how hard the free-market supporters argue, no matter what reasons they put forth, the Marxists and Socialists will respond that people will fall into some golden ideal, where everyone will gladly (though force may be used by the enforcers of Communism, of course) give up their freedoms and work. From each according to their ability to each according to his need is a fundamentally flawed statement. The thing people would be most afraid of showing would be ability- you would only have to work harder. Nobody would actually do any work. Then, everyone would be obsessed with showing that their need was greater than everyone else's- and making sure that nobody else was taking more than their fair share of goods (sounds like a friendly neighborhood, eh?). If I believed in hell, a socialist society like that would be in the lowest circle of it.The question about communists assuming that things will fall into place after the revolution is a reasonable one. It's why I argue that pragmatism, and fighting for a better life in the here and now is far more important. But that's a trap the free market supporters on here fall into as well- not one has yet explained how their ideal society is going to come about. Perhaps you could give it a go? On the other topic, that of human nature. Firstly I'd argue that co-operation shows itself throughout Western society anyway. While anyone could be better off by mugging pensioners, very few do. So I think your view of human nature is overly pessimistic. Besides, in a purely market driven society surely the issue is still there. What's to stop someone using their privately owned police force to take property off others, rather then defend their own?

Everyone has to be utterly identical in every single possible smegging little itty bitty way. Otherwise, people will have different abilities, and obviously it's not just that some people have them and others don't just by virtue of birth! Y'see, if it's not just that someone inherits money by being the son or daughter of someone (in essence, virtue of birth), then necessarily it must also not be just for any metaphysical differences by virtue of birth. Virtue of birth is the SOLE criteria here. I'm just showing how stupid it is.


from someone who likes to point out fallacies at every opportunity, this kind of strawman argument is pretty hypocritical. I don't know if you're delibrately misunderstanding a social justice argument or are just not very familiar with it. In short, social justice means that, ceteris peribus, social inequalites should be structured to benefit the worst of in society.

That's what socialism/communism is all about: spreading the misery.

Though really estate tax and redistribution are not solely elements of socialism (as should be obvious, having existed thousands of years prior to socialism as a political theory came into existance). I'd arguing that it's not about "spreading the misery", but distributing it in a fair and reasonable way (ceteris peribus, of course).

Have you read Gauthier's Morals By Agreement or Narveson's Respecting Persons In Theory And Practice (real question--I would like to know)?

If not, then I can at least recommend a review of Gauthier's book here (http://www.idiom.com/~arkuat/meme/gauthier.html) and a little something (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/narveson1.html) from Narveson.


I may have read extracts, but certainly not the full texts (I'm fairly certain I've read something from Gauthier, but I can't remember exactly what off the top of my head). Most of the libertarian/an-cap litterature I've read has been in passing as a counterpoint to Rawls and liberal democrats.

His Theory of Justice and Justice As Fairness
Sorry, I wanted to know when the works you cited were written, that's all.


No--he just repeated the same crap.

Well that's certainly not true. They're not even really about the same thing (TOJ is primarily about social justice, JAF is about government and legitimacy). What arguments do you specifically feel libertarians have raised against Rawls that have not been adequately addressed by him (or by someone like Kymlicka)?

So has the notion of women's place in society. So what?

So it would be inaccurate for me to portray gender roles as stationary; it's obvious they've been socially bargained, so to speak. The same can be said for inheritance.

You must if you in any way, shape, or form involve yourself or want to in the affairs of someone else's decision to give his or her money to his or her children/relatives via a will.


Taxation is inherently immoral. It is theft.
Obviously I'm not going to agree with this. What exactly is your argument here? Why is taxation immoral? Or, to put it a different way, how is property justly acquired in such a way to make it sacrosanct.

One side advocates theft. The other the enshrinement of property rights. I think it's quite clear.

Not really; I think it's not very reasonable of you to expect everyone to agree 'tax is theft' since you haven't really made that point (nor do I expect you will, as I think, intellectually speaking, it's one of the weakest libertarian/an-cap arguments).

Obviously I'm not going to agree with this. What exactly is your argument here? Why is taxation immoral? Or, to put it a different way, how is property justly acquired in such a way to make it sacrosanct.

Not really; I think it's not very reasonable of you to expect everyone to agree 'tax is theft' since you haven't really made that point (nor do I expect you will, as I think, intellectually speaking, it's one of the weakest libertarian/an-cap arguments).

I worked for it. I earned it. What right does the government have to take it from me? I did not agree to let them have a share - yet I am forced to. It is therefore theft. Simple as that.

Now excuse me, I have to write a $900 check to the IRS (damn back-taxes)

I worked for it. I earned it. What right does the government have to take it from me? I did not agree to let them have a share - yet I am forced to. It is therefore theft. Simple as that.

Now excuse me, I have to write a $900 check to the IRS (damn back-taxes)

Would you prefer that you got the same amount in your check, but that the government took the taxes directly from your employer?

Would you prefer that you got the same amount in your check, but that the government took the taxes directly from your employer?

How does that change the scenario?
Why would the business owner pay tax on my paycheck? They would undoubtedly lower my pay in order to compensate...

I'd prefer they(taxes) weren't taken at all

I'd prefer they(taxes) weren't taken at all
How would you feel if they were taxes collected and directly spent on the community you choose to live in? With you being able to see precisely what your money was being spent on. Do you recognise a responsibility to your community, or do you see yourself solely as an autonomous entity.

I worked for it. I earned it. What right does the government have to take it from me? I did not agree to let them have a share - yet I am forced to. It is therefore theft. Simple as that.

I don't want some useless capitalist profiting off my work that I have to do to survive. I only agreed to let them have a share because the alternative was starvation. It is therefore theft.

Prove that socially created differences are inherently wrong.
They create coersive authority.
No they don't. Try again.

There are no authoritarian implications.
The sweatshop worker vs. the rich kid. One lives in poverty and works in terrible working conditions and the other doesn't work at all.
I know rich kids that work. Try again. And especially try to show the authoritarian implications.

You can't spread happiness when you're spreading the misery, unless you're one of those sick fucks who gets off on the misery of others.
So you'd rather have happiness for the few and misery for the many?
Better that than misery for all.

But property is theft, isn't it? And taxation takes someone else's theft and thieves it to someone else, right?
Yes, but it's the government, not the workers receiving it. The workers are the ones being robbed.
And how are they being robbed (please don't use the refuted to death labor theory of value).


Jealousy.
Greed.
Jealousy.


No it's not. Not even your whining that "you need force to protect your property" will make property inherently violent.
How do you think "defence" corporations will keep people off property? By asking nicely? No, they will force them off.
So what? How the fucking fuck does that make property inherently violent? Don't just fucking reassert your fucking claim, dumbshit.


Who the fuck are you to determine who needs what? Seriously. Who. The. Fuck. Are. You. To. Determine. That? It's. Not. Your. Fucking. Life. Stay. The. Fuck. Out. Of. Everyone. Else's. Life.
I determine my own needs.
Not under communism.

Who are you to decide that sweatshop workers don't deserve freedom?
They do have freedom. What idiot told you they don't?

that you didn't know what was in the soviet constitution.
What I actually said was that constitutions had no bearing on the reality of how a system is run. Nice try though.
Nice try, but that had no bearing on what I said, troll-boy.

No, it's not, poseur.
Still evading the question then, coward.
Not in the least, you cowardly poseur. Namecalling won't change that fact.

Yes, it is.
So, by your logic, you are a)living in a free market and b)are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness.
Mind keeping the context, poseur?

The workers toiled in factories because they were able and had to meet the needs of the Politburo members, who needed dachas and Zils.
From....to.... Simple.
Kindly provide your defination of need.
Need = want, desire. That's how communism works, bucko.

Now evade reality again, poseur coward.


*Yawn*. Wake me when you're coherent.
What part of "are you still on a trust fund" was your "superior intellect" unable to understand?
(snore)


It was a republic of the people. A people's republic. QED.
Prove it was run by the people in practice.
People run it, right?

There's my souce, poseur coward.


I've never evaded any.
Apart from the questions listed in this post you mean.
Never, troll-boy.


Only happened in Charles Dickens' books.
http://www.swan.ac.uk/history/teach...
Only happened in Charles Dickens' books.


Because it's anarchocapitalism. Why are you so afraid of that term? Does it scare you that much?
I can honestly say it doesen't scare me at all.
It certainly does, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to assauge it by projecting your fear onto me, troll-boy.

Of course it's not.

Get ready to be shown up:
http://www.sonic.net/~wooly/

Busted, troll-boy.

Let's have a look at some quotes from the site, shall we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAAWA's website
It's the attitude that while they certainly deserve the respect and consideration due any human on this planet, their particular *ideas* do not deserve respect, and once they are cheeky enough to express those ideas on a Newsgroup, they are fair game for any insult.
So your claim that you only insult people if they insult you first is shown to be a lie.
Prove it, troll-boy.

And now we'll move on to the kind of posts you need to become a knight. (As an aside, what's all that about? Supposed adults feeling the need to call themselves "knights" and "warlords". I suspect serious compensation issues.
Heh, jealous.

Troll-boy, you really couldn't argue to save your life. Give up.

Everyone has to be utterly identical in every single possible smegging little itty bitty way. Otherwise, people will have different abilities, and obviously it's not just that some people have them and others don't just by virtue of birth! Y'see, if it's not just that someone inherits money by being the son or daughter of someone (in essence, virtue of birth), then necessarily it must also not be just for any metaphysical differences by virtue of birth. Virtue of birth is the SOLE criteria here. I'm just showing how stupid it is.
from someone who likes to point out fallacies at every opportunity, this kind of strawman
It's not a strawman; it's a logical extension. Logical extensions CANNOT BE strawmen.

argument is pretty hypocritical. I don't know if you're delibrately misunderstanding a social justice argument or are just not very familiar with it. In short, social justice means that, ceteris peribus, social inequalites should be structured to benefit the worst of in society.
No, it means that ALL inequalities should be, viz. Rawls. If you're smarter, then you should toil for those who are not. That is Rawls.


That's what socialism/communism is all about: spreading the misery.Though really estate tax and redistribution are not solely elements of socialism
Never said they were.

(as should be obvious, having existed thousands of years prior to socialism as a political theory came into existance). I'd arguing that it's not about "spreading the misery", but distributing it in a fair and reasonable way (ceteris peribus, of course).
IOW: spreading the misery in a fair and reasonable way = spreading misery qua misery.


Have you read Gauthier's Morals By Agreement or Narveson's Respecting Persons In Theory And Practice (real question--I would like to know)?

If not, then I can at least recommend a review of Gauthier's book here and a little something from Narveson.
I may have read extracts, but certainly not the full texts (I'm fairly certain I've read something from Gauthier, but I can't remember exactly what off the top of my head). Most of the libertarian/an-cap litterature I've read has been in passing as a counterpoint to Rawls and liberal democrats.
Ok.

His Theory of Justice and Justice As Fairness

Sorry, I wanted to know when the works you cited were written, that's all.
Morals By Agreement is from 1986, and Narveson's Respecting Persons In Theory And Practice is from 2002.

No--he just repeated the same crap.
Well that's certainly not true. They're not even really about the same thing (TOJ is primarily about social justice, JAF is about government and legitimacy).
JAF is just a restatement of TOJ.

What arguments do you specifically feel libertarians have raised against Rawls that have not been adequately addressed by him (or by someone like Kymlicka)?
Why anyone should have to exist for the sake of someone else just because s/he was born with different abilities.


So has the notion of women's place in society. So what?
So it would be inaccurate for me to portray gender roles as stationary; it's obvious they've been socially bargained, so to speak. The same can be said for inheritance.
No, it cannot, any more than getting rid of slavery was something "socially bargained" for. Respecting basic rights isn't something you bargain for. It's not something that you give up something else for. You fight for them. No bargaining involved.


Taxation is inherently immoral. It is theft.
Obviously I'm not going to agree with this. What exactly is your argument here?
Taxation is the government imposing force to take someone's property without consent. No one that I know of consented to the government services. They are foisted upon us and we are told we MUST pay for them or else we will go to jail. That's immoral.


One side advocates theft. The other the enshrinement of property rights. I think it's quite clear.
Not really; I think it's not very reasonable of you to expect everyone to agree 'tax is theft' since you haven't really made that point (nor do I expect you will, as I think, intellectually speaking, it's one of the weakest libertarian/an-cap arguments).
Actually, it's one of the strongest.

Also, not everyone agrees that blacks should have the same rights as everyone else. What precisely is your point about bringing up that people will disagree?

I don't want some useless capitalist profiting off my work that I have to do to survive. I only agreed to let them have a share because the alternative was starvation. It is therefore theft.
Prove it. And no, you can't use the LTV. It's been refuted to death.

Nice try, but that had no bearing on what I said, troll-boy.You claimed that a constitution was representative of how a country was run in practice.



Not in the least, you cowardly poseur. Namecalling won't change that fact.What haven't I answered then? You're still evading BAAWA, and everyone can see.



Mind keeping the context, poseur? The context is that you see constitutions of how a system works, liar.



Need = want, desire. That's how communism works, bucko.

Now evade reality again, poseur coward.Poseurs a noun, not an adjective.



(snore)Coward.



People run it, right?Don't just fucking reassert your fucking claim, dumbshit.


There's my souce, poseur coward.What's a souce?



Never, troll-boy.Liar. Quote your answers.



Only happened in Charles Dickens' books.Prove it. I've provided historical sources. Your turn, troll.



It certainly does, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to assauge it by projecting your fear onto me, troll-boy.You'd be nothing without mummy and daddy's money to fall back on.


Prove it, troll-boy.once they are cheeky enough to express those ideas on a Newsgroup, they are fair game for any insult.



Heh, jealous. Heh, I used to be a knight too, when I was eight.

Troll-boy, you really couldn't argue to save your life. Give up.You've lost, moron. Everyone's seen you refuse to answer questions, and refuse to address evidence. Time to run home crying.

I wonder how many of these people are really anarchists, and how many just like to call themselves so because it makes them feel cool...

Hi there!

Does anyone here remember someone by the name of Dr. John Nash? Yes, he showed the inherent weaknesses and horrible atrocities of free market economics using mathematics, the language of science. And yet, you all still argue about whether free market economics is the right way to do things.

Somone here mentioned Moore's law towards the beginning of the thread. Computing speed doubles every 18 months and has done so for 54 years. Unfortunately, we are beginning to reach the maximum capacity using Silicon. Moore's law may become void when parallel computing becomes the norm, unless we find another element to make computer chips from. But, assuming Moore's law holds forever and forever, we should be at human computing speeds in 2021. At that point, the Singularity happens, and we no longer have to worry about the petty, little, and quite imaginitive, to say the least, theory of economics.

And there you have it.

Yours royally,
King Bobort of Tihland

Nice try, but that had no bearing on what I said, troll-boy.
You claimed that a constitution was representative of how a country was run in practice.
It is in this case.


Not in the least, you cowardly poseur. Namecalling won't change that fact.
What haven't I answered then?
huh?

You're still evading BAAWA,
Not in the least, troll-boy.


Mind keeping the context, poseur?
The context is that you see constitutions of how a system works, liar.
No it's not, liar.


Need = want, desire. That's how communism works, bucko.
Now evade reality again, poseur coward.
Poseurs a noun, not an adjective.
It's a compound noun, poseur coward.


There's my souce, poseur coward.
What's a souce?
Reality.


Never, troll-boy.
Liar.
Liar


Only happened in Charles Dickens' books.
Prove it. I've provided historical sources.
No you didn't, troll.


It certainly does, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to assauge it by projecting your fear onto me, troll-boy.
You'd be nothing without mummy and daddy's money to fall back on.
What money, troll? My father died 3 years ago with a whole $700 in his bank account, and that was from Social Security. I used all of that to pay for his funerary expenses (which even with some discounts they gave me was still just under $900). My mother is a fucking moron who only last year got her GED at the age of 57.

When I was younger, there was a time when we were on food stamps. We streched dollars and made it work. So I'm damned pround to have what I own now.

Want to try again, troll-boy, and tell me what money it is that I have? C'mon, fucker. Let me laugh at your idiocy.


Prove it, troll-boy/

Originally Posted by BAAWA's website
once they are cheeky enough to express those ideas on a Newsgroup, they are fair game for any insult.
Still waiting for the proof.

You've lost, moron. Everyone here can see that you've put up nothing. Run away, coward.

Somone here mentioned Moore's law towards the beginning of the thread. Computing speed doubles every 18 months and has done so for 54 years. Unfortunately, we are beginning to reach the maximum capacity using Silicon. Moore's law may become void when parallel computing becomes the norm, unless we find another element to make computer chips from. But, assuming Moore's law holds forever and forever, we should be at human computing speeds in 2021. At that point, the Singularity happens, and we no longer have to worry about the petty, little, and quite imaginitive, to say the least, theory of economics.

Uh, from what I've read, that won't be a good thing.

Prove it. And no, you can't use the LTV. It's been refuted to death.

I am given two choices. One is to work and receive money. The other is to go without money and risk starvation. Thus, I work to avoid starvation. I produce 50 dollars worth of products but get paid only 25 dollars. Here I am being robbed.

I know rich kids that work. Try again. And especially try to show the authoritarian implications.

Do they have to work to survive? Compared to sweatshop workers, they have it easy. The sweatshop workers have to work, thus the authoritarianism.

Better that than misery for all.

Happiness for all, actually. You are taking advantage of words. You haven't even shown that some people are more deserving of happiness for no other reason than luck.

No they don't. Try again.

You mean slavery isn't an authoritarian social relation?

Jealousy.

I'm not jealous of those useless capitalists. They disgust me. I have no desire to own a mansion or live off the labor of sweatshop workers.

So what? How the fucking fuck does that make property inherently violent? Don't just fucking reassert your fucking claim, dumbshit.

If it is defended by violence, it seems pretty violent to me. Try thinking instead of swearing.

Not under communism.

In anarcho-communism, you do determine your own needs.

They do have freedom. What idiot told you they don't?

They have the freedom to work for 12+ hours for terrible wages or starve. That is not freedom outside of any theory but capitalist theory.

Prove it. And no, you can't use the LTV. It's been refuted to death.
I am given two choices. One is to work and receive money. The other is to go without money and risk starvation.
You're given two choices: breathe and live or stop breating and stop living. Is life authoritarian now?

Thus, I work to avoid starvation. I produce 50 dollars worth of products but get paid only 25 dollars. Here I am being robbed.
LTV. Refuted to death. Try again.


I know rich kids that work. Try again. And especially try to show the authoritarian implications.
Do they have to work to survive?
Yes.

Compared to sweatshop workers, they have it easy.
So what.

The sweatshop workers have to work, thus the authoritarianism.
Show it.


Better that than misery for all.
Happiness for all, actually.
Can't be. There is only misery in communism.

You are taking advantage of words. You haven't even shown that some people are more deserving of happiness for no other reason than luck.
You have to show that it's luck and that they don't deserve what they were given.


No they don't. Try again.
You mean slavery isn't an authoritarian social relation?
We weren't talking about slavery.


Jealousy.
I'm not jealous of those useless capitalists.
Yes, you are. You hate them and are jealous of them because they have more than you. You are jealous of them further because they know that the LTV is a load of shit and you're too stupid to understand that.

They disgust me. I have no desire to own a mansion or live off the labor of sweatshop workers.
Jealousy and strawman. Grow up, little one.


So what? How the fucking fuck does that make property inherently violent? Don't just fucking reassert your fucking claim, dumbshit.
If it is defended by violence, it seems pretty violent to me.
Then show it, dumbshit. Try thinking rather than fucking restating your fucking premise.


Not under communism.
In anarcho-communism, you do determine your own needs.
Nope. A group does that for you.


They do have freedom. What idiot told you they don't?
They have the freedom to work for 12+ hours for terrible wages or starve.
You have the freedom to breathe and live or not breathe and die. That is not freedom outside of any theory.

Try again, smooth-brain.

You're given two choices: breathe and live or stop breating and stop living. Is life authoritarian now?

You have the freedom to breathe and live or not breathe and die. That is not freedom outside of any theory.

But that doesn't give bosses coersive power over you. It is the fact that you must take orders from a boss that makes capitalism authoritarian.

So what.

Don't you have any concept of justice? Why should some people be born into poverty while others are born into wealth?

Can't be. There is only misery in communism.

How do you know. You know almost nothing about it.

Nope. A group does that for you.

You obviously know nothing about communism. I suggest you read The Conquest of Bread or the link in my signature.

You have to show that it's luck and that they don't deserve what they were given.

You have no control over what family you were born into. If you were born into a rich one, it is pure luck. How can you maintain the delusion that capitalism rewards hard work with such a blatant disprove there?

We weren't talking about slavery.

Slavery is a social creation like wage labor and inheritance. You said a social creation like those couldn't be authoritarian, but slavery is a blatantly authoritarian one.

Jealousy and strawman. Grow up, little one.

If I bash murderers, does that mean I'm jealous of them?

Then show it, dumbshit. Try thinking rather than fucking restating your fucking premise.

If you attempt to enter certain pieces of land, the government or "defense" corporations use violence to keep you off. How is property not violent if it is enforced through violence?

If you attempt to enter certain pieces of land, the government or "defense" corporations use violence to keep you off. How is property not violent if it is enforced through violence?
You're talking about "certain pieces" of land, quite possibly areas like military bases and perimtre zones around arms production plants (or so I can tell from government or "defense"), these are closed off for a reason.

If you walk across a field you're not going to get forcefully removed, which kind of refutes your argument: You're cherry picking examples and giving them as the norm.

ou're given two choices: breathe and live or stop breating and stop living. Is life authoritarian now?

You have the freedom to breathe and live or not breathe and die. That is not freedom outside of any theory.
But that doesn't give bosses coersive power over you.
Life has coercive powers over you. Ban life! Life is authoritarian!

It is the fact that you must take orders from a boss that makes capitalism authoritarian.
No it doesn't.


So what.
Don't you have any concept of justice?
Yes. You, OTOH, do not. You feel that things should be taken away from people because other people decided that they should have them. That is not just.

Why should some people be born into poverty while others are born into wealth?
Because that is just.


Can't be. There is only misery in communism.
How do you know.
USSR. DDR. PRoC. PRK. etc. That's how I know.


Nope. A group does that for you.
You obviously know nothing about communism.
No, I know more about it than you do. I know that a group MUST make those decisions. I suggest you read David Ramsay Steele's From Marx To Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation


You have to show that it's luck and that they don't deserve what they were given.
You have no control over what family you were born into. If you were born into a rich one, it is pure luck.
No it's not.

How can you maintain the delusion that capitalism rewards hard work with such a blatant disprove there?
Because you never gave a disproof, and you keep strawmanning. That's bad.


We weren't talking about slavery.
Slavery is a social creation like
...communism. Let's get rid of communism!

wage labor and inheritance. You said a social creation like those couldn't be authoritarian,
I never said that.


Jealousy and strawman. Grow up, little one.
If I bash murderers,
False analogy. We can show that murder is wrong. You have yet to demontrate that there's anything wrong with capitalism. Try again, smooth-brain.


Then show it, dumbshit. Try thinking rather than fucking restating your fucking premise.
If you attempt to enter certain pieces of land, the government or "defense" corporations use violence to keep you off. How is property not violent if it is enforced through violence?
Because that's the fallacy of composition, you fucking moron.

How would you feel if they were taxes collected and directly spent on the community you choose to live in? With you being able to see precisely what your money was being spent on. Do you recognise a responsibility to your community, or do you see yourself solely as an autonomous entity.

The latter
People are free to donate to positive causes in their community if they so choose to do so. I'd like to think that they would.

Realistically speaking however - in that I don't see the abolition of taxes happening anytime soon - your suggestion would be better than seeing my taxes spread across the state.

I don't want some useless capitalist profiting off my work that I have to do to survive. I only agreed to let them have a share because the alternative was starvation. It is therefore theft.

Capitalists are useless?
You don't have to work for anyone to survive. Be self-employed.

If you worked for a drug company, would be upset that they were making a profit? After all, their money goes back into curing new diseases. All profit does not go to the owners...and the amount that does is dispursed to the shareholders (the owners) - thousands of average individuals.

I love the lack of the language filter.


Fuck crap **** shit bitch ho

I wonder how many of these people are really anarchists, and how many just like to call themselves so because it makes them feel cool...

And don't forget all the perks - like drawing an A in a circle everywhere...awesome

Life has coercive powers over you. Ban life! Life is authoritarian!

Life is an abstract concept, unlike a boss who exists and can force their will on you.

Yes. You, OTOH, do not. You feel that things should be taken away from people because other people decided that they should have them. That is not just.

No, I want to dissolve the force-created bonds between a select few and massive amounts of wealth.

Because that is just.

I don't see how.

False analogy. We can show that murder is wrong. You have yet to demontrate that there's anything wrong with capitalism. Try again, smooth-brain.

I have shown plenty wrong with capitalism. That is besides the point. If I hate capitalists so much, then why would I envy them?

No, I know more about it than you do. I know that a group MUST make those decisions. I suggest you read David Ramsay Steele's From Marx To Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation.

Try reading stuff from the other side of the argument.

I never said that.

"Prove that socially created differences are inherently wrong."
Slavery is a socially created difference that is inherently wrong.

Because that's the fallacy of composition, you fucking moron.

How so?

If you walk across a field you're not going to get forcefully removed, which kind of refutes your argument: You're cherry picking examples and giving them as the norm.

If you aren't caught. If you are, you would be arrested for trespassing.

It is in this case.
Prove it.


huh?What don't you understand?

Not in the least, troll-boy.What have you done to personally advance the cause of anarcho-capitalism?


No it's not, liar.Demonstrate, through quotes, how I've lied. Time's running out, put up or shut up.


Now evade reality again, poseur coward. Reality- you're living in a free market, by your defination.

It's a compound noun, poseur coward. Main Entry: compound noun
Function: noun
Definition: a noun made up of two or more lexemes, such as flowerpot and southeast

Invalid use.


Reality.
More evasion. Provide links.


Liar Prove it.



No you didn't, troll.Everyone can see I provided a link. You're transparent.



What money, troll? My father died 3 years ago with a whole $700 in his bank account, and that was from Social Security. I used all of that to pay for his funerary expenses (which even with some discounts they gave me was still just under $900). My mother is a fucking moron who only last year got her GED at the age of 57.

When I was younger, there was a time when we were on food stamps. We streched dollars and made it work. So I'm damned pround to have what I own now.
Want to try again, troll-boy, and tell me what money it is that I have? C'mon, fucker. Let me laugh at your idiocy.At last, a straight answer to a question. So you don't mind relying on goverment money when it suits you. Your unhappy home life goes a long way to explaining your general attitude. Do you not think psychiatric help would be more effective then picking fights with random strangers on the internet?


Still waiting for the proof.I quoted from the BAAWA website, silly boy.

You've lost, moron. Everyone here can see that you've put up nothing. Run away, coward.Tell you what, why don't you put up a poll and find out. Crunch time BAAWA. I'm calling you out.

Life has coercive powers over you. Ban life! Life is authoritarian!
Life is an abstract concept, unlike a boss who exists and can force their will on you.
Same with the life-process. Ban life! Ban life!


Yes. You, OTOH, do not. You feel that things should be taken away from people because other people decided that they should have them. That is not just.
No, I want to dissolve the force-created bonds between a select few and massive amounts of wealth.
IOW: you want to steal from them because you are jealous of them. Thank you for admitting it.


Because that is just.
I don't see how.
Is it just to take their wealth? NO! Is it just to say that they don't deserve it just because other people are starving? NO!


False analogy. We can show that murder is wrong. You have yet to demontrate that there's anything wrong with capitalism. Try again, smooth-brain.
I have shown plenty wrong with capitalism.
No, all you have done is spew Marxist nonsense which has been refuted to death.

That is besides the point. If I hate capitalists so much, then why would I envy them?
That is the basis of your hate.


No, I know more about it than you do. I know that a group MUST make those decisions. I suggest you read David Ramsay Steele's From Marx To Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation.
Try reading stuff from the other side of the argument.
I have. Take your own advice.


I never said that.
"Prove that socially created differences are inherently wrong."
Slavery is a socially created difference that is inherently wrong.
That means ALL of them. Get to it. Now.


Because that's the fallacy of composition, you fucking moron.
How so?
You've taken a possible aspect of something and applied it to the whole.

It is in this case.
Prove it/
I already have.


huh?
What don't you understand?
Your inability to keep the context.


Not in the least, troll-boy
What have you done to personally advance the cause of anarcho-capitalism?
Irrelevant, troll-boy.


No it's not, liar.
Demonstrate, through quotes, how I've lied.
Then you need to do the same. Time's running out. Put up or shut up, troll-boy.


Now evade reality again, poseur coward.
Reality- you're living in a free market, by your defination.
Prove it.


It's a compound noun, poseur coward.
Main Entry: compound noun
Function: noun
Definition: a noun made up of two or more lexemes, such as flowerpot and southeast

Invalid use.
Nope. Valid use.


Reality.
More evasion.
Nope.


No you didn't, troll.
Everyone can see I provided a link.
...to nothing that backed your claim, liar.


What money, troll? My father died 3 years ago with a whole $700 in his bank account, and that was from Social Security. I used all of that to pay for his funerary expenses (which even with some discounts they gave me was still just under $900). My mother is a fucking moron who only last year got her GED at the age of 57.

When I was younger, there was a time when we were on food stamps. We streched dollars and made it work. So I'm damned pround to have what I own now.
Want to try again, troll-boy, and tell me what money it is that I have? C'mon, fucker. Let me laugh at your idiocy.
At last, a straight answer to a question.
I always give you straight answers.

So you don't mind relying on goverment money when it suits you.
I was 8, fuckstick. I didn't have a choice.

*yawns about the piss-poor internet pop psych and laughs at the amateurish attempt*


Still waiting for the proof.
I quoted from the BAAWA website, silly boy.
I'm still waiting for the proof, troll-boy.

*Snip of BAAWA's standard smokescreen tacticsYou've been called out little man. Put up or shut up.

Same with the life-process. Ban life! Ban life!

Life is an abstract concept. How hard is that to understand?

IOW: you want to steal from them because you are jealous of them. Thank you for admitting it.

No, I want them to actually contribute something instead of living off our labor and claiming that capitalism rewards hard work.

Is it just to take their wealth? NO! Is it just to say that they don't deserve it just because other people are starving? NO!

They don't deserve it. They didn't do a thing to earn it and other people need it far more than they do. Why should they get it?

No, all you have done is spew Marxist nonsense which has been refuted to death.

My views are anarchist, not Marxist.

That is the basis of your hate.

No, the basis of my hate is that they live off the labor of children. How can you claim that is justified?

I have. Take your own advice.

Have you read The Conquest of Bread?

That means ALL of them. Get to it. Now.

The distinction between slavery and wage labor is one of degrees. You have a limited choice of who you serve in capitalism. That doesn't change the fact that it is coersive.

You've taken a possible aspect of something and applied it to the whole.

No, it is simply impossible to have property without the threat of force. Unless everyone in the society believes that the ownership is justified and respects it, the threat of force is needed to keep people off.

The problem with Letila (who I have a problem with adressing directly anymore) is that (s)he thinks that all rich people in Capitalism automatically earned their money by exploiting some poor starving working. This isn't exactly the case and I'd like for someone to convince Letila to stop thinking it is. Anyway, isn't it time to start this thread over again? You got 50 pages...

snip chest-bashing
Put up or shut up, troll-boy.

Same with the life-process. Ban life! Ban life!
Life is an abstract concept. How hard is that to understand?
The life process is authoritarian: obey it or die! How hard is that to understand?


IOW: you want to steal from them because you are jealous of them. Thank you for admitting it.
No, I want them to actually contribute something
They are contributing. By what warped standard do you claim that they are not?

instead of living off our labor and claiming that capitalism rewards hard work.
Jealousy.


Is it just to take their wealth? NO! Is it just to say that they don't deserve it just because other people are starving? NO!
They don't deserve it.
Prove it.

They didn't do a thing to earn it
BULLSHIT!

They earned it by virtue of their parents loving them and wanting to give it to them. Now you may not understand the idea that your parents love you, but that's your problem. When you have children, they become the most important thing on the planet to you. You would die to protect them. You would give them anything. That is how they earned it, you stupid fuck.

Just because your parents hate you doesn't mean that everyone else's parents hate them. Grow up.

and other people need it far more than they do. Why should they get it?
Need does not grant title to anything. I need a million dollars. Does that grant me title to it? NO!


No, all you have done is spew Marxist nonsense which has been refuted to death.
My views are anarchist, not Marxist.
Your views are Marxist. They are directly culled from the Manifesto and Das Kapital. You are a fucking Marxist. You keep using the same arguments that Marx did. You use the same refuted ideas. You, Letila, are a MARXIST.


That is the basis of your hate.
No, the basis of my hate is that they live off the labor of children.
Every capitalist on the planet lives off the labor of children? EVERY ONE? Prove it. Now.

How can you claim that is justified?
Because it's not true at all.


I have. Take your own advice.
Have you read The Conquest of Bread?
No, but I have read the Manifesto and parts of Das Kapital. Marx is essentially Hegel stripped of the supernatural mumbo-jumbo, but still no less bullshit. I call it Hegel-lite.

Have you read Human Action? Respecting Persons In Theory And Practice (where Narveson just destroys Marxist nonsense)?


That means ALL of them. Get to it. Now.
The distinction between slavery and wage labor is one of degrees.
No it's not. Try again, smooth-brain.


You've taken a possible aspect of something and applied it to the whole.
No, it is simply impossible to have property without the threat of force.
Nor is it possible to have communism of any flavor without the threat of force.

What is your fucking point? Force does not make something authoritarian, you stupid fuck.

If a stranger wanders into a communist farmer's field to take some of his corn, what would the farmer do? Just let him take it, so it no longer goes to the commune?