This is a case of stop operating, the patient is dead.
That_Which_Isnt: 3. Centralisation of power into the hands of a few
3. Centralisation of power into the hands of a few
Hello, mate, and what exactly are your "councils"? I'd prefer to call them what they really are: Soviets.
You're a closeted Marxist-Socialist.
That_Which_Isnt:Everybody will own everything
Obviously that cannot realistically work out. How can I control what happens in India when I live in California?
That_Which_Isnt:and at the moment they go against the will of the people they shall be expelled
you mean the will of the majority.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Hard Rain: So you want us to go back to 50,000BC tribalism with humans scavenging the landscape for subsistence living while the masses continuously overthrow their tribal council leaders on a superstitious whim?
So you want us to go back to 50,000BC tribalism with humans scavenging the landscape for subsistence living while the masses continuously overthrow their tribal council leaders on a superstitious whim?
No, s/he wants us to go back to 1917.
"Communism"
I've stated once before Communism and Anarchy have the same end goal in mind but differ on their methods.
"So you're admitting there's a central authority. How is this anarchic?"
Yes this authority is centralized, coming from direct democracy that's totally possible.
"Ah, mob democracy. And by "expelled" you mean "expunged", right?"
The Will of the People will prevail yes, but there will be discussion for compromise which can be reached under Anarchy which adheres to no dogmas such as private property.
"Once again, planned implies overlords. So much for anarchy and freedom.
So you're not happy living under the mutually consensual "boot" of capitalists but you're happy living under the "boot" of a chaotic musical-chairs council?
Sounds like primitive tribalism to me..."
You haven't ever just planned a camping trip with your friends without having someone tell you how to do it? You sound deprived.
mutually consensual in as much sense that the rapist that holds a gun to my head forces me to "consent".
"Hello, mate, and what exactly are your "councils"? I'd prefer to call them what they really are: Soviets.
You're a closeted Marxist-Socialist."
I will no longer address issues regarding the line between Marxism and Anarchy I have done so repeatedly. I have also explained why Councils are fine, you cannot centralize direct democracy.
"Obviously that cannot realistically work out. How can I control what happens in India when I live in California?"
It was a figure of speech used to help you understand since as a Capitalist you have a private property mindset. What's really meant is the fact that you only "own" whatever it is that you frequently use. If you want to call it backpedalling go for it I recognize that I may have mistyped that in a rush.
"you mean the will of the majority."
Ehh sort of, compromise can be reached too.
"Yeah, he or she just quoted "things will be made from each according to ability and to each according to need.""
Communism Anarchy same end goal different methods etc.
Caley McKibbin: This is a case of stop operating, the patient is dead.
Yeah, he or she just quoted "things will be made from each according to ability and to each according to need."
I'm finding it very difficult to accept this poster is actually legitimate. Is somebody on the forum trying to test our etiquette?
That_Which_Isnt: Yes this authority is centralized, coming from direct democracy that's totally possible. The Will of the People will prevail yes, but there will be discussion for compromise which can be reached under Anarchy which adheres to no dogmas such as private property.
So you've got a democratic executive, judiciary and legislature. And you're not a statist?
That_Which_Isnt: Yes this authority is centralized, coming from direct democracy that's totally possible.
Well what happens if you don't agree? What happened to the liberty? What happened to the equality?
That_Which_Isnt:The Will of the People will prevail yes, but there will be discussion for compromise which can be reached under Anarchy which adheres to no dogmas such as private property.
And what happens when the will of the people directs them towards other countries, or they decide to throw your system out? What happens to those people?
That_Which_Isnt:mutually consensual in as much sense that the rapist that holds a gun to my head forces me to "consent".
What about the guy who's like, "I'll give you an apple for that orange," and you're like, "okay."
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
As for the OT, I can no longer "pretend" the poster is stupid.
Either they really are, or someone is having a go at us...
"So you've got a democratic executive, judiciary and legislature. And you're not a statist? "
All three of these come DIRECTLY FROM THE PEOPLE. It is not centralised unless you consider letting everybody participate directly as centralisation, like I said I won't bother arguing semantics, just give me your definitions.
"Well what happens if you don't agree? What happened to the liberty? What happened to the equality?"
If you don't agree and it's that big of a deal, you can relocate to a different Commune which would be happy to receive another member. Their Liberty was in voicing their opinion and it was heard but decidedly ignored, equality was there because everyone was given the same opportunity
"And what happens when the will of the people directs them towards other countries, or they decide to throw your system out? What happens to those people?"
The people that decide to abandon the system? Well they abandon the system, you can't force someone to be free, that's why Anarchists advocate for self-liberation instead of the Marxist forced liberation by the State, ignoring the other obvious problems with that.
I don't think I entirely understood what you meant, elaborate further please :).
"What about the guy who's like, "I'll give you an apple for that orange," and you're all like, "okay.""
That's fine by me, no currency was necessary both parties were, as far as I'm aware, on equal footing so it was actually mutual.
That_Which_Isnt:All three of these come DIRECTLY FROM THE PEOPLE.
Ah yes, "the people." How many millions were killed by "the people?"
That_Which_Isnt:If you don't agree and it's that big of a deal, you can relocate to a different Commune which would be happy to receive another member.
What if I don't want to live in a commune. What if I want to start my own anarcho capitalist society?
That_Which_Isnt: That's fine by me, no currency was necessary both parties were, as far as I'm aware, on equal footing so it was actually mutual.
What if he's like, "I'll give you an apple for an orange," and you're like "I don't have an orange, but I can get one from Henry who wants my cherries."
That_Which_Isnt: "So you've got a democratic executive, judiciary and legislature. And you're not a statist? " All three of these come DIRECTLY FROM THE PEOPLE. It is not centralised unless you consider letting everybody participate directly as centralisation, like I said I won't bother arguing semantics, just give me your definitions.
Yes, hello mate, I'm using your own assertions:
"Yes this authority is centralized, coming from direct democracy that's totally possible."
You've admitted centralized authority. Whether the "permission" for this authority comes from direct democracy (I prefer to call it mob democracy) or whether it comes from those evil wizards in Mordor, it's still central authority. That is a government. You are a statist.
"Ah yes, "the people." How many millions were killed by "the people?""
How many million people have Black People raped. Generalizations are always wrong.
"What if I don't want to live in a commune. What if I want to start my own anarcho capitalist society?"
If you don't want to be free no one can stop you, just don't infringe on our liberties and we're good.
"What if he's like, "I'll give you an apple for an orange," and you're like "I don't have an orange, but I can get one from Henry who wants my cherries.""
...This is also fine for the same reasons.
"Yes, hello mate, I'm using your own assertions:
You've admitted centralized authority. Whether the "permission" for this authority comes from direct democracy (I prefer to call it mob democracy) or whether it comes from those evil wizards in Mordor, it's still central authority. That is a government. You are a statist."
Your sarcasm detector is insufferably broken. I apologize.
Why must one move? It would seem that you would be passed along like a sack until you find a commune that is indifferent to you.
That_Which_Isnt:Their Liberty was in voicing their opinion and it was heard but decidedly ignored
What wonderful liberty. 'We hear what you are saying, we simply don't care' doesn't this conflict with equality? Why do some get to choose the lifestyle for others? Should not each individual be allowed to choose what is best for him or her without some outside force coercing them?
That_Which_Isnt: The people that decide to abandon the system? Well they abandon the system, you can't force someone to be free, that's why Anarchists advocate for self-liberation instead of the Marxist forced liberation by the State, ignoring the other obvious problems with that.
Good to know.
That_Which_Isnt:...This is also fine for the same reasons.
What if he's like, "hey everyone wants oranges, lets start collecting and storing oranges."
That_Which_Isnt: "Yes, hello mate, I'm using your own assertions: "Yes this authority is centralized, coming from direct democracy that's totally possible." You've admitted centralized authority. Whether the "permission" for this authority comes from direct democracy (I prefer to call it mob democracy) or whether it comes from those evil wizards in Mordor, it's still central authority. That is a government. You are a statist." Your sarcasm detector is insufferably broken. I apologize.
I'm sorry? Forgive me for finding it hard to understand how you wish for your Soviets to be organized. You've gone from saying these "councils" will be a musical-chairs game where everyone will eventually get a turn to saying they're based on mob democracy? Care to clarify?
"Why must one move? It would seem that you would be passed along like a sack until you find a commune that is indifferent to you."
Because if your vote is to burn all the crops, and the rest of the people disagree and you REALLY want to burn all the crops, you're going to have to find a commune that will be accepting of that idea.
"What wonderful liberty. 'We hear what you are saying, we simply don't care' doesn't this conflict with equality? Why do some get to choose the lifestyle for others? Should not each individual be allowed to choose what is best for him or her without some outside force coercing them?"
Ehh I've misrepresented my own views again (read as backpedalling). They can voice their opinion, it will be heard and considered in the debate, but it might not be the one that is acted upon. Some do not get to choose the lifestyle for others, because the principle rule of Anarchy is "do not infringe upon others liberties" If this rule is broken in any instance, and Anarchy ceases to exist. There is no otuside force, it comes from the people etc.
"What if he's like, "hey everyone wants oranges, lets start collecting and storing oranges.""
If there's a demand for oranges there will be no need to have an excessive surplus that would last much longer than the time when Oranges cannot be harvested.
"I'm sorry? Forgive me for finding it hard to understand how you wish for your Soviets to be organized. You've gone from saying these "councils" will be a musical-chairs game where everyone will eventually get a turn to saying they're based on mob democracy? Care to clarify?"
It's a mixture of your two trivialized terms which I'm not even going to bother addressing. The people directly elect someone to say precisely what they want them to, but that's in larger matters when a gathering of a hundred thousand people at once is impractical. In other situations, such councils are unnecessary as people can debate on the issue then and there.
That_Which_Isnt:Because if your vote is to burn all the crops, and the rest of the people disagree and you REALLY want to burn all the crops, you're going to have to find a commune that will be accepting of that idea.
So under your commune system, justice is essentially only what the majority wills it to be.
That_Which_Isnt: Ehh I've misrepresented my own views again (read as backpedalling).
Ehh I've misrepresented my own views again (read as backpedalling).
Fair enough, it happens when one is answering multiple questions.
That_Which_Isnt:Some do not get to choose the lifestyle for others, because the principle rule of Anarchy is "do not infringe upon others liberties" If this rule is broken in any instance, and Anarchy ceases to exist. There is no otuside force, it comes from the people etc.
Ok so we are searching for a society in which the individual can achieve the full fruition of their liberty and be able to act our their goals in a manner which does not infringe on the rights of others to do the same task. If that is what we are searching for then do you think an economic system in which the control of resources is regulated to a system of councils and worker representatives is an effective way in which individuals are able to carry out their will free of molestation or a system which involves free trading, free buying and selling which allows for the unregulated exchange of commodities between two consenting parties?
I think you are on the fence still. Let me clarify that what we have today is not capitalism even according to Marx's own explicit definition which I gave above 'free buying and selling, free exchange.' There is a whole host of Federal codes and regulations which inhibit small businesses from starting up and grant subsidies to big corporations allowing them to rule the markets. It is sometimes refered to as 'state capitalism' 'crony capitalism' 'corporatism' 'neo-merchantialism' but it is not a free market.
That_Which_Isnt:If there's a demand for oranges there will be no need to have an excessive surplus that would last much longer than the time when Oranges cannot be harvested.
What if people started exchanging oranges for goods they wanted to consume? That is, they trade goods they don't want to consume for goods they want to consume, and/or for oranges they could exchange for goods they want to consume.
That_Which_Isnt: It's a mixture of your two trivialized terms which I'm not even going to bother addressing. The people directly elect someone to say precisely what they want them to, but that's in larger matters when a gathering of a hundred thousand people at once is impractical. In other situations, such councils are unnecessary as people can debate on the issue then and there.
Okay, so what's happened to the authority? You've got representational democracy for "large gatherings", now how are decisions made and reached? Democracy as well?
That_Which_Isnt:The people directly elect someone to say precisely what they want them to, but that's in larger matters when a gathering of a hundred thousand people at once is impractical. In other situations, such councils are unnecessary as people can debate on the issue then and there.
I think you are confusing direct democracy with representative democracy. Under the representative system, a politician or figurehead is elected to enact the will of his electors. Under direct democracy the citizenry actual votes themselves on certain issues, not the politician.
That_Which_Isnt:Anarchists do not believe in equality of endowment which is not only non-existent but would be very undesirable if it could be brought about. . . . However, in a hierarchical society, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each generation face are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones.
Anarchists do not believe in equality of endowment which is not only non-existent but would be very undesirable if it could be brought about. . . .
However, in a hierarchical society, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each generation face are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones.
And that's only true under capitalism? If my ancestors were genetically more or less capable beings, aren't my opportunities (being their genetic heir) respectively greater or lesser?
That_Which_Isnt:This means that under capitalism equality of opportunity without a rough equality of outcome (in the sense of income and resources) becomes meaningless, as there is no real equality of opportunity for the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road sweeper.
This means that under capitalism equality of opportunity without a rough equality of outcome (in the sense of income and resources) becomes meaningless, as there is no real equality of opportunity for the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road sweeper.
So being born smart is "inequality of endowment," but being born rich is "inequality of opportunity?"
That_Which_Isnt:Those who argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the barriers created by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what they are talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society depends not only on an open road but also upon an equal start.
Those who argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the barriers created by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what they are talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society depends not only on an open road but also upon an equal start.
Being smarter is "an equal start?" Being stronger is "an equal start?" Being more attractive is "an equal start?"
Esuric:What if he's like, "I'll give you an apple for an orange," and you're like "I don't have an orange, but I can get one from Henry who wants my cherries."
... Bow chicka bow wow.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
"So under your commune system, justice is essentially only what the majority wills it to be."
In a very roundabout way yes. Depends on what you mean by justice.
"Ok so we are searching for a society in which the individual can achieve the full fruition of their liberty and be able to act our their goals in a manner which does not infringe on the rights of others to do the same task. If that is what we are searching for then do you think an economic system in which the control of resources is regulated to a system of councils and worker representatives is an effective way in which individuals are able to carry out their will free of molestation or a system which involves free trading, free buying and selling which allows for the unregulated exchange of commodities between two consenting parties?"
Let me pose the same question using my bias. Do you think a system based on an impossible proposition (private property) , which robs from those who labour under it, and creates inequality by its very nature or a system based on self-managing your own labour not under any form of Vertical Hierarchy.
"I think you are on the fence still. Let me clarify that what we have today is not capitalism even according to Marx's own explicit definition which I gave above 'free buying and selling, free exchange.' There is a whole host of Federal codes and regulations which inhibit small businesses from starting up and grant subsidies to big corporations allowing them to rule the markets. It is sometimes refered to as 'state capitalism' 'crony capitalism' 'corporatism' 'neo-merchantialism' but it is not a free market."
If your system is based around private property it is oppressive, and impossible.
"What if people started exchanging oranges for goods they wanted to consume? That is, they trade goods they don't want to consume for goods they want to consume, and/or for oranges they could exchange for goods they want to consume."
Mostly this exchange of goods is unnecessary, there's a large communal pool of resources that people can draw from. You're sort of dealing with individual anarchism which is based around market economics, so I'm not going to pursue this any further considering I'm not an individualist.
"Okay, so what's happened to the authority? You've got representational democracy for "large gatherings", now how are decisions made and reached? Democracy as well?"
What happened to authority? It remained with the people whom are in complete control and can call off anything at any given moment. Decisions are made through debate compromise and ideally consensus, and if not majority but with favourable compromise.
That_Which_Isnt: "Okay, so what's happened to the authority? You've got representational democracy for "large gatherings", now how are decisions made and reached? Democracy as well?" What happened to authority? It remained with the people whom are in complete control and can call off anything at any given moment. Decisions are made through debate compromise and ideally consensus, and if not majority but with favourable compromise.
Obviously there will instances where there won't be compromises. So I'm assuming it would come down to a majority vote. And these outcomes would then be binding on the citizenry? This is government, mate.
"I think you are confusing direct democracy with representative democracy. Under the representative system, a politician or figurehead is elected to enact the will of his electors. Under direct democracy the citizenry actual votes themselves on certain issues, not the politician."
Sometimes a gathering of several hundred thousand or million is impossible, so delegates must be elected to speak PRECISELY as the people say so it were AS IF the people were actually there.
"And that's only true under capitalism? If my ancestors were genetically more or less capable beings, aren't my opportunities (being their genetic heir) respectively greater or lesser?"
I said hierarchical society to be broad. Yes they are, and as I've said I'm glad they are, this is a good thing.
"So being born smart is "inequality of endowment," but being born rich is "inequality of opportunity?""
Precisely, families should not be Nuclear, communal child-rearing is a MUCH better alternative to such an oppressive institute.
"Being smarter is "an equal start?" Being stronger is "an equal start?" Being more attractive is "an equal start?""
All of those are subjective except for strength which cannot be determined by genetics.
"Obviously there will instances where there won't be compromises. So I'm assuming it would come down to a majority vote. And these outcomes would then be binding on the citizenry? This is government, mate."
As I've said, if the opposition found it so intolerable a decision, they could choose to leave. Without a solid example this is harder to work with.
That_Which_Isnt:Do you think a system based on an impossible proposition (private property)
Clearly private property isn't impossible since it is in effect right now.
That_Which_Isnt:which robs from those who labour under it
That's very strange, I've never heard of an abstraction actually robbing people.
That_Which_Isnt:a system based on self-managing your own labour not under any form of Vertical Hierarchy.
Well if I am to manage my own labor then cannot I not work for someone? And I think you still have a vertical hierarchical system especially with the communal majority dictating what is and isn't proper behavior within its borders.
That_Which_Isnt: If your system is based around private property it is oppressive, and impossible.
By owning a good, how does one oppress another?
That_Which_Isnt: "Obviously there will instances where there won't be compromises. So I'm assuming it would come down to a majority vote. And these outcomes would then be binding on the citizenry? This is government, mate." As I've said, if the opposition found it so intolerable a decision, they could choose to leave. Without a solid example this is harder to work with.
So it's accept the tyranny of the majority or piss off and starve? This is also government. We would call it a dictatorship.
"Clearly private property isn't impossible since it is in effect right now."
It's impossible to permanently sustain I should say, the public will not tolerate the existence of inequality and Revolution will end its existence.
"That's very strange, I've never heard of an abstraction actually robbing people."
You've seriously NEVER heard the Anarchist saying "Property is theft!" ?
"By owning a good, how does one oppress another?"
It's time to make the distinction between private property and possession.
Private property is something like a factory which you "own" for some reason or another, that still confounds me, and you employ wage-slaves to work it, then steal the goods that they make from it and return to them a fraction of what the goods are worth.
Possession is something like your comb that you use every day, or your computer.
"So it's accept the tyranny of the majority or piss off and starve? This is also government. We would call it a dictatorship."
The same way you accept your working conditions and piss off and starve mirite?
Being more serious, no that is not how it happens, it is NOT tyranny of the majority, and decisions being made would never be to the benefit of one group or another because such groups do NOT exist, unless you provide an example I refuse to continue with this.
That_Which_Isnt:It's impossible to permanently sustain I should say, the public will not tolerate the existence of inequality and Revolution will end its existence
Been going strong since the industrial revolution.
That_Which_Isnt:You've seriously NEVER heard the Anarchist saying "Property is theft!" ?
Proudhon is a man full of contradictions so it perhaps shouldn't surprise you when I say that Proudhon also thought that private property was a necessity of life. He just wanted to apply his warped form of justice to it which meant that all forms of profit from property were to be abolished. Really the idea that property is theft is quite absurd since theft is only possible if there is property in the first place. You cannot logically steal something that nobody owns.
That_Which_Isnt: Private property is something like a factory which you "own" for some reason or another, that still confounds me, and you employ wage-slaves to work it, then steal the goods that they make from it and return to them a fraction of what the goods are worth. Possession is something like your comb that you use every day, or your computer.
Oh hooray, we are going to delve into the contradictions of the mutualists. How wonderful it is that we can just say we 'possess' the factory instead of saying we privately own it. The dilemma is solved, I need an accommodation for deducing such a solution.
That_Which_Isnt: "So it's accept the tyranny of the majority or piss off and starve? This is also government. We would call it a dictatorship." The same way you accept your working conditions and piss off and starve mirite? Being more serious, no that is not how it happens, it is NOT tyranny of the majority, and decisions being made would never be to the benefit of one group or another because such groups do NOT exist, unless you provide an example I refuse to continue with this.
Yeah, if I don't like my working conditions I'll take my labour elsewhere. There is an incentive for employers to provide better wages and better working conditions in order to entice more skilled and hard-working people. But in your world there is an infinite supply of laborers all with exactly the same skillsets and work ethics, so this will never happen... As if.
An example of preferential treatment in a democratic system? Mate, how naive can you get? "Groups won't exist"? What, are people's subjective degrees of association simply going to vanish?
Every government in history is an example of preferential treatment for one group or another.
"Been going strong since the industrial revolution."
Chattel-Slavery was around for quite the time too, but that form of property was intolerable, moreso than the rest, plus an inefficient method of exploitation anyway.
"Proudhon is a man full of contradictions so it perhaps shouldn't surprise you when I say that Proudhon also thought that private property was a necessity of life. He just wanted to apply his warped form of justice to it which meant that all forms of profit from property were to be abolished. Really the idea that property is theft is quite absurd since theft is only possible if there is property in the first place. You cannot logically steal something that is nobodies to own."
We're going to employ Ad-hominem now? You don't believe you can be robbed of your life? Of that Comb I mention later?
"Oh hooray, we are going to delve into the contradictions of the mutualists. How wonder it is that we can just say we 'possess' the factory instead of saying we privately own it. The dilemma is solved, I need an accommodation for deducing such a solution."
Yes, to possess the factory would be to actively work it yourself and reap the rewards yourself, self-managed labour. Welcome to socialism.
"Yeah, if I don't like my working conditions I'll take my labour elsewhere."
Because there's clearly a limitless need for labourers.
"There is an incentive for employers to provide better wages and better working conditions in order to entice more skilled and hard-working people."
Or just own the means of production so people are forced to sell themselves to you or starve.
"But in your world there is an infinite supply of laborers all with exactly the same skillsets and work ethics, so this will never happen... As if."
In my world there are no wages, there is no currency in a classless society.
"An example of preferential treatment in a democratic system? Mate, how naive can you get? "Groups won't exist"? What, are people's subjective degrees of association simply going to vanish?"
I meant I'm going to need a specific example of an issue that this commune is deciding over, for instance whether or not to burn all their crops down. It would be a classless society, associating yourself with anything in that manner wouldn't exist.
"Every government in history is an example of preferential treatment for one group or another."
Good thing Anarchism has no government.
That_Which_Isnt: Yes, to possess the factory would be to actively work it yourself and reap the rewards yourself, self-managed labour. Welcome to socialism.
Yes, humans have been doing that for thousands of years. It's called subsistence farming. Millions of people are still doing it today! Most of them will live for less than 40 years and spend most of their time starving and laboring in futility.
"Yes, humans have been doing that for thousands of years. It's called subsistence farming. Millions of people are still doing it today! Most of them will live for less than 40 years and spend most of their time starving and laboring in futility."
And imagine if we move that to the first-world countries. Heck look at USSR's economy during the Great Depression and how it was grew. The joys of collectivized labour.
That_Which_Isnt:Chattel-Slavery was around for quite the time too, but that form of property was intolerable, moreso than the rest, plus an inefficient method of exploitation anyway.
I perceive slavery as an involuntary state. No one is forcing you to go to work for anyone. You need food and water to survive, however I am not obligated to give that to you for then I would become the slave.
That_Which_Isnt: We're going to employ Ad-hominem now?
We're going to employ Ad-hominem now?
Please, firstly, I don't committee the ad-hominem fallacy with dead people. Secondly, I addressed his argument [ established what it was ] then critiqued it. Such is not committing the ad-hominem fallacy for that is defined as skipping the argument and attacking the person. I presented the argument then attacked how ridiculous it was.
That_Which_Isnt:You don't believe you can be robbed of your life? Of that Comb I mention later?
I think that is a very good question for you to answer also. For you said that everyone owns everything therefore how can I be robbed of a comb when I never actually completely owned it. Such is the same for life. I myself believe in private property rights so I would say yes you can be robbed of your life and your comb.
That_Which_Isnt: Yes, to possess the factory would be to actively work it yourself and reap the rewards yourself, self-managed labour. Welcome to socialism
Yes, to possess the factory would be to actively work it yourself and reap the rewards yourself, self-managed labour. Welcome to socialism
So that is how you see the world working out? Everyone forced to making everything for themselves? Let us hope we all know how to be doctors, mechanics, contractors and every other profession with stunning brilliance lest we be forced to live in a brutish, short dismal life.
That_Which_Isnt: "Yes, humans have been doing that for thousands of years. It's called subsistence farming. Millions of people are still doing it today! Most of them will live for less than 40 years and spend most of their time starving and laboring in futility." And imagine if we move that to the first-world countries. Heck look at USSR's economy during the Great Depression and how it was grew. The joys of collectivized labour.
Millions of people starved to death in that period, mate. Many others were executed for withholding their crop from "the collective". Joys indeed.
That_Which_Isnt:Heck look at USSR's economy during the Great Depression and how it was grew
That's because
A.) False government figures
B.) Up to 1200 people were being killed in purges...a day.
C.) The Russian economy was so dismal from shortages and famines that it couldn't get any lower.
D.) Between 1932-1933 7 million people died.
Indeed, the joys of collectivist labor.
Hard Rain:Millions of people starved to death in that period, mate. Many others were executed for withholding their crop from "the collective". Joys indeed.
Dammit stop paraphrasing my comments