Commies and hyphens [Archive]

Domici

15-02-2007, 01:14

What's up with you commies and hyphenating your name?

Trotskyist-Leninist
Leninist-Trotskyist
Marxist-Leninist
Marxist-Trotskyist
Leninist-Stalinist
Maoist-Leninist-Marxist-Trotskyist-Stalinist-Socialist

ad nauseam

WHY??

and don't get me started on social democrat versus democratic socialist. why must you try to confound me??

Baisicly, it's that leftists have principles. The further left you go, the more people are allied to their principles and not to their faction. So they become more and more inclined to split off, and thus run out of names. The further right you go the more people become loyal to their faction so that they forget what principles brought them to it in the first place. Which is why the Nazi's, first a worker's socialist party, then outlawed labor unions.

Have you ever watched Monty Python's "Life of Brian?"

There's a scene with a group of Jewish rebels plotting against the Roman occupation, but they spend most of their time complaining about "the Popular People's Judean Front," the "People's Front of Judea," "the Judean People's Front," and so on, denouncing them all (including accidentally condemning themselves in the titular confusion) as "splitters."

Obviously it's best for a group to be somewhere in the middle, loyal to their parties enough that they will make compromises for the sake of what they hope to accomplish.

Grave_n_idle

15-02-2007, 01:14

Swilatia

15-02-2007, 01:25

STALIN WWWWOOOOOO!!!:sniper: :mp5: :upyours: :mad: :eek: :headbang: :mp5: :sniper:

what a great post :rolleyes:

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 01:32

I dunno. It's not like the rest of us do that. I'm a Libertarian Capitalist, not a Libertarian-Capitalist.
But-why-aren't-you-hyphenating-it-like-normal-people-do?

Anyway, austroanarchocapitalist suits me just fine. :D Although we do tend to do exactly the same thing - for instance, one can be a Hayekian-Misesian or Misesian-Rothbardian Austrian (maybe eventually Misesian-Rothbardian-Hoppeian). I'm not sure if other libertarian movements also do this.

Dobbsworld

15-02-2007, 01:35

Don't forget anarcho-syndicalism, either.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 01:51

Don't forget anarcho-syndicalism, either.

Anarcho-monarchism is the best.

Radical Centrists

15-02-2007, 01:59

Wait, I live in one of the few cities in the world with a hyphenated name... Does that mean what I think it means? :eek:

Zavistan

15-02-2007, 02:07

Wait, I live in one of the few cities in the world with a hyphenated name... Does that mean what I think it means? :eek:

Commie.

Soheran

15-02-2007, 02:21

How would you classify them without hyphens?

and don't get me started on social democrat versus democratic socialist. why must you try to confound me??

The terms were once equivalent. Blame the rightward swing since 1900.

Heculisis

15-02-2007, 02:31

How would you classify them without hyphens?

The terms were once equivalent. Blame the rightward swing since 1900.

Wait, are you saying that the rightward swing has been taking place over a steady period of time since 1900? Because that is definitly not the case. If anything, the period during and before 1900 was far more rightward than the period afterwards. We've had several liberal movements come about where as during and before 1900 we had none. (ie: Progressivism, square deal, New deal, fair deal, great society etc.)

Soheran

15-02-2007, 02:50

Wait, are you saying that the rightward swing has been taking place over a steady period of time since 1900?

In the official ideologies of social democratic parties? Yes.

New Genoa

15-02-2007, 02:53

Heculisis brings up another good point.

Whats up with presidents stealing platform names?

Square Deal, New Deal, and Fair Deal. BE ORIGINAL YOU GITS.

Ghost Tigers Rise

15-02-2007, 03:25

Best organization that uses hyphenation is Austro-Afro-Antarctico-Amer-Asian Auto Association.

Heculisis

15-02-2007, 03:34

In the official ideologies of social democratic parties? Yes.

I really don't know that much about the social democratic parties, but do you have any evidence to support this?

Free Soviets

15-02-2007, 03:41

Anything radical has hyphens in it.

do you mean all and only, all, or only?

Ghost Tigers Rise

15-02-2007, 03:43

do you mean all and only, all, or only?

None of the above. Let me rephrase that:

Radical movements/organisations/miscellany tend to use hyphens in their titles with greater frequency than their non-radical brethren.

Better?

Free Soviets

15-02-2007, 03:52

None of the above. Let me rephrase that:

Radical movements/organisations/miscellany tend to use hyphens in their titles with greater frequency than their non-radical brethren.

Better?

like the irish-american heritage center?

New Granada

15-02-2007, 03:55

If you think the pinkos are bad, you should see the botched abortion of the many named 'anarchist movement.'

When operating in the world of fantasy, any flight of imagination is equal to any other and the naive and infantile theories multiply, each one getting its very own name.

All the communists can be lumped together accurately as "murderers and thieves" and all the anarchists as, well, anarchists. :)

Ghost Tigers Rise

15-02-2007, 03:57

like the irish-american heritage center?

Correct. We are quite radical.

Soheran

15-02-2007, 04:22

I really don't know that much about the social democratic parties, but do you have any evidence to support this?

The fact that they basically all started out adhering to traditional Marxism (Engels helped found the German one), and now generally advocate "Third Way" capitalism?

Daistallia 2104

15-02-2007, 04:55

Daistallia 2104

15-02-2007, 04:56

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 05:30

All the communists can be lumped together accurately as "murderers and thieves"
That suits you statists better than it does communists though. :)

New Granada

15-02-2007, 05:37

That suits you statists better than it does communists though. :)

Yeah because it wasnt communists but "statists" who stole so much and killed so many people in the USSR and the Zhonghua renmin gongheguo and the DPRK &c &c &c &c &c.

No hammers and sickles here sir, nope.

No theft ("expropriation") of property here sir, nope!

No communists here, no gulags, no suppression of 'counterrevolutionaries' here sire, nope!

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 05:40

Yeah because it wasnt communists but "statists" who stole so much and killed so many people in the USSR and the Zhonghua renmin gongheguo and the DPRK &c &c &c &c &c.
No need for the quotation marks - the adjective is perfectly valid. And as for the abovementioned groups, they were statists par excellence. :)

No hammers and sickles here sir, nope.

How is symbology of any importance?

No theft ("expropriation") of property here sir, nope!
Taxation = theft (and is expropriation, if you hadn't noticed). Government running deficits and inflation = theft. Government-waged wars = murder.

With the above in mind, one could hardly say that the Russian and Chinese Reds have a monopoly in any of said fields. :)

New Granada

15-02-2007, 05:49

No need for the quotation marks - the adjective is perfectly valid.

How is symbology of any importance?

Taxation = theft (and is expropriation, if you hadn't noticed). Government running deficits and inflation = theft. Government-waged wars = murder.

Taxation is hardly theft in a representative government.

If we didn't want taxes, we'd vote them away. Obviously more mature heads prevail in this department. Hard to vote away the 'dictatorship of the proletarians.'

Deficits and inflation are theft? In what parallel universe?

All those poor german soldiers who got murdered in ww2. :rolleyes:
People can certainly be murdered in war, but that isnt the objective or what makes it war. War is a set of rules where killing people isnt categorically forbidden.

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 05:54

Taxation is hardly theft in a representative government.
Don't want government services and don't want to pay taxes? Fine. Then try do that and see what happens to you. Then make such assertions as the one you just made.

If we didn't want taxes, we'd vote them away. Obviously more mature heads prevail in this department. Hard to vote away the 'dictatorship of the proletarians.'
Do as I said, then. And once you have done so, then tell me whether or not there is a dictatorship of the majority. "Mature" heads in this case are those who've been convinced of so-called representative democracies truly being representative. If you want to flatter yourselves though, by all means go ahead.

Deficits and inflation are theft? In what parallel universe?
Even conventional economists admit to this - that inflation is one of the easiest ways for a government to expand its spending without much complaint being heard. The constraint on it is that if it overdoes it, money loses its value and no one will want to use it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28993
http://projects.essex.ac.uk/EHRR/archive/pdf/File5-Coban.pdf (this journal article has a legal purpose to it, but it still gets the point across)

All those poor german soldiers who got murdered in ww2. :rolleyes:
People can certainly be murdered in war, but that isnt the objective or what makes it war. War is a set of rules where killing people isnt categorically forbidden.
It's still murder. No State goes to war without the knowledge that people will die - there is intent, like it or not. And as for the German soldiers, given that Germany was the aggressor, those who fought voluntarily on her side were murderers; they were killed in self-defence, not out of aggression.

Neo Undelia

15-02-2007, 06:03

Yeah, like Jefferson and his Republican-democrats. Didn't he know that they would become marginally differentiated foes a mere 200 years later?
The current Democratic and Republican parties did not come about because of some split in Jefferson's party, if that is what you are implying, neither was his party ever called the Republican-democrats while he lived. They were just called Republicans.

The hyphenated "-democrats" was merely added for historical clarity. Somewhere along the line, high school text books stopped mentioning that part probably because they thought it would confuse idiots.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 07:13

Taxation = theft
No, taxation is rent. You want to live here, and get benefits from living here like not getting killed by gangs or invading armies? You got to pay. You're a squatter.

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 07:15

No, taxation is rent. You want to live here, and get benefits from living here like not getting killed by gangs or invading armies? You got to pay. You're a squatter.
What if you don't want the benefits? You have no right to refuse them? You pay rent for services and goods you desire, not ones you're forced to consume. Don't try and obfuscate what it really is.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 07:17

What if you don't want the benefits? You have no right to refuse them? Don't try and obfuscate what it really is.

You can refuse. It's called leaving the country. Just living inside is a benefit.

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 07:18

You can refuse. It's called leaving the country. Just living inside is a benefit.
Ah yes, because the government (which is supposedly its citizens under a representative democracy) owns the country. Then don't mention private property - it is a fiction of the mind if that holds true.

And a reminder - rent is for a service/good you desire; if it's forced down your throat, it isn't rent. Unless you want to call a mafia's protection racket "rent". Then by all means, go ahead.

Free Soviets

15-02-2007, 07:19

No, taxation is rent. You want to live here, and get benefits from living here like not getting killed by gangs or invading armies? You got to pay. You're a squatter.

of course, rent is theft too. fucking landlords

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 07:21

Ah yes, because the government (which is supposedly its citizens under a representative democracy) owns the country. So much for private property then, eh? But no, statists are permitted to ramble inconsistently. Have fun doing so.

No, because just existing in the country is a benefit, since you get protected by the military while they protect everyone else. You're nothing but a freeloader.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 07:22

And a reminder - rent is for a service/good you desire; if it's forced down your throat, it isn't rent.

You get a choice. Live in the country, pay, and get benefits, or get the fuck out. Same with renting an apartment. Pay or leave.

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 07:22

No, because just existing in the country is a benefit, since you get protected by the military while they protect everyone else. You're nothing but a freeloader.
So you ought to be forced to pay for the service, regardless of whether you want it or not? Yes, so-called forced rides. Cool.

Here's a little question - by keeping a garden or wearing a perfume I benefit others. Should I be able to coerce them into paying me for it? Yes? Well then you're at least consistent.

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 07:23

You get a choice. Live in the country, pay, and get benefits, or get the fuck out. Same with renting an apartment. Pay or leave.
Ah, because you can choose where to be born, right? Social Contract theory and all that bullshit?

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 07:25

So you ought to be forced to pay for the service, regardless of whether you want it or not? Yes, so-called forced rides. Cool.

You aren't forced. If you don't want it, you leave. Is it really such a fucking difficult concept to understand? Just like in an apartment. You get water, you get electricity, whether you want it or not. It's called a package deal.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 07:26

Ah, because you can choose where to be born, right? Social Contract theory and all that bullshit?

That has fuck-all to do with what I said. You get benefits merely by existing in a country. It is impossible to not get those benefits while in that country. That's not how reality works. As long as you get benefits, you pay. Don't like it? Go somewhere else.

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 07:26

You aren't forced. If you don't want it, you leave. Is it really such a fucking difficult concept to understand? Just like in an apartment.
No, not like an appartment at all.

You get water, you get electricity, whether you want it or not. It's called a package deal.
And you usually enter contracts for package deals, they are not thrust upon you. So, where is my contract with the State?

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 07:28

That has fuck-all to do with what I said. You get benefits merely by existing in a country. It is impossible to not get those benefits while in that country. That's not how reality works. As long as you get benefits, you pay. Don't like it? Go somewhere else.
It has a lot to do with it though. Again, if my beautiful garden is pleasing to the eye of others I am benefitting them through my effort. Should I be able to coerce them to pay for it?

By your logic I should. They benefit merely by existing near my house. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. You owe me money for my efforts.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 07:28

And you usually enter contracts for package deals, they are not thrust upon you. So, where is my contract with the State?

You entered the contract by getting a job or purchasing something.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 07:29

It has a lot to do with it though. Again, if my beautiful garden is pleasing to the eye of others I am benefitting them through my effort. Should I be able to coerce them to pay for it?
Quick question. What's the difference between that and a concrete benefit? A fuck of a lot.

By your logic I should. They benefit merely by existing near my house. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. You owe me money for my efforts.
That has nothing to do with my logic and you know it.

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 07:30

You entered the contract by getting a job or purchasing something.
A job provided by a private corporation? No, that is a contract between me and the individual in question. A privately-produced good? No, that is a contract between me and the individual in question. If neither of us wants to use the State as the enforcer of contracts, the State has nothing to do with such exchanges.

So again, where is my contract with the State?

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 07:33

Quick question. What's the difference between that and a concrete benefit? A fuck of a lot.
I may consider government protection not be beneficial in the least - the value of goods is subjective. The marginal utility I gain from it may be none in my esteem. This is a law of economics. In the same way as the State says I should value the protection it offers, I can then insist that people value my productive efforts with the garden.

That has nothing to do with my logic and you know it.
Only because you're so deluded into thinking so.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 07:35

So again, where is my contract with the State?
The fact that you continue to accept the benefits despite the ability to not accept them by leaving.

Oh, and the bit where you used something called MONEY. You know, the stuff that the government produces and so graciously allows you to use?

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 07:38

The fact that you continue to accept the benefits despite the ability to not accept them by leaving.
Ah, so the government owns my land then and can force me to pay it to protect it? However, what if I do not desire this protection? Then again, I thought only commies violate property rights...

Oh, and the bit where you used something called MONEY. You know, the stuff that the government produces and so graciously allows you to use?
The use of any other form of currency that is not government-approved is illegal. You should know that.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 07:40

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 07:42

Ah, so the government owns my land then and can force me to pay it to protect it? However, what if I do not desire this protection? Then again, I thought only commies violate property rights...
If they had a way not to protect it, they wouldn't. Tough fucking luck that it's impossible for them to not protect you without not protecting anyone.

The use of any other form of currency that is not government-approved is illegal. You should know that.
False. The usage of currency produced by someone other than the government is not and has never been illegal. It's just difficult to get people to accept it.

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 07:43

On the contrary. The protection gives you an objective benefit. You do not die. The flowers only provide a subjective benefit.
There is no such thing as objective benefit when it comes to goods - what constitutes a benefit, indeed, is subjective. That involves a value-judgement on your part that it is beneficial to me. In much the same way, a fruit juice company could insist I buy its product over Coke because there is an "objective" benefit in so doing. That would be nonsense.

Care to explain why?
Precisely because the laws governing demand for goods do not change simply because someone judges one good to be "objectively" valuable.

Tech-gnosis

15-02-2007, 07:46

I may consider government protection not be beneficial in the least - the value of goods is subjective. The marginal utility I gain from it may be none in my esteem. This is a law of economics. In the same way as the State says I should value the protection it offers, I can then insist that people value my productive efforts with the garden.

Technically the reason people aren't force to pay or be payed for things like this are because the benefit or cost are negligible and the transaction costs are high.

Its like if someone pollutes the air, that is unowned, and that gives me cancer then I'll sue them because the costs to me are high and the transaction costs are relatively low.

Or do you think that those who pollute the air aren't responsible for the costs that pollution causes?

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 07:49

If they had a way not to protect it, they wouldn't. Tough fucking luck that it's impossible for them to not protect you without not protecting anyone.
Let's say I contract with someone to provide me protection against aggressions of my person. What protection am I then meant to be paying for? Furthermore, if government cannot avoid protecting me that is the problem of its customers - not my problem. They must either reach an understanding with me on a contractual basis, or accept that there will be freeloading; otherwise they are forcing me to accept protection I do not want.

Or do you think that those who pollute the air aren't responsible for the costs that pollution causes?
It's an aggression against my person, so they are responsible.

Tech-gnosis

15-02-2007, 07:51

It's an aggression against my person, so they are responsible.

I don't like your cologne. Pay me for that agression on my person. Cancer could be a benefit because of all the sympathy I would get,

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 07:53

I don't like your cologne. Pay me for that agression on my person. Cancer could be a benefit because of all the sympathy I would get,
You could take it to court and try, why not?

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 07:55

You could take it to court and try, why not?

But the courts are a benefit provided by the government, which you refuse to use.

Tech-gnosis

15-02-2007, 07:59

You could take it to court and try, why not?

Yeah. Everything of economic value is subjective. Your so called beautiful garden could traumatize me so severly you'd need to compensate many times more than the polluter. How is that any different, in principal, to paying for someone getting cancer from air pollution?

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 08:02

But the courts are a benefit provided by the government, which you refuse to use.
It's a hypothetical scenario - whether the court is State-owned or a mutually chosen arbiter is irrelevant. That is not the point. He is asking me whether I'd have a problem with someone sueing over that.

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 08:11

Yeah. Everything of economic value is subjective. Your so called beautiful garden could traumatize me so severly you'd need to compensate many times more than the polluter. How is that any different, in principal, to paying for someone getting cancer from air pollution?
Assuming that a court is the mutually chosen arbiter of cases between two individuals, you'd have to convince the arbiter in question of the legitimacy of your claim. The other party could appeal if they thought their decision were unfair, and so on.

However, this is not analogous to the provision of protection. What is analogous would be me qua garden-owner asking the court to force people to pay for the benefit I say they derive from it. The assumption is not that the good does harm, but that it provides benefit, and that this benefit ought to be paid for.

Corennia

15-02-2007, 08:28

A realist argument here would be that 1) The government has sovereignty. That would be a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The fact of the matter is, unless you can hire an army, and take your little piece of land back, you pay taxes. Thats how things work.

"But thats wrong! I'm paying taxes for services I'm not using! Thats theft!"

Now, ya see. If you are /IN SOCIETY/ your getting benefit from those services because those services, as a whole, BENEFIT SOCIETY.

Your flower garden might benefit society too, but you built it for you. Not society as a whole. Thats unlike something like, say, a City Park. Or the Education System.

Tech-gnosis

15-02-2007, 08:34

Assuming that a court is the mutually chosen arbiter of cases between two individuals, you'd have to convince the arbiter in question of the legitimacy of your claim. The other party could appeal if they thought their decision were unfair, and so on.

However, this is not analogous to the provision of protection. What is analogous would be me qua garden-owner asking the court to force people to pay for the benefit I say they derive from it. The assumption is not that the good does harm, but that it provides benefit, and that this benefit ought to be paid for.

Its analogous in the way that both cases there is no real contract between the two parties. You could, conceivably, get the court to force people to pay for your garden on the grounds that looking at it without paying for it is theft. They get a benefit. The reason why more people wouldn't sue, if say a machine that could accurately caculate the actual value people would pay to walk by it, is because the transaction costs of getting people to pay far outweigh the benefits one would get by making those people pay.

Kilani

15-02-2007, 08:43

No, taxation is rent. You want to live here, and get benefits from living here like not getting killed by gangs or invading armies? You got to pay. You're a squatter.

Proposterous. We own the government, not the other way around.

Tech-gnosis

15-02-2007, 09:00

Basically in democratic theory the public, i.e. all citizens of a nation-state, own the country. Since its infeasible for everyone to actually make decisions on everything we give actual running authority to the state in trust.

Vetalia

15-02-2007, 09:26

I always thought they did it so they could always claim that real Communism works every time another variant of the ideology fails.

Vetalia

15-02-2007, 09:28

No, taxation is rent. You want to live here, and get benefits from living here like not getting killed by gangs or invading armies? You got to pay. You're a squatter.

Taxation isn't rent, taxation is what you pay in exchange for the services given to you by the government.

You could still own land if there was no government; it would just be quite difficult to convince someone better armed than you without the help of those courts, laws, and the law enforcement that comes with them.

Risottia

15-02-2007, 12:25

Ifreann

15-02-2007, 12:28

This is a strange thread.

Cameroi

15-02-2007, 12:34

try saying eco-socialist anarcho-pacifist without hyphins!

and i don't give a rat about marxism.

it's just that (fanatical corporate) capitolism has become a kind of doombsday machine destroying everything in its path with no one in control and no off switch.

whatever is good, bad or indifferent about anything else doesn't really have a damd thing to do with it.

=^^=
.../\...

Grave_n_idle

15-02-2007, 16:51

You get a choice. Live in the country, pay, and get benefits, or get the fuck out. Same with renting an apartment. Pay or leave.

I think you are missing the point - why 'pay' the government? This land was here a long time before the federal republic...

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 16:57

I think you are missing the point - why 'pay' the government? This land was here a long time before the federal republic...

You pay the government because it gives you benefits. Those benefits have a cost.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 16:59

Taxation isn't rent, taxation is what you pay in exchange for the services given to you by the government.

Well, yeah. I usually compare it to rent because it's the closest private analogy I can usually think of.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 17:02

Proposterous. We own the government, not the other way around.

And? The guy who owns the electricity company still has to pay for the electricity.

Soheran

15-02-2007, 17:35

I always thought they did it so they could always claim that real Communism works every time another variant of the ideology fails.

Actually, most of the variants spring from serious attempts to deal with the implications of failure... not desperate attempts to escape it.

The exceptions are the variants that were opposed to the methods and ideology of those who made the failed attempts from the start.

Believe or not, communists are perfectly capable of self-examination and revision.

Grave_n_idle

15-02-2007, 17:36

You pay the government because it gives you benefits. Those benefits have a cost.

Still missing the point. Why is 'this' land not mine? Why pay 'them' for my right to live here?

Defense? What do you think we have, robot armies? No - we defend ourselves. The government administrates... at best.

Soheran

15-02-2007, 17:37

You pay the government because it gives you benefits. Those benefits have a cost.

And why can't I refuse to pay the costs or receive the benefits?

Daistallia 2104

15-02-2007, 17:54

This is a strange thread.

And all the stranger for the proper anser to the OP's question having been entierly ignored. Even here, people usually at least tip their hats to the appropriate answer before continuing on with sill arguments.

try saying eco-socialist anarcho-pacifist without hyphins!

What's a hyphin and why would one want to say something with it?

and i don't give a rat about marxism.

I see you bare an anti-capitalizationist.

it's just that (fanatical corporate) capitolism

Do you have something against capitols? Most lefty types have it in for the capitalists and/or government institutions, not the buldings...

has become a kind of doombsday machine

Preytell, what is a doombsday machine?

destroying everything in its path with no one in control and no off switch.

:confused: :confused:

whatever is good, bad or indifferent about anything else doesn't really have a damd thing to do with it.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Might I suggest posting in our common language of English next time so that we might all partake of whatever message you wish to convey?

Soheran

15-02-2007, 17:58

And all the stranger for the proper anser to the OP's question having been entierly ignored. Even here, people usually at least tip their hats to the appropriate answer before continuing on with sill arguments.

*Tips hat*

There.

Radical Centrists

15-02-2007, 18:04

Alright, I'm going to try and jump into this discussion...

First, I would like to establish that the primary (and often taken for granted) role of Government is protection. In the absence of government there would be no police to respond to your call for help, no justice system to punish those in violation of the law, no law to violate, and no penitentiary or executioner to deal with those deserving of punishment. The only rights you would have are those you can afford yourself through force of arms. You could say what you want as long as you can defend yourself against those who don't like what you have to say. You could own your property as long as you can defend it from those who want it for themselves.

However, your rights are protected and a system of justice is provided - consequently countless people who would be dead if murder were legal (or more accurately free of consequences) are still living. It would be scarcely imaginable to live in a condition where the before mentioned system of justice is absent. It is generally considered a fact of life and it has been the role of Government (regardless of the type) since the beginning of recorded history. In practice the system of government resembles a protection racket run by mobsters; you pay taxes and obey the rules, if you don't pay and obey you are punished, and you have no choice but to consent under the threat (and application) of physical violence. Of course, the amount of input from the people on the amount of taxes paid and what laws they must obey is more or less depending on the system of government, but even so the roles of both are consistent. One is dominant and the other is submissive.

Every time you obey the speed limit as to avoid the loss of privileges (your license to drive) or property (your ticket fine) you are submitting to civil authority, every time you pay your taxes properly to avoid the loss of freedom or property you are submitting to civil authority, every time you suppress the animal urge to kill someone (for whatever reason) as to avoid the loss of freedom or your life you are submitting to civil authority...

While there is a Government present there is little or no way to avoid submission; if you obey the law you are submitting to authority and if you disobey the law you are submitting to the consequences - which usually entails of coercion in the form of personal loss or physical violence. Violence it would seem is the primary means of civil order which only serves to reinforce the age-old notion that it is the only language every human being understands with perfect clarity. Laws exist on the basis of the Government’s right to physically impose their views (and in the instance of democratic representation, the views of the people) on everyone else. By this we see that freedom and oppression is a relative gradient where one cannot exist without the other. If those viewed as “criminals” are not oppressed in their endeavors then the rights and freedoms of others to life, liberty, and happiness can not be preserved. Obviously the over application of “oppression” is disastrous when extended to those it shouldn’t. Similarly, the over application of “freedom” is equally disastrous when extended to those it shouldn’t; specifically those intent on physically or materially harming their fellow citizens. A clear distinction must be drawn and enforced; an equilibrium of sorts. After all, virtue is the mean of two vices. Interestingly enough, there is a double standard present here involving the use of violence. Specifically that the Government's authority is entirely based on its ability to use it against criminals yet individual citizens are legally forbidden from using it against each other except in the instance of self-defense. Essentially this means the Government can kill you (right to life), imprison you (right to liberty), and take your effects (right to property) if you don’t play by their rules yet these are the very things that they guaranty you as a reward for your obedience by depriving criminals of them.

Is it fair? Just? Right? Who the hell knows and who can say? It's what we have and what we must deal with.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 18:08

And why can't I refuse to pay the costs or receive the benefits?

(I assume you mean "and", not "or".) You can, as I've said multiple times in this thread. All you have to do is leave.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 18:10

Still missing the point. Why is 'this' land not mine? Why pay 'them' for my right to live here?
You're not paying for the right to live there. You're paying for the security that living there provides.

Defense? What do you think we have, robot armies? No - we defend ourselves. The government administrates... at best.
It's called the military.

Soheran

15-02-2007, 18:17

You can, as I've said multiple times in this thread. All you have to do is leave.

No, I can't. I can't without LEAVING. That is to say, the state in its generous benevolence gives me a choice - submission or exile. And what kind of exile? Exile to somewhere with ANOTHER state and another set of laws and another demand of tribute and submission.

Why do I have to leave? Why can't I STAY while not paying the costs and not receiving the benefits?

Who gave the government the right to the land? By what right does it claim that anyone who lives in a certain area must abide by its laws and pay the tribute it demands?

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 18:21

Why do I have to leave? Why can't I STAY while not paying the costs and not receiving the benefits?

Because just by living inside the country you get benefits, such as protection from invasion.

Oh, and for the record, you normally only pay taxes when you get or spend money. Money is a service provided by the government. As long as you never acquire or use money, you never have to pay taxes.

Soheran

15-02-2007, 18:26

The anarcho-capitalists are, of course, right that statist laws are an unjust imposition... but their critique of the state's sovereignty can be just as easily applied to the property in land of private individuals.

What happens if I refuse to pay the landlord the rent she demands? Since the value of land primarily rests not in the labor added to it, but rather in its scarcity, it can hardly be argued that property in land rests on rightful acquisition by labor.

Ah, but I "can leave"... oh, right. ;)

Daistallia 2104

15-02-2007, 18:27

*Tips hat*

There.

Sir, you are a scholar and a gentleman. (Although, seeng as those terms may not be taken as complimentary in certain circles, you may wish to "translate" them appropriately.)

Grave_n_idle

15-02-2007, 18:29

You're not paying for the right to live there. You're paying for the security that living there provides.

A weak argument... and one that I don't think has any evidence to support it.

If I'm not paying for the space I occupy - why is my taxation based on factors like the amount of land I reside upon?

It's called the military.

And it is made up of the government? No - we are protected by people - by us. So - by rights, the people we are 'paying' to 'protect' us... is us.

Soheran

15-02-2007, 18:32

Because just by living inside the country you get benefits, such as protection from invasion.

That's the state's problem, not mine. I never asked for protection from invasion.

Oh, and for the record, you normally only pay taxes when you get or spend money. Money is a service provided by the government. As long as you never acquire or use money, you never have to pay taxes.

Of course, the government maintains a monopoly in currency... so I hardly have much of a choice.

And I still have to obey the law, even if I barter for everything.

New Granada

15-02-2007, 18:42

If by some flight of imagination-turned-real fairies came from space and POOF, there was anarcho-anything, I wonder how many of the anarcho-blahblabhs would be prepared?

The pacifists would be the easiest targets, they'd get enslaved outright. After them, the holdouts who insisted on paying someone for 'protection insurance' would find to their dismay that as regional military hegemons emerged, they too would be enslaved, on the feudal model.

We should need localized farming, &c, after the breakdown of society. Since conditions would be the same as they were when feudalism first was established, there is no reason to suppose it wouldn't come about again, at least until better and more comprehensive states could be re-formed.

Aust

15-02-2007, 19:02

because there are diffrences, but it's the same for all sides

Europa Maxima

15-02-2007, 19:06

Its analogous in the way that both cases there is no real contract between the two parties.
And that is exactly why you should have no standing in court. No one asked you to tend to the garden.

The difference with an aggression against your person is that in this case you are harmed, besides your will. In the case of forcing someone to pay for a perceived benefit, no one ever asked you in the first place to provide said benefit. That is what makes it so utterly ridiculous! To demand payment for a good there must have first been a promise by the future consumer to buy it in the first place.

CthulhuFhtagn

15-02-2007, 19:07

Of course, the government maintains a monopoly in currency... so I hardly have much of a choice.

There's no law against making and using your own currency.

Tech-gnosis

15-02-2007, 23:47

And that is exactly why you should have no standing in court. No one asked you to tend to the garden.

The difference with an aggression against your person is that in this case you are harmed, besides your will. In the case of forcing someone to pay for a perceived benefit, no one ever asked you in the first place to provide said benefit. That is what makes it so utterly ridiculous! To demand payment for a good there must have first been a promise by the future consumer to buy it in the first place.

The only thing is that we're using a very loose form of aggression. Take people who'll pollute the air. The air isn't owned by anyone, they have no contract with anyone not to pollute the air, and they're basically removing all claim of ownship to the effluents. Your cologne or beautiful garden may be seen as agression as well. Say that your brand of cologne is the same one used by someone's rapists. Your choice of cologne imposed significant costs on this person. Yet the cologne is your property on yourself, again your property.

Forcing others to pay for the benefits of say a garden can be seen as making a thief pay for the items they stole. Those who look at the garden without paying are the agressors.

Europa Maxima

16-02-2007, 00:38

The only thing is that we're using a very loose form of aggression. Take people who'll pollute the air. The air isn't owned by anyone, they have no contract with anyone not to pollute the air, and they're basically removing all claim of ownship to the effluents.
Except that they produced the pollution, therefore they own it. Simply abandoning it in this case is no good - that would be like me starting a car, then getting out of it, just letting it run amok in the street, and disclaim any responsibility for doing so, no matter who gets hurt. It's the car that did it... Or maybe more realistically, I fire a gun at a distance, and just before the bullet hits the target I deny ownership of either gun or bullet. This time the bullet's at fault. I know fully well that someone may get harmed in either situation (as do I with pollution). So in the case of pollution I have the choice of refraining from it, or reaching a deal with potential litigants. To be consistent, in the previous cases we'd either have to deny ownership of the weapons at hand, or admit that pollution is too a weapon of sorts.

Your cologne or beautiful garden may be seen as agression as well. Say that your brand of cologne is the same one used by someone's rapists. Your choice of cologne imposed significant costs on this person. Yet the cologne is your property on yourself, again your property.

Notice what is missing in this case - knowledge of the harm your cologne (or garden) would cause. You're running on the assumption that it won't be taken as an aggression. Thus, though someone could potentially sue you, their standing would be rather weak.

Forcing others to pay for the benefits of say a garden can be seen as making a thief pay for the items they stole. Those who look at the garden without paying are the agressors.
However, when you produced the good you knew fully well that you may be unable to exclude certain people from glancing upon your garden. You should've either negotiated something with the neighbours, or refrained from producing it (if its nonexcludability bothered you that is). Otherwise your claim is baseless.

The Nigerian Republic

16-02-2007, 01:33

Communism is completely unworkable. Just like fully unregulated capitalism.

Ultraviolent Radiation

16-02-2007, 01:51

Vittos the City Sacker

16-02-2007, 02:08

There's no law against making and using your own currency.

Having a set of laws that makes it completely impractical and undesirable to make your own money precludes any law against making and using your own currency.

Free Soviets

16-02-2007, 02:13

Hyphenating is just their hobby. They have to take a break from fixing the world's problems some time...

the world-problems of the world-system, you mean

Small Groups

16-02-2007, 02:26

Who gave the government the right to the land? By what right does it claim that anyone who lives in a certain area must abide by its laws and pay the tribute it demands?

The claim is actually very similar, if not the same, to the claim that the laissez-faire capitalist does not have the right to pursue whatever ends they want with total freedom because to do so produces negative externalities for others (inequality of access to economic/political power, etc.), regardless of said other's consent. That is, the capitalist must curb his behavior (or "pay tribute") to the demands of his fellow man because to fail to do so reduces the liberty of everyone.

In the context of government, the negative externality produced by your refusal to cooperate is the failure of the provision of a public good (defense from an external or internal [crime] threat, for example). The fewer people who cooperate, the less resources are available to produce the public good, and thus less of the public good is produced. By the very nature of public goods in general, "voluntary" or "market" efforts will fail to provide the public good as self-interested individuals (all 6-ish billion of us) will seek to maximize the consumption of it while minimizing the contribution to paying for it. For example, you continue to consume the benefit of lower crime and national defense while you insist that you need not pay for them because "you're not the boss of me" or whatever other nonsense irrevelancy. Likewise, the capitalist maximizes profit while crushing the throat of the worker under his heel, again because "you're not the boss of him..."

Thus, you are compelled to "pay tribute" because nobody would do so otherwise, causing a failure to produce the public good. Such is a very serious negative externality of your choice, forced upon the rest of the human species with which you share this planet. What right have you to engage in such selfish behavior, may I ask? :)

...and no, this does not mean that government has a free license to do whatever it wants to do in the name of the public good (a common, if asinine, conclusion about the nature of "evil utilitarian no-good pinko-commie public goods" among your more right-wing peers). Enforcing compliance has costs, whether material (taxes) or psychic ("freedom" or "liberty"), and these costs can most certainly outweigh, or eliminate entirely, the benefits if taken too far. Excessively high taxes ruin economies (or create wealth inequalities...) and the downside to totalitarian government should be obvious. Like most things existing in our natural universe, the key is balance; too much government is obviously bad, but so is not enough.

Ultimately, your appeal fails for exactly the same reason that the sociopathic capitalist's appeal fails. McHaliburton-Mart (TM) has not the right to behave however it wishes because its behavior inevitably forces concequences on everyone else, with or without consent. Exactly the same is true of you. And so long as this is true, everyone else has the legitimate claim to the right to make you keep your negative externalities to yourself, thank-you-very-much. :)

(no doubt you will now attempt to claim that none of this justifies the [i]state, per se. But, of course, your post refered to "government," not the "state." And to the extent that the state does make possible the provision of necessary public goods, the reasons I give above still make legitimate your compliance, not because of something intrinsic to the state itself but because of the danger to the provision of the public good if you do otherwise. If you wish to change the way governance is conducted, fine (so would I as a matter of fact...). But this does not give you license to shrug off your duty to your fellow man by abolishing the necessity of government entirely.)

Tech-gnosis

16-02-2007, 02:30

Except that they produced the pollution, therefore they own it. Simply abandoning it in this case is no good - that would be like me starting a car, then getting out of it, just letting it run amok in the street, and disclaim any responsibility for doing so, no matter who gets hurt. It's the car that did it... Or maybe more realistically, I fire a gun at a distance, and just before the bullet hits the target I deny ownership of either gun or bullet. This time the bullet's at fault. I know fully well that someone may get harmed in either situation (as do I with pollution). So in the case of pollution I have the choice of refraining from it, or reaching a deal with potential litigants. To be consistent, in the previous cases we'd either have to deny ownership of the weapons at hand, or admit that pollution is too a weapon of sorts

Except that cost and benefits are subjective. I can't judge whether something like pollution will be considered harm or not. Even a bullet in the arm could conceivably be a benefit to someone and a smile could cause monstrous harm to someone. Also if I can't give up ownership of an item then how can I transfer ownership over to another? If I give a man a gun and he shoots people am I liable for that?

Notice what is missing in this case - knowledge of the harm your cologne (or garden) would cause. You're running on the assumption that it won't be taken as an aggression. Thus, though someone could potentially sue you, their standing would be rather weak.

What does knowledge have to do with anything? The government collects taxes and doesn't consider that agression. In fact it takes not paying your taxes as theft. My extremely loud music isn't annoying, its free entertainment.

However, when you produced the good you knew fully well that you may be unable to exclude certain people from glancing upon your garden. You should've either negotiated something with the neighbours, or refrained from producing it (if its nonexcludability bothered you that is). Otherwise your claim is baseless.

And people buy property knowing full well that they'll be unable to exclude themselves from the sights, odors, noises, and effluents of their neighbors. Why then should they be compensated for pollutants and such?

Europa Maxima

16-02-2007, 03:17

Except that cost and benefits are subjective. I can't judge whether something like pollution will be considered harm or not.
Based on probability, you can figure out how someone is going to treat it. That can guide you in your future actions. A polluter knows many people will dislike the pollution, and a garden-owner knows many people appreciate flowers.

Even a bullet in the arm could conceivably be a benefit to someone and a smile could cause monstrous harm to someone. Also if I can't give up ownership of an item then how can I transfer ownership over to another? If I give a man a gun and he shoots people am I liable for that?
Hardly, because it is not the weapon on its own that causes the harm. That is my point. It is the user that does. Ownership of the weapon is quite irrelevant. By emitting pollution a factory-owner has caused someone harm.

What does knowledge have to do with anything? The government collects taxes and doesn't consider that agression. In fact it takes not paying your taxes as theft. My extremely loud music isn't annoying, its free entertainment.
Knowledge has an awful lot to do with it. Crimes are judged on intent to do something - to intend something you must have a knowledge of what its likely consequences will be.

By the way, is not paying the mafia for its protection racket theft then? You never asked for the "service" to begin with, but the mafia certainly believes you ought to pay them for the benefits received.

And people buy property knowing full well that they'll be unable to exclude themselves from the sights, odors, noises, and effluents of their neighbors. Why then should they be compensated for pollutants and such?
Harm is still caused to their person. They can ask for compensation for this. It does not change. Of course, going and building your house right next to a factory would be idiotic indeed.

Tech-gnosis

16-02-2007, 05:25

Based on probability, you can figure out how someone is going to treat it. That can guide you in your future actions. A polluter knows many people will dislike the pollution, and a garden-owner knows many people appreciate flowers.

But its possible that that someone will defy expectations. The polluters and gardners know, at least to some degree, what people will think of there products, but its possible that there expectations are wrong. Gardens can cause harm and pollution may be beneficial. If people realize that economic value is subjective then they have to realize that flowers could conceivably be a horrible cost to someone and pollution could be a great benefit to someone.

Hardly, because it is not the weapon on its own that causes the harm. That is my point. It is the user that does. Ownership of the weapon is quite irrelevant. By emitting pollution a factory-owner has caused someone harm.

So what? The effluents were let out into the unowned air. If people didn't want to breathe in these effluents they could get filters for there airtight homes and where gas masks filled with pure oxygen. They voluntarily chose to disregard this and breathe in the pollution.

Knowledge has an awful lot to do with it. Crimes are judged on intent to do something - to intend something you must have a knowledge of what its likely consequences will be.

And its not my intent that people are bothered by my music, and to my knowledge it should be a blessing. Those who want compensaton for listening tto it just want the free entertainment and some money.

By the way, is not paying the mafia for its protection racket theft then? You never asked for the "service" to begin with, but the mafia certainly believes you ought to pay them for the benefits received.

You're the one who brought up knowledge and intent. The government thinks it is owed money for the service it provides. Not paying this is considered theft. By collecting taxes it is just getting what it feels that is owed to it. It does not intend to steal.

Harm is still caused to their person. They can ask for compensation for this. It does not change. Of course, going and building your house right next to a factory would be idiotic indeed.

It is harm that one voluntarily assumed the risks of. If I slip in the bathroom of a hotel should I be compensated because the hotel didn't make their bathrooms safer? Or someone who gets off on being whipped is accidently whipped too hard. Should he be compensated? That strip club is causing horrible harm to my daughter because it denigrating women and supporting negative stereotypes.

Really you haven't shown why one should pay for the harm one causes but not compensated for the benefits one provides. Both of these being noncontractual.

Europa Maxima

16-02-2007, 05:53

But its possible that that someone will defy expectations. The polluters and gardners know, at least to some degree, what people will think of there products, but its possible that there expectations are wrong. Gardens can cause harm and pollution may be beneficial. If people realize that economic value is subjective then they have to realize that flowers could conceivably be a horrible cost to someone and pollution could be a great benefit to someone.
Obviously. They make their decision on the basis of probability - there is a chance that they may be wrong.

So what? The effluents were let out into the unowned air. If people didn't want to breathe in these effluents they could get filters for there airtight homes and where gas masks filled with pure oxygen. They voluntarily chose to disregard this and breathe in the pollution.
The polluter is the one causing the harm. It is up to them to provide the means to avoid it. No way around this.The analogue of your logic is that someone who throws a rock at my window, hitting me on the head, is not at fault; rather, that I am because I didn't insure I had stronger windows put in. However, if an extension in property rights to air surrounding the house is necessary, sure, I have no problem.

And its not my intent that people are bothered by my music, and to my knowledge it should be a blessing.
Once they have expressed their complaint, that no longer applies. You know playing the music too loud will annoy others, and yet you still intend to do it, in spite of this. Idiocy and wilful ignorance are not excuses.

You're the one who brought up knowledge and intent.
I am aware.

The government thinks it is owed money for the service it provides. Not paying this is considered theft. By collecting taxes it is just getting what it feels that is owed to it. It does not intend to steal.
Answer my initial question.

It is harm that one voluntarily assumed the risks of.
Assuming the factory pre-existed the houses. In such a case the purchasers of land nearby the factory should've insured that some sort of deal were reached with the factory by their realtor. Things change, however, when a factory is built near to an already present residential area. In this case the burden is on the factory to settle the affair.

Really you haven't shown why one should pay for the harm one causes but not compensated for the benefits one provides. Both of these being noncontractual.
Who asked you to provide the benefit in the first place? No one. Is the provider thereby harmed? If they think so it is only the result of their own stupidity. They shouldn't have provided the good in the first place if nonexcludability were an issue for them. The so-called victim in this case is self-made.

In the case of the person suffering from pollution, the damage is thrust upon them. They have no choice in the matter, unlike the above provider of the benefit. That is the difference - that the victim in the first case caused the harm they incurred.

Soheran

16-02-2007, 06:28

The claim is actually very similar, if not the same, to the claim that the laissez-faire capitalist does not have the right to pursue whatever ends they want with total freedom because to do so produces negative externalities for others (inequality of access to economic/political power, etc.), regardless of said other's consent. That is, the capitalist must curb his behavior (or "pay tribute") to the demands of his fellow man because to fail to do so reduces the liberty of everyone.

No, it isn't. The capitalist's power to exploit and abuse is founded in PROPERTY, which is an unjust imposition in and of itself. I make no property claim; the only entity making the property claim is the state.

All I claim for myself is autonomy. Neither the state nor the landowner may not force me to submit against my will simply because I live in a certain area.

In the context of government, the negative externality produced by your refusal to cooperate is the failure of the provision of a public good (defense from an external or internal [crime] threat, for example). The fewer people who cooperate, the less resources are available to produce the public good, and thus less of the public good is produced. By the very nature of public goods in general, "voluntary" or "market" efforts will fail to provide the public good as self-interested individuals (all 6-ish billion of us) will seek to maximize the consumption of it while minimizing the contribution to paying for it.

This logic, even if legitimate, only applies INSOFAR AS COLLECTIVE SECURITY GOES. This implies that the coercive government's role must be strictly limited to security (and perhaps to other crucial public goods), and not only that, but only to security insofar as it is a public good. Furthermore, it must perform this duty with the minimum possible imposition on its citizens. The argument advanced by CthulhuFhtagn was that the provision of security justified taxation for ANY PURPOSE.

For example, you continue to consume the benefit of lower crime and national defense while you insist that you need not pay for them because "you're not the boss of me" or whatever other nonsense irrevelancy.

And if I don't care to have this benefit bestowed upon me by the state?

Likewise, the capitalist maximizes profit while crushing the throat of the worker under his heel, again because "you're not the boss of him..."

But I, unlike the capitalist, afford the same privilege to everyone else.

I will submit to no one... and no one will submit to me.

What right have you to engage in such selfish behavior, may I ask? :)

There is nothing necessarily "selfish" about it... perhaps my objection is not to helping my fellows defend themselves, but merely to the way the state implements this role.

Perhaps, for instance, I wish to avoid participation in the horrific carnage inflicted upon a nation on the other side of the world, carnage justified by a pack of lies, motivated by a desire to control valuable energy resources, and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of lives. Not that such a thing would ever happen in the real world (;) ), but the theoretical possibility is worth taking into account.

Ultimately, your appeal fails for exactly the same reason that the sociopathic capitalist's appeal fails. McHaliburton-Mart (TM) has not the right to behave however it wishes because its behavior inevitably forces concequences on everyone else, with or without consent. Exactly the same is true of you. And so long as this is true, everyone else has the legitimate claim to the right to make you keep your negative externalities to yourself, thank-you-very-much. :)

My actions have no negative externalities; if they did, they would indeed be an unjust imposition. Your concern is not getting rid of my negative externalities, but preventing the positive externalities of your actions.

And this justifies coercing me? Maybe. But I think the justification is pretty weak... it would be interesting to hear an alternative that extends beyond ancap hired gangs ("private insurance companies").

But this does not give you license to shrug off your duty to your fellow man by abolishing the necessity of [i]government entirely.)

Mutual aid does not and has never rested upon the existence of organized government.

Andaluciae

16-02-2007, 07:11

They're trying to dissociate themselves from the assholes who are associated with their ideologies by mixing it up.

Not my most articulate statement, given the 17 drinks of the evening, but it finally got what I've been trying to get myself to say for an awfully long time.

Only outright anarchists are innocent of this charge.

Tech-gnosis

16-02-2007, 08:53

Obviously. They make their decision on the basis of probability - there is a chance that they may be wrong.

And if they're wrong then they should pay, in the gardner's case.

The polluter is the one causing the harm. It is up to them to provide the means to avoid it. No way around this.The analogue of your logic is that someone who throws a rock at my window, hitting me on the head, is not at fault; rather, that I am because I didn't insure I had stronger windows put in.However, if an extension in property rights to air surrounding the house is necessary, sure, I have no problem.

No. My analogy is more like leaving a rock on the ground and then someone comes and trips on it. Is it my fault that he tripped or should he have been looking at where he was going?

Once they have expressed their complaint, that no longer applies. You know playing the music too loud will annoy others, and yet you still intend to do it, in spite of this. Idiocy and wilful ignorance are not excuses.

Why would it no longer apply? I bake cookies so the the scent fills the air. People like cookie scent most of the time, but cookie scent plus $100 is even better. People have an incentive to lie about these things.

I am aware.

Good. I wasn't sure. :D

Answer my initial question.

I did.

Assuming the factory pre-existed the houses. In such a case the purchasers of land nearby the factory should've insured that some sort of deal were reached with the factory by their realtor. Things change, however, when a factory is built near to an already present residential area. In this case the burden is on the factory to settle the affair.

Pollution can affect people far away from their origination point, and they assumed the risks by owning land where it was possible that a factory could be built nearby.

In the case of the person suffering from pollution, the damage is thrust upon them. They have no choice in the matter, unlike the above provider of the benefit. That is the difference - that the victim in the first case caused the harm they incurred.

They didn't have it thrust upon them. Using my rock anology they should have watched where they were going. Air is a non excludable good, and effluents become part of the air. Knowing that they chose to breathe it in anyway. Its their own fault. Any victims are self made.

Risottia

16-02-2007, 11:40

We own the government, not the other way around.

No one OWNS the government.
The government is a structure of the society, built by the society to organise itself. The government isn't (or, at least, shouldn't be) an entity disjuncted from society. We (the society) "own" the government just like we "own" ourselves. Property relationships don't apply correctly to such issues.

Small Groups

16-02-2007, 12:30

The capitalist's power to exploit and abuse is founded in PROPERTY, which is an unjust imposition in and of itself. I make no property claim; the only entity making the property claim is the state.

I guess I'm supposed to believe that an anarchist communist society will neither make nor assert any territorial claims. I'm skeptical. :D

Neither the state nor the landowner may [...] force me to submit against my will simply because I live in a certain area.

Who lives where is entirely irrevelant. What is relevant is the ability of the government to secure the public good.

The argument advanced by CthulhuFhtagn was that the provision of security justified taxation for ANY PURPOSE.

If this is correct, then obviously CthulhuFhtagn is wrong, for reasons I've already explained.

And if I don't care to have this benefit bestowed upon me by the state?
...perhaps my objection is not to helping my fellows defend themselves, but merely to the way the state implements this role.

One can find behavior in one instance repugnant and demand change, while simultaneously acknowledging and supporting good behavior in another instance. There is plenty about the state/government that is broken, but to insist on throwing it out completely is making a cure worse than the disease.

Perhaps, for instance, I wish to avoid participation in the horrific carnage inflicted upon a nation on the other side of the world, carnage justified by a pack of lies, motivated by a desire to control valuable energy resources, and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of lives. Not that such a thing would ever happen in the real world (;) ), but the theoretical possibility is worth taking into account.

When the state/government commits injustice, I would expect it to be punished and the wronged restored. However, to throw away the state/government entirely is to ignore the plenty of good that is and can be done. "Has committed evil in the past" does not necessarily equate to "will or must commit evil in the future." If that equation was necessary, the all human ideology of anykind whatsoever, including your own, must be rejected. That's not very useful.

Your concern is not getting rid of my negative externalities, but preventing the positive externalities of your actions.

I can't prevent you from consuming the positive benefit of the public good, by the very definition of the public good. A public good must be non-excludable, which means your (indeed, everybody's) consumption is given.

Mutual aid does not and has never rested upon the existence of organized government.

I suppose people just sit in complete isolation without any communication and still manage to arrive at coordinated and mutually useful decisions and outcomes. But then, if you carefully define "organized government" to mean whatever is most convienient to your own position, I suppose one can make anything happen ;) It's similar to how religious people reject "organized religion" in order to not seem too religious.

Europa Maxima

17-02-2007, 01:56

And if they're wrong then they should pay, in the gardner's case.
If you mean the gardener ought to pay "victims" of their garden, perhaps (up to a court to decide this). If you mean that bypassers who never commissioned the garden in the first place ought to compensate the gardener for their efforts, absolutely not. The gardener knew in advance that the good they produced was a nonexcludable one.

No. My analogy is more like leaving a rock on the ground and then someone comes and trips on it. Is it my fault that he tripped or should he have been looking at where he was going?
Hardly. You do not know with any degree of certainty that the rock will cause such an accident. You know, on the other hand, with a rather high degree of certainty that pollution will damage nearby individuals, given its spillover nature. So the intention in this case is to emit it, regardless of the harm it causes, just like throwing the rock at the window regardless of the consequences.

Why would it no longer apply? I bake cookies so the the scent fills the air. People like cookie scent most of the time, but cookie scent plus $100 is even better. People have an incentive to lie about these things.
And courts have an incentive to investigate such lies. The fact that people may lie certainly does not stop them from attempting to do so. It's up to the victims in the case to convince the judge (or jury) of their plea. An alleged rape victim may be lying about what truly went on to gain compensation from their alleged rapist. This does not stop courts from trying to establish whether or not their claim has standing.

I did.
So is it or isn't it okay for the mafia to have similar expectations to government?

Pollution can affect people far away from their origination point, and they assumed the risks by owning land where it was possible that a factory could be built nearby.
Again, if the factory pre-existed the houses, such information would be available to the purchasers via their realtor (or else they have been sloppy in their research or misinformed their clients), so yes they'd choose to undertake the risk. If it came after, the firm (or government, whoever built it) is at fault - it should've made a comprehensive assessment of how likely its emissions were to damage the wellbeing of nearby residents.

They didn't have it thrust upon them. Using my rock anology they should have watched where they were going. Air is a non excludable good, and effluents become part of the air. Knowing that they chose to breathe it in anyway. Its their own fault. Any victims are self made.
See above for the analogy. And as I have said, I have no problem with extending property rights to air surrounding the house. How this is done of course will be a matter for legal experts to decide.

Similization

17-02-2007, 02:19

They're trying to dissociate themselves from the assholes who are associated with their ideologies by mixing it up.There's absolutely no doubt that has a lot to do with it, but it's not the only reason.Not my most articulate statement, given the 17 drinks of the evening, but it finally got what I've been trying to get myself to say for an awfully long time.Well, the first sentence was just fine. This one's iffy tho.Only outright anarchists are innocent of this charge.Damn I'd like to agree, but it's not true. We've had our organised gangs of thugs beating the shit out of people for political ends. We've had our terrorists, we've had our assasins. Just like everyone else.

It's perhaps true that we're generally less violent, coercive & such, than other political factions, but to claim we're innocent is a lie.

The Pacifist Womble

17-02-2007, 02:28

Do as I said, then. And once you have done so, then tell me whether or not there is a dictatorship of the majority.
That's still better than a dictatorship of the minority, which is the inevitable alternative.

Layarteb

17-02-2007, 03:30

It just denotes that both ideas are linked.

Similization

17-02-2007, 03:51

That's still better than a dictatorship of the minority, which is the inevitable alternative.What's so inevitable about it? And is it even an alternative? Modern demockeries all operate within a framework dictated by a ruling minority. Some less so than others, but they all do.

Andaluciae

17-02-2007, 03:55

Damn I'd like to agree, but it's not true. We've had our organised gangs of thugs beating the shit out of people for political ends. We've had our terrorists, we've had our assasins. Just like everyone else.

It's perhaps true that we're generally less violent, coercive & such, than other political factions, but to claim we're innocent is a lie.

No mass murderers or open international aggressors amongst them though, no Stalins, Maos, Lenins. Just garden variety thugs and terrorists.

Similization

17-02-2007, 04:12

No mass murderers or open international aggressors amongst them though, no Stalins, Maos, Lenins. Just garden variety thugs and terrorists.Unfortunately that's prolly more to do with anarchism always incurring the wrath of all authority. Unlike the various authoritarian ideologies, we've never risen above being the targets of such tendencies, but I'm fairly confident few sane people will deny that at least a handful of semi-prominent anarchists had the same tendencies.

I think it's to do with how people percieve others. For the truely pissed or the true ideologue, it seems to be very easy to dehumanise opponents. I've often found myself in the former category, and it's a no-brainer that once you reach the point where you've dehumanised political opponents, you can justify any action against them.

Of course, anarchism (the traditional leftist forms at least) is supposed to be contrary to such thinking, but anarchists are humans, not machines. We fuck up just like everyone else.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Commies and hyphens