even if there does exist a "voluntary" association between an employer and employee, it's still power based in that the boss has more rights and more power OVER the employee, constituting a hierarchy of power. anarcho-capitalists can use whatever arguments they want to justify themselves, but i really wish they started using another term instead of "anarcho." in this case, anarcho just means anti-state, not anti rule in any sense
The destitute have no choice but be used by employers in structures where they have no decision-making input. The choice between "work for a boss" and "starve" is not a choice as it involves systemic duress.
As for "starting your own business", if producers really did have the effective ability to do this at any time, they would. Hence wage-labor would cease to exist as I can't think of ANY reason someone would chose subordination voluntarily
Danny OKC fails to differentiate between political theory and economic theory which is of course a large failure for anyone critiquing market anarchism/anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism. Anarchists of all economic persuasions are still anarchists. I feel that communist/social anarchism is far more coercive to liberty than capitalism, but that is my economic persuasion.
Uncap hierarchies are fluid, and it's not even clear who is dominating who. My employer pays me more for my work then if I were to do it alone, does that make "exploit" my boss? But we're both better off because I choose to work for her.
Students/teacher relationship employes a hierarchy. All people arrange themselves into a hierarchy under certain conditions. My best friend knows a lot about cooking, so he's the leader when it comes to that. I know a lot about sports, so sometimes I lead the discussion.
"Exploit" is a word that has been emotionally charged by a lot of people. Economical exploitation isn't passive - I exploit my labour for my own gains. I think the real problem to take aim at is emotional exploitation - people will work for lower wages in a poor economy, but paying them the lower wage in and of itself isn't negative exploitation, it's that the employer was able to exploit feelings of desperation, insecurity etc.
Your second sentence shows you've never read any anarchist literature. Perhaps you should learn something about a subject before you speak on it. You might start with George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia."
@tjrieves I said that a month ago and I've since shifted to a form of Anarchist Mutualism. I was wrong in my criticism of this video, because I did not quite understand what was being said. Mutualism is voluntary, and people do have "possession" of land under the system, which answered to my criticism. Thank you for the response, because I had forgotten leaving it.
I understand your Marxist ideal of equity and where everybody would have the same wage but, if I'm anarchist and, being an anarchist I don't want that, how are you gonna forced me to do so without a state and violence? If you don't want to work for someone, if you don't want to work for a salary, if you don't want to give work to people and if you don't want to own anything, it's your right, I won't force you but, if I want to do any or all of this, will you let me?
@MrMaxBoivin If you say,for example,i own this land because i want it for myself & since no land is ownable out of Anarchist understanding,this means you violate the common ground,making it your property,not allowing others to step on that land freely.This means robbery&violence to all others who didn't claim ownership & shared that land.Then every Anarchist has the right to defend her-/himself being violated in this way.
Just a question for my fellow anarchists. In an anarchist society, would or would not all forms of association(i.e. communist communities, capitalist communities...) be possible due to the totally unregulated free market? I believe it would not only be possible, but it would also create the most ideal checks and balances and all forms of voluntary societies would benefit from each other. They would benefit from each other, I believe, because the land a certain society lives on will not...
Just a question for my fellow anarchists. In an anarchist society, would or would not all forms of association(i.e. communist communities, capitalist communities...) be possible due to the totally unregulated free market? I believe it would not only be possible, but it would also create the most ideal checks and balances and all forms of voluntary societies would benefit from each other. They would benefit from each other, I believe, because the land a certain society lives on will not...
@questionmarkjones Anarchy has its roots in Classical Liberalism and Socialism. Anarchists, in the real sense of the word, have always been anti-Capitalist.
"Name one Anarchist who was excited about Capitalism prior to the 1950s."
Gustave de Molinari
Zhuangzi was pretty obviously sympathetic to capitalism even if he, as an ancient Chinese man, didn't have a word for it.
Lysander Spooner hated socialism
the ties of popular 19th century anarchism in no way implies that anarchism is a socialist school of thought. it implies that some people's opinions about humanity was wishful thinking.
You do know that Molinari was aware of Proudhon right? You do know Molinari was aware of anarchists if atleast because of the French Revolution. You do know he wouldn't have accepted the label "anarchist" right?
As for Spooner, he thought everyone should have their own means of production and not be subjected to an employer so that everyone can enjoy the fruits of their own labour
Also anarchism is opposition to all authority, including the authority of the boss.
@neoptolemus I don't care what Molinari would have called himself. He fits perfectly within the anarchist tradition while being pro-capitalist at the same time. Spooner wasn't pro-capitalist, but he was not opposed to it either.
Lastly, saying that anarchism is opposed to ALL authority muddles political authority with contractual authority. If you oppose contractual authority, then you also oppose trust, freedom and the right to withdraw from responsibility.
DannyOKC --- you say in your About Me that "These videos are not my opinions or built upon my ideas." With that in mind, this video at the very least, should have its wording altered since you are advocating against anarcho-capitalism here. It would be better to say, for instance, that an-caps view anarchy as a purely political theory and differ in its construction as opposed to saying its not anarchism (in the literal sense of no-rulers). You get the idea. Neutrality is key is my point.
the Keywords for Anarcho-capitalism are Voluntary, Non-violent, clear Property rights. Your hatred for private property and voluntary business activity is NOT pretty and stinks like violence.
If you call a hungry man finding a job in capitalist bakery, being able to buy ever cheaper bread, investing for Passive Income and quitting his job any time he wants - an "expoloitation" , then i say you're a usurer, cuz i have only one hand, but you have two and operate them in an "hier-archy" manner!!
@khunag Do you know anything at all about anarchy? Emma Goldman was one of the most renown anarchists in this country.
Anarchy has its roots in Socialism, lame brain. The idea of Anarcho-Capitalism is absurd, an oxymoron. You can't be an anarchist and a capitalist at the same time since anarchy is diametrically opposed to capitalism.
@moonshiny74 Anarchy is the lack of government, nothing more, nothing less. Social "Anarchists" have stolen the word and use it to describe themselves (just like american "liberals", who are against liberty). If the government is removed what is left is anarcho-capitalism with many local communities working and competing with each other (some of them communist or socialist, there's room for that in ANCAP). You can't be an anarchist and NOT be a capitalist. Anarchy IS pure capitalism.
@khunag Um, you do realise that Anarcho-Capitalism didn't come about until the mid-20th century, right? Anarchy has its roots in Socialism and Classical Liberalism, and was established 100 years prior to the weirdo right wing mucking up its meaning. Do some research on 19th century labour movements, started by....what? ANARCHISTS. Look up the Haymarket Affair and anything else associated with the railroad strikes. It is a well-documented fact that Anarchists wanted to crush Capitalism.
@moonshiny74 Just because some people started using the name "anarcho-capitalism" later doesn't mean the movement wasn't there earlier. Just because a bunch of collectivist started calling themselves anarchist doesn't meant they have the monopoly on that word.
@khunag Name one Anarchist who was excited about Capitalism prior to the 1950s. Anarchy has its roots in SOCIALISM and Classical Liberalism whether you want to admit it or not. That's just how it is.
@moonshiny74 I don't care where fake anarchists think their roots are. Socialism is almost the opposite of anarchy. You can call a cat a dog for all I care, I'll still call it a cat. Libertarian free market anarchists are the ONLY anarchists whether you want to admit it or not. That's just how it is.
@khunag Sweetie, you're just proving you know absolutely nothing about the history of Anarchy. You keep clinging to mid-20th century perversions of it. I'm done. I don't have the time nor patience to have a back and forth with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
@vaguelyhumanoid Even with those translations, '-archy' still wouldn't encompass companies in the way that socialist anarchists would like it to. Companies don't use force to make you use their services.
Enough with the strawman. I know of no anarchist who claims that companies force someone to use their services! The hint is in the "authority": do presidents, CEOs, charmen, managers and entrepreneurs exercise power or authority? Yes. How? They tell other people (their employees, workers) what to do when.
@GodOfTheInternets And those employees are free to quit if they don't like what they are asked to do. Employment is VOLUNTARY. This objection to corporations is even dumber than the one I mistakenly thought that socialist anarchists were objecting to.
Imagine if there was perfect freedom of movement in the world, one can settle and live in every country he wishes too. Also imagine if every government in the world was an undemocratic elite. If you are consistent you would think this is perfectly justified, after all every individual lives VOLUNTARILY under this elite, if he does not like his current elite he can live under any elite he wishes too. That is essentially the argument you're making.
When this person goes to live under another another undemocratic elite he is again told what to do. Let me guess your next argument will be something like: "He can try to be an entrepreneur himself. Entrepreneurs deserve big rewards for taking big risks!" One could also try to become part of the undemocratic elite in any given country in my analogy, the risks are high (arrest) but the reward is big too (dictator!), does this justify dictatorships? If you are consistent you will answer "yes".
First of all exploitation does not exclude consent Second of all if you were to give all workers the option to work in an undemocratic capitalist company or a democratically run company they would obviously choose for the democratically run company. 90 percent of new businesses fail in the first year Plus, many people simply do not have the financial or intellectual capacity to run their own business. I didn't say bosses oppress their workers I was talking in regards to dictators
Again, let's take the analogy: if people could life under any undemocratic elite in the world would this mean they live under tyranny by choice while the only option they have is undemocratic elites?
@GodOfTheInternets That's not a valid analogy because you don't HAVE to work under any of them. You could start your own business, or live alone and self-sustain. And besides, those businesses own their property, so this person wouldn't have any valid claim to have a right to do any of this anyway. They can work, earn a wage, and acquire their own property and goods.
I included this argument already in the analogy. You say "one can try to be an entrepreneur himself" then I say "one can try to become an undemocratic elite himself" or "one can start his own country", just like entrepreneurialism the risks are high, but so is the reward. "Besides [...] own property" and who says that owning property is a natural right? Property is theft, entrepreneurs steal the fruits of their workers labour.
Possession is the valid means of "owning", only when one uses domain or capital he is entitled to "ownership" of this. Possession means you "own" something when you use it. I am the rightful partial owner of my street because I use it, my government is not the rightful owner. I'm the rightful owner of my company because I make use of it. I'm the rightful owner of my house because I use it.
@GodOfTheInternets So if someone comes into your house and uses it, this makes them a partial owner? If I loan someone my car, this makes them a partial owner?
Hmmm.... Nope. Possession is determined by occupancy and use. Someone visiting you does not do so. A car is neither domain nor capital, so it does not apply. Further reading: Proudhon's "What is property?" or Benjamin Tucker's work on property (he defended property, however, he defined property by... "use and occupancy", so actually what is meant by possession.)
@GodOfTheInternets So by your explanation of why this wouldn't apply to my house, why wouldn't this be the case for corporations? Employees don't occupy a business; they work there for a wage. What if I hired some kid to come to my house and help pick my garden to sell the produce on the corner? Would this give the kid partial ownership of my house or my garden? And why would this be any different than a business?
Most of the definitions of anarchy I can find only mention absence of government. I can't find any that say outright no capitalism or as you so ignorantly put it "exploitation."
So you want to replace the authority of the state, with the authority of the people/collective? Collectivism is slavery. The fact that you ignore individual rights, and that you think that people triumph over one person, is disgusting. I guess you like being a sheep in a big herd.
Find me one anarchist who wants to replace state-authority with collective authority (if you find one please tell him he's a f-ing idiot). Anarchist have always fought for individual autonomy (there's a reason anarchism encompasses autonomism, or rather vice versa). For anarchist the individual is the highest value, but not like capitalist anarchists think ALL individuals are the highest value and not merely "me".
How do you expect an anarchy to restrict something as naturally forming as a capitalistic system without seriously restricting personal freedom? Anarcho-capitalism is the only form of anarchy that makes sense. The others are as bad or worse than communism when it comes to how unreasonably idealistic they are. Read an economics book. Capitilism is a good thing. Monopolies don't allow capitalism to work properly and government allows monopolies through laws and patents and is itself a monopoly.
"Read an economics book".... Wow, why does this make me doubt you no nothing of capitalism? Watch this: /watch?v=QBLvGL-z7ks
You say "capitalism is naturally forming" I say you're begging the question. "Capitalism is a good thing" begging the question. Stop presupposing things.
Continued: In organizations that produce things, there would still be a hierarchy, but it would not be an authoritarian or exploitive one, as you can leave and still get things for free. It is the wages that leads to exploitation and wage slavery.
@everyone: There is a anarchist philosophy that bridges the gap between Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism (Which I believe IS Anarchism, albeit bad anarchism). Anyway, this theory is called the Priceless Economic System. In it, everything is free, and there is no money. Workers don't take money because they can't, and they don't need it. There would be very little crime, as you can get anything for free.
How are mutually beneficial relationships exploitative?
Also, how is so-called "wage slavery" worse than forcing people to work in an anarcho-communist society? At least capitalism gives them the option of not working, if they want to.
@TheSkunker well said Skunker. "Wage slavery" is a disgusting piece of doublespeak, indicative of the weakness of the argument against capitalism and property rights.
Anarchy is the lack of a state, truly meaning the lack of institutionalised force, so logically anarcho-capitalism is the only true anarchy. Red anarchists still rely on force to stop others from gathering and owning property, as is their natural impulse and right.
@Hostile I absolutely agree. TRUE anarchists hate communism. Unfortunately, most modern anarchists are Marxist zombies.
You are right to say communism can not function without government. It IS people's natural human tendency to accumulate wealth and possessions for themselves, and without the use of government enforcement, the collective would inevitably fall to the individual. I had not thought of that. Great point.
@TheSkunker Cheers. I think most modern "anarchists" would throw a bomb into a crowded shopping centre if you told them that the men, women and children inside were evil capitalists... that's certainly how Marxist anarchy has been practised historically. They certainly didn't show too much remorse when those poor bank staffers were murdered in Greece during the anarchist riots... which, by the way, are the result of rampant socialism destroying the entire economy. It's all rather dreadful.
I find some materials in a forest, and built a house from that. I start a little farm to produce my own food, find myself a wife and start a family. I tell myself and my family: this land (not that big) and this food belongs to me and my family. It is our property.
Do others have the right to use violence against me - in the case I resist - and my family to take our land and take our food in the name of anti-property anarchism? I say that would be a violation of our freedom.
So how would their be "cooperation" in a world with out government, state, and politics? ok with authority how do you eliminate property? Keep in mind that I am aware of Anarcho-Syndicalism. I am not here to antagonize you. I am exploring all forms of "accepted" and not so accepted forms of Anarchy/anarchism.
I misunderstood the dictionary evidently...oh well, words are not important to me... ideas, principals, liberty... those are important! Voluntaryist works for me, though I think I will continue describing myself as an AnCap from time to time...
With that said, socialism never worked, and will not work either for a society even under anarchy. Socialism requires centralisation, which is something anarchism is against. Socialism & marxism can work for small groups, such as families and bodies of friends, but certainly not for a whole society.
The original form of narchism(aside from ancient asia) was purely based on anarcho-socialism. And it is why the old anarchists consider 'anarchy' automatically as 'anarcho-socialism'.
Socialism and capitalism are economic systems(who are opposite). Anarchy itself is about not having a state governing, it has nothing to do with the economic aspect. So just because capitalism is the economical opposite of socialism, it doesn't make this idealogy apart from anarchism.
Very thoughtful video. I consider myself an anarchist. This question is not meant as a challenge, I genuinely want to know how this is supposed to work. Who, in your ideal society would enforce the "no private property" rule? Doesn't it make more sense that if I produce something, it should be mine? And if I produce something and claim it as mine, and then someone comes along and says that I'm a "robber baron" and takes it from me, where does that authority come from?
@saintmichaelsarmoury Anarchists use prodhouns distinction between private property and possessions. Essentially anything socially used is socially owned and anything privately used is privately owned. In other words you cant own something that is socially used, if you do it is no longer a possession and is instead private property. as long as you arnt exploiting anyone (ie you dont privately own something that is socially used) its cool since you cant exploit anyone.
@saintmichaelsarmoury Something could also be considered a possession but owned by a few members who use it like a syndicate (owned by workers). Some anarchists argue that this should be community owned not worker owned because the community is indirectly affected by the workplace and what they produce. If someone steals a possession then you could try to track them down i guess, im not so sure theft would be a big problem especially in anarcho communism since goods are distributed.
@saintmichaelsarmoury i suppose the community/workplace/etc...affected by the crime would meet in an assembly and decide what to do about it. The more serious the crime, the more ppl affected, the better the chance at catching the criminal. I'm getting off topic. its good that you challenge anarchy as you should, everything should be questioned and you should continue to question it to get a better understanding. btw. you may distribut ur product to get communal benefits but u can be indpendent.
See this doesn't seem like a well thought out argument against anarcho-capitalism. First you sight that the vast majority of anarchist do not believe anarcho-capitalism is anarchist with no source or citation but disregarding that as anarchist I do not believe we should turn to the democratic view of numbers = truth. I have no citation for this either but I would say that the vast majority of people think anarchists are insane so this sort of out look hurts us far more than it helps.
I'm trying to get a grasp on the distinction being made here. Being more of an anarcho-capitalist myself, there's two things I don't understand about anarchism logic. First, how does one determine exactly how much a service is valued at? Isn't that extremely subjective, and therefore vulnerable to exploitation? And secondly, how does the idea of property "possession" work out? Say I go for a walk and when I return, somebody has entered my house, doesn't that mean it's "rightfully" theirs?
William Godwin, who more or less invented the idea of anarchism, though he didn't coin the word, was an advocate of private property. Owning property that you earned through your effort is not exploitation. Voluntary socialism is one thing, but forcible collectivization is against anarchism. It's no better than when Stalin murdered farmers to collectivize the land they were entitled to. A compulsory collective is just as bad as a Statism.
Conversely, Stalin's forced collectivization would fit into the category which Marx had described in Capital Volume I, Chapter 27 as "the robbery of the common lands" (as the "collectivization" of the Tolstoyan agrarian Life and Labor Commune in 1937 by the Stalinist regime) which "conquered the field for capitalistic agriculture, made the soil part and parcel of capital, and created for the town industries the necessary supply of a free and outlawed proletariat." State-Capitalism.
Strangely, the Theory of Diminishing Marginal Utility seems not to apply to money. "there is a decline in the marginal utility that person derives from consuming each additional unit of that product." However, none on Earth seem unhappy with having too much money.
Abba Lerner argued that wealth could be taken from the rich to provide for the poor, because the rich have too much money, whose marginal utility will DIMINISH. But let us guess which rich man would heed Lerner's work?
More recent measurements have shown that long-headed men are not always blond, good, noble, and cultured, and that the short-headed are not always black, evil, common and uncultured. Amongst the most long-headed races are the Australian aborigines, the Eskimos, and the Kaffirs. Many of the greatest geniuses were round-heads. Kant's cranial index was 88 [14].
You call me a racist and I tell you have I have no interst having a discussion with someone that has a victim complex, then you start screaming and you post like 40 comments as a reply.
It was you who need help. Well, if your IQ were 143 and you be good at everything, solve my riddle first.
As for me, I honestly admit that my IQ is just a little above average.
Your hypocrisy is evident. You are no INDIVIDUALIST. Why had you appealed to YOUR HIGHER CIVILIZATION, A GROUP, A PRESET CIOLLECTIVELY YOU WERE ARBITRARILY BORN INTO AGAINST YOUR WILL AND BELONG TO?
Your riddle is stupid. Riddles reflect culture more than intelligence, that is why most standardized IQ tests deal with figures, with numbers, with math and with logic.
I've never appealed to a group. I merely stated a fact that went you go ballistic because YOU have some kind of brainwashed loyatly to you backwards civilization. I don't care. I'm a me, not an us.
My riddles DO NOT REFLECT MY CULTURE. Me a Vietnamese, then I should have asked you about Vietnamese culture, which I'm sure you were totally ignorant of.
My riddles were PURELY LINGUISTIC, BASED ON ENGLISH, OUR LINGUA FRANCA, and I REJECTED the g-factor.
By the way, have your mastered readings wild animals' track, Mr. "good at everything?"
Only an ETHOCENTRIST would call other civilizations BACKWARD, according to my anthropology teacher.
Moreover, I was an ethnocentrist myself. I once looked up to Western civilizations with revere. If I hadn't taken that class, I would not be BRAIN-WASHED.
Although Mises DID not advocate racial discrimination, and he even called for an inter-racial co-operatioon which would be beneficial to all races according to the division of labor; he still regarded some race as INFERIOR to others.
"It may be assumed that races do differ in intelligence and will power, and that, this being so, they are very unequal in their ability to form society, and further that the better races distinguish themselves precisely by their special aptitude for strengthening social co-operation."
Mises DID NOT write "it may be assumed," but "Es ist ohne weiteres zulässig," which could be rendered literally as "It is without furtherado PETMISSIBLE-ACCEPTABLE-VALID" (zulässig)
"Though Gobineau and Chamberlain's arbitrary and contradictory hypotheses are utterly without foundation and have been pooh-poohed as empty chimeras, there still remains a germ of the race theory which is independent of the specific differentiation between noble and ignoble races."
Some of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises' germs:
"We know that certain families, breeds, and groups of breeds reveal similar traits. We know that we are justified in differentiating between races and in speaking of the different racial qualities of individuals."
Now if the wheat were NOT TO BE SOLD TO us AT COST, but at "whatever it would bring" according to our necessities, then none of us would have any interest in affording facilities, repairing breaches, nor in any other way co-operating with the producer of it.
Therefore, Warren advocate that we pay the producer according to the labour s/he exerted in his poducts, not to how much we subjectively value it.
Warren propose labour notes instead of money. Cincinnati Time Store was successful
Moreover, he dismissed the subjective theory of value:
If I am to have my supply of flour at cost, then, any facility I can afford to the wheat grower, reduces the cost to me, and it does the same for all who have any portion of the wheat, I am promoting all their interests while pursuing my own
In October 2004, Halliburton opened a new 250,000-square-foot (23,000 m2) facility on 35 acres (140,000 m2), replacing an older facility that opened in 1948, in Rock Springs, Wyoming. With over approximately 500 employees, Halliburton is one of the LARGEST PRIVATE EMPLOYERS in Sweetwater County. (wikipedia, source given below by Halliburton itself)
"Halliburton is a PRIVATELY OWNED proprietary limited company" (Schedules to Design and Construction Contract
Anarcho-primitivists are not reactionary. they do not want to pull us back to the Stone Age. They advise us to rely more on nature rather then artificial technology. What if a global, natural disaster destroy modern civilizations?
They may be alarmists, but by no means trying to pull back the wheel of history.
That is exactly what anarcho-primitivists want, they want the primitive society, even though we have developed better ways to solve problems, more civilized ways, better societies. Just in the same way the west was more civilized than the colonies.
What if space monkeys eat your brains? There's simply no likelihood of that happening
What the hell does Haliburton has to do with capitalism? It is a entirely state funded entity. That's like calling publci schools private
Again homesteading, could I assert that, because I am the first to fell a tree in a wood, therefore I privatize that whole wood and forbid other lumberjacks and jills to fell tree from it?
"Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!" Isaiah 5:8
Privatization or the euphemistic homesteading were even condemned in the Old Testament.
Homesteading doesn't work that way, if you fell a tree you own that tree, and only that tree. If I started a farm I would own the farm what was related to it but you could tunnel under my ground, walk trough the crops if you didn't damage it, and so on.
It is to some extent aligned with Allemansrätten we have here in Sweden (look it up). Nature belongs to nobody, but resoruces and capital belongs to those that mixed their labor with it.
Children never mixed labor with it, so why they can inherit? Especially rich children.
Now back to the ores. The first ores you dug up are yours, but what remain underground belong to none of us. Supposed you give up, the rest, with which my labour is mixed, will definitely be mine.
Do I have to dig deeper into the ground and risk greater, less escapable, and thus more dangerous mining accident?
The ore I dug up must be mine. what you dug up already are yours to use or abuse
Because they get gifts from their parents, there is not hing wrong with inheritence, in fact that is something that drives many parents to work harder. All so they can secure their childrens future.
Whatever you mix your labor with is yours. But if I construct a mine and you use it, then the mine is my property and you use it under my rules. WIthout these simple property laws society will dissolve into a chaotic tribal society. It is the basis for modern society, and it's development.
Well, what if a stingy lumberjack or hunter build a fence around a wood and forbid other lumber jacks and jills fetch woods or hunt games, which naturally exist there for everybody to mix their labour with, from it?
When I dig deeper into the ground, you having given up, do I have to MYSELF buy more materials to strengthen the internal structure of that already-contructed mine to prevent its newly-deeper-dug ceiling from collapsing over my head and bury me alive?
Gifts from their parents. You do not belive in meritocracy as you claim to, but plutocracy and nep[otism, or, biologically, kin selection.
Inheritance rights must be abolished. All children, if they are born equal, must start out equal so that we can see who is really who. Rich but stupid kid must NOT stand higher from poor child prodigies.
What are you talking about, the economy is not a zero sum game. The Iron Law is a myth.
Yes a gift from their parents, what is your problem with that? Should not parents be allowed to take care of their offspring?
Inheritance should definetly not be abolished. That is utterly ridiculous.
Why should all children start with nothing? That makes no sense whatsoever. Are parents allowed to give them stuff when they are alive then? Makes little sense, no difference from inheritence really.
I made no such statements that children start out from nothing. They must have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY so that we will see who is who. You know Khadijah Williams, homeless child prodigy who wove her way to Harvard. Being homeless, she moved constantly and attended 12 schools during 12 years, ALL OF THEM PUBLIC, with no school voucher whatsoever to attend "better" private schools. Public schools help to discover and bring up POOR CHILD PRODIGIES, not to dumb them down.
"The Iron Law is a myth." Even Spooner and Say fell prey to this myth:
"When, on the contrary, the demand for workers is less than the quantity of people offering to work, their gains decline back to the price NECESSARY for the class to MAINTAIN ITSELF at the same number." Say, Cours complet d' economie politique
"to sell their labor to the landholders, in exchange only for the COARSEST NECESSARIES of life;" Spooner, Natural Law
Are they libertarians or Lassallean/Marxist imbeciles?
You don't want equality, or a better society for all, you just want to beat down the rich because you're completely oblivious to any relevant field of social interaction.
Fine, let's say you get what you want, we kill all the scientists, all the engineers, all the doctors all these entrepreneurial people. Now what? We're free from the opression from people who can make society better?
I do not want to beat down any rich. If all children be born equal, they must have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, NO impartial parental interference allowed. Stupid kids, be they from rich family, do NOT deserve riches. If you cannot spent your entire wealth during your lifetime, your children SHALL NOT inherit it. They must also toil. I do not exclude mine either, high-principled as I am.
I'm an agnostic atheist so I couldn't care less what an old reprinted document says.
But it's clear to me you do not understand the principle of homesteading.
I'll give you a common complaint. If I started farms, all around your house, so you "couldn't get out" by the principles of homesteading you would be allowed to build a road over my field. You could even build one trough my field if you didn't damage my crops.
Homesteading is the relation of property to one self and nature as free.
Surely it's not, anything out of the bible in my mind is merely bullshit. If you take anything from it then that is your loss.
The bible was written by wile men and past on by worse, the organziation is a tyrrany of the mind and soul of people, and it truly is the foundation for the most repressive form of organization there is - the dogmatic one. Be it the communists or the etatists, they all just want POWER....
Well, just visit the "Jesus is a Liberal" website to see hopw progressive Christian interpret passages from the Bible to promote social justice against the Religious Right.
Furthermore, visit my channel, find the older comments to see how I refuted Christian fundamentalists.
I like Joshua's secular teaching Matthew 7:1-5 best. It was against the hypocrisy of the CONSERVATIVE RULING ELITE, the PHARISEES. Joshua was megalomaniacal, but some of his teachings for social justice can be of use.
Christianity is irrational. I don't know why you would bring it up. Why stiuplate on what fictional character thought? I don't care.
Society does consist of individuals. Sum of interrelations? Hahah what? That is individuals. And don't quote Marx, he has no bearing on legitimate debate.
No, society doesn't pre-date trade. Hunter gathering societies were not civilized :D But they did trade, just in a honor based system. More primitive system.
"late 15c., "having the status of one lawfully begotten," from M.L. legitimatus, pp. of legitimare "make lawful, declare to be lawful," from L. legitimus "lawful," originally "in line with the law," from lex (gen. legis) "law."" (Etyonline)
WHOSE LAW? YOURS? WE ARE DEBATING OVER ANOTHER GUY'S VIDEO, SO SUBJECTING OURSELVES TO HIS LAWS. What if I assert: Because the poster was from the LEFT, so YOUR right-libertarian comments were ILLEGITIMATE?
WHY HAD YOU FORBIDDEN ME TO QUOTE MARX? OR AT BEST ADVISED ME AGAINST QUOTING HIS WORKS? HAD I BEEN DEBATING WITH AN HYPOCRITICALLY ARCHISTIC "ANARCHO-"CAPITALIST?
YOU BUT REVEALED YOUR ANTHROPOLOGICAL IGNORANCE
THE RETURN OF THE RENAISSANCE PERSON:
THE NEW UNITY OF THE LIBERAL ARTS
CHAPTER 23. HUNTING AND GATHERING SOCIETIES
The type of SOCIETY developed by early humans is known as hunting and gathering SOCIETIES.
Uh, no, that is just a fact. I am from a higher civilization, then you got offended, threw a tantrum and started talking about white guilt.
I'm alos whiter than you are, is that somehow boasting too.
Jeez, get over your own racism first.
What argument, I stopped reading your postings 30 posts ago....Haliburton is state funded, trough direct and especially indirect action. Just as exxons ventures in Iraq are sponsored by indirect actions.
Haliburton is state funded, trough direct and especially indirect action. Just as exxons ventures in Iraq are sponsored by indirect actions.
Sources?
And did you know that Exxon Mobil had given the Competitive Enterprise Institute a Fund of $2 million to sponsor research to dsicredit "the Global Warming Hoax," so that they would not cut down on CO2 emission.
Strangely, Exxon Mobil is anti-governmental regulations.
Sources? It's an understanding of market function, you think Exxon and Haliburton would have missions in Iraq and Afghanistan if not for the US invading them?
Take the contracts oil companies, like Exxon, pushed on the Iraqi government before they could even form a coherent cabinet. It's about money.
Exxon is not against government regulation, because of economics of scale they benefit by things like cap and trade, the customer suffers.Would you rather sell products of $10 or 12$? With same PM
I CANNOT BUT DOUBT your reading comprehension skill and your claim of 143 in IQ. When I asked you for source, I meant SOURCE TEXTS, or I ask you TO CITE SOURCE, which you failed to do. You even DIDN'T understand my message.
I said I rejected the g-factor, that's why I cannot provide you a correct answer in economics, which I do not major in.
Moreover, I adhere to the Labor Theory of Value. Suppose wel ive in pre-historic time, I plant wheat, and you barley, and money HADN'T invented yet. How should we barter when we meet and each of us DOES need the other's product?
Do you really understand what the adjective "state-funded" means? It means that that very enterprise is FINANCIALLY SPONSORED BY ITS OWN RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENT, of the same NATIONALITY, not a foreign one.
Halliburton and Exxon PUSHED ON the IRAQI PUPPET GOVERNMENT, and they are NOT FUNDED by the very PUPPET government they SET UP THEMSELVES to rob the Iraqi folks of their oil.
"We are the world's largest PUBLICLY TRADED international oil and gas company, providing energy that helps underpin growing economies and improve living standards around the world."
However, "ExxonMobil is the largest NON-GOVERNMENT OWNED company in the energy industry — yet we produce only about 3 percent of the world's oil and less than 2 percent of the world's energy."
A PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM A STATE-FUNDED ENTERPRISE.
Honestly, do you not understand how private companies benefit from regulations?
Let's take it to the extreme then, see how stupid your notion is. Let's say we shot anyone who tried to compete with company X, do you think company X would do worse or better?
Regulations always help the big guys. Cap and trade is a prime example of this, they end up selling products for a higher price with the same profit margin - make more money.
AGW is not worthwile fighting, it is a stupid investment.
Then why did THOMAS DILORENZO, a fellow of Mises institute HYSTERICALLY oppose "ANTI-TRUST CASE against Wal-Mart, which IS a BIG GUY.
The Wal-Mart apologist DiLorenzo even asserted that Adam Smith was NOT a trust-buster. However, a contextual reading of Smith revealed that governmental regulations to HELP the poor will LEND HELP FOR BUSINESSES TO MEET EACH OTHER and FORM CORPORATION. (See Wealth of the Nations, Book 1, Chapter 10, Part II)
HOW BROAD IS YOUR VOCABULARY? WHY DID DILORENZO SPOKE APOLOGETICALLY IN FAVOUR OF WAL-MART?
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT AN APOLOGIST IS? OR WAS DILORENZO OFFERING APOLOGY , i.e. "a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another" FOR WAL-MART WRONGDOINGS TO UNION LEADERS?
I talked ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT "WHITE GUILT." Either YOU hadn't heeded my words to READ Kipling's poem yourself, or you had ineed read it, but your IDIOCY prevented you from UNDERSTANDING its message.
Allow me to "Skull-Stuff" the idiot-imbecile-moron you:
The White Man's Burden is NOT White Guilt, but the TASK, the RESPONSIBILITY, the MORAL DUTY of the CIVILIZED, PROGRESSIVE White Man to ENLIGHTEN the IGNORANT and BARBARIC half-devil, half-child INDIGENOUS ABORIGINES.
You always pay lip-service to us Communists that you will alow us to join any commune should we want to, but you hadn't allowed primitive Communism. You enslaved and civilized those so-called backward folks, you took up the Capitalists' Burden.
Yeah, I'd allow you moronic daft tools to destroy yourselves all you want.
Heck communism didn't even work in your own home country, Vietnams prosperity started taking of when they opened up to international trade and enacted liberating policies. And just as the laws of economics state, wherever the government is involved they do more harm than good. I know because I've traded in Vietnamese companies
Anarcho-Communism and Collectivism had been successfully tried during the Spanish Civil War in Catalan until the MILITARY, not economic surpresseion by the Franco's Fascist Regime.
Vietnam had never been a Communist country. The means of production belonged to a Hanoi-based ruling elite, and the workers were paid wages and salaries. Pure Communism advocated labour vouchers and gift economy.
I'm so fucking tired of haring about the Spanish civil war, yes, it worked, for about a few years. Then it collapsed. And that is what people who udnerstand the market always preedicts, that you can agree on a lot of things for a long time, but when you get to a certain point then people dsiputes would disolve something controled by a democracy in favor of the market - where everyone that deserves it has control.
The Anarchist Catalonia is MILITARILY surpressed, not economically.
No comtemporary local sources had ever stated that that Anarchist Catalonia was mutualist. It was either progressively collectivistic or radically communistic:
Antony Beevor, The Spanish Civil War, pp. 91-2
The Anarchist Collectives, p. 114
Workers Power and the Spanish Revolution," by Tom Wetzel
Well, it was more a sort of libetarian republicnaism. Any way, spanish civil war is not a good example, especially not considering how they murdered people in the streets because they were considered to be of the "burgeouis" or how completely unstable the society was at it collapsed just three years later.
It was definetly militarily suppressed by the civil war, that is why it wasn't stable. As any anarchist collectivist society it falls apart as soon as people get free to choose.
And I'm so tired of the "anarcho-"capitalist Mediaeval Icelandic Commonwealth as David Friedman insists. DF "refutes" the Anarchist FAQ by suggest them to read the "expert voice" Jesse Byock, but when the Anarchist turned up Passages from Byock's book Viking Age Iceland depiting a Communal system, Dave cannot offer a second rebuttal.
But it wasn't a communal system, that is plainly wrong.
I think the reason why Dave doesn't really care about the communists is that communists are not taken seriously. The entire foundation for the philosopy is based on the iron law, a law which was proven wrong before marx ever stole it.
It should have died there, instead it has been tried in several countries, never succesfuly implemented. The theory simply doesn't reflect reality, that is why it will never work.
"During the summer COMMON lands and pastures in the highlands, often called *almenning*, were used by the region's farmers for grazing . . . COMMON lands were called *almenning* . . . these PUBLIC lands offered opportunities for enterprising individuals to increase their store of provisions and to find saleable merchandise." (pp. 47-48)
These are the Jesse Byck's words that sewed Dave Friedman's mouth shut, he cannot "prove" that Medieval Iceland was a proto-anarcho capitalist system.
Communism will never happen. Vietnam, China, North Korea and th Soviet Union is the closest you'll ever get to that nonsense. It simply doesn't regonize how humans solve problem trough the market, instead it tries to replace it with planning. It doesn't work, people don't want it, and they refuse itfor the market.
Pure communism is a pipe dream, it has no basis in human action, interaction, the understanding of such or for that matter then - reality.
Pure Communism is working NOW in Freetown Christiania and the American Federations of Egalitarian Community. Their members were distributed POSSESSIONS according to NEEDs. Christiania were intolerant towards the outside world because the State-Capitalist government tried to interfere into their Cannabis Trade, threatening to RUIN their Community. Christiania's drug politics is comprehensive and reasonable, cannabis, whose effects were as mild as tobacco, is allowed, hard drugs BANNED
I've been to Chritiania, it's a utter and complete shithole. Out of all of Denmark it is the most crime infested, most poverty strucken, least progressed part.
The outside world cared little about Christiania until first now in later years when it has become a problem as a neighbour.
Their drug politics are responaible, but that is it. Ther are examples of countries with reasonable drug policies that have managed to be reasonable in other terms as well.
Crimes in Christiania are committed by drug-dealing gangs from outside against Christianites. They are poor according to your standard, not theirs INDIVIDUALISTICALLY. Chritianite drug politics is reasonable and utilarian because hard drugs such as heroine and amphetamine have more dire effects on Christianites' health than cannabis (which in many respects is less harmful than tobacco, the industry based on which killed 435,000 each years), not for the sake of profitability.
Viet Nam, China, North Korea, and the USSR are NOWHERE around, much less about, let alone near Communism.
If you believe in dictionary definition of Socialism as meaning "means of production are owned and controlled by the state," then you must also believe in the second most common definition of ANARCHY in, say, Merriam Webster: "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority."
These countries are as close as man will ever get to communism. The ideology is based on the iron law, and the iron law is wrong, so of course it doesn't work in reality.
It's not a matter of defintions it is also a matter of seeing what happens when you try to implement the system. It doesn't work, there is no proxy data nor is there any examples of it. You have a mountain of every increasing evidence to climb against that shows indivdual liberty is the way to go.
"as the costs of producing labouring powers of different quality differ, so much differ the values of the labouring powers employed in different trades. The cry for an equality of wages rests, therefore, upon a mistake, is an inane wish never to be fulfilled."
Only he who was so ignorant as MISES would assert that Marx grudgingly admit it.
"For it is certain that there exist among men varying degrees of capacity and dexterity, which cause the products and services of labor to have varying qualities. What must be conclusive in deciding the question whether reckoning in terms of labor is applicable or not, is whether it is or is not possible to bring different kinds of labor under a common denominator without the mediation of the economic subject's valuation of their products."
even if there does exist a "voluntary" association between an employer and employee, it's still power based in that the boss has more rights and more power OVER the employee, constituting a hierarchy of power. anarcho-capitalists can use whatever arguments they want to justify themselves, but i really wish they started using another term instead of "anarcho." in this case, anarcho just means anti-state, not anti rule in any sense
wbhyatt 1 month ago
@ZhuangTzu1
That's a very obvious fantasy
The destitute have no choice but be used by employers in structures where they have no decision-making input. The choice between "work for a boss" and "starve" is not a choice as it involves systemic duress.
As for "starting your own business", if producers really did have the effective ability to do this at any time, they would. Hence wage-labor would cease to exist as I can't think of ANY reason someone would chose subordination voluntarily
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
Danny OKC fails to differentiate between political theory and economic theory which is of course a large failure for anyone critiquing market anarchism/anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism. Anarchists of all economic persuasions are still anarchists. I feel that communist/social anarchism is far more coercive to liberty than capitalism, but that is my economic persuasion.
A86Beaty 2 months ago
Uncap hierarchies are fluid, and it's not even clear who is dominating who. My employer pays me more for my work then if I were to do it alone, does that make "exploit" my boss? But we're both better off because I choose to work for her.
LoklarYsera 8 months ago
Students/teacher relationship employes a hierarchy. All people arrange themselves into a hierarchy under certain conditions. My best friend knows a lot about cooking, so he's the leader when it comes to that. I know a lot about sports, so sometimes I lead the discussion.
LoklarYsera 8 months ago
"Exploit" is a word that has been emotionally charged by a lot of people. Economical exploitation isn't passive - I exploit my labour for my own gains. I think the real problem to take aim at is emotional exploitation - people will work for lower wages in a poor economy, but paying them the lower wage in and of itself isn't negative exploitation, it's that the employer was able to exploit feelings of desperation, insecurity etc.
jaworski716 8 months ago
Your second sentence shows you've never read any anarchist literature. Perhaps you should learn something about a subject before you speak on it. You might start with George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia."
DannyOKC 9 months ago
Comment removed
NewVinland 9 months ago 2
@NewVinland You fail to realize that people can voluntarily give up possessions without being forced, don't you?
tjrieves 8 months ago
@tjrieves I said that a month ago and I've since shifted to a form of Anarchist Mutualism. I was wrong in my criticism of this video, because I did not quite understand what was being said. Mutualism is voluntary, and people do have "possession" of land under the system, which answered to my criticism. Thank you for the response, because I had forgotten leaving it.
NewVinland 8 months ago
@NewVinland I understand. I was under the impression that you still had that opinion. Thanks for the clarification.
tjrieves 8 months ago
Anyone that violates the Non-Coercion Principle should be charged as such.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
I understand your Marxist ideal of equity and where everybody would have the same wage but, if I'm anarchist and, being an anarchist I don't want that, how are you gonna forced me to do so without a state and violence? If you don't want to work for someone, if you don't want to work for a salary, if you don't want to give work to people and if you don't want to own anything, it's your right, I won't force you but, if I want to do any or all of this, will you let me?
MrMaxBoivin 10 months ago
@MrMaxBoivin If you say,for example,i own this land because i want it for myself & since no land is ownable out of Anarchist understanding,this means you violate the common ground,making it your property,not allowing others to step on that land freely.This means robbery&violence to all others who didn't claim ownership & shared that land.Then every Anarchist has the right to defend her-/himself being violated in this way.
Hasshasser 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just a question for my fellow anarchists. In an anarchist society, would or would not all forms of association(i.e. communist communities, capitalist communities...) be possible due to the totally unregulated free market? I believe it would not only be possible, but it would also create the most ideal checks and balances and all forms of voluntary societies would benefit from each other. They would benefit from each other, I believe, because the land a certain society lives on will not...
timothypaulrayakatim 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just a question for my fellow anarchists. In an anarchist society, would or would not all forms of association(i.e. communist communities, capitalist communities...) be possible due to the totally unregulated free market? I believe it would not only be possible, but it would also create the most ideal checks and balances and all forms of voluntary societies would benefit from each other. They would benefit from each other, I believe, because the land a certain society lives on will not...
timothypaulrayakatim 11 months ago
Doesn't anarcho-capitalism sound like feudalism? It's confusing trying to understand anarcho-capitalism.
senevene 1 year ago
@questionmarkjones Anarchy has its roots in Classical Liberalism and Socialism. Anarchists, in the real sense of the word, have always been anti-Capitalist.
moonshiny74 1 year ago
"Name one Anarchist who was excited about Capitalism prior to the 1950s."
Gustave de Molinari
Zhuangzi was pretty obviously sympathetic to capitalism even if he, as an ancient Chinese man, didn't have a word for it.
Lysander Spooner hated socialism
the ties of popular 19th century anarchism in no way implies that anarchism is a socialist school of thought. it implies that some people's opinions about humanity was wishful thinking.
VestigialThumb 1 year ago
@VestigialThumb
You do know that Molinari was aware of Proudhon right? You do know Molinari was aware of anarchists if atleast because of the French Revolution. You do know he wouldn't have accepted the label "anarchist" right?
As for Spooner, he thought everyone should have their own means of production and not be subjected to an employer so that everyone can enjoy the fruits of their own labour
Also anarchism is opposition to all authority, including the authority of the boss.
neoptolemus 1 year ago
@neoptolemus I don't care what Molinari would have called himself. He fits perfectly within the anarchist tradition while being pro-capitalist at the same time. Spooner wasn't pro-capitalist, but he was not opposed to it either.
Lastly, saying that anarchism is opposed to ALL authority muddles political authority with contractual authority. If you oppose contractual authority, then you also oppose trust, freedom and the right to withdraw from responsibility.
VestigialThumb 1 year ago
lol @ forcing a system that is "non-hierarchal and truly voluntary" and calling it anarchy.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
Whoever authored this has no clue about Free Market Anarchism.
MrWfntn 1 year ago
Oh gee, u r such an anarchist. I am jealous.
kbinco 1 year ago
DannyOKC --- you say in your About Me that "These videos are not my opinions or built upon my ideas." With that in mind, this video at the very least, should have its wording altered since you are advocating against anarcho-capitalism here. It would be better to say, for instance, that an-caps view anarchy as a purely political theory and differ in its construction as opposed to saying its not anarchism (in the literal sense of no-rulers). You get the idea. Neutrality is key is my point.
shadowlapis 1 year ago
the Keywords for Anarcho-capitalism are Voluntary, Non-violent, clear Property rights. Your hatred for private property and voluntary business activity is NOT pretty and stinks like violence.
If you call a hungry man finding a job in capitalist bakery, being able to buy ever cheaper bread, investing for Passive Income and quitting his job any time he wants - an "expoloitation" , then i say you're a usurer, cuz i have only one hand, but you have two and operate them in an "hier-archy" manner!!
alennna 1 year ago
Anarcho-Capitalism is the only form of Anarchism.
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag LMMFAO! It makes me sad that you're probably serious. Go back in time and tell Emma Goldman that. She'll look at you like you're retarded.
moonshiny74 1 year ago
@moonshiny74 And why would I care what that socialist airhead would think?
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag Do you know anything at all about anarchy? Emma Goldman was one of the most renown anarchists in this country.
Anarchy has its roots in Socialism, lame brain. The idea of Anarcho-Capitalism is absurd, an oxymoron. You can't be an anarchist and a capitalist at the same time since anarchy is diametrically opposed to capitalism.
moonshiny74 1 year ago
@moonshiny74 Anarchy is the lack of government, nothing more, nothing less. Social "Anarchists" have stolen the word and use it to describe themselves (just like american "liberals", who are against liberty). If the government is removed what is left is anarcho-capitalism with many local communities working and competing with each other (some of them communist or socialist, there's room for that in ANCAP). You can't be an anarchist and NOT be a capitalist. Anarchy IS pure capitalism.
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag Um, you do realise that Anarcho-Capitalism didn't come about until the mid-20th century, right? Anarchy has its roots in Socialism and Classical Liberalism, and was established 100 years prior to the weirdo right wing mucking up its meaning. Do some research on 19th century labour movements, started by....what? ANARCHISTS. Look up the Haymarket Affair and anything else associated with the railroad strikes. It is a well-documented fact that Anarchists wanted to crush Capitalism.
moonshiny74 1 year ago
@moonshiny74 Just because some people started using the name "anarcho-capitalism" later doesn't mean the movement wasn't there earlier. Just because a bunch of collectivist started calling themselves anarchist doesn't meant they have the monopoly on that word.
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag Name one Anarchist who was excited about Capitalism prior to the 1950s. Anarchy has its roots in SOCIALISM and Classical Liberalism whether you want to admit it or not. That's just how it is.
moonshiny74 1 year ago
@moonshiny74 I don't care where fake anarchists think their roots are. Socialism is almost the opposite of anarchy. You can call a cat a dog for all I care, I'll still call it a cat. Libertarian free market anarchists are the ONLY anarchists whether you want to admit it or not. That's just how it is.
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag Sweetie, you're just proving you know absolutely nothing about the history of Anarchy. You keep clinging to mid-20th century perversions of it. I'm done. I don't have the time nor patience to have a back and forth with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
moonshiny74 1 year ago
@moonshiny74 Cool, then I'm off to have an actual discussion with someone that can do more than just repeat the same lies and mantras over and over.
khunag 1 year ago
Latin:
an- => an absense of
archy => government
an-archy => an absense of government
Of course anarcho-capitalism falls in this category.
soulshaker123 1 year ago 2
@soulshaker123
It's actually Greek, and "-archy" (αρχη) means "rulership" or "authority", not "government".
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
@vaguelyhumanoid Even with those translations, '-archy' still wouldn't encompass companies in the way that socialist anarchists would like it to. Companies don't use force to make you use their services.
soulshaker123 1 year ago
@soulshaker123
Enough with the strawman. I know of no anarchist who claims that companies force someone to use their services! The hint is in the "authority": do presidents, CEOs, charmen, managers and entrepreneurs exercise power or authority? Yes. How? They tell other people (their employees, workers) what to do when.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets And those employees are free to quit if they don't like what they are asked to do. Employment is VOLUNTARY. This objection to corporations is even dumber than the one I mistakenly thought that socialist anarchists were objecting to.
soulshaker123 1 year ago
@soulshaker123
Imagine if there was perfect freedom of movement in the world, one can settle and live in every country he wishes too. Also imagine if every government in the world was an undemocratic elite. If you are consistent you would think this is perfectly justified, after all every individual lives VOLUNTARILY under this elite, if he does not like his current elite he can live under any elite he wishes too. That is essentially the argument you're making.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
When this person goes to live under another another undemocratic elite he is again told what to do. Let me guess your next argument will be something like: "He can try to be an entrepreneur himself. Entrepreneurs deserve big rewards for taking big risks!" One could also try to become part of the undemocratic elite in any given country in my analogy, the risks are high (arrest) but the reward is big too (dictator!), does this justify dictatorships? If you are consistent you will answer "yes".
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@soulshaker123
The answer to oppression is not becoming an oppressor. The answer to exploitation is not becoming an exploiter.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets And how exactly are these people being "opressed" or "exploited" when they are employed BY THEIR OWN CHOICE?
soulshaker123 1 year ago
@soulshaker123
First of all exploitation does not exclude consent Second of all if you were to give all workers the option to work in an undemocratic capitalist company or a democratically run company they would obviously choose for the democratically run company. 90 percent of new businesses fail in the first year Plus, many people simply do not have the financial or intellectual capacity to run their own business. I didn't say bosses oppress their workers I was talking in regards to dictators
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@soulshaker123
Again, let's take the analogy: if people could life under any undemocratic elite in the world would this mean they live under tyranny by choice while the only option they have is undemocratic elites?
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets That's not a valid analogy because you don't HAVE to work under any of them. You could start your own business, or live alone and self-sustain. And besides, those businesses own their property, so this person wouldn't have any valid claim to have a right to do any of this anyway. They can work, earn a wage, and acquire their own property and goods.
soulshaker123 1 year ago
@soulshaker123
I included this argument already in the analogy. You say "one can try to be an entrepreneur himself" then I say "one can try to become an undemocratic elite himself" or "one can start his own country", just like entrepreneurialism the risks are high, but so is the reward. "Besides [...] own property" and who says that owning property is a natural right? Property is theft, entrepreneurs steal the fruits of their workers labour.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@soulshaker123
Possession is the valid means of "owning", only when one uses domain or capital he is entitled to "ownership" of this. Possession means you "own" something when you use it. I am the rightful partial owner of my street because I use it, my government is not the rightful owner. I'm the rightful owner of my company because I make use of it. I'm the rightful owner of my house because I use it.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets So if someone comes into your house and uses it, this makes them a partial owner? If I loan someone my car, this makes them a partial owner?
soulshaker123 1 year ago
@soulshaker123
Hmmm.... Nope. Possession is determined by occupancy and use. Someone visiting you does not do so. A car is neither domain nor capital, so it does not apply. Further reading: Proudhon's "What is property?" or Benjamin Tucker's work on property (he defended property, however, he defined property by... "use and occupancy", so actually what is meant by possession.)
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets So by your explanation of why this wouldn't apply to my house, why wouldn't this be the case for corporations? Employees don't occupy a business; they work there for a wage. What if I hired some kid to come to my house and help pick my garden to sell the produce on the corner? Would this give the kid partial ownership of my house or my garden? And why would this be any different than a business?
soulshaker123 1 year ago
@soulshaker123
Ok, let´s simplify. Property is shareholdership. Possesion is stakeholdership.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@soulshaker123
Incorrect. Very incorrect.
"Archy" translates as "rule" or "rulers" not government.
CEOs, landlords, and an owning class all count as rulers. And all are key components of capitalism.
Ancap supports retaining rulers, hence it is not and cannot be anarchist.
Marxists also want the state and government to be dissolved in the long term. This does not however qualify them as anarchists.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
So you learn about anarchism by reading dictionaries?
DannyOKC 1 year ago
Most of the definitions of anarchy I can find only mention absence of government. I can't find any that say outright no capitalism or as you so ignorantly put it "exploitation."
phrimburger 1 year ago
So you want to replace the authority of the state, with the authority of the people/collective? Collectivism is slavery. The fact that you ignore individual rights, and that you think that people triumph over one person, is disgusting. I guess you like being a sheep in a big herd.
chorizo1337 1 year ago
@chorizo1337
Find me one anarchist who wants to replace state-authority with collective authority (if you find one please tell him he's a f-ing idiot). Anarchist have always fought for individual autonomy (there's a reason anarchism encompasses autonomism, or rather vice versa). For anarchist the individual is the highest value, but not like capitalist anarchists think ALL individuals are the highest value and not merely "me".
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
How is the absence of ownership created without coercion?
DSXmachine 1 year ago
How do you expect an anarchy to restrict something as naturally forming as a capitalistic system without seriously restricting personal freedom? Anarcho-capitalism is the only form of anarchy that makes sense. The others are as bad or worse than communism when it comes to how unreasonably idealistic they are. Read an economics book. Capitilism is a good thing. Monopolies don't allow capitalism to work properly and government allows monopolies through laws and patents and is itself a monopoly.
bandpractice 1 year ago
@bandpractice
"Read an economics book".... Wow, why does this make me doubt you no nothing of capitalism? Watch this: /watch?v=QBLvGL-z7ks
You say "capitalism is naturally forming" I say you're begging the question. "Capitalism is a good thing" begging the question. Stop presupposing things.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
Continued: In organizations that produce things, there would still be a hierarchy, but it would not be an authoritarian or exploitive one, as you can leave and still get things for free. It is the wages that leads to exploitation and wage slavery.
onamatapia7 1 year ago
@everyone: There is a anarchist philosophy that bridges the gap between Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism (Which I believe IS Anarchism, albeit bad anarchism). Anyway, this theory is called the Priceless Economic System. In it, everything is free, and there is no money. Workers don't take money because they can't, and they don't need it. There would be very little crime, as you can get anything for free.
onamatapia7 1 year ago
How are mutually beneficial relationships exploitative?
Also, how is so-called "wage slavery" worse than forcing people to work in an anarcho-communist society? At least capitalism gives them the option of not working, if they want to.
TheSkunker 1 year ago
@TheSkunker well said Skunker. "Wage slavery" is a disgusting piece of doublespeak, indicative of the weakness of the argument against capitalism and property rights.
Anarchy is the lack of a state, truly meaning the lack of institutionalised force, so logically anarcho-capitalism is the only true anarchy. Red anarchists still rely on force to stop others from gathering and owning property, as is their natural impulse and right.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile I absolutely agree. TRUE anarchists hate communism. Unfortunately, most modern anarchists are Marxist zombies.
You are right to say communism can not function without government. It IS people's natural human tendency to accumulate wealth and possessions for themselves, and without the use of government enforcement, the collective would inevitably fall to the individual. I had not thought of that. Great point.
TheSkunker 1 year ago
@TheSkunker Cheers. I think most modern "anarchists" would throw a bomb into a crowded shopping centre if you told them that the men, women and children inside were evil capitalists... that's certainly how Marxist anarchy has been practised historically. They certainly didn't show too much remorse when those poor bank staffers were murdered in Greece during the anarchist riots... which, by the way, are the result of rampant socialism destroying the entire economy. It's all rather dreadful.
Hostile 1 year ago
The first states were despotisms. Does that mean that Sweden, where I live, is not a state?
abexy 1 year ago
what would i get in an anarchist society, if I got a "job" but contributed practically nothing to the business
EnergizerBunny804 1 year ago
I find some materials in a forest, and built a house from that. I start a little farm to produce my own food, find myself a wife and start a family. I tell myself and my family: this land (not that big) and this food belongs to me and my family. It is our property.
Do others have the right to use violence against me - in the case I resist - and my family to take our land and take our food in the name of anti-property anarchism? I say that would be a violation of our freedom.
Diosade 1 year ago
So how would their be "cooperation" in a world with out government, state, and politics? ok with authority how do you eliminate property? Keep in mind that I am aware of Anarcho-Syndicalism. I am not here to antagonize you. I am exploring all forms of "accepted" and not so accepted forms of Anarchy/anarchism.
Benjamin42079 1 year ago
I misunderstood the dictionary evidently...oh well, words are not important to me... ideas, principals, liberty... those are important! Voluntaryist works for me, though I think I will continue describing myself as an AnCap from time to time...
shepardh1 1 year ago
With that said, socialism never worked, and will not work either for a society even under anarchy. Socialism requires centralisation, which is something anarchism is against. Socialism & marxism can work for small groups, such as families and bodies of friends, but certainly not for a whole society.
MononcMart 1 year ago
The original form of narchism(aside from ancient asia) was purely based on anarcho-socialism. And it is why the old anarchists consider 'anarchy' automatically as 'anarcho-socialism'.
Socialism and capitalism are economic systems(who are opposite). Anarchy itself is about not having a state governing, it has nothing to do with the economic aspect. So just because capitalism is the economical opposite of socialism, it doesn't make this idealogy apart from anarchism.
MononcMart 1 year ago
Comment removed
MononcMart 1 year ago
Excellent argument. I guess where you come from you can just slag something off and that settles everything.
DannyOKC 1 year ago
haha this video is an absolute joke. nice try though...
oiuoiu988 1 year ago
Great video!
.... but I am still a capitalist anarchist ;-).
(suck it leftists!)
Justbeatit999 1 year ago
Very thoughtful video. I consider myself an anarchist. This question is not meant as a challenge, I genuinely want to know how this is supposed to work. Who, in your ideal society would enforce the "no private property" rule? Doesn't it make more sense that if I produce something, it should be mine? And if I produce something and claim it as mine, and then someone comes along and says that I'm a "robber baron" and takes it from me, where does that authority come from?
saintmichaelsarmoury 1 year ago
@saintmichaelsarmoury Anarchists use prodhouns distinction between private property and possessions. Essentially anything socially used is socially owned and anything privately used is privately owned. In other words you cant own something that is socially used, if you do it is no longer a possession and is instead private property. as long as you arnt exploiting anyone (ie you dont privately own something that is socially used) its cool since you cant exploit anyone.
SlashySlash17 1 year ago
@saintmichaelsarmoury Something could also be considered a possession but owned by a few members who use it like a syndicate (owned by workers). Some anarchists argue that this should be community owned not worker owned because the community is indirectly affected by the workplace and what they produce. If someone steals a possession then you could try to track them down i guess, im not so sure theft would be a big problem especially in anarcho communism since goods are distributed.
SlashySlash17 1 year ago
@saintmichaelsarmoury i suppose the community/workplace/etc...affected by the crime would meet in an assembly and decide what to do about it. The more serious the crime, the more ppl affected, the better the chance at catching the criminal. I'm getting off topic. its good that you challenge anarchy as you should, everything should be questioned and you should continue to question it to get a better understanding. btw. you may distribut ur product to get communal benefits but u can be indpendent.
SlashySlash17 1 year ago
@saintmichaelsarmoury Excellent question, and if you want to exchange your item produced with me for an item I have... are we evil?
shepardh1 1 year ago
@shepardh1 Nope. Voluntary interaction is the whole idea.
saintmichaelsarmoury 1 year ago
@saintmichaelsarmoury I agree! That is counter to traditional anarchic thought, which is why I understood us to specify "anarcho-"
CounterViolenceInst 1 year ago
See this doesn't seem like a well thought out argument against anarcho-capitalism. First you sight that the vast majority of anarchist do not believe anarcho-capitalism is anarchist with no source or citation but disregarding that as anarchist I do not believe we should turn to the democratic view of numbers = truth. I have no citation for this either but I would say that the vast majority of people think anarchists are insane so this sort of out look hurts us far more than it helps.
AlexanderCKolt 1 year ago
I'm trying to get a grasp on the distinction being made here. Being more of an anarcho-capitalist myself, there's two things I don't understand about anarchism logic. First, how does one determine exactly how much a service is valued at? Isn't that extremely subjective, and therefore vulnerable to exploitation? And secondly, how does the idea of property "possession" work out? Say I go for a walk and when I return, somebody has entered my house, doesn't that mean it's "rightfully" theirs?
TheSkunker 1 year ago
William Godwin, who more or less invented the idea of anarchism, though he didn't coin the word, was an advocate of private property. Owning property that you earned through your effort is not exploitation. Voluntary socialism is one thing, but forcible collectivization is against anarchism. It's no better than when Stalin murdered farmers to collectivize the land they were entitled to. A compulsory collective is just as bad as a Statism.
redcommander27 2 years ago
Conversely, Stalin's forced collectivization would fit into the category which Marx had described in Capital Volume I, Chapter 27 as "the robbery of the common lands" (as the "collectivization" of the Tolstoyan agrarian Life and Labor Commune in 1937 by the Stalinist regime) which "conquered the field for capitalistic agriculture, made the soil part and parcel of capital, and created for the town industries the necessary supply of a free and outlawed proletariat." State-Capitalism.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
Strangely, the Theory of Diminishing Marginal Utility seems not to apply to money. "there is a decline in the marginal utility that person derives from consuming each additional unit of that product." However, none on Earth seem unhappy with having too much money.
Abba Lerner argued that wealth could be taken from the rich to provide for the poor, because the rich have too much money, whose marginal utility will DIMINISH. But let us guess which rich man would heed Lerner's work?
DonKhoi 2 years ago
What is the better race in Mises' opinion?
More recent measurements have shown that long-headed men are not always blond, good, noble, and cultured, and that the short-headed are not always black, evil, common and uncultured. Amongst the most long-headed races are the Australian aborigines, the Eskimos, and the Kaffirs. Many of the greatest geniuses were round-heads. Kant's cranial index was 88 [14].
Source [14] was given below by Mises himself.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
You call me a racist and I tell you have I have no interst having a discussion with someone that has a victim complex, then you start screaming and you post like 40 comments as a reply.
Something is seriously wrong with you. Get help.
Visfen 2 years ago
It was you who need help. Well, if your IQ were 143 and you be good at everything, solve my riddle first.
As for me, I honestly admit that my IQ is just a little above average.
Your hypocrisy is evident. You are no INDIVIDUALIST. Why had you appealed to YOUR HIGHER CIVILIZATION, A GROUP, A PRESET CIOLLECTIVELY YOU WERE ARBITRARILY BORN INTO AGAINST YOUR WILL AND BELONG TO?
You ARE a Collectivist.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Your riddle is stupid. Riddles reflect culture more than intelligence, that is why most standardized IQ tests deal with figures, with numbers, with math and with logic.
I've never appealed to a group. I merely stated a fact that went you go ballistic because YOU have some kind of brainwashed loyatly to you backwards civilization. I don't care. I'm a me, not an us.
You're an idiot.
Visfen 2 years ago
My riddles DO NOT REFLECT MY CULTURE. Me a Vietnamese, then I should have asked you about Vietnamese culture, which I'm sure you were totally ignorant of.
My riddles were PURELY LINGUISTIC, BASED ON ENGLISH, OUR LINGUA FRANCA, and I REJECTED the g-factor.
By the way, have your mastered readings wild animals' track, Mr. "good at everything?"
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Only an ETHOCENTRIST would call other civilizations BACKWARD, according to my anthropology teacher.
Moreover, I was an ethnocentrist myself. I once looked up to Western civilizations with revere. If I hadn't taken that class, I would not be BRAIN-WASHED.
As for you, you have long been SKULL-STUFFED.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Although Mises DID not advocate racial discrimination, and he even called for an inter-racial co-operatioon which would be beneficial to all races according to the division of labor; he still regarded some race as INFERIOR to others.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
All three quotes are from Mises' book "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis," (1951 English edition)
PART III. THE ALLEGED INEVITABILITY OF SOCIALISM
Section I. Social Evolution
5. Racial War
DonKhoi 2 years ago
"It may be assumed that races do differ in intelligence and will power, and that, this being so, they are very unequal in their ability to form society, and further that the better races distinguish themselves precisely by their special aptitude for strengthening social co-operation."
Mises DID NOT write "it may be assumed," but "Es ist ohne weiteres zulässig," which could be rendered literally as "It is without furtherado PETMISSIBLE-ACCEPTABLE-VALID" (zulässig)
DonKhoi 2 years ago
"Though Gobineau and Chamberlain's arbitrary and contradictory hypotheses are utterly without foundation and have been pooh-poohed as empty chimeras, there still remains a germ of the race theory which is independent of the specific differentiation between noble and ignoble races."
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Some of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises' germs:
"We know that certain families, breeds, and groups of breeds reveal similar traits. We know that we are justified in differentiating between races and in speaking of the different racial qualities of individuals."
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Moreover, Mr "143 in IQ"
Solve another riddle: What kind of dairy product do ghosts, monsters, or any terrifying imaginary creatures, if they ever exist, would like to eat?
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Matthew 7:5
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
By the way, I am as strong an atheist as Ayn Rand.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Answer to my IQ question for Visfen, the guy with "IQ of 143:"
[W]hat do you call a ruminant mammal with antlers but without visual organs?
No Idea - No Eyed Deer
The ending "R" is often non-rhotic in British accent.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Now if the wheat were NOT TO BE SOLD TO us AT COST, but at "whatever it would bring" according to our necessities, then none of us would have any interest in affording facilities, repairing breaches, nor in any other way co-operating with the producer of it.
Therefore, Warren advocate that we pay the producer according to the labour s/he exerted in his poducts, not to how much we subjectively value it.
Warren propose labour notes instead of money. Cincinnati Time Store was successful
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Moreover, he dismissed the subjective theory of value:
If I am to have my supply of flour at cost, then, any facility I can afford to the wheat grower, reduces the cost to me, and it does the same for all who have any portion of the wheat, I am promoting all their interests while pursuing my own
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Josiah Warren, the individualist anarchist, ADHERED to the LABOUR THEORY
A watch has a cost and a value. The COST consists of the AMOUNT OF LABOR bestowed on the mineral or natural wealth, in converting it into metals".
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Comment removed
DonKhoi 2 years ago
In October 2004, Halliburton opened a new 250,000-square-foot (23,000 m2) facility on 35 acres (140,000 m2), replacing an older facility that opened in 1948, in Rock Springs, Wyoming. With over approximately 500 employees, Halliburton is one of the LARGEST PRIVATE EMPLOYERS in Sweetwater County. (wikipedia, source given below by Halliburton itself)
"Halliburton is a PRIVATELY OWNED proprietary limited company" (Schedules to Design and Construction Contract
Conditions, PAGE 4 OF 7)
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Anarcho-primitivists are not reactionary. they do not want to pull us back to the Stone Age. They advise us to rely more on nature rather then artificial technology. What if a global, natural disaster destroy modern civilizations?
They may be alarmists, but by no means trying to pull back the wheel of history.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
That is exactly what anarcho-primitivists want, they want the primitive society, even though we have developed better ways to solve problems, more civilized ways, better societies. Just in the same way the west was more civilized than the colonies.
What if space monkeys eat your brains? There's simply no likelihood of that happening
What the hell does Haliburton has to do with capitalism? It is a entirely state funded entity. That's like calling publci schools private
I don't like Bush at all
Visfen 2 years ago
Again homesteading, could I assert that, because I am the first to fell a tree in a wood, therefore I privatize that whole wood and forbid other lumberjacks and jills to fell tree from it?
"Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!" Isaiah 5:8
Privatization or the euphemistic homesteading were even condemned in the Old Testament.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Homesteading doesn't work that way, if you fell a tree you own that tree, and only that tree. If I started a farm I would own the farm what was related to it but you could tunnel under my ground, walk trough the crops if you didn't damage it, and so on.
It is to some extent aligned with Allemansrätten we have here in Sweden (look it up). Nature belongs to nobody, but resoruces and capital belongs to those that mixed their labor with it.
Visfen 2 years ago
Children never mixed labor with it, so why they can inherit? Especially rich children.
Now back to the ores. The first ores you dug up are yours, but what remain underground belong to none of us. Supposed you give up, the rest, with which my labour is mixed, will definitely be mine.
Do I have to dig deeper into the ground and risk greater, less escapable, and thus more dangerous mining accident?
The ore I dug up must be mine. what you dug up already are yours to use or abuse
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Because they get gifts from their parents, there is not hing wrong with inheritence, in fact that is something that drives many parents to work harder. All so they can secure their childrens future.
Whatever you mix your labor with is yours. But if I construct a mine and you use it, then the mine is my property and you use it under my rules. WIthout these simple property laws society will dissolve into a chaotic tribal society. It is the basis for modern society, and it's development.
Visfen 2 years ago
Well, what if a stingy lumberjack or hunter build a fence around a wood and forbid other lumber jacks and jills fetch woods or hunt games, which naturally exist there for everybody to mix their labour with, from it?
When I dig deeper into the ground, you having given up, do I have to MYSELF buy more materials to strengthen the internal structure of that already-contructed mine to prevent its newly-deeper-dug ceiling from collapsing over my head and bury me alive?
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Gifts from their parents. You do not belive in meritocracy as you claim to, but plutocracy and nep[otism, or, biologically, kin selection.
Inheritance rights must be abolished. All children, if they are born equal, must start out equal so that we can see who is really who. Rich but stupid kid must NOT stand higher from poor child prodigies.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
What are you talking about, the economy is not a zero sum game. The Iron Law is a myth.
Yes a gift from their parents, what is your problem with that? Should not parents be allowed to take care of their offspring?
Inheritance should definetly not be abolished. That is utterly ridiculous.
Why should all children start with nothing? That makes no sense whatsoever. Are parents allowed to give them stuff when they are alive then? Makes little sense, no difference from inheritence really.
Visfen 2 years ago
I made no such statements that children start out from nothing. They must have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY so that we will see who is who. You know Khadijah Williams, homeless child prodigy who wove her way to Harvard. Being homeless, she moved constantly and attended 12 schools during 12 years, ALL OF THEM PUBLIC, with no school voucher whatsoever to attend "better" private schools. Public schools help to discover and bring up POOR CHILD PRODIGIES, not to dumb them down.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
"The Iron Law is a myth." Even Spooner and Say fell prey to this myth:
"When, on the contrary, the demand for workers is less than the quantity of people offering to work, their gains decline back to the price NECESSARY for the class to MAINTAIN ITSELF at the same number." Say, Cours complet d' economie politique
"to sell their labor to the landholders, in exchange only for the COARSEST NECESSARIES of life;" Spooner, Natural Law
Are they libertarians or Lassallean/Marxist imbeciles?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
You don't want equality, or a better society for all, you just want to beat down the rich because you're completely oblivious to any relevant field of social interaction.
Fine, let's say you get what you want, we kill all the scientists, all the engineers, all the doctors all these entrepreneurial people. Now what? We're free from the opression from people who can make society better?
Idiot.
Visfen 2 years ago
I do not want to beat down any rich. If all children be born equal, they must have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, NO impartial parental interference allowed. Stupid kids, be they from rich family, do NOT deserve riches. If you cannot spent your entire wealth during your lifetime, your children SHALL NOT inherit it. They must also toil. I do not exclude mine either, high-principled as I am.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
I'm an agnostic atheist so I couldn't care less what an old reprinted document says.
But it's clear to me you do not understand the principle of homesteading.
I'll give you a common complaint. If I started farms, all around your house, so you "couldn't get out" by the principles of homesteading you would be allowed to build a road over my field. You could even build one trough my field if you didn't damage my crops.
Homesteading is the relation of property to one self and nature as free.
Visfen 2 years ago
Isaiah's warning against privatization is SECULAR in nature, individuals, regardless of faiths, can apply it.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Surely it's not, anything out of the bible in my mind is merely bullshit. If you take anything from it then that is your loss.
The bible was written by wile men and past on by worse, the organziation is a tyrrany of the mind and soul of people, and it truly is the foundation for the most repressive form of organization there is - the dogmatic one. Be it the communists or the etatists, they all just want POWER....
So no, I don't take it seriously.
Visfen 2 years ago
Well, just visit the "Jesus is a Liberal" website to see hopw progressive Christian interpret passages from the Bible to promote social justice against the Religious Right.
Furthermore, visit my channel, find the older comments to see how I refuted Christian fundamentalists.
I like Joshua's secular teaching Matthew 7:1-5 best. It was against the hypocrisy of the CONSERVATIVE RULING ELITE, the PHARISEES. Joshua was megalomaniacal, but some of his teachings for social justice can be of use.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
I don't give a shit about religion at all.
Christianity is irrational. I don't know why you would bring it up. Why stiuplate on what fictional character thought? I don't care.
Society does consist of individuals. Sum of interrelations? Hahah what? That is individuals. And don't quote Marx, he has no bearing on legitimate debate.
No, society doesn't pre-date trade. Hunter gathering societies were not civilized :D But they did trade, just in a honor based system. More primitive system.
Visfen 2 years ago
"late 15c., "having the status of one lawfully begotten," from M.L. legitimatus, pp. of legitimare "make lawful, declare to be lawful," from L. legitimus "lawful," originally "in line with the law," from lex (gen. legis) "law."" (Etyonline)
WHOSE LAW? YOURS? WE ARE DEBATING OVER ANOTHER GUY'S VIDEO, SO SUBJECTING OURSELVES TO HIS LAWS. What if I assert: Because the poster was from the LEFT, so YOUR right-libertarian comments were ILLEGITIMATE?
DonKhoi 2 years ago
WHY HAD YOU FORBIDDEN ME TO QUOTE MARX? OR AT BEST ADVISED ME AGAINST QUOTING HIS WORKS? HAD I BEEN DEBATING WITH AN HYPOCRITICALLY ARCHISTIC "ANARCHO-"CAPITALIST?
YOU BUT REVEALED YOUR ANTHROPOLOGICAL IGNORANCE
THE RETURN OF THE RENAISSANCE PERSON:
THE NEW UNITY OF THE LIBERAL ARTS
CHAPTER 23. HUNTING AND GATHERING SOCIETIES
The type of SOCIETY developed by early humans is known as hunting and gathering SOCIETIES.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Calling me a racist again and again for something I had no part in doing is not hepling your case.
I don't want to have a discussion with someone who goes on diatriabes about such things. I rather just ignore you.
Visfen 2 years ago
"I do think I'm from a higher civilization, but that is something of a documented fact." quoted VERBATIM
Should I EXPOSE YOUR HYPOCRISY? You COLLECTIVISTICALLY BOASTED that you were from "a higher civilization."
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Uh, no, that is just a fact. I am from a higher civilization, then you got offended, threw a tantrum and started talking about white guilt.
I'm alos whiter than you are, is that somehow boasting too.
Jeez, get over your own racism first.
What argument, I stopped reading your postings 30 posts ago....Haliburton is state funded, trough direct and especially indirect action. Just as exxons ventures in Iraq are sponsored by indirect actions.
Visfen 2 years ago
Haliburton is state funded, trough direct and especially indirect action. Just as exxons ventures in Iraq are sponsored by indirect actions.
Sources?
And did you know that Exxon Mobil had given the Competitive Enterprise Institute a Fund of $2 million to sponsor research to dsicredit "the Global Warming Hoax," so that they would not cut down on CO2 emission.
Strangely, Exxon Mobil is anti-governmental regulations.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Sources? It's an understanding of market function, you think Exxon and Haliburton would have missions in Iraq and Afghanistan if not for the US invading them?
Take the contracts oil companies, like Exxon, pushed on the Iraqi government before they could even form a coherent cabinet. It's about money.
Exxon is not against government regulation, because of economics of scale they benefit by things like cap and trade, the customer suffers.Would you rather sell products of $10 or 12$? With same PM
Visfen 2 years ago
I CANNOT BUT DOUBT your reading comprehension skill and your claim of 143 in IQ. When I asked you for source, I meant SOURCE TEXTS, or I ask you TO CITE SOURCE, which you failed to do. You even DIDN'T understand my message.
With the same PM, I will sell it at $10.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Then you're an idiot, the same profit margin at 12$ gives you a higher return. 20 cents more.
Visfen 2 years ago
I said I rejected the g-factor, that's why I cannot provide you a correct answer in economics, which I do not major in.
Moreover, I adhere to the Labor Theory of Value. Suppose wel ive in pre-historic time, I plant wheat, and you barley, and money HADN'T invented yet. How should we barter when we meet and each of us DOES need the other's product?
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Do you really understand what the adjective "state-funded" means? It means that that very enterprise is FINANCIALLY SPONSORED BY ITS OWN RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENT, of the same NATIONALITY, not a foreign one.
Halliburton and Exxon PUSHED ON the IRAQI PUPPET GOVERNMENT, and they are NOT FUNDED by the very PUPPET government they SET UP THEMSELVES to rob the Iraqi folks of their oil.
Do you mistake ACTIVE VOICE for PASSIVE VOICE?
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Exxon about us:
"We are the world's largest PUBLICLY TRADED international oil and gas company, providing energy that helps underpin growing economies and improve living standards around the world."
However, "ExxonMobil is the largest NON-GOVERNMENT OWNED company in the energy industry — yet we produce only about 3 percent of the world's oil and less than 2 percent of the world's energy."
A PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM A STATE-FUNDED ENTERPRISE.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Honestly, do you not understand how private companies benefit from regulations?
Let's take it to the extreme then, see how stupid your notion is. Let's say we shot anyone who tried to compete with company X, do you think company X would do worse or better?
Regulations always help the big guys. Cap and trade is a prime example of this, they end up selling products for a higher price with the same profit margin - make more money.
AGW is not worthwile fighting, it is a stupid investment.
Visfen 2 years ago
"Regulations always help the big guys"
Then why did THOMAS DILORENZO, a fellow of Mises institute HYSTERICALLY oppose "ANTI-TRUST CASE against Wal-Mart, which IS a BIG GUY.
The Wal-Mart apologist DiLorenzo even asserted that Adam Smith was NOT a trust-buster. However, a contextual reading of Smith revealed that governmental regulations to HELP the poor will LEND HELP FOR BUSINESSES TO MEET EACH OTHER and FORM CORPORATION. (See Wealth of the Nations, Book 1, Chapter 10, Part II)
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Haha, because it helps the other big guys you tool.
Visfen 2 years ago
HOW BROAD IS YOUR VOCABULARY? WHY DID DILORENZO SPOKE APOLOGETICALLY IN FAVOUR OF WAL-MART?
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT AN APOLOGIST IS? OR WAS DILORENZO OFFERING APOLOGY , i.e. "a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another" FOR WAL-MART WRONGDOINGS TO UNION LEADERS?
DonKhoi 2 years ago
I'm done with you, lunatic.
Visfen 2 years ago
I'm NO a tick from the moon (LUNA-TICK).
DonKhoi 2 years ago
I talked ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT "WHITE GUILT." Either YOU hadn't heeded my words to READ Kipling's poem yourself, or you had ineed read it, but your IDIOCY prevented you from UNDERSTANDING its message.
Allow me to "Skull-Stuff" the idiot-imbecile-moron you:
The White Man's Burden is NOT White Guilt, but the TASK, the RESPONSIBILITY, the MORAL DUTY of the CIVILIZED, PROGRESSIVE White Man to ENLIGHTEN the IGNORANT and BARBARIC half-devil, half-child INDIGENOUS ABORIGINES.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I rather just ignore you."
DO YOUR WORST to refute my argument when I have debunked your fallacious claim that Halliburton was "state-funded!"
DonKhoi 2 years ago
You always pay lip-service to us Communists that you will alow us to join any commune should we want to, but you hadn't allowed primitive Communism. You enslaved and civilized those so-called backward folks, you took up the Capitalists' Burden.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
We? I am not a collective, I'm just me.
Yeah, I'd allow you moronic daft tools to destroy yourselves all you want.
Heck communism didn't even work in your own home country, Vietnams prosperity started taking of when they opened up to international trade and enacted liberating policies. And just as the laws of economics state, wherever the government is involved they do more harm than good. I know because I've traded in Vietnamese companies
I've never enslaved anybody. You're being racist.
Visfen 2 years ago
Anarcho-Communism and Collectivism had been successfully tried during the Spanish Civil War in Catalan until the MILITARY, not economic surpresseion by the Franco's Fascist Regime.
Vietnam had never been a Communist country. The means of production belonged to a Hanoi-based ruling elite, and the workers were paid wages and salaries. Pure Communism advocated labour vouchers and gift economy.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
I'm so fucking tired of haring about the Spanish civil war, yes, it worked, for about a few years. Then it collapsed. And that is what people who udnerstand the market always preedicts, that you can agree on a lot of things for a long time, but when you get to a certain point then people dsiputes would disolve something controled by a democracy in favor of the market - where everyone that deserves it has control.
And it was mutulaist, not communist!
Visfen 2 years ago
The Anarchist Catalonia is MILITARILY surpressed, not economically.
No comtemporary local sources had ever stated that that Anarchist Catalonia was mutualist. It was either progressively collectivistic or radically communistic:
Antony Beevor, The Spanish Civil War, pp. 91-2
The Anarchist Collectives, p. 114
Workers Power and the Spanish Revolution," by Tom Wetzel
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Well, it was more a sort of libetarian republicnaism. Any way, spanish civil war is not a good example, especially not considering how they murdered people in the streets because they were considered to be of the "burgeouis" or how completely unstable the society was at it collapsed just three years later.
It was definetly militarily suppressed by the civil war, that is why it wasn't stable. As any anarchist collectivist society it falls apart as soon as people get free to choose.
Visfen 2 years ago
"As any anarchist collectivist society it falls apart as soon as people get free to choose"
Did they choose to be MILITARILY SURPRESSED by the Fascist Franco?
DonKhoi 2 years ago
And I'm so tired of the "anarcho-"capitalist Mediaeval Icelandic Commonwealth as David Friedman insists. DF "refutes" the Anarchist FAQ by suggest them to read the "expert voice" Jesse Byock, but when the Anarchist turned up Passages from Byock's book Viking Age Iceland depiting a Communal system, Dave cannot offer a second rebuttal.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
But it wasn't a communal system, that is plainly wrong.
I think the reason why Dave doesn't really care about the communists is that communists are not taken seriously. The entire foundation for the philosopy is based on the iron law, a law which was proven wrong before marx ever stole it.
It should have died there, instead it has been tried in several countries, never succesfuly implemented. The theory simply doesn't reflect reality, that is why it will never work.
Visfen 2 years ago
"During the summer COMMON lands and pastures in the highlands, often called *almenning*, were used by the region's farmers for grazing . . . COMMON lands were called *almenning* . . . these PUBLIC lands offered opportunities for enterprising individuals to increase their store of provisions and to find saleable merchandise." (pp. 47-48)
These are the Jesse Byck's words that sewed Dave Friedman's mouth shut, he cannot "prove" that Medieval Iceland was a proto-anarcho capitalist system.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Communism will never happen. Vietnam, China, North Korea and th Soviet Union is the closest you'll ever get to that nonsense. It simply doesn't regonize how humans solve problem trough the market, instead it tries to replace it with planning. It doesn't work, people don't want it, and they refuse itfor the market.
Pure communism is a pipe dream, it has no basis in human action, interaction, the understanding of such or for that matter then - reality.
Visfen 2 years ago
Pure Communism is working NOW in Freetown Christiania and the American Federations of Egalitarian Community. Their members were distributed POSSESSIONS according to NEEDs. Christiania were intolerant towards the outside world because the State-Capitalist government tried to interfere into their Cannabis Trade, threatening to RUIN their Community. Christiania's drug politics is comprehensive and reasonable, cannabis, whose effects were as mild as tobacco, is allowed, hard drugs BANNED
DonKhoi 2 years ago
I've been to Chritiania, it's a utter and complete shithole. Out of all of Denmark it is the most crime infested, most poverty strucken, least progressed part.
The outside world cared little about Christiania until first now in later years when it has become a problem as a neighbour.
Their drug politics are responaible, but that is it. Ther are examples of countries with reasonable drug policies that have managed to be reasonable in other terms as well.
Further, hard drugs should not be banned
Visfen 2 years ago
Crimes in Christiania are committed by drug-dealing gangs from outside against Christianites. They are poor according to your standard, not theirs INDIVIDUALISTICALLY. Chritianite drug politics is reasonable and utilarian because hard drugs such as heroine and amphetamine have more dire effects on Christianites' health than cannabis (which in many respects is less harmful than tobacco, the industry based on which killed 435,000 each years), not for the sake of profitability.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Viet Nam, China, North Korea, and the USSR are NOWHERE around, much less about, let alone near Communism.
If you believe in dictionary definition of Socialism as meaning "means of production are owned and controlled by the state," then you must also believe in the second most common definition of ANARCHY in, say, Merriam Webster: "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority."
DonKhoi 2 years ago
These countries are as close as man will ever get to communism. The ideology is based on the iron law, and the iron law is wrong, so of course it doesn't work in reality.
It's not a matter of defintions it is also a matter of seeing what happens when you try to implement the system. It doesn't work, there is no proxy data nor is there any examples of it. You have a mountain of every increasing evidence to climb against that shows indivdual liberty is the way to go.
Visfen 2 years ago
Marx himself dismissed the Iron Law:
"as the costs of producing labouring powers of different quality differ, so much differ the values of the labouring powers employed in different trades. The cry for an equality of wages rests, therefore, upon a mistake, is an inane wish never to be fulfilled."
Only he who was so ignorant as MISES would assert that Marx grudgingly admit it.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
No Marx did not dismiss the Iron Law, he restated it clumisly.
Visfen 2 years ago
Such great minds as Marx and Mises always met:
"For it is certain that there exist among men varying degrees of capacity and dexterity, which cause the products and services of labor to have varying qualities. What must be conclusive in deciding the question whether reckoning in terms of labor is applicable or not, is whether it is or is not possible to bring different kinds of labor under a common denominator without the mediation of the economic subject's valuation of their products."
DonKhoi 2 years ago