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.
If your rationale is a healthy functional community consists of nothing more than "free trade without state interference", how is that not a panacea?
It is because it is.
This is something T0103E is known for pointing out: your problem is with existence/nature. Humans who socialize with other humans have three options in dealing with them:
1. Ignore them.
2. Voluntarily and non-aggressively coexist/deal with them.
3. Try to rule over them which in turn results in succeeding or failing.
We are advocating 1 and 2. You are advocating 3 which is against the non-aggression principle and slavery. It's unnatural.
If you believe humans were meant to be slaves I'd disagree with you from a moral standpoint as well as an existence/nature standpoint. Cognitively, we have the ability to communicate far beyond anything even comparable across other species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
In an earlier post you claimed, "Tragedy of the commons is solved by private property" ~ how is this assertion not a panacea?
I don't think, and T0103E can correct me if I'm wrong, he meant that private property is a concerted effort to solve the tragedy of the commons. Again, it is because it is. I know you hate hearing that but that's just the way it is.
Private property and capitalism (which are inseparable) give the individual incentive, and most notably long-term incentive, to see that the other individuals are relatively healthy and able to pursue their happiness.
Why?
Because I need someone to sell my s-hit to...that's why. If you are angry at me or don't have access to usable resources due to my actions (which would also cause you to hate me) I can't sell you things from working my private property (whether that be land, water, my labor, my mind). You won't want to deal with me.
Again, you're focused on the ends and not the means. This is where all Statists tend to get tripped up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Out of all the loopy circular arguments, obsessively reducing people to property is likely the worst of the 'reductio ad absurdum' assertions. Why not consider the more reasonable proposition that no one owns anybody, either himself or anyone else, nor any share of anybody?
You're getting hung up on terms again. All we mean by owning ourselves is that I get to open my eyes when I want, I get to think about what I want, I get to pursue making a chair if I want, I get to do whatever I want...as long as I don't violate the NAP and respect private property rights.
You probably agree to this on a personal level even if I'm using wording you don't like...unless you believe men in suits can take a vote and force you to open your eyes.
You just don't apply it consistently when it comes to government. If you can't do something then government can't do it either. That's all we are saying on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
& have you figured out a way to coherently justify the initial acquisition of property? How does something that was once unowned become owned without forcefully & non-consensually destroying others’ liberty?
Homesteading and mixing your labor with something previously unused. Very simple.
You can't take anything I've mixed my labor with or put my roots down on. You are free to go out and make your own claim on land and things not in use. If you believe this to be unfair I again with point out that your problem is with existence/nature. I can't help it God or Buddha or Batman didn't make more trees for all of us to consume.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
You're literally at ground & time zero with no way forward.
If this were true we would have died out by now. Yet somehow humans continue to evolve into more efficient and intelligent creatures over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
One of the greater ironies of this particular thread is the competing anarchists, 1 favoring labor, the other free market fundamentalist thought-views.
Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of statism. It is unnatural because labor is not a necessity in not only getting through life but still having rights as you do so. Sure, for the overwhelming majority of people it is their way of producing for themselves but the elderly, disabled, and children can still be taken care of (and are in even today's society) without ever mixing their labor with anything. And they still have rights. I can't kill a disabled man because he doesn't mix his labor with anything. He still has a right to live. Anarcho-syndicalism gives those outside the syndicate or those not in it no rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Why all the 'black/white absolutism' 'all or nothing' 'perfect solution' 'Nirvana fallacy' fantasizing? Imagine the opportunity costs alone? Mostly mental masturbatory at best. What gives?
When you come to a moral and logical truism (the NAP and private property rights) you can't go back. Well, some do but they never believed in those things in the first place only the idea of how those tenets would play out in society ("ends" people who temporarily found a "means" philosophy isn't meant to last).
So that is "what gives".
We aren't arguing with you for the sake of argument. We aren't arguing with you because we believe an AnCap society would produce results X, Y, Z.
We are telling you that this philosophy has no way around it. Believe us, we've tried!
I've said this numerous times on this forum: I don't even like the NAP or private property rights a lot of times. Well, from time to time. It's a lot easier to simply be a Statist and use brute force, have two sets of rules (one for the government and one for the people), and to just pick a team (Red or Blue).
And all of us were there at one time. I've yet to come across and AnCap/anarchist/voluntaryist who wasn't a Statist at one point. That's the way society is structured from parenting, to schooling, to religion to everything. You begin to question it though when you see the contradictions and lack of moral and logical consistency. We simply don't want to suspend reality for the sake of convenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Karl Marx wrote (in his Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach) "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it".
You guys are very clearly down on democracy yet ... you have no game.
No, Marx is wrong. The point of the world is not to change it but to accept existence/our natural state and build from there. Bottom-up approach. The individual is first and then everything derives from there.
Democracy is slavery...of course we are down on it. It's unnatural. I don't need to provide you with an alternative to live your life without being your slave in order not to be your slave.
This is something T0103E is known for pointing out: your problem is with existence/nature. Humans who socialize with other humans have three options in dealing with them:
1. Ignore them.
2. Voluntarily and non-aggressively coexist/deal with them.
3. Try to rule over them which in turn results in succeeding or failing.
But to what extent? What does ignore mean, living by yourself, or not acknowledging anyone else’s existence.
Because if it is the latter then interacting with an external world requires acceptance of basic facts (such as other humans use/need the resources you choose to survive on, etc.).
Side note: in ancap world, if all land is private, then how does a lone man travel without intruding on someone else’s property or road way?
Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of statism. It is unnatural because labor is not a necessity in not only getting through life but still having rights as you do so. Sure, for the overwhelming majority of people it is their way of producing for themselves but the elderly, disabled, and children can still be taken care of (and are in even today's society) without ever mixing their labor with anything. And they still have rights. I can't kill a disabled man because he doesn't mix his labor with anything. He still has a right to live. Anarcho-syndicalism gives those outside the syndicate or those not in it no rights.
No, labor is the source of all existence, without it we could not live. Disabled, Children, etc. only live because they have a worker who provides for them. Without said labor they would die.
If you want people who can’t work to be provided for, then make sure labor is not used as a tool for profit but needs of the individual.
No, labor is the source of all existence, without it we could not live. Disabled, Children, etc. only live because they have a worker who provides for them. Without said labor they would die.
If you want people who can’t work to be provided for, then make sure labor is not used as a tool for profit but needs of the individual.
Labor is not a necessity for each individual. We've been over this a million times. Non-workers and non-syndicate people have no rights in your society. It's brutal slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
But to what extent? What does ignore mean, living by yourself, or not acknowledging anyone else’s existence.
Because if it is the latter then interacting with an external world requires acceptance of basic facts (such as other humans use/need the resources you choose to survive on, etc.).
You can ignore people as much as you want. You only have to respect the NAP and their private property rights.
Get to the resources first, barter with the others to get resources, beg them for it, rely on charity...anything is acceptable as long as you follow the two tenets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Side note: in ancap world, if all land is private, then how does a lone man travel without intruding on someone else’s property or road way?
Not all land would be private unless people homesteaded or otherwise mixed their labor with it on every inch of the globe.
Each individual is their own separate country so to speak. You must mix your labor with something to privatize it.
How do you travel? Same as now. You use the unclaimed land to do whatever you wish. In regards to private land you ask permission from the land owner to walk across his land if you need to get to the other side.
Unless you are in the habit of doing a Ferris Bueller and just run through everyone's yard/house...
This is something T0103E is known for pointing out: your problem is with existence/nature. Humans who socialize with other humans have three options in dealing with them:
1. Ignore them.
2. Voluntarily and non-aggressively coexist/deal with them.
3. Try to rule over them which in turn results in succeeding or failing.
We are advocating 1 and 2. You are advocating 3 which is against the non-aggression principle and slavery. It's unnatural.
If you believe humans were meant to be slaves I'd disagree with you from a moral standpoint as well as an existence/nature standpoint. Cognitively, we have the ability to communicate far beyond anything even comparable across other species.
I don't think, and T0103E can correct me if I'm wrong, he meant that private property is a concerted effort to solve the tragedy of the commons. Again, it is because it is. I know you hate hearing that but that's just the way it is.
Private property and capitalism (which are inseparable) give the individual incentive, and most notably long-term incentive, to see that the other individuals are relatively healthy and able to pursue their happiness.
Why?
Because I need someone to sell my s-hit to...that's why. If you are angry at me or don't have access to usable resources due to my actions (which would also cause you to hate me) I can't sell you things from working my private property (whether that be land, water, my labor, my mind). You won't want to deal with me.
Again, you're focused on the ends and not the means. This is where all Statists tend to get tripped up.
You're getting hung up on terms again. All we mean by owning ourselves is that I get to open my eyes when I want, I get to think about what I want, I get to pursue making a chair if I want, I get to do whatever I want...as long as I don't violate the NAP and respect private property rights.
You probably agree to this on a personal level even if I'm using wording you don't like...unless you believe men in suits can take a vote and force you to open your eyes.
You just don't apply it consistently when it comes to government. If you can't do something then government can't do it either. That's all we are saying on that.
Homesteading and mixing your labor with something previously unused. Very simple.
You can't take anything I've mixed my labor with or put my roots down on. You are free to go out and make your own claim on land and things not in use. If you believe this to be unfair I again with point out that your problem is with existence/nature. I can't help it God or Buddha or Batman didn't make more trees for all of us to consume.
If this were true we would have died out by now. Yet somehow humans continue to evolve into more efficient and intelligent creatures over time.
Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of statism. It is unnatural because labor is not a necessity in not only getting through life but still having rights as you do so. Sure, for the overwhelming majority of people it is their way of producing for themselves but the elderly, disabled, and children can still be taken care of (and are in even today's society) without ever mixing their labor with anything. And they still have rights. I can't kill a disabled man because he doesn't mix his labor with anything. He still has a right to live. Anarcho-syndicalism gives those outside the syndicate or those not in it no rights.
When you come to a moral and logical truism (the NAP and private property rights) you can't go back. Well, some do but they never believed in those things in the first place only the idea of how those tenets would play out in society ("ends" people who temporarily found a "means" philosophy isn't meant to last).
So that is "what gives".
We aren't arguing with you for the sake of argument. We aren't arguing with you because we believe an AnCap society would produce results X, Y, Z.
We are telling you that this philosophy has no way around it. Believe us, we've tried!
I've said this numerous times on this forum: I don't even like the NAP or private property rights a lot of times. Well, from time to time. It's a lot easier to simply be a Statist and use brute force, have two sets of rules (one for the government and one for the people), and to just pick a team (Red or Blue).
And all of us were there at one time. I've yet to come across and AnCap/anarchist/voluntaryist who wasn't a Statist at one point. That's the way society is structured from parenting, to schooling, to religion to everything. You begin to question it though when you see the contradictions and lack of moral and logical consistency. We simply don't want to suspend reality for the sake of convenience.
No, Marx is wrong. The point of the world is not to change it but to accept existence/our natural state and build from there. Bottom-up approach. The individual is first and then everything derives from there.
Democracy is slavery...of course we are down on it. It's unnatural. I don't need to provide you with an alternative to live your life without being your slave in order not to be your slave.
Oh Brother without the 'r' where do I begin with this? The same schtick that any Jehovah's Witness, Scientologist, Amway sales rep, & so on ... & with the same o lame o schpiel. Give it a break please. "If only you would accept (fill in the blank) as your Savior", blah blah blathering. "Accept the 'free market' into your heart" ad nauseam ad infinitum.
Your come to your your 'conclusions' by beginning with premises, it's circular & loopy.
Your convictions make convicts. Just stop. Break out.
Imagine your 'framework' as a literal frame. You've squashed the whole wide world inside that tiny frame. It's not only nonsensical, it's grim & dystopian at best. Imagine me outside your puny framework, while you are trapped inside it. I'm wishing you weren't so self-imprisoned, & busily building brick by brick & bar by bar - the prison.
I'm not "angry" at you, I simply do not want what you are selling.
Quote:
...When a trout rising to a fly gets hooked on a line and finds himself unable to swim about freely, he begins with a fight which results in struggles and splashes and sometimes an escape. Often, of course, the situation is too tough for him. In the same way the human being struggles with his environment and with the hooks that catch him. Sometimes he masters his difficulties; sometimes they are too much for him. His struggles are all that the world sees and it naturally misunderstands them. It is hard for a free fish to understand what is happening to a hooked one. ...
~from The Human Mind by Karl Menninger
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 05-16-2018 at 05:52 AM..
Labor is not a necessity for each individual. We've been over this a million times. Non-workers and non-syndicate people have no rights in your society. It's brutal slavery.
You can ignore people as much as you want. You only have to respect the NAP and their private property rights.
Get to the resources first, barter with the others to get resources, beg them for it, rely on charity...anything is acceptable as long as you follow the two tenets.
Not all land would be private unless people homesteaded or otherwise mixed their labor with it on every inch of the globe.
Each individual is their own separate country so to speak. You must mix your labor with something to privatize it.
How do you travel? Same as now. You use the unclaimed land to do whatever you wish. In regards to private land you ask permission from the land owner to walk across his land if you need to get to the other side.
Unless you are in the habit of doing a Ferris Bueller and just run through everyone's yard/house...
1. Labor is a necessity for each individual being those who can’t work need some else’s labor to live. If you can’t work then your freedoms are naturally restricted; nonetheless the products needed for you to survive will be available (but you must live in a community for that or have someone who can produce live with you).
2. Even then you must have some communication with the outside world. People can’t live without using the shared earth we have and any usage of public resources affects others. All our actions affect other people in this world, it’s not sustainable to have a system that ignores this reality
3. Capitalism is based off of greed, do you really expect for no one to claim the unclaimed land at some point? Once that happens travel is limited to only your immediate property.
3. Capitalism is based off of greed, do you really expect for no one to claim the unclaimed land at some point? Once that happens travel is limited to only your immediate property.
I'm sure all the ancaps are salivating at the possibly to be able to shoot people who cross there property line.
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.
where do I begin with this? The same schtick that any Jehovah's Witness, Scientologist, Amway sales rep, & so on ... & with the same o lame o schpiel. Give it a break please. "If only you would accept (fill in the blank) as your Savior", blah blah blathering. "Accept the 'free market' into your heart" ad nauseam ad infinitum. 
