I can't, in good conscience, recognize "anarcho" capitalism as anarchy. It doesn't address the fundamental anarchist notion of equality. It allows for absentee ownership, which is EXTREMELY authoritarian.
I think any "anarcho" capitalists should look into Mutualism or even Individualism. You CAN have currency without capital! I think those schools would address the "anarcho" capitalist's concerns with anarcho-socialism.
I always translate "work for a boss or starve" into "work or starve". The "boss" part is irrelevant due to the fact that if you don't work/produce/etc., you will starve due to the fact that you can't magically manifest food (there's no such thing as magic). Socialists can't perform magic any more than capitalists can.
The "coercion" they refer to is a fact of nature resulting from the natural laws of the universe. Are they asserting that they alone have discovered a method by with they can defy the laws of physics and magically create food without "working"? I don't think so.
I'd like to make it public knowledge that Mr1001nights deletes some of my comments to him. I presume because these are the most powerful comments from me which he is not intellectually equipped to respond to.
You don't understand what capitalism is. Property beyond your person and what you are using cannot exist without the initiation of force (a state). For a "capitalist society" to exist in an anarchist society the people would essentially need to voluntarily agree to give a portion of what they produce, with what they use, to someone who plays the role of the capitalist. And expect nothing in return other than being told what to do. Nobody would agree to that simply because theres no upside.
Right. Property rights must be protected by some societal agreement, whether by force or ignorance (with the dissenters constituting a majority of the current prison population). If people in an area were to collectively decide that property should only be recognized if in use, then capitalism would have no foot to stand on. Property rights would then require a state or other protective institution to be enforced.
Ok, than your society promotes coercion. Because there are things that you aren't immediately using, but you'd claim ownership to them anyways (ex. a car parked in a garage). How is this different than what I'm talking about?
Possession guidelines could be decided democratically. Everyone is affected by them. I assume that most people would want to protect personal possessions such as cars or homes. Perhaps this could be accomplished by setting time limits to non-use through democratic means. This would help ensure that the burden of proof for would-be users is as objective as possible.
sorry, brighthelmvellas. I removed you comment by accident, I meant to hit reply. But voluntary socialist workers councils could easily form in free market systems.
"But voluntary socialist workers councils could easily form in free market systems."
That depends what you mean by 'free market systems'. If everything of signifigance is owned exclusively by one class of people and then effectively rented out to another class of people, then no. Capitalist institutions are totalitarian and heirachical, thats why their right to exist is opposed by anarchists.
It's already happened. Your idea that private monopolies and exploitative economic structures would not arise though a true free market is irrelevent because those realities already exist, and they won't go away by privatising state power into mercinary police and armies.
Do you believe that any type of private-ownership is illegitimate? And cut the "mercenary" crap, I advocate the same type of defense as you do, except my defense is NOT above the law (it's private).
"Do you believe that any type of private-ownership is illegitimate?"
Exclusive personal ownership of any material thing? Of course not. Stop deliberately missing the point regarding property. I can seriously believe that you cannot comprehend the difference between the implications of an individual exclusively owning a house and an individual exclusively owning 10,000 acres of Cornwall.
Regarding 'mercenary crap': I don't know what to call a armed group whose loyaly is to the highest bidder. That is the definition of mercenary isn't it? I don't advocate DROs or any other hired muscle (to be blunt) for the enforcement of private property rights, because I don't suport those property rights. But you do, so it is up to you to explain what isn't mercinary about private militias.
Without government violent crimes can easily be solved in anarchy, the initiation of coercin can only be stopped with coercion. The idea that "property crime" can be stopped without a state or the initiation of force however is impossible. And it's not a problem because in the end property is the crime. Read Proudhon's "What is Property" if you want to know why. Or here's the conclusion if you want the short answer: "Property is Theft".
Thats the point isn't it? Nobody has ever agreed on a clear cut definition of property and nobody ever will. It's a pretty abstract concept. Thats why the only concept of property that could survive in a society where the initiation of force is not an option is whatever doesn't require the initiation of force to obtain and whatever needs the initiation of force to get it taken away. ie, your person and what you are using.
The consumption of food would be an enforceable claim to property because the initiation of force would be needed to take that food away from you. You are using the food therefore its yours.
Defense is not coercion. To spout self-contradictory aphorisms like "Property is Theft" that comes from the same guy who said "Property is Liberty" hardly adds anything to the debate.
defense is coercion. Look it up in the dictionary, it doesn't say anything about the reasons why it is used. Not all coercion is illegitimate, using coercion when someone has already initiated coercion is legitimate. The INITIATION of coercion is illegitimate. "property is theft" and "property is freedom" is only contradictory if you don't understand the reasons why he said that.
Of course people can always make voluntary agreements that they will not take things from each other even if they are not using it but that is entirely voluntary and holds no ground against people who do not voluntary agree to that.
The fact you claim that self-defense is coercion shows me you have a very skewed and illogical view of what such things are. I suggest you check your premises.
"Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary way"
Self-defense IS coercion, I know market-anarchists like to redefine words but this is ridiculous. Self-defense is using coercion to stop coercion and its perfectly legitimate. Initiating coercion (aggression) is not.
It's the same reason why property crime is not categorized as violent crime
"Coercion is the practice of compelling a PERSON to behave in an involuntary way"
There can be no coercion between a person and an object Two or more people are required to initiate coercion. If I go out in the woods and chop down a tree that someone claimed as their property for example, I'm not making anyone act in an involuntary way, I'm not making anyone else act at all.
No, because someone can't just say "This tree is mine" and claim it as property.
However, by chopping down the tree you've now "homesteaded" it and it now belongs to you.
Under your view of coercion, if you made a chair out of it and I stole it, that's ok because I've committed no coercion. Breaking into your house and taking a bunch of your shit while you aren't home will be alright as well.
Taking the chair while you aren't sitting in it is fine though?
You aren't reserving the right to do shit with shit if you just say it's yours. Property is acquired through homesteading or trade. Not by claiming it's your's without even touching it.
Taking my chair would depend on what voluntary agreements we have between us. If we have none then yes, you can take it but keep in mind i can take anything thats yours. It would be called anarcho-communism.
Again, how to you plan on practicing your definition of property from someone who does not voluntarily agree to it.
How do you plan to stay alive in the same situation? When someone pulls a gun on you and they're determined to kill you theres really nothing you can do, not in todays society, not in market-anarchy, not in feudalism. Of course you can run or try to kill them before they pull the trigger but thats unlikely to work...
If someone doesn't voluntarily agree you have a right to your life than it would be alright and they decided to kill you then defending yourself would be coercion, am I correct? For the sake of argument assume it's a situation where you're able to do so.
Yes it would be coercion. But like i explained, i think responding to coercion with coercion is not immoral. And an attacker would obviously need to initiate coercion to be an attacker. If they just said "I want to kill you" and don't act in a coercive way then I have no right to coerce them since they're not an aggressor, at least not yet.
Ugg, you're going in circles. The difference is that a murderer has to initiate coercion, a person taking an object that is unused does not need to use coercion at all. We've been over this remember?
Forcing someone to give up ownership over justly acquired properly by stealing it, taking it through fraud, etc. is coercion. Whether you believe they have a right to it or not.
Just like murder is coercion, whether you believe someone has a right to their life or not.
"Forcing someone to give up ownership over justly acquired properly by stealing it, taking it through fraud, etc."
You're kidding me. What dictionary did you get that from?
First of all thats a pretty bad definition because it leaves out a lot of things. Second even that definition starts with "forcing SOMEONE", if theres no "someone" how can it be coercion? Try charging a trespasser with coercion, you'll be laughed at. And third "justly acquired property" can mean anything.
Rorshak, he's brainwashed. You should see his futile flailing over at Freedomain -- humorous yet sad beyond all reason. He fallaciously conflates force and coercion. This has been pointed out to him, but he ignores it like a child who can't let go of Santa Claus. Case closed. Moving on.
If you are engaged in discussion with mr1001nights, he will misrepresent you. It's kind of like being able to tell that a politician is lying because his mouth is moving. Unfortunately, our socialist friend has no option but to forgo integrity (ironically creating his own "coerced set of choices"), because an honest examination of reality obliterates his entire philosophy or, at the very least, subjects his own system to the same criticism he levels against others.
Cause currently in capitalism all I know is the price I pay for the item I buy and the catchy jingle. We are not informed about where or how the product I buy was made, and that items TRUE COST!
We are blinded from simple realities in capitalism.
(Idea's about empathy and connectiveness to labor apply here)
Capitalism is the ultimate coercion and manipulation, for you think that the notion of existence and understanding is YOUR own individual existence and understanding.
So this guy's argument is that the goverment said "no regulate yourselves" and then pollution occurs in private industy. Then when goverment tries to imply and understanding, then capitalists throw their arms up!
What a reverseing of roles.
The oil companies or the main polluteres sought political representation for their industires. (why else was the electric car killed)?
The main force between govrment and buiness is buisness. Why else would we sign Nafta?
"And no, corporations are a government created entity"
Corporations are legal entities. I'm sure Nike would have no problem purchasing the protection of a pretty effective DRO (such as Blackwater, maybe?) in the absence of a centralised state to protect their interests.
Capital, BTW is produced though labour from resources, both of which are finite. It doesn't just magically manefest itself to sustain the demands of the comfortable western consumer lifestyle.
Luke you say that there will be a system where individuals will live with division of labor,(A form of class division the biggest antagonism in our society) and that people will be happy.
Well look at the studies out there on how happy people are in our current capitalistic society. Depression and metal disorders increase about 5-10% every year why is that?
Cause people can see past the bullsheit you can't see past.
"people half way across the world don't orginize in this way you'll stop them with force."
Why would anyone want to do that? You have accused mr1001nights (and myself too in the past) of misrepresenting you, yet that is all you ever do to your critics. To you it seems everything must be subject to free market capitalism or else all exchange must forbidden by a fascist-communist state. Yet you say mr1001 is guilty of dichotomous thinking. Do you enjoy debating your projected mirror image?
"I respect socialists right to exist. Unfortunately I can rarely say the same abouy socialists"
It's not about your right to exist, you sound like you have a persecution complex. It's about your positions. If you want to be a voluntarist, be a consistant one and question every institution that curtials an individuals right to control was impacts umon their lives. That includes exclusive property rights. If you honestly and consistantly done this then I doubt you'd call yourself a capitalist.
Socialists don't believe in private property, they traditionally propose to abolish it through the state apperatus.
What I am saying is that all forms of authority must be justified. It you are claiming exclusive ownership over a factory, or a tract of land, or an apartment block, then you have to justify that right, because it is by that claim of exclusive ownership that gives you the authorty to charge an ursury for the use of those things.
The difference between this kind of property and personal property such as your house, your clothes, your body, or your tools, is that the first kind are useless without the labour of others, and in most cases other people need access to those things to make a living for themselves. The only way to exclude them is through the threat of force. That is where the necessity for the state arises.
In order to have a stateless society, exclusive private ownership of capital that is worked in common and usury derived from this ownership is clearly unjustifiable. There doesn't need to be a bloody revolution or an initiation of violence against capitalists to stop them from profiting from trade, there just needs to be a rejection of exploitative property rights. That is the traditional anarchist position.
That is why an-cap is not anarchism, because it wants to somehow ditch the state but keep the private property rights of a capitalist economic system. Therefor it bypasses the root cause of exploitative heirachies that make the state necissary in the first place. And because an-cap makes no critique of or opposition to these hierachies, it cannot logically be called anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. I assume you mean an-cap when you say 'market anarchy'.
Some socialists may believe in property but no anarchists who's really thought things through can possibly believe that private property (especially of the means of production) can be upheld without a state. Defining "Property crimes" is what takes up most of the states laws, do you actually believe that without a state society would have the same concept of "property crimes" and could somehow practice them without the initiation of force?
I think realistically the logical move towards an an-cap society from where we are now would be to privatise the police and criminal justice system first and then the rest of the state (the 'non-vital' parts) can be left to wither away, thus leaving the enforcement of property rights to the competing private security firms that are derived from the forces of the old state monopoly. It is hard to see how this would be less violent or any more progressive than what we already have.
I can't, in good conscience, recognize "anarcho" capitalism as anarchy. It doesn't address the fundamental anarchist notion of equality. It allows for absentee ownership, which is EXTREMELY authoritarian.
I think any "anarcho" capitalists should look into Mutualism or even Individualism. You CAN have currency without capital! I think those schools would address the "anarcho" capitalist's concerns with anarcho-socialism.
bilgreen713 4 years ago
I think the 2 of you are speaking 2 different languages.
Harpakhrad11 4 years ago
I always translate "work for a boss or starve" into "work or starve". The "boss" part is irrelevant due to the fact that if you don't work/produce/etc., you will starve due to the fact that you can't magically manifest food (there's no such thing as magic). Socialists can't perform magic any more than capitalists can.
D4Shawn 4 years ago 2
The "coercion" they refer to is a fact of nature resulting from the natural laws of the universe. Are they asserting that they alone have discovered a method by with they can defy the laws of physics and magically create food without "working"? I don't think so.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
(I don't believe they have that power). I don't believe in magic, and thus I don't believe in socialism.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
I'd like to make it public knowledge that Mr1001nights deletes some of my comments to him. I presume because these are the most powerful comments from me which he is not intellectually equipped to respond to.
LeeGeeGee 4 years ago
Ditto
PrimeDirector 4 years ago
Mr 1001lies has blocked me and deleted some of my comments
FDKII 4 years ago
"Please explain to me why I'm not looking at a naked man right now."
- Luke12000
EntertainedWatcher 4 years ago
Ya, people could probably make some pretty creative shit out of that...
Luke12000 4 years ago
Good points.
Austrolibertarian 4 years ago 2
You don't understand what capitalism is. Property beyond your person and what you are using cannot exist without the initiation of force (a state). For a "capitalist society" to exist in an anarchist society the people would essentially need to voluntarily agree to give a portion of what they produce, with what they use, to someone who plays the role of the capitalist. And expect nothing in return other than being told what to do. Nobody would agree to that simply because theres no upside.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Right. Property rights must be protected by some societal agreement, whether by force or ignorance (with the dissenters constituting a majority of the current prison population). If people in an area were to collectively decide that property should only be recognized if in use, then capitalism would have no foot to stand on. Property rights would then require a state or other protective institution to be enforced.
Pananarchist 4 years ago
Ok, than your society promotes coercion. Because there are things that you aren't immediately using, but you'd claim ownership to them anyways (ex. a car parked in a garage). How is this different than what I'm talking about?
Luke12000 4 years ago
Possession guidelines could be decided democratically. Everyone is affected by them. I assume that most people would want to protect personal possessions such as cars or homes. Perhaps this could be accomplished by setting time limits to non-use through democratic means. This would help ensure that the burden of proof for would-be users is as objective as possible.
Pananarchist 4 years ago
Your argument is exactly the same as the statist argument that without government there's nothing to stop crime, like property theft.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago 2
sorry, brighthelmvellas. I removed you comment by accident, I meant to hit reply. But voluntary socialist workers councils could easily form in free market systems.
Luke12000 4 years ago
Never mind the comment.
"But voluntary socialist workers councils could easily form in free market systems."
That depends what you mean by 'free market systems'. If everything of signifigance is owned exclusively by one class of people and then effectively rented out to another class of people, then no. Capitalist institutions are totalitarian and heirachical, thats why their right to exist is opposed by anarchists.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
How would one class of people gain control of all vital assets?
Luke12000 4 years ago
It's already happened. Your idea that private monopolies and exploitative economic structures would not arise though a true free market is irrelevent because those realities already exist, and they won't go away by privatising state power into mercinary police and armies.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
Do you believe that any type of private-ownership is illegitimate? And cut the "mercenary" crap, I advocate the same type of defense as you do, except my defense is NOT above the law (it's private).
Luke12000 4 years ago
"Do you believe that any type of private-ownership is illegitimate?"
Exclusive personal ownership of any material thing? Of course not. Stop deliberately missing the point regarding property. I can seriously believe that you cannot comprehend the difference between the implications of an individual exclusively owning a house and an individual exclusively owning 10,000 acres of Cornwall.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
sorry, that was supposed to be 'I can NOT seriously believe...'
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
Regarding 'mercenary crap': I don't know what to call a armed group whose loyaly is to the highest bidder. That is the definition of mercenary isn't it? I don't advocate DROs or any other hired muscle (to be blunt) for the enforcement of private property rights, because I don't suport those property rights. But you do, so it is up to you to explain what isn't mercinary about private militias.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
Without government violent crimes can easily be solved in anarchy, the initiation of coercin can only be stopped with coercion. The idea that "property crime" can be stopped without a state or the initiation of force however is impossible. And it's not a problem because in the end property is the crime. Read Proudhon's "What is Property" if you want to know why. Or here's the conclusion if you want the short answer: "Property is Theft".
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Depends on our definition of property, do you believe that consumption of food is a type of "claiming property".
Luke12000 4 years ago
Thats the point isn't it? Nobody has ever agreed on a clear cut definition of property and nobody ever will. It's a pretty abstract concept. Thats why the only concept of property that could survive in a society where the initiation of force is not an option is whatever doesn't require the initiation of force to obtain and whatever needs the initiation of force to get it taken away. ie, your person and what you are using.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
The consumption of food would be an enforceable claim to property because the initiation of force would be needed to take that food away from you. You are using the food therefore its yours.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Defense is not coercion. To spout self-contradictory aphorisms like "Property is Theft" that comes from the same guy who said "Property is Liberty" hardly adds anything to the debate.
You ARE saying
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
defense is coercion. Look it up in the dictionary, it doesn't say anything about the reasons why it is used. Not all coercion is illegitimate, using coercion when someone has already initiated coercion is legitimate. The INITIATION of coercion is illegitimate. "property is theft" and "property is freedom" is only contradictory if you don't understand the reasons why he said that.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
"The INITIATION of coercion is illegitimate"
Indeed. Now get that into your head. Then you maybe you can figure out why owning something is not coercive.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
"Owning" something you are using is not coercive. "Owning" something you are not using requires the initiation of coercion to protect.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Of course people can always make voluntary agreements that they will not take things from each other even if they are not using it but that is entirely voluntary and holds no ground against people who do not voluntary agree to that.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Again, if this is true than taking stuff from your home while you aren't there is alright.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
Sorry, pressed "Post Comment" to soon.
The fact you claim that self-defense is coercion shows me you have a very skewed and illogical view of what such things are. I suggest you check your premises.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
"The fact you claim that self-defense is coercion"
Is that a fact? Prove it.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
You're an idiot. That fact is self-evident.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
I suggest you check your premises.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
I suggest you fuck yourself.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
LOL
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
"Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary way"
Self-defense IS coercion, I know market-anarchists like to redefine words but this is ridiculous. Self-defense is using coercion to stop coercion and its perfectly legitimate. Initiating coercion (aggression) is not.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
You are correct. I apologize for failing to make that distinction.
Now try explaining how defending property is initiating coercion when one attempts to steal, vandalize or trespass on property.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
It's the same reason why property crime is not categorized as violent crime
"Coercion is the practice of compelling a PERSON to behave in an involuntary way"
There can be no coercion between a person and an object Two or more people are required to initiate coercion. If I go out in the woods and chop down a tree that someone claimed as their property for example, I'm not making anyone act in an involuntary way, I'm not making anyone else act at all.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
No, because someone can't just say "This tree is mine" and claim it as property.
However, by chopping down the tree you've now "homesteaded" it and it now belongs to you.
Under your view of coercion, if you made a chair out of it and I stole it, that's ok because I've committed no coercion. Breaking into your house and taking a bunch of your shit while you aren't home will be alright as well.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
"No, because someone can't just say "This tree is mine" and claim it as property."
Thats the thing isn't it? You're forcing your theory of property on everyone else by reserving the right to initiate coercion to protect it.
Taking my chair while I'm sitting on it would be coercion because you are making me act in an involuntary way (ie, falling to the ground).
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Taking the chair while you aren't sitting in it is fine though?
You aren't reserving the right to do shit with shit if you just say it's yours. Property is acquired through homesteading or trade. Not by claiming it's your's without even touching it.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
Taking my chair would depend on what voluntary agreements we have between us. If we have none then yes, you can take it but keep in mind i can take anything thats yours. It would be called anarcho-communism.
Again, how to you plan on practicing your definition of property from someone who does not voluntarily agree to it.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
How do you plan on staying alive if someone doesn't voluntarily agree you have the right to your life?
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
How do you plan to stay alive in the same situation? When someone pulls a gun on you and they're determined to kill you theres really nothing you can do, not in todays society, not in market-anarchy, not in feudalism. Of course you can run or try to kill them before they pull the trigger but thats unlikely to work...
That has nothing to do with anarchy.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
You missed my point.
If someone doesn't voluntarily agree you have a right to your life than it would be alright and they decided to kill you then defending yourself would be coercion, am I correct? For the sake of argument assume it's a situation where you're able to do so.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
Yes it would be coercion. But like i explained, i think responding to coercion with coercion is not immoral. And an attacker would obviously need to initiate coercion to be an attacker. If they just said "I want to kill you" and don't act in a coercive way then I have no right to coerce them since they're not an aggressor, at least not yet.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Then thank you for answering your own question.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
What was my question?
PuppyHate 4 years ago
"how to you plan on practicing your definition of property from someone who does not voluntarily agree to it."
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
Ugg, you're going in circles. The difference is that a murderer has to initiate coercion, a person taking an object that is unused does not need to use coercion at all. We've been over this remember?
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Forcing someone to give up ownership over justly acquired properly by stealing it, taking it through fraud, etc. is coercion. Whether you believe they have a right to it or not.
Just like murder is coercion, whether you believe someone has a right to their life or not.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
Please use the definition of coercion to show how an act between a man and an unused object is coercion.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Are you fucking blind? Read what I just said again.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
"Forcing someone to give up ownership over justly acquired properly by stealing it, taking it through fraud, etc."
You're kidding me. What dictionary did you get that from?
First of all thats a pretty bad definition because it leaves out a lot of things. Second even that definition starts with "forcing SOMEONE", if theres no "someone" how can it be coercion? Try charging a trespasser with coercion, you'll be laughed at. And third "justly acquired property" can mean anything.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Rorshak, he's brainwashed. You should see his futile flailing over at Freedomain -- humorous yet sad beyond all reason. He fallaciously conflates force and coercion. This has been pointed out to him, but he ignores it like a child who can't let go of Santa Claus. Case closed. Moving on.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago 2
Using force on SOMEONE without their consent is the same thing as coercion, it IS coercion. I can't believe don't know that.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
well done
sabbatron5 4 years ago
If you are engaged in discussion with mr1001nights, he will misrepresent you. It's kind of like being able to tell that a politician is lying because his mouth is moving. Unfortunately, our socialist friend has no option but to forgo integrity (ironically creating his own "coerced set of choices"), because an honest examination of reality obliterates his entire philosophy or, at the very least, subjects his own system to the same criticism he levels against others.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
You say you do not vote that's fair. What political party do you think people who are buying into this "pipe dream" who do vote, will likely choose?
The people with the money and power use their influence to sell you a theory that sounds good!
But in essence just legitimizes the current bullsheit.
For who are those people who do vote gonna vote for when buying into this unsound theory?
notloz2 4 years ago
What I advocate has nothing to do with our current bullshit...The emperor is naked.
Luke12000 4 years ago
Yet who would an anarcho capitalists vote for?
A conservative that is Bullshitting them!
notloz2 4 years ago
LoL
If you can't see that reality Luke then your either a fool or a madman.
"The emperor is naked" What is this? You have a new exspression in your head and use it carelessly to define everyone? LoL
Yes! Use even broader strokes next time you delegitimize your position and validate mine.
notloz2 4 years ago
I'd never vote for anyone, and if I did it wouldn't be a conservative.
Luke12000 4 years ago
"What I advocate has nothing to do with our current bullshit."
You don't vote? Then that's exactly what your doing.
notloz2 4 years ago
I advocate a system where you COULDN'T vote your will on others, so voting for it would be a strange position to take.
Luke12000 4 years ago
So then you're idea's and notions are the most futile for they won't even get off the ground.
watch?v=w3QEEI35uYw
"People, people we got to get oevr before we go under!"
notloz2 4 years ago
Pt3
Cause currently in capitalism all I know is the price I pay for the item I buy and the catchy jingle. We are not informed about where or how the product I buy was made, and that items TRUE COST!
We are blinded from simple realities in capitalism.
(Idea's about empathy and connectiveness to labor apply here)
Capitalism is the ultimate coercion and manipulation, for you think that the notion of existence and understanding is YOUR own individual existence and understanding.
How limited!
notloz2 4 years ago
Capitalists CAN be held accountable for every aspect of their production.
Walter Block shows this here:
watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo
Luke12000 4 years ago
So this guy's argument is that the goverment said "no regulate yourselves" and then pollution occurs in private industy. Then when goverment tries to imply and understanding, then capitalists throw their arms up!
What a reverseing of roles.
The oil companies or the main polluteres sought political representation for their industires. (why else was the electric car killed)?
The main force between govrment and buiness is buisness. Why else would we sign Nafta?
notloz2 4 years ago
the argument is; greed is not the problem, corrupt court systems/public ownership are the problem.
Luke12000 4 years ago
Again you saying that doesn't make it true.
A person who values their own flash in the pan existance over the AWSOME continuation of existance is a commercialized and materialized sheep.
Those people allot of the times are not happier then you or I!
That is a false reality, individual greed is a false reality, that's if you can get past your own ego.
State of nature doesn't apply anymore, or at least it doesnt have to.
notloz2 4 years ago
"greed is not the problem"
Greed by definition is a problem.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
What is your definition of greed?
Luke12000 4 years ago
Websters:
'a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed'
Excessive being the negative.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
Pt2
Where is this unlimited capital gonna come from in your dream society?
The planet is dieing people are being abused in countries with ought constitution. Corporatism spawned from capitalism you know?
What gonna stop people from consolidating power behind the back of others in your society?
Cause in the society you propose is that I am the legislator of my reality.
So do the people we place in bondage for my high quality of life exist?
notloz2 4 years ago
Free market systems produce excess capital, watch "the real magic of capitalism" for why.
And no, corporations are a government created entity.
Luke12000 4 years ago
There is no unlimited supply of capital, as you can see jobs are being exported accross sea's to countries that do not belive in human rights.
Are the capitalists gonna sell themsleves into slavery to justify the unjustifiable?
Does man even control this system?
you saying "no, corporations are a government created entity." Deosn't make it true. LoL
notloz2 4 years ago
"And no, corporations are a government created entity"
Corporations are legal entities. I'm sure Nike would have no problem purchasing the protection of a pretty effective DRO (such as Blackwater, maybe?) in the absence of a centralised state to protect their interests.
Capital, BTW is produced though labour from resources, both of which are finite. It doesn't just magically manefest itself to sustain the demands of the comfortable western consumer lifestyle.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
Luke you say that there will be a system where individuals will live with division of labor,(A form of class division the biggest antagonism in our society) and that people will be happy.
Well look at the studies out there on how happy people are in our current capitalistic society. Depression and metal disorders increase about 5-10% every year why is that?
Cause people can see past the bullsheit you can't see past.
notloz2 4 years ago
So your saying EVERYONE must produce all the food the need. NO trade is allowed, and you will prevent it from taking place with force?
Luke12000 4 years ago
No people can work in factories as long as they own the means and control production.
Stop putting word in our mouths.
notloz2 4 years ago
And if people half way across the world don't orginize in this way you'll stop them with force.
Luke12000 4 years ago
Me talking is the best I can do to force you to see or belive anything.
notloz2 4 years ago
"people half way across the world don't orginize in this way you'll stop them with force."
Why would anyone want to do that? You have accused mr1001nights (and myself too in the past) of misrepresenting you, yet that is all you ever do to your critics. To you it seems everything must be subject to free market capitalism or else all exchange must forbidden by a fascist-communist state. Yet you say mr1001 is guilty of dichotomous thinking. Do you enjoy debating your projected mirror image?
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
"To you it seems everything must be subject to free market capitalism or else all exchange must forbidden by a fascist-communist state."
When have I ever said that? I'm a voluntarist, I respect socialists right to exist. Unfortunately I can rarely say the same abouy socialists.
Luke12000 4 years ago
"I respect socialists right to exist. Unfortunately I can rarely say the same abouy socialists"
It's not about your right to exist, you sound like you have a persecution complex. It's about your positions. If you want to be a voluntarist, be a consistant one and question every institution that curtials an individuals right to control was impacts umon their lives. That includes exclusive property rights. If you honestly and consistantly done this then I doubt you'd call yourself a capitalist.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
Socialists believe in property too. So I don't see how this is a valid cretique of market anarchism.
Luke12000 4 years ago
Socialists don't believe in private property, they traditionally propose to abolish it through the state apperatus.
What I am saying is that all forms of authority must be justified. It you are claiming exclusive ownership over a factory, or a tract of land, or an apartment block, then you have to justify that right, because it is by that claim of exclusive ownership that gives you the authorty to charge an ursury for the use of those things.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
The difference between this kind of property and personal property such as your house, your clothes, your body, or your tools, is that the first kind are useless without the labour of others, and in most cases other people need access to those things to make a living for themselves. The only way to exclude them is through the threat of force. That is where the necessity for the state arises.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
In order to have a stateless society, exclusive private ownership of capital that is worked in common and usury derived from this ownership is clearly unjustifiable. There doesn't need to be a bloody revolution or an initiation of violence against capitalists to stop them from profiting from trade, there just needs to be a rejection of exploitative property rights. That is the traditional anarchist position.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
That is why an-cap is not anarchism, because it wants to somehow ditch the state but keep the private property rights of a capitalist economic system. Therefor it bypasses the root cause of exploitative heirachies that make the state necissary in the first place. And because an-cap makes no critique of or opposition to these hierachies, it cannot logically be called anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. I assume you mean an-cap when you say 'market anarchy'.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago
Some socialists may believe in property but no anarchists who's really thought things through can possibly believe that private property (especially of the means of production) can be upheld without a state. Defining "Property crimes" is what takes up most of the states laws, do you actually believe that without a state society would have the same concept of "property crimes" and could somehow practice them without the initiation of force?
PuppyHate 4 years ago
I think realistically the logical move towards an an-cap society from where we are now would be to privatise the police and criminal justice system first and then the rest of the state (the 'non-vital' parts) can be left to wither away, thus leaving the enforcement of property rights to the competing private security firms that are derived from the forces of the old state monopoly. It is hard to see how this would be less violent or any more progressive than what we already have.
BrightHelmVellas 4 years ago