Pure sophistry. Talking like this is what enables this dirtbag to pretend he's in favor of "liberty" while he maintains that economic liberty is 1) Not possible, 2) Not perfect, 3) Therefore, probably fallacious.
He just told you that economic freedom is bad because it would have to be PERFECT freedom. Because ONLY under PERFECT conditions, will PERFECT "equality" result.
That tells you he is not interested in FREEDOM, only "equality." Freedom be damned. He will force you to be "equal."
"Liberty" in terms of either statist or "anarcho"-capitalism is a shallow and meaningless concept used to magic away the real problems that result from a system founded upon kyriarchy and subordination of the majority of the population to a class of owners.
True liberty and freedom of choice involves not permitting the choices of some which reduce the liberty of others (as the privatist market economy does).
What you want is "all are free, but some are more free than others"
You're use of the word "commies" lets everyone who will see your posts on this video from now on know that you don't have two braincells to rub together and in addition an intellectual lightweight who can't even defend their own position.
I'm afraid it's you who despises liberty and "lust after the control and manipulation of others".
@MsSexySocialist You wrote that "liberty is a shallow and meaningless concept." Then you went on to spew some additional anti-intellectual commie drivel about "true liberty" being "not permitting the choices of some which reduce the liberty of others" with some moronic reference to the free market.
This is what commies do. As empty-headed trolls, they just mangle language and twist meaning. Something as simple and basic as LIBERTY is used as fodder for idiotic commie propaganda.
@MsSexySocialist I read "anarcho-capitalism" in your drivel trashing liberty. Why should I have to quote it back to you? I know exactly what you mean. That's why I called you a commie and pointed out your anti-intellectual gibberish for what it is.
"And I said nothing about the "free market"."
You said: "privatist market economy." What does that mean in commie nutbag lingo if not the free market?
Spew some more ghastly commie tripe for us. Tell us more about how bad liberty and markets are.
"Tell us more about how bad liberty and markets are."
I won't because neither are bad. Liberty is the most valuable thing humanity has along with mutuality. Markets aren't good or bad; they're neutral. A market economy where the primary institutions were cooperatives instead of corporations would be a very good thing.
It's privatism (private ownership and control of the means of production) that's the problem. It's monopolization and coercive rule by elites.
@MsSexySocialist There ya go. You put forward your self-righteous commie drivel nonsense of what a "market" is and then you trash a real FREE market because you are utterly contemptuous of freedom and markets. You speak of "freedom" and "markets" only within the context of a mob-run society of gun-toting goons who forcefully collectivize all property.
"It's monopolization and coercive rule by elites."
If property is "monopolization," dingbat, then it is such under mob rule as well.
"I read "anarcho-capitalism" in your drivel trashing liberty. Why should I have to quote it back to you?"
Because taking it out made it sound like I was against liberty; rather than against your capitalist conception of it (your intention I presume, was to distort).
"I know exactly what you mean"
Clearly you don't. You're demonstratively incapable of grasping what I'm saying.
Fact is, you're a statist and an advocate of tyranny.
@MsSexySocialist You are against liberty. That's why you have to re-define it. You laughingly refer to private property as "monopolization" and "rule by elites." You said that it was "a shallow and meaningless concept" under anarcho-capitalism because ancap defends property rights and free markets. Try having civilization without those things. People are never going to willingly give up their freedom and their property. That's why every time communism is tried, millions die.
@MsSexySocialist "Fact is, you're a statist and an advocate of tyranny."
I am an anarchist and an advocate of individual rights. I do not support the state at all. But since you are a reason-hating commie moron, to you this means I am statist and a tyrant. Because your world view is backwards, it forces you to change the meaning of words.
You would deny me my rights as an individual, take my property, force me to work in some wretched collective. And you would call THAT "freedom."
Your 3 messages = blah! blah! blah! COMMIE! blah! blah! blah! -misinterpretation- blah! blah! blah! -straw man- blah! blah! blah! -more misinterpretation- blah! blah! blah! - ignorance of what I had just explained- blah! blah! blah! -confusion of democracy with mob-rule like every other ancap-statist wingnut- blah! blah! blah! -another straw man- blah! blah! blah! -confusion of anarchism with statist ancap nonsense- blah! blah! BLAH!
Not a pseudo-anarchist ancap-statist like you claim to be. When you happen to have modern-day thinkers on your side who think monarchism is better than democracy (eg: Hans Herman Hoppe, Walter Block) I highly doubt you stand a good chance of being taken seriously.
My sympathies lie with the more recently-developed political and economic theories of *Participism* and *Inclusive Democracy*.
@MsSexySocialist "Not a pseudo-anarchist ancap-statist like you claim to be"
Ancap specifically rejects the state. Hence "anarcho." But because you would have nothing to say if you did not mangle language in some form every time you speak, you make a specifically anarchist political theory a "statist" one by your fiat. That may be fun for you, but it doesn't do anything for anybody who reads your drivel.
What is a "pseudo-anarchist"? An anarchist that isn't a freedom hating commie nitwit?
"Ancap specifically rejects the state. Hence "anarcho.""
Etymology: "Anarchy" from the root (G.) "anarkos" - "no rule/rulers".
Last time I checked, CEOs, bosses, and a class of MOP owners all counted as "rulers". If you're ignorant of the origin and meaning of the very word you fallaciously use to describe yourself that's your problem.
"What is a "pseudo-anarchist"?"
You are, because you support institutions and structures in a theoretical stateless society which . . .
Absolute gibberish. You have to LIE and TWIST WORDS to defend your commie nutbag view of the world. A ruler is someone who claims political rule and control over a territory. An employer is not a ruler, dimwit.
"If you're ignorant of the origin and meaning of the very word you fallaciously use to describe yourself that's your problem.:
Only a true nut changes the meaning of a word then accuses others of doing so.
A ruler is anyone who uses RULE of any kind. That's what RULEr means. To paraphrase Proudhon; "any man who lays attemps to govern or control me, I call that man my enemy".
This further reinforces the fact that you have zero problem with people being controled, dominated or subordinated as long as the state isn't doing it. Hence, you support de facto statism.
You'd have no issue with a corp owning and running a town . . .
@MsSexySocialist "any man who lays attemps to govern or control me, I call that man my enemy".
Except if it's commie nutbag utopian rule, of course.
"A ruler is anyone who uses RULE of any kind."
Great. So now you want to change what "rule" means from political power to what now? Anyone who makes rules? So in the garden club, they have rules for membership, and this is "RULE" to you? They are rulers?
. . . perpetuate all its worst features; hence you support de facto statism. The support for private-monarchy further reinforces this fact. You have no problem with all the horrible things the state does, merely that it's the state that's doing them.
"Funny how "actual anarchists" who are supposedly anti-state talk about democracy-this and democracy-that."
Which (if you knew ANYTHING about anarchist history) you'd know this is because democracy is the practical . . .
Statism refers to THE STATE as a TERRITORIAL INSTITUTION OF POWER. An employer is a businessman. He makes no such claim. You are nothing but a sophist.
"democracy is the practical expression of individual autonomy."
Blatant contradiction. Individual autonomy is the very opposite of having your life and property subject to the vote of a mob. Democracy is politics. You use it as a euphemism for the state.
. . . as a private fiefdom as long as it wasn't CALLED a de jure state.
You can accuse me of sophistry all you like but the fact is you support the perpetuation of all forms of domination and subordination only barring the state. A consistant anarchist must oppose all forms of control and subordination; not just the state. You are not an anarchist - you're simply a non-statist.
"Democracy is politics. You use it as a euphemism for the state"
By that you mean any private property. A nut like you drives down the street where you live and sees endless "fiefdoms." You go to the store and you see "monopoly." You go to a gathering where people exchange goods and services peacefully and you see "sociopathy" because it isn't run by a central committee of thugs.
How are you going to STEAL everyone's property? What will you did with resistors. Let's have it. Tell the truth for once.
@MsSexySocialist "A consistant anarchist must oppose all forms of control and subordination"
And your monstrous communist "democracy" is not a form of control and subordination? I don't have to subordinate myself to your tyranny? Then how does the damn thing work? You would claim that a businessman is a state, that he is a slaver for agreeing to hire someone who WANTS to work there, but an overarching bureaucracy that claims power over everyone is NOT a state or a form of control??????????
Funny how "actual anarchists" who are supposedly anti-state talk about democracy-this and democracy-that.
So there's no state, but there's a democracy where people cast votes regarding your life, your money, your work. And since it's not a state, no one is forced to participate, right? Or have you not thought that far ahead?
Tell me how your "anarchist" democracy effects those who will have nothing to do with it.
. . . expression of individual autonomy (self-rule) in the social world external to the self. Democracy reaches its greatest and purest form in the concept of self-management; where each individual has decision-making input *in proportion to the degree affected*. (No mob-rule, no majoritarianism)
Ancaps of course oppose all this because the ideology itself rests on misanthropy and sociopathy. That people making decisions about their own lives is somehow "against freedom".
You lay out mob rule majoritarianism and then you say "no mob-rule, no majoritarianism." These terms describe precisely what a democracy is.
"*in proportion to the degree affected*."
A baseless ethic which you smuggle in to replace property rights. No one has any rights in your view, only a vote in a futile attempt to stave off majority rule.
You completely destroy individual autonomy and subject the individual to the collective.
. . . confuse politics with statecraft - as all pseudo-anarchist ancaps do.
Democracy means "people power"; the excercise of control over your own life and the ability to affect your social and physical environment at the macro level through deliberation and consensus. As self-management it is the practical expression of self-rule (autonomy) and the enemy of all authority.
But like all foolish ancaps you confuse it with mob-rule (ochlocracy) a silly straw man argument.
"As self-management it is the practical expression of self-rule (autonomy) and the enemy of all authority."
Great. I reject your communist democracy and choose self-rule with and among people who likewise respect individual rights. Now, what are you going to do?
In your twisted mind as a communist, the whole world should be ruled by you. But nobody wants it. Now what?
@MsSexySocialist "Ancaps of course oppose all this because the ideology itself rests on misanthropy and sociopathy."
Ancap society is based on the non-aggression principle (NAP). To you it is "sociopathy" to ban the initiation of force in human relaltionships. That explains what collectivists are about perfectly. The individual to you is only a tool of the masses, a means to an end, a cog in the wheel. If you cannot coerce people, you wouldn't have commie "society" at all. No one wants it.
"(NAP). To you it is "sociopathy" to ban the initiation of force in human relaltionships"
The NAP is frequently thrown out as a silly means of justifying the continued subordination of the majority to an owning class by treating attacks on private monopolization of MOP as attacks on "personal liberty".
A repugnat anti-individualist ideology that treats people as mere commodities and tools of business owners.
Well sorry, but it's YOU who's the anti-individualist.
@MsSexySocialist ":attacks on private monopolization of MOP as attacks on "personal liberty"."
Your idea of "liberty" is to be stripped of property and become a slave to some bureaucracy that nobody wants. Nobody chooses to give their property and control over their lives to scumbag communists. That is why you people are constantly at war with society. You cannot live with people except that you get to dominate them through depriving them of the means of their independence.
@MsSexySocialist "A repugnat anti-individualist ideology that treats people as mere commodities and tools of business owners."
Blatantly false. The NAP protects the individual against aggression. It is a universal ethic applying equally to all people. How does your sick mind twist mutual respect for rights into "treats people as mere commodities"?
A business owner is someone who provides goods and services to society on a voluntary basis. This is what people do! This is how we live!
Yeah, keep the idiotic commie mind games coming. I'm glad that you are spewing your lunacy here as it gives people the chance to see what this garbage is all about. People like Chomsky try to soft sell the thing by keeping their mouths shut most of the time about the real ugly bottom line of this thing, but you are happy to spell it out in black and white: Individuals can go to hell. You will rule them and they will like it.
I'm talking about the most individualistic system possible, and you call it "anti-individualist."
It's like you are compelled to lie even when it is utterly pointless and nakedly obvious that you spitting on the truth. You have the spirit of a true commie. You shun all rational argument and rely solely on an endless stream of class warfare propaganda and empty promises of "equality" and "democracy" under communist domination!
"I can't be bothered to read up on what anarchism actually is and what anarchists stand for (or the two economic models that were provided for me), so I'm just gonna call you a "commie" about twenty times ad nauseum in the hope that it'll mean something and then just keep sticking up straw men, using either/or reasoning, displaying my own ignorance of politics/econ and generally making myself look like an anti-intellectual ass"
@MsSexySocialist Bull. I responded to all your nutbag points. That's what the quotes are for and the number of replies. I can't help that you make numerous false and idiotic claims in each post. I made specific replies to your twisting of word meanings. I asked you questions. Here's one that you won't answer:
"Great. I reject your communist democracy and choose self-rule with and among people who likewise respect individual rights. Now, what are you going to do?"
@MsSexySocialist You unbelievably called me "anti-individualist" when I espouse the most individualist political philosophy known.
You claim that owning property is a crime. That starting and running a business is a crime. That hiring someone is a crime.
You claim that everyone should be stripped of their private property which is the "means of production" and ruled over by a committee of communists, but you want to deny that this is communism.
"You unbelievably called me "anti-individualist" when I espouse the most individualist political philosophy known"
Ancap is just another form of heteronomy and authoritarianism - hence anti-individualistic.
It involves the subjugation of the majority of people in a given society to a class of owners who monopolize the MOP - as I already said. ONLY self-management applied to every aspect of life guarantee both personal autonomy as well as social mutuality and equity.
@MsSexySocialist "Ancap is just another form of heteronomy and authoritarianism - hence anti-individualistic"
That's is pure nonsense! Heteronomy? You can do whatever you want in a free society!!! The only law is the NAP. You can't initiate force against another person. How in hell can anyone with half a brain call that "heteronomy and authoritarianism"??? You are LEFT ALONE to live your life as you please! And that is "anti-individualistic"?
@MsSexySocialist "It involves the subjugation of the majority of people in a given society to a class of owners who monopolize the MOP"
Complete bull! NO ONE is "subjugated" by ANYONE owning property that justly acquired. Everyone can own property. Everyone can start a business. There is no "class of owners" when, in a free society, no one is excluded. And the MOP is NOT monopolized. You use that word not to mean monopoly but to refer to private property.
Cite where I say this. Because I am against this position. I fully support the right to property defined by use and occupancy. Not private ownership of MOP, which must absentee ownership.
"That starting and running a business is a crime."
I said no such thing. You seem to love putting words in people's mouths. Guess it's easier than actually listening huh?
Yes. The productive property and resources of a given economy in capitalism are monopolized in a few private hands. How is that NOT the case? Do you want to deny manifest reality?
"You refer to property as "fiefdoms.""
If you actually cared to properly read what I wrote you'd see what I referred to were the territorial areas which could be privatized then run as private-monarchies in an ancap economy.
@MsSexySocialist "The productive property and resources of a given economy in capitalism are monopolized in a few private hands."
Here we go again with the freaking commie drivel! What the HELL are you talking about now? I'm talking about A FREE SOCIETY, ANARCHO-CAPITALISM. Property rights. What in hell do you mean by "capitalism" here? The current fascist system? The King giving land grants to lords? What the hell? You don't know what "ancap" even means. Talking to you is like torture.
@MsSexySocialist "I referred to were the territorial areas which could be privatized then run as private-monarchies in an ancap economy."
Yeah, you don't have a clue what ancap means. You can't "privatize" a "territory" and then "run as private-monarchies." What the hell is that? Do you mean that property owners in a community would band together? And you want to demonize what elsewhere you lionize if it's done by commies? Is that what you are saying with all this bombast?
@MsSexySocialist I remember talking to you before and you specifically said that private property was a crime. You gave the communist faux distinction between possession and property - for example, a toothbrush vs a factory. You denied that anyone could own a factory. You spewed the same rhetoric here in various ways. Now you are backing off? Who are you kidding when you say this:
"Not private ownership of MOP, which must absentee ownership."
It is systemically coercive to claim ownership of productive property and resources (MOP) to the determent of others. A house is justly claimed property because you use and occupy it. A factory requires a multitude of individuals to run it.
If just one person declares it "mine" they confiscate it from the rest of society.
"You claim that everyone should be stripped of their private property which is the "means of production" and ruled over by a committee of communists, but you want to deny that this is communism"
Again, I said no such thing. I provided you with links to two economic/political systems I broadly agree with. You chose to ignore these and simply make up a set of beliefs and then falsely attribute them to me.
@MsSexySocialist "Again, I said no such thing. I provided you with links to two economic/political systems I broadly agree with."
People are constantly putting new spins on communism. The "Parecon" people say that nobody would own anything. There would be committees that would decide to split up work tasks. If this is nothing but a voluntary arrangement, then it certainly is NOT any "economic/political system." It's just a co-op or a commune or a company. THAT COULD EXIST IN ANCAP.
"The "Parecon" people say that nobody would own anything. "
Nowhere in all the literature written about the system does it say this. Once again, you feel free to just make things up.
"co-op or a commune or a company. THAT COULD EXIST IN ANCAP."
No they couldn't. They would be destroyed by the force of corporations with their private armies - as such democratic and participatory institutions represent a threat to the authoritarian institutions which rule in an ancap society.
@MsSexySocialist "Nowhere in all the literature written about the system does it say this. Once again, you feel free to just make things up."
There's a video on it. Perhaps the 5 people that subscribe to this new spin on communism haven't compared notes properly. I certainly have no incentive to make anything up. I had seen that before and you mentioned it, so I looked again.
"They would be destroyed by the force of corporations with their private armies"
@MsSexySocialist "as such democratic and participatory institutions represent a threat to the authoritarian institutions which rule in an ancap society."
You are really confused. Ancap is about the NAP and property rights. You can do whatever the hell you want with your own property. Nobody cares. That the freaking point! What "authoritarian institutions" are you talking about? You are slipping into commie-talk again, and it makes no freaking sense. Please listen to yourself!
[Q] Explain how you are going to take people's private property and then manage to outlaw it.
[A] I desire no such thing. I have zero desire to take anyone's property via coercion - that's your game, not mine. *Dual power* is what I see as the best long-term strategy for building a left-libertarian society if you must know (Though I doubt you'll bother to look up its meaning.
[Q] Explain what happens to people who resist this
@MsSexySocialist "I have zero desire to take anyone's property via coercion - that's your game, not mine"
How is it my game? I believe in liberty, property rights, the NAP.
Now you say you don't believe in taking property after spewing dozens of communist phrases about how private MOP is feudalism, subjugation, tyranny, etc.? Why are you using that rhetoric then? Don't you realize the power of words? You were viciously attacking property rights!
@MsSexySocialist [Q] Explain what happens to people who resist this
[A] Question is based on a false assumption.
You SPECIFICALLY REJECTED ANCAP, which is a free society based on property rights and the NAP. You called it the very opposite of what it is, insisting that it's tyranny. It would allow you to do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING you wish EXCEPT to violate someone's person/property.
If you say you reject coercion, you are confessing the ancap doctrine. So why the hysterics over ancap?
@MsSexySocialist "Except be free of subordination to my employer."
You are not forced to work for anyone in a free society. You are FREE to START YOUR OWN BUSINESS. You are FREE TO START A COMMUNE, a co-op, a company of like-minded crusaders for economic "justice" or whatever else might inspire you to get out bed in the morning! Please stop the bs.
"Hans-Hermann Hoppe's private-monarchies) is itself a tyranny"
You mean a covenant community? That is what YOU keep insisting on, you dope!
Pure fantasy. Ancaps can make zero distinction between a choice in theory (say to start your own business) and a choice in reality. When a host of private companies control literally everything the effective option of going your own way doesn't exist.
""Hans-Hermann Hoppe's private-monarchies) is itself a tyranny"
You mean a covenant community? That is what YOU keep insisting on, you dope!"
HHH has said that monarchy is superior to democracy and could exist in ancap.
@MsSexySocialist "the effective option of going your own way doesn't exist."
Baloney. People start businesses every day even under our corrupt system. You know that.
"HHH has said that monarchy is superior to democracy and could exist in ancap."
Did you read the book? What exactly are you referring to? Technically you could have democracy, monarchy, etc. under a free society since people are FREE. Ever heard of panarchy? You seem lost on the principle of FREEDOM. You don't get it.
Ancap specifically calls for the equal application of rights. So clearly you do not actually mean rights, do you? This is another euphemism, isn't it? For what exactly?
It is inequitable for any individual to claim productive property or resources to the detriment of others.
ie: monopolization of MOP in either private or state hands.
Indivisible (common) ownership of MOP is the solution to this; with usufruct of MOP given to any individual or group wish to engage in production of goods or services.
Ancap by contrast would allow for a whole town or city to be privatized and run like a monarchy.
"So if your co-op claims a building that I also want to share, that is inequitable?"
Wouldn't happen with the principle of usufruct. MOP is allocated by each self-governing community upon request on a best case for use basis. If there's a conflict of interest it can be settled through negotiation.
@MsSexySocialist "Wouldn't happen with the principle of usufruct."
So you want to replace property rights with property rights, eh? That's brilliant.
When I mention your co-op's building, I assume they have some legitimate right to it, that's why my question of whether it was fair to me was just making fun of your little "inequitable" rant. A property right IS the superior claim vs all others. What else could it be? But that depends entirely on the justice of acquisition.
@MsSexySocialist "Ancap by contrast would allow for a whole town or city to be privatized and run like a monarchy."
Towns are already "privatized." They consist of hundreds or thousands of parcels of private property. If you or anyone else has some superior claim to your neighbor's home or business, then by all means you should pursue it in court.
Are you referring to taking back "public property" which the state has usurped? How can you have a problem with local control?
You're afraid all the people of a town are going to sell all their property to one man? Putting aside the odds of this happening, why would that matter?
. . . because technically the owner would just be exercising their right to do what they want with their property.
You would no oppose this however simply because this example of tyranny isn't CALLED a state.
"So you want to replace property rights with property rights, eh?"
Your assumption that I wanted to abolish all property rights (despite my statements demonstrating otherwise) once again comes from you simply making up fictional positions then attributing them to me.
@MsSexySocialist "It offers "freedom to chose" a master to live your life for. Not freedom FROM masters."
That's just absurd. What "masters" do you have in a free society? You make absolutely no sense at all. What part of FREE do you not understand?
"It is still authoritarian despite pretensions to personal liberty."
Of what does this authoritarianism consist when you are entirely left alone in your person and property to pursue your own ends without interference? Please be reasonable.
To start with, ancap is not a free society. It divides society into producers and owners (of the MOP) creating kyriarchy and perpetuates the current heteronomy of people renting their labor, liberty and autonomy to employers for means of survival while the owners reap the fruits of their labor.
You are free right now to seek cooperative work arrangements and share ownership! You would be MORE FREE under ancap to pursue what you CLAIM it is that you want! But obviously - I'm sorry to say - your claims are entirely phony. You rage and ramble on about supposed wrongs done to your liberty when even now you could do what it is you say you want to do.
"You are free right now to seek cooperative work arrangements and share ownership!"
I already did. I work in a cooperative and am a member of the co-op federation NoBAWC in San Francisco.
It doesn't matter whether or not I can have your "crumbs from the table" option of being in a producer-controlled enterprise in your ideal world, the fact is the vast majority are still forced by necessity into wage-labor and required to take orders.
@MsSexySocialist "the fact is the vast majority are still forced by necessity into wage-labor"
The all-or-nothing rhetoric is false, but to the extent that they are hampered they are hampered by the state, by its crushing taxation, property tax, rents, phony monopoly monetary system, servile education system, propaganda, etc. We suggest a FREE society with NONE of this oppression, and you have the gall to claim that we want people to be "forced" to work for someone. Absolute bull. Grow up.
You want to maintain wage-labor; people selling their liberty and autonomy away in order to survive while the people they sell it to get to reap the fruits of their productive efforts.
You can't have wage-labor "without the oppression". It IS oppression.
That's meaningless. It's not up to me what free people choose to do. You don't seem to understand that people make economic choices according to their particular goals, talents, situations, etc. It is beyond absurdity to suggest that all people will choose either sole-proprietorship or socialist participation in a co-op.
All economies need part-time, temporary, or full-time wage-labor jobs. It's a niche that you can't obliterate with your will
The lib-soc standpoint is one of alternate (more equitable) property rights - not the negation of property rights.
The full right to any personal property you have freely acquired defined by use and occupancy.
And the right to use of MOP for production on long-term contract according to usufruct.
Allocation of MOP in any free and rational society needs to be through negotiated settlement between free individuals and communities, not a free-for-all as in state-cap or ancap
@MsSexySocialist "It doesn't matter whether or not I can have your "crumbs from the table" option"
I in no way support the current system, so I am not offering you crumbs from the table. I'm correcting you when you act like it's impossible for people to start a business. The system has made it harder than it should be, and it's not fair, but that isn't because ancaps are advocating freedom! Give me a break.
Yet you see no contradiction in defending it - and thus propping it up.
"(On privatized territories) Putting aside the odds of this happening, why would that matter?"
You again show you're true colors. It would matter because a single group or individual owning any territory would constitute a de facto state. The owners(s) could use their authority as to oppress the people living there. And no-one could do anything about it . . .
"Of what does this authoritarianism consist when you are entirely left alone in your person and property to pursue your own ends without interference?"
No one should be required to rent themselves to another person -selling away their liberty- to suggest otherwise is anti-individualism
In a truly free society no one should ever have to work under the command of anyone else. If these exist tasks which require more than one person to complete, then cooperate, don't subordinate.
"In a truly free society no one should ever have to work under the command of anyone else."
You obviously have difficulty understanding what freedom means. You seem to think that it means that everyone else should get together and make you happy. Sorry. It means that you are free to make you happy. If you don't want to work for anyone, start your own business or co-op with like-minded people. They are all over the place. There's your chance to "cooperate" all you want.
@MsSexySocialist "Because it has no real objections to kyriarchy, domination or subordination as long as the above isn't being perpetuated by a state."
Gobbledygook. Speak English.
How does a free society dominate and subjugate you? Clearly, you demand something more from people aside from leaving you alone to follow your own inclinations and pursuits in peace. I can't imagine what that would be, and why you would call it domination, etc. You want to force them to coddle you???
If any person or group wants, they can opt out and form their own capitalist community - though I can't see many wanting to given the superior alternative.
[Q] Explain what happens to people who don't want to be ruled by your communist groups
[A] There are none. As, again, you simply made up a series of straw positions then falsely attributed them to me.
[Q] These questions are not "straw men."
[A] But the pretenses under which you ask them are.
So what kind of economy is possible AT ALL, if one buys Professor Chomsky's view that the argument of Doctor Adam Smith is a falacy?
What kind of equality is Professor Chomsky referring to?
Does Professor Chomsky envision any type of market, what-so-ever?
Does equality mean that if I catch more fish than all of my neighbors, that I must surrender them to him for a redistribution of my capital & effort on someone else's terms?
"What kind of equality is Professor Chomsky referring to?"
From hearing lot of chomsky discourse, this what I think:
He's more referring to what's NOT equality here (ie dispelling myth), such as state capitalism where high concentrations of capital have emerged (not always via just means)..then, of course, lots of capital entails more power in terms of bargaining power, ability to propagandize, etc.
I think he's just saying Smith's arguments don't work in current conditions.
Socialism is where all society - political, production, distribution, etc - is controlled by the proletariat. It's collective ownership, democratically-centrist organisations and soviet participation.
It is they, the mass of the working class, who will decide what goods get produced and who will get what.
@MikhailSilverwood Yes as an individual you get one vote. One person one vote. If all the citizens are voting for the same products they will be the ones that get produced. It's very democratic when it's left alone. When the government interferes with that process by banning certain things that are produced, picking winners are losers through bailouts and/or subsidies or taxing certain industries higher than others, then it's not.
@TheMobocracy But democratic theory says that the government is the collective will of the people. It exists only to serve our needs, accoutable to us, representing us, we vote them, we kick them out, the congress is exists only for us to will it.
Now we all know that the congress does not serve the needs of the people. But does that mean that congress itself is the problem, government the problem, or perhaps the answer is that we need a new government, one that does what we tell it to.
@MikhailSilverwood The best government is the one that charges you the least amount of money to leave you the hell alone. It's impossible for 536 people in D.C. to centrally decide what 300+ million people want. There's nothing democratic about centralized government power.
@TheMobocracy You're partially correct, what we have is a political system where the minority tries to control the majority. And that's an immoral system for a whole list of reasons.
But you're conclusion on what do is horribly flawed. Do you understand how power works? When you have a power structure, like the state, it imposes itself onto people. But if that power structure disappeared, it would create a vacuum, of which would be filled by the second most powerful force: corporations!!
@MikhailSilverwood Corporations only have power through government regulation. Otherwise the size of them is based on weather people freely choose to buy their products. Explain to me the horrors of a company selling people things that they want at a price they can afford.
@TheMobocracy A corporation is a power source. Because it is a collection of concentrated capital, it can use its financial mass to impose itself onto the world, such as hiring death squads or funding a newspaper or buying politicians or buying all the media, etc.
If you truly are an opponent of power and wish for a society where humans are free from oppression and exploitation, then ALL power must be opposed. If you're just some corporatist, then oppose government and compliment corporations.
@TheMobocracy It's much easier for someone to make the argument in the oppose direction: support government and oppose corporations.
Corporations are unaccountable massive totallitarian structures. You cannot do anything to stop them. I could protest and sign a petition, but that would do nothing.
Parliamentary government may have many flaws, but at least they are partially accountable to the people, and that makes them the lesser of the two evils.
@MikhailSilverwood Who killed more people over the last century, governments or corporations? Does Bill Gates have a death squad? What about Citi bank? What corporation forces you to buy their products? Are taxes collected at gunpoint? Do I have a choice as to weather or not I want to pay into medicaid? I think you are confused as to who uses force.
@TheMobocracy Both major political parties are pro-business. Bill Clinton was amazing pro-business, deregulating industries in A and putting in protectionist measure to protect American industry in B. His rhetoric occasionally appealed to minorities, but all of this policies more or less were focused on doing what was best for big business capital.
It's the illusion of democracy that keeps the population from rebelling.
Putting a puppet in charge of policy protects the puppetmaster.
@TheMobocracy I want a society where the masses are in power. The elected representitives do what they're told, otherwise they'd immediatley sacked from their positions. Instead of a few thousand people controlling society, and the masses voting once every four years between scumbag A and scumbag B, we should have mass participation.
Every single person who has an interest in running our society should be involved, getting into committees and organisations and helping to run society.
@MikhailSilverwood I don't want society to be directed. The world divides politically into those who want control people and those who have no such desire.
@TheMobocracy. oil corporations want control of oil, the government (controlled by people from the same families as the major oil tycoons) attacks iraq, who gets the blame?
and don't forget corporations knowingly sell milk that produces cancer, and american companies that sold blood (for infusions) in america, then were disallowed to sell their blood as it was infested with aids, and they went to europe to sell it.
parliament works in the name of the people, so what they do is our fault.
I can't believe such a smart man believes in something so fallacious as economic equality. It is neither achievable nor desirable. Considering that humans vary so much equal compensation would not work because the value of say equal food rations would be different for larger humans than smaller ones.
Variability is humanity's greatest asset and the defining characteristic of life itself, I don't see why one would want to give that up.
He dosen't really mean in pure communism where in everyone would get paid the same. What he means by economic equality is that everyone would get a true, fair and equal chance in succeeding.
In pure communism, no one would get paid at all. Everyone would have free equal access to the products of everyone else's labor. There would be no need for a medium of exchange because there would be no exchange, at least not in the sense that we understand it today.
Equality can mean different things in different senses. However, I do believe that laissez faire capitalism leads to equality in terms of rights. Certainly, statism leads to inequality.
From each according to his ability. To each according to their NEED.
Notice "need". Its not "to each everything equally." Equality just means a level playing for everyone not everything perfectly equal. People have different needs & in a socialist society this will be taken into account better than it is in a capitalist society.
& Chompsky is a libertarian socialist. He doesnt want some central state rationing food. He wants worker control 2 form socialism from the bottom up. They could agree on a voluntary rationing program but if it doesnt work out a group of workers is free 2 leave because libertarian socialism is based on voluntary association. They just wouldnt have the right 2 hire people & then deprive them of the equal right 2 ownership based on labor based on socially constructed capitalist property rights.
Smith doesn't argue any such thing Why does capitalism have to be perfect anything?
Capitalism sucks , just not as bad as anything else.
And you have to work and work sucks, whaaah!
Hayek calls it the "despot of physical wants". Anyone who claims to be able to free you from the despot of physical wants [work and work sucking] always turns out to be a regular old despot.
Socialism doesn't have to do with an aversion to work though. It just has to do with making sure that one's quality of life is better.. Its what the coal miner union strikes in the 30's were all about. It had to do with workers fighting for their rights. Socialism and capitalism aren't complete incompatibilities within a society either. There's a place for more regulation and less regulation.
You misunderstand the meaning of "socialism". Socialism is not capitalism with more regulation. It is worker control of industry. If the workers do not control the means of production, you don't have socialism--no matter how much the State interferes in the economy.
yes absolutly, because in capitalism the bottom line is maximizing profit so the workers were being taken advantage of as much as mngmt cud get away with. its an adversarial relation mngmt n labour cuz theyre trying to get more out of each other. socialism just means that labour gets as organized and thus somewat equal to mngmngts power. funny how ppl are affraid of govt abuse of power but not corps fukkin them over
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This Jewish cancer must be destroyed at the root. These foul creatures must be rounded up, deloused, and have their still-beating hearts ripped out from their chests.
@warriorprince1010 You sound like a robot or a record or something :D. You're seriously dumb if you really think that. He was a centrist authoritarian with some fetishes. Socialism is a set of values, where equality is the first, not an economic system. There are myriads of described types of socialism and most of them have a basis in democracy.
@freedomthrough "Socialism is a set of values"..clearly a perverse robot yourself. Hitler, Mao, Stalin were all socialist and had no values of any sort. Socialism is an economic policy of a state planned economy. Which NO developed country has. Most countries in the developed world are base don democracy, state ran services [schools, health, police, etc] and a free market economy, FACT. ALL countries in the developed world have the right to own property,copyrights and businesses.
@warriorprince1010 Seriously, you sound like a robot, repeating the mantras of your makers :P. You have no idea of how reality looks, but i guess that's just a symptom of growing up in un-free America...
Not quite...practically all major r&d costs are/were state/publicly funded in so-called developed countries, not JUST services (so it's not really a pure free market economy in ANY of these countries)...the economic development that HAS happened might not have happened otherwise...we simply don't know because it just did not happen that way (FACT)...we could only theorize and take MINOR cases of so-called free-market conditions that might tell us something.
@ElDukerino1 Most R and D costs are done by businesses I am afraid. Not the state. Pure market economy is based on the price, so yes they are market led, you were wrong on the first two. NO developed country has an entirely state ran economy, this is a fact. The markets are the price a good is sold, NOT the R and D. You got mixed uop I am afraid.
Consider underlying tech in most product we enjoy today, U will find funding for such development was directed by states/funded by public to significant extent.
Also, there are tax credits for much private r&d cost (this is state directed in-effect).
I never said they’re entirely state run (it’s a mix). U said state funding was NIL which I was addressing.
Pure free market economy is theory & need facts to analyze…your FACTS just weren’t quite correct, just saying.
@ElDukerino1 Tax credits and not state funding, and most tech projects are done by the private sector. The markets decie the price not the funding. Two different things. A mixed economy is not a state planned economy and thus not truly socialist.# I support a mixed economy, however there are good ways to do it and bad ways. Greece and Norway both have mixed economies, one is a success and one a failure.
Yes, they are. Otherwise it’s just tax deduction (for costs: tax credit is 100% reduc in tax & deduction is only 35% reduc in tax), so govt funds 65% of cost on certain r&d over-and-above any other type of business cost.
“Most projects are done by private sector”
Not from scratch...again, consider underlying tech that’s taken for granted by private sector.
If you’re talking about markets in the context of saying a system is a “free-market” system, it would normally be taken to mean private interests decide everything (e.g. price, what to produce & how it is funded, etc).
@ElDukerino1 Taxcredits are NOT state funding they are tax credits. The state does not decide what the tax credits are spent on, that is done by the people running a company. So no state planning. The state builds universities but does not decide what you use your skills on. State planning is where the government actually decides what money is spent on, what is made, what direction to go in. This is a disaster. 99% of technology is decided on by non state groups.
You have to consider r&d tax credits more to understand (basically, it’s an incentive to spend on certain things).
Anyway, my point is just that states you’re referring to do fund cost of (and determine) production to a great extent..they tax everyone & the tax revenues are directed toward certain production (supposedly in the combined interest of the population).
Btw, states control prices as well although not to a “huge” extent (aka subsidies/tariffs).
Yes, they do their own r&d (their own r&d meaning they tweak open source technology, close off their minor enhancement/make it proprietary, and market it), but all of their products rely on things like internet, computer hardware development, computer software & coding language development…if you peel away what the public funded, we may not have any of their products.
If you bake a cake, you have to recognize some inputs are supplied to you, who are all of the suppliers?
Also, I'd recommend watching this vid if you want to understand the meaning of socialism in the context of how Chomsky would use it.
The meaning of socialism you're going with is completely different so at least least you have to recognize that when you say the word "socialism" there are many different connotations and sometime the different notions of it are the opposite of each other.
Yeah, nice use of logic man. Hitler was an anti-semitic, anti-semiticism is evil. Hitler was a socialist so socialism must be evil?? ok?
Here let me try your logic. Dogs have four legs! Dogs can bark. A cat has four legs so cats can bark??
yeah, you just hit yourself with a logical fallacy kid. becuase it really fucks you up when yourt trying to make a point especially in an intellectual conversation such as this
@dcsandman1 "Yeah, nice use of logic man. Hitler was an anti-semitic, anti-semiticism is evil. Hitler was a socialist so socialism must be evil?? ok?"...yes. Socialism is a big word, what type of socialism? I like state owned schools, healthcare and energy, but without corruption and equal to all. But do I think the state should own every farm, every cafe, every shop, demand over 50% of someones wage, pay state sector workers 30% more than ordinary families......NO.
Chomsky deoes't want equaility. he wants mass murder and fascism. The holocaust, Khme Rouge, Sovietdenying KGB agents needs to die already like that refuted numbskull Edward Said.
Smearing the mythivcal "corporations" with easily refuted Nazi anti-Jew like disinfo isn't worth even trtying to refute. Fact Free Markets are far, it called voluntary contract and getting paid what yopur services are worth. Greedy governmnt finance fascist pigs like Chomsky who have ever worked a day need to shutup
I reject the premise that there is a "free-market" in our country for ordinary workers.
What we have is a COERCIVE market. In a coercive market the earning power of work and the standard of living of workers declines, while those with economic power gain an ever more unbalanced share of the nation's wealth. For most employees, pay and working conditions are neither negotiable nor a matter of free choice. It is "take it or l
Pure sophistry. Talking like this is what enables this dirtbag to pretend he's in favor of "liberty" while he maintains that economic liberty is 1) Not possible, 2) Not perfect, 3) Therefore, probably fallacious.
He just told you that economic freedom is bad because it would have to be PERFECT freedom. Because ONLY under PERFECT conditions, will PERFECT "equality" result.
That tells you he is not interested in FREEDOM, only "equality." Freedom be damned. He will force you to be "equal."
MillionthUsername 3 months ago in playlist noam chomsky
@MillionthUsername
"Liberty" in terms of either statist or "anarcho"-capitalism is a shallow and meaningless concept used to magic away the real problems that result from a system founded upon kyriarchy and subordination of the majority of the population to a class of owners.
True liberty and freedom of choice involves not permitting the choices of some which reduce the liberty of others (as the privatist market economy does).
What you want is "all are free, but some are more free than others"
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
So commies despise liberty and lust after the control and manipulation of others. What else is new?
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
And there it is.
You're use of the word "commies" lets everyone who will see your posts on this video from now on know that you don't have two braincells to rub together and in addition an intellectual lightweight who can't even defend their own position.
I'm afraid it's you who despises liberty and "lust after the control and manipulation of others".
That and intelligence.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist You wrote that "liberty is a shallow and meaningless concept." Then you went on to spew some additional anti-intellectual commie drivel about "true liberty" being "not permitting the choices of some which reduce the liberty of others" with some moronic reference to the free market.
This is what commies do. As empty-headed trolls, they just mangle language and twist meaning. Something as simple and basic as LIBERTY is used as fodder for idiotic commie propaganda.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
Actually, if you'd bothered to quote me correctly, what I said was:
""Liberty" IN TERMS OF STATIST OR "ANARCHO"-CAPITALISM is a shallow and meaningless concept"
Nice try with removing the clarifying part of the sentence, but you only demonstrated your own contempt for reason.
And I said nothing about the "free market". I said you offer nothing but "kyriarchy and subordination to a class of owners" (and the state)
Sadly you further demonstrate your ignorance of even reading.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist I read "anarcho-capitalism" in your drivel trashing liberty. Why should I have to quote it back to you? I know exactly what you mean. That's why I called you a commie and pointed out your anti-intellectual gibberish for what it is.
"And I said nothing about the "free market"."
You said: "privatist market economy." What does that mean in commie nutbag lingo if not the free market?
Spew some more ghastly commie tripe for us. Tell us more about how bad liberty and markets are.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
"Tell us more about how bad liberty and markets are."
I won't because neither are bad. Liberty is the most valuable thing humanity has along with mutuality. Markets aren't good or bad; they're neutral. A market economy where the primary institutions were cooperatives instead of corporations would be a very good thing.
It's privatism (private ownership and control of the means of production) that's the problem. It's monopolization and coercive rule by elites.
Which you support
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist There ya go. You put forward your self-righteous commie drivel nonsense of what a "market" is and then you trash a real FREE market because you are utterly contemptuous of freedom and markets. You speak of "freedom" and "markets" only within the context of a mob-run society of gun-toting goons who forcefully collectivize all property.
"It's monopolization and coercive rule by elites."
If property is "monopolization," dingbat, then it is such under mob rule as well.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (2)
(continued from last comment)
"I read "anarcho-capitalism" in your drivel trashing liberty. Why should I have to quote it back to you?"
Because taking it out made it sound like I was against liberty; rather than against your capitalist conception of it (your intention I presume, was to distort).
"I know exactly what you mean"
Clearly you don't. You're demonstratively incapable of grasping what I'm saying.
Fact is, you're a statist and an advocate of tyranny.
Sorry.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist You are against liberty. That's why you have to re-define it. You laughingly refer to private property as "monopolization" and "rule by elites." You said that it was "a shallow and meaningless concept" under anarcho-capitalism because ancap defends property rights and free markets. Try having civilization without those things. People are never going to willingly give up their freedom and their property. That's why every time communism is tried, millions die.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Fact is, you're a statist and an advocate of tyranny."
I am an anarchist and an advocate of individual rights. I do not support the state at all. But since you are a reason-hating commie moron, to you this means I am statist and a tyrant. Because your world view is backwards, it forces you to change the meaning of words.
You would deny me my rights as an individual, take my property, force me to work in some wretched collective. And you would call THAT "freedom."
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
Your 3 messages = blah! blah! blah! COMMIE! blah! blah! blah! -misinterpretation- blah! blah! blah! -straw man- blah! blah! blah! -more misinterpretation- blah! blah! blah! - ignorance of what I had just explained- blah! blah! blah! -confusion of democracy with mob-rule like every other ancap-statist wingnut- blah! blah! blah! -another straw man- blah! blah! blah! -confusion of anarchism with statist ancap nonsense- blah! blah! BLAH!
Ah, the slow disintegration of ancap logic
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Oh, so you're not a commie? What are you?
You don't think private property is monopoly, coercion, theft? What is it then?
You don't think the mob should rule? Who should rule then?
Now dazzle me with a coherent statement on these points so that I can't "misinterpret" you.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
I'm an anarchist. An actual anarchist.
Not a pseudo-anarchist ancap-statist like you claim to be. When you happen to have modern-day thinkers on your side who think monarchism is better than democracy (eg: Hans Herman Hoppe, Walter Block) I highly doubt you stand a good chance of being taken seriously.
My sympathies lie with the more recently-developed political and economic theories of *Participism* and *Inclusive Democracy*.
I doubt you'll ever bother to learn of these.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Not a pseudo-anarchist ancap-statist like you claim to be"
Ancap specifically rejects the state. Hence "anarcho." But because you would have nothing to say if you did not mangle language in some form every time you speak, you make a specifically anarchist political theory a "statist" one by your fiat. That may be fun for you, but it doesn't do anything for anybody who reads your drivel.
What is a "pseudo-anarchist"? An anarchist that isn't a freedom hating commie nitwit?
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (1)
"Ancap specifically rejects the state. Hence "anarcho.""
Etymology: "Anarchy" from the root (G.) "anarkos" - "no rule/rulers".
Last time I checked, CEOs, bosses, and a class of MOP owners all counted as "rulers". If you're ignorant of the origin and meaning of the very word you fallaciously use to describe yourself that's your problem.
"What is a "pseudo-anarchist"?"
You are, because you support institutions and structures in a theoretical stateless society which . . .
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "CEOs, bosses...all counted as "rulers"."
Absolute gibberish. You have to LIE and TWIST WORDS to defend your commie nutbag view of the world. A ruler is someone who claims political rule and control over a territory. An employer is not a ruler, dimwit.
"If you're ignorant of the origin and meaning of the very word you fallaciously use to describe yourself that's your problem.:
Only a true nut changes the meaning of a word then accuses others of doing so.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (A)
"A ruler is someone who claims political rule"
A ruler is anyone who uses RULE of any kind. That's what RULEr means. To paraphrase Proudhon; "any man who lays attemps to govern or control me, I call that man my enemy".
This further reinforces the fact that you have zero problem with people being controled, dominated or subordinated as long as the state isn't doing it. Hence, you support de facto statism.
You'd have no issue with a corp owning and running a town . . .
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "any man who lays attemps to govern or control me, I call that man my enemy".
Except if it's commie nutbag utopian rule, of course.
"A ruler is anyone who uses RULE of any kind."
Great. So now you want to change what "rule" means from political power to what now? Anyone who makes rules? So in the garden club, they have rules for membership, and this is "RULE" to you? They are rulers?
"Hence, you support de facto statism."
Commieland doesn't have rules?
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "*Participism* and *Inclusive Democracy*."
That's just dandy. And both say that property is theft - which is rooted in communism - but they aren't communist ideologies?
"I doubt you'll ever bother to learn of these."
Well, they were probably invented on Monday and it's only Thursday, so...
"who think monarchism is better than democracy"
Only in the sense of less overall destruction of wealth and individual rights. It's merely an economic argument.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (2)
. . . perpetuate all its worst features; hence you support de facto statism. The support for private-monarchy further reinforces this fact. You have no problem with all the horrible things the state does, merely that it's the state that's doing them.
"Funny how "actual anarchists" who are supposedly anti-state talk about democracy-this and democracy-that."
Which (if you knew ANYTHING about anarchist history) you'd know this is because democracy is the practical . . .
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "hence you support de facto statism."
Statism refers to THE STATE as a TERRITORIAL INSTITUTION OF POWER. An employer is a businessman. He makes no such claim. You are nothing but a sophist.
"democracy is the practical expression of individual autonomy."
Blatant contradiction. Individual autonomy is the very opposite of having your life and property subject to the vote of a mob. Democracy is politics. You use it as a euphemism for the state.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (B)
. . . as a private fiefdom as long as it wasn't CALLED a de jure state.
You can accuse me of sophistry all you like but the fact is you support the perpetuation of all forms of domination and subordination only barring the state. A consistant anarchist must oppose all forms of control and subordination; not just the state. You are not an anarchist - you're simply a non-statist.
"Democracy is politics. You use it as a euphemism for the state"
Here you fallaciously . . .
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "as a private fiefdom"
By that you mean any private property. A nut like you drives down the street where you live and sees endless "fiefdoms." You go to the store and you see "monopoly." You go to a gathering where people exchange goods and services peacefully and you see "sociopathy" because it isn't run by a central committee of thugs.
How are you going to STEAL everyone's property? What will you did with resistors. Let's have it. Tell the truth for once.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "A consistant anarchist must oppose all forms of control and subordination"
And your monstrous communist "democracy" is not a form of control and subordination? I don't have to subordinate myself to your tyranny? Then how does the damn thing work? You would claim that a businessman is a state, that he is a slaver for agreeing to hire someone who WANTS to work there, but an overarching bureaucracy that claims power over everyone is NOT a state or a form of control??????????
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "I'm an anarchist. An actual anarchist."
Funny how "actual anarchists" who are supposedly anti-state talk about democracy-this and democracy-that.
So there's no state, but there's a democracy where people cast votes regarding your life, your money, your work. And since it's not a state, no one is forced to participate, right? Or have you not thought that far ahead?
Tell me how your "anarchist" democracy effects those who will have nothing to do with it.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (3)
. . . expression of individual autonomy (self-rule) in the social world external to the self. Democracy reaches its greatest and purest form in the concept of self-management; where each individual has decision-making input *in proportion to the degree affected*. (No mob-rule, no majoritarianism)
Ancaps of course oppose all this because the ideology itself rests on misanthropy and sociopathy. That people making decisions about their own lives is somehow "against freedom".
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "(No mob-rule, no majoritarianism)"
You lay out mob rule majoritarianism and then you say "no mob-rule, no majoritarianism." These terms describe precisely what a democracy is.
"*in proportion to the degree affected*."
A baseless ethic which you smuggle in to replace property rights. No one has any rights in your view, only a vote in a futile attempt to stave off majority rule.
You completely destroy individual autonomy and subject the individual to the collective.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (C)
. . . confuse politics with statecraft - as all pseudo-anarchist ancaps do.
Democracy means "people power"; the excercise of control over your own life and the ability to affect your social and physical environment at the macro level through deliberation and consensus. As self-management it is the practical expression of self-rule (autonomy) and the enemy of all authority.
But like all foolish ancaps you confuse it with mob-rule (ochlocracy) a silly straw man argument.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Democracy means "people power"
Empty sloganeering.
"As self-management it is the practical expression of self-rule (autonomy) and the enemy of all authority."
Great. I reject your communist democracy and choose self-rule with and among people who likewise respect individual rights. Now, what are you going to do?
In your twisted mind as a communist, the whole world should be ruled by you. But nobody wants it. Now what?
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Ancaps of course oppose all this because the ideology itself rests on misanthropy and sociopathy."
Ancap society is based on the non-aggression principle (NAP). To you it is "sociopathy" to ban the initiation of force in human relaltionships. That explains what collectivists are about perfectly. The individual to you is only a tool of the masses, a means to an end, a cog in the wheel. If you cannot coerce people, you wouldn't have commie "society" at all. No one wants it.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (D)
"(NAP). To you it is "sociopathy" to ban the initiation of force in human relaltionships"
The NAP is frequently thrown out as a silly means of justifying the continued subordination of the majority to an owning class by treating attacks on private monopolization of MOP as attacks on "personal liberty".
A repugnat anti-individualist ideology that treats people as mere commodities and tools of business owners.
Well sorry, but it's YOU who's the anti-individualist.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist ":attacks on private monopolization of MOP as attacks on "personal liberty"."
Your idea of "liberty" is to be stripped of property and become a slave to some bureaucracy that nobody wants. Nobody chooses to give their property and control over their lives to scumbag communists. That is why you people are constantly at war with society. You cannot live with people except that you get to dominate them through depriving them of the means of their independence.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "A repugnat anti-individualist ideology that treats people as mere commodities and tools of business owners."
Blatantly false. The NAP protects the individual against aggression. It is a universal ethic applying equally to all people. How does your sick mind twist mutual respect for rights into "treats people as mere commodities"?
A business owner is someone who provides goods and services to society on a voluntary basis. This is what people do! This is how we live!
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "it's YOU who's the anti-individualist."
Yeah, keep the idiotic commie mind games coming. I'm glad that you are spewing your lunacy here as it gives people the chance to see what this garbage is all about. People like Chomsky try to soft sell the thing by keeping their mouths shut most of the time about the real ugly bottom line of this thing, but you are happy to spell it out in black and white: Individuals can go to hell. You will rule them and they will like it.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "it's YOU who's the anti-individualist."
I'm talking about the most individualistic system possible, and you call it "anti-individualist."
It's like you are compelled to lie even when it is utterly pointless and nakedly obvious that you spitting on the truth. You have the spirit of a true commie. You shun all rational argument and rely solely on an endless stream of class warfare propaganda and empty promises of "equality" and "democracy" under communist domination!
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
Wow. Seven whole comments that all boil own to:
"I can't be bothered to read up on what anarchism actually is and what anarchists stand for (or the two economic models that were provided for me), so I'm just gonna call you a "commie" about twenty times ad nauseum in the hope that it'll mean something and then just keep sticking up straw men, using either/or reasoning, displaying my own ignorance of politics/econ and generally making myself look like an anti-intellectual ass"
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Bull. I responded to all your nutbag points. That's what the quotes are for and the number of replies. I can't help that you make numerous false and idiotic claims in each post. I made specific replies to your twisting of word meanings. I asked you questions. Here's one that you won't answer:
"Great. I reject your communist democracy and choose self-rule with and among people who likewise respect individual rights. Now, what are you going to do?"
Answer the question.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist You unbelievably called me "anti-individualist" when I espouse the most individualist political philosophy known.
You claim that owning property is a crime. That starting and running a business is a crime. That hiring someone is a crime.
You claim that everyone should be stripped of their private property which is the "means of production" and ruled over by a committee of communists, but you want to deny that this is communism.
You are NOTHING but ANTI-INTELLECTUAL.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (1)
"You unbelievably called me "anti-individualist" when I espouse the most individualist political philosophy known"
Ancap is just another form of heteronomy and authoritarianism - hence anti-individualistic.
It involves the subjugation of the majority of people in a given society to a class of owners who monopolize the MOP - as I already said. ONLY self-management applied to every aspect of life guarantee both personal autonomy as well as social mutuality and equity.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Ancap is just another form of heteronomy and authoritarianism - hence anti-individualistic"
That's is pure nonsense! Heteronomy? You can do whatever you want in a free society!!! The only law is the NAP. You can't initiate force against another person. How in hell can anyone with half a brain call that "heteronomy and authoritarianism"??? You are LEFT ALONE to live your life as you please! And that is "anti-individualistic"?
How did your mind get so utterly perverted???
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "It involves the subjugation of the majority of people in a given society to a class of owners who monopolize the MOP"
Complete bull! NO ONE is "subjugated" by ANYONE owning property that justly acquired. Everyone can own property. Everyone can start a business. There is no "class of owners" when, in a free society, no one is excluded. And the MOP is NOT monopolized. You use that word not to mean monopoly but to refer to private property.
You express pure communist ideas.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "ONLY self-management applied to every aspect of life guarantee both personal autonomy as well as social mutuality and equity."
You DENY "self-management" to people who aren't communists. You claim it's a crime to own a business!
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (2)
"You claim that owning property is a crime"
Cite where I say this. Because I am against this position. I fully support the right to property defined by use and occupancy. Not private ownership of MOP, which must absentee ownership.
"That starting and running a business is a crime."
I said no such thing. You seem to love putting words in people's mouths. Guess it's easier than actually listening huh?
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
"Cite where I say this"
You refer to "monopolization of MOP." Are you going to tell me that you are using all this nutbag commie talk and don't mean any of it???
"I said no such thing."
OMG. What do you think "MEANS OF PRODUCTION" is? You call this "MONOPOLY" by "A CLASS OF OWNERS." You call it "SUBJUGATION."
You refer to property as "fiefdoms."
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
"You refer to "monopolization of MOP.""
Yes. The productive property and resources of a given economy in capitalism are monopolized in a few private hands. How is that NOT the case? Do you want to deny manifest reality?
"You refer to property as "fiefdoms.""
If you actually cared to properly read what I wrote you'd see what I referred to were the territorial areas which could be privatized then run as private-monarchies in an ancap economy.
Please learn how to read properly.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "The productive property and resources of a given economy in capitalism are monopolized in a few private hands."
Here we go again with the freaking commie drivel! What the HELL are you talking about now? I'm talking about A FREE SOCIETY, ANARCHO-CAPITALISM. Property rights. What in hell do you mean by "capitalism" here? The current fascist system? The King giving land grants to lords? What the hell? You don't know what "ancap" even means. Talking to you is like torture.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "I referred to were the territorial areas which could be privatized then run as private-monarchies in an ancap economy."
Yeah, you don't have a clue what ancap means. You can't "privatize" a "territory" and then "run as private-monarchies." What the hell is that? Do you mean that property owners in a community would band together? And you want to demonize what elsewhere you lionize if it's done by commies? Is that what you are saying with all this bombast?
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist I remember talking to you before and you specifically said that private property was a crime. You gave the communist faux distinction between possession and property - for example, a toothbrush vs a factory. You denied that anyone could own a factory. You spewed the same rhetoric here in various ways. Now you are backing off? Who are you kidding when you say this:
"Not private ownership of MOP, which must absentee ownership."
Make up your mind already.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
I stand by what I said.
It is systemically coercive to claim ownership of productive property and resources (MOP) to the determent of others. A house is justly claimed property because you use and occupy it. A factory requires a multitude of individuals to run it.
If just one person declares it "mine" they confiscate it from the rest of society.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (3)
"You claim that everyone should be stripped of their private property which is the "means of production" and ruled over by a committee of communists, but you want to deny that this is communism"
Again, I said no such thing. I provided you with links to two economic/political systems I broadly agree with. You chose to ignore these and simply make up a set of beliefs and then falsely attribute them to me.
"You are NOTHING but ANTI-INTELLECTUAL"
Ad homenim.
FAIL.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Again, I said no such thing. I provided you with links to two economic/political systems I broadly agree with."
People are constantly putting new spins on communism. The "Parecon" people say that nobody would own anything. There would be committees that would decide to split up work tasks. If this is nothing but a voluntary arrangement, then it certainly is NOT any "economic/political system." It's just a co-op or a commune or a company. THAT COULD EXIST IN ANCAP.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
"The "Parecon" people say that nobody would own anything. "
Nowhere in all the literature written about the system does it say this. Once again, you feel free to just make things up.
"co-op or a commune or a company. THAT COULD EXIST IN ANCAP."
No they couldn't. They would be destroyed by the force of corporations with their private armies - as such democratic and participatory institutions represent a threat to the authoritarian institutions which rule in an ancap society.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Nowhere in all the literature written about the system does it say this. Once again, you feel free to just make things up."
There's a video on it. Perhaps the 5 people that subscribe to this new spin on communism haven't compared notes properly. I certainly have no incentive to make anything up. I had seen that before and you mentioned it, so I looked again.
"They would be destroyed by the force of corporations with their private armies"
WHAT???
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
Kudos.
You get your knowledge on complex economic and political systems from 5 minute youtube videos.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "as such democratic and participatory institutions represent a threat to the authoritarian institutions which rule in an ancap society."
You are really confused. Ancap is about the NAP and property rights. You can do whatever the hell you want with your own property. Nobody cares. That the freaking point! What "authoritarian institutions" are you talking about? You are slipping into commie-talk again, and it makes no freaking sense. Please listen to yourself!
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MillionthUsername
"You can do whatever the hell you want with your own property"
Including using it to coerce others.
"What "authoritarian institutions" are you talking about?"
Corporations, PDAs, privatized fiefdoms. All are controlled by a minority of elites.
Any institution that concentrates power and decision-making ability in a minority is by definition authoritarian.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Answer these questions:
Explain how you are going to take people's private property and then manage to outlaw it.
Explain what happens to people who resist this.
Explain what happens to people who don't want to be ruled by your communist groups.
These questions are not "straw men."
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (4)
[Q] Explain how you are going to take people's private property and then manage to outlaw it.
[A] I desire no such thing. I have zero desire to take anyone's property via coercion - that's your game, not mine. *Dual power* is what I see as the best long-term strategy for building a left-libertarian society if you must know (Though I doubt you'll bother to look up its meaning.
[Q] Explain what happens to people who resist this
[A] Question is based on a false assumption.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsSexySocialist "I have zero desire to take anyone's property via coercion - that's your game, not mine"
How is it my game? I believe in liberty, property rights, the NAP.
Now you say you don't believe in taking property after spewing dozens of communist phrases about how private MOP is feudalism, subjugation, tyranny, etc.? Why are you using that rhetoric then? Don't you realize the power of words? You were viciously attacking property rights!
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist [Q] Explain what happens to people who resist this
[A] Question is based on a false assumption.
You SPECIFICALLY REJECTED ANCAP, which is a free society based on property rights and the NAP. You called it the very opposite of what it is, insisting that it's tyranny. It would allow you to do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING you wish EXCEPT to violate someone's person/property.
If you say you reject coercion, you are confessing the ancap doctrine. So why the hysterics over ancap?
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
"You SPECIFICALLY REJECTED ANCAP, which is a free society based on property rights and the NAP"
Yes, inequitable property rights.
"You called it the very opposite of what it is, insisting that it's tyranny"
Any system that would allow tyranny to form (eg: Hans-Hermann Hoppe's private-monarchies) is itself a tyranny. Sorry.
"It would allow you to do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING you wish EXCEPT to violate someone's person/property."
Except be free of subordination to my employer.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Except be free of subordination to my employer."
You are not forced to work for anyone in a free society. You are FREE to START YOUR OWN BUSINESS. You are FREE TO START A COMMUNE, a co-op, a company of like-minded crusaders for economic "justice" or whatever else might inspire you to get out bed in the morning! Please stop the bs.
"Hans-Hermann Hoppe's private-monarchies) is itself a tyranny"
You mean a covenant community? That is what YOU keep insisting on, you dope!
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
Pure fantasy. Ancaps can make zero distinction between a choice in theory (say to start your own business) and a choice in reality. When a host of private companies control literally everything the effective option of going your own way doesn't exist.
""Hans-Hermann Hoppe's private-monarchies) is itself a tyranny"
You mean a covenant community? That is what YOU keep insisting on, you dope!"
HHH has said that monarchy is superior to democracy and could exist in ancap.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "the effective option of going your own way doesn't exist."
Baloney. People start businesses every day even under our corrupt system. You know that.
"HHH has said that monarchy is superior to democracy and could exist in ancap."
Did you read the book? What exactly are you referring to? Technically you could have democracy, monarchy, etc. under a free society since people are FREE. Ever heard of panarchy? You seem lost on the principle of FREEDOM. You don't get it.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Yes, inequitable property rights."
Ancap specifically calls for the equal application of rights. So clearly you do not actually mean rights, do you? This is another euphemism, isn't it? For what exactly?
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
It is inequitable for any individual to claim productive property or resources to the detriment of others.
ie: monopolization of MOP in either private or state hands.
Indivisible (common) ownership of MOP is the solution to this; with usufruct of MOP given to any individual or group wish to engage in production of goods or services.
Ancap by contrast would allow for a whole town or city to be privatized and run like a monarchy.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "It is inequitable for any individual to claim productive property or resources to the detriment of others."
So if your co-op claims a building that I also want to share, that is inequitable?
"monopolization of MOP in either private or state hands."
You keep saying this and it has no context.
"Indivisible (common) ownership of MOP is the solution to this"
MOP in general is not your to distribute as you wish unless you have a specific claim to specific property.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
"So if your co-op claims a building that I also want to share, that is inequitable?"
Wouldn't happen with the principle of usufruct. MOP is allocated by each self-governing community upon request on a best case for use basis. If there's a conflict of interest it can be settled through negotiation.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Wouldn't happen with the principle of usufruct."
So you want to replace property rights with property rights, eh? That's brilliant.
When I mention your co-op's building, I assume they have some legitimate right to it, that's why my question of whether it was fair to me was just making fun of your little "inequitable" rant. A property right IS the superior claim vs all others. What else could it be? But that depends entirely on the justice of acquisition.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Ancap by contrast would allow for a whole town or city to be privatized and run like a monarchy."
Towns are already "privatized." They consist of hundreds or thousands of parcels of private property. If you or anyone else has some superior claim to your neighbor's home or business, then by all means you should pursue it in court.
Are you referring to taking back "public property" which the state has usurped? How can you have a problem with local control?
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
"Towns are already "privatized." They consist of hundreds or thousands of parcels of private property."
I meant under a single owner.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "I meant under a single owner."
You're afraid all the people of a town are going to sell all their property to one man? Putting aside the odds of this happening, why would that matter?
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MillionthUsername (B)
. . . because technically the owner would just be exercising their right to do what they want with their property.
You would no oppose this however simply because this example of tyranny isn't CALLED a state.
"So you want to replace property rights with property rights, eh?"
Your assumption that I wanted to abolish all property rights (despite my statements demonstrating otherwise) once again comes from you simply making up fictional positions then attributing them to me.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
"If you say you reject coercion, you are confessing the ancap doctrine. So why the hysterics over ancap?"
Because it has no real objections to kyriarchy, domination or subordination as long as the above isn't being perpetuated by a state.
It is still authoritarian despite pretensions to personal liberty.
It offers "freedom to chose" a master to live your life for. Not freedom FROM masters.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "It offers "freedom to chose" a master to live your life for. Not freedom FROM masters."
That's just absurd. What "masters" do you have in a free society? You make absolutely no sense at all. What part of FREE do you not understand?
"It is still authoritarian despite pretensions to personal liberty."
Of what does this authoritarianism consist when you are entirely left alone in your person and property to pursue your own ends without interference? Please be reasonable.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
"What "masters" do you have in a free society?"
To start with, ancap is not a free society. It divides society into producers and owners (of the MOP) creating kyriarchy and perpetuates the current heteronomy of people renting their labor, liberty and autonomy to employers for means of survival while the owners reap the fruits of their labor.
Masters and serfs.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "To start with, ancap is not a free society."
You are free right now to seek cooperative work arrangements and share ownership! You would be MORE FREE under ancap to pursue what you CLAIM it is that you want! But obviously - I'm sorry to say - your claims are entirely phony. You rage and ramble on about supposed wrongs done to your liberty when even now you could do what it is you say you want to do.
"Masters and serfs."
Bull. Go start a business, you lazy slug.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
"You are free right now to seek cooperative work arrangements and share ownership!"
I already did. I work in a cooperative and am a member of the co-op federation NoBAWC in San Francisco.
It doesn't matter whether or not I can have your "crumbs from the table" option of being in a producer-controlled enterprise in your ideal world, the fact is the vast majority are still forced by necessity into wage-labor and required to take orders.
Freedom? Yeah, freedom to get ripped off.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "the fact is the vast majority are still forced by necessity into wage-labor"
The all-or-nothing rhetoric is false, but to the extent that they are hampered they are hampered by the state, by its crushing taxation, property tax, rents, phony monopoly monetary system, servile education system, propaganda, etc. We suggest a FREE society with NONE of this oppression, and you have the gall to claim that we want people to be "forced" to work for someone. Absolute bull. Grow up.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
It's true though isn't it?
You want to maintain wage-labor; people selling their liberty and autonomy away in order to survive while the people they sell it to get to reap the fruits of their productive efforts.
You can't have wage-labor "without the oppression". It IS oppression.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "You want to maintain wage-labor"
That's meaningless. It's not up to me what free people choose to do. You don't seem to understand that people make economic choices according to their particular goals, talents, situations, etc. It is beyond absurdity to suggest that all people will choose either sole-proprietorship or socialist participation in a co-op.
All economies need part-time, temporary, or full-time wage-labor jobs. It's a niche that you can't obliterate with your will
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MillionthUsername (C)
The lib-soc standpoint is one of alternate (more equitable) property rights - not the negation of property rights.
The full right to any personal property you have freely acquired defined by use and occupancy.
And the right to use of MOP for production on long-term contract according to usufruct.
Allocation of MOP in any free and rational society needs to be through negotiated settlement between free individuals and communities, not a free-for-all as in state-cap or ancap
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "It doesn't matter whether or not I can have your "crumbs from the table" option"
I in no way support the current system, so I am not offering you crumbs from the table. I'm correcting you when you act like it's impossible for people to start a business. The system has made it harder than it should be, and it's not fair, but that isn't because ancaps are advocating freedom! Give me a break.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MillionthUsername (A)
"I in no way support the current system"
Yet you see no contradiction in defending it - and thus propping it up.
"(On privatized territories) Putting aside the odds of this happening, why would that matter?"
You again show you're true colors. It would matter because a single group or individual owning any territory would constitute a de facto state. The owners(s) could use their authority as to oppress the people living there. And no-one could do anything about it . . .
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername
"Of what does this authoritarianism consist when you are entirely left alone in your person and property to pursue your own ends without interference?"
No one should be required to rent themselves to another person -selling away their liberty- to suggest otherwise is anti-individualism
In a truly free society no one should ever have to work under the command of anyone else. If these exist tasks which require more than one person to complete, then cooperate, don't subordinate.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
"In a truly free society no one should ever have to work under the command of anyone else."
You obviously have difficulty understanding what freedom means. You seem to think that it means that everyone else should get together and make you happy. Sorry. It means that you are free to make you happy. If you don't want to work for anyone, start your own business or co-op with like-minded people. They are all over the place. There's your chance to "cooperate" all you want.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Because it has no real objections to kyriarchy, domination or subordination as long as the above isn't being perpetuated by a state."
Gobbledygook. Speak English.
How does a free society dominate and subjugate you? Clearly, you demand something more from people aside from leaving you alone to follow your own inclinations and pursuits in peace. I can't imagine what that would be, and why you would call it domination, etc. You want to force them to coddle you???
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MillionthUsername
"Gobbledygook. Speak English."
I am. Your own inability to understand it isn't my problem.
"How does a free society dominate and subjugate you?"
1. Ancap isn't a free society
2. By maintaining institutions of hierarchy, centralization of decision-making ability and through the institution of wage-labor.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername (5)-Final
If any person or group wants, they can opt out and form their own capitalist community - though I can't see many wanting to given the superior alternative.
[Q] Explain what happens to people who don't want to be ruled by your communist groups
[A] There are none. As, again, you simply made up a series of straw positions then falsely attributed them to me.
[Q] These questions are not "straw men."
[A] But the pretenses under which you ask them are.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
So what kind of economy is possible AT ALL, if one buys Professor Chomsky's view that the argument of Doctor Adam Smith is a falacy?
What kind of equality is Professor Chomsky referring to?
Does Professor Chomsky envision any type of market, what-so-ever?
Does equality mean that if I catch more fish than all of my neighbors, that I must surrender them to him for a redistribution of my capital & effort on someone else's terms?
Just what the Hell does he want?
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@centurion180ad
"What kind of equality is Professor Chomsky referring to?"
From hearing lot of chomsky discourse, this what I think:
He's more referring to what's NOT equality here (ie dispelling myth), such as state capitalism where high concentrations of capital have emerged (not always via just means)..then, of course, lots of capital entails more power in terms of bargaining power, ability to propagandize, etc.
I think he's just saying Smith's arguments don't work in current conditions.
ElDukerino1 7 months ago
a response to "Transcending Anarcho-Semantics" ... this video is a response to an oxymoron? lol.... =)
waterspindle 9 months ago
Comment removed
dubified89 1 year ago
from each according to ability, to each according to need.
DuffmanIRL 1 year ago
Socialism is where all society - political, production, distribution, etc - is controlled by the proletariat. It's collective ownership, democratically-centrist organisations and soviet participation.
It is they, the mass of the working class, who will decide what goods get produced and who will get what.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood You vote on what gets produced every time you go shopping.
TheMobocracy 1 year ago
@TheMobocracy As an individual? Not in the slightest.
Whether I buy one thing or another, everybody else will buy whatever they will, and my tiny contribution will be insignificant.
But if all the citizens work together, then their massive weight is greater than the individual. It's a little something I like to call democracy.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood Yes as an individual you get one vote. One person one vote. If all the citizens are voting for the same products they will be the ones that get produced. It's very democratic when it's left alone. When the government interferes with that process by banning certain things that are produced, picking winners are losers through bailouts and/or subsidies or taxing certain industries higher than others, then it's not.
TheMobocracy 1 year ago
@TheMobocracy But democratic theory says that the government is the collective will of the people. It exists only to serve our needs, accoutable to us, representing us, we vote them, we kick them out, the congress is exists only for us to will it.
Now we all know that the congress does not serve the needs of the people. But does that mean that congress itself is the problem, government the problem, or perhaps the answer is that we need a new government, one that does what we tell it to.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood The best government is the one that charges you the least amount of money to leave you the hell alone. It's impossible for 536 people in D.C. to centrally decide what 300+ million people want. There's nothing democratic about centralized government power.
TheMobocracy 1 year ago
@TheMobocracy You're partially correct, what we have is a political system where the minority tries to control the majority. And that's an immoral system for a whole list of reasons.
But you're conclusion on what do is horribly flawed. Do you understand how power works? When you have a power structure, like the state, it imposes itself onto people. But if that power structure disappeared, it would create a vacuum, of which would be filled by the second most powerful force: corporations!!
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood Corporations only have power through government regulation. Otherwise the size of them is based on weather people freely choose to buy their products. Explain to me the horrors of a company selling people things that they want at a price they can afford.
TheMobocracy 1 year ago
@TheMobocracy A corporation is a power source. Because it is a collection of concentrated capital, it can use its financial mass to impose itself onto the world, such as hiring death squads or funding a newspaper or buying politicians or buying all the media, etc.
If you truly are an opponent of power and wish for a society where humans are free from oppression and exploitation, then ALL power must be opposed. If you're just some corporatist, then oppose government and compliment corporations.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@TheMobocracy It's much easier for someone to make the argument in the oppose direction: support government and oppose corporations.
Corporations are unaccountable massive totallitarian structures. You cannot do anything to stop them. I could protest and sign a petition, but that would do nothing.
Parliamentary government may have many flaws, but at least they are partially accountable to the people, and that makes them the lesser of the two evils.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood Who killed more people over the last century, governments or corporations? Does Bill Gates have a death squad? What about Citi bank? What corporation forces you to buy their products? Are taxes collected at gunpoint? Do I have a choice as to weather or not I want to pay into medicaid? I think you are confused as to who uses force.
TheMobocracy 1 year ago
@TheMobocracy Both major political parties are pro-business. Bill Clinton was amazing pro-business, deregulating industries in A and putting in protectionist measure to protect American industry in B. His rhetoric occasionally appealed to minorities, but all of this policies more or less were focused on doing what was best for big business capital.
It's the illusion of democracy that keeps the population from rebelling.
Putting a puppet in charge of policy protects the puppetmaster.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood Pure Democracy is evil.
TheMobocracy 1 year ago
@TheMobocracy I want a society where the masses are in power. The elected representitives do what they're told, otherwise they'd immediatley sacked from their positions. Instead of a few thousand people controlling society, and the masses voting once every four years between scumbag A and scumbag B, we should have mass participation.
Every single person who has an interest in running our society should be involved, getting into committees and organisations and helping to run society.
I want that
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood I don't want society to be directed. The world divides politically into those who want control people and those who have no such desire.
TheMobocracy 1 year ago
Comment removed
dubified89 1 year ago
@TheMobocracy. oil corporations want control of oil, the government (controlled by people from the same families as the major oil tycoons) attacks iraq, who gets the blame?
and don't forget corporations knowingly sell milk that produces cancer, and american companies that sold blood (for infusions) in america, then were disallowed to sell their blood as it was infested with aids, and they went to europe to sell it.
parliament works in the name of the people, so what they do is our fault.
lygophile 1 year ago
Marx held that markets were necessary and was scathing in his criticism of those who thought one could do without them.
jmserc 1 year ago
Chomsky on top form again! :D
moomin468 2 years ago
I can't believe such a smart man believes in something so fallacious as economic equality. It is neither achievable nor desirable. Considering that humans vary so much equal compensation would not work because the value of say equal food rations would be different for larger humans than smaller ones.
Variability is humanity's greatest asset and the defining characteristic of life itself, I don't see why one would want to give that up.
PumpkinJoe999 2 years ago
He dosen't really mean in pure communism where in everyone would get paid the same. What he means by economic equality is that everyone would get a true, fair and equal chance in succeeding.
SuperSuperfan 2 years ago
In pure communism, no one would get paid at all. Everyone would have free equal access to the products of everyone else's labor. There would be no need for a medium of exchange because there would be no exchange, at least not in the sense that we understand it today.
DurrutisGhost 2 years ago
Equality can mean different things in different senses. However, I do believe that laissez faire capitalism leads to equality in terms of rights. Certainly, statism leads to inequality.
numberonesurvivor75 2 years ago
To each according to their need. Overproduction is actually required within a capitalist system.
smokeylotus 2 years ago
From each according to his ability. To each according to their NEED.
Notice "need". Its not "to each everything equally." Equality just means a level playing for everyone not everything perfectly equal. People have different needs & in a socialist society this will be taken into account better than it is in a capitalist society.
sicktoaster 2 years ago
& Chompsky is a libertarian socialist. He doesnt want some central state rationing food. He wants worker control 2 form socialism from the bottom up. They could agree on a voluntary rationing program but if it doesnt work out a group of workers is free 2 leave because libertarian socialism is based on voluntary association. They just wouldnt have the right 2 hire people & then deprive them of the equal right 2 ownership based on labor based on socially constructed capitalist property rights.
sicktoaster 2 years ago
BS strawman
Smith doesn't argue any such thing Why does capitalism have to be perfect anything?
Capitalism sucks , just not as bad as anything else.
And you have to work and work sucks, whaaah!
Hayek calls it the "despot of physical wants". Anyone who claims to be able to free you from the despot of physical wants [work and work sucking] always turns out to be a regular old despot.
karpopper 2 years ago
Socialism doesn't have to do with an aversion to work though. It just has to do with making sure that one's quality of life is better.. Its what the coal miner union strikes in the 30's were all about. It had to do with workers fighting for their rights. Socialism and capitalism aren't complete incompatibilities within a society either. There's a place for more regulation and less regulation.
TheClassicalLiberal 2 years ago
You misunderstand the meaning of "socialism". Socialism is not capitalism with more regulation. It is worker control of industry. If the workers do not control the means of production, you don't have socialism--no matter how much the State interferes in the economy.
DurrutisGhost 2 years ago
yes absolutly, because in capitalism the bottom line is maximizing profit so the workers were being taken advantage of as much as mngmt cud get away with. its an adversarial relation mngmt n labour cuz theyre trying to get more out of each other. socialism just means that labour gets as organized and thus somewat equal to mngmngts power. funny how ppl are affraid of govt abuse of power but not corps fukkin them over
adzug 2 years ago
Comment removed
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
According to Tacitus the Jews worship Saturn.
On the Seventh day they end their toils, on the 7th year as a mark of respect to Saturn, the 7 stars that rule mankind, of multiples of sevens.
The other practices of Jews are filthy and revolting.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Ur filthy and revolting.
Entropy137 2 years ago
Judaism is the highest stage of capitalism.
ludachris475 3 years ago
lol
eulex10 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This Jewish cancer must be destroyed at the root. These foul creatures must be rounded up, deloused, and have their still-beating hearts ripped out from their chests.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
roman empire was capitalist,yet it was antijew state
eulex10 2 years ago 6
@eulex10 Hitler was a socialist, and antisemitic. Socialism is evil. State slavery and it never works.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 You sound like a robot or a record or something :D. You're seriously dumb if you really think that. He was a centrist authoritarian with some fetishes. Socialism is a set of values, where equality is the first, not an economic system. There are myriads of described types of socialism and most of them have a basis in democracy.
freedomthrough 10 months ago
@freedomthrough "Socialism is a set of values"..clearly a perverse robot yourself. Hitler, Mao, Stalin were all socialist and had no values of any sort. Socialism is an economic policy of a state planned economy. Which NO developed country has. Most countries in the developed world are base don democracy, state ran services [schools, health, police, etc] and a free market economy, FACT. ALL countries in the developed world have the right to own property,copyrights and businesses.
warriorprince1010 10 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Seriously, you sound like a robot, repeating the mantras of your makers :P. You have no idea of how reality looks, but i guess that's just a symptom of growing up in un-free America...
freedomthrough 10 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Oh, sorry, UK :P.
freedomthrough 10 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Not quite...practically all major r&d costs are/were state/publicly funded in so-called developed countries, not JUST services (so it's not really a pure free market economy in ANY of these countries)...the economic development that HAS happened might not have happened otherwise...we simply don't know because it just did not happen that way (FACT)...we could only theorize and take MINOR cases of so-called free-market conditions that might tell us something.
ElDukerino1 7 months ago
@ElDukerino1 Most R and D costs are done by businesses I am afraid. Not the state. Pure market economy is based on the price, so yes they are market led, you were wrong on the first two. NO developed country has an entirely state ran economy, this is a fact. The markets are the price a good is sold, NOT the R and D. You got mixed uop I am afraid.
warriorprince1010 7 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Consider underlying tech in most product we enjoy today, U will find funding for such development was directed by states/funded by public to significant extent.
Also, there are tax credits for much private r&d cost (this is state directed in-effect).
I never said they’re entirely state run (it’s a mix). U said state funding was NIL which I was addressing.
Pure free market economy is theory & need facts to analyze…your FACTS just weren’t quite correct, just saying.
ElDukerino1 7 months ago
@ElDukerino1 Tax credits and not state funding, and most tech projects are done by the private sector. The markets decie the price not the funding. Two different things. A mixed economy is not a state planned economy and thus not truly socialist.# I support a mixed economy, however there are good ways to do it and bad ways. Greece and Norway both have mixed economies, one is a success and one a failure.
warriorprince1010 7 months ago
@warriorprince1010
“Tax credits are not state-funding”.
Yes, they are. Otherwise it’s just tax deduction (for costs: tax credit is 100% reduc in tax & deduction is only 35% reduc in tax), so govt funds 65% of cost on certain r&d over-and-above any other type of business cost.
“Most projects are done by private sector”
Not from scratch...again, consider underlying tech that’s taken for granted by private sector.
Agreed on everything else u just wrote :)
ElDukerino1 7 months ago
Oh, actually I don’t agree with:
“The markets decie the price not the funding”
If you’re talking about markets in the context of saying a system is a “free-market” system, it would normally be taken to mean private interests decide everything (e.g. price, what to produce & how it is funded, etc).
ElDukerino1 7 months ago
@ElDukerino1 Taxcredits are NOT state funding they are tax credits. The state does not decide what the tax credits are spent on, that is done by the people running a company. So no state planning. The state builds universities but does not decide what you use your skills on. State planning is where the government actually decides what money is spent on, what is made, what direction to go in. This is a disaster. 99% of technology is decided on by non state groups.
warriorprince1010 7 months ago
@warriorprince1010
You have to consider r&d tax credits more to understand (basically, it’s an incentive to spend on certain things).
Anyway, my point is just that states you’re referring to do fund cost of (and determine) production to a great extent..they tax everyone & the tax revenues are directed toward certain production (supposedly in the combined interest of the population).
Btw, states control prices as well although not to a “huge” extent (aka subsidies/tariffs).
ElDukerino1 7 months ago
@ElDukerino1 Most R and D is done by private companies. Apple, microsoft, etc etc all do it themselves.
warriorprince1010 7 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Yes, they do their own r&d (their own r&d meaning they tweak open source technology, close off their minor enhancement/make it proprietary, and market it), but all of their products rely on things like internet, computer hardware development, computer software & coding language development…if you peel away what the public funded, we may not have any of their products.
If you bake a cake, you have to recognize some inputs are supplied to you, who are all of the suppliers?
ElDukerino1 7 months ago
@warriorprince1010 watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ
Also, I'd recommend watching this vid if you want to understand the meaning of socialism in the context of how Chomsky would use it.
The meaning of socialism you're going with is completely different so at least least you have to recognize that when you say the word "socialism" there are many different connotations and sometime the different notions of it are the opposite of each other.
watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ
ElDukerino1 7 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Yeah, nice use of logic man. Hitler was an anti-semitic, anti-semiticism is evil. Hitler was a socialist so socialism must be evil?? ok?
Here let me try your logic. Dogs have four legs! Dogs can bark. A cat has four legs so cats can bark??
yeah, you just hit yourself with a logical fallacy kid. becuase it really fucks you up when yourt trying to make a point especially in an intellectual conversation such as this
dcsandman1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dcsandman1 "Yeah, nice use of logic man. Hitler was an anti-semitic, anti-semiticism is evil. Hitler was a socialist so socialism must be evil?? ok?"...yes. Socialism is a big word, what type of socialism? I like state owned schools, healthcare and energy, but without corruption and equal to all. But do I think the state should own every farm, every cafe, every shop, demand over 50% of someones wage, pay state sector workers 30% more than ordinary families......NO.
warriorprince1010 8 months ago
Just as always in capitalism... a pyramid is built with the wealthy Jew at the top subjugating the rest.
ludachris475 3 years ago 3
Chomsky deoes't want equaility. he wants mass murder and fascism. The holocaust, Khme Rouge, Sovietdenying KGB agents needs to die already like that refuted numbskull Edward Said.
Smearing the mythivcal "corporations" with easily refuted Nazi anti-Jew like disinfo isn't worth even trtying to refute. Fact Free Markets are far, it called voluntary contract and getting paid what yopur services are worth. Greedy governmnt finance fascist pigs like Chomsky who have ever worked a day need to shutup
deltapunk21 3 years ago
"Chomsky... wants mass murder and fascism."
Lay off the fumes from toxic industrial substances, they might kill your remaining braincell.
selfatrophy 2 years ago
I reject the premise that there is a "free-market" in our country for ordinary workers.
What we have is a COERCIVE market. In a coercive market the earning power of work and the standard of living of workers declines, while those with economic power gain an ever more unbalanced share of the nation's wealth. For most employees, pay and working conditions are neither negotiable nor a matter of free choice. It is "take it or l