Please stop calling propertarians/rothbardians "anarchists". They are not anarchists as they don't oppose the tyranny of private property and capitalism. They are just anti-government. "Anarchy" means "without rulers" NOT "without government". Rulers can be anyone, including proprietors and capitalist bosses.
Start by reading Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin if you want to know what anarchism is really about.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 A voluntary hierarchy does not imply a ruler. Think of baseball teams. Is the third base coach a ruler? Or a member of the team that increases the odds of success? How about the manager? Is he ruling over the players, or is he also a member of the team helping to increase its odds of success? Sometimes a hierarchical (for lack of a better word, stupid "archy") setup is simply the most efficient and effective way to organize to reach the goals of its members.
@SovereignCurtis Dude, capitalist relations are far from "voluntary"!
You love the free market and claim to love capitalism. If that's the case, why not switch to mutualism? A mutualist market system is much freer for all parties involved than a capitalist one.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 he is actually educating you. If you think capitalism is a structure of "forced" hierarchy just like the State, you don't grasp what you are talking about. Hierarchy is essential. An expert on medicine is given credit as a person who knows medicine, thus he is a "natural" authority on the subject. Likewise, people's own values follow a path of hierarchy. A person wouldn't value a pencil as much as a well build, nice looking car.
@SamuelMoralesJr I agree that some authority is legitimate, but the basis should always be that authority is never *inherently* legitimate. Capitalist bosses deny us our autonomy in the workplace.
Part of anarchism means rejecting all illegitimate authority. That means capitalist bosses and private property owners.
I can't just quit my job working for a boss and work for myself, especially if I don't have the resources to. The only way to achieve liberty is to abolish private property.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I do not see in what you've described, anything that makes an aggresive act against another person unjustified. If indeed, there's no property, what claim do you have to yourself? What method do I have to reject the illegitimate authority of an attacker?
@herzogsbuick There is a difference between property and possession. "Property" implies that the only thing keeping you attached to something is a contract or entitlement i.e. a factory you own but don't work in yourself or four homes you don't live in. "Possession" is stuff for your active personal use that you de facto own, like a computer, a single house, a toothbrush, a coffee maker, etc. Read Proudhon.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I'm not interested in what someone else thinks, I'm interested in what you think. A contract would give you use of property, and to be entitled to property is to have contributed resources to the inception of that property. I would say even by proxy, but you would disagree :-) So my wife is from Australia, I'm from Philly, and I've got a motorhome sitting at my grandma's driveway. It is not in active use. Where does a dis-possesion go? And isn't owning a factory a burden?
@juliaisafilmbuff123 "a factory you own but don't work in yourself or four homes you don't live in."
Ah. Envy.
Julia, I suggest therapy for that deep-seated envy you carry around. Also, please, youtube/user/MisesMedia and go through the Mises University economics course.
You have the ultimate autonomy, you can work for someone else or work for yourself.
As an employee, you voluntarily give up some of that precious autonomy in trade for that paycheck. The "capitalist" you decry is always the last person paid, after their employees, because they're contractually obligated to do so.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 "The only way to achieve liberty is to abolish private property."
Where has that worked?
Plymouth? Half starved in the first two years.
Jamestown? 10% survived until the third wave of settlers gave up on communism and went back to private property.
Roanoke? All gone.
Lenin and Mao tried it to.
Did you think that communal property for the good of all was some kind of un-tried, new idea? Utopia has been tried, over and over, and the result is always the same: Starvation.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 you don't seem to understand that property is a way to resolve disputes. There is always property, even in socialist, and communist circles, it's just the debate how property is distributed. If I own chopped lumber, I can decide to build a house, or furniture. Abolishing property means there is no organization, but another person can decide the use the wood for something else. It also doesn't guarantee you resources, because again, who decides goes to what, and whom?
@juliaisafilmbuff123 anarcho-socialism involves voluntary contracts, so does the free market, thus anarcho-socialism is completely compatible to the free market. A ruler is somebody who owns things that are not his. A king owns everybody he governs over, a boss is not a king, because you can quit your job any time you want. A king, or ruler is a slave master, and you are the slave. Clearly you don't understand what you talking about.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I'm aware of Mutualism, and would be willing to self-identify as such (but I prefer Agorist and Voluntaryist). Problem is, I dont view 'capitalism' in the same negative light as most. Its not black and white for me. As I mentioned above, I see times in which I think it 'best' for folks to organize however they see fit, even if that means a traditional hierarchical structure. I'm not saying on person should have undue influence/power.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 if you enter into a mutual contract/agreement with someone voluntarily they are not your ruler, free market capitalism assumes voluntary association, unfortunately weve never had that though as you cant with the state/use of force, central banking & taxation etc
@juliaisafilmbuff123 Anarchists who claim to not believe in 'property' become hypocrites when its time to utilize resources...whether they wanna claim 'ownership' over something or not. If it is being consumed, a property claim is being made.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 "Anarchy" means "without rulers" NOT "without government". Dumbest statement of all time. Private property is inherent. Your own body is your own property, that is why it is agreed under the blanket of liberty, that you have the right to do what you wish with your own body, and not be done to your own body by another person. Socialist who claim to be anarchist are the funniest people of all. They are also very destructive hooligans.
At least 14 FSPers are now state reps in NH, by my count :)
wyomingliberty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul? More like Ron Poop!
TerrorWarrior5000 1 year ago
that's a really disturbing sculpture
LaFemmeCelena 1 year ago
Why would anyone want to be involved with a group of people not bright enough to figure out they are being sprayed (chemtrailed) like rats 24/7
cdimmm 1 year ago
Comment removed
eneffect 1 year ago
Please stop calling propertarians/rothbardians "anarchists". They are not anarchists as they don't oppose the tyranny of private property and capitalism. They are just anti-government. "Anarchy" means "without rulers" NOT "without government". Rulers can be anyone, including proprietors and capitalist bosses.
Start by reading Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin if you want to know what anarchism is really about.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 A voluntary hierarchy does not imply a ruler. Think of baseball teams. Is the third base coach a ruler? Or a member of the team that increases the odds of success? How about the manager? Is he ruling over the players, or is he also a member of the team helping to increase its odds of success? Sometimes a hierarchical (for lack of a better word, stupid "archy") setup is simply the most efficient and effective way to organize to reach the goals of its members.
SovereignCurtis 1 year ago 3
@SovereignCurtis Dude, capitalist relations are far from "voluntary"!
You love the free market and claim to love capitalism. If that's the case, why not switch to mutualism? A mutualist market system is much freer for all parties involved than a capitalist one.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 he is actually educating you. If you think capitalism is a structure of "forced" hierarchy just like the State, you don't grasp what you are talking about. Hierarchy is essential. An expert on medicine is given credit as a person who knows medicine, thus he is a "natural" authority on the subject. Likewise, people's own values follow a path of hierarchy. A person wouldn't value a pencil as much as a well build, nice looking car.
SamuelMoralesJr 1 year ago 6
@SamuelMoralesJr I agree that some authority is legitimate, but the basis should always be that authority is never *inherently* legitimate. Capitalist bosses deny us our autonomy in the workplace.
Part of anarchism means rejecting all illegitimate authority. That means capitalist bosses and private property owners.
I can't just quit my job working for a boss and work for myself, especially if I don't have the resources to. The only way to achieve liberty is to abolish private property.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I do not see in what you've described, anything that makes an aggresive act against another person unjustified. If indeed, there's no property, what claim do you have to yourself? What method do I have to reject the illegitimate authority of an attacker?
herzogsbuick 1 year ago
@herzogsbuick There is a difference between property and possession. "Property" implies that the only thing keeping you attached to something is a contract or entitlement i.e. a factory you own but don't work in yourself or four homes you don't live in. "Possession" is stuff for your active personal use that you de facto own, like a computer, a single house, a toothbrush, a coffee maker, etc. Read Proudhon.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I'm not interested in what someone else thinks, I'm interested in what you think. A contract would give you use of property, and to be entitled to property is to have contributed resources to the inception of that property. I would say even by proxy, but you would disagree :-) So my wife is from Australia, I'm from Philly, and I've got a motorhome sitting at my grandma's driveway. It is not in active use. Where does a dis-possesion go? And isn't owning a factory a burden?
herzogsbuick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@juliaisafilmbuff123 "a factory you own but don't work in yourself or four homes you don't live in."
Ah. Envy.
Julia, I suggest therapy for that deep-seated envy you carry around. Also, please, youtube/user/MisesMedia and go through the Mises University economics course.
Or the book, "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality"
Or even just one video:
youtube/watch?v=eHZdD3WtCHM
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 "Capitalist bosses deny us our autonomy in the workplace."
Then don't work for them.
You have the ultimate autonomy, you can work for someone else or work for yourself.
As an employee, you voluntarily give up some of that precious autonomy in trade for that paycheck. The "capitalist" you decry is always the last person paid, after their employees, because they're contractually obligated to do so.
"I can't just quit my job..."
Yes, you can. It is always your choice.
CurtHowland 1 year ago 2
@juliaisafilmbuff123 "The only way to achieve liberty is to abolish private property."
Where has that worked?
Plymouth? Half starved in the first two years.
Jamestown? 10% survived until the third wave of settlers gave up on communism and went back to private property.
Roanoke? All gone.
Lenin and Mao tried it to.
Did you think that communal property for the good of all was some kind of un-tried, new idea? Utopia has been tried, over and over, and the result is always the same: Starvation.
CurtHowland 1 year ago 4
@juliaisafilmbuff123 "authority is never *inherently* legitimate"
Indeed, except for one instance: My authority over myself is inherently legitimate. Yours, over you, etc.
Individual responsibility, individual liberty.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 you don't seem to understand that property is a way to resolve disputes. There is always property, even in socialist, and communist circles, it's just the debate how property is distributed. If I own chopped lumber, I can decide to build a house, or furniture. Abolishing property means there is no organization, but another person can decide the use the wood for something else. It also doesn't guarantee you resources, because again, who decides goes to what, and whom?
SamuelMoralesJr 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 anarcho-socialism involves voluntary contracts, so does the free market, thus anarcho-socialism is completely compatible to the free market. A ruler is somebody who owns things that are not his. A king owns everybody he governs over, a boss is not a king, because you can quit your job any time you want. A king, or ruler is a slave master, and you are the slave. Clearly you don't understand what you talking about.
SamuelMoralesJr 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I'm aware of Mutualism, and would be willing to self-identify as such (but I prefer Agorist and Voluntaryist). Problem is, I dont view 'capitalism' in the same negative light as most. Its not black and white for me. As I mentioned above, I see times in which I think it 'best' for folks to organize however they see fit, even if that means a traditional hierarchical structure. I'm not saying on person should have undue influence/power.
SovereignCurtis 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 if you enter into a mutual contract/agreement with someone voluntarily they are not your ruler, free market capitalism assumes voluntary association, unfortunately weve never had that though as you cant with the state/use of force, central banking & taxation etc
djdnauk1977 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 Anarchists who claim to not believe in 'property' become hypocrites when its time to utilize resources...whether they wanna claim 'ownership' over something or not. If it is being consumed, a property claim is being made.
giggan1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@juliaisafilmbuff123 "Anarchy" means "without rulers" NOT "without government". Dumbest statement of all time. Private property is inherent. Your own body is your own property, that is why it is agreed under the blanket of liberty, that you have the right to do what you wish with your own body, and not be done to your own body by another person. Socialist who claim to be anarchist are the funniest people of all. They are also very destructive hooligans.
SamuelMoralesJr 1 year ago 4
@juliaisafilmbuff123 "Rulers can be anyone, including proprietors and capitalist bosses."
Incorrect.
Voluntary interaction is not "rule". Rulers specifically utilize coercion to force others to do their bidding.
If you object to the word "anarchy", how about autarchy? Self-rule?
They're exactly the same thing, each person rules themselves, and no other.
A capitalist boss cannot "rule" you, because you can always walk away.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 Well said.
NoLongerFooled 1 year ago
NO your other items like raw milk and veggies won't be coming soon if the bill s-510 is allowed to pass
232323C 1 year ago
it's always good to hear good news!
josda1000 1 year ago