Voluntaryists vs Socialists Debate part 2 of 27 - Voluntaryists' Opening Statements

[beesleeper]

Libertarians are mouthbrathers who listen to Rush and play RTS and think they can be warlords

[masonhymas]

@beesleeper I identify with libertarianism, don't listen to Rush don't play RTS and dont think I can or would ever want to be a warlord... :)

[mana2432]

@beesleeper what is RTS?

[picopallasi]

@beesleeper Rush the band? Or Rush Limbaugh? Because both are totally libertarian, yeah.. ?

[beesleeper]

No, you're not going to able to protect your stuff in your fantasy libertarian crapworld.

[scienceatheism]

Now are you going to hold up a gun to our head and tell us how to think next or what?

[masonhymas]

@beesleeper how do you protect your stuff now? Police are responders, not preventers. You protect your stuff by purchasing defenses from others on a voluntary basis. Security systems, guns, dogs, insurance etc.

[beesleeper]

Why can't you fake fucking anarchists just stand up to the company owners? Because running your goddamn mouths and doing stupid ass stunts at the memorial are all you got. Actually organizing against capitalism --- too fucking much for your tiny goddamn brains. And your balls dropped off.

[DoctorCapitalist]

@beesleeper Sorry, I won't accept emotional arguments. I will only accept logical arguments.

[AlecTaylor6]

I thought it was Robert Long that said "Other People are not your Property"?

[Sklujan]

@beesleeper Self-defense and private defense organizations can handle problems of aggression just fine.

[beesleeper]

@Sklujan

That's just laughable. You're calling a gang a "private defense organization." You're stupid fucking "private defense organization" won't last a minute. You've seen too many movies.

[SlipAllCityToy]

@beesleeper

In other words you are saying that a gang won't last a minute?

[beesleeper]

The answer is freedom from capitalism and capitalist exploitation. Capitalism is NOT mentioned in the American Constitution. Americans do not have to tolerate capitalism. Our predecessors achieved freedom from the British; freedom from slavery; it is our turn to achieve freedom from capitalism and capitalist exploitation. Americans can do it.

[randomino5]

Emma Goldman makes these guys sound like children. "Anarcho"-capitalists have no clue, no explanation for how to handle property. Sorry fools, but without the State to protect your precious investments, the capitalists will just hire thugs to create their own mini-empires! Anarchy with capitalism is merely a precursor to feudalism.

[poleske]

The reason the term Anarchist is confusing is because there was an already well established school of social and economic thought called Anarchism that had always considered ownership of the means of production as a means of coersion due to the fact that the minority with control of the means of production has complete control over the people who will be able to make the choice to be productive and self sustaining without being the subject /slave of the owner of the means of production.

[crud4]

Get back to me after a month of reading.

[crud4]

And the state doesn't provide equality the state is necessary to maintain hierarchical society. Be it a private or "public" state. Communists and actual anarchists advocate direct democracy not some Stalinist centralized state/communist party. One of the main goals of communism is to abolish the state.

[crud4]

Rousseau or Locke. Pick one and go from there. Rousseau asserted that the foundation of inequality was private property, and that inequality in property gave rise to political inequality, which was reinforced by the establishment of the state. Collectivize the means of production. The only way to human freedom.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@crud4 then I would assume you wouldn't mind sending me all your possessions. this is the fallacy of socialism- that good can be done with another's money; but first you have to take it, and this is theft. collectivists always want to "spread the wealth", but "the wealth" never includes theirs... inequality exists from birth; some of us are born more "wealthy" in certain traits/skills than others. the foundation of SLAVERY is PUBLIC property (tragedy of the commons). who takes out the garbage?

[crud4]

@umbilicaltapeworm "collectivists"? Am I corresponding with Ayn Rands ghost? "Collectivists" want workers to keep the full value of their labor by eliminating the theft that is private ownership of the means of production. Before you bring up the LTV I'd advise you to work for a decade or so as a wage slave and tell me how 'independent' you feel. Middle class white men in fly over states with Stockholm Syndrome. That's how I define strange characters such as yourself.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@crud4 screw Ayn Rand and her "objectivism", there is no such thing. your labor IS your means of production and you have full ownership of it. how does everyone own MY labor unless they also own my body and mind? and what is "middle class white" exactly? "groups are grammatical fictions; only individuals exist, and each individual is different." -Robert Anton Wilson

[crud4]

@umbilicaltapeworm No the means of production isn't labor it's industry/distribution etc. If any minority controls industry/distribution/resource­s then they control society at large. Educate yourself- you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome. I'm starting to think "free market anarchists" mutualists and the like are suffering from some form of psychological disorder. Luckily it usually only effects the fly over state suburbs and youtube. Snap out of it man...wake up!

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@crud4 so labor does not create industry? is industry a constant, a static anomaly existing in a vacuum? please enlighten me oh great one...

[crud4]

@umbilicaltapeworm Do you even know what we anarchists seek to abolish? Private property- as in- private ownership of the means of production. Of course labor creates industry so it is workers who should run industry. Workers should control resources, land, industry and distribution not some parasitic capitalist class.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@crud4 it seems you favor bullying of the minority by the majority, which would make you a statist. anarchists such as myself seek to abolish government, not property by extension of the individual and his labor. workers are also consumers and in this sense they DO control industry; and in a more basic sense as well, this being the division of their labor. I own my means of production, which in my experience has always been MY LABOR. "parasitic capitalists" are workers too.

[crud4]

Your precious private ownership of the industrial means of production (private property) cannot exist without a state to legitimize this theft. 

[amanuscar]

@crud4 uhhhh what??? That statement doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.... 

[crud4]

@amanuscar No, not to a capitalist who doesn't understand anarchism. Thats the problem, you people don't understand private property/capitalism/the nature of the state. Try starting by reading Karl Polanyi's "great transformation" and Marx's critique of primitive accumulation then onto Bakunin's critique of the state.

[videojeffhh]

This stuff is great guys....i recently heard a guy talking about being able to "opt-out" of the social security system, by mailing your card in along with a letter explaining your position for "quitting the corporation"....and thus, he explains, "one no longer has to pay the IRS because you no longer "work" for the corportation....my question is.....is this accurate, and if so, we should promote it BIG ON YOUTUBE, with a "Quit the Corporation CAMPAIGN"

[dons123111]

The democratic socialists say they are like Sweden.. Sweden doesn't have postal carriers, and their Unions are not politically connected. Excuse me, but aren't those both closer to anarchist ideas instead of socialist?

[PrudenceWright]

awesome.

[cfbastiat]

We have tried so many things; when shall we try the simplest of all: freedom? - Frederic Bastiat

[IndividualAutonomy]

Natural Rights? WTF

[ProsperiaFan]

Government is like training wheels for humanity, As humanity advances the training wheels should be removed...Not added.

[morthim]

people don't own themselves... democratic consensus (regardless of whether consensual polling is done) and the expectations thus created in the social sphere of influence, invalidate the idea of self ownership, and/or freewill in humans. humans by definition are slaves, aiming for self preservation, and validation

other than that a pure and perfect representation of the pro anarchy position. my major- cause for dis-consent is the corruption is human and machines can do the coercion much better.

[egokick]

@morthim you say humans by definition are slaves, yet fail to provide a definition of what a human is...

[morthim]

@egokick my mistake. humans can biologically reproduce with one another. a computer even if designed to have intelligence doesn't qualify as human because it's reproduction involving humans is at best not biologically based (sperm/eggs on a machine, in general, doesn't change the molecular existence into a growing machine). but that is beside the point that it is much easier using the self replicating algorithms that certain 3D printers use...

[morthim]

@morthim (continued) whether those algorithms qualify as gestation; thus life. is another issue... anyway, humans also in my view have a measure of 'free-will'; they can put themselves in situations that adapt their environment to them with less apparent randomness than abiotic events; creating a plausible sentience. (might be personal bias though) and having empathy is human

humans are slaves, because we have to engage in activities or end up physically/brutally punished; like eating.

[egokick]

@morthim all you have done is redefine slavery to something that is nothing like the original definition, which you are fine to do. It just seems a bit odd to me that you would decide to redefine freedom as slavery. Unless you are intentionally trying to confuse/mislead people.

[morthim]

@egokick slavery (according to a recent lecture i watched) is the use of harm to coerce conformity, generally regarding to labor. 'freedom' can't realistically exist from my point of view, so i don't bother with it. i mean '-dom' means land (roughly) and the term before '-dom' is the ruler IE kingdom, earldom. a 'freedom' while interesting, is beyond my comprehension; anarchy dies quickly.

anyway i'd appreciate it if you would define the terms:

-slave and slavery

-human

-people/person

:D thx :)

[egokick]

@morthim I'm probably just not grasping your point but why do basic humans needs make freedom impossible? are people slaves to reality? As far as I'm aware basic human needs like food, land and breathable air do not have any desires or a consciousness, how can land be controlling us? How far are you casting your definition of freedom?

[egokick]

@morthim if you view freedom in black and white terms, as in absolute freedom or complete slavery with nothing in between then I think I understand your position. It would require god like power for an individual to be subject to no constraints. But anarchists are not arguing for a society where humans are not subject to basic physical needs. When I say freedom from slavery I mean something very different to what I think you mean. I desire a society where violence is not institutionalized.

[egokick]

@morthim when I say slavery I go with the conventional definition which subjects 1 or more individuals to coercion(or the threat of) by another individual or multiple individuals, for the purpose of controlling them in some way. If the actor doing the "coercing" is not a conscious one and has no will of its own I would not claim it to be slavery but instead a natural restraint.

[egokick]

@egokick A human is a bloody hard thing to define. if I start by saying a human is a biological system... then what about humans that have parts of them that are not biological, there are brain implants that are inorganic that will simulate small regions of the brain for a person, no one would say they cease being human at that point. but what if they were to do that for 10% of their brain or 60% or 100% (if that was possible) and they continued to function in the same way.

[Decentralism]

beast.

[JTravisRolko]

None of this is actually true.

[CorrodedConformitySD]

@JTravisRolko: How do you know?

[Mudh0ney16]

I think the point about an individualist anarchist society allowing for the voluntary organization of a democratic socialist community has great implications. Of course the socialists can't guarantee that that kind of freedom would fly in their society, because at any point it can be deemed "bad for society" and legitimately crushed due to the arbitrary nature of their supposed principles.

[nocturnezero]

@Mudh0ney16 The proposition that we have a completely neutral society where people are free to associate in whatever economic context they choose does not end all arguments about the superiority of economic situations, and this man's proposition that Democratic Socialism is somehow synonymous with Central Planning or that it subverts people to the will of the majority is just propaganda.

[crud4]

@Mudh0ney16 Ya, I think the PC crowd can be dangerous for freedom. Many socialists struggle with the idea of ultimate human freedom and social accountability. At the end of the day the biggest issue is workers relation to the means of production. Whoever controls industry controls the world. It's really that simple.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@crud4 consumers control industry. simple indeed.

[Spideynw]

Excellent description and argument.

[Nielsio]

I think so too.

[nicademus1974]

Part 3?