Anarchism vs."anarcho"-statism & "anarcho"-capitalism

[MsSexySocialist]

@tonygmilan7

Any point you could have made regarding the argument for or against having a providential polity and social framework in a stateless society were instantly scuppered by your choice to use the ignorant homophobic language of barbarians.

[SelfOwnershipNow]

You don't need a state to have property rights, in fact, the state is anti private property. They will give public property the image of private property at times to give a false image that they care about property, but the very fact that government is not possible without taxation aggressive violence proves that private property is always at threat. Without the state, spontaneous order would create an environment of individual property rights. Non-state private property ends collective slavery

[qwertypoiu4321]

Anyone that violates the Non-Coercion Principle should be charged as such.

[cfbastiat]

mr1001nights: You assume too much when you say, "At the core of the anti-hierarchical nature of an anarchist economic system...". Anarchy means "no ruler", not "no hierarchy". It's foolish to think people won't naturally form hierarchies when left free from rulers. Hierarchies are a natural part of life. That being said, you don't have to join any hierarchy in a world without rulers. You may starve to death but that's your problem. Some of us actually like to trade our skills for cash. Weird.

[motorhead992]

what exactly does non-exploitative property entail? is it simply basic commodities such as my home and my tooth brush, or does it include things used only for the personal pleasure derived from them, such as my television or computer? for instance, one of my hobbies is collecting military surplus items. i have no real need to have these items, but i enjoy them just to have them. would things like this fall under non-exploitative property?

[motorhead992]

what exactly does non-exploitative property entail? is it simply basic commodities such as my home and my tooth brush, or does it include things used only for the personal pleasure derived from them, such as my television or computer? for instance, one of my hobbies is collecting military surplus items. i have no real need to have these items, but i enjoy them just to have them. would things like this fall under non-exploitative property?

[accountstube]

The guy in this video is alarmingly foolish. He understands nothing about economics, contracts or private property. He talks and talks and all that comes out is confusion. He quotes Rothbard but has no idea what Rothbard is saying. I'm ashamed to be human.

[ajw21778]

What is the difference between Ayn rands' philosophy and anarchism

[RevolutionaryJam]

Ayn wants a coersive state to do three things

1) Protect property rights

2) Defend people from criminals

3) Defend people from foreign invaders,

it's a statist philosophy not an anachist one <3

[greenhell666]

Rand was sick

[RevolutionaryJam]

it is bad philosophy to attack the philosopher, whatever Rand was a lot of people still follow her views, you should say what you find disagreeable with the philosophy, not resort to the ad hominem.

[greenhell666]

oh, ok then ...

her views on morality are sick sick sick, sick sick XD

[RevolutionaryJam]

it's also notgood philosophy to dismiss a theory by insult :-P you could explain what you find disagreeable with it? lol

[greenhell666]

google: ayn rand + south park

or google images: objectivism + motivational

XD

[IIKruZerII]

Pontif.

[ginganz13]

Your sucess depends upon convincing people not clever enough to understand this till things get exponentially worse than they are now.

[Dmasterman]

I think one of the funniest thing I've seen is that this one female who claimed to be an Anarchist who worked at Starbucks, appeared on "Parking Wars' Parking in a bus passenger loading/unloading zone. She said the reason she did this is because she believed she wasn't in the way of the bus, and she was an anarchist and doesn't believe in societies rules. =/

[OntologicalQuandary]

i havent even watched the video but to call someone an anarcho-statist is beyond retarded.

[mr1001nights]

as retarded as "anarcho"-capitalist

[paunocu666]

Man, great!

[NamelessCommenter]

Since "anarcho"-capitalism is just privatized statism, "anarcho"-statism makes a good synonym.

tinyurl . com / anarcho-statism

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

I am interested in hearing your definition of "state" and how Anarcho-Capitalism is "privatized staism"....

[NamelessCommenter]

"An"-caps want to privatize state functions but don't question the functions themselves. They don't denounce what the state does, they just object to who's doing it. This is why those most victimized by the state display the least interest in "an"-capism. Those most coerced don't quibble over their coercers' credentials. If you can't pay, you don't care if your deprivation is called taxation or rent.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

If you can't pay then you need to look elsewhere.

You think this world owes you something?

If you are short on cash, then it is time to get a job.

Time to grow up. You are responsible for your own life.

[RevolutionaryJam]

hey I'm all for people making themselves useful to others

but are landowners really useful or are the just parasites

I see a row of shops. I have to pay more money for everything in those shops because the shopowners have to pay rent to someone who didn't contribute any labour to the service I am receiving.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Somebody should own their own land or shop instead of renting...

[RevolutionaryJam]

everybody should own their own land or shop instead of renting

unfortunately the people who own the land and shops have more money than the people who don't because they have more land and shops

wealth accumulates wealth without labour.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Save money and buy...

You don't necessarily need a shop to do business...

"wealth accumulates wealth without labour."

Only by the "wealthy" person spending their wealth to have other people doing the labor for them. This makes other people wealthier....

[RevolutionaryJam]

nah sorry you need a state to provide those property rights and therfore those property rights don't exist.

[RevolutionaryJam]

Ok you try owning 1000 acres of land which peasants farm and keeping all the produce of that land without farming it yourself without highering thugs (ie. The State) to defend you property right

IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN

The farmers are gonna claim that they work the land and therefore they own it, and kick your landlord ass off the property.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Why would I want some peasants farming my land?

Defending your property is not statism...

Why would these other "farmers" be on my property instead of getting their own?

[yeahwotevaman]

Sure. After all, we all know that the world is limitless. And flat. The lazy buggers should just get their own land!

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

It ain't limitless, but it is plentiful.

With all the free space there is, there is no reason why anyone isn't able to get their own.

Without a state, you won't have to worry about paying taxes.

[yeahwotevaman]

RevolutionaryJam's comment pertains to landlordism whereby a person excersises de jure property rights to land that others occupy and/or work, in order to extract value from them.

[RevolutionaryJam]

thanks ;-)

[RevolutionaryJam]

yeah and because everyone had a higher disposable income Landlords would increase rent and the price of products would increase so people wouldn't be much better off at all

except the people who own the land and capital of course.

[RevolutionaryJam]

are you kidding me? most farm land is not owned by the farmers that farm it but by employees?

What MAKES it "YOUR" land?

There is NO objective property, the only thing that makes it your property is if others acknowledge that it is yours as well, if no one else thinks it's yours you're simply delusional

"This is my land, these are my sons. Those are the words of a man who doesn't realise that he doesn't own even himself" -Buddha

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

If I am using it, then it is mine.

[RevolutionaryJam]

can you lend me the stapler?

Thanks

Oh you want MY stapler back? can't you see I'm using it, it's mine.

[niriop]

@RevolutionaryJam And lo, an entire theory comes crashing down due to two idiots in an office somewhere having a fight over a stapler.

Such petty arguments can hardly be expected to stand up as realistic ones.

[RevolutionaryJam]

I was illustrating a point, yes an entire theory comes crashing down due to the example of a stapler if the analogy is consistent, analogy is a well accepted technique for illustrating a philosophical point.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Whoever built/bought the stapler OWNS it. Unless the owner sells the item or gives it as a gift, then the receiver is the new owner.

Thinking with basic logic is enough to understand what "ownership" is.

[RevolutionaryJam]

you don't actually believe that though, in your system who ever "owns" the machine that person used to make the stapler, the person who actually makes it has no ownership of the produce of his labour,

besides no one built land therefore by your specification it cannot be owned, if it wasn't built by someone who had the right to sell it to whoever bought it?

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

If the stapler came out of a factory, then it means that somebody owns the material and the machines that were used to make the stapler.

If the "person" you are referring to, as the direct producer of the stapler, is an employee of the factory and they are making staplers for an employer and the staplers are not part of the payment agreement, then the employee does not own the stapler produced.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

If you are residing on a piece of land that noone else is using, then you can legitimately claim it to be yours.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

OutdoorsBlackMan - That's the type of thinking that led to the slaughter of Native Americans. Because a community views land as belonging to the earth and all of it's beautiful creatures, does not mean you capitalists can set up a fascist dictatorship.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

A fascist dictatorship is not a capitalist system.

You have no case against capitalism.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

No? Then please define a dictatorship if it is not a complete individual control over a given territory.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

A dictatorship is power over OTHER individuals outside of your property and place of residence.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

So your definition of a dictatorship is control of those not not on "your" land? Massive failure. A dictatorship, as I just described, is control of those inside the state, not outside the state.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

There is no state...

Owning land does is not statism.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

A state is a monopoly on force over a given geographical area. How does land ownership differ from that definition?

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

The problem with that definition is that owning land is not statism.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

Dude, you're avoiding my question. You're just repeating a fallacious claim. I'll just copy and paste my question and hopefully you'll answer this time.

"A state is a monopoly on force over a given geographical area. How does land ownership differ from that definition?"

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

I have already answered it, indirectly.

You want me to spell it out for you?

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

Yeah, spell it out for me how private property is not dictator control over a piece of land. This should be interesting...

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Having control over a piece of land that you own is not a dictatorship.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

Are you serious? A dictatorship is DEFINED by individual control.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

So you are saying that having freedom (control over yourself), is a dictatorship?

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Statism is is having power over others extending beyond your own private property.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

No, actually statism is only control over those inside the state, not outside the states property. It is the exact same with private property. You only control what's inside "your" property. Since Hitler was the individual owner of Germany, can Hitler's Germany be classified as "private property?"

Private property vs state property is a false dichotomy. They are the same thing.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Hitler was in a building. That doesn't give him any legitimate ownership over the entire area called Germany.

He was a part of a STATE. A state is an institution that coerces arbitrary rule over other people. Generally it is based on a geographic area, but it is all having to do with having coercive power over other people.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

As the Nazi's said, "Hitler is Germany, and Germany is Hitler." Private property means monopoly on the use of force over a given area by the individual. The state means a monopoly on the use of force over a given area by the individual or collective. This shouldn't be hard to comprehend, at all, whatsoever.

A boss is your dictator. You must do as the dictator says or you will be fired. You are making arguments IN FAVOR of what I am arguing.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

What the Nazis said is irrelevant.

Having power on your own property is not statism.

My comprehension of your definition is clear. I see yours as flawed and I do not accept it for a definition of a state.

A boss is not a dictator. You have dictated over YOURSELF to work for the "boss". You can quit and leave at any time.There is no dictatorship in this arrangement, unless you call individual sovereignty a dictatorship.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

Individual power also = dictatorship.

You keep making self-contradictory and outright laughable statements.

You don't have a dictatorship over yourself because humans are not property. You ARE yourself.

You can also choose to leave the United States. Does that mean the state is justified since you have the option of leaving? The same goes with a private dictatorship.

You're not an anarchist, but a private sector statist. Anarchism = no monopoly on force.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

I am myself, which means that if no other person has power over me than I have power over myself.

The "United States Government" has no legitmate ownership over any of the open land or the property that are privately owned.

Since you have a flawed understanding of the stae, you have a flawed understanding of anarchy. You are not in a position to determine whether or not I am an anarchist.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

You have control over some of your bodily functions yes, but that's not a choice now, is it?

A private dictator has no legitimate monopoly over the use of force either.

LOL... You still haven't explained how my definition of the state is wrong. You seem to have no problem with my definition that the STATE is a monopoly on the use of force over land.

You're not an anarchist. You're a fascist.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

My body and "myself" are two different things.

If you believe that having authority over a piece of land is statism in and of itself, then you have to believe it is statism to own a house.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

Your body is PART of yourself. And your ignoring my point which is that you don't have choice to whether or not you can control "yourself."

The STATE has never been defined as owning a house.... lol. The state AGAIN is a monopoly on force over land.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

My body is nothing but a vehicle to me. I don't consider it apart of "myself". I do have a choice as to whether or not I can control ME.

Houses are built on a an area of LAND. Did you know that?

Since you describe land ownership as statism, then you would have to believe that owning anything that occupies an area of land (therefore owning that area of land...) isstatism.

It is basic logic.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

Really? So you can choose whether or not you want nerve endings? lol... You're funny.

Houses have never been defined as a state. It's just a fact. You're just making ridiculous claims because you've run out of arguments completely. Also, houses are intended for personal use, land is a resource used by the entire community for its survival. So controlling the land means inherent dictator control over people using the land. A house doesn't place authority over the community.

It's basic logic :)

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Whether I choose them or not is irrelevant. I have them and do what I want with them.

The area that a house covers is land that other people do not have access to.

Owning a house is owning land by default.

A farm can be intended for personal use, a pool, a factory, and many other things that occupy spaces of LAND.

The most natural reason for owning anything is for personal use.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

But you said you have a choice to whether or not you want control over yourself. You don't have a choice.

Land and houses are two different things. This should be obvious. Where the are you going to build the house? This is another situation where humans don't really have a choice.

Farms and the means of production are needed for a community to survive, so a snobby unethical capitalist cannot claim a dictatorship over something needed for our existence.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

In the end, all "property" is a rights claim the community can reject. But if they do voluntarily allow fascism, anarchism won't last long.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

I do have a choice. Like the choice that I am making to debate the subject with you.

If the house is built on land, then the house is taking up landspace and claiming ownership of a house that occupies a space of land is automatically putting a claim on a space of LAND. The point is that you are claiming land space.

If you plant crops, then you are using up LAND.

A capitalist farms and uses their means of production to make goods that can be sold.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

You choose whether or not to use your body, but you don't choose whether or not you control it... obviously.

"If you plant crops, then you are using up LAND."

That's completely irrelevant. Using does not = dictatorship.

People don't have a choice to whether to occupy land. You are born on land. They do have a choice to whether or not they want a monopoly on force.

"A capitalist farms and uses their means of production to make goods that can be sold."

I don't understand. Be more clear.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

I chose to point my eyes at the screen to read. I am using my hands to type a response.

According to you, if the farmer laid claim on the land he was using and also the crops he was growing on it, then he is in a dictatorship.

By your logic owning a piece of land as property is statism.

A capitalist economy is a free market economy. Using a means of production to produce a product and sell it for money is capitalism.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

"I chose to point my eyes at the screen to read. I am using my hands to type a response."

That's irrelevant to the fact that you are inherently capable of doing so. You can't choose before birth whether or not you are going to be paralyzed. That's the only point I was making. You cannot choose whether or not to have control over your body. This is just a fact. It's not debated.

Yes, "claiming land" cannot coexist with anarchism. That's like saying the English had a right to claim America.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

This is your flaw when it comes to understating land claims objectively.

You think owning a lot to live on or to do business on is the same as "English" claiming "America".

With the STATE. You have a person or group of people claiming land over a geographic area, including land that OTHER people are residing in. With this claim, they coerce individuals to pay taxes and this state arbitrates itself as the sole organization for settling land claims for other people.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

Personal property doesn't even exists if the land you decide to take over has no one using or occupying it. Ownership is a demand. So the state also can't exists, obviously. The state requires one or ore individuals claiming a monopoly on force.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

"By your logic owning a piece of land as property is statism"

It is. That's the definition of a state. I'll repeat it. The state is when an individual or group has a monopoly on force over a given geographical area.

Capitalism is when a dictator has a monopoly on force over the means of production.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Do you know what a "definition" is?

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

It seems that you don't realize that a definition is subjective....

Capitalism is an economy based on voluntary exchanges.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

I will leave it at this.

When the state collapses and we have ANARCHY, we will also have CAPITALISM by default.

The only people who are against capitalism are those who fear it out of a gross misunderstanding or those who are against it because of a secret hatred of FREEDOM.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

When the state collapses there is no capitalism because capitalism is the state. Capitalism only exists when the elites can hide behind the state to protect their stolen wealth.

That's actually not the defining characteristic of capitalism at all. Capitalism is a system where the means of production is privately owned. You should know the definition of something that you support.

I don't hate freedom. I'm not the "free" market fascist here.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Capitalism is a system where the means of production is privately owned.

If somebody buys or builds a forge, they now own a means of forging knives.

If I own some needles and cotton, then I own a means of producing shirts.

There you have it. Private ownership of the means of production.

The "elites" you speak of have wealth that was obtained through NON-CAPITALIST means.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

I don't know how to make things clear to you.

You are so blinded by your BIASED misconceptions that understanding what I am saying is hard for you.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

"You are so blinded by your BIASED misconceptions that understanding what I am saying is hard for you."

Actually, I was saying that I didn't understand how what you were saying was relevant to prior post.

[RevolutionaryJam]

you clearly have biased conceptions as well.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

There is nothing statist about deciding to own a house (on a piece of LAND by the way...) and also staking out an area to claim as your private property.

[RevolutionaryJam]

when you say "legitimately" what is meant is: "legitimate according to my belief system"

again there is no objective property.

Still I agree with you,

Most land IS NOT owned by the people who reside on it, it is owned by landlords.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

According to you it is okay to go on a farmers land and steal all of their crops, since there is no objective ownership of anything according to you. It wouldn't even be "stealing".

You claim to speak objectively. It is your SUBJECTIVE opinion that there is no "legitimate" ownership. You forget that your view cannot be anything but subjective.

[TheAntiAuthoritarian]

There is limited land and limited resources so your claim of a monopoly over such things as farms or a water supply is infringement on another right to own it. So what's the solution? Democracy and shared ownership.

You claim to be objective, but your view of what if theft is SUBJECTIVE.

It's not up to me to decide what's legitimate. In the end, it only matters what the community thinks is legitimate ownership, and what they think is theft. I never said what I saying is objective.

[mr1001nights]

of course there's objective stealing. The wealth capitalists steal from wage slaves, for example. The very fact ppl understand the distinction between non exploitative property (for active personal use: a home, toothbrush etc) and exploitative property (industries, swaths of land etc) means that the boundaries of legitimately ownership have fairly clear limits.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

1. How did the capitalists "steal" from the "wage slaves"?

2. The "distinction" is imaginary.

3. YOU are in authority to define what the limits of ownership is, correct?

[mikepeino]

Who decides what those limits are, and who enforces them? Clearly everyone cannot do it, because not everyone agrees. So here you would have a hierarchical situation in which only some people have the right to define and enforce property rights. How do you resolve this contradiction?

[mr1001nights]

of course there's objective stealing. The wealth capitalists steal from wage slaves, for example. The very fact ppl understand the distinction between non exploitative property (for active personal use: a home, toothbrush etc) and exploitative property (industries, swaths of land etc) means that the boundaries of legitimately ownership have clear limits.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

You don't know what you are fighting against...

[RevolutionaryJam]

"According to you it is okay to go on a farmers land and steal all of their crops, "

On the contrary, I said that it is not ok for the landowner to go on a farmers land and steall all of their crops.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Why were you specifically saying the "landowner" (which in a capitalist society would most likely be the farmer himself...) couldn't steal the crops?

It looks like you are implying that non-landowners were ok to steal the farmer's crops?

You said there is no ownership. So, again, how would you be taking "their" crops, if they can't "own" them?

Since no one can own any land, that means it would be okay for someone to dig up the crops and build a house on an area that the farmer was using.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

If there is no ownership, then there is no theft. Also no such thing as vandalism or trespassing.

You don't own the house you are living in. So if I got the urge to burn it dow, I would be doing no wrong since the house belonged to NO ONE in the first place. I could also kick down the door and move in.

There is no tender around for me to start my BBQ fire, so it is okay for me to walk up to you and strip the shirt off of you back.

No one owns anything.

[greenhell666]

when I think of anarcho capitalism I remember blade runner and other cyber punk dystopias

[FreiheitKampfer]

'voluntary hierarchy' seems to be a contradiction-in-terms.

If all associations are based on instantaneous legitimacy and power control transfer, then can it be said to be a 'hierarchy'?

If 'hierarchy' can exist under voluntaryism, then it has no real meaning nor harms. It is simply consultation.

[successfulbuild]

You should do a video about how free-market capitalist reforms inevitably lead to more statism.

The fact of the matter is that historically free-markets create disasters or stagnations, like in the aeronautical industry, the agricultural industry, the electronics industry, etc.,

[successfulbuild]

and then government has to get involved to balance things out just so the market can continue to function. For example the government pays agribusiness to not produce food, this in a world where millions of people are starving. The FAA and government sponsored corporations had to exist because the free-market could not work out the airways on their own.

[successfulbuild]

In health care the government has to sponsor the free-market by picking up for its failing, ending up spending more than countries with UHC on health care per capita, with millions left uncovered. The only thing that remains unprivatized is the military.

Thus, the true road to serfdom is the free-market, and free-market forms are a terrible form of 'reformism' that leads back to big government.

[samsonlovesyou]

Would I be right in saying that around the two minute mark, you're embracing (in the loosest sense of the word) Marxism as a "compromise"? Seeing the state, in the case of fighting fascism, as a 'necessary evil'. The Marxist argument for the tranisitionary period is essentially that capitalists/fascists will have to be fought off during a revolutionary situation.

[samsonlovesyou]

cont. and that the state is the best means by which to do that.

Also, at the same part, are you talking only about a voluntary acknowledgement of the state's authority in such cases (which would most likely require worker self organisation into said state), or arguing that even enforced hierarchy should be accepted in that situation?

You can probably see where I'm going with this in terms of the Bolshevik argument to centralise power undemocratically to "fight off imperialism."

[mr1001nights]

Antiauthoritarian movements try to chip away at authoritarian structures&find strategies of survival/improvement in an imperfect world rife with complicated forces. There's no "marxist" analysis, just common sense which only a suicidal person wouldnt accept. I said that *if* one could prove that a temporary compromise w/state or *capitalist* authority is necessary to survive (something which is by no means always true) then everyone except ppl committed to suicide/self-destruction will accept it

[samsonlovesyou]

But taking that into account, can you see how it applies to, say, the CNT-FAI?

If the state was the best means to defend against fascism in that case, then it was the case that the Marxists would be saying "It's common sense" to appropriate the state when offered power.

But I think it was one of your own videos (not sure though, but you might have seen it either way) which said "True to their principles, the anarchists rejected the offer".

The role of the state is an important topic for me

[samsonlovesyou]

in attempting to define my own position. That is to say; if a direct transition to anarchy is attainable, then by all means, that'd be ideal.

If the state is justified in fighting fascism during a revolutionary situation, however, I'd have thought of myself as a Marxist, because wherever there is a revolutionary situation, capitalism will almost 'always' descend to fascism in order to maintain elite rule. If that's true, then the use of the state is 'always' justified practically

[mahyarmohaghegh]

ahhh you marxist pigg

hahahha im playing man i love you keep em coming

[ZullGostnu2]

From what I understand, I true anarchist would never be a wage slave. A True Anarchist would be self employed. And what if I don' want to be in your group? Oh, I could starve... if I don't belong to your group. I still have a choice. Your system will still evolve into a state, just like capitalism.

[RevolutionaryJam]

but it's got such an appealing name dude, it's called the "free" market, who wouldn't want to be part of something thats free?

[Bakuninite87]

LIke America:Land of the "free"

[greenhell666]

lol!

pwned!

[CapitalistHolocaust]

RE: "it's called the 'free' market, who wouldn't want to be part of something thats free?"

Anyone who doesn't quite like the idea of parents putting up their children for sale into virtual slavery & such:

"In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children."

"Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children to anyone who wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price."

- Murray Rothbard, The ethics of liberty, p103-104

[RevolutionaryJam]

I'm not sure, but I at think I was being Ironic bro :-P

I still want to record that rap it's been on my mind recently but to be honest I haven't recorded anything at all I will have to go to my brothers or something!

[CapitalistHolocaust]

Heh, I still want you to record it.

You should check out the authoritysmashinghour radio show (8pm EST weeknights - that's 1am for us in the UK !!!). They need some music for the show. We could make some & if they like it, they might use it.

If they don't, we could easily persuade them.

;)

[RevolutionaryJam]

I try toooo listen but I always seem to be busyyyyy

can't I listen to podcasts?

i want to phone in and have a debate anyway

[CapitalistHolocaust]

Yeh, the show is recorded & you can listen to it afterwards.

But if you tune in while it is live, you can chat with the other users AND you can phone in & talk on the show as well.

[JacobSpinney]

I'm not sure I understand this principle that property rights are only valid if it's for personal use. Are you actually arguing that we should give up all of the technological advancements we have made and go back to being self sustaining farmers? Even trading, say, corn for apples would be a violation of this principle, since that corn you grew to trade for those apples was not for personal use! Even gift giving would be a violation!

[organdva]

We should forget about 8h working day, free day a week,  labor unions, sick leave, vacations, or paid overtime and look forward to child prostitution and dead people rotting on streets.

[JacobSpinney]

How is this, in any way, a response to the point I made?

[organdva]

What? Are you gonna point a gun in my head and force me to take care of homeless kids and make me clean corpses?

[JacobSpinney]

. . . How is this, in any way, a response to the point I made?

[organdva]

Oh, you made the point. *applause*

[TheHarlequin13]

Why do you assume that if individual property only being valid if its for personal use then it would necessitate the abandonment of technology? How would gift giving and barter violate this principle in any way, so long as the possessions being exchanged were still for personal use?

[JacobSpinney]

Because the majority of technological innovations were derived from the motive of profits, not personal use.

Because you are producing something specifically for the purpose of trade, not for your own personal use. If it is still ok to create things not for your own personal use, but for the personal use of others, then you can no longer say that factories are a violation of this principle.

[mr1001nights]

I don't think Einstein or other innovators created technologically useful concepts because of some capitalist showing them a $ bill. The creative impulse of our nature did. Some artisan creating something for trade independently doesnt employ wage labor; doesnt engage in capitalism & thus if s/he does indeed accumulate enough material wealth to buy exploitative property; only subsequent wage labor will create the power&wealth disparities we mostly focus on--we oppose capitalism more than markets

[cary123]

infact einstein was a socialist, not a anarchist though.

But so am I. :P

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Creating a product and selling it for money is CAPITALISM...

He is capitalizing on his means of production to acquire wealth.

Now, explain this "exploitative property" and how this property "exploits".

[IIKruZerII]

Spinney is correct though. Most technological perfections we enjoy were innovated for profit motive and reduced, and made more efficient because of the profit motive. Faste computers, iPods, iPhones, pharmacological advancements, MRI machines, Fuel efficient cars, housing insulation, etc. were mostly made for money. The Theory of Relativity is something that you cannot put a price on. A MRI? Fail.

[TheHarlequin13]

So what? Current economic systems are built on the foundations of those considered tyrannical today. Opposition to state capitalism in no way implies abandonment of the technology developed in such a system.

[mr1001nights]

I have never rejected technology. My interview with Zerzan just raised the possibility. Wage labor as a social relation defines capitalism, so no on should see material exchange as the defining feature of capitalism, or of the hierarchy that anarchists oppose.

[mr1001nights]

What??? The very purpose of a gift has to do with the personal use of the recipient! & the same if I give u a tomato and u give me a potato. As I explain in my other response, technological advancement doesnt necessitate bosses controlling exploitative property. Free, self-managed workplaces&economies w/participatory allocation can get the job done, utilizing the natural creative impulse of its members, which creates technology, art &other objects w/o the need for a capitalist or state exploiter

[yeahwotevaman]

You are taking the word 'personal' too literally in this context. Read 'What Is Property' by Proudhon to get an idea of the personal/private distiction mr1001nights is getting at.

[greenhell666]

capitalism used to make sense .... like 500-300 years ago.

anarchism isnt individualism, we are all connected.

[AnarchoHumanist]

I think (social) anarchism is a kind of individualism. By maximizing the well-being of everyone, all individuals' rights and well-being are also maximized. Help the whole, help the individual.

[greenhell666]

yep

that's the point, its called mutualism, by defending and helping each other you are also helping yourself

or something like bakunin said, that you are not really free unless everybody in your community share the same freedoms

thats why I argue about connection, it doesnt matter how isolated someone is (social, political or economical), the conditions or others will always influence you

[RevolutionaryJam]

it's only been around since the industrial revolution bro

[greenhell666]

not exactly, remember about mercantilism

[RevolutionaryJam]

educate me

[greenhell666]

about what ? o_o

[RevolutionaryJam]

mercantilism

[greenhell666]

wikipedia d00d

it was sort of the transition between feudalism and capitalism

wiki Mercantilism

[RevolutionaryJam]

before that the land owners were essentially the ruling class, then it became people who owned the means of production.

[greenhell666]

tis all about property

[SocialAnarchism]

Good Job.