Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm thinking they take the invention from you. Could be wrong though. Probably am wrong. I can't even keep up with this philosophy. It's the equivalent of sitting down at a chess board that is 12 moves in and being expected to figure out what the hell is going on.
If you invent something you should release the model so it can be reproduced, or you can keep it a secret.
But say the invention is a means of production, until it is mass produced no one has the right of share usage.
That is the purpose of shared usage, for it (as a system) to operate with an available number of tools for each individual worker to use.
How does the federation get placed on the board? Vote? If so, who can vote?
A federation is just a body of syndicates. If your dispute involves chemical production (say you're a scientist in that field) then the respective syndicate at the federation body will help settle the dispute.
Means of production to me means tools, resources and processes that results in an output that is necessary (we can debate the necessity of goods and services, but that's case by case, fruit, veg, etc necessary, "Keeping up with Kardashians" not necessary, everything else is on a continuum between those points.
Resources includes both intellectual and physical efforts, as well as key skills, equipment, and materials.
Thus a person (say your only electrical engineer) needs a kidney or will shortly expire, Joe your worst of 1000 plumbers is a perfect tissue match. Kidney patient is effectively one of your means of production with unique key skills, Joe's kidney can be looked upon as the same, the benefit of Joe's kidney massively outweighs the benefits of Joe's plumbing.
In this scenario the only block on Joe being broken up for parts is ethics, in my parlance the NAP, that said it could be claimed under your ideology, that Joe is damaging means of production because he's greedily hoarding his kidney, I mean, he has a spare right? Thus Joe must comply with the request or he (like Maxwell throwing hammers in the sea) is aggressing against the many. This effectively bypasses NAP, and Joe is butchered for the greater good, with validity since he initiated force by refusal.
However when we consider absolute private ownership, it doesn't matter that Joe could even be seen as aggressing against the many, it's his kidney and if he wants he can have one removed and fry it thinly sliced with some onions for dinner and to hell with the electrician. Because he owns it, and you are not violating the NAP by enforcing your right to ownership.
See there's a whole bunch of exceptions in your an-syndicalism that requires arbitrary evaluations of general 'stuff' as part of means of production, or not. So while you can posit the physical person is not a means of production, there's little rational basis to support it, you already decide whether a thing is a means of production (like me claiming your Laphroaig), thus physical person is just an extension of it, with no rational basis to argue against it, it would be tested and probably be determined the physical person can be a means of production, then you're just quibbling about when.
Not at all. Production is formed in such a way to make sure every worker gets a say in how it is operated rather than being told by a private capitalist who owns your labor.
A worker himself is not a means of production because the reason we produce isn't to maximize production capabilities (like in capitalism) but to give workers influence over the tools of production and how they are implemented.
Considering an autonomous person a means of production requires us to believe the reason we produce is for some greater good. In actuality the reason we produce (in this stated system) is to allow workers control over the production.
If you turn a worker into a cog in a machine (like capitalism does) that takes away their inherent right to decide when and how they themselves work.
Just going to say that I am enjoying the spectacle of watching 2 different anarchist platforms argue about how the other one is not realistic/consistent.
Carry on.
While both platforms begin with a faulty premise, a dysfunctional syllogistic argument so to speak, a sophistry.
Children aren't even fooled by it, simply this; people are not property, they cannot be owned like property. Without the faulty premise of 'self-ownership', a contradiction in terms ~ it all falls apart.
Quote:
...(Indeed, many libertarians would argue that unless one accepts the thesis of self-ownership, one has no way of explaining why slavery is evil. After all, it cannot be merely because slaveholders often treat their slaves badly, since a kind-hearted slaveholder would still be a slaveholder, and thus morally blameworthy, for that. The reason slavery is immoral must be because it involves a kind of stealing - the stealing of a person from himself.) ...
No they don't. A human can survive if given charity.
I don't know what this means because personal production is completely subjective.
I don't know what this means.
Where do these "universal laws" come from?
Resources and tools are not monopolized under capitalism. You have to mix your labor with them to attain private ownership. The fact that true scarcity occurs in nature doesn't change this fact. It only means nature takes its course (thinning or growing the population based on conditions).
1.) If a human wants to be provided for they can but then rules establish to decide how labor operates are irrelevant to them.
2.) Depending on what you do. Say one person hunts ducks and produces duck meals individual and another does it in the context of a union both have equally valued labor.
3.) A workers-managed plant that produces steel can express more influence over the rules involved in defining means of production in the sector of the economy than one individual steel worker by the magnitude of times the workers-managed plant has more workers. Say in that example a magnitude of 12:1
4.) Where do the universal laws of private ownership and right to that ownership come from?
5.) They will be once the resources that you use the tools on to produce a certain good are bought up by the private industry. The if you want to produce something you have to work through the capitalist owners without a say in the production that you are practicing
I'm thinking they take the invention from you. Could be wrong though. Probably am wrong. I can't even keep up with this philosophy. It's the equivalent of sitting down at a chess board that is 12 moves in and being expected to figure out what the hell is going on.
If you invent something you should release the model so it can be reproduced, or you can keep it a secret.
But say the invention is a means of production, until it is mass produced no one has the right of share usage.
That is the purpose of shared usage, for it (as a system) to operate with an available number of tools for each individual worker to use.
Say I invent a means of production and I want to keep it for myself; do the workers have the right to use violence on me in order to seize it from me, and do I have the right to self-defense?
Without the faulty premise of 'self-ownership', a contradiction in terms ~ it all falls apart.
How in the hell is self-ownership a "faulty premise" and a "contradiction?" Of course we own our own bodies.
If you say we don't own our own bodies, who does--the State? If so you're saying the State can tell us what we can eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise ingest because we're just renting our bodies from them. You're saying that a woman can't have an abortion unless the State approves. That we can't get tattoos or piercings. That we can only have haircuts approved by the State.
Self-ownership is the single most important benefit of being born.
Say I invent a means of production and I want to keep it for myself; do the workers have the right to use violence on me in order to seize it from me, and do I have the right to self-defense?
No one has a right to instigate force against another.
Denying a worker the right to use resources that you claim for yourself is an act of aggression though.
To your original point, no. If you invent something it’s your decision whether you bring it to the mainstream.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
