NationStates Jolt Archive

Those who have the money. Is that clear? If the hammer costs $50, those who pay $50 will have it.
This can work like this if democracy decides.
I don't need your permission to sell a hammer. This is why you should all just admit you're communists and stop trying to look cool by claiming to be "anarchists".

I don't need your permission to sell a hammer. This is why you should all just admit you're communists and stop trying to look cool by claiming to be "anarchists".
I post in the anarchist thread, but I'm not an anarchist. I never said I was one.
I'm a communist.
And indeed you don't need my permission to sell the hammer, this is why I think you should be free to sell it. And I think that you would be free to do it, because there is no problem with it.

There would be a problem, however, if you had salaried employees working for you or if you were cutting down the tropical forest to make your hammer.

There would be a problem, however, if you had salaried employees working for you or if you were cutting down the tropical forest to make your hammer.

Why is that a problem?

Why is that a problem?Other people need the tropical forest.
Slavery is barbaric.

Other people need the tropical forest.
Slavery is barbaric.

Who said anything about slavery?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psylos
Other people need the tropical forest.
Slavery is barbaric.


Who said anything about slavery?

"Employee-ship is slavery."

"The collective is more important than the individual."

"Ownership is theft."

Blah blah... :)

How about this proposition:

If a democracy decides that it wants to be a dictatorship, does that make it a dictatorship?

Or a dictatorship decides it wants to be a "communist paradise"..?

Hmmmmm...

And CAN an anarchy decide ANYTHING..!?

The answer is simple. Can you (an idividual) decide anything?

The answer is simple. Can you (an idividual) decide anything?

Are you promoting individualism?

The answer is simple. Can you (an idividual) decide anything?

Mmmmm...

Yes.

And anarchies can also make decisions because, they are individuals..?

"Employee-ship is slavery."

"The collective is more important than the individual."

"Ownership is theft."

Blah blah... :)

1) yes, due to the material conditions that create the existence of wage labor, specifically the illegitimate system of land and resource ownership and the disproportionate rewards the capitalist grant themselves for their 'contribution' of ownership at the expense of those that have few real choices but to work for them.

2) no, that's stupid. nobody says that but fascists and corporate 'team building' consultants, at least not all the time. the individual is what counts. but if you want to do things with more people than just yourself then the collective takes on importance. and since as a general rule group projects are better (more productive, efficient, etc) than individual ones, we need to make sure that the inevitable groups which are formed are formed in a way that is harmonious with individual liberty. when one person (or a small subgroup) can bend a larger group to their will without consulting the other individuals in the group or even against their wishes, what you have is not the individual being more important than the collective, but the individual dominating over the other individuals who also make up that collective.

3) not ownership. property. and by property we mean private property rights in land and capital. it is a fairly well known fact that land ownership is unjustified except through force of arms. private property in land originates when some guy beats the shit out of anyone who tries to come onto 'his land'. private property in land maintains itself by organizing police forces and armies to do the beatings for that original guy's grandkids. nobody has made a very convincing case for why some people should be privileged forever and others should be forced to slave for them by accident of birth. but that is exactly what happens under a system that allows some to have property rights over land. after all, land is a finite resource that we absolutely require in order to exist, yet private property means that more or less all of the existing land is already owned. which in turn means that property owners get to charge all those not born to privilege a fee for them to exercise their 'right' to live.

If a democracy decides that it wants to be a dictatorship, does that make it a dictatorship?

in practice, yes. though that doesn't make it unjustified to assassinate the dictator. democracy is a useful decision making tool but there is nothing magical about majorities or pluralities of people that makes them right.

And CAN an anarchy decide ANYTHING..!?

yes, as long as the people in whatever group we are talking about are able to come to some sort of decision. they just can't decide things for other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
"Employee-ship is slavery."

"The collective is more important than the individual."

"Ownership is theft."

Blah blah...


1) yes, due to the material conditions that create the existence of wage labor, specifically the illegitimate system of land and resource ownership and the disproportionate rewards the capitalist grant themselves for their 'contribution' of ownership at the expense of those that have few real choices but to work for them.

2) no, that's stupid. nobody says that but fascists and corporate 'team building' consultants, at least not all the time. the individual is what counts. but if you want to do things with more people than just yourself then the collective takes on importance. and since as a general rule group projects are better (more productive, efficient, etc) than individual ones, we need to make sure that the inevitable groups which are formed are formed in a way that is harmonious with individual liberty. when one person (or a small subgroup) can bend a larger group to their will without consulting the other individuals in the group or even against their wishes, what you have is not the individual being more important than the collective, but the individual dominating over the other individuals who also make up that collective.

3) not ownership. property. and by property we mean private property rights in land and capital. it is a fairly well known fact that land ownership is unjustified except through force of arms. private property in land originates when some guy beats the shit out of anyone who tries to come onto 'his land'. private property in land maintains itself by organizing police forces and armies to do the beatings for that original guy's grandkids. nobody has made a very convincing case for why some people should be privileged forever and others should be forced to slave for them by accident of birth. but that is exactly what happens under a system that allows some to have property rights over land. after all, land is a finite resource that we absolutely require in order to exist, yet private property means that more or less all of the existing land is already owned. which in turn means that property owners get to charge all those not born to privilege a fee for them to exercise their 'right' to live.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
If a democracy decides that it wants to be a dictatorship, does that make it a dictatorship?


in practice, yes. though that doesn't make it unjustified to assassinate the dictator. democracy is a useful decision making tool but there is nothing magical about majorities or pluralities of people that makes them right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And CAN an anarchy decide ANYTHING..!?


yes, as long as the people in whatever group we are talking about are able to come to some sort of decision. they just can't decide things for other people.

Just out of curiousity, does your non-use of capital letters indicate how very deeply your egalitarian spirit runs..? :)

On my island, the various Ia'ha hold their land, by force, from those who would trespass, much as you might keep someone from invading your pants.

The vast majority of the island is Ia'ha territory, but it is generally OK for anyone to roam and "kindly" use the land, other than those special areas that roughly correspond to the aformentioned "pants".

Anyone can become Ia'ha with enough notoriety and success in being, and yes, the habitual Ia'ha families have an unfair advantage in gaining Ia'ha status.

But the goal of our "motivated" ones is to be SO clever that when the people assemble they will grant them the post of Ia'ha.

We model our "government" and "economy" on the family.

Laws are made by proposition, cogitation, and ridicule. If the law is silly it will be laughed at, and then either abandoned or fought over.

Even the "Papa" (Ka'oka'o) can be, and often is, "overuled" by the Aunties (O'ame'ekii'o or more simply the "O'o") by a dirty look.

But then,.. we are a simple people. :)

Your people probably think they can run things like one of your machines.

We don't find that to work real well, but if you can do it,.. more to ya'..!

Just out of curiousity, does your non-use of capital letters indicate how very deeply your egalitarian spirit runs..? :)

heh. i don't know, maybe.

all words are created equal!

it's really just the way i started typing posts on usenet a number of years ago. shift keys are so inconvenient. though the caps come back when i want to be more formal or whatever.

I don't make exceptions for culture. All hierarchy is wrong in my eyes. I don't care whether it's a part of your traditions. Sexism and slavery were once part of US tradition and culture, but were still wrong.

and now for some book-learnin' anarchism news:

i don't know how many of you have ever encountered the oxford university press "very short introduction" series of books - there are like a hundred of them. each book is a 150 page basic intro to some topic, like art history or british politics or buddhism. anarchism just got added to the list. "anarchism: a very short introduction" written by colin ward will be out this october. knowing colin's work, i can only assume it will be good.

and now for some book-learnin' anarchism news:

i don't know how many of you have ever encountered the oxford university press "very short introduction" series of books - there are like a hundred of them. each book is a 150 page basic intro to some topic, like art history or british politics or buddhism. anarchism just got added to the list. "anarchism: a very short introduction" written by colin ward will be out this october. knowing colin's work, i can only assume it will be good.


Never heard of them - sounds interesting though

http://www.oup.co.uk/general/vsi/

the very short introduction website, with the list of all 123 very short introductions. i've read the fascism one and the archaeology one.

http://www.oup.co.uk/general/vsi/

the very short introduction website, with the list of all 123 very short introductions. i've read the fascism one and the archaeology one.


Cool, thanks. I actually have the Philosophy one, What does it all mean

"anarchism: a very short introduction" written by colin ward will be out this october. knowing colin's work, i can only assume it will be good.The Albert Meltzer introduction is far superior- Ward's essentially a militant liberal.

I don't make exceptions for culture. All hierarchy is wrong in my eyes. I don't care whether it's a part of your traditions. Sexism and slavery were once part of US tradition and culture, but were still wrong.

That's cool.

I admire your idealism. It serves it's purpose "in the hierarchy" of human functions. Keep pressing for "human rights" with the same persistence as your ecological analogs, fungus and the many "carrion eaters".

It's a good thing...!

My only issue with you is your statement that anything hierarchical is "wrong". That is a religious conviction.

My own religious convictions admit the possibility of a "good" within "hierarchy".

Show me how the hierarchies evident in nature are always "wrong"...?

Well if you take 'hierarchy' to mean levels of authority, then it only those hierarchies which are detrimental that need to be eliminated. For example, the authority of a parent over their child is something I would see as natural human behavior.

To paraphrase from Sacco;

Of all the people you have ever met in your life, how many of them did you deliberate harm?

Was this deliberate harm illegal?

Yes: then your laws and police form aren't any good then, are they?
No: then your laws and police force aren't any good then, are they?

Well if you take 'hierarchy' to mean levels of authority, then it only those hierarchies which are detrimental that need to be eliminated. For example, the authority of a parent over their child is something I would see as natural human behavior.

To paraphrase from Sacco;

Of all the people you have ever met in your life, how many of them did you deliberate harm?

Was this deliberate harm illegal?

Yes: then your laws and police form aren't any good then, are they?
No: then your laws and police force aren't any good then, are they?

To paraphrase from Iakokoko;

"Of all 'da cousins you ever met, how many did you hurt on purpose?"

"Stupid ipii'oaki,... don't hurt people,.. stand up fo' you' whompin'..!"

Hahaha

In Refused Party Program, we frown upon the cousin lovin' but there is no law against it.

Well if you take 'hierarchy' to mean levels of authority, then it only those hierarchies which are detrimental that need to be eliminated. For example, the authority of a parent over their child is something I would see as natural human behavior.


This raises a good point. Do anarchists believe in any sort of parenting?

Other people need the tropical forest.
So do I, for my hammer.
Slavery is barbaric.
That's why I'm not a communist.

This raises a good point. Do anarchists believe in any sort of parenting?
I certainly do. You'd be an idiot not to. Israeli Kibbutzes used to have communal child rearing which was an unmitigated disaster, but they were communists and this is typical fuzzy headed communist "thinking".

So do I, for my hammer.Then there is a problem and it needs to be sorted out democratically.

That's why I'm not a communist.And what is the link between slavery being barbaric and you not being a communist please?

Then there is a problem and it needs to be sorted out democratically.
No. It is a property rights issue. Who owns the rainforest. Either a) some charity concerned with preserving it, in which case tough luck me, b) I do and I chop it down, c) someone else does in which case I make them an offer or d) nobody does so I chop it down and thus aquire ownership. Again, your vote and opinion are irrelevant.

And what is the link between slavery being barbaric and you not being a communist please?
If you use your own resources to set up a commune with voluntary participants that's fine by me. But you don't want to do that, I bet. You probably want to steal resources off people ("capitalists") which is equivalent to slavery and in practice all "communism" has involved slavery.

If you use your own resources to set up a commune with voluntary participants that's fine by me. But you don't want to do that, I bet. You probably want to steal resources off people ("capitalists") which is equivalent to slavery and in practice all "communism" has involved slavery.But you are against the current system. So what right to people have to keep wealth gained under a system that you accept is unfair?

No. It is a property rights issue. Who owns the rainforest. Either a) some charity concerned with preserving it, in which case tough luck me, b) I do and I chop it down, c) someone else does in which case I make them an offer or d) nobody does so I chop it down and thus aquire ownership. Again, your vote and opinion are irrelevant.OR maybe, just maybe, the commune could own it all?

If you use your own resources to set up a commune with voluntary participants that's fine by me. But you don't want to do that, I bet. You probably want to steal resources off people ("capitalists") which is equivalent to slavery and in practice all "communism" has involved slavery.
I want what the capitalists stole back.

But you are against the current system. So what right to people have to keep wealth gained under a system that you accept is unfair?
Chances are that they have a better claim than anyone else. Can you trace what happened to every dollar you paid in tax, or trace back to see if you really owned it? Any attempt to "solve" the problem will inevitably make it worse. Who's to sort it out, a state?

Chances are that they have a better claim than anyone else. Can you trace what happened to every dollar you paid in tax, or trace back to see if you really owned it? Any attempt to "solve" the problem will inevitably make it worse. Who's to sort it out, a state?
Why not?

OR maybe, just maybe, the commune could own it all?
Which commune and why should they own it and not me? If some commune could make a legitimate claim to ownership that courts will recognise that's fine, otherwise they should mind their own business.

I want what the capitalists stole back.
I don't know what you're talking about. Are you trying to claim the old "profit is theft" rubbish?

Why not?
Because they won't do it well and will end up making it worse, like Russia. Remember Russia? Remember how that didn't work?

Because they won't do it well and will end up making it worse, like Russia. Remember Russia? Remember how that didn't work?
I remember it worked well in Russia, until the foreigners came and started burning the country.
Are you saying the tsars were doing better than the socialists?

I remember it worked well in Russia, until the foreigners came and started burning the country.
!

Are you saying the tsars were doing better than the socialists?
Yes. And they'd have done better still with no govt.

Which commune and why should they own it and not me? If some commune could make a legitimate claim to ownership that courts will recognise that's fine, otherwise they should mind their own business.It's indeed their own business, literally. Your business is your tooth brush and your pants, NOT the tropical forest and taking part in the polls as any other citizen.

I don't know what you're talking about. Are you trying to claim the old "profit is theft" rubbish?
Let's tax those capitalists as much as we can and stop recognizing them as our legitimate masters.

!

Yes. And they'd have done better still with no govt.Sure...
maybe the chaos and the Mafia is the best style of government after all.

Sure...
maybe the chaos and the Mafia is the best style of government after all.
If you don't even understand anarchism why are you here?

It's indeed their own business, literally. Your business is your tooth brush and your pants, NOT the tropical forest and taking part in the polls as any other citizen.
I have invented a new word for people like you. I'm going to call you "ecofascists".

Let's tax those capitalists as much as we can and stop recognizing them as our legitimate masters.
They aren't your masters. If you don't want anything to do with them then ignore them and they'll leave you alone. The state on the other hand...

If you don't even understand anarchism why are you here?
You don't understand it yourself and you are here as well.
Tsarism is far from anarchism BTW.

Anarchism is not chaos.
Anarchism is about being free of religion and free of the classes.
'No god and no master'

I have invented a new word for people like you. I'm going to call you "ecofascists".
Call that however you want, it doesn't change a thing. I'm not moved by this kind of propaganda.

They aren't your masters. If you don't want anything to do with them then ignore them and they'll leave you alone. The state on the other hand...
The state, on the other hand, is controlled by the capitalists.
They don't leave me alone unfortunatelly. They are here to take everything I have.

You don't understand it yourself and you are here as well.
Tsarism is far from anarchism BTW.

Anarchism is not chaos.
Anarchism is about being free of religion and free of the classes.
'No god and no master'
That makes no sense.

The state, on the other hand, is controlled by the capitalists.
They don't leave me alone unfortunatelly. They are here to take everything I have.
Ex-act-ly my point! That's why I want free markets, not capitalism (which isn't even a coherent concept).

Ex-act-ly my point! That's why I want free markets, not capitalism (which isn't even a coherent concept).It's good to be on the same side after a long discussion and some big misunderstanding of each other's point of view.
I blame the different culture and different native language for our misunderstanding. Most of the time, it seems like we are using the same words with completely different meanings while we agree on the concepts.
Those communication problems will kill us one of these days.

Chances are that they have a better claim than anyone else. Can you trace what happened to every dollar you paid in tax, or trace back to see if you really owned it? Any attempt to "solve" the problem will inevitably make it worse. Who's to sort it out, a state?So the people that already had money gained from lucrative goverment contracts will be the people that start off way ahead in terms of land ownership. I thought you believed in a meritocracy?

Wait... are we on the same side?

I blame the different culture and different native language for our misunderstanding. Most of the time, it seems like we are using the same words with completely different meanings while we agree on the concepts.
Socialists and libertarians don't usually understand each other even when they speak the same language so don't worry about it. I think most socialists' problem with the free market is that they misunderstand it, confusing it with the system we have now. (probably because of that fuzzy word "capitalism")

The fundamental difference between us is this: I have no problem with you practicing voluntary socialism but you seem to have a problem with me practicing voluntary libertarianism, such as having employees. I just want to be left alone!

Socialists and libertarians don't usually understand each other even when they speak the same language so don't worry about it. I think most socialists' problem with the free market is that they misunderstand it, confusing it with the system we have now. (probably because of that fuzzy word "capitalism")

The fundamental difference between us is this: I have no problem with you practicing voluntary socialism but you seem to have a problem with me practicing voluntary libertarianism, such as having employees. I just want to be left alone!
Well I suggest we stop using terms with too complex definitions like socialism, libertarianism, slavery and free market and such. Let's keep it simple if you don't mind.

Let's just talk about having employees. By that, are we talking about a human linked to you with a contract saying something like "I give you x amount of money every month and you do what I tell you for y amount of time". Is that what you mean?

Let's just talk about having employees. By that, are we talking about a human linked to you with a contract saying something like "I give you x amount of money every month and you do what I tell you for y amount of time". Is that what you mean?
Yes.

Yes.
OK this is clear but this contract has loopholes and is not complete enough.
As it stands, it doesn't say if the employee will be paid first or work first and it doesn't say what kind of work will be done.
I suppose in reality, the contract has everything in it.
Now who is enforcing the contract?

OK this is clear but this contract has loopholes and is not complete enough.
As it stands, it doesn't say if the employee will be paid first or work first and it doesn't say what kind of work will be done.
I suppose in reality, the contract has everything in it.
Now who is enforcing the contract?
Presumably that will be stipulated in the contract. However, as it stands this contract is not entirely enforceable. If the employee works but is not paid the employer will be forced to pay up, if the employee gets paid but does not work he will be forced to give the money back. But, if he refuses to work nobody will force him to, he'll just not get paid. This all seems okay to me, everything voluntary and mutually beneficial.

The fundamental difference between us is this: I have no problem with you practicing voluntary socialism but you seem to have a problem with me practicing voluntary libertarianism, such as having employees. I just want to be left alone!

Not entirely. If you accept the standard communist view that the current ruling class have attained their postion from exploitation (I know you don't but pretend for the sake of the argument) you're actually arguing for the same people to remain in place under an anarcho-capitalist system. So those in the UK who have benefited from the hereditary nobility system (largely either from activities in war carried out in feudal times or because an ancestor shagged a royal) are going to be at the top of an anarcho-capitalist system. What have they done to entitle them to that head start?

Not entirely. If you accept the standard communist view that the current ruling class have attained their postion from exploitation (I know you don't but pretend for the sake of the argument) you're actually arguing for the same people to remain in place under an anarcho-capitalist system. So those in the UK who have benefited from the hereditary nobility system (largely either from activities in war carried out in feudal times or because an ancestor shagged a royal) are going to be at the top of an anarcho-capitalist system. What have they done to entitle them to that head start?
I'm not saying I think that's okay, just that there is no better solution. Every pound in the country has been stolen in taxes at some point so by that reasoning none of it is "legitimate". Most of the wealth in private hands has been earned to some extent and anything that messes with this will do more harm than good.

Presumably that will be stipulated in the contract. However, as it stands this contract is not entirely enforceable. If the employee works but is not paid the employer will be forced to pay up, if the employee gets paid but does not work he will be forced to give the money back. But, if he refuses to work nobody will force him to, he'll just not get paid. This all seems okay to me, everything voluntary and mutually beneficial.
IMO there is a problem if the employer asks for a result in the contract.

Let's take the simplest case : the employer asks the employee to work and earn z amount of money every month (with z>x). To me, this contract seems more beneficial to the employer than to the employee.
The employee will work y amount of time and earn x amount of money, while the employer will work 0 amount of time and earn z-x amount of money.

Let's take the simplest case : the employer asks the employee to work and earn z amount of money every month (with z>x). To me, this contract seems more beneficial to the employer than to the employee.
He may freely turn it down then. In the free market only voluntary transactions are possible thus only mutually beneficial transactions happen. So what if the employer benefits more? I need bread more than safeway need a pound but they don't think they're being "exploited".

The employee will work y amount of time and earn x amount of money, while the employer will work 0 amount of time and earn z-x amount of money.
The employer will give up resources R in the present in order to receive (1+i)R in the future. The employer does not do nothing. He makes a short term sacrifice of resources in order to (maybe) get more in the future. He takes all the risk and organises the factors of production. If you think you can manage without him nobody will stop you.

He may freely turn it down then. In the free market only voluntary transactions are possible thus only mutually beneficial transactions happen. So what if the employer benefits more? I need bread more than safeway need a pound but they don't think they're being "exploited".

The employer will give up resources R in the present in order to receive (1+i)R in the future. The employer does not do nothing. He makes a short term sacrifice of resources in order to (maybe) get more in the future. He takes all the risk and organises the factors of production. If you think you can manage without him nobody will stop you.
The employer doesn't necessarily organize. If he does, then I agree the employer should receive pay. Let say he does not. Let's say he hires somebody to organize the work for him and he stipulates in the contract that the work should give him back z amount of money. He doesn't take the risk, because if the work does not give him back z amount of money, the results are not achieved and then the people are not paid.

On another topic, what is your position on inheritance?

The employer doesn't necessarily organize. If he does, then I agree the employer should receive pay. Let say he does not. Let's say he hires somebody to organize the work for him and he stipulates in the contract that the work should give him back z amount of money. He doesn't take the risk, because if the work does not give him back z amount of money, the results are not achieved and then the people are not paid.
That's just investing like a bank. If you don't like it nobody will force you to take it. You are infringing on peoples' liberty if you forbid this.

On another topic, what is your position on inheritance?
If I legitimately own something then I may trade it, burn it or give it away as I please. Again, to forbid inheritance is an infringement of liberty.

That's just investing like a bank. If you don't like it nobody will force you to take it. You are infringing on peoples' liberty if you forbid this.Yes I was talking about investing. According to me there is no problem with CEOs, just with investors (Note a CEO can be investor as well). Those are the ones I called capitalists, but let's forget this term.

If I legitimately own something then I may trade it, burn it or give it away as I please. Again, to forbid inheritance is an infringement of liberty.
So both points lead us to that : freedom and the private ownership.
According to you, burning, trading or giving away something which is your private property is your legitimate right. limiting this right is an infrigement on your freedom.
On the other hand, burning, trading or giving away something which is not your private ownership is theft. Limiting this is justice.

Is that correct?

So both points lead us to that : freedom and the private ownership.
According to you, burning, trading or giving away something which is your private property is your legitimate right. limiting this right is an infrigement on your freedom.
On the other hand, burning, trading or giving away something which is not your private ownership is theft. Limiting this is justice.

Is that correct?
Da.

I'm not saying I think that's okay, just that there is no better solution. Every pound in the country has been stolen in taxes at some point so by that reasoning none of it is "legitimate". Most of the wealth in private hands has been earned to some extent and anything that messes with this will do more harm than good.But in Britain at least, the hereditary nobility system is strongly bound up with land ownership. So I don't think that you can argue it's been earned in any way. If you'd abolishing titles (which I assume you would) how can you justify keeping the ancestral lands that come as part of that package. What would you do with common land? Would it stay in the public domain?

But in Britain at least, the hereditary nobility system is strongly bound up with land ownership. So I don't think that you can argue it's been earned in any way. If you'd abolishing titles (which I assume you would) how can you justify keeping the ancestral lands that come as part of that package. What would you do with common land? Would it stay in the public domain?
I don't really care. I haven't earned it either so I won't try to claim it. They aren't making me worse off. Who decides who gets to keep what, a state? If you feel aggreived take them to a court, I really don't give a monkeys.

Common land could be sold off or be claimed by whoever first puts it to use. Again, I couldn't care less.

Da.So the one who has the most private property should have the most freedom and the one with the less private property should have less freedom.

It is one traditional way of seeing things, but not mine.

So the one who has the most private property should have the most freedom and the one with the less private property should have less freedom.

No. They each have equal freedom with respect to their own property. That's like saying a fat man has more freedom since he has more body to move.

No. They each have equal freedom with respect to their own property. That's like saying a fat man has more freedom since he has more body to move.So you are saying having a 1000 000 square kilimeters island where you can freely move and tan and snort cocaïn is the same as having a 9 square kilometer flat and the freedom to move in?
Is that equal freedom?
And having nothing at all, hence having no right at all to move is the same as having the freedom to travel accross 1000 kilimeters?

So you are saying having a 1000 000 square kilimeters island where you can freely move and tan and snort cocaïn is the same as having a 9 square kilometer flat and the freedom to move in?
No.
Is that equal freedom?
Yes.

And having nothing at all, hence having no right at all to move is the same as having the freedom to travel accross 1000 kilimeters?
If you earned nothing and cannot convince any kind person to give you anything then you probably don't deserve anything.

You're so melodramatic. Get a grip.

We don't have the same definition of freedom then.
According to me, freedom is for everybody.

We don't have the same definition of freedom then.
According to me, freedom is for everybody.
Aaaarrrrrggghhhh. Freedom and wealth are unrelated concepts. It is easy not to force people to do things. It requires no effort whatsoever. Freedom is for everybody.

Aaaarrrrrggghhhh. Freedom and wealth are unrelated concepts. It is easy not to force people to do things. It requires no effort whatsoever. Freedom is for everybody.But you agree that when you shoot anyone who walk on your land, you are limiting the freedom of anyone?
I mean, sure, you are exercising your freedom to shoot anyone, but aren't you denying the freedom to cross the land to anybody else?

If freedom is for everybody, then surely it is not just for the land owners, is it?

If you earned nothing
As posted from Dictionary.com:

earn1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ûrn)
tr.v. earned, earn·ing, earns
To gain especially for the performance of service, labor, or work: earned money by mowing lawns.
To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action: She earned a reputation as a hard worker.
To yield as return or profit: a savings account that earns interest on deposited funds.

Which definition of "Earn" are you using?

hate to break this up, but its time for some protest pr0n. images from protests in chile on the 31st anniversary of pinochet's coup.

http://chile.indymedia.org/uploads/m30.jpg

http://chile.indymedia.org/uploads/organizaci_n_1.jpg

http://chile.indymedia.org/uploads/02.jpgn8kgjv.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040911/capt.scl10509111932.chile_anniversary_coup_scl105.jpg

If you earned nothing and cannot convince any kind person to give you anything then you probably don't deserve anything.

Why do you want a definition of earn, given that I explicitly said gifts are okay? (including inheritance gifts).

hate to break this up, but its time for some protest pr0n. images from protests in chile on the 31st anniversary of pinochet's coup.

Why? Was the previous govt legitimate? Why make a fuss over democracy/dictatorship? Neither has the right to rule. Really, is there that much difference between the 2 systems? Compare Singapore and France or America (to compare rich countries), or Turkey and Pakistan (to compare poorer ones), is there much difference? A little perhaps, but democracy is all the worse as it creates an illusion of legitimacy. All states are evil.

But you agree that when you shoot anyone who walk on your land, you are limiting the freedom of anyone?
I mean, sure, you are exercising your freedom to shoot anyone, but aren't you denying the freedom to cross the land to anybody else?

But you agree that when you shoot anyone who tries to rape you. you are limiting the freedom of everyone? I mean, sure, you are exercising your freedom to shoot anyone (!, your what?!), but aren't you denying the freedom to have sex to anyone else?

Is this a sensible chain of reasoning? No. You'll need to do better. Liberty is impossible without the right to own property. People are not disembodied spirits floating around in the ether.

If freedom is for everybody, then surely it is not just for the land owners, is it?
More flawed logic. The freedom to own property belongs to everyone. Some person may own none but they have the right to own it.

May I recommend this guys book on "clear thinking" so that I don't have to correct any more logical fallacies.

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns24631

But you agree that when you shoot anyone who tries to rape you. you are limiting the freedom of everyone? I mean, sure, you are exercising your freedom to shoot anyone (!, your what?!), but aren't you denying the freedom to have sex to anyone else?

Is this a sensible chain of reasoning? No. You'll need to do better. Liberty is impossible without the right to own property. People are not disembodied spirits floating around in the ether.

More flawed logic. The freedom to own property belongs to everyone. Some person may own none but they have the right to own it.

May I recommend this guys book on "clear thinking" so that I don't have to correct any more logical fallacies.

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns24631Everyone has a body. A body is a personnal thing. It is OK to own a body, just like it is OK to own a tooth brush or pants. Those are personnal stuff.
A plant is not a personnal stuff. It doesn't make sense to own a plant, as more than 1 people need the plant. Same for the tropical forests, the oceans or the sun.

Everyone has a body. A body is a personnal thing. It is OK to own a body, just like it is OK to own a tooth brush or pants. Those are personnal stuff.
A plant is not a personnal stuff. It doesn't make sense to own a plant, as more than 1 people need the plant. Same for the tropical forests, the oceans or the sun.
Buy the book. There are so many hidden assumptions and misconceptions in this statement. E.g. one reason something needs to be owned is *because* more than one person needs it.

Buy the book. There are so many hidden assumptions and misconceptions in this statement. E.g. one reason something needs to be owned is *because* more than one person needs it.
Communaly owned, not privately.

Communaly owned, not privately.
You can pool your resources if you like. In a free market you are free to start a commune. You are not free to force it on me. If that's not good enough for you, tough luck.

You can pool your resources if you like. In a free market you are free to start a commune. You are not free to force it on me. If that's not good enough for you, tough luck.I don't want to force it on you, but on the factories.

Anarchists see no need for archs (rulers).

Communists see no need for non-"commun"'s (not sharing).

Thus, anarchists will always be controlled by rulers, and communists will always see an outflow of their resources unto their own doom.


If no one is a ruler, then everyone is a ruler, and cohesion is impossible which guarantees subservience.

If those who refuse to share can take from the commune, then the commune will fall from being drained.

If the commune refuses to share with those not of the commune, then the commune will consume itself and fall.

Best of luck to the anarchist society in staving off internal fragmentation and the entropy of friction.

Best of luck to the communist society in staving off the great sucking maw of the "outside world" and the tyranny of hyper-unity.

I don't want to force it on you, but on the factories.
Thief.

If the workers can manage without the "capitalists" you have to ask why don't they? If every American worker gave half his pay to a trade union they could buy out the "capitalists" in 6 years (stats from mid 1970s). Why don't they? Nothing will stop them if that's what they want to do. If it had support from the workers the trade unions could take over the country for the "benefit" of the workers. They don't.

Why? Possibly because a) they don't want to make a sacrifice now for future gain. They don't want to invest. b) they lack other skills that make a successful entrepeneur.

If your system were better or more popular than freedom it would happen on the market.

Thief.

If the workers can manage without the "capitalists" you have to ask why don't they? If every American worker gave half his pay to a trade union they could buy out the "capitalists" in 6 years (stats from mid 1970s). Why don't they? Nothing will stop them if that's what they want to do. If it had support from the workers the trade unions could take over the country for the "benefit" of the workers. They don't.

Why? Possibly because a) they don't want to make a sacrifice now for future gain. They don't want to invest. b) they lack other skills that make a successful entrepeneur.

If your system were better or more popular than freedom it would happen on the market.Yeah everything is working just fine, and we are in the best world possible. There is no problem. If there was a problem, it would be solved. My SUV rocks and my broadband internet connection is fast. How could life be any better?

You should try to get some news from Angola or Argentina from times to times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertovania
Thief.

If the workers can manage without the "capitalists" you have to ask why don't they? If every American worker gave half his pay to a trade union they could buy out the "capitalists" in 6 years (stats from mid 1970s). Why don't they? Nothing will stop them if that's what they want to do. If it had support from the workers the trade unions could take over the country for the "benefit" of the workers. They don't.

Why? Possibly because a) they don't want to make a sacrifice now for future gain. They don't want to invest. b) they lack other skills that make a successful entrepeneur.

If your system were better or more popular than freedom it would happen on the market.

Yeah everything is working just fine, and we are in the best world possible. There is no problem. If there was a problem, it would be solved. My SUV rocks and my broadband internet connection is fast. How could life be any better?

You should try to get some news from Angola or Argentina from times to times.

We ARE in the best world possible,.. now. Those who seek to improve it continue to do so..

The communist seeks to improve it by group effort toward egalitarianism.

The capitalist seeks to improve it by making capital work toward greater overall abundance.

The anarchist seeks to improve it by... by... by the gentle (!?) action not unlike rust and the powers of fungus and rot.

The communists will always battle, and lose, because their "unity" is always based on a hallucination of commonality.

The anarchist will always battle, and lose, because "rust never sleeps" yet a determined person can always stay ahead of it.

The capitalist will always exist, and prosper, because he merely follows the flows of nature.

The capitalist will always exist, and prosper, because he merely follows the flows of nature.
Bullshit.
Capitalists didn't exist before the revolution.
Before, people like you thought the monarchy was the only way.
Before the monarchy, the slave/master was the only way.
Before, chaos was thought to be the only way.

I think the usa should take some massive plot of government land and all it in. Then give it to all the anarchists who want to live their.

isn't that idaho? or iowa? no income tax and loads of militia?

oh i remember now, they did find a state, remove its government and replace it with no effective laws or means of enforcing them, so that it is now run by armed gangs, warlords etc. Afghanistan was it?

Bullshit.
Capitalists didn't exist before the revolution.
Before, people like you thought the monarchy was the only way.
Before the monarchy, the slave/master was the only way.
Before, chaos was thought to be the only way.

really? at all times/places when a particular philosophy or lifestyle was dominant, it was also the only one that anyone considered?

I'd say that most people subscribe by default to whatever is going on around them, but there are always some who don't.

really? at all times/places when a particular philosophy or lifestyle was dominant, it was also the only one that anyone considered?

I'd say that most people subscribe by default to whatever is going on around them, but there are always some who don't.
I agree. That is why I said people like him.

If your system were better or more popular than freedom it would happen on the market.

Better or more popular? which one? or are they the same? like britney spears is a better singer than christina something because she's more popular? Is Fox News better than the truth because rupert murdoch has lots of subscribers?

In the market you can only buy what's for sale, and then only if you know it is there, and then only if you can afford it. If workers gave their pay to trade unions for 6 years, they'd starve to death.

Yeah everything is working just fine, and we are in the best world possible. There is no problem. If there was a problem, it would be solved. My SUV rocks and my broadband internet connection is fast. How could life be any better?

No, because the govt intervenes coercively.

You should try to get some news from Angola or Argentina from times to times.
Aren't those 2 of the countries that have been wrecked by socialism, or whatever it is you're calling it this week?

Did you know Argentina used to give financial aid to NORWAY, before it collapsed from the internal contradictions of socialism?

Aren't those 2 of the countries that have been wrecked by socialism, or whatever it is you're calling it this week?


Angola was wrecked by a civil war. neither of the sides behaved in a particularly social way, even if they may have said they were doing. If I called myself "The Free Market Warrior" and burned your house down, would you say I was doing free market things?


Did you know Argentina used to give financial aid to NORWAY, before it collapsed from the internal contradictions of socialism?
Argentina collapsed when the world bank forced it to revalue its currency against US Dollars. It was doing ok up til then.

Better or more popular? which one? or are they the same? like britney spears is a better singer than christina something because she's more popular? Is Fox News better than the truth because rupert murdoch has lots of subscribers?
If it made more money (better was meant to mean more productive) it would happen by the usual market mechanism (unless it were really unpopular), if it were more popular it would happen whether it were more productive or not since the market responds to peoples' desires.

In the market you can only buy what's for sale, and then only if you know it is there, and then only if you can afford it. If workers gave their pay to trade unions for 6 years, they'd starve to death.
No, they'd just do without X-boxes and expensive trainers for a while.

Angola was wrecked by a civil war. neither of the sides behaved in a particularly social way, even if they may have said they were doing. If I called myself "The Free Market Warrior" and burned your house down, would you say I was doing free market things?

Oh, you mean they were battling for control of the socialised monopoly on police and military?

Argentina collapsed when the world bank forced it to revalue its currency against US Dollars. It was doing ok up til then.
I don't think it really was doing okay. The world bank is exactly the sort of interference that makes it not a free market. (note the word "free" as in unhampered).

If it made more money (better was meant to mean more productive) it would happen by the usual market mechanism (unless it were really unpopular), if it were more popular it would happen whether it were more productive or not since the market responds to peoples' desires..

better = more productive? like hitler was a better leader? he was really popular too, after he cancelled elections and put armed troops all over his country. Anyway I digress. Are you saying that the most productive thing always happens in a free market? how long does this free market last? long enough for a couple of companies to get really big and carve it up between them? which of my desires does the free market respond to? it hasn't responded to my desire to get a decent education for my kids yet. Although I haven't responded to its desire that i should fuck people over to get their economic power off of them, so that I can use it to buy my kids' education.


No, they'd just do without X-boxes and expensive trainers for a while.

they don't spend any of their money on food?

If it made more money (better was meant to mean more productive) it would happen by the usual market mechanism (unless it were really unpopular), if it were more popular it would happen whether it were more productive or not since the market responds to peoples' desires.more productive doesn't mean more profitable. Briney or Fox are the most profitable and yet they produce nothing.

No, they'd just do without X-boxes and expensive trainers for a while.
In Argentina?

Oh, you mean they were battling for control of the socialised monopoly on police and military?

No, they were battling for control of the diamond market. Which they couldn't have by free market means, because the market is controlled by rich extranationals. oh and also for control of land, either theirs or the land they were hoping to steal, and lives (ditto) and food, (ditto).


I don't think it really was doing okay. The world bank is exactly the sort of interference that makes it not a free market. (note the word "free" as in unhampered).

please describe an unhampered market

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The capitalist will always exist, and prosper, because he merely follows the flows of nature.

Bullshit.
Capitalists didn't exist before the revolution.
Before, people like you thought the monarchy was the only way.
Before the monarchy, the slave/master was the only way.
Before, chaos was thought to be the only way.

A capitalist is someone who trades this for that.

The plant that trades fruit for "seed distribution" is a capitalist.

You confuse political systems with economic systems.

Monarchy is extant today, as in the "King" of a private company.

Slavery is extant today, as in the dumb-ass who trades his "freedom" for a miserable wage as opposed to working towards his betterment. Sometimes it costs much too much to work toward one's freedom (ie, "held in a cage"), at which point the issue is "Why is that a good thing?".

Chaos was never thought to be the only way. The purpose of life (biological and "philosophical") is the very opposite of chaos, which is the gathering of energy so as to organize it to continue and expand life.

All beings seek to continue. All lines of beings seek to continue. The capitalist is another name for "user of his head", and the head contains the higher sensory organs and the brain.

The communist thinks with his ass. (read: "anal retentive")

The anarchist thinks with his "wang-doodle". (read: "trauma-induced erection")

A capitalist is someone who trades this for that.

The plant that trades fruit for "seed distribution" is a capitalist.

You confuse political systems with economic systems.

Monarchy is extant today, as in the "King" of a private company.

Slavery is extant today, as in the dumb-ass who trades his "freedom" for a miserable wage as opposed to working towards his betterment. Sometimes it costs much too much to work toward one's freedom (ie, "held in a cage"), at which point the issue is "Why is that a good thing?".

Chaos was never thought to be the only way. The purpose of life (biological and "philosophical") is the very opposite of chaos, which is the gathering of energy so as to organize it to continue and expand life.

All beings seek to continue. All lines of beings seek to continue. The capitalist is another name for "user of his head", and the head contains the higher sensory organs and the brain.

The communist thinks with his ass. (read: "anal retentive")

The anarchist thinks with his "wang-doodle". (read: "trauma-induced erection")

OK if capitalism is trade then you may be right, but we were not talking about that.

We were talking about capitalism, as in CAPITAL. ie : the private ownership of the capital. ie : people owning privately the means of production. Nothing to do with trade.

Actually, I see you have studied your capitalist propaganda well before coming to post here.
You are not the first indoctrinated guy to come up and say capitalism is natural and capitalism is just freedom, trade and everything. I have even heard that capitalism is democracy one time, when it is just the opposite of it.
Wow, McCarthy did really a great job. I suppose communism is like homosexuality.

Another great McCarthy achievement : putting the "In god we trust" on the $1 notes, and as the national motto of the US. So you know you're back to the middle ages. Let not the people know there is an alternative to conservative extremism.

The capitalist is another name for "user of his head"

from which Ladybird Book of Assholery did you get this dickheaded statement?

Anyway, people have always lived by exchanging stuff. This doesn't make them Capitalist any more than sharing stuff makes you a Communist. A Capitalist is someone who believes in Capital (which means MONEY) and believes in the ability of money to make it all alright or that the importance of money is greater than the importance of other things.

from which Ladybird Book of Assholery did you get this dickheaded statement?

Anyway, people have always lived by exchanging stuff. This doesn't make them Capitalist any more than sharing stuff makes you a Communist. A Capitalist is someone who believes in Capital (which means MONEY) and believes in the ability of money to make it all alright or that the importance of money is greater than the importance of other things.
That's why I don't use the word "capitalism", because it means something different to everyone and it very rarely means the same as free market.

more productive doesn't mean more profitable. Briney or Fox are the most profitable and yet they produce nothing.

They produce services.

In Argentina?
Go back and read the first post in this discussion. You have the short term memory of a goldfish.

They produce services.They produce monopoly, not service.

Go back and read the first post in this discussion. You have the short term memory of a goldfish.
So you advocate private companies for printing money?

They produce monopoly, not service.

Britney Spears is a monopoly???!!!!

So you advocate private companies for printing money?
The system is called "free banking" and was historically successful in my native land. Please just search for it in google so that you understand it before pestering me with more annoying questions.

Britney Spears is a monopoly???!!!!
The company airing Spears on radio and on TV is a monopoly.

The system is called "free banking" and was historically successful in my native land. Please just search for it in google so that you understand it before pestering me with more annoying questions.
I didn't asked how you called it, I asked if you supported it. I take it you support it.

The company airing Spears on radio and on TV is a monopoly.
So???? Dell have a monopoly on Dell PCs, if you don't like it there are plenty of similar ones.

I didn't asked how you called it, I asked if you supported it. I take it you support it.
Of course. I can hear it coming.... the inevitable uninformed objection..... wait for it....

So???? Dell have a monopoly on Dell PCs, if you don't like it there are plenty of similar ones. There are plenty of channels to choose from but they all broadcast Britney. Why? Because Britney has the money to pay for it. Monpoly leveraging.
Dell has no serious monopoly.

Of course. I can hear it coming.... the inevitable uninformed objection..... wait for it....
I won't go there. I will discuss the private police instead. How will you stop it from becoming a government?

The idea of private police is silly. Tyranny by the police is far too likely, so everyone would have to be armed to protect against the police, and at that point there's no reason to have them since everyone can protect themselves. On the other hand, the same basic argument can be used for the government, it's just a matter of trust. You have to trust that the police won't try to control you and will instead protect you. The only real solution, I think, is mutually ensured destruction, that is to say that if the police stop protecting and start terrorizing people they stop getting food.

The idea of private police is silly. Tyranny by the police is far too likely, so everyone would have to be armed to protect against the police, and at that point there's no reason to have them since everyone can protect themselves. On the other hand, the same basic argument can be used for the government, it's just a matter of trust. You have to trust that the police won't try to control you and will instead protect you. The only real solution, I think, is mutually ensured destruction, that is to say that if the police stop protecting and start terrorizing people they stop getting food.
I think trust can be built with time and a democratic government with a good organisation (3 branches of government seem to work well).

A capitalist is someone who trades this for that.

that's silly, because it makes everyone alive today and everyone who ever lived and everyone who ever will into a capitalist. a totally useless term. if you want to use it that way, fine. but then you aren't talking about the same thing as us.

we are talking about those that privately own and control the means of production and distribution and the land that all activity necessary to life has to happen on - particularly those that can earn a living purely through that ownership. if you don't want to call that group of people capitalists, what would you rather call them?

Why? Was the previous govt legitimate? Why make a fuss over democracy/dictatorship? Neither has the right to rule. Really, is there that much difference between the 2 systems? Compare Singapore and France or America (to compare rich countries), or Turkey and Pakistan (to compare poorer ones), is there much difference? A little perhaps, but democracy is all the worse as it creates an illusion of legitimacy. All states are evil.

hmm, i don't know... why would anyone protest the anniversary of a coup that led to their parents and ideological ancestors being 'disappeared'?

and maybe you didn't notice, but i only posted images of some of the anarchist groups represented at the protest - and they weren't exactly saying 'hurrah for the current government!' or 'bring back the zombie of allende!' would you prefer that i posted the pictures of them scuffling with the current non-dictatorial government forces? of course you wouldn't. 'anarcho'-cappies just sit on the sidelines behind their comfortable internet connections calling us un-anarchist or whatever and never do anything themselves - peaceful or otherwise.

http://chile.indymedia.org/uploads/m28.jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
A capitalist is someone who trades this for that.

The plant that trades fruit for "seed distribution" is a capitalist.

You confuse political systems with economic systems.

Monarchy is extant today, as in the "King" of a private company.

Slavery is extant today, as in the dumb-ass who trades his "freedom" for a miserable wage as opposed to working towards his betterment. Sometimes it costs much too much to work toward one's freedom (ie, "held in a cage"), at which point the issue is "Why is that a good thing?".

Chaos was never thought to be the only way. The purpose of life (biological and "philosophical") is the very opposite of chaos, which is the gathering of energy so as to organize it to continue and expand life.

All beings seek to continue. All lines of beings seek to continue. The capitalist is another name for "user of his head", and the head contains the higher sensory organs and the brain.

The communist thinks with his ass. (read: "anal retentive")

The anarchist thinks with his "wang-doodle". (read: "trauma-induced erection")


OK if capitalism is trade then you may be right, but we were not talking about that.

We were talking about capitalism, as in CAPITAL. ie : the private ownership of the capital. ie : people owning privately the means of production. Nothing to do with trade.

Actually, I see you have studied your capitalist propaganda well before coming to post here.
You are not the first indoctrinated guy to come up and say capitalism is natural and capitalism is just freedom, trade and everything. I have even heard that capitalism is democracy one time, when it is just the opposite of it.
Wow, McCarthy did really a great job. I suppose communism is like homosexuality.

Another great McCarthy achievement : putting the "In god we trust" on the $1 notes, and as the national motto of the US. So you know you're back to the middle ages. Let not the people know there is an alternative to conservative extremism.

Firstly,.. Has anyone else noticed the preponderance of angry adolescents that purport to be anarchists and/or communists..?

There's undoubtedly a reason for that.

So "individuals owning the means of production" is evil. Hmmmmm...

So your owning a knife is evil..? You could use it to produce things.

If have have a stiffy (male OR female, I don't care) against those who own things, then I would suggest you follow your chosen path by renouncing ownership of all your things, put on only the clothes of your own growing and making, and truly live by your words. Or get your stuff from your "people".

Problem is that your people, like yourself, are so fixated on the juvenile hatred you have for anyone that "owns" anything that you have no time for doing what you say is your "goal", namely, the betterment of mankind.

What does a communist DO to make the world better..?

Thank you for your service to the assembled masses as a wonderful example of an idealistic hatefilled juvenile who will one day morph, inexorably, into a sensible parent or parent-like person.

IE: One who sees that life is not communistic but capitalistic in nature.

The plant owns it's means of production.

The cat owns it's means of production. (teeth and claws)

The human owns it's means of production. (brain and hands)

Once again, the communists means of production are his/her ass, not head.

:)

Firstly,.. Has anyone else noticed the preponderance of angry adolescents that purport to be anarchists and/or communists..?

There's undoubtedly a reason for that.

That's a needless ad hominem.

So "individuals owning the means of production" is evil. Hmmmmm...

So your owning a knife is evil..? You could use it to produce things.

Generally communists/socialists focus on the idea of economic rents- for example, if you had 20 knives, and used only one, yet charge a rent against me in order to use it, that's the problem.

If have have a stiffy (male OR female, I don't care) against those who own things, then I would suggest you follow your chosen path by renouncing ownership of all your things, put on only the clothes of your own growing and making, and truly live by your words. Or get your stuff from your "people".


That's not what communists are talking about, obviously enough- personal possessions are one thing, private ownership of the means of production.

Problem is that your people, like yourself, are so fixated on the juvenile hatred you have for anyone that "owns" anything that you have no time for doing what you say is your "goal", namely, the betterment of mankind.

where does this even come from? Socialists and socialists groups are well known for charity work and social programs/movements.

IE: One who sees that life is not communistic but capitalistic in nature.

The plant owns it's means of production.

The cat owns it's means of production. (teeth and claws)

The human owns it's means of production. (brain and hands)

Once again, the communists means of production are his/her ass, not head.

:)

Brain and hands are personal property; you clearly don't know much about communism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The capitalist is another name for "user of his head"


from which Ladybird Book of Assholery did you get this dickheaded statement?

Anyway, people have always lived by exchanging stuff. This doesn't make them Capitalist any more than sharing stuff makes you a Communist. A Capitalist is someone who believes in Capital (which means MONEY) and believes in the ability of money to make it all alright or that the importance of money is greater than the importance of other things.

More adolescent whining from the gallery.

Money is an accumulation of energy. It is potential energy. It is the ability to DO.

Money, just like any other tool, is useful for good or evil.

I'm sorry that your traumatic existence in this world has left you with the impression that money is inherently evil, as are those who wield it.

My opinion,... all communists should be forced to live in their own little communistic areas, living by their own principles, for as long as they enjoy doing so, or until they can bare it no longer.

"Capital" is derived from the latin for "head".

It is the "product of one's head".

Your juvenile equations of money with evil, and capitalists with evil are the products of minds too long in infantilist self-absorption with not having been "given what you deserve" by your "mommies" and not being shown the bounds of the world by your daddies.

Other than that, you're all fine examples of slaves with a pissy on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
A capitalist is someone who trades this for that.


that's silly, because it makes everyone alive today and everyone who ever lived and everyone who ever will into a capitalist. a totally useless term. if you want to use it that way, fine. but then you aren't talking about the same thing as us.

we are talking about those that privately own and control the means of production and distribution and the land that all activity necessary to life has to happen on - particularly those that can earn a living purely through that ownership. if you don't want to call that group of people capitalists, what would you rather call them?

That's my contention,.. that all life is inherently capitalistic. Life is the storing up and use of energy to continue a pattern through time.

But,.. If you want to limit this to "controllers of all things life giving", that's fine, although my more expansive definition will creep in.

Firstly,... you can run through innumerable examples of despots that use accumulated wealth for evil.

But your continual urge to insist that economics and governance are THE SAME THING (as you don't seem to see that capitalists have existed forever regardless of the political systems that they work within), tells me that the real motive of the communist is an anger at a perceived "unfair distribution" of stuff (money, power, ability to do) and a wish to "make it better" by governance, not by economics.

In other words, the communist wants to control nature via intellect (using reasoned force to curb evil nature),.. while the capitalist wants to control nature by nature (using the pressures of markets to access the natural flows of energy).

What does the communist wish this control to result in: An unreal homogeneity and stasis of a "perfect humanity".

The capitalist: a dynamic game that improves conditions over time.

Once again,.. the communist wishes to be the sphincter of the world, controlling, organizing and minimizing the outflow of evil.

The capitalist wishes to be the eyes, ears and mouth of the world, finding pockets of latent energy, learning from the world the way the world works, and taking in that which promotes growth and health of the body.

Just my opinion, of course. :)

That's my contention,.. that all life is inherently capitalistic. Life is the storing up and use of energy to continue a pattern through time.


uh... only if you seriously distort the meaning of capitalism. IN short, capitalism is an economic system where rents are charged for the use of land, labour and capital; this is different than economic systems such as master/slave or feudalism. The key element of capitalism is the charging of rents, which is NOT something that occurs in nature (though I think arguing from nature is a pretty dumb thing to do anyways).

But your continual urge to insist that economics and governance are THE SAME THING (as you don't seem to see that capitalists have existed forever regardless of the political systems that they work within), tells me that the real motive of the communist is an anger at a perceived "unfair distribution" of stuff (money, power, ability to do) and a wish to "make it better" by governance, not by economics.


Governance and economics are effectively inseperable; until about 30 years ago there was considered to be no major difference; the teaching of political science was inextricably linked to economics (as it rightly should be). The history of politics/governance is in fact the history of the means and mode of production.

I think most of us can agree that the current global distribution of wealth is unfair; however, there is no agreement as to what should be done, if anything, about it.

In other words, the communist wants to control nature via intellect (using reasoned force to curb evil nature),.. while the capitalist wants to control nature by nature (using the pressures of markets to access the natural flows of energy).
I reject the ideas of both capitalism and markets as somehow natural. They are clearly artificial institutions- show me an animal that charges rents, and maybe you'd have a point.

What does the communist wish this control to result in: An unreal homogeneity and stasis of a "perfect humanity".
Show some argumentation at least. Most communists seem to want a greater diversity than the mindless corporate consumerism preached by capitalists.

The capitalist: a dynamic game that improves conditions over time.
No, the capitalist: owner/shareholder who charges economic rents for capital not personally being used.

Once again,.. the communist wishes to be the sphincter of the world, controlling, organizing and minimizing the outflow of evil.
uh... what?

The capitalist wishes to be the eyes, ears and mouth of the world, finding pockets of latent energy, learning from the world the way the world works, and taking in that which promotes growth and health of the body.

No, the capitalist wishes to be the tapeworm of the world; mindlessly consuming everything it can while taking no responsibility for the problems it creates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
That's my contention,.. that all life is inherently capitalistic. Life is the storing up and use of energy to continue a pattern through time.



uh... only if you seriously distort the meaning of capitalism. IN short, capitalism is an economic system where rents are charged for the use of land, labour and capital; this is different than economic systems such as master/slave or feudalism. The key element of capitalism is the charging of rents, which is NOT something that occurs in nature (though I think arguing from nature is a pretty dumb thing to do anyways).


Quote:
But your continual urge to insist that economics and governance are THE SAME THING (as you don't seem to see that capitalists have existed forever regardless of the political systems that they work within), tells me that the real motive of the communist is an anger at a perceived "unfair distribution" of stuff (money, power, ability to do) and a wish to "make it better" by governance, not by economics.



Governance and economics are effectively inseperable; until about 30 years ago there was considered to be no major difference; the teaching of political science was inextricably linked to economics (as it rightly should be). The history of politics/governance is in fact the history of the means and mode of production.

I think most of us can agree that the current global distribution of wealth is unfair; however, there is no agreement as to what should be done, if anything, about it.


Quote:
In other words, the communist wants to control nature via intellect (using reasoned force to curb evil nature),.. while the capitalist wants to control nature by nature (using the pressures of markets to access the natural flows of energy).


I reject the ideas of both capitalism and markets as somehow natural. They are clearly artificial institutions- show me an animal that charges rents, and maybe you'd have a point.


Quote:
What does the communist wish this control to result in: An unreal homogeneity and stasis of a "perfect humanity".


Show some argumentation at least. Most communists seem to want a greater diversity than the mindless corporate consumerism preached by capitalists.


Quote:
The capitalist: a dynamic game that improves conditions over time.

No, the capitalist: owner/shareholder who charges economic rents for capital not personally being used.


Quote:
Once again,.. the communist wishes to be the sphincter of the world, controlling, organizing and minimizing the outflow of evil.

uh... what?


Quote:
The capitalist wishes to be the eyes, ears and mouth of the world, finding pockets of latent energy, learning from the world the way the world works, and taking in that which promotes growth and health of the body.


No, the capitalist wishes to be the tapeworm of the world; mindlessly consuming everything it can while taking no responsibility for the problems it creates.

Rents..!

Apparently RENTS are the key concept of communism. More accurately the hatred OF rents.

Rent is a payment for access to an energy stream.

Rent in nature:
The herd of gazelle pays for access to it's watering hole by the occassional sacrifice of one of it's members to the local lion pride.

This is otherwise known, generally, as ecology.

Your concept of "unfainess" is, to say the least, vague. When you say:

.."I think most of us can agree that the current global distribution of wealth is unfair; however, there is no agreement as to what should be done, if anything, about it."..

..I would respond with under what yardstick do you judge fairness..?

If you think all people everywhere should have the same, is fair, then we disagree on the definition of fairness.

Your definitions for the human condition are hide bound in egalitarian rhetoric and self-serving platitudes,.. as are mine by my philosophy.

I don't wish to disuade you from your point of view,.. merely give my impression of the "communist/anarchist/capitalist" realm.

The simple fact is that regardless of our views on the matter, the world will do what the world will do, and my opinion is that the anarchist/communist viewpoint, while interesting, doesn't describe anything but a fantastic hallucination of human nature, and is not helpful in doing what humans do on this planet.

Prove me wrong by creating a communist and/or anarchist paradise.



..and as to the "procto-graphical" references to communism,...

I see communists as anal retentive idealistic psychotics. Simply that. They are endlessly analysing the feces of society, looking for clues as to how to create a world were shit can be legislated out of existence and the great evil necessity of an anus, and it's direct appendages, the gullet, mouth, eyes and brain are closed down forever.

The goal of the communist is the extermination of the humanity of humanity.

..and that's why it simply won't work and will always fall to the energy flows of the world.

Rents..!

Apparently RENTS are the key concept of communism. More accurately the hatred OF rents.

Rent is a payment for access to an energy stream.

Rent in nature:
The herd of gazelle pays for access to it's watering hole by the occassional sacrifice of one of it's members to the local lion pride.

This is otherwise known, generally, as ecology.

Uh... no? There's no way you can be seriously suggesting predator-prey relationships are an example of rents (though I guess if you are that does say something about capitalism). Rent is not a 'payment for access to an energy stream' according to any economic model I've ever heard; while energy can be considered a form of rented capital, generally speaking rent is a different principle.

You seem to be distorting terms in order to support you arguments (which aren't really arguments but state points without any kind of support).

Your concept of "unfainess" is, to say the least, vague. When you say:

.."I think most of us can agree that the current global distribution of wealth is unfair; however, there is no agreement as to what should be done, if anything, about it."..

..I would respond with under what yardstick do you judge fairness..?

If you think all people everywhere should have the same, is fair, then we disagree on the definition of fairness.

No, that's not what I think fairness means. I would say the best definition of fairness would be something like "people getting what they deserve"- we should all have those things which we have earned through our own effforts, not a birth lottery of geographical location or social status. In short, I think an essentially Rawlsian view of fairness is probably the best.

Your definitions for the human condition are hide bound in egalitarian rhetoric and self-serving platitudes,.. as are mine by my philosophy.

Ok, what definition do you take issue with? I'd be happy to discuss them.

Prove me wrong by creating a communist and/or anarchist paradise.

There are litterally thousands, ranging from Isrealing kibbutzes (sp?) to North AMerican communal farms.

I see communists as anal retentive idealistic psychotics. Simply that. They are endlessly analysing the feces of society, looking for clues as to how to create a world were shit can be legislated out of existence and the great evil necessity of an anus, and it's direct appendages, the gullet, mouth, eyes and brain are closed down forever.

The goal of the communist is the extermination of the humanity of humanity.

I disagree. I think the goal of communism (whether this goal is attainable or otherwise is a different thing entirely) is to allow each individual to succeed to his or her greatest potentential.

..and that's why it simply won't work and will always fall to the energy flows of the world.
Of course it does work, for many people. I won't advocate a global communist revolution, but on a communal level, egalitarian philosophies like anarchism have succeeded countless times, and will continue to succeed in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Rents..!

Apparently RENTS are the key concept of communism. More accurately the hatred OF rents.

Rent is a payment for access to an energy stream.

Rent in nature:
The herd of gazelle pays for access to it's watering hole by the occassional sacrifice of one of it's members to the local lion pride.

This is otherwise known, generally, as ecology.


Uh... no? There's no way you can be seriously suggesting predator-prey relationships are an example of rents (though I guess if you are that does say something about capitalism). Rent is not a 'payment for access to an energy stream' according to any economic model I've ever heard; while energy can be considered a form of rented capital, generally speaking rent is a different principle.

You seem to be distorting terms in order to support you arguments (which aren't really arguments but state points without any kind of support).


What is rent then, if it's not purchasing the right to have access to a desired resource..?

That's what I mean by "payment for access to an energy stream".

I don't make arguments. I state my point of view.

You are free to disagree with me. State your own precepts on the issues.

On your examples of working communes, I'm very glad that people in small groups have figured out how to get along. What is the largest single commune population that you can find?

Do they feed themselves entirely? Do they take nothing from any economic source but their own (or a like governed society)?

My point is that communistic societies will always feed off the energy store of "the real world" which is by definition capitalistic.

A working macro-communistic society will eventually run down because of it's inability to effectively maintain a tap into the energy flows (money) of the "real world" due to it's never being reciprocal with the energy that it uses.

In other words, because a commune never gives back what it takes from it's neighbors, it soon becomes a "bad neighbor" that is eventually shunned and forced, by economic pressures, to deteriorate internally.

Illuminate me on the economics of a commune of largish size. Such a beast sounds fascinating.

Firstly,.. Has anyone else noticed the preponderance of angry adolescents that purport to be anarchists and/or communists..?I was libertarian whan I was adolescent. I'm angry because that may be the 200th time I have to explain everything to some people brain-washed by their capitalist propaganda and uninformed about marxism. I wish you had read the thread or a book about communism. Well whatever. Let's go on.

So "individuals owning the means of production" is evil. Hmmmmm...

So your owning a knife is evil..? You could use it to produce things.
I'm not Bush and I'm not trying to cut the world into good and evil, no there is no evil in owning a knife.
It is about efficiency. Well I'll respond to all your posts and I'll link to an article explaining what is communism so you know what it is about and then we can talk about the same thing, instead of talking non-sense.

If have have a stiffy (male OR female, I don't care) against those who own things, then I would suggest you follow your chosen path by renouncing ownership of all your things, put on only the clothes of your own growing and making, and truly live by your words. Or get your stuff from your "people".
It is not about your tooth brush, your pants of your wife, not even your car. It is about the nuclear plants, the factories, the roads and the train system. In other words, the things for which private ownership does not make sense because they are not personnal stuff.

Problem is that your people, like yourself, are so fixated on the juvenile hatred you have for anyone that "owns" anything that you have no time for doing what you say is your "goal", namely, the betterment of mankind.

What does a communist DO to make the world better..?
I'm a software developper and I work for a big financial institution. I won't go into the details, but needless to say this work is 100% useless. I do it for the money, so I can support my family and I work on linux on my spare time so as to make something useful.
I'm a member of the red cross.
I spend one out of 2 week-ends in the red cross.
I just wish I did not have to do what the state should be doing.

Thank you for your service to the assembled masses as a wonderful example of an idealistic hatefilled juvenile who will one day morph, inexorably, into a sensible parent or parent-like person.To me, you look exactly like that. You shout non-sense that comes straight from Fox news and you don't even know what it means.

IE: One who sees that life is not communistic but capitalistic in nature.
Like this

The plant owns it's means of production.
Or like that

The cat owns it's means of production. (teeth and claws)

The human owns it's means of production. (brain and hands)

Once again, the communists means of production are his/her ass, not head.

Like you knew what you were talking about.
When a cat own the teeth and claws of another cat for only his own benefit, it will own the means of production.

More adolescent whining from the gallery.Use your brain now please.

Money is an accumulation of energy. It is potential energy. It is the ability to DO.

Money, just like any other tool, is useful for good or evil.

I'm sorry that your traumatic existence in this world has left you with the impression that money is inherently evil, as are those who wield it.
Like communism had anything to do with money.
The workers receive money in communism and they use it to buy stuff.
You (the McCarthyists) are the only ones assuming communism is about suppressing money.

My opinion,... all communists should be forced to live in their own little communistic areas, living by their own principles, for as long as they enjoy doing so, or until they can bare it no longer.

"Capital" is derived from the latin for "head".

It is the "product of one's head".

Your juvenile equations of money with evil, and capitalists with evil are the products of minds too long in infantilist self-absorption with not having been "given what you deserve" by your "mommies" and not being shown the bounds of the world by your daddies.

Other than that, you're all fine examples of slaves with a pissy on.[/FONT][/COLOR]
No need to comment on that. I think you mst know it is non-sense.

That's my contention,.. that all life is inherently capitalistic. Life is the storing up and use of energy to continue a pattern through time.
You put too much meaning in capitalism. This is classical McCarthyism.
Capitalism = democracy = freedom = trade = life = whatever = good
Communism = homosexuality = evil = suppression of money = utopic dream = dictatorship = whatever.
It doesn't make any sense at all, this is just propaganda.

But,.. If you want to limit this to "controllers of all things life giving", that's fine, although my more expansive definition will creep in.

Firstly,... you can run through innumerable examples of despots that use accumulated wealth for evil.

But your continual urge to insist that economics and governance are THE SAME THING (as you don't seem to see that capitalists have existed forever regardless of the political systems that they work within), tells me that the real motive of the communist is an anger at a perceived "unfair distribution" of stuff (money, power, ability to do) and a wish to "make it better" by governance, not by economics.

In other words, the communist wants to control nature via intellect (using reasoned force to curb evil nature),.. while the capitalist wants to control nature by nature (using the pressures of markets to access the natural flows of energy).

What does the communist wish this control to result in: An unreal homogeneity and stasis of a "perfect humanity".
See?
You don't know what communism is about

The capitalist: a dynamic game that improves conditions over time.
And there again.

Once again,.. the communist wishes to be the sphincter of the world, controlling, organizing and minimizing the outflow of evil.

The capitalist wishes to be the eyes, ears and mouth of the world, finding pockets of latent energy, learning from the world the way the world works, and taking in that which promotes growth and health of the body.

Just my opinion, of course. :)
No it is not an opinion, you don't have opinion, because you don't know what you are talking about. It is just propaganda. You repeat what they told you without any kind of knowledge.

What is rent then, if it's not purchasing the right to have access to a desired resource..?The rent is not the problem. The problem is that you rent from private persons. Purchasing is OK, renting to someone else is not OK, because you don't have a god's right over the things you rent. If you have to purshase a car, it has to be from the commune, not from someone who claims to have a god right to own all the cars that thousands of people are working to make.

That's what I mean by "payment for access to an energy stream".
And it is not the problem again. The problem is that the people you pay don't work at all. They just own that energy stream and you pay them to access it. You paying is OK. Them owning and receiving your pay is not OK.

I don't make arguments. I state my point of view.
It's not your point of view. It's the one of the capitalists who braiwashed you.

You are free to disagree with me. State your own precepts on the issues.
I'm going to post a link after that.

On your examples of working communes, I'm very glad that people in small groups have figured out how to get along. What is the largest single commune population that you can find?
You are happy to have free public school, free health care, ban on child labor, minimum wages and free roads, but at the same time you say that communal ownership is not possible.
Let me tell you something. You're spiting on the people who fought for you to have all that. 200 years ago, ban on child labor was considered utopian and people like you thought the ones who were fighting for it were dreaming, but you are the one dreaming.

Do they feed themselves entirely? Do they take nothing from any economic source but their own (or a like governed society)?

My point is that communistic societies will always feed off the energy store of "the real world" which is by definition capitalistic.Bullshit. You're too close minded.

A working macro-communistic society will eventually run down because of it's inability to effectively maintain a tap into the energy flows (money) of the "real world" due to it's never being reciprocal with the energy that it uses.

In other words, because a commune never gives back what it takes from it's neighbors, it soon becomes a "bad neighbor" that is eventually shunned and forced, by economic pressures, to deteriorate internally.

Illuminate me on the economics of a commune of largish size. Such a beast sounds fascinating.[/FONT][/COLOR]
Bullshit. Most non-regulated capitalist societies can't sustain themselves. Look at Angola, Argentina and all those countries without labor law or public services. They are starving. Be happy to have all your social progress and stop spitting on those who are fighting for you.

I'm going to post a link. Give me 2 hours.

The idea of private police is silly. Tyranny by the police is far too likely, so everyone would have to be armed to protect against the police, and at that point there's no reason to have them since everyone can protect themselves. On the other hand, the same basic argument can be used for the government, it's just a matter of trust. You have to trust that the police won't try to control you and will instead protect you. The only real solution, I think, is mutually ensured destruction, that is to say that if the police stop protecting and start terrorizing people they stop getting food.
Do you understand the system? With private police you have recourse if something goes wrong, with govt police you don't. The same arguments you used apply even more forcefully to govt police. Similar systems have worked so it is futile to say it can't work.

Here is a rather lengthy summary of some of the things I have found on private law.

Starting earliest to latest, private or mostly private justice systems have existed in:

Ireland for ~ 1000 years until invaded by British. There were kings but security was provided by voluntary groups and justice was provided by a wandering judges called "Brehons". The king was just a military head and didn't get involved in justice. In fact, it was possible to sue the king.

Anglo-Saxon England, partially destroyed when Viking raiders necessitated consolidated military defence. The king enforced a monopoly on justice so that he could execute the criminals and confiscate their lands and property. After the Normans invaded they gradually subverted the system. Prior to that most punishment was in the form of restitution for the victim. Again there were voluntary groups for defence and the groups mediated disputes within themselves and between each other. Again the King was mostly a military figure and English Royal law was basically the codification of the customary laws which arose spontaneously from the bottom up.

Medieval Iceland: Probably the best example from ~ 900 - 1200. Iceland had exactly 1 govt employee who was elected each year and would make the laws. People grouped under chiefs (uaually wealthy landowners) but you could change your chief voluntarily. It had private courts which were well respected. There was no organised military. Historical records indicate that the murder rate was at the worst period ~ the same as a modern US city, quite remarkable for the dark ages. It ended due to subversion by the King of Norway and the church and the unfortunate fact that the title of chief was cartelised by law.

Law Merchants: The law merchants operated in the free ports in the middle ages. International merchants used them to decide disputes and they were responsible for much international trade, banking and contract law *later copied* by the state. Remarkably, they never needed to back their verdicts with violence. Any merchant who ignored the courts was shunned by everyone else until he agreed to abide by the decision. Without the innovations due to private law the commercial revolution could not have happened. Eventually the state copied the private laws.

Admirality and Sea law: The admirality law and other provisions such as salvage law was developed and enforced almost entirely by the private sector. Again the state copied laws originating from the private sector.

Revolutionary America: During the war of independence all security provision was private. After the war James Madison (one of the founding fathers) said something to the effect, "we'd better start a govt quick before people realise they don't need one". The revolutionary army were voluntary militia proving even military defence is possible without the state.

19th century England: Private law was active again in the industrial age. Govt law was breaking down and inefficient and couldn't cope with organised crime (veterans of the Napoleonic wars didn't care much for real work and were trained in applying organised violence). Security was provided by voluntary groups called "thieftakers". Govt police were established ~ 150 years ago against great opposition from many sectors of the public. The rich were happy to have the state subsidise their expensive security.

The "not-so-wild" west: Settlers were moving west faster than the feds. Settlers traveled in convoys for security and before joining a convoy one had to sign a contract stipulating how justice would be supplied. Usually each person would choose a judge and the 2 judges would jointly choose a 3rd. Once settled justice was still supplied privately. The "gunslingers" generally preferred to rent themselves out to catch theives and murderers rather than become outlaws themselves. In California the miners set up courts to mediate claims. They remarked on how much crime increased when the Feds arrived.

More recent examples:

'60s New York: During a week long police strike crime increased....not at all.

African Tribe with hard to remember name: A study in the 50s of some African tribe observed how they provided justice without the state. If there was an argument it was mediated by a strong and respected member of the community with a good reputation for this sort of thing. Most punishment was in the form of fines and killers were declared outlaw, meaning anyone could kill them in retaliation without legal repercussions.

Somalia: Often pointed to as an example of dysfunctional anarchy many parts of Somalia are peaceful, namely the parts where govt was never strong. The non peaceful parts such as Mogadishu are basically in civil war between rival would be govts, not a stateless society.

Modern America: Many towns now contract out police services. In the example I saw read about the private police cost half the price and actually reduced crime substantially (about a third or something) by preventing rather than solving crime.

Most provision of protection is already private: locks, alarms, neighbourhood watch, guns, dogs etc. And the police just couldn't work at all without the cooperation of the public as witnesses etc.

The common features of private law are: Private property (sorry commies, deal with it), restitution rather than punishment, shunning as punishment, mutual aid groups and respect for courts. Whenever private law has been subsumed by state law a marked worsening in crime has occured and a move towards incarceration rather than restitution meaning that the victim is neglected rather than "made whole again".

Links: Private law - http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm
Ireland - http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf
England - http://libertariannation.org/a/f21l1.html
Iceland - http://libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html
"Wild" west: - http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
Primitive societies - http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf
What it might look like today (just a guess, mind) - http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

...
You said it yourself. It was the middle ages. There was no internet, no nuclear weapon, no civilization. Those people were barbaric as compared to us.

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Comic Sans MS]The simple fact is that regardless of our views on the matter, the world will do what the world will do, and my opinion is that the anarchist/communist viewpoint, while interesting, doesn't describe anything but a fantastic hallucination of human nature, and is not helpful in doing what humans do on this planet.

Prove me wrong by creating a communist and/or anarchist paradise.
"What we call human nature is in actuality human habit." - Jewel

Prove us wrong by creating a capitalist paradise.

You said it yourself. It was the middle ages. There was no internet, no nuclear weapon, no civilization.
???
:confused:

???
:confused:
I meant they were not as civilized as we are.
They thought black people were not human for instance.
They were quite barbaric, believe me.

I meant they were not as civilized as we are.
Where is this sliding scale you are using?
They thought black people were not human for instance.
A person in Medieval England thought Blacks were inferior. Probably, but how many people there had seen one?
They were quite barbaric, believe me.
Your that old :eek:

Where is this sliding scale you are using?I was wrong they were a little civilized, not un-civilized. We are more civilized than they were though.
No need to discuss it anymore.

I was wrong they were a little civilized, not un-civilized. We are more civilized than they were though.
No need to discuss it anymore.
Do you think it's civilised to lock someone up for years if they sell something that makes you feel good? Do you think it's civilised to murder Iraquis? What is the difference between the medieval church locking up Galileo and modern states banning genetic research to stop people "playing god"?

If a medieval person saw our world he could point out many ways we are less civilised than they. It's easy to see the faults in other cultures but hard to see them in your own.

Do you think it's civilised to lock someone up for years if they sell something that makes you feel good? Do you think it's civilised to murder Iraquis? What is the difference between the medieval church locking up Galileo and modern states banning genetic research to stop people "playing god"?

If a medieval person saw our world he could point out many ways we are less civilised than they. It's easy to see the faults in other cultures but hard to see them in your own.
But genetic research did not even exist then.
The average person died at 45, they had no education, they thought the earth was flat. They did not know about the atoms, relativity and gravity and they thought the world was europe and a little of Africa.
Even you in your post, when you say crime was pretty low, you say it was pretty low FOR THEIR TIME. Such a high level of crime would be unacceptable today. We have much more expectations than they had.

I agree actually that we are not fully civilized, but we are more than they were and I think the way forward is the way to civilization. The way backward is the way to barbarism. Deregulation and anti-socialism is the way backward in my opinion.

But genetic research did not even exist then.
The average person died at 45, they had no education, they thought the earth was flat. They did not know about the atoms, relativity and gravity and they thought the world was europe and a little of Africa.
Even you in your post, when you say crime was pretty low, you say it was pretty low FOR THEIR TIME. Such a high level of crime would be unacceptable today. We have much more expectations than they had.

I agree actually that we are not fully civilized, but we are more than they were and I think the way forward is the way to civilization. The way backward is the way to barbarism. Deregulation and anti-socialism is the way backward in my opinion.
Regulation and socialism is a step backwards. It was during the hayday of classical liberalism when we deregulated. Previously industry was dominated by privilidged guilds. This unleashed the industrial revolution. Socialism is trying to achieve liberal goals of wealth, peace and tolerance through the conservative means of violence and coercion.

Our current system is much closer to Elizabethan times than it is to the enlightenment. If this system had stayed in place the industrial revolution wouldn't have been as complete if it had happened at all. Other progress wouldn't have happened either, e.g. penicillan wouldn't pass modern drugs regulations. If our ancestors had been taxed at 40+% they would have starved to death.

Socialists are the real reactionaries.

Regulation and socialism is a step backwards. It was during the hayday of classical liberalism when we deregulated. Previously industry was dominated by privilidged guilds. This unleashed the industrial revolution. Socialism is trying to achieve liberal goals of wealth, peace and tolerance through the conservative means of violence and coercion.

Our current system is much closer to Elizabethan times than it is to the enlightenment. If this system had stayed in place the industrial revolution wouldn't have been as complete if it had happened at all. Other progress wouldn't have happened either, e.g. penicillan wouldn't pass modern drugs regulations. If our ancestors had been taxed at 40+% they would have starved to death.

Socialists are the real reactionaries.I didn't get everything you said. I think I don't know what the Elizabethan times are and what the enlightenment is, or perhaps I call those time with other words.

I think however that our ancestors would not have starved if the government had provided food (even if being taxed).

I think capitalism was necessary for the industrial revolution to happen. But I think our society is now mature enough to nationalize some major industries. I think that privatizing what has been nationalized is non-sense. Capitalism is good at finding new stuff, but it is bad at sharing the wealth. Once the new stuff has been found, it is best to have it nationalized so everyone can benefit from it. Doing it the other way around it foolish : letting the state inovate (something it is not good at) and letting capitalism share the benefit of it (something it is horrible at).

Perhaps it is not related with what you said though. I didn't really get everything.

I think it is about time to nationalize the banking industry.

I didn't get everything you said. I think I don't know what the Elizabethan times are and what the enlightenment is, or perhaps I call those time with other words.
Elizabethan ~ 1600AD, Enlightenment = science, industrialism, liberalism etc taken as a package, roughly speaking.

I think however that our ancestors would not have starved if the government had provided food (even if being taxed).
You're wrong. Sorry, there's nothing else to say.

I think capitalism was necessary for the industrial revolution to happen. But I think our society is now mature enough to nationalize some major industries. I think that privatizing what has been nationalized is non-sense. Capitalism is good at finding new stuff, but it is bad at sharing the wealth. Once the new stuff has been found, it is best to have it nationalized so everyone can benefit from it. Doing it the other way around it foolish : letting the state inovate (something it is not good at) and letting capitalism share the benefit of it (something it is horrible at).
Then you would have missed the information revolution too, and whatever revolution is next. "Capitalism" is a bad word and means nothing interesting. The free market is actually quite good at sharing wealth among those who are willing to work, that's why most corporations hate it.

I think it is about time to nationalize the banking industry.
You're nuts! Do you have any idea what a disaster it would be to allow bureaucrats to determine investment???

Then you would have missed the information revolution too, and whatever revolution is next. "Capitalism" is a bad word and means nothing interesting. The free market is actually quite good at sharing wealth among those who are willing to work, that's why most corporations hate it.Sorry for using the capitalism word.

I think the information revolution happened thanks to the governments. They did most of the research. In France, we had the minitel thanks to the public service. I think the information revolution has been high-jacked by the corporations.

I think the free market is flawed because it can't stay free by itself.
I think that it necessarily creates monopolies which eventually end up as dictatorships.
I think a government intervention is needed in order to keep the market free.

You're nuts! Do you have any idea what a disaster it would be to allow bureaucrats to determine investment??? I think the bureaucrats are running the banks currently. They create money, they sell and buy things they know nothing about and they have no vision, no service.
I work in a bank, and the only thing they do is pushing the corporations to cut the salaries, buy big corporations, merge them and sell the result, this kind of stuff. They create nothing of value. They analyse the business based on profit, but they don't know how good it is in real life.
Their favorite games :
buying company X, buying the customers, pushing the customers to buy more from company X, selling company X and pushing the customers to stop buying from company X.
It is funny because sometimes they include company X in the customers, pushing company X to buy more from itself. Look at the big corporations. Sometimes their first customers are themselves. It drives the revenues higher, although it doesn't increase profit, but then the market thinks it is good because if the revenue increases, there is room to increase the profits.
They also like to "rationalize" the market. It means that they concentrate many small businesses into one big corporation. They pretend it does economies of scale, when in fact it does increase bureaucracy, but at the same time it lowers the competition.
And they have this wonder, called 'warrants'. They buy stuff in the future. They don't pay it and they don't receive it, but they can sell it.
Of course when they pay it, they make sure it has became worthless, but they already sold it as expensive as it can be. It's called "down speculating" (don't know the exact english expression for that sorry "spéculation à la baisse"). It's fun because you always win, because the simple fact of selling the stock share makes it fall, ensuring that you will pay it at the lower price.
Oh and this new stuff. The BNP is a french bank. They invented the worthless stock shares. Basically, it is a stock share they issue on the market, called "CAC40 -4000", "CAC40 -5000" and so on.
It is just entertainment for investors : the "CAC40 -4000" is supposed to go up when the CAC40 is going close to €4000. Of course, due to the random nature of the market, it is not the case at all, but it entertains some private investors. Some investors loose and some win, but the BNP always win. There is no more dividends, just an empty share, just like Microsoft's ones.

Do you think there can be more bureaucracy than that?

I think the free market is flawed because it can't stay free by itself.
Not if there's a govt to make it un-free, no.

I think that it necessarily creates monopolies which eventually end up as dictatorships.
That's just untrue. Research into monopolies has advanced and refuted Marx's claims. A free market would have even less monopoly than this mercantilist system.

I think a government intervention is needed in order to keep the market free.
That's a contradiction. And any govt intervention is likely to favour big business, according to economic theory and historical practice.

That's a contradiction. And any govt intervention is likely to favour big business, according to economic theory and historical practice.This is not false, at least in today's world it is true. You have a point here.
I have to think about it.

I've thought a little.
On one hand, we can't let the market become a dictatorship by itself.
On the other hand, we can't let the government impose the dictatorship of the market.
On the third hand, the proletariat controls the means of production.
Does that mean a revolution is the only way?
I have to think more about that because I don't like this conclusion.

I've thought a little.
On one hand, we can't let the market become a dictatorship by itself.
On the other hand, we can't let the government impose the dictatorship of the market.
On the third hand, the proletariat controls the means of production.
Does that mean a revolution is the only way?
I have to think more about that because I don't like this conclusion.
It means we need to get rid of the govt which will prevent any dictatorship (the free market will not allow power to be sufficiently concentrated). With so many hands you should have no problem achieving this :)

It means we need to get rid of the govt which will prevent any dictatorship (the free market will not allow power to be sufficiently concentrated). With so many hands you should have no problem achieving this :)
The free market can create dictatorships as well so getting rid of governments is utopian IMO.

The free market can create dictatorships as well so getting rid of governments is utopian IMO.
The only thing that can stop this under any system is an armed population willing to use their guns. However, it is much harder to establish a govt (never mind dictatorship) from scratch when there are thousands of protection agencies and no govt than to gain control when there is a centralised state just waiting to be bought/seized.

For example the hardest parts of the British Empire for the Brits to keep control of were the parts of Ireland and Africa where no centralised state had previously existed. By contrast they ran India fairly easily (only one major rebellion in several centuries I think) by taking control of the already established govts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
What is rent then, if it's not purchasing the right to have access to a desired resource..?

The rent is not the problem. The problem is that you rent from private persons. Purchasing is OK, renting to someone else is not OK, because you don't have a god's right over the things you rent. If you have to purshase a car, it has to be from the commune, not from someone who claims to have a god right to own all the cars that thousands of people are working to make.

Quote:
That's what I mean by "payment for access to an energy stream".


And it is not the problem again. The problem is that the people you pay don't work at all. They just own that energy stream and you pay them to access it. You paying is OK. Them owning and receiving your pay is not OK.

Quote:
I don't make arguments. I state my point of view.


It's not your point of view. It's the one of the capitalists who braiwashed you.

Quote:
You are free to disagree with me. State your own precepts on the issues.


I'm going to post a link after that.

Quote:
On your examples of working communes, I'm very glad that people in small groups have figured out how to get along. What is the largest single commune population that you can find?


You are happy to have free public school, free health care, ban on child labor, minimum wages and free roads, but at the same time you say that communal ownership is not possible.
Let me tell you something. You're spiting on the people who fought for you to have all that. 200 years ago, ban on child labor was considered utopian and people like you thought the ones who were fighting for it were dreaming, but you are the one dreaming.

Quote:
Do they feed themselves entirely? Do they take nothing from any economic source but their own (or a like governed society)?

My point is that communistic societies will always feed off the energy store of "the real world" which is by definition capitalistic.

Bullshit. You're too close minded.

Quote:
A working macro-communistic society will eventually run down because of it's inability to effectively maintain a tap into the energy flows (money) of the "real world" due to it's never being reciprocal with the energy that it uses.

In other words, because a commune never gives back what it takes from it's neighbors, it soon becomes a "bad neighbor" that is eventually shunned and forced, by economic pressures, to deteriorate internally.

Illuminate me on the economics of a commune of largish size. Such a beast sounds fascinating.


Bullshit. Most non-regulated capitalist societies can't sustain themselves. Look at Angola, Argentina and all those countries without labor law or public services. They are starving. Be happy to have all your social progress and stop spitting on those who are fighting for you.

I'm going to post a link. Give me 2 hours.

Heh he he he he he.... :D

You just don't get it, Psylos.

I have my beliefs. You have yours. You describe things as you see them in your words,.. and I describe them in mine.

You CAN NOT convince me of the "validity" of your views.

You can merely illustrate your views.

And, as usual, you, as a die-hard leftist, or any leftist for that matter, have a lovely infantile preoccupation with feces, as illustrated by your constant reference to "bullshit".

Your constant and religious fervor to convert "the unbeliever [in communism]" and the "heretic [the indoctrinated capitalist]" is a perfect illustration of the adolescent true-believing proselytizer.

Carry on with your fervor, as it's quite amusing,.. and beautifully shows the non-comprehension that is a salient characteristic of any abject fanatic.

Other than that,.. hope you're having fun, like I am, and have a really peachy day..! :)

Heh he he he he he.... :D

You just don't get it, Psylos.

I have my beliefs. You have yours. You describe things as you see them in your words,.. and I describe them in mine.

You CAN NOT convince me of the "validity" of your views.

You can merely illustrate your views.

And, as usual, you, as a die-hard leftist, or any leftist for that matter, have a lovely infantile preoccupation with feces, as illustrated by your constant reference to "bullshit".

Your constant and religious fervor to convert "the unbeliever [in communism]" and the "heretic [the indoctrinated capitalist]" is a perfect illustration of the adolescent true-believing proselytizer.

Carry on with your fervor, as it's quite amusing,.. and beautifully shows the non-comprehension that is a salient characteristic of any abject fanatic.

Other than that,.. hope you're having fun, like I am, and have a really peachy day..! :)I have no belief. I know facts.
I'm arguing with some people, but with you it was not an argument, it was education.
You didn't know what capitalism were and you didn't know what communism was. I hope you have learnt something.
The thing you have to grasp is that private ownership of capital does not necessarily mean democracy, freedom or good and that comunal ownership of capital is not dictatorship, homosexuality or whatever. It is just that.
Those things are real system, there is no god or nature behind them. They are not religion. Argumentating to find out which system is good at what is good and you can use science for that, you don't have to use beliefs or religion.
We are having a philosophical discussion, not a theological one. Now some people believe in capitalism or in communism because of religion and they use propaganda, like you were. I hope you will use facts in the future if you'd like to have a real philosophical argument.

The only thing that can stop this under any system is an armed population willing to use their guns. However, it is much harder to establish a govt (never mind dictatorship) from scratch when there are thousands of protection agencies and no govt than to gain control when there is a centralised state just waiting to be bought/seized.

For example the hardest parts of the British Empire for the Brits to keep control of were the parts of Ireland and Africa where no centralised state had previously existed. By contrast they ran India fairly easily (only one major rebellion in several centuries I think) by taking control of the already established govts.
But is chaos any better than dictatorship?

Anarchy (Libertarian Socialism) is the governmental structure of the future. It is not chaos or disorder but it is in fact the exact opposite. In a working system of Anarchy the people will work together not for material gains or profit and a mans worth and success will not be determined by his business sense or monitary gains but by his contribution to mankind, the earth, the universe, and ultimately the future. It is only through complete freedom of choice without fear of reprecussion from a parent figure government that this will ever be acheived. Unfortunatly mankind is not ready for such a dramatic and heavy responsibillity as anarchy. Mankind in general is both selfish and evil at nature. Our very existence on this planet can be compared to that of cancer cells spreading and destroying one's body. Most people also have no real grasp on the meaning of the word "freedom". If they did they would wake up and recognize that they are already free and that they did not have to continue they're selfish, evil ways because there would be no point.They would come to understand that they had something more valuble than money or gold...freedom. People have become convinced that freedom and money go hand in hand. It is my beleif that the dream of Anarchy must remain just that until mankind has evolved through education (and I don't mean the Orwellian system of education we have in America where only the ruling party's information is contained). Education must inspire individual critical thinking. Without that people will remain oblivious to the fact that they are oppressed and that the freedom they think they have is an illusion and that something better lays in wait in the future for everyone on the planet earth and beyond.

Anarchy (Libertarian Socialism) is the governmental structure of the future. It is not chaos or disorder but it is in fact the exact opposite. In a working system of Anarchy the people will work together not for material gains or profit and a mans worth and success will not be determined by his business sense or monitary gains but by his contribution to mankind, the earth, the universe, and ultimately the future. It is only through complete freedom of choice without fear of reprecussion from a parent figure government that this will ever be acheived. Unfortunatly mankind is not ready for such a dramatic and heavy responsibillity as anarchy. Mankind in general is both selfish and evil at nature. Our very existence on this planet can be compared to that of cancer cells spreading and destroying one's body. Most people also have no real grasp on the meaning of the word "freedom". If they did they would wake up and recognize that they are already free and that they did not have to continue they're selfish, evil ways because there would be no point.They would come to understand that they had something more valuble than money or gold...freedom. People have become convinced that freedom and money go hand in hand. It is my beleif that the dream of Anarchy must remain just that until mankind has evolved through education (and I don't mean the Orwellian system of education we have in America where only the ruling party's information is contained). Education must inspire individual critical thinking. Without that people will remain oblivious to the fact that they are oppressed and that the freedom they think they have is an illusion and that something better lays in wait in the future for everyone on the planet earth and beyond

But is chaos any better than dictatorship?
No, but that isn't the choice. Are the agriculture, insurance and automobile industries chaotic, even though the govt doesn't run them? No. By contrast, is the UK health system chaotic? Yes. Statelessness will be far more ordered than our current chaotic system.

Anarchy (Libertarian Socialism) is the governmental structure of the future. It is not chaos or disorder but it is in fact the exact opposite. In a working system of Anarchy the people will work together not for material gains or profit and a mans worth and success will not be determined by his business sense or monitary gains but by his contribution to mankind, the earth, the universe, and ultimately the future. It is only through complete freedom of choice without fear of reprecussion from a parent figure government that this will ever be acheived. Unfortunatly mankind is not ready for such a dramatic and heavy responsibillity as anarchy. Mankind in general is both selfish and evil at nature. Our very existence on this planet can be compared to that of cancer cells spreading and destroying one's body. Most people also have no real grasp on the meaning of the word "freedom". If they did they would wake up and recognize that they are already free and that they did not have to continue they're selfish, evil ways because there would be no point.They would come to understand that they had something more valuble than money or gold...freedom. People have become convinced that freedom and money go hand in hand. It is my beleif that the dream of Anarchy must remain just that until mankind has evolved through education (and I don't mean the Orwellian system of education we have in America where only the ruling party's information is contained). Education must inspire individual critical thinking. Without that people will remain oblivious to the fact that they are oppressed and that the freedom they think they have is an illusion and that something better lays in wait in the future for everyone on the planet earth and beyond
Would paragraphs be too much of a hierarchy for you? :)

It means we need to get rid of the govt which will prevent any dictatorship (the free market will not allow power to be sufficiently concentrated). With so many hands you should have no problem achieving this :)Not at all, the free market, or any system of government which has money and an uneven distribution of it, will always concentrate power in the hands of those with money, since money = power.

No, but that isn't the choice. Are the agriculture, insurance and automobile industries chaotic, even though the govt doesn't run them? No. By contrast, is the UK health system chaotic? Yes. Statelessness will be far more ordered than our current chaotic system.
Agriculture is subsidised where I live.
Insurance sure is chaotic and it is quite an understatement.
The automobile industry on the othr hand is a good instance of a success of free maket.
The health system works just fine where I live.
But anyway, this is not the point. All those industries are running within a legal structure.
I'm not sure you can privatize the military, the police and the law without ending up in chaos. I can see how it can work, but I also can see how it can lead to a disaster.

I'm not sure you can nationalise the military, the police and the law without ending up in chaos. I can see how it can work, but I also can see how it can lead to a disaster.

In fact it has led to disaster in this country. Govt military spend our blood and treasure on imperialistic wars, govt police and laws lock people up for smoking drugs or not selling fruit using metric units. Private law, by contrast, is much more liberal and less open to abuse.

Whenever you think of a scenario that could mess up a private law system apply the same scenario to govt, it would always end up worse. Would Stalin have done as much harm in a private law system? Would Bush or Churchill?

I'm not sure you can nationalise the military, the police and the law without ending up in chaos. I can see how it can work, but I also can see how it can lead to a disaster.

In fact it has led to disaster in this country. Govt military spend our blood and treasure on imperialistic wars, govt police and laws lock people up for smoking drugs or not selling fruit using metric units. Private law, by contrast, is much more liberal and less open to abuse.

Whenever you think of a scenario that could mess up a private law system apply the same scenario to govt, it would always end up worse. Would Stalin have done as much harm in a private law system? Would Bush or Churchill?I think there are degrees in chaos.
There is chaos like in Afghanistan, and there is chaos like in the US.
I think there is a bigger chaos in Afghanistan because there is no law. In the US, the rich minority makes the law, we are one degree from chaos freedom-wise.
In chaos there is no freedom.
In my opinion Tyrany is better than Chaos, because there is freedom for one guy.
Then Olygarchy is better than Tyrany because there is freedom for the minority. I'd say the US is an olygarchy.
Democracy is better than Olygarchy because there is freedom for the majority.
Aristocracy is the best but it is utopian. It would mean the people have no vice.

I think that a libertarian aristocracy may be possible when all people are educated enough and when the human being has reached the status of god.

But currently, in the current world, I think we should focus on trying to achieve a real democracy from the oligarchy we have. And I think the human race can not jump from an olygarchy to an aristocracy and that any attempt will lead to chaos.

To illustrate what I mean, let's take the examples you gave. Let's remove Stalin and Churchill from history. Doesn't Hitler take over the USSR and Britain then? Is Hitler any better than Stalin or Churchill? Hardly. I'd say he is one degree worse.
As for Bush, he is one degree behind the rest of the world.

I think that a libertarian aristocracy may be possible when all people are educated enough and when the human being has reached the status of god.
A libertarian what???!!! There's no point assuming humans will somehow all be in some way perfect in the future, they won't.

But currently, in the current world, I think we should focus on trying to achieve a real democracy from the oligarchy we have. And I think the human race can not jump from an olygarchy to an aristocracy and that any attempt will lead to chaos.
No thanks.

To illustrate what I mean, let's take the examples you gave. Let's remove Stalin and Churchill from history. Doesn't Hitler take over the USSR and Britain then? Is Hitler any better than Stalin or Churchill? Hardly. I'd say he is one degree worse.
As for Bush, he is one degree behind the rest of the world.
Hitler had no intention of invading Britain until Britain declared war on him. He couldn't have held on to the USSR for the same reasons no European country held on to its empire, at least not directly. Personally I'd rather live in Nazi Germany than Soviet Russia, although neither is too appealing.

As an aside, imperialism isn't profitable in the modern world, it's too messy. It can only be profitable for one small group (like oil companies, as a random example) who can get concentraded benefits but disperse the cost amongst everyone via the govt.

As an aside, imperialism isn't profitable in the modern world, it's too messy. It can only be profitable for one small group (like oil companies, as a random example) who can get concentraded benefits but disperse the cost amongst everyone via the govt.
Yes, but it is that small group which has the power.
There is on way to remove the power from them but a revolution, IMO.

BTW, aristocracy is the "rule of the best", as defined by Plato and Aristote.
Basically, the idea is that the ruler is selfless and the best ruler possible. It also means that the farmers are the best farmers, the mechanicians are the best mechanicians available and so on.

Yes, but it is that small group which has the power.
There is on way to remove the power from them but a revolution, IMO.

I don't think so. Revolutions are not good. There is rarely any consensus amoungst the revolutionaries except that the current system must go. Afterwards they fight amongst themselves and usually just end up with another tyrant (Stalin, Napoleon, Mao...). I think the only way forward is for revolutionaries to move en-masse to some sparsely populated area and declare themselves independent.

BTW, aristocracy is the "rule of the best", as defined by Plato and Aristote.
Basically, the idea is that the ruler is selfless and the best ruler possible. It also means that the farmers are the best farmers, the mechanicians are the best mechanicians available and so on.
Libertarianism is the rule of each by him/herself.

As much as I like the idea of moving to an island and declaring it the Free Land of "Refused Party Program", it would just end up another Cuba in the current Capitalist society (shut up, I'm using that word whether you like it or not!). Although it will have it advantages it will also reek havoc in important areas. The damage to the critical cables alone will be sufficient to bring us all down.

THE CRITICAL CABLES, GOD DAMN IT!!!

As much as I like the idea of moving to an island and declaring it the Free Land of "Refused Party Program", it would just end up another Cuba in the current Capitalist society (shut up, I'm using that word whether you like it or not!). Although it will have it advantages it will also reek havoc in important areas. The damage to the critical cables alone will be sufficient to bring us all down.

THE CRITICAL CABLES, GOD DAMN IT!!!
whosawhatnow? Critical cables? Who said anything about an island? Potential candidates are somewhere in Somalia and Limon, Costa Rica, not to mention the so-called free state project in New Hampshire (poorly chosen site, bound to fail).

Critical cables, critical cables!

*foams at mouth*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Heh he he he he he....

You just don't get it, Psylos.

I have my beliefs. You have yours. You describe things as you see them in your words,.. and I describe them in mine.

You CAN NOT convince me of the "validity" of your views.

You can merely illustrate your views.

And, as usual, you, as a die-hard leftist, or any leftist for that matter, have a lovely infantile preoccupation with feces, as illustrated by your constant reference to "bullshit".

Your constant and religious fervor to convert "the unbeliever [in communism]" and the "heretic [the indoctrinated capitalist]" is a perfect illustration of the adolescent true-believing proselytizer.

Carry on with your fervor, as it's quite amusing,.. and beautifully shows the non-comprehension that is a salient characteristic of any abject fanatic.

Other than that,.. hope you're having fun, like I am, and have a really peachy day..!


I have no belief. I know facts.
I'm arguing with some people, but with you it was not an argument, it was education.
You didn't know what capitalism were and you didn't know what communism was. I hope you have learnt something.
The thing you have to grasp is that private ownership of capital does not necessarily mean democracy, freedom or good and that comunal ownership of capital is not dictatorship, homosexuality or whatever. It is just that.
Those things are real system, there is no god or nature behind them. They are not religion. Argumentating to find out which system is good at what is good and you can use science for that, you don't have to use beliefs or religion.
We are having a philosophical discussion, not a theological one. Now some people believe in capitalism or in communism because of religion and they use propaganda, like you were. I hope you will use facts in the future if you'd like to have a real philosophical argument.

You do have beliefs, as I define "belief". That we can agree on, because I entirely remove you from having to agree with my definition of "belief".

I'm very happy for you that you have a deep grasp of both capitalism and communism. OBVIOULSY it is much greater than mine, which I grant.

But I have my views on "my capitalism" and "my communism", and your definitions of them, while interesting, show me nothing but the rationalisations of "the angry".

Now,... "the angry" may well be angry for a good reason..! :)

In which case "the angry" will use the marketplace of ideas, one way or another, to push their "ideas".

Money is a neutral tool. We probably agree on that one as well.

"Private ownership of capital" most CERTAINLY doesn't guarantee democracy or "good", and "Communal ownership of capital" most certatinly doesn't guarantee tyrany or "evil/badness".

My opinion is that nature, and humans in nature, and society is a part of nature, will find it's own balance of things.

You keep striving for your communist paradise, and I'll keep striving for my capitalist paradise.

Our distant, or not so distant, decendants will know what nature allows to predominate. For their time,... and then the game will continue, as it always does and will.



By the way, my apparently "insulting" characterizations of "communists" and "anarchists" is merely my interpretation of the typical behavior of what I have experienced of people who purport to be "communists" and "anarchists".

It is, as is everything stated by anyone under any condition, an opinion which is to be judged by the listener as to it's merits.



Religiosity:
I am an a-theist who believes in my gods as a communication tool to listen to the fragments of the singular absolute ("it is") to gain comfort, direction, knowledge, and just plain fun from the "universe".

To me, "belief" (derived: indoeuropean "leubh-") means "love of".
To me, "faith" (derived: indoeuropean "bheidh-") means "expectation".

I "love" the idea of the "capitalist" game of life.

I "expect" that game to continue (as the dominant form of energy exchange between humans), as I see it as the way life (negentropy) works.

You "love" the idea of the "communist" game of life.

You "expect" that game to continue (hopefully as the dominant but at least as a viable form of energy exchange between humans), as you see it as the way that life (human nature) works best.

There goes my interpret-ing again,... as you most likely actually think that "communism" is the way that human-beings truly do work.

Then again,.. that is probably an "incorrect" interpretation...

So I'll quit with my interpretations of how YOU might view things, and simply state my views,... It's much more sensible.

What does this have to do with "Religiosity"..?

I see your struggle to institute a more "egalitarian and just" system on the governance of people as a worthy goal, and a force for good, in that it knocks the complacency out of "those who are not being 'good' with the capital they control".

I see your actual theories and methods as hopelessly out-of-touch with reality.

You "believe" (love), based on your "facts", that you can have "faith" in (expect to see) the eventual efficacy of your theories and methods.

You have belief and faith,..

I have belief and faith.

May your religion and mine serve us all well, and make the world a better place, which I have faith will be the case.



.."I hope you will use facts in the future if you'd like to have a real philosophical argument."..

I love that one..! :D

Using "facts" to argue philosophy..!?

Very good....

Philosophy is "love of wisdom". Wisdom is the interpretation of facts observed. Observation is perception. Perception is interpretation. Wisdom is the interpretation of interpretation.

You can't get much more "religious" than that..!

..And that's what we've been doing.

:)