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.
Hammers don't just magically appear from human will either. They are built with metal alloys and woods, all products of nature.
Further more capitalism (as you describe) would dictate land, and other natural properties into the realm of private ownership.
But they don't appear in nature as they do post-human manipulation. The manipulation is where ownership is attained. Just like a beaver dam doesn't magically appear in nature. When I see a beaver dam I know a beaver made it.
If you work land or use natural properties that are previously not in use...yes...you own those things.
I think Gungir was right in the last thread: you may be making this up as you go along. It just has to be made up.
I never used the hammer for anything else but having sex with it. A friend of mine breaks things and drives nails in around my house when I'm not home. I have no idea how it gets done. He's a nice guy.
Now what?
If, by chance, somehow the entire community around you runs out of hammers (which wouldn't happen) then you can understand, let them use it, retrieve the hammer later or go get a new one from someone else.
If all your doing is having sex with the hammer then you're not using it for production and your friend would be responsible for any trade offs.
If, by chance, somehow the entire community around you runs out of hammers (which wouldn't happen) then you can understand, let them use it, retrieve the hammer later or go get a new one from someone else.
If all your doing is having sex with the hammer then you're not using it for production and your friend would be responsible for any trade offs.
Here we go again. A man walks up to my door and you are forcing me to stop what I'm doing to hear him out.
That's time out of my day. That's me burning calories to walk to my door to hear this commie SOB out on why the collective needs my hammer.
You've just enslaved me.
I will not answer the door. I will not acknowledge you. You are of no consequence to me. If you honestly believe a man must acknowledge another man as he talks and potentially tries to gain the use of something I'm using that's pure insanity.
EDIT: For the love of God man even the current State that asserts ownership over you and me tells us we "have the right to remain silent". Hell, you've taken that away from me. Damn.
But they don't appear in nature as they do post-human manipulation. The manipulation is where ownership is attained. Just like a beaver dam doesn't magically appear in nature. When I see a beaver dam I know a beaver made it.
If you work land or use natural properties that are previously not in use...yes...you own those things.
I think Gungir was right in the last thread: you may be making this up as you go along. It just has to be made up.
1. Human manipulation of natural products don't make those products yours. If the earth is shared then the products made from them are not intrinsically your outside of usage.
2. Land you use you have as much ownership on until you stop using said land. What if two people are working on the land, who 'owns' it.
3. Nah, it is all based in the universal principles of egalitarianism and Marxism. You, Gungir, and the rest should give up capitalism (which forms authoritarianism) and fight for the freedom of workers to produce where and when they want to.
1. Human manipulation of natural products don't make those products yours. If the earth is shared then the products made from them are not intrinsically your outside of usage.
2. Land you use you have as much ownership on until you stop using said land. What if two people are working on the land, who 'owns' it.
3. Nah, it is all based in the universal principles of egalitarianism and Marxism. You, Gungir, and the rest should give up capitalism (which forms authoritarianism) and fight for the freedom of workers to produce where and when they want to.
1. Yes it does. The earth isn't shared. It's consumed. Get that in your head. IT'S CONSUMED. By humans, dogs, ants, bacteria, bees, trees, and plankton. You Statists have a problem with humans as a part of nature. We are born into poverty and must use our minds and body to sink or swim. The earth isn't going to adjust itself to accommodate us...it will simply eliminate us. You folks must not be too big on science either.
2. It depends on who first started working on the land.
3. Workers is a made up term. A human being can survive purely on charity. I know disabled people who have never produced a single thing in their entire lives and require vast amounts of resources to survive. They are taken care of by the charity of others. Those who give get absolutely nothing in return: not a tangible good, service, or even a thank you if the disabled person can't speak.
We are individuals first. We all have the right to do as we wish as long as we don't violate the rights of others by violating the NAP or infringing on their property rights (an extension of the NAP). In your world a person can only be an individual if they have the ability and choose to do this thing you call "work". Even then they are either part of the syndicate or must acknowledge the syndicate (slavery).
Disabled, babies, elderly, those in comas are subhuman I suppose. In my world no matter what they have the right to do as they wish as long as they follow the two tenets: NAP and private property rights.
You gotta be making this up. It just has to be made up.
Here we go again. A man walks up to my door and you are forcing me to stop what I'm doing to hear him out.
That's time out of my day. That's me burning calories to walk to my door to hear this commie SOB out on why the collective needs my hammer.
You've just enslaved me.
I will not answer the door. I will not acknowledge you. You are of no consequence to me. If you honestly believe a man must acknowledge another man as he talks and potentially tries to gain the use of something I'm using that's pure insanity.
EDIT: For the love of God man even the current State that asserts ownership over you and me tells us we "have the right to remain silent". Hell, you've taken that away from me. Damn.
Ignoring someone works both ways. Anyone can ignore everyone else if they want to.
If you have the door locked and refuse to let anyone in that is your choice. But if you locked the door to hide public tools of production that are needed you are handicapping others.
Tell me this, if you 'steal' (as is the case is capitalist societies) from someone else and hide their think within your house and someone comes asking for it. Can you just ignore them?
This discussion between Winterfall and No_Recess takes the cake for the most irrelevant discussion on CD this week.
Their ideologies are as close as it gets.
Both think that the State is an anomaly that should or will disappear.
Both desire a decrease in community level cultural attachment, as a core axiom of their politics.
This is to avoid effective political alliances that would form a native State.
Native States threaten the rule of foreign ruled communist-slave States, over otherwise politically disenfranchised communities.
These matters are the core of all politics.
They are arguing over politically irrelevant economic policy only.
At least Winterfall knows what her politics actually are, sort of. She gets points for some level of political awareness and logic, even if its short sighted and morally repugnant.
No_Recess is essentially arguing Winterfalls core political position but doesn't know or acknowledge it, as he's blinded by the dummy issue of economics.
The pseudo-politics of economics is the distraction that communists have always used.
It disenfranchises people from their self-determination via cultural bonds and the resultant Native State that they would otherwise create that protects them from foreign slave state incursion.
See Iran for a State that is politically effective at protecting its people from foreign slave state incursion. This is due to strong cultural bonds, which are antithetical to communism.
The false notion of politically effective economic bonds is used to replace the cultural bonds that are made illegal in a communist State.
Its a psychological trick. "Give up these political bonds, and we'll give you the proletariat (economic) bond in return".
The trick is that economic bonds confer no ability to build political power. Thus, the people in a communist state are de facto slaves that are under the thumb of the government that will never disintegrate. See every communist State in history.
You can't check for examples in No_Recesses hypothetical libertarian region because, short of extremely low population density lands, none has ever been able to hold on and keep away one form of State or another.
This is why his ideology is dangerous. Its not real. It only describes an intermediary position of a power vacuum, which is always filled.
Thus, it basically does the work of the future slave state that will benefit after he convinces the majority to "free" themselves from their sociopolitical protection that was their prior State.
Both No_Recess and Winterfall require the eradication of ethnic bonds for their ideologies to work.
These ethnic bonds define all politics, because they are the only source of true group political power as they define how closely humans will truly cooperate, and this means that their essential agreement on this issue reveals that they are arguing the same essential political position.
Winterfalls politics are merely a little further along in any timeline of political change toward a communist State. She describes the communist State.
No_Recesses position of libertarianism essentially describes an intermediary position after cultural bonds (and the Native state) are eradicated and before a slave state inevitably fills the power gap that No_Recess will never be able to describe how to protect from (because the protection doesn't exist without a State).
That is not what Marxism is, it's voluntary in nature allowing people to work when they want and how they want.
And I always ask this of Marxists - if they do not feel like working (when they want) or work haphazardly (how they want), yet still have all of their survival and safety needs attended to by others...what is their impetus to ever work, and if they should ever choose to work, to work hard enough to produce excess that could be used to satisfy the survival and safety needs of someone else?
I ask this because we see, as the welfare state grows, when people are reliably and repeated rewarded with their survival and safety needs without any input labor whatsoever on their part, they discover that hard work and no work have roughly the same "pay", and no work is sooooooo much easier and more rewarding than hard work. It's the core human behavior that drives adverse selection.
So how does a commune where everyone has their safety and survival handled by everyone else actually create the motivation in the individual to work such that they can produce excess, when no work is equally rewarding?
1. Yes it does. The earth isn't shared. It's consumed. Get that in your head. IT'S CONSUMED. By humans, dogs, ants, bacteria, bees, trees, and plankton. You Statists have a problem with humans as a part of nature. We are born into poverty and must use our minds and body to sink or swim. The earth isn't going to adjust itself to accommodate us...it will simply eliminate us. You folks must not be too big on science either.
2. It depends on who first started working on the land.
3. Workers is a made up term. A human being can survive purely on charity. I know disabled people who have never produced a single thing in their entire lives and require vast amounts of resources to survive. They are taken care of by the charity of others. Those who give get absolutely nothing in return: not a tangible good, service, or even a thank you if the disabled person can't speak.
We are individuals first. We all have the right to do as we wish as long as we don't violate the rights of others by violating the NAP or infringing on their property rights (an extension of the NAP). In your world a person can only be an individual if they have the ability and choose to do this thing you call "work". Even then they are either part of the syndicate or must acknowledge the syndicate (slavery).
Disabled, babies, elderly, those in comas are subhuman I suppose. In my world no matter what they have the right to do as they wish as long as the follow the two tenets: NAP and private property rights.
You gotta be making this up. It just has to be made up.
If you are disabled then there organizations within the community that will care for you and individuals who would want to help. This is a communal society so 'help' of people who can't provide for themselves is naturally important.
If you are handicap and chose to live in the woods by yourself outside of the community then no one can help you (unless you have a specific individual in mind who wants to help).
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.
