The Late Andrew Ryan:....Anyone else laughing at the "pretend" part of the title?
Believe me, you're not. I've contemplated about a dozen variations on "Pretend?" over the past night.
As long as I'm allowed to leave the communes and setup my own system, I don't mind it.
"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."
Hard Rain:"Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good." - Principles of Austrian Economics, Carl Menger, 1871.
WHat does this mean?
We needn't have really argued this. The OP was a fellow traveler (defined the state in the same way as we do, and was against it), just one who is very bad at economics (LTV).
Why anarchy fails
AJ: We needn't have really argued this. The OP was a fellow traveler (defined the state in the same way as we do, and was against it), just one who is very bad at economics (LTV).
Dude the "Libertarian Left" and Libertarian Socialism is so full of shit. Its ALL bullshit. Its so scary how First Internationals and RevLeft Communists are attached to The Labor Theory of Value. How workers pooling their resources after overthrowing the Capitalists won't become Public Property is something I will NEVER understand.
Syndicalists are so arrogant, "their Libertarianism" has no economic backing whatsoever. Therefore they cannot prove their shit physically.
Did he get banned?
We don't ban people for having an opinion.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
AJ: Did he get banned?
Seeing as how this is a libertarian dominated forum.. I don't know why they would ban him for having an opinion, or just using words for.. well, whatever reason.
The one thing I had understood was, even if America were to collapse and we all decided to go down the road to anarchy, America wouldn't be all one "anarcho-communist" or "anarcho-capitalist", that there would be pockets of different societies all over the place with different ways of going about things. Basically, a voluntary society would crop up. Where you can go to a commune if you believed in that sort of thing or to go a capitalist city. Or whatever else there is.
Not to forget to mention the possibility of minarchist or panarchist societies, as well. There'd be a place for everybody to go. And who knows what potential for space there might be once there's no government involvement (NASA) into space travel/exploration. (see: space x, virgin galactic)
Hell, has anyone read the book "Oath of Fealty" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle? I am sure you'd see "Big Brother" societies going, too, if this is what people wanted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Fealty_%28novel%29
You observe, but you do not see.
[Justin: I didn't write the above - you have me quoted - it was Democracy for Breakfast.]
Democracy for Breakfast: Dude the "Libertarian Left" and Libertarian Socialism is so full of shit. Its ALL bullshit. Its so scary how First Internationals and RevLeft Communists are attached to The Labor Theory of Value. How workers pooling their resources after overthrowing the Capitalists won't become Public Property is something I will NEVER understand. Syndicalists are so arrogant, "their Libertarianism" has no economic backing whatsoever. Therefore they cannot prove their shit physically.
I believe they are completely wrong on economics. But if they are against a monopoly on force and they take actions that help reduce or eliminate it, I see that as helpful to libertarian ends - whether they realize it or not. When they get to anarchy, they're just going to be surprised that none of their theories worked, and that will be the end of that.
Democracy for Breakfast:Dude the "Libertarian Left" and Libertarian Socialism is so full of shit. Its ALL bullshit. Its so scary how First Internationals and RevLeft Communists are attached to The Labor Theory of Value. How workers pooling their resources after overthrowing the Capitalists won't become Public Property is something I will NEVER understand.
Democracy for Breakfast:Did he get banned?
A thought on the spanish anarchists, after a little search about their history one can hypothesize that the only reason that anarchism boosted production in spain was because those areas which the anarchists held were previously ruined by constant fighting so it was in fact peace -liberalism -and not anarchism and common property that was responsible for the rise in production.
fakename:A thought on the spanish anarchists, after a little search about their history one can hypothesize that the only reason that anarchism boosted production in spain was because those areas which the anarchists held were previously ruined by constant fighting so it was in fact peace -liberalism -and not anarchism and common property that was responsible for the rise in production.
That_Which_Isnt: I'm unfamiliar with Calvinism, do enlighten me. Most of my education comes from the First Internationals. As an aside why are you guys called ANARCHO-capitalists anyway, I see no bearing to actual Anarchy?
I'm unfamiliar with Calvinism, do enlighten me. Most of my education comes from the First Internationals. As an aside why are you guys called ANARCHO-capitalists anyway, I see no bearing to actual Anarchy?
1) This is anarchy: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html
everything else is a system. It can only be achieved at an atomistic level. Good =/= Anarchy, the "liberty" (however you wish to define it) of others =/= Anarchy, a body forcing no property laws on someone most certainly =/= anarchy; all it means is an anti-propertarian govt.
2) To deprive yourself the basic theology and history of Protestantism is most likley depriving you of some MAJOr intellectual perspective in a field you seem to have interest in
That_Which_Isnt: So what about when the employer is in possession of the employees body during wage-slavery? He's free to exploit him in anyway he deems fit then since he's purchased that persons time right? Like he doesn't have to bother securing the workplace to be free of pollution or other hazards then.
So what about when the employer is in possession of the employees body during wage-slavery? He's free to exploit him in anyway he deems fit then since he's purchased that persons time right? Like he doesn't have to bother securing the workplace to be free of pollution or other hazards then.
Assuming everyone is trying to be intellectually honest and wishes productive diologue it would be best to get rid of hollow jingoistic words such as "slave", "free", "exploit", "rights", etc.
The reality is though, being that you enterd this site you ought to be expected to be using the libertarian definitions to debate (like them or not).
Anarchy = No rulers.
Equal rights = No aggression Axiom
Solidarity = uncoerced cooperation for mutual benefit
According to Rothbard you can't self enslave yourself, go in to debt slavery, etc.
Anarcho capitalists hold that once you remove the state and insist that people have equal rights, anarcho-capitalism is what develops. To put it another way anarcho capitalists hold that that theft, murder, kidnapping, fraud, and rape are wrong and destroy the fabric of society. When you live in a society without those practices you have anarcho-capitalism.
People are of course welcome to be any kind of anarchist they want, as long as the don't enforce their will on others via theft, murder, kidnapping, fraud, and rape. Communes, co-ops, etc. are cool.
Mises book liberalism talks about how with the proper rules there will be no conflict between the individual and society. But with improper rules there will be conflict.
http://mises.org/liberal.asp
Obviously Mises wasn't an anarchist. Rothbard and other anarchists think anarchism removes the conflict between the individual and society/other individuals.
Read my AIM conversation with this guy.
Democracy for Breakfast: Read my AIM conversation with this guy.
A "please" might work. :p
You should take some philosophy courses, and you should continue reading more material. Sorry to say, but your ability to persuade, your deductive skills, and your argumentation skills are sub-par.
You're social, but not everyone is, thats why human action is voluntary
For instance, this sentence doesn't flow logically. At least, the logic isn't clearly evident. This is why I'm suggesting philosophy. The most important lesson you can learn at this point (IMO) is from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
The arguments in philosophy within the school of AE are (for the most part, if not completely) grounded in logic. It is hard to present the arguments or to make a case if you don't argue on logic.
I know this post is chiding, but these are very important and necessary skills to have in order to convince people and to make coherent arguments.
No, I agree with you. Once I get all these Gen Ed's and crap out of the way I can take Ethics, Intro to Logic, and Philosophy.
Democracy for Breakfast: No, I agree with you. Once I get all these Gen Ed's and crap out of the way I can take Ethics, Intro to Logic, and Philosophy.
Glad you didn't take it hard.
Another thing I try to do is gauge the open-mindedness of people. Many people are open-minded who haven't heard of the details of libertarianism or of austrian economics. They'll be happy to listen instead of argue. It seems like the person you were talking to in the above excerpt wasn't all that open-minded.
That_Which_Isnt:Wait I thought we just said that a person's body was property why can't I buy that,
Because only the individual can own his or her own body. It is impossible to transfer the conscience.
That_Which_Isnt:are you already instituting regulations?
No.
That_Which_Isnt:An employer owns the means of production,
Only if you think it is possible to own the body of someone else. Since it is not, the employee owns the main means of production, human labor.
That_Which_Isnt:The employer estimates the value of the employees labour, and pays him less, that is the source of profit, exploitation.
What is the difference between me owning a piece of land, working it, and selling a tomato I produce for a $1 or me working the land of someone else to produce a tomato and getting a $1 for my time and effort? If nothing, then using your reasoning, consumers estimate the value of business owners, pay him less for his products, which is a source of savings, hence exploitation.
That_Which_Isnt:Since the Employer controls the means of production, the Employee has no choice but to sell his/her labour and therefor time,
Since the employee owns his own body, which is the main means of production, the employer has no choice but to give away his savings to the laborer.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
I'm sorry DFB but did you mean to come across as a total asshole? While his arguments were mostly ridiculous you seemed to be the one trash talking and he seemed to be the one speaking somwhat logical sense.
Spideynw: That_Which_Isnt:Since the Employer controls the means of production, the Employee has no choice but to sell his/her labour and therefor time, Since the employee owns his own body, which is the main means of production, the employer has no choice but to give away his savings to the laborer.
Wrong. Clearly, you are a bourgeois pig who hasn't read Marx. Or you don't understand Marx.
The Late Andrew Ryan: I'm sorry DFB but did you mean to come across as a total asshole? While his arguments were mostly ridiculous you seemed to be the one trash talking and he seemed to be the one speaking somwhat logical sense.
THis isn't the only conversation I've had with him, he is VERY arrogant like all the other First-Internationals.
Giant_Joe:Wrong. Clearly, you are a bourgeois pig who hasn't read Marx. Or you don't understand Marx.
Are you being serious?
lol. he was joking. he was acting like the Marxist person.
Spideynw: Giant_Joe:Wrong. Clearly, you are a bourgeois pig who hasn't read Marx. Or you don't understand Marx. Are you being serious?
I was just using the typical marxist response as a defense for the argument. I think it failed. :)
Giant_Joe:I was just using the typical marxist response as a defense for the argument. I think it failed. :)
Sadly, that seems to be their typical response.
Socialists see reality differently. LOL
Drew Brando:Socialists see reality differently. LOL
Exactly. The problem is that their reality doesn't square with the real reality. That's why it sounds good in theory, but all socialist experiments have failed.
"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.
LMAO, This should be the quote of the year.
I think we've just seen what happens when a Ferrous Cranus comes face to face with a forum of Capitalistas. Ah, well, you can't win them all. Though, personally, I'd say it was over when he shot himself in the foot saying the Soviet union killed people for not working hard enough and defended mass murder.
This is awesome, lol
There is nothing wrong with this fellow, if he/she wishes to use peaceful means, as do we. There is no reason that I see for why people of either persuasion cannot coexist. That is, if both sides agree to free association. If what this person is proposing is a voluntary commune, or business model if you will, then let him/her have it. I only suggest that both parties take down the state first, if what either party says is true, then "evil corporations" will fall rather quickly without their special protections.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
They're not interested in voluntary commune, at least the majority I've seen until now.
Apparently a worker owned factory must be established in a socialist society because it's not profitable in a "capitalist structure".
In other words, everyone must submit to the will of the "proletariat". I sound like a drone.
That_Which_Isnt: What's the bottom line of "anarcho"-capitalism? I'm referring to things like liberty equality solidarity etc etc etc. What is this system trying to achieve.
What's the bottom line of "anarcho"-capitalism? I'm referring to things like liberty equality solidarity etc etc etc. What is this system trying to achieve.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson.
Wait, this is how they debate:
YOU: Letting people, HUMAN BEINGS, live THEIR OWN LIVES rather than one that is immorally, unethically and unjustly imposed upon them by violence force and coercion (or the threat thereof).
Libertarian Socialist:But no one will apply force if you do what everyone in the commune says.
Lmao
In other words, everyone must submit to the will of the "proletariat". I sound like a drone.\
Actually this is not exactly true. Worker owned factories and co-ops can and do exist in the capitalist structure. But when competing for investors they fall short in their ability to pay out large sums of interest.
And because of this, you already are under the thumb of the bourgeoisie (as far as those terms exist). And how big is that class; 10-20%?
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Oh lol
/facepalm
There's no such thing as class mate.
And if I understand correctly you just admitted that these type of factories are innefiecient in a capitalist structure.
To the point that profits do not generate competitive interest on the investment market, yes.
There's no such thing as class mate
There's a difference between a class and a caste system. But to say there isn't a different standard towards the means of production amongst the ownership sectors of society and the labor sectors of society is quite absurd, really.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:There's a difference between a class and a caste system. But to say there isn't a different standard towards the means of production amongst the ownership sectors of society and the labor sectors of society is quite absurd, really.
Not really. The two superficial class distinctions you make, as always, ignores the fact that the majority of members in each class, are in fact members of both classes. It is incoherent to view people in these superficial "class frameworks". People are too dynamic to be boiiled down into such thing. You just need those classes to exist to justify your political world view. Thats all this really is.
It's ironic that you call it absurd, since your argument is incoherent so far as logic is concerned. Though, of course, you probably assume our logic is a parallel, faulty Bourgeoisie logic. I no doubt suspect you are a long subscriber of polylogism. That would explain why, despite pointing out the logical fallacy's you commit in each of your arguments, you continue to comimt the same ones, with no concern. Perhaps you think the whole of logic, is bourgeoisie logic, and that logical fallacies do not apply to you.