NationStates Jolt Archive

If the majority allows it, then it isn't theft.

Does the same extend to murder?

Does the same extend to murder?

Pretty much. If I kill a suspected pedophile and afterwards there is damnable evidence that shows that the guy was a pedophile then it is unlikely that I will be punished. Or in some Middle Eastern countries it is socially acceptable to kill women who have had sex outside of marriage. I'm taking murder to be killing that is not justified.

I suppose it would apply to all of the instances where there are likely to be free riders - fire protection, communal defense, etc.
Not all. Law, order and defence are the ones I'm concerned with, as these industries are both necessary for all others to exist and would also differ from other firms in their nature (no other firm would enforce the law or possess significant amounts of weaponry). So a degree of stability is necessary in this case. I am just considering ways of melding this with anarcho-capitalist theory. Until I see private defence agencies in action, I am slightly skeptical of them.

Okay, stop right there. What exactly do you mean by the "fundamental human rights of self-ownership and self-determination"? If you mean people pursue their rights, namely the right to life and the right to freedom and material means to sustain that life, then yes, that's absolutely true. But somehow, I don't think that's what you mean. You seem to think that there is a fundamental character of humans that in all circumstances and all situations necessitates a fundamental and absolute respect for a person's right to pursue liberty and said material means at all costs.

Not only is this begging the very question you ask by presupposing the conditions you seek to justify, but I have to ask you where you find proof of this? Because it seems to me that while you may have the unrestricted right to life, the lion doesn't much care about that. While you may have the unrestricted right to property, the brigand in the state of nature doesn't much care either. In point of fact, in the state of nature, the brigand also has no self-interested reason to care, especially if he's stronger or can get away with it. This is, in point of fact, precisely why we form governments: because it is governments, not the state of the world itself, that protects those rights you claim to have by nature. Governments are the security of property, governments are the security of liberty, and governments are the protector of your life if you choose to live in them. That security and guarantee might be imperfect, but their a lot better than handling yourself in the state of nature. If you don't believe me, go ask a Somali.

If man can provide for his own security through government, what prevents him from providing his own security through other methods?

You act as if government is some superior to society, the creator of society, when it can only be true that it is the other way around.

Ah, but this is important to note, and not for the reason you think it is. Jens is a person who works day and night, long and hard, but does he work purely for profit? From how you write the passage, I would have to say no: he works because he prizes the creation of his work or the things he gets out of the work created.

First off, let us set down what is "profit". In the strictest sense, it is revenue less cost. Now there is the leftist sense of the term, in that "profit" represents the wealth that the owner of capital leeches from the user of capital, however, since we are not concerned with the capitalist/worker dichotomy, I cannot see how that is relevant. It seems rather that you are interested in some gain the Jens derives from his work, but in doing so it seems you are positing a dichotomy, by later contrasting profit against what he gets out of his work.

Since we have eliminated the leftist sense of profit, and we have established that there exists a dichotomy in your argument consisting of the gain from work you call profit, and the gain that you contrast against profit (namely the things he gets through his work). Certainly this is a false dichotomy, but what is the reason for this false dichotomy? Money and your misconception thereof.

Money in itself is not valuable, it is always a representation of some other object of value. Unfortunately it is constantly being cast as some great end-all that is sought under the capitalist society. The problem is, of course, that money is rarely sought on its own outside of its merits as a coke tooter. Contrasted against the view of the miser who counts his money endlessly is reality, in which money is never heald or horded. Money is immediately liquidated into consumable goods or sunk into further production, otherwise it naturally loses value.

So when you say that he is not working for profit, but working for the things he gets from his work, you are undoubtedly contradicting yourself.

Now, there is much to be said for prizing one's creation, and the motivation it provides. However, said emotion and motivation is hardly a productive defense in the violent government appropriation of said creation.

Implicit in this claim is also the claim that it's value comes not in it's price value (how much price value the world's largest long-drop toilet could have I am unsure of but I will venture to guess is low), but in the labor and construction of something of value. You are therefore indirectly referencing the labor, not the price value as being the operative term in Jens relationship to his creation. This may be in common with Locke and Marx, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the economics you espouse.

It certainly is a matter of price value, as if the value he places on his own labor is greater than the market price of the lumber, he would certainly purchase the lumber. If someone else can build the toilet cheaper, he will perform other labor and pay that person at market prices. In the end, he works because he subjectively values the long-drop toilet more than he values the labor, but less than he values the currency that would provide for the toilet.

The acceptance of subjective valuation is not the denial of labor value. It is only the denial that labor and labor alone determine economic value.

So what, you might ask? Well, my response goes, if the value Jens derives comes from the effort he puts into a task, why can the same not apply to the bridge? Can he not make the trek to see the bridge, look proudly at it, and say "My wood built that bridge!" The fact that he was ordered to do it matters not a whit; his effort still went into it, and his effort is reflected in the eventual creation. Simply put, if we accept your analysis of Jens, we can only make sense of his effort if we assume that price value doesn't reflect why he does what he does. But if we accept that the labor reflects the value, then he should be able to value the bridge just as much as he values the poop chute, as in both cases, his effort was necessary to build it.

His analysis of Jens rests on the idea that Jens is laboring through and for his own will. That is it, subjective and labor values are secondary. You invented this scenario where it is the effort that he values, when it is quite explicit that it is the "poop chute" he values.

1) I might have missed it in my readings of, say, The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, The German Ideology, or any of the other socialist tracts I've read, but I've never once heard that worker's camps were an integral part of "socialism". I must have missed it, so could you do me a favor and cite it for me?

He never said that it did. He was showing that, if one were forced to work in a work camp for a fifth of the year before one could begin to work out of one's own wishes, it would be deemed slavery. From there he makes a very simple jump to say that forcing someone to turn over 20% of their labor before allowing them to use the rest of their labor for their own wishes is analogous.

2) I might also have missed it in, say, The Second Treatise on Government, Politics, The Philosophical Dictionary, The Persian Letters, The Social Contract, or any of the other classical liberal treatises, where taking 20% of your time = slavery. Slavery is a position marked by two conditions. First, a person coerces you to act in a manner that you would rather not. Second, and this is crucial,there is no remedial way that you can change the situation.

That is a completely asinine condition.

Are you prepared to argue that the freed slave was never a slave?

If you are a citizen in a democracy and you don't want to surrender 20% of your time to work in a laborer camp, you vote for candidates (or vote directly) for it not to happen.

Hardly an effective remedial action.

If you get outvoted and you choose not to leave the social contract, to say that you are in a state of slavery borders on insulting, because it compares you with a person who got no say in what happened to his fate and had no recourse if things went badly for him; a condition which in a state that allows votes simply does not exist for you.

There are differing levels of slavery. That there are worse forms of slavery does not make some forms of slavery right.

3) Consent implies the ability to do otherwise if one chooses to. In this case, by your own definition, capitalism is a form of slavery, because in it people work for part of the day solely for the benefit of others (i.e. profit which is made over and above what the workers make), and many workers do not have a recourse to a job that does not also require them to work for the benefit of others and cannot live independently of having a job. As such, they cannot effectively consent to their positions in capitalism, as they have no ability to choose otherwise.

Just to clarify, to force Jens to work for free without his consent is slavery.

And we come to one of the main points of my point-by-point analysis, which is that your post is entirely full of it, on several issues. For starters, "socialism" does not demand that he do something despite the fact that he does not want to. Any and all governments ask their citizens to do thing they don't always want to do. Governments ask their citizens all the time not to kill each other, not to steal from each other, not to break oaths with each other, despite the fact that a great while of the time people do in fact want to do these things. This is not wrong. Governments also ask their citizens to sacrifice some of their liberty and some of their absolute right to life and property in exchange for being better about using the latitude citizens give them than brigands would in the state of nature. This is not wrong either. Nor still is it slavery, because slavery is incompatible with the notion of a society that, in any sense of the term, chooses how it operates.

Your argument in a nutshell:

Socialism does not force people to do what they do not want to do, but all governments force people to do what they do not want to do, so it is ok that socialism does it.

In a more narrow sense, perhaps it would be a good time to let you know, since it's increasingly obvious you didn't know this before you decided to lecture the rest of us on economics, that socialism is the doctrine espousing enforced siezure of the means of production by the proletariat class from the bourgeoisie, combined with the forcible redistribution of the means of production to common ownership by the proletariat. In what sense does this have anything to do with Jens? Is he a part of the bourgeouisie? Is he a part of the proletariat? What are the means of production in your analysis? Do you even know what the means of production are?

That is a particularly narrow application of socialist thought. Socialism in its entirety has been the attempt to justify the taking of the individual's creation and giving it to the whole in the name of equality.

Also, GPN already stated what Jens' means of production is.

Actually, it's indicative of your disdain for us that you lecture about socialism when you have no idea what socialism is, or even what legitemate government or the rule of law is. Throughout this post, I've neglected to even bother using socialism to refute you. Instead, I took my lessons almost verbatim by the progenitor of classical liberal political theory, The Second Treatise on Government by John Locke. The labor theory of value was developed by Locke. The notion of a social contract and state of nature was purely Lockean, as was the explanation of why we come out of that state of nature, and why we endure the necessary deprivations of government. On the other hand, we have what I can only assume are the bat-crap crazy ravings of either an anarchist or someone who has never bothered to read a word of the tradition he purportedly defends. Adam Smith was the founder of capitalism, and he argued for strong public education systems, a position no doubt you would consider a sign of the coming tyrannical Apocalypse. All I can say at this point is that you need to stop, take a few deep breaths, and actually read some of the works that inspired the founding fathers. It's better not to even mention socialism at this point.

Actually the social contract and the state of nature were originally devised by Hobbes for the decidedly non-classical liberal goal of justifying the monarchy.

Your analysis is far more in line with Hobbes's brutal state of nature than Locke's rational God-given state of nature.

In the end, I question how much you understand of the material as well as our friend's opinions and influences.

Pretty much. If I kill a suspected pedophile and afterwards there is damnable evidence that shows that the guy was a pedophile then it is unlikely that I will be punished. Or in some Middle Eastern countries it is socially acceptable to kill women who have had sex outside of marriage. I'm taking murder to be killing that is not justified.

Is that just?

Another question:

If a society exists where there are two distinct ethnicities, one a majority, one a minority. If the majority ethnicities votes to wipe out the minority, is it genocide?

Is that just?

To my thinking no, but that begs the question of what is just. I'm just acknowledging that things dealing with justice and morality are socially constructed. In practical terms at least.

Another question:

If a society exists where there are two distinct ethnicities, one a majority, one a minority. If the majority ethnicities votes to wipe out the minority, is it genocide?

Its still genocide, but that doesn't mean genocide is wrong. If I kill an evil totalitarian monarch I still committed regicide.

Its still genocide, but that doesn't mean genocide is wrong. If I kill an evil totalitarian monarch I still committed regicide.

That is correct, but I was addressing the idea that majority opinion addresses what is and isn't theft.

Using murder was a poor analogy, and I couldn't get around it very easily.

Money in itself is not valuable, it is always a representation of some other object of value.
There was one definition of money I particularly liked (applying strictly to 100% reserve currencies) - that it is a present good meant to insure oneself against uncertainty. What uncertainty? That one good cannot be traded for another unless there is a double coincidence of wants. Money qua present good insures oneself against present uncertainty with its high liquidity. The more universal it is in circulation, the more useful it is in this role.

Which would be less suscepitable to it than if it was done at the orders of one or two bureaucrats.

Huh? Law enforcement isn't done on the orders of one or two bureaucrats in most governments. Your example here either needs more explanation to make sense or it simply fails.


Not especially. Certainly, there would be the need to ascertain who did what, other that that it would be a neighborhood watch.

Neighborhood watches in my experience have significantly less effectiveness in stopping crime or at least catching the perps, than actual law enforcement. And besides, since there is no actual law enforcement, how do you propose to avoid vigilantism.


I disagree; the need to have working roads would likely outweigh the need to quibble.

Maybe small roads, but if you think this kind of community could string together the coordination and resources to build actual highways, railways and other large scale infrastructure necessary to support large population bases, you're way off your rocker.

Besides, if you can barely get 10 people to agree on the choice of pizza, it'll be impossible to get everyone to agree to building roads. Some will say a dirt strip will do, others will want it tarred, etc, etc. Eventually, it'll devolve into something ugly.


Just out of curiosity, how much personal experience do you have with direct democracy?

Generally? Mob rule. Too easily swayed by emotive factors and charismatic leaders. It was never pleasant I'll tell you that much.


There's no reason to assume that frictions couldn't be resolved via mediation.


You'd need some kind of superhuman mediator that's universally respected for that to work. And so far, humanity hasn't produced someone like that.


Yes, but it would have to be an extreme dislike in order for me, or anyone, to want to do that.

You can speak for yourself certainly, but for other people? I know people who've started feuds over insults before. This kind of problem will definitely surface in your society, and so far, you're pretending it won't.


And what would prevent this from happening if the leaders and police in a representative democracy disliked the recluse?


Rule of law plus checks and balances. Not perfect, but it's something. I haven't seen those checks and balances in your society yet.


I oppose ownership, as well as institutionalized imbalances of power. Those are the two biggest reasons.

Too bad really. Because power and influence always, without exception, flows into the hands of a few. Why? Because there will be always people who desire power over others, and of those, there will be those with the skill and will to get it. Even in your ideal society.


Why not? Do you hate easily?


Why not? Because unless these people are robots, they'll all hold their own opinions, value systems, etc, etc. And some of that is bound to conflict against yours.


You didn't specify until the last post that he was an ideal.


I did specify that he contributed to the society and all that.


You seemed to indicate that you had no problem with this.

Something has to be done to ensure taxes are paid no? Heck, even your society has it's own "pay or else" setup.


If not, what would you do, if anything, to tax evaders?

Me? Personally, nothing. I'm not the government. But seizure of non-life critical assets equitable to what is owed seems to be fair.


Violence shows itself more often than not in certain conditions. If the conditions for violence aren't there, there's no reason to believe it would show itself in any large amount.

Human propensity for violence can thrive in almost any condition. Jealousy, envy, plain old hate, bigotry (looking different would suffice), etc, etc, etc. They are all human states of mind, and no, you can't weed those out of humans and still call them human.


You did specify examples, not long-lasting ones. ;)


Doesn't this indicate that anarcho-communism simply cannot work?

There was one definition of money I particularly liked (applying strictly to 100% reserve currencies) - that it is a present good meant to insure oneself against uncertainty. What uncertainty? That one good cannot be traded for another unless there is a double coincidence of wants. Money qua present good insures oneself against present uncertainty with its high liquidity. The more universal it is in circulation, the more useful it is in this role.

It is a security with a perpetual maturity date.

Does the fact that almost every example failed in a few years tell you anything about the system in general?

I also note that the wiki page describes these amazingly short lived societies as 'successfully organised according to anarchistic principles'. I don't know about you, but three or four years does not exactly seem a successful society...Yes, it tells me that the system is a threat to systems around it. If you'll notice, most of them failed because of outside forces, not internal forces.

Who are the Zapatistas? I did not see them on the page you provided?Number 2.6 Zapatista Autonomous Munipalities

You did see that the main reason proposed for them all sharing was that they did not actually have any posessions to own, that they were so poor that nobody could save enough resources to be rich... Note also - this is for very very small tribal groups on the edge of survival, not for very large populations with a high standard of living.Yes, I noticed that. Certain anarcho-primitivists have suggested that we return to such systems. They would also take issue with your equating "high standard of living" with material wealth.
The NS Poster Neesika outlikes the communitarian system that indigenous peoples use, and continue to use today. I didn't post it before, because I have no links to verify what she says is accurate (though I personally believe her) but if you're interested, it's in this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519315

If there is any agreement between the all those individuals concerned with a thing, then there is property.I don't have a rebuttal to this. It could just be the terminology that I take an issue with, but as I don't have a rebuttal I'll accept this.

Why not?Because such an argument implies that the individual in question had the right to do whatever it was that they did. If they didn't have the right to create something, why should that something belong to them?

If anything should be learned by present methods to restrict capitalism, i.e. the regulation and bottlenecking of the flow of resources, it is that those who have the power to control the regulation will manipulate it for their own benefit and after regulation has been made, there is a mad scramble to exploit the government prohibitions.All the more reason to leave the power to control the regulation in the hands of everyone.

Government restrictions on possible petitions only will highten the intensity of the petitions.In which case more restrictions could be made. For instance, if the neighboring people don't want all of the forest to be cut down, but could live with no more than 10% of it being cut down, they could immediately reject all petitions calling for more than 10% of the forest to be logged. They could then modify this further if they wanted the trees to be selectively cut instead of clearcut, and reject all petitions calling for clearcutting.

Also, if there are stringent restrictions placed on obtaining resources and goods for expendable use, it is impossible for there not to be an approval system for required use.Certainly - the communities would discuss the petitions, and the ones that met the requirements would be further discussed, and approved, if necessary.

But I have found that showing the inefficacies of resource distribution through centralized direct democracy always turns into an endless lesson or redirection.I suppose because you're assuming that more efficient is better, and the person you're arguing against is saying that in this case, it isn't (although it could be).

You are, in effect, stating that ownership rights are different from usage rights because they aren't usage rights.

The question has been "What separates ownership rights from usage rights that makes one valid and one not?" That the basis for having the right to use resources is that you need to use them to sustain your life. If you're not using them to sustain your life, you probably don't have the right to use them.

What is the basis for appropriation by labor? Why should people have the right to homestead?

I can hardly see how that is consensual.Because I consented to the terms offered. In any deal being made, there will be consequences for making the deal vs. not making the deal. In this case, where my life is threatened, I viewed the consequences of dying as being worse than accepting the authority of the person making the threat.
What would you consider consensual authority to be? I can only imagine it being different in scale as opposed to type.

Strawman.If it is, it certainly wasn't intentional. Could you further explain, then, what you mean by "an extension of the self"?

Does the same extend to murder?Yes. Theft and murder are purely legal terms. Since I am arguing that the law be decided by the majority, if it's legal, it can't be theft or murder, since they are defined as illegal.

Not all. Law, order and defence are the ones I'm concerned with, as these industries are both necessary for all others to exist and would also differ from other firms in their nature (no other firm would enforce the law or possess significant amounts of weaponry). So a degree of stability is necessary in this case. I am just considering ways of melding this with anarcho-capitalist theory. Until I see private defence agencies in action, I am slightly skeptical of them.Becoming more of a pragmatist, I see. ;)

Huh? Law enforcement isn't done on the orders of one or two bureaucrats in most governments. Your example here either needs more explanation to make sense or it simply fails.Really? The higher ups in police organizations don't decide how to allocate their resources? They don't decide which cases are the priorities?

Neighborhood watches in my experience have significantly less effectiveness in stopping crime or at least catching the perps, than actual law enforcement.I think this has more to do with the purpose of most neighborhood watches. Most of them are formed to serve in a witness capacity, as opposed to a protection capacity.

And besides, since there is no actual law enforcement, how do you propose to avoid vigilantism.That depends on the situation. If a person is found to have done something wrong, they will have broken the social contract. They can either make amends, or they are outside of the contract, in which case vigilantism is fine. The only window there is stopping vigilantism in between the time a person is accused and found guilty of doing whatever it is that they did. I think the window will be small enough, and the people in the community reasonable enough, that there will be no need for vigilantism.

Maybe small roads, but if you think this kind of community could string together the coordination and resources to build actual highways, railways and other large scale infrastructure necessary to support large population bases, you're way off your rocker.An individual community wouldn't need that type of large scale infrastructure. If they wanted to get together and form a confederacy to deal with this type of situation, they could do so.

Besides, if you can barely get 10 people to agree on the choice of pizza, it'll be impossible to get everyone to agree to building roads. Some will say a dirt strip will do, others will want it tarred, etc, etc. Eventually, it'll devolve into something ugly.I suppose that will depend on how much traffic the road is expected to get. People are smart enough to know that you can't drive an 18-wheeler on a bicycle path.

Generally? Mob rule. Too easily swayed by emotive factors and charismatic leaders. It was never pleasant I'll tell you that much.So you're saying you have personal experience with direct democracy?

You'd need some kind of superhuman mediator that's universally respected for that to work. And so far, humanity hasn't produced someone like that.I think an average mediator would be sufficient, as long as the mediator is respected.

You can speak for yourself certainly, but for other people? I know people who've started feuds over insults before. This kind of problem will definitely surface in your society, and so far, you're pretending it won't.Oh, I'm sure that it would.

Rule of law plus checks and balances. Not perfect, but it's something. I haven't seen those checks and balances in your society yet.I'd imagine that most communities would have a Constitution of some kind.

Too bad really. Because power and influence always, without exception, flows into the hands of a few. Why? Because there will be always people who desire power over others, and of those, there will be those with the skill and will to get it. Even in your ideal society.If there are no institutions of power, and there is no way for someone to acquire significantly more wealth than someone else (money is power), then it's unlikely that this will happen, unless you're suggesting that when your doctor gives you health advice, that he has power over you.

Why not? Because unless these people are robots, they'll all hold their own opinions, value systems, etc, etc. And some of that is bound to conflict against yours.Certainly. They are welcome to form a community with me, or form their own.

I did specify that he contributed to the society and all that.Yes, but that could just be because he recognized that it was in his own best interest to do so. That could be 60% of people.

Something has to be done to ensure taxes are paid no? Heck, even your society has it's own "pay or else" setup.The society I propose doesn't have taxes.

Me? Personally, nothing. I'm not the government. But seizure of non-life critical assets equitable to what is owed seems to be fair.This wouldn't work in all cases. What do you propose to do in the cases where it wouldn't work?

Human propensity for violence can thrive in almost any condition. Jealousy, envy, plain old hate, bigotry (looking different would suffice), etc, etc, etc. They are all human states of mind, and no, you can't weed those out of humans and still call them human.If this were true, then you would expect to see similar rates of violent crime across the board in all cultures. The evidence suggests this isn't the case. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that conditions can increase or decrease the amount of violence in human societies.

Doesn't this indicate that anarcho-communism simply cannot work?No, it indicates other people around anarcho-communistic communities don't like it.

Becoming more of a pragmatist, I see. ;)

Not really. I just don't see the point in taking the mainstream theory as Dogma when there are possible alternatives to how it could work out. The theorists behind it themselves, after all, took creative licence in fleshing out their ideas as they did. If they didn't, the theory would just stagnate and become irrelevant.

That is a particularly narrow application of socialist thought. Socialism in its entirety has been the attempt to justify the taking of the individual's creation and giving it to the whole in the name of equality.

Also, GPN already stated what Jens' means of production is.

Okay, let's talk about Jens' means of production. He labors and he gets the value of that labor. There's no contradiction with socialism there. What Jens does not do is employ others to do labor for him with his property.

You are taking the socialist critique of wage labor and then trying to say that socialists want to collectivize everything. That is blatantly untrue. If we get down to the actual meaning of socialism as socialists have always defined it and strived for, socialism is about ensuring that all individuals have the right to their individual creations.

Tell me, how can we consider it fair for someone to gain from economic activity merely by owning property? Owning productive property requires no labor on my part, either physical or mental. If I manage production, then I am entitled to a share of the production equal to my input, but if I merely hire someone to manage it for me, then under any system of property rights I am taking other's individual creation in the name of private property.

You criticize a perceived lack of respect of the individual in socialism, yet capitalist systems of organization are even more misanthropic and anti-individualist then what your percieve socialism to be.

Because such an argument implies that the individual in question had the right to do whatever it was that they did. If they didn't have the right to create something, why should that something belong to them?

Should we accept as fundamental that a person should be entitled to a right to seek his own self-preservation?

All the more reason to leave the power to control the regulation in the hands of everyone.

It makes no difference.

In which case more restrictions could be made. For instance, if the neighboring people don't want all of the forest to be cut down, but could live with no more than 10% of it being cut down, they could immediately reject all petitions calling for more than 10% of the forest to be logged. They could then modify this further if they wanted the trees to be selectively cut instead of clearcut, and reject all petitions calling for clearcutting.

They could narrow it down until there is only one applicant who need respond.

Certainly - the communities would discuss the petitions, and the ones that met the requirements would be further discussed, and approved, if necessary.

So one must get permission to live?

I suppose because you're assuming that more efficient is better, and the person you're arguing against is saying that in this case, it isn't (although it could be).

No, because the person I am arguing with tends to deny the damning effects of complete inefficiency.

That the basis for having the right to use resources is that you need to use them to sustain your life. If you're not using them to sustain your life, you probably don't have the right to use them.

Would perpetual use imply ownership? Can a shopkeeper who has his security system, refridgerators, and advertisements constantly in use have justified ownership?

What is the basis for appropriation by labor? Why should people have the right to homestead?

It is the resolution of competing claims through direct interest. No man has greater interest in a good than its creator, no man has greater interest in a land than the man who stakes his life to it.

Because I consented to the terms offered. In any deal being made, there will be consequences for making the deal vs. not making the deal. In this case, where my life is threatened, I viewed the consequences of dying as being worse than accepting the authority of the person making the threat.
What would you consider consensual authority to be? I can only imagine it being different in scale as opposed to type.

Consensual authority is not arrived at through a dichotomy enforced by an external entity.

If it is, it certainly wasn't intentional. Could you further explain, then, what you mean by "an extension of the self"?

I never said any of the things you said.

I only said that we see a part of us in our product. It is certainly not a product of alienation to believe something we spent our time and energy to produce represents a portion of our life.

That does not imply that the belief extends infinitely. That also does not mean that we cannot trade it away freely.

Okay, let's talk about Jens' means of production. He labors and he gets the value of that labor. There's no contradiction with socialism there. What Jens does not do is employ others to do labor for him with his property.

Agreed up to here.

You are taking the socialist critique of wage labor and then trying to say that socialists want to collectivize everything. That is blatantly untrue. If we get down to the actual meaning of socialism as socialists have always defined it and strived for, socialism is about ensuring that all individuals have the right to their individual creations.

Impossible without individual property.

And in fact, many socialists do wish to collectivize all things economic.

Tell me, how can we consider it fair for someone to gain from economic activity merely by owning property? Owning productive property requires no labor on my part, either physical or mental. If I manage production, then I am entitled to a share of the production equal to my input, but if I merely hire someone to manage it for me, then under any system of property rights I am taking other's individual creation in the name of private property.

If a man builds a machine, would he not be entitled to the work of the machine?

You criticize a perceived lack of respect of the individual in socialism, yet capitalist systems of organization are even more misanthropic and anti-individualist then what your percieve socialism to be.

Untrue, I have not commented upon whether or not the socialist is interested in the individual, I have only stated that their prescriptions cannot truly serve the individual.

Not really. I just don't see the point in taking the mainstream theory as Dogma when there are possible alternatives to how it could work out. The theorists behind it themselves, after all, took creative licence in fleshing out their ideas as they did. If they didn't, the theory would just stagnate and become irrelevant.I suppose that in the absence of any real life examples, you do have to imagine how such a system would work and go from there.

Should we accept as fundamental that a person should be entitled to a right to seek his own self-preservation?Certainly.

It makes no difference.Sure it does. If everyone has the power to control who gets to use what, then nobody gains over other nearby people by having that power.

They could narrow it down until there is only one applicant who need respond.That too. In this case, they need only debate the merits of one application.

So one must get permission to live?No. As I said, the right to life comes first; you don't need to petition the nearby communities if you're using the resources to sustain your life.

No, because the person I am arguing with tends to deny the damning effects of complete inefficiency.Ah, complete. I thought you were simply saying that it was more efficient.
I suppose I don't see why it should be completely inefficient. There are other models that can be used; delegates can be elected, etc.

Would perpetual use imply ownership? Can a shopkeeper who has his security system, refridgerators, and advertisements constantly in use have justified ownership?The shopkeeper does not use the items that he sells, the buyers do, so no.
As far as the perpetual use goes, perpetual use is not exclusive use, although it does bring many of the things that ownership does bring. Much of what self-ownership implies (freedom from assault by others, etc.) is also implied by my perpetual use of my body.

It is the resolution of competing claims through direct interest. No man has greater interest in a good than its creator, no man has greater interest in a land than the man who stakes his life to it.But why do people have the right to make claims - or more appropriately, have their claims taken seriously by others - in the first place?

Consensual authority is not arrived at through a dichotomy enforced by an external entity.Which is the external entity in this case?

I never said any of the things you said.I know, I was extending (what I thought you meant by) the idea that a product is an extension of the self.

I only said that we see a part of us in our product. It is certainly not a product of alienation to believe something we spent our time and energy to produce represents a portion of our life.

That does not imply that the belief extends infinitely. That also does not mean that we cannot trade it away freely.I understand this. You're saying that the default position should be that the person would want to keep their creation, and should enter a contract with others to trade it away. I'm saying that the default position, at least as far as the rest of are concerned, is that they do not want to keep it, unless they enter a contract with the rest of us to do so.

Really? The higher ups in police organizations don't decide how to allocate their resources? They don't decide which cases are the priorities?


Hierarchies distribute the decision making process, the higher the level, the less finely set are the decisions. If it isn't, that falls under micromanagement, which is generally bad.


I think this has more to do with the purpose of most neighborhood watches. Most of them are formed to serve in a witness capacity, as opposed to a protection capacity.

And a neighborhood watch formed in the protection capacity would be capable of performing their jobs? Remember, these people would have to do it for a living since you can't provide security and go farming at the same time. That means providing the resources and training necessary to carry it out if you want something more effective than a bunch of leg breakers.

All that takes money, and you'd have to convince local rednecks with some 500 guns in their closets that having a police force is worth funding.

Hell, a hospital with the kind of equipment needed to treat most modern day diseases are well beyond the means of any small to medium sized community.

A small time doctor would never be able to afford serious medical equipment that major hospitals do. Much less R&D to find cures to new strains of disease.

So in your ideal community, you'd need external support from major metropolitan or corporate concerns just to ensure current life expectancies.


That depends on the situation. If a person is found to have done something wrong, they will have broken the social contract. They can either make amends, or they are outside of the contract, in which case vigilantism is fine. The only window there is stopping vigilantism in between the time a person is accused and found guilty of doing whatever it is that they did. I think the window will be small enough, and the people in the community reasonable enough, that there will be no need for vigilantism.

That's quite a fine ideal. Unfortunately, humans aren't built that way. Kangaroo courts would be more the norm and guilt by emotion (mob behavior) would probably be the step just before violent vigilantism.

Lynch mobs in other words. Some things shouldn't be trusted to untrained people, and law enforcement is one of them.


An individual community wouldn't need that type of large scale infrastructure. If they wanted to get together and form a confederacy to deal with this type of situation, they could do so.

Not possible. Not without a central governing structure. Large scale infrastructure needed to support anything above agricultural levels means high levels of coordination.

Ever heard of the saying too many cooks spoil the broth? That's the problem with your direct democracy right there. Everybody would have their own idea and fight it out, getting nothing done. The bigger the project, the more people involved, and the bigger the fights.


I suppose that will depend on how much traffic the road is expected to get. People are smart enough to know that you can't drive an 18-wheeler on a bicycle path.

Wrong. The correct answer is people are stupid. Stupid with a capital S. There are enough Darwin award winners out there to prove this.


So you're saying you have personal experience with direct democracy?


You don't get more personal than pre-riot levels.


I think an average mediator would be sufficient, as long as the mediator is respected.

Out of 5,000 people? If so, what's to stop him from seizing power?


Oh, I'm sure that it would.


Well I don't see any magic cure for it, and you certainly haven't thought of one.


I'd imagine that most communities would have a Constitution of some kind.


Not really. Most communities at that level wouldn't have the expertise or will to put up anything more than a bunch of statements that go "Don't piss in Old Ma's pool or you'll get shot"


If there are no institutions of power, and there is no way for someone to acquire significantly more wealth than someone else (money is power), then it's unlikely that this will happen, unless you're suggesting that when your doctor gives you health advice, that he has power over you.

Nope, nope, nope. Ideal, but naive. Money isn't power. Influence is. The more influence you have, and the more entrenched it is, the more power you wield. Money is just one way to getting that influence. And the more power you wield, the easier it is to lead by dictate.


Certainly. They are welcome to form a community with me, or form their own.


Good luck getting it to last even half a generation.


Yes, but that could just be because he recognized that it was in his own best interest to do so. That could be 60% of people.


Which is what your ideal anarcho-communist would be wouldn't it? To contribute to all because it helps not just all, but him.


The society I propose doesn't have taxes.


A rose by any other name huh? Look, your community needs money to survive, and I don't mean in everybody else's pocket. A communal fund for public works that makes sure you'll have more than a dirt strip. And where's that money going to come from? You've acknowledged that it comes from the people, and if they don't pay, they get kicked out directly or indirectly.

That's taxes.


This wouldn't work in all cases. What do you propose to do in the cases where it wouldn't work?

First show the case where it doesn't work, then we'll talk. Don't give me generic "what if it don't work" lines and expect me to come up with 1,001 scenarios.


If this were true, then you would expect to see similar rates of violent crime across the board in all cultures. The evidence suggests this isn't the case. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that conditions can increase or decrease the amount of violence in human societies.

Nope. Strawman here. I didn't say violence would be equal across the board. I'm saying it can't be weeded out. Meaning, your ideal society would still have issues of violence that are not supposed to occur.


No, it indicates other people around anarcho-communistic communities don't like it.

First, prove that all these other societies collapsed due to their neighbors.

And if it does, it proves from a Darwinian point of view, that anarcho-communism cannot work.

It's like expecting PETA's creed to protect it's members from big cats while in the lions enclosure.

Impossible without individual property.

And in fact, many socialists do wish to collectivize all things economic.

First off, no its not impossible. Private property is a relatively recent concept in the grand scheme of things, and prior to its creation (around the time of the rise of the State), anthropologists and archaeologists find that there was no standard of private property. Like the native americans, all property was held in common, and distribued based on need. Also like native americans, they found evidence that these cultures fiercely protected the individual, and allowed greater standards of personal freedom than perhaps even now.

Secondly, socialists seek to socialize all group economic activities. Individual production is not only so scarce anymore to not be worth anyone's trouble, but it is also not conducive to freedom and equality.

What you are thinking of are authoritarian communists, i.e., those who wish to collectivize all economic activity without regard to consent of the individual.

If a man builds a machine, would he not be entitled to the work of the machine?

Only if he built it by himself. If he hires someone else to help the work of building a machine, he is no longer entitled to the whole of the machines work. If it takes more than one person to run it, then everyone who contributes to running the machine is entitled to a share of the output.

Certainly

Then we can take as given that the person must have the right to create utilizable goods.

Sure it does. If everyone has the power to control who gets to use what, then nobody gains over other nearby people by having that power.

It does not matter who sets the regulation, there will be someone singled out for benefit, and the greater the regulation the greater the benefit.

And the argument that democracy provides for equal benefit is ludicrous.

That too. In this case, they need only debate the merits of one application.

And control the economic role of everyone in the community.

No. As I said, the right to life comes first; you don't need to petition the nearby communities if you're using the resources to sustain your life.

I thought that you agreed that the non-necessary/necessary use dichotomy would require government action to determine what constitutes necessary use.

Would not this approval of necessary usage be essentially permission to live?

The shopkeeper does not use the items that he sells, the buyers do, so no.

Certainly distribution and storage of goods is a use. Is the consumer who takes goods from the factory to his home and then stores them in his freezer not using the goods?

As far as the perpetual use goes, perpetual use is not exclusive use, although it does bring many of the things that ownership does bring. Much of what self-ownership implies (freedom from assault by others, etc.) is also implied by my perpetual use of my body.

As I said before, all things can be reduced until there is only sole usage.

However, much of this I can agree with.

But why do people have the right to make claims - or more appropriately, have their claims taken seriously by others - in the first place?

It is not a right, it is an ability granted by nature, the same as holding an opinion. And there is nothing guaranteeing that claims be taken seriously.

Which is the external entity in this case?

The teacher.

I understand this. You're saying that the default position should be that the person would want to keep their creation, and should enter a contract with others to trade it away. I'm saying that the default position, at least as far as the rest of are concerned, is that they do not want to keep it, unless they enter a contract with the rest of us to do so.

Not exactly.

It is simply that putting work into something is putting yourself into something. This could imply that people want to keep their creation as their own person, or it could imply that they see themselves as a part of something greater and that their property belongs to something greater.

So it may be completely true that a person may only want what is granted by society, but your prescriptions are completely unnecessary if that were the case.

First off, no its not impossible. Private property is a relatively recent concept in the grand scheme of things, and prior to its creation (around the time of the rise of the State), anthropologists and archaeologists find that there was no standard of private property. Like the native americans, all property was held in common, and distribued based on need. Also like native americans, they found evidence that these cultures fiercely protected the individual, and allowed greater standards of personal freedom than perhaps even now.

The communalism of many Native American tribes (many tribes were also decidedly capitalistic) and hunter-gatherers is hardly a viable alternative to capitalism or communism.

It is of note that market relations existed between tribes.

Also, how does this native american economic model go about "ensuring that all individuals have the right to their individual creations"?

Secondly, socialists seek to socialize all group economic activities. Individual production is not only so scarce anymore to not be worth anyone's trouble, but it is also not conducive to freedom and equality.

Individual production is hardly scarce by any sense of the term, but in the most important sense, labor is impossible to share even if production and processes are.

What you are thinking of are authoritarian communists, i.e., those who wish to collectivize all economic activity without regard to consent of the individual.

What sort of communism allows for private enterprise if so desired by the individual?

Only if he built it by himself. If he hires someone else to help the work of building a machine, he is no longer entitled to the whole of the machines work. If it takes more than one person to run it, then everyone who contributes to running the machine is entitled to a share of the output.

And if he gains his partner's share through equitable trade?

The communalism of many Native American tribes (many tribes were also decidedly capitalistic) and hunter-gatherers is hardly a viable alternative to capitalism or communism.

It is of note that market relations existed between tribes.

Also, how does this native american economic model go about "ensuring that all individuals have the right to their individual creations"?

You're mistaking my point. My point was first that private property is a social construct, and second that individualism can indeed exist without it. Socialism or communism doesn't really preclude markets. In fact, many forms of anarchism embrace them. Socialism is defined by the end of private ownership of productive property, not the absence of market relations.

Individual production is hardly scarce by any sense of the term, but in the most important sense, labor is impossible to share even if production and processes are.

If we look at any finished product, the labor of hundreds or even thousands of different people is all present in its creation. Less than a handful of people in the entire world would have the skills or time to build an entire computer alone from raw materials, or even a house for that matter.

What sort of communism allows for private enterprise if so desired by the individual?

That's the beauty of communist-anarchism. You can do what you want on your own, and keep all the products or your labor, or you can work in a group, and share in the total products of the groups labor.

And if he gains his partner's share through equitable trade?

If by "equitable" you mean an uncoerced exchange of equal values, then there would be no problem with that. Coercing his partner to give up his/her labor value in exchange for something less is not acceptable.

I'm not your ordinary, run of the mill communist.

since when is TAX a socialist concept?

:confused: :headbang:

Hierarchies distribute the decision making process, the higher the level, the less finely set are the decisions. If it isn't, that falls under micromanagement, which is generally bad.Some locales have smaller hierarchies than others. Small town USA might have only a few police officers, leaving the decisions to be made to one sheriff.

And a neighborhood watch formed in the protection capacity would be capable of performing their jobs? Remember, these people would have to do it for a living since you can't provide security and go farming at the same time. That means providing the resources and training necessary to carry it out if you want something more effective than a bunch of leg breakers.

All that takes money, and you'd have to convince local rednecks with some 500 guns in their closets that having a police force is worth funding. It takes someone to train people to use the guns, yes. Most people in the community would be trained in such a manner, since after all, there would be no standing army. (Or more accurately, everyone would be the standing army.)

Hell, a hospital with the kind of equipment needed to treat most modern day diseases are well beyond the means of any small to medium sized community.

A small time doctor would never be able to afford serious medical equipment that major hospitals do. Much less R&D to find cures to new strains of disease.

So in your ideal community, you'd need external support from major metropolitan or corporate concerns just to ensure current life expectancies.This depends on how much in resources the community would give to medical care.

That's quite a fine ideal. Unfortunately, humans aren't built that way. Kangaroo courts would be more the norm and guilt by emotion (mob behavior) would probably be the step just before violent vigilantism.

Lynch mobs in other words. Some things shouldn't be trusted to untrained people, and law enforcement is one of them.Why wouldn't people be trained?

Not possible. Not without a central governing structure. Large scale infrastructure needed to support anything above agricultural levels means high levels of coordination.

Ever heard of the saying too many cooks spoil the broth? That's the problem with your direct democracy right there. Everybody would have their own idea and fight it out, getting nothing done. The bigger the project, the more people involved, and the bigger the fights.If people would rather fight it out than get anything done, then they will. They won't do so, however, there will eventually be agreement.

Wrong. The correct answer is people are stupid. Stupid with a capital S. There are enough Darwin award winners out there to prove this.If people are stupid then by default the people that they elect in representative democracies must also be stupid.

You don't get more personal than pre-riot levels.Riots are run democratically?

Out of 5,000 people? If so, what's to stop him from seizing power?The fact that there are no positions of power for him to seize.

Well I don't see any magic cure for it, and you certainly haven't thought of one.The fact that people can secede in anarcho-communism, but can't with the modern state is the cure.

Not really. Most communities at that level wouldn't have the expertise or will to put up anything more than a bunch of statements that go "Don't piss in Old Ma's pool or you'll get shot"You underestimate both small-town people and anarcho-communists.
Nonetheless, that type of legal jargon is preferable to what we currently have.

Nope, nope, nope. Ideal, but naive. Money isn't power. Influence is. The more influence you have, and the more entrenched it is, the more power you wield. Money is just one way to getting that influence. And the more power you wield, the easier it is to lead by dictate.It is unlikely that the influence can be entreched with neither money nor positions of power where it can be entrenched.

Good luck getting it to last even half a generation.The Zapatistas have been going for 12 years, how much longer do you want?

Which is what your ideal anarcho-communist would be wouldn't it? To contribute to all because it helps not just all, but him.Yes.

A rose by any other name huh? Look, your community needs money to survive, and I don't mean in everybody else's pocket. A communal fund for public works that makes sure you'll have more than a dirt strip. And where's that money going to come from? You've acknowledged that it comes from the people, and if they don't pay, they get kicked out directly or indirectly.

That's taxes.Nope. The people who enjoy building roads will build the roads, and the people who enjoy construction will do that. The people who enjoy woodcutting will provide the lumber for the construction workers.

First show the case where it doesn't work, then we'll talk. Don't give me generic "what if it don't work" lines and expect me to come up with 1,001 scenarios.The tax evader who lives in an apartment and spends all of his money on consumables, like food, beer, and cigarettes.

Nope. Strawman here. I didn't say violence would be equal across the board. I'm saying it can't be weeded out. Meaning, your ideal society would still have issues of violence that are not supposed to occur.Certainly, but I believe that they would be few and far between.

First, prove that all these other societies collapsed due to their neighbors.The Wikipedia article indicates that most of them collapsed for this reason.

And if it does, it proves from a Darwinian point of view, that anarcho-communism cannot work.Really? Does this mean that the falls of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Finland during WWII prove that the republic cannot work?

Then we can take as given that the person must have the right to create utilizable goods.Of course, provided that these goods are utilized to sustain their lives.

It does not matter who sets the regulation, there will be someone singled out for benefit, and the greater the regulation the greater the benefit.

And the argument that democracy provides for equal benefit is ludicrous.Hopefully the entire community would benefit.

And control the economic role of everyone in the community.If that's what the community wants, then sure.

I thought that you agreed that the non-necessary/necessary use dichotomy would require government action to determine what constitutes necessary use.

Would not this approval of necessary usage be essentially permission to live? I said that it couldn't be objectively defined, but you can look at specific examples and determine whether or not they're necessary.

The house that someone is building for their family would be. The factory that produces cars wouldn't be.

Certainly distribution and storage of goods is a use. Is the consumer who takes goods from the factory to his home and then stores them in his freezer not using the goods?Oh, sure, the consumers would be using their freezers and their homes perpetually. They wouldn't own them, but many of the benefits of ownership would apply, such as the right to privacy.

It is not a right, it is an ability granted by nature, the same as holding an opinion.So why should we take the argument that people have the right to mix their labor with unowned resources seriously? Of course they have the ability to claim it, or to do it, but why should that be enough to make it a right?

And there is nothing guaranteeing that claims be taken seriously.There's nothing guaranteeing the concept of ownership be taken seriously until it is codified, either.

The teacher.If the teacher is the external entity, then is the teacher's authority consensual or not? From your statement "Consensual authority is not arrived at through a dichotomy enforced by an external entity", it would seem that the teacher isn't.

Not exactly.

It is simply that putting work into something is putting yourself into something. This could imply that people want to keep their creation as their own person, or it could imply that they see themselves as a part of something greater and that their property belongs to something greater.

So it may be completely true that a person may only want what is granted by society, but your prescriptions are completely unnecessary if that were the case.As I said, it isn't the idea that a person sees something that they created as an extension of themselves, but rather that they see it as belonging to them. I fail to see why this should be the case by default.

Yes, it tells me that the system is a threat to systems around it. If you'll notice, most of them failed because of outside forces, not internal forces.

Note - they did not tend to fail because of invasions or deliberate sabotage, but rather the system is so delicate that even a couple of people who share a different view is enough to make the system fail.


Number 2.6 Zapatista Autonomous Munipalities

Ahhh - a society that has been running on an anarchy system (which they deny...) for a whole 12 years... Yup - proof this system stands the test of time.

Yes, I noticed that. Certain anarcho-primitivists have suggested that we return to such systems. They would also take issue with your equating "high standard of living" with material wealth.

Actually by 'high standard of living' I meant 'not on the edge of extinction' which is where most of these primitive communities spent the majority of their time. They had no surplus, no spare food, no spare resources. The commuities stayed small because of horrific mortality rates in both children and adults and minimal life expectancies, and in such circumstances a tribe had to do all it could to keep it's members alive.

Personally I have my doubts that such a system is the ideal mankind should strive for...

You're mistaking my point. My point was first that private property is a social construct, and second that individualism can indeed exist without it. Socialism or communism doesn't really preclude markets. In fact, many forms of anarchism embrace them. Socialism is defined by the end of private ownership of productive property, not the absence of market relations.

To a point I support the goals of socialism, but I cannot say I feel anything but abhorrence for the views of those who end socialism at the state or believe that socialism is brought through the state.

The true trouble with your statement is, however, that there is no way to control the allocation and utilization of productive property without controlling the allocation or personal property. In fact, I would make the point I made with JB, if society tries to make a distinction between personal and productive property, then what becomes personal property is entirely dependent on the whims of society. How can freedom arise through that method?

Also, the only forms of socialism that I have heard of that rely on markets would be market socialism, where the market relations are simulated by government economists, and mutualism which tends to associate itself as a alternative to capitalism and not socialism.

If we look at any finished product, the labor of hundreds or even thousands of different people is all present in its creation. Less than a handful of people in the entire world would have the skills or time to build an entire computer alone from raw materials, or even a house for that matter.

Certainly that is a very limited definition of "finished product".

That's the beauty of communist-anarchism. You can do what you want on your own, and keep all the products or your labor, or you can work in a group, and share in the total products of the groups labor.

I would like to call bullshit right not, but I will wait.

As to your idea of anarcho-communism, how is this a denial of private property?

If by "equitable" you mean an uncoerced exchange of equal values, then there would be no problem with that. Coercing his partner to give up his/her labor value in exchange for something less is not acceptable.

Then you will find our opinions to be very similar.

What is your opinion on wage-labor, namely, is it inherently exploitative?

Of course, provided that these goods are utilized to sustain their lives.

Let's recap for a second:

JB: I'd say that ownership is the hard part to justify.
VO: I create something, I have a right to it. That is a rather common sense justification.
JB: Not really.
VO: Why not?
JB: Because such an argument implies that the individual in question had the right to do whatever it was that they did. If they didn't have the right to create something, why should that something belong to them?
VO: Should we accept as fundamental that a person should be entitled to a right to seek his own self-preservation?
JB: Certainly.
VO: Then we can take as given that the person must have the right to create utilizable goods.
JB: Of course, provided that these goods are utilized to sustain their lives.

Alright then, if someone creates something with the purpose of self-preservation (a decidedly stringent requirement!) why should that creation be assumed to "belong" to its creator?

Hopefully the entire community would benefit.

Perhaps, but substantially less than the singular recipient of government economic preference. Is this not the same rationale that has created the grave inequities present within modern corporatism?

If that's what the community wants, then sure.

I find such authoritarianism to be abhorrent.

I said that it couldn't be objectively defined, but you can look at specific examples and determine whether or not they're necessary.

The house that someone is building for their family would be. The factory that produces cars wouldn't be.

You at one point say that they cannot be objectively defined, then turn that on its head by saying that it can be objectively defined.

You are dodging the question, however: Will there need to be government approval of what is and is not life-requisite use?

Oh, sure, the consumers would be using their freezers and their homes perpetually. They wouldn't own them, but many of the benefits of ownership would apply, such as the right to privacy.

If it looks like ownership, sounds like ownership, and acts like ownership....

Nevertheless, why shouldn't these rights extend to the shopkeep who is invariably performing use in lieu of the final consumer?

So why should we take the argument that people have the right to mix their labor with unowned resources seriously? Of course they have the ability to claim it, or to do it, but why should that be enough to make it a right?

Because it is necessary, if one wishes to maintain and improve their living conditions, to allow the claim of others and then trade with them (or otherwise share).

There's nothing guaranteeing the concept of ownership be taken seriously until it is codified, either.

It need not be codified.

If the teacher is the external entity, then is the teacher's authority consensual or not? From your statement "Consensual authority is not arrived at through a dichotomy enforced by an external entity", it would seem that the teacher isn't.

Authority is all times granted and not taken.

Therefore there is but one internal entity as far as authority is concerned, the grantor, or for our situation, the student. If the dichotomy of bad result/good result is solely due to the unwarranted actions of the teacher then it is not legitimate authority.

Note - they did not tend to fail because of invasions or deliberate sabotage, but rather the system is so delicate that even a couple of people who share a different view is enough to make the system fail.Which times are you talking about? Most of the cases it was because of a more powerful foe.

Ahhh - a society that has been running on an anarchy system (which they deny...) for a whole 12 years... Yup - proof this system stands the test of time.How long does a system need to last to prove that it stands the test of time?

Actually by 'high standard of living' I meant 'not on the edge of extinction' which is where most of these primitive communities spent the majority of their time. They had no surplus, no spare food, no spare resources. The commuities stayed small because of horrific mortality rates in both children and adults and minimal life expectancies, and in such circumstances a tribe had to do all it could to keep it's members alive.

Personally I have my doubts that such a system is the ideal mankind should strive for...The anarcho-primitivist would reply by saying that the increase in freedom is more than worth the decrease in life expectancy.

Let's recap for a second:

JB: I'd say that ownership is the hard part to justify.
VO: I create something, I have a right to it. That is a rather common sense justification.
JB: Not really.
VO: Why not?
JB: Because such an argument implies that the individual in question had the right to do whatever it was that they did. If they didn't have the right to create something, why should that something belong to them?
VO: Should we accept as fundamental that a person should be entitled to a right to seek his own self-preservation?
JB: Certainly.
VO: Then we can take as given that the person must have the right to create utilizable goods.
JB: Of course, provided that these goods are utilized to sustain their lives.

Alright then, if someone creates something with the purpose of self-preservation (a decidedly stringent requirement!) why should that creation be assumed to "belong" to its creator?It doesn't need to belong to the creator, only the user. If the creator is also the user, then wonderful.
The reason for this is because people have the right to use things to sustain their lives, which comes from the axiom that humans have the right to life.

Perhaps, but substantially less than the singular recipient of government economic preference. Is this not the same rationale that has created the grave inequities present within modern corporatism?I was thinking more along the lines that the community would decide to use most of the resources, instead of an individual.

I find such authoritarianism to be abhorrent.I wouldn't like it personally, either, and would argue from either a utilitarian or a pragmatic perspective that it was unacceptable, but if we are both agreed that rights are framed by a social contract, and that people would agree to such a contract, then I can't really tell them that they can't have that type of contract.

You at one point say that they cannot be objectively defined, then turn that on its head by saying that it can be objectively defined.Well, I can't give an objective definition on all resources, but some resources can be objectively said to not be necessary to sustain life.
Others, such as food, is much more subjective.

You are dodging the question, however: Will there need to be government approval of what is and is not life-requisite use?Need? No, most likely the community would only interfere if something is blatantly not life-sustaining; it is easier to determine what isn't life-sustaining as opposed to what is.

If it looks like ownership, sounds like ownership, and acts like ownership....

Nevertheless, why shouldn't these rights extend to the shopkeep who is invariably performing use in lieu of the final consumer?They would, however the shopkeep would not have the right to charge consumers for the goods, since the shopkeep is not using them. If the shopkeep wants to do the favor of transporting and storing goods, or if that's the shopkeep's job, then yes, the shopkeep would have those same rights.

Because it is necessary, if one wishes to maintain and improve their living conditions, to allow the claim of others and then trade with them (or otherwise share).Why would anyone allow the claim of others unless they directly benefit from it? For instance, if a new medicine is created that I need, I'm not going to care about the creator's intellectual property rights, I'm going to care about whether or not I have access to the medicine. Granting property rights would limit my access.

It need not be codified.I don't see why anyone would take it seriously unless it isn't, but we will probably get to this argument as part of the argument immediately above this one.

Authority is all times granted and not taken.

Therefore there is but one internal entity as far as authority is concerned, the grantor, or for our situation, the student. If the dichotomy of bad result/good result is solely due to the unwarranted actions of the teacher then it is not legitimate authority.Yes, but wouldn't the student be granting the authority of the teacher to give an undeserved bad grade?

Some locales have smaller hierarchies than others. Small town USA might have only a few police officers, leaving the decisions to be made to one sheriff.

And this contradicts what I said how? Obviously with a hierarchy of one, there's only going to be one decision maker.

Even a mom and pop store would have a hierarchy if they hire a helper.


It takes someone to train people to use the guns, yes. Most people in the community would be trained in such a manner, since after all, there would be no standing army. (Or more accurately, everyone would be the standing army.)

A militia huh? Well if it's going to be anything more than a bunch of armed misfits, it's going to need a higher level of coordination and training in law enforcement than what your community is likely capable of mustering.

Also, kiss goodbye to any form of criminal investigation. That requires professional level expertise that your community certainly can't give.


This depends on how much in resources the community would give to medical care.

Which would mean squat unless there's a plague around the corner, which by then, it would be too late.


Why wouldn't people be trained?


Being a cop is a full time job. If everyone was a cop, they'd starve in short order. And how many people would want to be a cop? Not many I bet. How many could enforce law, investigate crimes and keep the peace? All at the same time?

The best you can hope for is the old Wild West sheriff. That's about it. Anything above that, like oh say, forensics is out. Your community wouldn't be able to afford it unless they were all really rich.

So you'd have a handful of trained deputies and and a sheriff at best. And these guys would only have a passing knowledge of law enforcement. Stop theft, murder, robbery, assault, etc, etc. But if something more complex comes along, like oh, say extortion or racketeering, they'd be powerless by nature of their ignorance.


If people would rather fight it out than get anything done, then they will. They won't do so, however, there will eventually be agreement.

Huh, why won't they fight? You've got a mind control device somewhere? Look, people fight over anything. It's as natural as water flowing downhill. When it comes to politics, influence and large sums of money, that amount of fighting goes up exponentially.


If people are stupid then by default the people that they elect in representative democracies must also be stupid.


Ding, ding, ding. You've got it right. Bzzzt. You also got it wrong.

First off, people can be clever, but more people are stupid than clever. So when you group up a big lump of them, the aggregate indicator is usually pointing at stupid.

And while I've never said representative democracies were smart, what makes your community any better?


Riots are run democratically?


Only the ones with a leader. The usual formula is a guy who makes a speech, gets everybody up in a frenzy and in complete agreement with his argument, and go on a rampage.


The fact that there are no positions of power for him to seize.


That's a laugh riot all right. What next? All humans are born equal? Except maybe the deformed, the crippled and mentally damaged?

Don't kid yourself. There may be no official positions of power, but if a person has high influence in the right places, it makes no difference if he isn't called a king. He's still one.

The final form of all human governments is a de facto dictatorship. No exceptions.


The fact that people can secede in anarcho-communism, but can't with the modern state is the cure.

So when everyone goes they're own way, anarcho-communism collapses. Brilliant!

Besides, since all existing anarcho-communist societies have pretty much flopped, it tells me pretty much that enough picked the secession option to the detriment of the community.


You underestimate both small-town people and anarcho-communists.
Nonetheless, that type of legal jargon is preferable to what we currently have.


Said jargon does have a tendency to at least make provisions when all sorts of odd crimes pop up. Simple law for simple crimes. Complex crimes require a bit more complex law.


It is unlikely that the influence can be entreched with neither money nor positions of power where it can be entrenched.

Hahahahahahaha, that's hilarious. Look, influence is gained by any number of things. Doing favors for other people, being there to lead when everybody else is running around like headless chickens, giving speeches that people agree with or at least convince them to agree, etc, etc. All you need is people to say "You look like someone I can put my trust in", and there's no limit to how many schmucks there are out there to do just that.

Power and money comes AFTER you've got the influence. Unless you were born into it of course. Influence that's bought with money is generally the least entrenched.


The Zapatistas have been going for 12 years, how much longer do you want?


As an experiment? Two generations. As a model of a workable government? Four or five generations.


Yes.


And yet he got ejected.


Nope. The people who enjoy building roads will build the roads, and the people who enjoy construction will do that. The people who enjoy woodcutting will provide the lumber for the construction workers.

Who enjoys building roads? Hard work, long hours, uncomfortable conditions. Used to be that was slave labor you know? The only reason why people do that is because it pays well for what they can do.

And besides, where's that tar factory going to spring out from? Or heavy machinery? Your forehead? Face it, you'd still need big sums of money from everyone to make it work, and most won't pay.


The tax evader who lives in an apartment and spends all of his money on consumables, like food, beer, and cigarettes.

Confiscation of funds. Dur. If they've got social security or some kind of employee's retirement fund, that works.


Certainly, but I believe that they would be few and far between.


And the basis of your belief is?


The Wikipedia article indicates that most of them collapsed for this reason.


So anarcho-communism works...if you live in bubble. Maybe somewhere on Mars?

Really? Does this mean that the falls of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Finland during WWII prove that the republic cannot work?
[/quote]

Nope. There are cases where republics did work to balance that out. The instances you've highlighted were more due to poor military thinking or capability or a combination of both than any sort of method of government.

And this contradicts what I said how? Obviously with a hierarchy of one, there's only going to be one decision maker.

Even a mom and pop store would have a hierarchy if they hire a helper.
It confirms what I said, that legal enforcement is (sometimes) left to one or two bureaucrats.

A militia huh? Well if it's going to be anything more than a bunch of armed misfits, it's going to need a higher level of coordination and training in law enforcement than what your community is likely capable of mustering.

Also, kiss goodbye to any form of criminal investigation. That requires professional level expertise that your community certainly can't give.It's impossible that a professional criminal investigator would join the community and teach the craft?

Which would mean squat unless there's a plague around the corner, which by then, it would be too late.Not particularly. Anarcho-communists tend to view the right to life highly.

Being a cop is a full time job. If everyone was a cop, they'd starve in short order. And how many people would want to be a cop? Not many I bet. How many could enforce law, investigate crimes and keep the peace? All at the same time?So let the people who want to be cops be cops.

The best you can hope for is the old Wild West sheriff. That's about it. Anything above that, like oh say, forensics is out. Your community wouldn't be able to afford it unless they were all really rich.A basic level of forensics, at least, wouldn't be difficult to raise the funds for.

So you'd have a handful of trained deputies and and a sheriff at best. And these guys would only have a passing knowledge of law enforcement. Stop theft, murder, robbery, assault, etc, etc. But if something more complex comes along, like oh, say extortion or racketeering, they'd be powerless by nature of their ignorance.Why would they be ignorant? Is it impossible that someone with knowledge of how to detect extortion or racketeering would join the community?

Huh, why won't they fight? You've got a mind control device somewhere? Look, people fight over anything. It's as natural as water flowing downhill. When it comes to politics, influence and large sums of money, that amount of fighting goes up exponentially.Because if they fight, nothing gets done. Since people presumably join the community for it to succeed, things need to get done. This means that they can only fight for so long.

Ding, ding, ding. You've got it right. Bzzzt. You also got it wrong.

First off, people can be clever, but more people are stupid than clever. So when you group up a big lump of them, the aggregate indicator is usually pointing at stupid.And when these people make decisions, wouldn't their decisions be stupid?

And while I've never said representative democracies were smart, what makes your community any better?If stupid decisions are going to be made (and I'm not conceding that they would be), then it's better that everyone make them.

Only the ones with a leader. The usual formula is a guy who makes a speech, gets everybody up in a frenzy and in complete agreement with his argument, and go on a rampage. Where is the direct democracy here? Democracy implies coordinated action.

That's a laugh riot all right. What next? All humans are born equal? Except maybe the deformed, the crippled and mentally damaged?

Don't kid yourself. There may be no official positions of power, but if a person has high influence in the right places, it makes no difference if he isn't called a king. He's still one.I don't see any particular reason why a person would have enough influence for this to occur.

The final form of all human governments is a de facto dictatorship. No exceptions.How bleak.

So when everyone goes they're own way, anarcho-communism collapses. Brilliant!If that's the decision that people make, then wonderful.

Besides, since all existing anarcho-communist societies have pretty much flopped, it tells me pretty much that enough picked the secession option to the detriment of the community.Once again, the majority of times was due to external rather than internal forces.

Said jargon does have a tendency to at least make provisions when all sorts of odd crimes pop up. Simple law for simple crimes. Complex crimes require a bit more complex law.Law can be complex but still be understandable to almost anyone.

Hahahahahahaha, that's hilarious. Look, influence is gained by any number of things. Doing favors for other people, being there to lead when everybody else is running around like headless chickens, giving speeches that people agree with or at least convince them to agree, etc, etc. All you need is people to say "You look like someone I can put my trust in", and there's no limit to how many schmucks there are out there to do just that.Since many anarcho-communists have a gift economy as the goal, there's no particular reason that one person's favors would be particularly highly thought of.
If there are many instances where people are running around like headless chickens, I don't see any particular reason why a single person would be able to lead in all of them, and if there aren't many instances, then it's unlikely that someone would gain influence in this manner.
Since giving speeches will be a major part of community life, it's likely that most of the people in the community will give a speech at one point or another that people agree with.

Power and money comes AFTER you've got the influence. Unless you were born into it of course. Influence that's bought with money is generally the least entrenched.The influence will be entrenched as long as the money keeps flowing. In places where there are huge disparities in wealth, that's quite a long time, indeed.

As an experiment? Two generations. As a model of a workable government? Four or five generations.Would you have said the same thing shortly after the American Revolution?

Who enjoys building roads? Hard work, long hours, uncomfortable conditions. Used to be that was slave labor you know? The only reason why people do that is because it pays well for what they can do.Why do people enjoy construction? I don't know, but the fact remains that people do enjoy it. It isn't impossible that people will enjoy building roads, as well.

And besides, where's that tar factory going to spring out from? Or heavy machinery? Your forehead? Face it, you'd still need big sums of money from everyone to make it work, and most won't pay.If the community hasn't yet built a factory for tar or heavy machinery, it can be imported.

Confiscation of funds. Dur. If they've got social security or some kind of employee's retirement fund, that works.If he's skipping out on income taxes, it's likely that he's skipping out on the rest of them, too. And since he is spending his money on consumables, he won't have any liquid capital to confiscate.

And the basis of your belief is?Instances of violence tend to result from socio-economic conditions, typically where there are huge disparities between the rich and the poor. Since these types of socioeconomic conditions won't exist, many instances of violence won't occur, either.

So anarcho-communism works...if you live in bubble. Maybe somewhere on Mars?Or an island.

Nope. There are cases where republics did work to balance that out.It seems that the republic has failed more times than it's succeeded. How many has France alone had?

The instances you've highlighted were more due to poor military thinking or capability or a combination of both than any sort of method of government.Oh, I see. Those countries with small militaries that were republics fell because of their small militaries, not because they were republics. The communes with small militaries that fell fell because they were anarchists, not because they had small militaries.
How convenient.

It doesn't need to belong to the creator, only the user. If the creator is also the user, then wonderful.
The reason for this is because people have the right to use things to sustain their lives, which comes from the axiom that humans have the right to life.

You continue to beg the question.

I stated before that you weren't providing a distinction between usage rights and ownership rights. I provided what I thought was a common sense justification that creation entitles ownership which you said assumes a right to create something, but then we agreed that right can be assumed.

You then return to the argument usage rights are assumed because people have usage rights, ownership rights are not assumed because people only have usage rights.

I was thinking more along the lines that the community would decide to use most of the resources, instead of an individual.

I was thinking more along the lines of a community deciding who is a newspaper editor and who is a "sewage technician".

Well, I can't give an objective definition on all resources, but some resources can be objectively said to not be necessary to sustain life.
Others, such as food, is much more subjective.

Need? No, most likely the community would only interfere if something is blatantly not life-sustaining; it is easier to determine what isn't life-sustaining as opposed to what is.

And this would not be exploited?

They would, however the shopkeep would not have the right to charge consumers for the goods, since the shopkeep is not using them. If the shopkeep wants to do the favor of transporting and storing goods, or if that's the shopkeep's job, then yes, the shopkeep would have those same rights.

Of course the shopkeep would not do the favor routinely if not his job, and of course there is a need for a shopkeep to fill this role, but luckily we have your omnipresent democratic process to allot that duty.

Why would anyone allow the claim of others unless they directly benefit from it? For instance, if a new medicine is created that I need, I'm not going to care about the creator's intellectual property rights, I'm going to care about whether or not I have access to the medicine. Granting property rights would limit my access.

Very true.

The question becomes whether violent seizure or purchasing costs more.

Yes, but wouldn't the student be granting the authority of the teacher to give an undeserved bad grade?

That does not make it legitimate authority.

You continue to beg the question.

I stated before that you weren't providing a distinction between usage rights and ownership rights. I provided what I thought was a common sense justification that creation entitles ownership which you said assumes a right to create something, but then we agreed that right can be assumed.

You then return to the argument usage rights are assumed because people have usage rights, ownership rights are not assumed because people only have usage rights.Usage rights are assumed because people have the right to life. The right to life is promoted by using resources. It is not promoted by merely owning them.
Ownership, based on this criteria, is at least superfluous, if not interfering with promoting the right to life.

I was thinking more along the lines of a community deciding who is a newspaper editor and who is a "sewage technician".Oh, I see. Well, of course the only people who would be put into these jobs are the people who volunteer for them. The qualifications of these people for those positions would be reviewed and discussed.

And this would not be exploited?I'm not sure if any allocation of resources is free of exploitation, however this type of allocation would be the least exploitative.

Of course the shopkeep would not do the favor routinely if not his job, and of course there is a need for a shopkeep to fill this role, but luckily we have your omnipresent democratic process to allot that duty.Not anymore omnipresent than the decisions that the public makes everyday.

Very true.

The question becomes whether violent seizure or purchasing costs more.So then property is done based on the assumption that without it, people would need to violently seize things, and this seizure would cost more?

That does not make it legitimate authority.Why is causing a negative effect an illegitimate authority, but allowing something negative to happen a legitimate authority?

Usage rights are assumed because people have the right to life. The right to life is promoted by using resources. It is not promoted by merely owning them.
Ownership, based on this criteria, is at least superfluous, if not interfering with promoting the right to life.

I would say that, even though it would rank no better than third on my list of justifications, that ownership rights are necessary to bridge the gap from necessary production to necessary usage where there exists an economy built upon specialized labor.

Oh, I see. Well, of course the only people who would be put into these jobs are the people who volunteer for them. The qualifications of these people for those positions would be reviewed and discussed.

And of course the micromanaging democracy would eliminate the individual from all other methods of producting for his own existence, so it would be unlikely for him to not "volunteer".

I'm not sure if any allocation of resources is free of exploitation, however this type of allocation would be the least exploitative.

We seem to take complete opposite views, where I think exploitation is inherent in government action, while you seem to think that exploitation is inherent in everything outside of government action.

Not anymore omnipresent than the decisions that the public makes everyday.

And this is a victory?

At least someone with access to resources can attempt to make the public aware of his ability to fulfill the duty, rather than depend on what is probably an inept approval system.

So then property is done based on the assumption that without it, people would need to violently seize things, and this seizure would cost more?

Property is not done, it occurs. But yes, that is why the agora creates property on its own.

Why is causing a negative effect an illegitimate authority, but allowing something negative to happen a legitimate authority?

Cause and allow are respectively action and inaction.

I would say that, even though it would rank no better than third on my list of justifications, that ownership rights are necessary to bridge the gap from necessary production to necessary usage where there exists an economy built upon specialized labor.This is interesting. Could you elaborate?

And of course the micromanaging democracy would eliminate the individual from all other methods of producting for his own existence, so it would be unlikely for him to not "volunteer".Well, naturally he would be doing some job that would have to be approved by the community, but I don't see any reason why each person would be limited to one job.

We seem to take complete opposite views, where I think exploitation is inherent in government action, while you seem to think that exploitation is inherent in everything outside of government action.That's sort of my position. Exploitation occurs when there are huge power disparities, and therefore there where there are huge wealth disparities. I would say that it is inherent, because there are theoretical possibilities where there wouldn't be exploitation, but I can't see these possibilities being widespread.
Therefore, government action is required to eliminate huge power disparities, and direct democracy is required to eliminate the huge power disparity that a government would ordinarily have over the each individual it governs. Otherwise there would be exploitation in government action, as well.

And this is a victory?

At least someone with access to resources can attempt to make the public aware of his ability to fulfill the duty, rather than depend on what is probably an inept approval system.But of course the person with access to resources alone makes the decision, whereas what I'm talking about allows everyone to make the decision.
You yourself have compared the market to a weighted democratic process. I would say that unweighting the democratic process is going to be better.

Property is not done, it occurs. But yes, that is why the agora creates property on its own.Perhaps property occurs, but ownership is a specific organized type of property, which is done deliberately.

Cause and allow are respectively action and inaction.Yes, but isn't the reason we have authorities in the first place is because we expect them to take action?
Wouldn't these actions sometimes be negative ones?