Daily Anarchist Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: AgoristTeen1994 on June 03, 2012, 10:23:04 PM



Title: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on June 03, 2012, 10:23:04 PM
Hello I recently came across an anarcho-communist who is willing to calmly and rationally debate Ancap vs. AnCom apolitics. The problem that while he said he is willing to read a short book on Anarcho-Capitalism it has to be a short one. The main issue with him is that he seems to think there's a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and for someone to win, someone else has to lose. Any suggestions on short books that might correct his assumption?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Seth King on June 03, 2012, 10:27:56 PM
I wouldn't recommend to him anything you haven't read yourself.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 04, 2012, 12:12:33 AM
If there are very specific things you want to convey to him, it's best to do it yourself, rather than through a book. You know him and how he thinks, so you can craft the message specifically for him. Whatever book you recommend wasn't written for ancoms.

"The amount of matter on the planet is (roughly) constant. But wealth can't be. If wealth on the planet is finite, then how can you explain what occurs when two people engage in trade?"
^ I'd open with something like that.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: rahvin on June 04, 2012, 02:27:39 AM
How about an article?

http://mises.org/daily/5590

I think you may also point out that money is not wealth.  Yes, there's a finite amount of money but it's only a medium of exchange.  (We'll set aside the fact that legal tender laws put a limit on the amount of money.) People don't collect money for the sake of having money.  They get money so they can acquire wealth (stuff). 

The problem with a fixed amount of wealth in the world is more of a problem present in an-syn rather than an-cap, i think.  An-syns don't allow for inter-temporal exchanges (loans, like most people can't buy a home or capital goods or other large ticket items for cash and so they finance it) because property belongs to the person using it in the moment.  Therefore, since absentee ownership and inter-temporal exchanges aren't legitimate it seriously prevents the creation of wealth.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on June 04, 2012, 03:49:10 AM
Thanks for the bits of advice here's what I said to him among other things:

Also I have a question for you....How do you define wealth? Do you define as "money" like say the U.S. dollar or bitcoins? If that's the case that is NOT wealth, let's take the U.S. dollar i.e. the Federal Reserve Note (FRN). All FRN's are what their purpose is, is as a medium of exchange. People don't own FRN's just so they can own FRN's. They own them because they can give them to someone else, in exchange for a good or service. Now to be precise a medium of exchange is "money" it's something that is used in place of bartering directly for goods or services. Wealth while it IS possible to define it as "money" it is usually defined as such because that person can then buy a lot of goods and/or services, correct? So to be precise wealth is how much property either in the form of land, or "capital" to personal possessions like guns, knives, and tools, you either own or can buy.

That aside, the "Creation of Wealth" does not refer to the monetary value of a good or service. It refers to the total amount of the good or service. id est, while if we triple the amount of food in the world, the monetary value of food will plummet by about one-third, the overall value stays the same, PLUS each person can now have more food then they could before. Ergo you are "creating wealth" Or since you didn't want to look at food let's look at another form of capital, or the "means of production" a factory. If there are 10 factories in a community, and the you build say another 90, the price is going to go down by about 90% give or take a little bit. Now this isn't a sudden drop. It's in fact a slow, steady decline. Because of this, as you build each factory, the monetary value decreases, thus the overhead for the owner(s) of each successive factory goes down as well. Because of this, they don't need to make as much money before they break even, and start to make a profit. And because of the lower overhead the owner(s) of the factory can sell whatever is produced by the factory at a lower price per unit than before, thus allowing more people to own that good. Look at it this way, if you take two communities, where all else being equal, in community A everyone owns a car, whereas in community B one person owns a car, which community would you say is more wealthy, community A, or community B?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 04, 2012, 12:32:19 PM
Nice work. Especially the part on separating wealth from paper currency. For fun I like mentioning trade because you can point out that increasing wealth doesn't necessarily mean creating more stuff. If we trade two goods then wealth increases. How? I value the new thing more than the old, and the same for you. The value of both things increased. Wealth+++.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Aegidius on June 04, 2012, 12:59:12 PM
See, wealth is what we value, and value is subjective
what one values depends on one's perspective
so it don't make much sense to measure wealth objectively
factor quantatatively
study scientifically
'cause one man's trash is another man's treasure
one man's pain is another man's pleasure
one man's work is another man's leisure
all things you must remember before you start to measure.

-Dorian Electra


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on June 04, 2012, 01:29:58 PM
Thanks Aegidius and JSNTS. I'll definitely mention it, I thought of doing so but was hesitant.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: IveBeenBit on June 04, 2012, 11:51:57 PM
Check out the term - "Consumer surplus."

It's a neat economic idea and is accepted even by non-Austrians. Do a youtube search and you should be able to find someone explaining it.

The rough idea is this....

Suppose I am a shoemaker and I make a bunch of shoes.

You're looking for someone to sell you a pair of shoes.

I sell you shoes for $50, but I value them less than that. Because I'm a shoemaker, I have a lot of shoes that I would be willing to sell for cheap. Suppose you haggled me down to $40, and I would still be happy with the deal. In fact, if you bargained really hard, I would go down to $30 if you really pushed it.

So now I've just sold shoes for $50 and my rock bottom price would have been $30.

There's a "$20" surplus of wealth. That I achieve in the transaction.

Even better....suppose you really like the shoes. You would have been happy with your purchase up to $80 but I sold them to you for $50 and you feel you're getting a great bargain. There is now a $30 consumer suprlus. In other words, you got $80 worth of value from the transaction and only had to spend $50 ($30 surplus). So you get thirty dollars worth of "happiness" added to your life from our commerce.

The shoemaker similarly can say that he received $20 worth of value ($50-30) from the exchange. Thus, as the division of labor increases, and free exchange happens, it makes all of society better off. Dollars are dollars. In this sort of example, they are just a crude way of quantifying your "level of happiness."

Faced with the price tag on the shoes, you may ask, "Does buying these bring $50 worth of value/happiness into my life?" If the answer is yes, then you buy. In reality, they probably bring MORE than $50 worth of value to your life and anything above your purchase price is the "consumer surplus."

This is separating money (# of "Dollars") from wealth. Because we all value things differently through our individual preferences, free trade enables us all to improve ourselves while helping others. Money...i.e. the "number of dollars" is just a measuring stick to measure how much value (Happiness/satisfaction/other abstraction/whatever) a certain action brings to your life.

I'm drunk, but I hope that makes sense. I did the best I could.  :D



Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Euler on June 05, 2012, 10:37:45 AM
In my experience, the biggest obstacle seems to be convincing them that in a peaceful exchange of goods, both parties obtain a surplus of value. Does your friend also get stuck on this point?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on June 05, 2012, 02:50:34 PM
@Euler I think that's part of it.

Oh and here's our most recent exchange:

(my acquaintance) "Problem with keeping capital is that it dictates our interactions. I'll be less likely to spend my time gardening when I could make more money flipping burgers. My time is spent on profit making rather than what's best for creativity, enjoyment, and social interactions. Imagine a world where we could do what we want without having to worry about the amount of bitcoins I have"

(me) "While you do raise an intersting point, that is not neccessarily true in all cases. for example I am a big science nerd. I especialy love physics and neuroscience, and I plan on going nto one of those as a career. even though I could make more money by becoming a neurologist I wouldn't like doing so because I am a very...,eccentric person. if you've ever seen the show House M.D, I am a lot like Dr. House. so while I coukd make more money going into neurology, I plan on going into a career that I'd enjoy more. and that's true for a lot of other people too. there are a lot of people who go into a career doing something they love even if they make less money. Also even if someone were to choose to go into a career field where they'd make a lot of money even if they would hate the job, that's their choice to make is it not, since it is THEIR life."

(Him) "I agree and disagree. I have a college education and probably will get a PHD. I am only able to do this because my parents have money. However, this is not the case for most Americans. Looking at a super extreme case (since we know these are the best to make a point) we can see situations where society/the need for capital prevents this "job choice" argument from working: say a child is born to two disabled parents in the ghetto. The child is expected to support her parents as soon as she is able to work. Say she wants to be a doctor. I don't see how this is possible. Sure you could say, well she could work and attend school at the same time, but honesty that's a crap life and close to impossible. What if she has to be her parents caregivers. Saying we can all be what we want to be, come from a societal position of privilege."


(me) "Ah but I never said that anyone can be what they want to be. 1. They have to have the mental capabilities and 2, they have to be willing to work to get what they want. But that aside while you DO have a point in the scenario you gave, you have to consider that in a anarcho-capitalist/market anarchist society there is nothing precluding individuals from forming private charities. So let's say in the example you gave, with the girl that' in addition to the misfortunes she has she's also really smart and willing to work hard to get what she wants, alright? Well she or her parents COULD rely on a private charity or help from friends or other family members. I know this from experience, since I grew up with my paternal grandma and her mother since my dad died, due to the fact my mom is a total deadbeat (which relates to what I"ll bring up later). Most of our family skipped our on helping yes, UNTIL my great-grandma started dying from leukemia and before that broke her ankle and was diagnosed with dementia. Then they helped a lot. They helped pay for the nurse we hired to come in on a regular basis, they came in to watch my great-grandma, they would give me rides since I didn't have my driver's license, and all sorts of things. And now that my great-grandma has passed, they helped pay for the funeral costs and miscellaneous associated costs. THAT shows what people voluntarily working together can do. I'm assuming you think that in an anarcho-capitalist society there'd be no charity, the closest you'd get to such things is people offering discounts if you're "needy" and that it'd be every person for themselves. That's not the case. People could still work together in various manners and provide charity.

Also in regards to the cost of college and medical school for the girl, that's what scholarships are for. While with the current geopolitical landscape in the U.S. a lot of financial aid comes from the gov't, a lot of it also comes from private, non-governmental sources. Also, you have to consider that a lot of the rising cost of college comes from gov't interference"


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 05, 2012, 03:15:02 PM
Quote
I have a college education and probably will get a PHD
Let me guess. Sociology.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Josh D on June 05, 2012, 08:12:55 PM
AgoristTeen1994,

I really like your debate style.  Your summary of your conversation with your friend was a really enjoyable read.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on June 05, 2012, 10:03:54 PM
@JSNTS maybe, idk I didn't ask. :P

@Josh D. Thanks. :) I appreciate the compliment, and I'm glad you appreciated the summary, though the reason I posted it was to get a critique of the points I'm making and also to help get advice on how to improve my debating skills, plus better debate my friend.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: IveBeenBit on June 05, 2012, 10:45:10 PM
Agorist Teen - if you want feedback on debating/persuasion, I would say to try and make it as personal as possible. Get him involved and feeling as if the two of you are on the same team.

For example....he makes up this crazy example that probably applies to <0.5% of the population (2 disabled parents, etc.)

So to him, "Well, those cases are rare and for that, we have community associations and charities where people like YOU AND I can contribute money to help those in need. And the best part is, we can look for the charities that do the most good with their money and not be forced to pay to an inefficient system like the government which sends over half the money received to bureaucrats and paper-pushers." Talking about community-driven and local collectives will probably really push his buttons, so put that in the context of an AnCap social order.

Explain to him that there is no shortage of caring people - the levels of charitable giving from Americans after 9/11, the Haitian earthquake, etc. are some contemporary examples.

Just some thoughts, off the cuff.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on June 07, 2012, 12:40:58 PM
I did that and used religious charities as an example, including one that my church helps out with. He then used that as an opportunity to attack religion and me. For example he said "You believe in Miracles, and thus you're against the scientific process, and thus progress" 1. I did not say I believe in miracles though I can understand how he came to that conclusion. and 2. I simply asked why does believing in miracles mean I"m against the scientific process and thus progress?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 07, 2012, 03:04:11 PM
I did that and used religious charities as an example, including one that my church helps out with. He then used that as an opportunity to attack religion and me. For example he said "You believe in Miracles, and thus you're against the scientific process, and thus progress" 1. I did not say I believe in miracles though I can understand how he came to that conclusion. and 2. I simply asked why does believing in miracles mean I"m against the scientific process and thus progress?
Yeah. That's your weakness. You want to use reason and evidence to convert him to free markets, but you cling to superstition, mysticism, and faith in other intellectual spheres. That's inconsistent, and an example of "do as I say (think logically about my arguments), but not as I do (just believe and have faith)."

It's correct for him to call you out on it. As much as I have enjoyed helping you out in this debate, we've reached a point where you should look within yourself.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on June 07, 2012, 03:41:51 PM
@JSNTS:

YOU see it as a weakness. I disagree because (among other reasons) I do not fear death BECAUSE of my religion... YOU see it as superstition, mysticism and faith. I disagree. Do you really understand how truly complex life and the universe is? HOW could that have happened through random chance? The odds of that happening through pure chance seem astronomical to me. No I do not take the creationist story in the Bible of "God said Let there be light, and there was light, and yada yada yada" as what actually happened, but more of a metaphor for how He created the universe and life. I was taught that much of the Bible, esp. the Old Testament as metaphorical. I was taught as a Catholic child that Evolution IS a real thing, and that it is how God caused things to arrive where they're at now in terms of Biology on this planet we call home.

You seem to believe that I hold to my religion unquestioningly simply because that was how I was raised...do you honestly believe I never questioned my religion? For 3 years I WAS not just an atheist, but an ANTI-theist, to word it as my anarcho-communist acquaintance call himself. Do you want to know what led me back to religion? My grandma, the woman who raised me since my dad's death, who when my deadbeat drug addict and whore of a mother couldn't be bothered to raise me, my grandma was more than she was. She was diagnosed with lung cancer, from years of smoking. It got to the point where the doctors gave her 6 months to live AT MOST and where they stopped treatment at HER request. I didn't want to give up on her and out of pure desperation I prayed. And do you want to know what happened? She lived. she is STILL alive today. after a month of me praying night and day, she started to get better, when it had been 8 months since the doctors had given her 6 months to live they checked, and couldn't find any trace of cancer in her body. I was honestly baffled since while I had prayed out of desperation deep, deep, deep down, I was sure I was going to lose her. I looked for every explanation I could find.....other than God. I talked to the various doctors she had gone too since then and not a single one could give me an explanation that wasn't based on what you call "superstition, mysticism, and faith"

You see I HAVE questioned my beliefs. I always do and always will. I don't just mindlessly take what the Bible and the pastors at the church I go to say, I honestly think about it and question it! Yet I always arrive at the same answer I have for the past 5 years since my grandma was miraculously healed.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on June 07, 2012, 03:42:45 PM
OBTW I"m sure you're going to call B.S. on what I said and that's fine with me. But it DID happen.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 07, 2012, 04:34:56 PM
@JSNTS:

YOU see it as a weakness.
So does your ancom buddy, which is why I brought it up.

Quote
I disagree because (among other reasons) I do not fear death BECAUSE of my religion...
So in other words, without religion you would fear death. An outside observer would have to think that your conclusions were shaped partly (if not largely) by this fear. It's hiding from your mortality. It's deciding something (death) isn't real because it's uncomfortable to think about. That's not how you find truth.

Quote
YOU see it as superstition, mysticism and faith. I disagree. Do you really understand how truly complex life and the universe is? HOW could that have happened through random chance? The odds of that happening through pure chance seem astronomical to me.
I understand a lot. So much that I know I know nothing.

I've also gone through the "couldn't be chance" thing before. Thinking of the existence of the world in a probabilistic way doesn't have any meaning. There are no "odds." What if the universe just is? That's about all we can claim with anything resembling validity in these matters.

Quote
No I do not take the creationist story in the Bible of "God said Let there be light, and there was light, and yada yada yada" as what actually happened, but more of a metaphor for how He created the universe and life. I was taught that much of the Bible, esp. the Old Testament as metaphorical. I was taught as a Catholic child that Evolution IS a real thing, and that it is how God caused things to arrive where they're at now in terms of Biology on this planet we call home.
We had the same religious upbringings.

Quote
You seem to believe that I hold to my religion unquestioningly simply because that was how I was raised...do you honestly believe I never questioned my religion? For 3 years I WAS not just an atheist, but an ANTI-theist, to word it as my anarcho-communist acquaintance call himself. Do you want to know what led me back to religion? My grandma, the woman who raised me since my dad's death, who when my deadbeat drug addict and whore of a mother couldn't be bothered to raise me, my grandma was more than she was. She was diagnosed with lung cancer, from years of smoking. It got to the point where the doctors gave her 6 months to live AT MOST and where they stopped treatment at HER request. I didn't want to give up on her and out of pure desperation I prayed. And do you want to know what happened? She lived. she is STILL alive today. after a month of me praying night and day, she started to get better, when it had been 8 months since the doctors had given her 6 months to live they checked, and couldn't find any trace of cancer in her body. I was honestly baffled since while I had prayed out of desperation deep, deep, deep down, I was sure I was going to lose her. I looked for every explanation I could find.....other than God. I talked to the various doctors she had gone too since then and not a single one could give me an explanation that wasn't based on what you call "superstition, mysticism, and faith"
I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your father. It sounds like you had (or are having) a rough childhood. I'm glad to hear that your grandmother recovered.

Do you understand why using this as evidence is "against the scientific process" as the ancom acquaintance said? You claim and believe there to be a cause and effect relationship with nothing to back it up. Do you know how low the atheist rate is in America? It's very low. Almost everyone prays for their family members when they are dying, and feels the exact same pain that you did. The depth of their prayers is the same as yours. But the rates for survival, and the surprise recoveries can't be shown to have anything to do with prayers. Praying is really thinking. Do you get why claiming that your thoughts can affect other matter outside your body is unscientific?

Quote
You see I HAVE questioned my beliefs. I always do and always will. I don't just mindlessly take what the Bible and the pastors at the church I go to say, I honestly think about it and question it! Yet I always arrive at the same answer I have for the past 5 years since my grandma was miraculously healed.
Interesting. Certainly your upbringing still plays a role (I mean, you went back to the same religion, right?), but I see now that there is more. Have you ever heard of the book "Fooled by Randomness"? I'll copy and paste something from wikipedia:
Quote
Taleb sets forth the idea that modern humans are often unaware of the existence of randomness. They tend to explain random outcomes as non-random.

Human beings:

    overestimate causality, e.g., they see elephants in the clouds instead of understanding that they are in fact randomly shaped clouds that appear to our eyes as elephants (or something else);


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Will on June 07, 2012, 06:41:42 PM
Quote
It's correct for him to call you out on it. As much as I have enjoyed helping you out in this debate, we've reached a point where you should look within yourself.

Was it though? It sounds like he was just dodging the argument (that charities help fill a void), by attacking the examples religious grounding instead of addressing the actual issue: can charities offer enough support for *insert at-risk group here*.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 07, 2012, 06:56:49 PM
Quote
It's correct for him to call you out on it. As much as I have enjoyed helping you out in this debate, we've reached a point where you should look within yourself.

Was it though? It sounds like he was just dodging the argument (that charities help fill a void), by attacking the examples religious grounding instead of addressing the actual issue: can charities offer enough support for *insert at-risk group here*.
I wasn't there, but it sounds like the conversation went in a direction where his religious beliefs were revealed. After that, people might not take you seriously. If in the middle of the conversation I told you I was a scientologist, and that yesterday I met with my alien gods, you might not take anything else I said seriously. I call it, gut-level-back-up-induction. It's the type of inductive reasoning where you think, "whoah, he believes that? That's bat shit crazy! At a gut level, I suspect insanity, *slowly backs away*."

If I was discussing anarchism vs statism with you, and I was for statism, and I said that Obama's rule was divinely inspired, it would be entirely appropriate for you to call bullshit, and then walk out on me. Reasoning is pointless in magic land.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Will on June 08, 2012, 08:49:40 AM
Quote
I wasn't there, but it sounds like the conversation went in a direction where his religious beliefs were revealed. After that, people might not take you seriously. If in the middle of the conversation I told you I was a scientologist, and that yesterday I met with my alien gods, you might not take anything else I said seriously. I call it, gut-level-back-up-induction. It's the type of inductive reasoning where you think, "whoah, he believes that? That's bat shit crazy! At a gut level, I suspect insanity, *slowly backs away*."

If I was discussing anarchism vs statism with you, and I was for statism, and I said that Obama's rule was divinely inspired, it would be entirely appropriate for you to call bullshit, and then walk out on me. Reasoning is pointless in magic land.

I still say that would be dodging the point, even if it is the most rational thing to do given the odds. I mean just because Sir Isaac Newton spent a great deal of his time trying to calculate when the world would end and how to turn random metals into gold that doesn't mean that classical mechanics are now invalid. Irrational beliefs and good arguments can co-exist, and the former is not a valid reason to reject the latter.

However, I understand that continuing to debate someone who drop some apparent irrationality on you may not seem to be worth your time. That's why it's important to know who you're debating if you really want to convince him. We often talk about what arguments to use against liberals/minarchists/communists/etc. but it is just as important to know which topics/arguments to avoid that would otherwise derail the conversation. Don't bring up religious things with an atheist, don't talk about your pro-pot position with a conservative, and if this weekend in /r/AnCap was any example don't bring up spanking with an AnCap. ;) The more you know about your opponent the better.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 08, 2012, 12:50:42 PM
Quote
I wasn't there, but it sounds like the conversation went in a direction where his religious beliefs were revealed. After that, people might not take you seriously. If in the middle of the conversation I told you I was a scientologist, and that yesterday I met with my alien gods, you might not take anything else I said seriously. I call it, gut-level-back-up-induction. It's the type of inductive reasoning where you think, "whoah, he believes that? That's bat shit crazy! At a gut level, I suspect insanity, *slowly backs away*."

If I was discussing anarchism vs statism with you, and I was for statism, and I said that Obama's rule was divinely inspired, it would be entirely appropriate for you to call bullshit, and then walk out on me. Reasoning is pointless in magic land.

I still say that would be dodging the point, even if it is the most rational thing to do given the odds. I mean just because Sir Isaac Newton spent a great deal of his time trying to calculate when the world would end and how to turn random metals into gold that doesn't mean that classical mechanics are now invalid. Irrational beliefs and good arguments can co-exist, and the former is not a valid reason to reject the latter.

However, I understand that continuing to debate someone who drop some apparent irrationality on you may not seem to be worth your time. That's why it's important to know who you're debating if you really want to convince him. We often talk about what arguments to use against liberals/minarchists/communists/etc. but it is just as important to know which topics/arguments to avoid that would otherwise derail the conversation. Don't bring up religious things with an atheist, don't talk about your pro-pot position with a conservative, and if this weekend in /r/AnCap was any example don't bring up spanking with an AnCap. ;) The more you know about your opponent the better.
Agreed. On everything. Especially on the lessons learned. Don't open yourself up on multiple fronts if you're trying to convert someone to anarchism. The phalanx shatters!


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on June 08, 2012, 07:34:12 PM
@JSNTS 1. Will does bring up some good points

2. Sorry I took so long to reply but my computer was screwing up and I had to figure out what the problem was and fix it. I'll definitely read your reply, consider it and offer a reply. That might take a while while I mull over what you said.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 08, 2012, 08:15:39 PM
@JSNTS 1. Will does bring up some good points
I agree completely.

Quote
2. Sorry I took so long to reply but my computer was screwing up and I had to figure out what the problem was and fix it. I'll definitely read your reply, consider it and offer a reply. That might take a while while I mull over what you said.
Take your time. If more people were like you and spent their time mulling before typing, we'd all be better off *glares at Centinel*...although I too occasionally fail to adhere to this principle as I should.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on June 12, 2012, 06:38:42 PM
 AgoristTeen1994, I think this may help you:
http://lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel184.html

 It's basically a diet for the mind. ;D


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: MAM on June 13, 2012, 08:23:22 PM
I would point out that in a voluntary trade both people want what the other has and therefor both people win when the trade is concluded.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Josh D on June 13, 2012, 08:39:27 PM
I would point out that in a voluntary trade both people want what the other has and therefor both people win when the trade is concluded.

I had a statist try and argue that poor people can never make voluntary trades, because they don't have equal bargaining power with corporations.  This guy also said that advertising is a form of coercion, because it makes you do things that  you wouldn't otherwise do, and often in a way you aren't even conscious of.

Weird.



Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 13, 2012, 09:02:18 PM
Poor people can never make voluntary trades, because they don't have equal bargaining power with corporations. 

True


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 13, 2012, 10:26:36 PM
<tongue held> Must... not... waste... energy.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Kinglord of Castle Manufactoria on June 17, 2012, 11:17:00 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/oZfAS.jpg)

One of you is clearly a time traveler.

Seriously though, Assassassin7, defend that assertion with facts.

If you aren't willing to, whatever I say next overrides your statement because I say so.
All people can make voluntary trades.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 18, 2012, 10:07:47 AM
You can only make voluntary trades when both sides have equal power. If A has a huge factory and B needs money for his cancer treatment, any deal involving money they make will be exploitative, in A's favor. Ancapism would only work in small village where everyone is a skilled laborer or a farmer.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Kinglord of Castle Manufactoria on June 18, 2012, 11:03:15 AM
I would say, if anything A, Kinglord of the Manufactorum, is being generous by hiring someone with cancer.

It's a simple thing, B has labor, A has money. B sells his labor to A.
If B doesn't want to sell labor to A, B takes his business elsewhere.
Both people acquire something they want if they decide to trade.

Your magic spells don't work on me.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 18, 2012, 11:19:19 AM
I would say, if anything A, Kinglord of the Manufactorum, is being generous by hiring someone with cancer.

It's a simple thing, B has labor, A has money. B sells his labor to A.
If B doesn't want to sell labor to A, B takes his business elsewhere.
Both people acquire something they want if they decide to trade.

Your magic spells don't work on me.

No, A is going to DIE if he doesn't get hired, B doesn't have a gun to his head, so B will exploit A. Coercion is not just violence.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 18, 2012, 01:39:40 PM
You can only make voluntary trades when both sides have equal power. If A has a huge factory and B needs money for his cancer treatment, any deal involving money they make will be exploitative, in A's favor. Ancapism would only work in small village where everyone is a skilled laborer or a farmer.
Competition works in both directions. The difference in bargaining power that you perceive only exists in select industries. Most of the time, firms have to compete to offer the best wages to qualified workers.

You also haven't explained the exact method through which the owner can "exploit" someone who needs to make his money quickly. If anything, he'll be less likely to accept a lower-paying job, because it wouldn't cover the bills anyways. He can commit to reject lower wages, improving his bargaining position.

@JakeM: I'm not seeing the time-traveling...


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Kinglord of Castle Manufactoria on June 18, 2012, 02:43:12 PM
@JakeM: I'm not seeing the time-traveling...

I was implying that assassassin7 was the statist Josh was referring to.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 18, 2012, 03:11:09 PM
You can only make voluntary trades when both sides have equal power. If A has a huge factory and B needs money for his cancer treatment, any deal involving money they make will be exploitative, in A's favor. Ancapism would only work in small village where everyone is a skilled laborer or a farmer.
Competition works in both directions. The difference in bargaining power that you perceive only exists in select industries. Most of the time, firms have to compete to offer the best wages to qualified workers.

You also haven't explained the exact method through which the owner can "exploit" someone who needs to make his money quickly. If anything, he'll be less likely to accept a lower-paying job, because it wouldn't cover the bills anyways. He can commit to reject lower wages, improving his bargaining position.

@JakeM: I'm not seeing the time-traveling...

Making B work long hours for little pay


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Kinglord of Castle Manufactoria on June 18, 2012, 03:52:42 PM
The picture you're painting is like this medieval eastern european village with some kind of castle-factory, where Kinglord CEOvus reigns over his people with a constant monopoly on all jobs ever.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 18, 2012, 03:55:49 PM
if the shoe fits...


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Kinglord of Castle Manufactoria on June 18, 2012, 04:06:26 PM
IT WILL BE PRODUCED IN MY CASTLE FACTORY.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 18, 2012, 09:12:36 PM
You can only make voluntary trades when both sides have equal power. If A has a huge factory and B needs money for his cancer treatment, any deal involving money they make will be exploitative, in A's favor. Ancapism would only work in small village where everyone is a skilled laborer or a farmer.
Competition works in both directions. The difference in bargaining power that you perceive only exists in select industries. Most of the time, firms have to compete to offer the best wages to qualified workers.

You also haven't explained the exact method through which the owner can "exploit" someone who needs to make his money quickly. If anything, he'll be less likely to accept a lower-paying job, because it wouldn't cover the bills anyways. He can commit to reject lower wages, improving his bargaining position.

@JakeM: I'm not seeing the time-traveling...

Making B work long hours for little pay
Why not go work for the other guy down the street who pays more?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 18, 2012, 10:15:35 PM
Its the idea of working for someone i dont like selling your time to anothers control


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Script on June 19, 2012, 04:29:29 AM
Its the idea of working for someone i dont like selling your time to anothers control

The weird, weird backwards land of ancom: 

Give me what I want and need or else you are coercing me.



Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Hanzo on June 19, 2012, 11:01:01 AM
All of his examples would be bunk in a free market. The price of getting an edumacation is artificially raised by the government. There is also the licensing, taxes, and the overall cost of living would be extremely cheap in a free market.

His examples of what occurs in the current system do not apply to a theoretical stateless society.

Also, why are communists on the internet always rich kids? Anyone have any idea?



Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 19, 2012, 01:01:14 PM
Its the idea of working for someone i dont like selling your time to anothers control

The weird, weird backwards land of ancom: 

Give me what I want and need or else you are coercing me.



So you can't work if you not a wage slave.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Script on June 19, 2012, 02:20:13 PM
Its the idea of working for someone i dont like selling your time to anothers control

The weird, weird backwards land of ancom: 

Give me what I want and need or else you are coercing me.



So you can't work if you not a wage slave.

Let's try to hash this out one point at a time instead of jumping all over the place.  I think you and I can make a fair attempt at understanding each other's positions and having a fair and rational discussion.

First, let's lay down some ground rules.

1. We give evidence or logical arguments for our assertions.

If I say "Taxes are theft!" I must then defend this position with evidence and/or arguments as the situation warrants.

2. We refrain from inflammatory statements and ad hominems.

We will treat each other with respect and civility despite any frustrations we have debating with each other.

If you agree to these or any have others, let me know.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 19, 2012, 03:05:53 PM
ok


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Script on June 20, 2012, 05:29:17 PM
Excellent.  This should be instructive for me as I wish to learn more about socialist anarchists and their positions on matters.  I don't feel I understand their positions well enough right now so I expect to learn things from this discussion.

Where shall we begin?  It seems like one of the major sticking points is the definition of coercion and what justly falls under this category.  Does economic coercion exist?

Why don't we begin there.  You can explain your position and why you think economic coercion is immoral, if it justifies a violent response, what wage slavery is and why you think it is harmful and unjust or whatever other thoughts you have on the matter.  Sound ok?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 20, 2012, 07:28:23 PM
I'm relatively new to anarchist communism, being a recent convert from anarcho capitalism, and have limited array of knowledge, so I will rely heavily on the works of others.

I usually consider economic coercion like smoking, be an idiot, I'll defend your right, but don't blow it in my face. I would try to educate people on why its wrong.

When violence is allowed is when leaving is made difficult, like when if I don't pay the rent, I'm homeless, and even then non violence is preferable. Or if I quit I starve.

The same way, "love it or leave it" isn't a justification of statism.



Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 20, 2012, 07:57:43 PM
When violence is allowed is when leaving is made difficult, like when if I don't pay the rent, I'm homeless, and even then non violence is preferable. Or if I quit I starve.
The fact that people can starve and not have homes is part of being alive. If you don't build your own home, you need to get permission to use someone else's...or be homeless.

If you don't grow your own food, you need to pay someone else for it.

The biggest problem is that you seem to be arguing that the very state of our existence is somehow coercive. I don't consider biological necessities to be "coercive".

Somehow or another, you have to bear the costs of supporting your own existence. It's just that with markets, it's a lot cheaper. It used to require a 70+ hour work week to get by on a subsistence diet with no medical treatment (where a simple infection could kill you). We no longer have to worry about dying just because it doesn't rain for a few months. We can get sick, take some days off and not jeopardize our family's food supply. We still have to support ourselves, it's just a lot easier, because we get more per hour worked (yes, even if you work at McDonald's).

Markets don't "impose" a need to work for a living. That's part of being alive. It takes effort to sustain yourself. If that's not "fair", then I don't know what fair even means. How can trade, and the opportunities it provides to increase your material well-being and longevity be exploitation?

@ Script: Sorry, I didn't want to butt into your conversation, but sometimes I can't help myself.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 20, 2012, 08:58:39 PM
I really mean not so much violence as the extracontractural termination of the relationship, say if a guy is paying to much in rent to feed his family, he has the right to stop paying rent and squat his house, or if a guy can't leave a job because the market is weak, and a strike or other method of protest is impossible he has the right to occupy his workplace and run it for his benefit


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Script on June 20, 2012, 09:58:02 PM
Quote from: JustSayNoToStatism

@ Script: Sorry, I didn't want to butt into your conversation, but sometimes I can't help myself.

I wouldn't want to coerce you to stop engaging in the conversation, carry on.  ;-)

Edit: Corrected quote author


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 20, 2012, 10:04:06 PM
I really mean not so much violence as the extracontractural termination of the relationship, say if a guy is paying to much in rent to feed his family, he has the right to stop paying rent and squat his house,
Why does it make sense for someone else to bear the costs of his actions? Why should his decision to raise a family on a knife's edge cost the land owner his property? The whole point of understanding economics is to see how incentives affect people's behavior. Do you think it is efficient, in any sense of the word, to reward the man (with a free house that he didn't build) for his lack of foresight and punish the landowner (via lost rent) for renting the property out to him in the first place? All the incentives are set incorrectly here.

Quote
or if a guy can't leave a job because the market is weak, and a strike or other method of protest is impossible he has the right to occupy his workplace and run it for his benefit
Why does he have the right to his workplace? Did he make it? Of course not. Again, consider incentives. If employees can just occupy and takeover your business, then the entrepreneurs really have no reason to start the business and create the jobs in the first place. The owner takes all the risk in starting up a new project. The variance of his returns are extreme. If he isn't guaranteed to reap the benefits when he's successful, there is no reason to ever do it. It's a punishment for innovation. That's the wrong incentive.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 20, 2012, 10:11:02 PM
We're arguing ethics, not economics

now onto the arguments:

why should the family suffer, and what if he's just poor and lives in a poor area (say a small town in West Virginia, where their only room for 3 apartments and the 3 owners collude to keep prices high), and he must pay rent as soon as he can, and must leave if another option shows up. (look up Kirby Rent Strike)

Because he's a slave to the boss, and he only has the right until other options show up, and the occupation has to be a last resort.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Script on June 20, 2012, 10:27:39 PM
Sounds like we are arguing fundamentally about property and property rights. 

Assasin7 can you describe to me your beliefs on property and property rights?  Do you believe property rights exist?  If so, to what extent?  (Personal possession, private property, no property what-so-ever, etc.)


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 20, 2012, 10:34:07 PM
My honest answer is that ethics is bullshit. Just an attempt to make your preferences look "correct," whatever that means.

But I'm fine with "playing that game" if you want. I agree with Script, explain the nature of property, and how it fits into your ethical picture.

PS: I take your response as an acceptance of the economic side of my argument.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 20, 2012, 10:46:41 PM
I need to bone up on economics before debating them.

property rights: same as smoking, fine be an idiot, just don't blow shit in my face, use the power addiction to tobacco gives you over people to dominate them. If you use them in a coercive manner, rent domination, wage slavery, I'll help the people resist.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Aegidius on June 20, 2012, 10:47:09 PM
If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 21, 2012, 02:55:43 PM
property rights: same as smoking, fine be an idiot, just don't blow shit in my face, use the power addiction to tobacco gives you over people to dominate them. If you use them in a coercive manner, rent domination, wage slavery, I'll help the people resist.
I honestly don't understand half of what you wrote. Can you use standard English conventions?

How are property rights the "same as smoking."


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Script on June 21, 2012, 04:19:05 PM
property rights: same as smoking, fine be an idiot, just don't blow shit in my face, use the power addiction to tobacco gives you over people to dominate them. If you use them in a coercive manner, rent domination, wage slavery, I'll help the people resist.
I honestly don't understand half of what you wrote. Can you use standard English conventions?

How are property rights the "same as smoking."

I second this; it's a confusing paragraph.  Assasin7, can you start from the beginning and clearly articulate your beliefs on property rights?  If you have trouble with that I can pose a series of questions regarding property which you can then answer.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 21, 2012, 05:35:52 PM
If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  

You should only do it as a last resort, and only if your in a domination type situation, and the first time you have a chance at peace you must take the peaceful option.

We're not dealing in the absolutes of the NAP, we're in the real world where you have to look at a situation and judge on a case by case basis, with moral rules as absolutes.

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 21, 2012, 05:56:17 PM
theirs a line from a song that articulates my point well:


And the sign said anybody caught trespassin' would be shot on sight
So I jumped on the fence and-a yelled at the house, "Hey! What gives you
the
right?"
"To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in"
"If God was here he'd tell you to your face, Man, you're some kinda sinner"

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhY9uLuQe9E


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 21, 2012, 06:02:26 PM
for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
There may be a difference, but neither one is okay. If the grain isn't fetching the price the farmer needs (unlikely, we have futures contracts to keep the grain moving), then why can you take what he raised?

There are some major problems here...
1) You refuse to discuss economics, because you don't know it. So we effectively rule out the consequentialist sphere of discussion.

2) You refuse to lay out any consistent principles for making your moral claims. You want everything done on a case by case basis, so you rule out the idea of having moral or ethical principles. So the moral/ethical sphere can be thrown out the window.

Basically, your posts are just a collection of preferences with no justification. Your arbitrary notion of what's fair and right. I can't argue against that. I can point out inconsistencies in what you consider "just" and I can point out why your ideas will lead to disastrous results, but you care about none of these things. What then, is the point of our discussion?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Aegidius on June 21, 2012, 06:18:25 PM
If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  

You should only do it as a last resort, and only if your in a domination type situation, and the first time you have a chance at peace you must take the peaceful option.

We're not dealing in the absolutes of the NAP, we're in the real world where you have to look at a situation and judge on a case by case basis, with moral rules as absolutes.

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.

You've established that previously.  I'm really interested in finding out what, if any, form of human cooperation doesn't constitute a "domination type situation".


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 21, 2012, 06:55:45 PM
If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  

You should only do it as a last resort, and only if your in a domination type situation, and the first time you have a chance at peace you must take the peaceful option.

We're not dealing in the absolutes of the NAP, we're in the real world where you have to look at a situation and judge on a case by case basis, with moral rules as absolutes.

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.

You've established that previously.  I'm really interested in finding out what, if any, form of human cooperation doesn't constitute a "domination type situation".

Where one is equal and free to leave, say employment when their are multiple options to be considered.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 21, 2012, 06:56:47 PM
for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
2) You refuse to lay out any consistent principles for making your moral claims. You want everything done on a case by case basis, so you rule out the idea of having moral or ethical principles. So the moral/ethical sphere can be thrown out the window.

OK, human interactions should be free of domination and coercion.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Aegidius on June 21, 2012, 07:41:20 PM
for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
2) You refuse to lay out any consistent principles for making your moral claims. You want everything done on a case by case basis, so you rule out the idea of having moral or ethical principles. So the moral/ethical sphere can be thrown out the window.

OK, human interactions should be free of domination and coercion.

I couldn't agree more!  How is taking another human being's livelihood by force not domination or coercion?

Let's not confuse *understandable* actions with *morally correct* ones.  Would I steal food if I were starving?  You can bet your ass I would!  That doesn't mean it's okay, though.  My need doesn't make it any less a theft.

If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  

You should only do it as a last resort, and only if your in a domination type situation, and the first time you have a chance at peace you must take the peaceful option.

We're not dealing in the absolutes of the NAP, we're in the real world where you have to look at a situation and judge on a case by case basis, with moral rules as absolutes.

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.

You've established that previously.  I'm really interested in finding out what, if any, form of human cooperation doesn't constitute a "domination type situation".

Where one is equal and free to leave, say employment when their are multiple options to be considered.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you define a lack of other available employers as a lack of "multiple options".  I'd argue that you always have the option of finding a new profession, wandering off to live in the wilderness (an unattractive option is still an option), moving to a new town, or any number of other things, but let's give you that for the sake of argument.  

If I employ people and have a nearby competitor that offers a similar job, that's fine.  What happens when that nearby competitor, unrelated to anything I have done, goes out of business?  We'll say he got hit by a train.  All of the sudden, there are no "multiple options" for my employees.  Without changing the way I treat them or my contract with them in any way, am I now unjustly dominating them?

I think the heart of our disagreement is what constitutes "freedom to leave".  I consider someone to be free to leave when no one is stopping them.  If I understand you correctly, you believe one is only free to leave when leaving is easy or a good idea.  You're conflating freedom with ability, or perhaps even convenience.

I am free to climb mount Everest, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can.  

(Actually, I may not be.  I wouldn't be surprised if you need some kind of approval from the local government to climb the damn thing.  A bad example, maybe.)

One final permutation to my little scenario: I now go out of business as well.  A comet hits my place of business while only I am there.  My former employees still have no options for finding work in their accustomed field.  They are still just as lacking in your kind of "freedom".  Who now is their oppressor?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 21, 2012, 08:03:57 PM
for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
2) You refuse to lay out any consistent principles for making your moral claims. You want everything done on a case by case basis, so you rule out the idea of having moral or ethical principles. So the moral/ethical sphere can be thrown out the window.

OK, human interactions should be free of domination and coercion.

I couldn't agree more!  How is taking another human being's livelihood by force not domination or coercion?

Let's not confuse *understandable* actions with *morally correct* ones.  Would I steal food if I were starving?  You bet your ass I would!  That doesn't mean it's okay, though.  My need doesn't make it any less a theft.

If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  

You should only do it as a last resort, and only if your in a domination type situation, and the first time you have a chance at peace you must take the peaceful option.

We're not dealing in the absolutes of the NAP, we're in the real world where you have to look at a situation and judge on a case by case basis, with moral rules as absolutes.

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.

You've established that previously.  I'm really interested in finding out what, if any, form of human cooperation doesn't constitute a "domination type situation".

Where one is equal and free to leave, say employment when their are multiple options to be considered.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you define a lack of other available employers as a lack of "multiple options".  I'd argue that you always have the option of finding a new profession, wandering off to live in the wilderness (an unattractive option is still an option), moving to a new town, or any number of other things, but let's give you that for the sake of argument.  

If I employ people and have a nearby competitor that offers a similar job, that's fine.  What happens when that nearby competitor, unrelated to anything I have done, goes out of business?  We'll say he got hit by a train.  All of the sudden, there are no "multiple options" for my employees.  Without changing the way I treat them or my contract with them in any way, am I now unjustly dominating them?

I think the heart of our disagreement is what constitutes "freedom to leave".  I consider someone to be free to leave when no one is stopping them.  If I understand you correctly, you believe one is only free to leave when leaving is easy or a good idea.  You're conflating freedom with ability, or perhaps even convenience.

I am free to climb mount Everest, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can.  

(Actually, I may not be.  I wouldn't be surprised if you need some kind of approval from the local government to climb the damn thing.  A bad example, maybe.)

If you don't change the way you treat them its fine, if you abuse them then your bad.

How is the free to leave argument different from "if you don't like the state your can leave argument."


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Aegidius on June 21, 2012, 08:12:23 PM
for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
2) You refuse to lay out any consistent principles for making your moral claims. You want everything done on a case by case basis, so you rule out the idea of having moral or ethical principles. So the moral/ethical sphere can be thrown out the window.

OK, human interactions should be free of domination and coercion.

I couldn't agree more!  How is taking another human being's livelihood by force not domination or coercion?

Let's not confuse *understandable* actions with *morally correct* ones.  Would I steal food if I were starving?  You bet your ass I would!  That doesn't mean it's okay, though.  My need doesn't make it any less a theft.

If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  

You should only do it as a last resort, and only if your in a domination type situation, and the first time you have a chance at peace you must take the peaceful option.

We're not dealing in the absolutes of the NAP, we're in the real world where you have to look at a situation and judge on a case by case basis, with moral rules as absolutes.

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.

You've established that previously.  I'm really interested in finding out what, if any, form of human cooperation doesn't constitute a "domination type situation".

Where one is equal and free to leave, say employment when their are multiple options to be considered.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you define a lack of other available employers as a lack of "multiple options".  I'd argue that you always have the option of finding a new profession, wandering off to live in the wilderness (an unattractive option is still an option), moving to a new town, or any number of other things, but let's give you that for the sake of argument.  

If I employ people and have a nearby competitor that offers a similar job, that's fine.  What happens when that nearby competitor, unrelated to anything I have done, goes out of business?  We'll say he got hit by a train.  All of the sudden, there are no "multiple options" for my employees.  Without changing the way I treat them or my contract with them in any way, am I now unjustly dominating them?

I think the heart of our disagreement is what constitutes "freedom to leave".  I consider someone to be free to leave when no one is stopping them.  If I understand you correctly, you believe one is only free to leave when leaving is easy or a good idea.  You're conflating freedom with ability, or perhaps even convenience.

I am free to climb mount Everest, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can.  

(Actually, I may not be.  I wouldn't be surprised if you need some kind of approval from the local government to climb the damn thing.  A bad example, maybe.)

If you don't change the way you treat them its fine, if you abuse them then your bad.

How is the free to leave argument different from "if you don't like the state your can leave argument."

Because only one of them is true.  I can terminate my contract with my employer at any time, and it was made voluntarily in the first place.  The state assumes my consent because I had the temerity to be born within its borders, and agresses against me on my or anyone else's property within its "territory".  Try telling the IRS that you quit; they'll have a good laugh.

You really don't see a difference between terminating a peaceful, voluntary agreement and fleeing the territory of a criminal gang?  Between *ceasing to trade with someone* and *having to flee a geographic area because thugs won't leave you be*?  Seriously?

The two are only comparable if the employer threatens to kill or imprison you if you quit without also leaving town.  Note that 'kill' is not the same as 'not help to live'.

Also, what constitutes abuse?

Also also, is there more than one person posting with this account?

Where one is equal and free to leave, say employment when their are multiple options to be considered.
How is the free to leave argument different from "if you don't like the state your can leave argument."


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 21, 2012, 11:08:17 PM
for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
2) You refuse to lay out any consistent principles for making your moral claims. You want everything done on a case by case basis, so you rule out the idea of having moral or ethical principles. So the moral/ethical sphere can be thrown out the window.

OK, human interactions should be free of domination and coercion.
No. You rejected this too. You said that in the real world, we have to judge each thing case by case. Theft is domination and coercion, and you're okay with it.

You don't want to argue on economics, and you don't want to do so on principles. There are no criteria to use for judging your ideas. You're just stating your opinions on what is good or bad, and there's nothing left for us to judge them against.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 22, 2012, 03:10:09 AM
Also also, is there more than one person posting with this account?

Where one is equal and free to leave, say employment when their are multiple options to be considered.
How is the free to leave argument different from "if you don't like the state your can leave argument."
No I just have 2 personalities


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 24, 2012, 09:03:23 PM
definition of property: An area in which the property owner has the right to initiate force.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 24, 2012, 11:57:31 PM
definition of property: An area in which the property owner has the right to initiate force.
Few propertarian anarchists would be okay with that definition. AFAIK, trespassing, in the common law sense, was not the crime it's thought of today. If you walk through a giant field, doing no harm, the owner can't shoot you. Passing through was treated differently than other types of land use. But it isn't allowed if breaking and entering is required. I'm pulling this stuff out of memory from discussions I've had with people better read than myself. Admittedly, it's all somewhat fuzzy and vague. But I'm the one who doesn't care about absolute morality anyways.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 25, 2012, 12:17:40 PM
definition of property: An area in which the property owner has the right to initiate force.
Few propertarian anarchists would be okay with that definition. AFAIK, trespassing, in the common law sense, was not the crime it's thought of today. If you walk through a giant field, doing no harm, the owner can't shoot you. Passing through was treated differently than other types of land use. But it isn't allowed if breaking and entering is required. I'm pulling this stuff out of memory from discussions I've had with people better read than myself. Admittedly, it's all somewhat fuzzy and vague. But I'm the one who doesn't care about absolute morality anyways.

Why? I seems accurate


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 25, 2012, 01:17:23 PM
definition of property: An area in which the property owner has the right to initiate force.
Few propertarian anarchists would be okay with that definition. AFAIK, trespassing, in the common law sense, was not the crime it's thought of today. If you walk through a giant field, doing no harm, the owner can't shoot you. Passing through was treated differently than other types of land use. But it isn't allowed if breaking and entering is required. I'm pulling this stuff out of memory from discussions I've had with people better read than myself. Admittedly, it's all somewhat fuzzy and vague. But I'm the one who doesn't care about absolute morality anyways.

Why? I seems accurate
You will need to elaborate. I don't know what you are asking.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 25, 2012, 06:34:44 PM
Why is property not a region in which the owner has the right to initiate force?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 25, 2012, 07:20:05 PM
Why is property not a region in which the owner has the right to initiate force?
I answered that already. It's too general of a claim. I used the example of trespassing, and how it doesn't justify shooting someone, even in the eyes of propertarians. So not all people think that every infraction justifies the use of force. So your definition isn't a good one, because that's not how people see property.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Hanzo on June 25, 2012, 08:41:56 PM
Why is property not a region in which the owner has the right to initiate force?
A property owner can't beat anyone just for being on their property. Only to defend it.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 25, 2012, 08:58:17 PM
Why is property not a region in which the owner has the right to initiate force?
A property owner can't beat anyone just for being on their property. Only to defend it.

A state can't beat a citizen up just for being in it, just for breaking the law


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 25, 2012, 10:37:03 PM
Why is property not a region in which the owner has the right to initiate force?
A property owner can't beat anyone just for being on their property. Only to defend it.

A state can't beat a citizen up just for being in it, just for breaking the law
Bullshit!


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on June 25, 2012, 10:55:08 PM
That is bullshit beyond all reasonable understanding. So the police state that we're currently living in doesn't count as a beating? Going throughporno scanners at the airport that can cause cancer and gives perverts the options of seeing your balls is natural?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on June 25, 2012, 11:25:20 PM
 Ass7., your view of property is completely off. Having property is not meant to represent a sign of force against other individuals. Property, by it's very nature, is meant to be used by man in order to bring order to his life. Man needs property in order to organize himself and what is morale to himself. Tell me, without property, how would you be able to structure yourself? Ex: if you have furniture, but have no property that gives you the ability to structure said furniture, how can you create order?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 26, 2012, 12:00:44 AM
Background for my previous answer:

The obvious counterexample would require that I Godwin the thread, so I won't mention it explicitly. But, you know...that whole ordeal.

Or what about Executive Order 9066?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on June 26, 2012, 02:04:20 AM
Not familiar with that, Mark.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 06:47:03 AM
That is bullshit beyond all reasonable understanding. So the police state that we're currently living in doesn't count as a beating? Going throughporno scanners at the airport that can cause cancer and gives perverts the options of seeing your balls is natural?

Yea, but property is just as bad, an owner of property can command the same thing, but you would complain.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 26, 2012, 10:13:17 AM
That is bullshit beyond all reasonable understanding. So the police state that we're currently living in doesn't count as a beating? Going throughporno scanners at the airport that can cause cancer and gives perverts the options of seeing your balls is natural?

Yea, but property is just as bad, an owner of property can command the same thing, but you would complain.
No, an owner of property can't command the same thing. An owner of a theoretical airport can't ensure that every other airport has the same ridiculous practices.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on June 26, 2012, 11:44:02 AM
 Ah, but you see, now you're confusing public, government owned property with private property. Property that is owned by the government (in this case airports) is, but its very nature, a violent space because government must use the force of taxation in order to maintain it. Private property, on the other hand, is a space that a person uses his own resources and money to own and mold the way he or she deems fit.

 A person that owns private property has a right to defend it. If you come onto someone's property without their full consent and commit a criminal act, they have every right to meet you with full force.

 Let me explain why your argument in wholly invalid: if man does not own his body (his most basic property), then the ideas of theft and murder cannot exist, because if man does not own himself then, he cannot be held responsible for such actions. Taking this and applying it to property, we must then conclude that if man does not have any property, then there cannot be any justification for the idea of theft. Do you understand where I'm coming from here?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Hanzo on June 26, 2012, 11:47:40 AM
The purpose of (private) property is to allocate resources most efficiently (ie allocate it to those who will use it most productively and thus produce the most wealth for others and themselves). The purpose of the state is, quite frankly, to be an asshole. The state adds 0 value to society. It actually takes away a a lot of value. Capital assets are used to produce things, the state is used to take things.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Hanzo on June 26, 2012, 11:49:17 AM
Out of curiosity, in your words, assassin,  how should resources be allocated to people?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 01:03:18 PM
That is bullshit beyond all reasonable understanding. So the police state that we're currently living in doesn't count as a beating? Going throughporno scanners at the airport that can cause cancer and gives perverts the options of seeing your balls is natural?

Yea, but property is just as bad, an owner of property can command the same thing, but you would complain.
No, an owner of property can't command the same thing. An owner of a theoretical airport can't ensure that every other airport has the same ridiculous practices.

Yes, but the air port owners could for a consortium, to make all places have those agents.



Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 01:07:28 PM
Let me explain why your argument in wholly invalid: if man does not own his body (his most basic property), then the ideas of theft and murder cannot exist, because if man does not own himself then, he cannot be held responsible for such actions. Taking this and applying it to property, we must then conclude that if man does not have any property, then there cannot be any justification for the idea of theft. Do you understand where I'm coming from here?

So native american tribes didn't have morality, they didn't believe in property.

You confuse personal property with private property: Your house is personal property, a factory that others work is private property, the first is valid the second is invalid.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 01:09:25 PM
Out of curiosity, in your words, assassin,  how should resources be allocated to people?

I would say that the people who produce goods should decide (can I get rid of the adds, I can't type because I keep staring at the latino cupids add). I do think that if a mode of production causes starvation, then it is immoral, and should be abolished.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on June 26, 2012, 01:15:04 PM
Ass7, your point is wrong. Native Americans did believe in property rights. Tom Woods covers this in his book, 33 Questions. During times when resources such as food would drop because of harsh winters, Native American tribes would give the members of their tribes full access to everything that they hunted, and would condemn those that would try to steal from others.

Property rights have existed for centuries, and to deny that is to deny reality.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 01:37:20 PM
Ass7, your point is wrong. Native Americans did believe in property rights. Tom Woods covers this in his book, 33 Questions. During times when resources such as food would drop because of harsh winters, Native American tribes would give the members of their tribes full access to everything that they hunted, and would condemn those that would try to steal from others.

Property rights have existed for centuries, and to deny that is to deny reality.

The Arawak didn't have them, the most warlike tribes did (Iroquois, Apache, Aztec).


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 26, 2012, 03:08:09 PM
That is bullshit beyond all reasonable understanding. So the police state that we're currently living in doesn't count as a beating? Going throughporno scanners at the airport that can cause cancer and gives perverts the options of seeing your balls is natural?

Yea, but property is just as bad, an owner of property can command the same thing, but you would complain.
No, an owner of property can't command the same thing. An owner of a theoretical airport can't ensure that every other airport has the same ridiculous practices.

Yes, but the air port owners could for a consortium, to make all places have those agents.


Yeah, and I could convince everyone in the world to sell me their houses for a nickel a piece. But it won't happen.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 26, 2012, 03:11:06 PM
Out of curiosity, in your words, assassin,  how should resources be allocated to people?

I would say that the people who produce goods should decide (can I get rid of the adds, I can't type because I keep staring at the latino cupids add). I do think that if a mode of production causes starvation, then it is immoral, and should be abolished.
Firefox addon-on "AdBlock Plus" (ABP).....

So by your own standards, collective ownership should be abolished, since it caused the death of millions in Russia and China.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 26, 2012, 03:13:13 PM
Ass7, your point is wrong. Native Americans did believe in property rights. Tom Woods covers this in his book, 33 Questions. During times when resources such as food would drop because of harsh winters, Native American tribes would give the members of their tribes full access to everything that they hunted, and would condemn those that would try to steal from others.

Property rights have existed for centuries, and to deny that is to deny reality.

The Arawak didn't have them, the most warlike tribes did (Iroquois, Apache, Aztec).
And of course, your unbacked claim based upon spotty knowledge of native american history shows that property rights cause war. Bravo.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 04:15:11 PM
That is bullshit beyond all reasonable understanding. So the police state that we're currently living in doesn't count as a beating? Going throughporno scanners at the airport that can cause cancer and gives perverts the options of seeing your balls is natural?

Yea, but property is just as bad, an owner of property can command the same thing, but you would complain.
No, an owner of property can't command the same thing. An owner of a theoretical airport can't ensure that every other airport has the same ridiculous practices.

Yes, but the air port owners could for a consortium, to make all places have those agents.


Yeah, and I could convince everyone in the world to sell me their houses for a nickel a piece. But it won't happen.

In one city you can't build that many air ports, maybe 7 or 8, so yes it would be in their interest to form a consortium and rig prices


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 04:16:27 PM
Ass7, your point is wrong. Native Americans did believe in property rights. Tom Woods covers this in his book, 33 Questions. During times when resources such as food would drop because of harsh winters, Native American tribes would give the members of their tribes full access to everything that they hunted, and would condemn those that would try to steal from others.

Property rights have existed for centuries, and to deny that is to deny reality.

The Arawak didn't have them, the most warlike tribes did (Iroquois, Apache, Aztec).
And of course, your unbacked claim based upon spotty knowledge of native american history shows that property rights cause war. Bravo.

I never said that, if you read that into the comment, its not my problem


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Hanzo on June 27, 2012, 04:19:56 PM
That is bullshit beyond all reasonable understanding. So the police state that we're currently living in doesn't count as a beating? Going throughporno scanners at the airport that can cause cancer and gives perverts the options of seeing your balls is natural?

Yea, but property is just as bad, an owner of property can command the same thing, but you would complain.
No, an owner of property can't command the same thing. An owner of a theoretical airport can't ensure that every other airport has the same ridiculous practices.

Yes, but the air port owners could for a consortium, to make all places have those agents.


Yeah, and I could convince everyone in the world to sell me their houses for a nickel a piece. But it won't happen.

In one city you can't build that many air ports, maybe 7 or 8, so yes it would be in their interest to form a consortium and rig prices
A competitor would offer a better deal to the customer, then. It is not like now where big corporations use regulation to make barriers to entry high.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on June 27, 2012, 07:49:43 PM
That is bullshit beyond all reasonable understanding. So the police state that we're currently living in doesn't count as a beating? Going throughporno scanners at the airport that can cause cancer and gives perverts the options of seeing your balls is natural?

That was a bad example, lets go with price fixing. Making a air port requires huge amounts of funds, and I doubt you can make one quickly, so the owners of the few air ports could easily price fix

Yea, but property is just as bad, an owner of property can command the same thing, but you would complain.
No, an owner of property can't command the same thing. An owner of a theoretical airport can't ensure that every other airport has the same ridiculous practices.

Yes, but the air port owners could for a consortium, to make all places have those agents.


Yeah, and I could convince everyone in the world to sell me their houses for a nickel a piece. But it won't happen.

In one city you can't build that many air ports, maybe 7 or 8, so yes it would be in their interest to form a consortium and rig prices
A competitor would offer a better deal to the customer, then. It is not like now where big corporations use regulation to make barriers to entry high.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on July 02, 2012, 07:24:16 AM
Also, why are communists on the internet always rich kids? Anyone have any idea?

I suspect all the ones living the dream are unable to afford the internet. 


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on July 05, 2012, 08:36:39 PM
my arguments against capitalism from debates.org:


1. Working for a boss creates obedient habits of mind, that will lead to dependence on authority, leading to the creation of a state.

2. Capital will come into the hands of a few, and those few will become the new state, via private property. because consumers, who are unorganized, would go to one company that can provide better goods, which would allow it to invest in buying its competition.

3. Private property requires a state to exist.

4. Natural disasters will cause the populace to give power to the companies that had come to dominate the economy, and power once given will only grow. This power will then invade mutualist and communist areas because they will be new markets, and the richest and most valuable areas, because they won't be able to sell anymore in the local economies.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on July 05, 2012, 08:48:35 PM
Thank you for finally telling me where you are getting these statements.  

As these have been refuted several times by many people all over the board, I won't bother to refute them again now.  

I have to mention that this list just makes me laugh.  



Edit: Found it, or at least one incarnation of it.
http://www.debate.org/debates/anarcho-capitalism-would-lead-to-despotic-statism/1/

my arguments against capitalism from debates.org:
Debates.org is a site about presidential debates.  


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on July 05, 2012, 09:45:47 PM
Here's how it will go:
why monopolies form:

1. it is easier and cheaper for shippers to ship to one store than to 3

2. labors demands for higher wages are easier rebuffed by one large company than many small ones.

3. consumers will buy from one company or a group of companies that offer lower prices.

4. larger companies will be the most efficient because they will be able to call on more resources, allowing them to grow larger.

5. their is resources so one company will seize a large part of them, and then grow more. capitalism requires scarcity.

the internet is the only place where anarcho capitalism can work, because you can just open a new website.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on July 05, 2012, 09:53:34 PM
Here's how it will go:
why monopolies form:

1. it is easier and cheaper for shippers to ship to one store than to 3

2. labors demands for higher wages are easier rebuffed by one large company than many small ones.

3. consumers will buy from one company or a group of companies that offer lower prices.

4. larger companies will be the most efficient because they will be able to call on more resources, allowing them to grow larger.

5. their is resources so one company will seize a large part of them, and then grow more. capitalism requires scarcity.

the internet is the only place where anarcho capitalism can work, because you can just open a new website.


So full of fail.  

You are copying garbage from elsewhere and posting it here.  You have posts all over this forum with incredibly easy things to refute.  I am going to have to just start calling troll and leave it at that.

You don't even respond to the refutations.  You just post more garbage.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: MAM on July 05, 2012, 10:00:57 PM
my arguments against capitalism from debates.org:


1. Working for a boss creates obedient habits of mind, that will lead to dependence on authority, leading to the creation of a state.

2. Capital will come into the hands of a few, and those few will become the new state, via private property. because consumers, who are unorganized, would go to one company that can provide better goods, which would allow it to invest in buying its competition.

3. Private property requires a state to exist.

4. Natural disasters will cause the populace to give power to the companies that had come to dominate the economy, and power once given will only grow. This power will then invade mutualist and communist areas because they will be new markets, and the richest and most valuable areas, because they won't be able to sell anymore in the local economies.


If they are from debates.org they aren't your arguments you are merely a parrot, which is apparent by your lack of understanding of said arguments.

Now it's time to refute some more bullshit.

Claim One:
Quote
Working for a boss creates obedient habits of mind, that will lead to dependence on authority, leading to the creation of a state.
This a completely unsubstantiated claim. It begins with an unsupported assertion. Futhermore if it is true it is not the only thing that can lead to obedience, some other examples are 1. Threat of violence 2. Voluntary exchange id est I agree to do as you say in exchange for x$/hour. (which isn't blind or forced obedience, which is implied by the argument) I'm sure there are others. The second assertion is a non-sequiter when attached to the first and is also unsubstantiated. It may be possible to create a logical link between the first assertion and the second one but a dependence on authority does not follow from obedient behavior. The third assertion is also a non-sequiter when attached to the second. Here's an example firms are organized in a manner wherein workers answer to supervisors who answer to department heads who answer store heads who answer to regional managers etc... Each level is dependent on the authority of the one above it, this is called a chain of command, however a firm is not the State, if one defines the State as a monopoly on coercion. Firms do not have the power to exercise coercion on their employees (they can fire an employ, but is this coercion? No it isn't, if you want to know why I will explain it to you) it is true that a firm can pay the State for coercive favors, but it is the State that exercises that power.

Claim Two:
Quote
Capital will come into the hands of a few, and those few will become the new state, via private property. because consumers, who are unorganized, would go to one company that can provide better goods, which would allow it to invest in buying its competition.

The first part of this claim is yet another unsubstantiated assertion, it is true that the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few now. But that is not due to some law of economics, it is due to the State manipulating the economy in various ways (creating high barriers to entry, theft, I'm sure there are others but these are the two that come to mind immediately) the second assertion is yet another non-sequiter, even if the first assertion is true, wealth does not the State make,
Quote
via private property. because consumers, who are unorganized, would go to one company that can provide better goods
the claim that consumers are unorganized is false, boycotts have happened before, and so have strikes that lack the support of unions (granted strikes are based on labor, I added that one to demonstrate that workers have options) I have witnessed both with my own eyes. But even if we allow for the assumption that consumers are unorganized, the argument assumes that a company will be able to corner a market and keep it cornered, which has never happened, and I doubt it ever will. An example, Standard Oil one of the most hated "monopolies" in existed never controlled the entire market, and was well on it's way to being dismantled by the competition when anti-trust laws broke it up.

Claim Three:
Quote
Private property requires a state to exist.

You have posted this repeatedly on multiple threads. It is an unsubstantiated claim. Which until you provide further argument for can neither be refuted or proven. Because of this lack of proof whether logical or empirical it should simply not be believed.

Claim Four:
Quote
Natural disasters will cause the populace to give power to the companies that had come to dominate the economy, and power once given will only grow. This power will then invade mutualist and communist areas because they will be new markets, and the richest and most valuable areas, because they won't be able to sell anymore in the local economies.

The only part of this argument that holds any truth is
Quote
and power once given will only grow
The rest of it follows similar format to the above id est unsubstantiated claim followed by non-sequiter. Furthermore the argument fails Occam's Razor (at best, and is probably just false) in that it supposes that communist areas (I know very little of mutalism) will some how contain wealth, which all empirical data in existence shows is bullshit, tell me is Korea wealthy? Were the Soviets?

In summation: Go ahead and add these arguments to that box of FAIL you are creating.

PS: It is fairly obvious to me that you copied and pasted these arguments because regardless of their logical consistency they are at least coherent sentences.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on July 05, 2012, 10:59:15 PM
My dad has to get up at six every morning, go to work at a job he hates, and then bring his work home, its just like school, which is training for the workplace.

for production of goods: we currently have the technology to make all manual labor robotic, allowing people to move on to socially beneficial activities. Do you know how much labor is wasted on food production that could be used to write novels.

Humans are shaped by our material conditions, meaning that if you change material conditions you change humanity, a communist revolution would actually be the creation of communist society in the shell of capitalism. For example mutual aid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory)

grub dinners:

http://www.inourheartsnyc.org/grub-community-dinners/

food not bombs

http://www.foodnotbombs.net/

solidarity networks in greece:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO4RXG3SgtU

and the zappatista:

http://libcom.org/history/1994-the-zapatista-uprising

Marinaleda, Spain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinaleda,_Spain


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: MAM on July 05, 2012, 11:03:58 PM
Here's how it will go:
why monopolies form:

1. it is easier and cheaper for shippers to ship to one store than to 3

2. labors demands for higher wages are easier rebuffed by one large company than many small ones.

3. consumers will buy from one company or a group of companies that offer lower prices.

4. larger companies will be the most efficient because they will be able to call on more resources, allowing them to grow larger.

5. their is resources so one company will seize a large part of them, and then grow more. capitalism requires scarcity.

the internet is the only place where anarcho capitalism can work, because you can just open a new website.


It is a sign of my weakness that I still bother to post refutations to your nonsense, but I can't help myself because they are pathetic.

1. What you are implying is wrong. If you make a profit on everything you ship than shipping more shit does what? Increases profit. The costs may increase but so does the profit. If one is losing money on each shipment one goes out of business the number of stores one ships to may increase the rate of decay but the result is the same.

2. So what?

3. So the companies compete to get the consumers lowering their prices.

4. You need a dictionary.

5. Scarcity is a fact of reality. (you didn't even bother to copy this one correctly if you are going to troll can you at least do a good job?)


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on July 05, 2012, 11:12:41 PM
I'm not copying, thats my account on debates.org, I'm lowering my argument to 2 things:

working for a boss makes you accept leadership

communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: MAM on July 05, 2012, 11:27:20 PM
I'm not copying, thats my account on debates.org, I'm lowering my argument to 2 things:

working for a boss makes you accept leadership

communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such

If you want to work for someone then you have to accept their leadership that is part of the deal, you are selling your labor. That's what happens. That doesn't mean that employment leads to Statism.

First you were arguing that Capitalism was unsustainable because of automation now you are saying that communism is more sustainable because of automation, so which is it, are economic systems more or less sustainable do to automation. On top of that why are you so convinced that automation won't occur in a Capitalist economy? If the market supports it, it will happen.



Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Josh D on July 16, 2012, 10:23:59 AM
working for a boss makes you accept leadership

WRONG!

Working for a boss allows you to duck responsibility!  (I was only following orders.)


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on July 16, 2012, 11:19:01 AM
working for a boss makes you accept leadership

Can you cite any actual study to back this up?

Quote
communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such

Logically proven false in 1921, see "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth". Empirically proven false by the fall of Socialist/Communist France, Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc etc etc etc.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Script on July 17, 2012, 02:50:55 AM
working for a boss makes you accept leadership

Can you cite any actual study to back this up?

Quote
communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such

Logically proven false in 1921, see "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth". Empirically proven false by the fall of Socialist/Communist France, Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc etc etc etc.

^^  This.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on September 28, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
2. Sorry I took so long to reply but my computer was screwing up and I had to figure out what the problem was and fix it. I'll definitely read your reply, consider it and offer a reply. That might take a while while I mull over what you said.
I'm curious about what you've concluded so far, unless of course you're still actively mulling.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on September 28, 2012, 03:37:28 PM
I'm not copying, thats my account on debates.org, I'm lowering my argument to 2 things:

working for a boss makes you accept leadership

communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such

If you want to work for someone then you have to accept their leadership that is part of the deal, you are selling your labor. That's what happens. That doesn't mean that employment leads to Statism.

First you were arguing that Capitalism was unsustainable because of automation now you are saying that communism is more sustainable because of automation, so which is it, are economic systems more or less sustainable do to automation. On top of that why are you so convinced that automation won't occur in a Capitalist economy? If the market supports it, it will happen.



Under communism you don't have people buying things just getting what they need/want. Under capitalism automation means no one can by shit.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on September 28, 2012, 03:39:21 PM
working for a boss makes you accept leadership

Can you cite any actual study to back this up?

Quote
communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such

Logically proven false in 1921, see "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth". Empirically proven false by the fall of Socialist/Communist France, Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc etc etc etc.

study: every study of public education on this. It was found that pre school kids were less likely to be affected by the Milgram experiment


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: macsnafu on September 28, 2012, 04:02:24 PM
Under communism you don't have people buying things just getting what they need/want. Under capitalism automation means no one can by shit.
Is this some kind of joke? Surely, this is not a serious argument.

 :P

Okay, I'll tackle them, anyway.  Under communism, who is producing what people need and want?  How do they know what they need and want?  How do they know how much of these goods people need and want?  How do they know where the goods that people need and want should be sent?  And, finally, but most importantly, how do you resolve conflicts over resources, as there must inevitably be?  The same set of resources can be utilized in multiple ways to provide different configurations of goods and services, and you can't assert that communism "just works" without showing some kind of model or explanation of just how it works.  I'm only asking for one possible way for it to work, and will grant that in reality, it might end up working a different way. 

Unless you're talking about sentient, self-servicing and self-maintaing robots or a similar form of automation, then somebody needs to be watching the automata and make sure they're working properly, and somebody has to maintain and repair them.  So automation itself creates some new jobs. 

Admittedly, the automation does mean fewer employees in that particular field, but a company wouldn't automate if it didn't translate into increased productivity.  Increased productivity means lower costs, and thus lower prices for consumers, and/or higher profits for the company, and usually both will occur.  In either case, it means that there's more money to be spent in other sectors of the economy, i.e. increased demand in those sectors, which means more jobs created in those sectors. 

Thus, while some jobs are lost, there are more net jobs after automation than before.  That means more people employed, not less.  Stop me if I'm going too fast for you.



Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Kinglord of Castle Manufactoria on September 28, 2012, 05:01:20 PM
I think I've learned one thing from this entire thread.

Ancoms aren't worth converting.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: dpalme on September 28, 2012, 06:35:56 PM
Quote
communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such

Logically proven false in 1921, see "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth". Empirically proven false by the fall of Socialist/Communist France, Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc etc etc etc.

I don't know man. As the song Holiday in Cambodia states, "You'll work harder with a gun in your back!"


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on September 29, 2012, 07:27:11 PM
Under capitalism automation means no one can by [sic] shit.
Yeah, because that makes a lot of sense. If no one can afford to buy a certain good, then why was it's mass production automated? The idea that people "can't afford to buy the goods back" is very, very, very tired. Get off the communist websites.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on September 29, 2012, 10:51:55 PM
"Under communism you don't have people buying things just getting what they need/want."

 Um, what? That very statement relies on the pretext of capitalism's supply and demand in order to function. If people want something, they create a demand for it, which, in turns, sees to the formation of supply for that specific item. If there's no purchasing of the product, how can one calculate which items have a greater need to the public at large? Ever hear of the subjective theory of value?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: macsnafu on September 30, 2012, 09:42:24 AM
"Under communism you don't have people buying things just getting what they need/want."

 Um, what? That very statement relies on the pretext of capitalism's supply and demand in order to function. If people want something, they create a demand for it, which, in turns, sees to the formation of supply for that specific item. If there's no purchasing of the product, how can one calculate which items have a greater need to the public at large? Ever hear of the subjective theory of value?
[sarcasm]No, no, no, it's magic, you see.  Communism magically supplies what people need and want--because scarcity is artificially created by capitalists.[/sarcasm]


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Hanzo on September 30, 2012, 11:13:34 AM
Anyone who thinks anarcho communism is logically sound for more than a month is hopelessly lost. I was an anarchocommunist for like a week when I was 14, and then I realized that it is just stupid. Yes, stupid. Communism sends us back to caveman times.

Social scientists who promote socialism never have a background in economics, or even the private sector for that matter. They love complex (but mistaken) theories because it makes them feel superior despite never having produced anything of value ('never' is a hyperbole).

Thomas Sowell and Von Mises have great articles and books about this topic.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on September 30, 2012, 05:14:02 PM
Oh my, JSNTS, what have you done?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 07, 2012, 02:30:28 PM
Anyone who thinks anarcho communism is logically sound for more than a month is hopelessly lost. I was an anarchocommunist for like a week when I was 14, and then I realized that it is just stupid. Yes, stupid. Communism sends us back to caveman times.

Social scientists who promote socialism never have a background in economics, or even the private sector for that matter. They love complex (but mistaken) theories because it makes them feel superior despite never having produced anything of value ('never' is a hyperbole).

Thomas Sowell and Von Mises have great articles and books about this topic.

Free Cities in Europe

common land of peasants

Tribes of the Caribbean

community gardens

hippie communes

cooperative factories



Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 07, 2012, 02:35:12 PM
"Under communism you don't have people buying things just getting what they need/want."

 Um, what? That very statement relies on the pretext of capitalism's supply and demand in order to function. If people want something, they create a demand for it, which, in turns, sees to the formation of supply for that specific item. If there's no purchasing of the product, how can one calculate which items have a greater need to the public at large? Ever hear of the subjective theory of value?

You would have the basic needs, food, housing, medical care always available. Look at the Doctors Strike where the doctors couldn't just walk out and let people die, so they gave away free care, to any one who walked in.

for luxury goods like toys and games these would be provided by reciprocation, like how in my community my mom does child care for free but as part of that she has a right to the community garden.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on October 07, 2012, 03:43:19 PM
"Under communism you don't have people buying things just getting what they need/want."

 Um, what? That very statement relies on the pretext of capitalism's supply and demand in order to function. If people want something, they create a demand for it, which, in turns, sees to the formation of supply for that specific item. If there's no purchasing of the product, how can one calculate which items have a greater need to the public at large? Ever hear of the subjective theory of value?

You would have the basic needs, food, housing, medical care always available. Look at the Doctors Strike where the doctors couldn't just walk out and let people die, so they gave away free care, to any one who walked in.

for luxury goods like toys and games these would be provided by reciprocation, like how in my community my mom does child care for free but as part of that she has a right to the community garden.

You need to learn what free means.  You just listed the price right after you said free.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 07, 2012, 03:57:59 PM
"Under communism you don't have people buying things just getting what they need/want."

 Um, what? That very statement relies on the pretext of capitalism's supply and demand in order to function. If people want something, they create a demand for it, which, in turns, sees to the formation of supply for that specific item. If there's no purchasing of the product, how can one calculate which items have a greater need to the public at large? Ever hear of the subjective theory of value?

You would have the basic needs, food, housing, medical care always available. Look at the Doctors Strike where the doctors couldn't just walk out and let people die, so they gave away free care, to any one who walked in.

for luxury goods like toys and games these would be provided by reciprocation, like how in my community my mom does child care for free but as part of that she has a right to the community garden.

You need to learn what free means.  You just listed the price right after you said free.

Not really, because if she stopped taking care of kids she would still have access to the garden. In theory no one has to work in my community, but we do any way, because its part of the culture (which is debatably a form of coercion)


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on October 07, 2012, 05:17:34 PM
So could I, not caring about the community or culture of it, be allowed to take everything in the community garden? 


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on October 07, 2012, 06:28:58 PM
Exactly. Based on the system that you're condoning, everyone could steal freely from the garden in question. There needs to be a moderator or medium in place that created an even, organized distribution. 


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on October 07, 2012, 07:56:13 PM
Oh my, JSNTS, what have you done?
I know right....I always use the damned apostrophe in "it's" even when I'm not supposed to.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on October 07, 2012, 09:28:30 PM
 You know what? The more I read his unlogic, the more I begin to realize that it simply doesn't make any sense. Taking his ideas into account on community and collective, let's say that there's a neighborhood made up of three houses. In two of the houses, the owners have food, and one house doesn't have any. Now, let's say that this community lives by the rules that everyone can partake (share) in the food that the other houses have, regardless of whether or not they worked for that food (taking the garden into account). What we would have is a society that simple condones the object of stealing. Under this system, the person with no food could simply take the food from the other two houses, making it impossible for the owners in the other two houses to acclimate their food in the manner that they see fit.

 His basic premise is a constant of immorality. Without the distribution of property, there isn't any sense of logical order. 


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 07, 2012, 11:59:58 PM
So could I, not caring about the community or culture of it, be allowed to take everything in the community garden? 

You could, but it is requested that you leave as you are able, like a church offering plate


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on October 08, 2012, 03:43:29 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 08, 2012, 08:55:46 AM
You could, but it is requested that you leave as you are able, like a church offering plate

Only two things stand in the way of this working: Human nature, and history.

I know of 4 specific times when this was tried.

1586, North Carolina. The Roanoke colony, vanished.

1607, Virginia. 90% starvation prior to re-establishment of private property and profits.

1620, Massachusetts. 50% starvation prior to re-establishment of private property and profits.

1921 (approx), Russia. Lenin saw his cities empty as people left because they were starving, so much so that he abandoned his ideology and re-established the Ruble (money), and allowed enough markets that at least people had the illusion of prices.

But don't trust me, read from someone who was there. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.asp

Quote
So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

As much as I enjoy reading my own writing, I think Bradford sums up the basic error of Socialism quite well in the next paragraph:

Quote
The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

400 years later, and idiots still assert how much better things would be if only there wasn't money.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: macsnafu on October 08, 2012, 03:34:13 PM
You know what? The more I read his unlogic, the more I begin to realize that it simply doesn't make any sense. Taking his ideas into account on community and collective, let's say that there's a neighborhood made up of three houses. In two of the houses, the owners have food, and one house doesn't have any. Now, let's say that this community lives by the rules that everyone can partake (share) in the food that the other houses have, regardless of whether or not they worked for that food (taking the garden into account). What we would have is a society that simple condones the object of stealing. Under this system, the person with no food could simply take the food from the other two houses, making it impossible for the owners in the other two houses to acclimate their food in the manner that they see fit.

 His basic premise is a constant of immorality. Without the distribution of property, there isn't any sense of logical order. 
Well, not stealing, as everybody allegedly agrees that people take what they need.  But it does create a strong disincentive for not working, or at least not working as hard, to produce.  After all, if you can get what you need, but not more, no matter how hard you work, why shouldn't you slack off? 

Thus the real challenge is that it is an honor system, and relies heavily on social censure to get people to contribute their part.   The result is that they will have shortages, and have to start rationing, or take other extreme measures. It's just a matter of time before such a system inevitably breaks down.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 08, 2012, 05:08:03 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

I have living experience of it not happening, for several years


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 08, 2012, 05:11:05 PM
You know what? The more I read his unlogic, the more I begin to realize that it simply doesn't make any sense. Taking his ideas into account on community and collective, let's say that there's a neighborhood made up of three houses. In two of the houses, the owners have food, and one house doesn't have any. Now, let's say that this community lives by the rules that everyone can partake (share) in the food that the other houses have, regardless of whether or not they worked for that food (taking the garden into account). What we would have is a society that simple condones the object of stealing. Under this system, the person with no food could simply take the food from the other two houses, making it impossible for the owners in the other two houses to acclimate their food in the manner that they see fit.

 His basic premise is a constant of immorality. Without the distribution of property, there isn't any sense of logical order. 
Well, not stealing, as everybody allegedly agrees that people take what they need.  But it does create a strong disincentive for not working, or at least not working as hard, to produce.  After all, if you can get what you need, but not more, no matter how hard you work, why shouldn't you slack off? 

Thus the real challenge is that it is an honor system, and relies heavily on social censure to get people to contribute their part.   The result is that they will have shortages, and have to start rationing, or take other extreme measures. It's just a matter of time before such a system inevitably breaks down.


Also what about the common land owned by peasants in England that was destroyed to force into existance capitalist property norms. I was ruined by the property owners after being well cared for by those with common land rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh8ThKmME40


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on October 08, 2012, 05:40:33 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

I have living experience of it not happening, for several years

Because you are working with a small group of like minded individuals.  That is fine, it works.  I've seen it work too.  The problem is when you take it to large scale.  You will get people that don't care.  It is just how people are. 


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 08, 2012, 10:29:41 PM
By several years i mean since 1932, with a highly changing population make up. The source its success is the anti capitalist structure. I moved into the neighborhood 4 years ago


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on October 09, 2012, 06:13:17 PM
^Let me ask you this: do you accept that the community should be voluntary and abstain from forcing people to join it? If the answer is no, then you're doing nothing more than proving your communism is tyrannical in nature.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on October 09, 2012, 06:28:54 PM
By several years i mean since 1932, with a highly changing population make up. The source its success is the anti capitalist structure. I moved into the neighborhood 4 years ago

Can you prove either of those statements, that it's existed since 1932, that it has a highly changing population makeup, and that it's success is because of it's anti-capitalist structure, rather than the some other fact?

Also like SinCityVoluntaryist said, are you willing to abstain from forcing people to join it? If so then you have to accept that some people may want to form a capitalist community


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on October 09, 2012, 08:46:59 PM
Just to be clear, when they say not forcing people to join, they mean people living in the community. 


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on October 09, 2012, 09:11:33 PM
 It's not just the community. When I say not initiating force, I mean abstaining from forcing them to affiliate in any way with his communist fairy tale.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on October 09, 2012, 09:43:32 PM
He has been pretty clear in the past about wanting consensus, and those that disagree should stand aside.   :P


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on October 10, 2012, 12:17:16 AM
 Then he's not for freedom. Then again, most communists aren't.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 10, 2012, 05:34:47 PM
By several years i mean since 1932, with a highly changing population make up. The source its success is the anti capitalist structure. I moved into the neighborhood 4 years ago

Can you prove either of those statements, that it's existed since 1932, that it has a highly changing population makeup, and that it's success is because of it's anti-capitalist structure, rather than the some other fact?

Also like SinCityVoluntaryist said, are you willing to abstain from forcing people to join it? If so then you have to accept that some people may want to form a capitalist community

The problem is by claiming private property your threatening violence


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 10, 2012, 05:35:55 PM
^Let me ask you this: do you accept that the community should be voluntary and abstain from forcing people to join it? If the answer is no, then you're doing nothing more than proving your communism is tyrannical in nature.

Thats a trick question, capitalism can't work if areas don't live under capitalism, private property has to be universal.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on October 10, 2012, 06:24:12 PM
^Not only are you not answering my original question, you're also bringing up something that's completely false. Number one, private property IS universal. All manners of self-ownership begin with the acknowledgement of "I", or the idea that you, as a free individual, own yourself. Not only are you your own property, you're private property because you get to do what you want to yourself, so long as you don't violate the rights of another individual.
 
Also, by saying "I" don't believe in private property rights, you're unconsciously creating a paradox. By saying, "I don't believe in private property", you're acknowledging that you, with your own mind as your property, don't believe in something. Owned.

 Secondly, as I said earlier, you're not answering my original question. I never asked whether someone believes in property rights or not. What I am asking is that if someone who DOES believe in property rights does not want to live in an anarcho-communist society, does that person have a RIGHT to voluntarily leave that society and interact with individuals who do, thus establishing an an-cap society that has a right to itself and the virtue of not forcing other people to join their establishment? If you believe that people should be forced to come under your wing, you're proving yourself tyrannical by forcing individuals to accept your terms.

 Also, property rights are not violent, derp. Rothbard concluded in For a New Liberty that property rights create social order. He gives the example of the ocean and allowing individuals and businesses to buy up pieces of their own ocean use them for market purposes. He cites that because true property rights do not exist under the terms of oceanography, people are forced to share the ocean, thus running the risk of having their labor conflict with the labor of other individuals who are trying to use the ocean for their own purposes. He even cites experts who believe that the private property philosophy should be applied to waters in order to generate more organization.

 Do you really wanna continue spewing your falsehoods? It seems like everyone else here is being objective with their consensus.

 


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on October 10, 2012, 10:24:24 PM
The problem is by claiming private property your threatening violence

How so? And that aside if you live in a community that has no private property, and there is a neighboring community that wants to have a system of private property how is it any of your business? Also just for clarification how would you define private property?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 11, 2012, 08:44:49 AM
The problem is by claiming private property your threatening violence

Only against people who would take it by violence.

Exactly the way I defend my life. Or is claiming independence now considered an act of violence, since by making that claim I am also asserting that I will defend myself?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 11, 2012, 08:47:11 AM
Thats a trick question, capitalism can't work if areas don't live under capitalism, private property has to be universal.

Not at all. If you want to live without it, such as an ascetic monk, no one else's claim of private property can stop you. If you wish to join in a community with people who share all in common, you are more than welcome to do so.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 11, 2012, 08:56:34 AM
Also just for clarification how would you define private property?

Teen, usually the argument is that by taking land and "resources" into private ownership, it is possible to then exclude others who wish to use that land. This creates "artificial scarcity", which is the basis for the claim you might see elsewhere that, if only money and private property could be eliminated, there would therefore be no "scarcity".

The dedicated Socialist, exactly like the Keynesian, has no concept of "production". All they see is consumption, and assume something like "production simply is".

The idea that if you take away someone's property they cease to produce, is outside of their worldview and therefore does not exist.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 11, 2012, 02:32:28 PM
^Not only are you not answering my original question, you're also bringing up something that's completely false. Number one, private property IS universal. All manners of self-ownership begin with the acknowledgement of "I", or the idea that you, as a free individual, own yourself. Not only are you your own property, you're private property because you get to do what you want to yourself, so long as you don't violate the rights of another individual.
 
Also, by saying "I" don't believe in private property rights, you're unconsciously creating a paradox. By saying, "I don't believe in private property", you're acknowledging that you, with your own mind as your property, don't believe in something. Owned.

 Secondly, as I said earlier, you're not answering my original question. I never asked whether someone believes in property rights or not. What I am asking is that if someone who DOES believe in property rights does not want to live in an anarcho-communist society, does that person have a RIGHT to voluntarily leave that society and interact with individuals who do, thus establishing an an-cap society that has a right to itself and the virtue of not forcing other people to join their establishment? If you believe that people should be forced to come under your wing, you're proving yourself tyrannical by forcing individuals to accept your terms.

 Also, property rights are not violent, derp. Rothbard concluded in For a New Liberty that property rights create social order. He gives the example of the ocean and allowing individuals and businesses to buy up pieces of their own ocean use them for market purposes. He cites that because true property rights do not exist under the terms of oceanography, people are forced to share the ocean, thus running the risk of having their labor conflict with the labor of other individuals who are trying to use the ocean for their own purposes. He even cites experts who believe that the private property philosophy should be applied to waters in order to generate more organization.

 Do you really wanna continue spewing your falsehoods? It seems like everyone else here is being objective with their consensus.

 
Rothbard explains here how private property was created:
Let us illustrate with a hypothetical example. Suppose that libertarian agitation and pressure has escalated to such a point that the government and its various branches are ready to abdicate. But they engineer a cunning ruse. Just before the government of New York state abdicates it passes a law turning over the entire territorial area of New York to become the private property of the Rockefeller family. The Massachusetts legislature does the same for the Kennedy family. And so on for each state. The government could then abdicate and decree the abolition of taxes and coercive legislation, but the victorious libertarians would now be confronted with a dilemma. Do they recognize the new property titles as legitimately private property? The utilitarians, who have no theory of justice in property rights, would, if they were consistent with their acceptance of given property titles as decreed by government, have to accept a new social order in which fifty new satraps would be collecting taxes in the form of unilaterally imposed "rent." The point is that only natural-rights libertarians, only those libertarians who have a theory [p. 31] of justice in property titles that does not depend on government decree, could be in a position to scoff at the new rulers' claims to have private property in the territory of the country, and to rebuff these claims as invalid. As the great nineteenth-century liberal Lord Acton saw clearly, the natural law provides the only sure ground for a continuing critique of governmental laws and decrees.1 What, specifically, the natural-rights position on property titles may be is the question to which we now turn.




Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 11, 2012, 02:34:00 PM
The problem is by claiming private property your threatening violence

How so? And that aside if you live in a community that has no private property, and there is a neighboring community that wants to have a system of private property how is it any of your business? Also just for clarification how would you define private property?

2 things, your saying, if you come here I'll shoot you, since we don't have PRIVATE property you have a right to steal our stuff


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 11, 2012, 02:37:53 PM
Also just for clarification how would you define private property?

Teen, usually the argument is that by taking land and "resources" into private ownership, it is possible to then exclude others who wish to use that land. This creates "artificial scarcity", which is the basis for the claim you might see elsewhere that, if only money and private property could be eliminated, there would therefore be no "scarcity".

The dedicated Socialist, exactly like the Keynesian, has no concept of "production". All they see is consumption, and assume something like "production simply is".

The idea that if you take away someone's property they cease to produce, is outside of their worldview and therefore does not exist.

Property was created by the state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh8ThKmME40


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: macsnafu on October 11, 2012, 03:11:42 PM
Also just for clarification how would you define private property?

Teen, usually the argument is that by taking land and "resources" into private ownership, it is possible to then exclude others who wish to use that land. This creates "artificial scarcity", which is the basis for the claim you might see elsewhere that, if only money and private property could be eliminated, there would therefore be no "scarcity".

The dedicated Socialist, exactly like the Keynesian, has no concept of "production". All they see is consumption, and assume something like "production simply is".

The idea that if you take away someone's property they cease to produce, is outside of their worldview and therefore does not exist.

Property was created by the state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

No, property was confiscated by the state, and then doled out under government rules, not through natural rights or common or customary laws.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on October 11, 2012, 03:44:37 PM
^What? That statement makes no sense. Number one, if government created property, then by that definition, individuals are creations of the government. Property begins with the notion of self-ownership. If you don't own yourself, then you're nothing more than a slave to the whims of those around you.  

 Government doesn't create who you are.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 11, 2012, 04:03:03 PM
Property was created by the state:

Clearly you didn't understand what I said. I will repeat using different words:

The dedicated Socialist sees property only in terms of land and physical resources. They cannot conceive of "property" as being a concept which includes the possession of one's thoughts, one's labor, one's initiative and actions.

Because of this fallacy, "property" becomes a matter purely of excluding others from physical access to an area or region. This is their definition of "scarcity" because they see only "property" not being used this instant, it must therefore not be being utilized and is therefore "abundant", not "scarce".

The Socialist sees only consumption. If something isn't being consumed, they believe it to be "idle", thus the Keynesian theory of "idle resources", which fits nicely with Keynes hatred of savings.

The Socialist cannot grasp that production is done for the purpose of future return. Without that principle of future return, of investment and gain, there will be no production and therefore nothing to consume.

All this adds up to the condemnation of "private property" because, simply put, the Socialist cannot stand anyone else making choices different than they.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: macsnafu on October 11, 2012, 05:41:20 PM
Property was created by the state:

Clearly you didn't understand what I said. I will repeat using different words:

The dedicated Socialist sees property only in terms of land and physical resources. They cannot conceive of "property" as being a concept which includes the possession of one's thoughts, one's labor, one's initiative and actions.

Because of this fallacy, "property" becomes a matter purely of excluding others from physical access to an area or region. This is their definition of "scarcity" because they see only "property" not being used this instant, it must therefore not be being utilized and is therefore "abundant", not "scarce".

The Socialist sees only consumption. If something isn't being consumed, they believe it to be "idle", thus the Keynesian theory of "idle resources", which fits nicely with Keynes hatred of savings.

The Socialist cannot grasp that production is done for the purpose of future return. Without that principle of future return, of investment and gain, there will be no production and therefore nothing to consume.

All this adds up to the condemnation of "private property" because, simply put, the Socialist cannot stand anyone else making choices different than they.

Socialists and Keynesians BOTH seem to have trouble recognizing the importance of the supply or production side of the equation, and often end up leaving it out completely, as if it were a constant unaffected by anything else that occurs in the economy.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on October 11, 2012, 09:08:14 PM
The problem is by claiming private property your threatening violence

How so? And that aside if you live in a community that has no private property, and there is a neighboring community that wants to have a system of private property how is it any of your business? Also just for clarification how would you define private property?
He shouldn't really care if a neighboring community wants to establish property rules and take his stuff. He doesn't own it anyways.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 12, 2012, 08:09:55 AM
Socialists and Keynesians BOTH seem to have trouble recognizing the importance of the supply or production side of the equation, and often end up leaving it out completely, as if it were a constant unaffected by anything else that occurs in the economy.

This is also the source of "if the workers take over the factory and throw out wasteful management, they'll be more productive because there won't be all that overhead".

As if, magically, the higher order capital goods that flow into the factory will always flow, and the output of the factory will always be in demand, and nothing wears out (no capital depreciation), etc.

Just as you say, they simply ignore production.

I remember in 1993 or 4 when I worked at NASA, there were some Russian rocket scientists who visited. These were the cream of the crop of what the Soviet Union represented (before it collapsed), and these otherwise intelligent people REALLY DID THINK that we were somehow FAKING having grocery stores that were full of stuff.

Their entire lives were lived with scarcity on such a scale that the productivity of capitalism, even as restricted as it is in the US, was simply unbelievable to them. One went so far as to collapse in on herself, emotionally speaking, and would not go out any more.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 12, 2012, 08:58:00 AM
^What? That statement makes no sense. Number one, if government created property, then by that definition, individuals are creations of the government. Property begins with the notion of self-ownership. If you don't own yourself, then you're nothing more than a slave to the whims of those around you.  

 Government doesn't create who you are.

Ownership requires 2 things 1 the owner and 2 the owned they can't be the same thing. You don't own your self you are yourself.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 12, 2012, 09:17:00 AM
Ownership requires 2 things 1 the owner and 2 the owned they can't be the same thing. You don't own your self you are yourself.

Please note above, I said,

The dedicated Socialist sees property only in terms of land and physical resources. They cannot conceive of "property" as being a concept which includes the possession of one's thoughts, one's labor, one's initiative and actions.

So you prove my point.

Abolishing private property makes the individual the property of the state. Slavery.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 12, 2012, 09:21:43 AM
I reject the state

You are your self their for you can't be owned because you can give up property you dont own


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 12, 2012, 10:25:01 AM
I reject the state

Non-sequitor. You cannot both reject the state -and- have prohibition.

The prohibition of private property and money, or other Socialist fantasies, requires coercive enforcement against people who have harmed no one.

That is the state.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 12, 2012, 10:39:15 AM
I reject the state[.quote]

Non-sequitor. You cannot both reject the state -and- have prohibition.

The prohibition of private property and money, or other Socialist fantasies, requires coercive enforcement against people who have harmed no one.

That is the state.

Private property is a social contract, by having it your forcing people to follow it


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: macsnafu on October 12, 2012, 11:51:00 AM
I reject the state

Non-sequitor. You cannot both reject the state -and- have prohibition.

The prohibition of private property and money, or other Socialist fantasies, requires coercive enforcement against people who have harmed no one.

That is the state.

Private property is a social contract, by having it your forcing people to follow it

So voluntary contracts are slavery, and statism is liberty. Also, black is white and the moon is made of green cheese.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on October 12, 2012, 11:51:24 AM
Private property is a social contract, by having it your forcing people to follow it

I could easily say the same about any system.  

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" 'is a social contract, by having it your forcing people to follow it.'

More fun useless arguments online. yay...


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 12, 2012, 11:57:28 AM
I reject the state

Non-sequitor. You cannot both reject the state -and- have prohibition.

The prohibition of private property and money, or other Socialist fantasies, requires coercive enforcement against people who have harmed no one.

That is the state.

Private property is a social contract, by having it your forcing people to follow it

So voluntary contracts are slavery, and statism is liberty. Also, black is white and the moon is made of green cheese.


Every system is a social contract and their for oppressive. I think communism is less.oppressive than capitalism


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on October 12, 2012, 12:21:01 PM
I think communism is less.oppressive than capitalism

We obviously disagree.  How about we all just stop banging our heads against the brick wall and stop bothering with this useless discussion.  


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: macsnafu on October 12, 2012, 01:27:00 PM
I reject the state

Non-sequitor. You cannot both reject the state -and- have prohibition.

The prohibition of private property and money, or other Socialist fantasies, requires coercive enforcement against people who have harmed no one.

That is the state.

Private property is a social contract, by having it your forcing people to follow it

So voluntary contracts are slavery, and statism is liberty. Also, black is white and the moon is made of green cheese.


Every system is a social contract and their for oppressive. I think communism is less.oppressive than capitalism

Well, "their for" oppression, maybe, but I'm not for oppression, which is why I advocate the capitalist system of voluntary exchange.  Do you really think voluntary exchange is oppressive???????  If you don't agree to capitalism, then don't engage in voluntary exchanges--simple, no?  Who is forcing you to engage in voluntary exchange? Huh?  Just tell us who, and we'll send Bruno to straighten 'em out.

 :P


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 12, 2012, 02:34:53 PM
I reject the state

Non-sequitor. You cannot both reject the state -and- have prohibition.

The prohibition of private property and money, or other Socialist fantasies, requires coercive enforcement against people who have harmed no one.

That is the state.

Private property is a social contract, by having it your forcing people to follow it

So voluntary contracts are slavery, and statism is liberty. Also, black is white and the moon is made of green cheese.


Every system is a social contract and their for oppressive. I think communism is less.oppressive than capitalism

Well, "their for" oppression, maybe, but I'm not for oppression, which is why I advocate the capitalist system of voluntary exchange.  Do you really think voluntary exchange is oppressive???????  If you don't agree to capitalism, then don't engage in voluntary exchanges--simple, no?  Who is forcing you to engage in voluntary exchange? Huh?  Just tell us who, and we'll send Bruno to straighten 'em out.

 :P


I'm talking about property, its a social construct, I didn't sign a contract recognizing private property, so why am I bound by it.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 12, 2012, 02:47:36 PM
I'm talking about property, its a social construct, I didn't sign a contract recognizing private property, so why am I bound by it.

You're not. You may do with yourself and your productivity whatever you wish to do.



Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on October 12, 2012, 04:26:08 PM
You're not. You may do with yourself and your productivity whatever you wish to do.

That is where they come in and say they can use your stuff and land.  Since they don't recognize your claim of ownership. 


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 12, 2012, 05:13:36 PM
You're not. You may do with yourself and your productivity whatever you wish to do.

That is where they come in and say they can use your stuff and land.  Since they don't recognize your claim of ownership. 

Yes communism is oppressive to people who believe in private property, but private property is oppressive to people who don't believe in it. All societies are oppressive to someone, a society that bans killing is oppressive to killers.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on October 12, 2012, 07:23:49 PM
And that's why we create societies that are voluntary and allow people to organize in the way that we see fit, so long as they don't aggress against other individuals and force them to accept their way of thinking.

Personally, I don't understand something. If you hate property so much, why do you bother to surround yourself with it? For example, you live in a home that your parents own. That, by nature, is the property that they obtained through a contract agreement with the bank that set up their mortage. If you think having that property is some great, immoral act against God and mankind, why do you live in it? Move out if it makes you feel better. What about all the stuff that you own? You know, the stuff that was made on the free market? If you feel guilty about having property,get rid of it. Go share in some collective co op if that's what you want.

Personally, I like having property. I enjoy making money and using that money to buy the things that I want. I enjoy the prospect of having my own house and organizing my life in the way that I see fit. If I'm being immoral for feeling that way, then I'll gladly take my place in Hell.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on October 12, 2012, 09:15:58 PM
And that's why we create societies that are voluntary and allow people to organize in the way that we see fit, so long as they don't aggress against other individuals and force them to accept their way of thinking.

Personally, I don't understand something. If you hate property so much, why do you bother to surround yourself with it? For example, you live in a home that your parents own. That, by nature, is the property that they obtained through a contract agreement with the bank that set up their mortage. If you think having that property is some great, immoral act against God and mankind, why do you live in it? Move out if it makes you feel better. What about all the stuff that you own? You know, the stuff that was made on the free market? If you feel guilty about having property,get rid of it. Go share in some collective co op if that's what you want.

Personally, I like having property. I enjoy making money and using that money to buy the things that I want. I enjoy the prospect of having my own house and organizing my life in the way that I see fit. If I'm being immoral for feeling that way, then I'll gladly take my place in Hell.

In regards to what you said towards assasin7 I agree with a lot of it. I do however disagree with the part about "What about all the stuff you own? You know, the stuff that was made on the free market" I disagree with that on two counts. 1. We are about as far from a free market as is possible in a state capitalist/corporatist system as we have in the U.S. 2. From my understanding communism takes how a family works, i.e. sharing the land your live on but having your own living spaces, and possessions, and apply it to the community. To put it another way, in a anarcho-communist community, the land and any factories and such would be communally owned. things such as tools for artisans, and small-time crafters, and possessions such as the numerous books, guns and ammunition, electronics et cetera I own would be MINE. If somewhere were to take them without my permission or damage them, then depending on the community, there would be hell to pay. So basically ancoms when they say property, refer to stuff like land and the resources of the land, as well as factories. Stuff like your bedroom in a home or apartment, and your stuff, like books, guns, electronics, etc. would be yours, and yours alone. At least unless you gave them to someone else.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 12, 2012, 10:05:59 PM
And that's why we create societies that are voluntary and allow people to organize in the way that we see fit, so long as they don't aggress against other individuals and force them to accept their way of thinking.

Personally, I don't understand something. If you hate property so much, why do you bother to surround yourself with it? For example, you live in a home that your parents own. That, by nature, is the property that they obtained through a contract agreement with the bank that set up their mortage. If you think having that property is some great, immoral act against God and mankind, why do you live in it? Move out if it makes you feel better. What about all the stuff that you own? You know, the stuff that was made on the free market? If you feel guilty about having property,get rid of it. Go share in some collective co op if that's what you want.

Personally, I like having property. I enjoy making money and using that money to buy the things that I want. I enjoy the prospect of having my own house and organizing my life in the way that I see fit. If I'm being immoral for feeling that way, then I'll gladly take my place in Hell.

I believe in occupancy and use property, I believe it is the least oppressive. Voluntary Agreements can only be made among equals, a bank is in position of power over a loan applicant, just as a mugger is in a position of power over a person.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 12, 2012, 10:15:01 PM
And that's why we create societies that are voluntary and allow people to organize in the way that we see fit, so long as they don't aggress against other individuals and force them to accept their way of thinking.

Personally, I don't understand something. If you hate property so much, why do you bother to surround yourself with it? For example, you live in a home that your parents own. That, by nature, is the property that they obtained through a contract agreement with the bank that set up their mortage. If you think having that property is some great, immoral act against God and mankind, why do you live in it? Move out if it makes you feel better. What about all the stuff that you own? You know, the stuff that was made on the free market? If you feel guilty about having property,get rid of it. Go share in some collective co op if that's what you want.

Personally, I like having property. I enjoy making money and using that money to buy the things that I want. I enjoy the prospect of having my own house and organizing my life in the way that I see fit. If I'm being immoral for feeling that way, then I'll gladly take my place in Hell.

In regards to what you said towards assasin7 I agree with a lot of it. I do however disagree with the part about "What about all the stuff you own? You know, the stuff that was made on the free market" I disagree with that on two counts. 1. We are about as far from a free market as is possible in a state capitalist/corporatist system as we have in the U.S. 2. From my understanding communism takes how a family works, i.e. sharing the land your live on but having your own living spaces, and possessions, and apply it to the community. To put it another way, in a anarcho-communist community, the land and any factories and such would be communally owned. things such as tools for artisans, and small-time crafters, and possessions such as the numerous books, guns and ammunition, electronics et cetera I own would be MINE. If somewhere were to take them without my permission or damage them, then depending on the community, there would be hell to pay. So basically ancoms when they say property, refer to stuff like land and the resources of the land, as well as factories. Stuff like your bedroom in a home or apartment, and your stuff, like books, guns, electronics, etc. would be yours, and yours alone. At least unless you gave them to someone else.


A family is more state capitalist (state is only capitalist) than communist


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on October 12, 2012, 10:48:00 PM
Trade can only be done among equals? No. You cannot possibly believe that, right? If you truly, honestly believe that, riddle me this: how do you define the relationship between an individual and a business? A business and an individual are unequal with each other because the individual running the business has more manpower, tools, and capital than the lone person buying his product. Yet, it is from this inequality that the business is able to develop a product that betters the life of the individual in question. Tell me, if equality existed in the market place, how could businesses expand and create better competition for better service? How could they properly meet consumer demand when it expands?

 Egiltarianism is a revolt against the foundations of nature itself. We're taught from very young ages that within nature itself, no two snow flakes are alike. Inequality exists everywhere. To deny that is to deny the foundations of nature.

Secondly, people are not slaves to banks. If a person doesn't like the home he's in, he has a right, under the contract between him and the bank, to sell his house and seek property somewhere else. No one is forcing him to keep the property in question.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: Syock on October 12, 2012, 11:00:46 PM


http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1451.msg10397.html#msg10397

http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1398.msg9394.html#msg9394


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on October 12, 2012, 11:09:22 PM
I know, I'm wasting my time. Still, someone is wrong on the Internet. What would you like me to do?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on October 14, 2012, 09:49:58 PM
Voluntary Agreements can only be made among equals...
You should define the equality operator. What makes two people equal? Are you and I equal?
Am I, from 20 minutes ago, equal to my current self?


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 15, 2012, 09:50:10 AM
1. We are about as far from a free market as is possible in a state capitalist/corporatist system as we have in the U.S.

Having dealt with people who lived in the USSR and China, I must disagree with you.

The regulatory environment certainly puts vast restrictions on market activities, but until you've experienced price controls and rationing, you cannot understand just how bad things can be.

Quote
2. From my understanding communism takes how a family works, i.e. sharing the land your live on but having your own living spaces, and possessions, and apply it to the community. To put it another way, in a anarcho-communist community, the land and any factories and such would be communally owned. things such as tools for artisans, and small-time crafters, and possessions such as the numerous books, guns and ammunition, electronics et cetera I own would be MINE. If somewhere were to take them without my permission or damage them, then depending on the community, there would be hell to pay.

The operative phrase is "depending on the community".

Once the principle of private property ceases to be recognized, it becomes just a matter of opinion. Your tools are yours, you say? That's private property! That's exclusionary! You're creating artificial scarcity! etc.

Quote
So basically ancoms when they say property, refer to stuff like land and the resources of the land, as well as factories. Stuff like your bedroom in a home or apartment, and your stuff, like books, guns, electronics, etc. would be yours, and yours alone. At least unless you gave them to someone else.

"...as well as factories." Oh, and kitchens, since people make things there. And cars, since everyone needs a car. Oops, since the cars are all broken now, bicycles are common property. And tools, now that the bicycles need fixing. Woops, need a fry-pan, I'll just use that one... etc.

There is a really painful movie, banned in China, called "To Live". I cannot recommend it highly enough.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 15, 2012, 09:53:50 AM
Voluntary Agreements can only be made among equals, a bank is in position of power over a loan applicant, just as a mugger is in a position of power over a person.

Wow, so offering a voluntary service is equal to hitting you over your head and taking your stuff?

How about rape? "Gee, I see you're not using that body cavity right now, so I will use it. Withholding your body is putting yourself in a position of power over a person."

This is why I just don't get Communists.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: macsnafu on October 15, 2012, 06:07:12 PM
I know, I'm wasting my time. Still, someone is wrong on the Internet. What would you like me to do?

http://xkcd.com/386/

Heh. 



Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 16, 2012, 06:04:48 PM
Trade can only be done among equals? No. You cannot possibly believe that, right? If you truly, honestly believe that, riddle me this: how do you define the relationship between an individual and a business? A business and an individual are unequal with each other because the individual running the business has more manpower, tools, and capital than the lone person buying his product. Yet, it is from this inequality that the business is able to develop a product that betters the life of the individual in question. Tell me, if equality existed in the market place, how could businesses expand and create better competition for better service? How could they properly meet consumer demand when it expands?

 Egiltarianism is a revolt against the foundations of nature itself. We're taught from very young ages that within nature itself, no two snow flakes are alike. Inequality exists everywhere. To deny that is to deny the foundations of nature.

Secondly, people are not slaves to banks. If a person doesn't like the home he's in, he has a right, under the contract between him and the bank, to sell his house and seek property somewhere else. No one is forcing him to keep the property in question.



1. Buying goods is different from a contract.

2. Then why were the earliest human societies egalitarian. Besides language is an assault on nature.

3. If you can't pay the mortgage your sooo in a position to buy a new house, besides your still required to pay the debt.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 16, 2012, 06:10:17 PM
1. We are about as far from a free market as is possible in a state capitalist/corporatist system as we have in the U.S.

Having dealt with people who lived in the USSR and China, I must disagree with you.

The regulatory environment certainly puts vast restrictions on market activities, but until you've experienced price controls and rationing, you cannot understand just how bad things can be.

Quote
2. From my understanding communism takes how a family works, i.e. sharing the land your live on but having your own living spaces, and possessions, and apply it to the community. To put it another way, in a anarcho-communist community, the land and any factories and such would be communally owned. things such as tools for artisans, and small-time crafters, and possessions such as the numerous books, guns and ammunition, electronics et cetera I own would be MINE. If somewhere were to take them without my permission or damage them, then depending on the community, there would be hell to pay.

The operative phrase is "depending on the community".

Once the principle of private property ceases to be recognized, it becomes just a matter of opinion. Your tools are yours, you say? That's private property! That's exclusionary! You're creating artificial scarcity! etc.

Quote
So basically ancoms when they say property, refer to stuff like land and the resources of the land, as well as factories. Stuff like your bedroom in a home or apartment, and your stuff, like books, guns, electronics, etc. would be yours, and yours alone. At least unless you gave them to someone else.

"...as well as factories." Oh, and kitchens, since people make things there. And cars, since everyone needs a car. Oops, since the cars are all broken now, bicycles are common property. And tools, now that the bicycles need fixing. Woops, need a fry-pan, I'll just use that one... etc.

There is a really painful movie, banned in China, called "To Live". I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Means of Production are only illused when people hire others to use them, a kitchen doesn't involve other people.

The factory would be run by the workers, not some bureaucrat/CEO in Iceland. I'm in favor of voluntary communism, individualist anarchism, mutualism, hell Trotskyism should be allowed.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on October 16, 2012, 09:43:02 PM
Having dealt with people who lived in the USSR and China, I must disagree with you.

The regulatory environment certainly puts vast restrictions on market activities, but until you've experienced price controls and rationing, you cannot understand just how bad things can be.
Ah but can the USSR and China be considered state capitalist? I think not. I would describe them as state communism.

The operative phrase is "depending on the community".

Once the principle of private property ceases to be recognized, it becomes just a matter of opinion. Your tools are yours, you say? That's private property! That's exclusionary! You're creating artificial scarcity! etc.

"...as well as factories." Oh, and kitchens, since people make things there. And cars, since everyone needs a car. Oops, since the cars are all broken now, bicycles are common property. And tools, now that the bicycles need fixing. Woops, need a fry-pan, I'll just use that one... etc.

You do raise a good point in that regard, that many ancom communities might go down that path. HOWEVER I've read writings by Kropotkin (the only one I really liked was his "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" and that sort of thing would not be what he advocated. Of course I'm sure there are some....extreme ancoms who would go that far in the abolition of private property. However most won't go that far in my experience.



There is a really painful movie, banned in China, called "To Live". I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Very well then I shall try to see it if I can find the time. :P


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on October 16, 2012, 09:54:55 PM
I'm in favor of voluntary communism, individualist anarchism, mutualism, hell Trotskyism should be allowed.
I'm in favor of .... individualist anarchism, mutualism, hell Trotskyism should be allowed.


I'm in favor of .....hell Trotskyism should be allowed.

....
...
...
WTF is wrong with you???
Are you even aware of the sheer magnitude of the contradictory doublethink in your statement?
1. Individualist anarchism favors INDIVIDUAL ownership of property.  

2. You DO realise Trotskyism is a form of state communism/totalitarianism that makes Stalinism or the Orwellian regime in 1984 look like small potatoes? How the fuck can trotskyism coexist with anarchism let alone individualist anarchism or mutualism? You know the quote by Ernest Lesigne on the "Two Socialisms" how "One says: The land to the State. The mine to the State. The tool to the State. The product to the State. The other says: The land to the cultivator. The mine to the miner. The tool to the laborer. The product to the producer."

Yeah Trotskyism is the would be even worse than "the first socialism" since in addition to saying "The land to the state, the mine to the state, the tool to the state, the product to the state" it also says: The cultivator TO THE STATE, the miner TO THE STATE, the laborer TO THE STATE, the producer TO THE STATE

While voluntary communism and individualist anarchism would probably exist......if you seriously think that trotskyism is anything other than pure sociopathic, elitist egomaniacs being the master to everyone else's slaves, than 1. My respect for you, which admittedly was a little low, plummeted, and 2. You sound like a complete and utter moron.

You need to get real, and learn about critical thinking and how to avoid specious reasoning.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on October 16, 2012, 11:28:39 PM
^Thank you, AgoristTeen1994. I read that last statement and thought, "Wait a minute. Does he realize that he's advocating a branch of neocon philosophy?"


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 17, 2012, 12:01:54 PM
1. Buying goods is different from a contract.

False. Trade is a contract. You give me X, I give you Y. If you give me X and I do not give you Y, or vice versa, the contract has been violated.

Quote
2. Then why were the earliest human societies egalitarian. Besides language is an assault on nature.

You have a strange definition of "egalitarian". Primitive societies do not treat everyone as equals, there is hierarchy, differences in wealth, etc.

What primitive societies were is POOR. It's easy to all look the same when everyone is poor.

Quote
3. If you can't pay the mortgage your sooo in a position to buy a new house, besides your still required to pay the debt.

Taking on a mortgage is a choice. Don't do it if you can't fulfill your side of the contract. Remember, buying something is a contract, voluntarily entered into by all parties to the contract.

Means of Production are only illused when people hire others to use them, a kitchen doesn't involve other people.

So now you're changing your definition of evil private property to only include that which is "illused"? So rather than have any objective measurement at all of what is or is not "evil private property", you get to decide based solely on your subjective opinion of what is or is not "illused"?

Quote
The factory would be run by the workers, not some bureaucrat/CEO in Iceland. I'm in favor of voluntary communism, individualist anarchism, mutualism, hell Trotskyism should be allowed.

You are making the assumption that the factory needs no one to negotiate supply contracts. Or sales contracts. Or to look for replacement parts as things wear out. Or to pay the bills. Or to find replacement workers, or get rid of workers who are not productive.

Just what do you think "management" does? Nothing?

Ah but can the USSR and China be considered state capitalist? I think not. I would describe them as state communism.

Yes, that is exactly what they were, and are. The USSR much less so, but there was still the Ruble in use, just as the Chinese Ramimbi (or Yuan, or whatever it's called...).

Now I agree that at some point of govt control, possibly when "industry" is owned by govt rather than just tightly regulated, it goes from tacit Socialism to explicit Socialism, but again that is one of those gray areas.

And China now is far more "capitalist" than the USA except for one thing: It's much easier for the Chinese govt to take your land. It still happens in the USA, as the Kilo decision made clear, but not as easy.

Quote
You do raise a good point in that regard, that many ancom communities might go down that path. HOWEVER I've read writings by Kropotkin (the only one I really liked was his "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" and that sort of thing would not be what he advocated. Of course I'm sure there are some....extreme ancoms who would go that far in the abolition of private property. However most won't go that far in my experience.

I prefer not to leave it up to a matter of opinion. Those places and times where rights to private property were more respected, that society became more wealthy. Everyone.

Mutual aid is not anti-private-property. How am I to give someone something if I don't first own it?

Quote
Quote
There is a really painful movie, banned in China, called "To Live". I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Very well then I shall try to see it if I can find the time. :P

Do, it's well worth it. Seeing what people lost to the "Glorious Revolution" is deeply frightening.



Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 17, 2012, 01:56:43 PM
1. thats a semantics game, you know what I meant

2. theirs a difference between seniority and hierarchy, a boss worker relationship is hierarchy, a mentor student relationship is seniority

3. Yes, but only one person in the contract is homeless if they don't agree, and the bank has the ability to go to another person and get a worse contract, the person can't do that.

4. Private property is something you own but don't use (rented land, capitalist business)

5. Their wouldn't be supply contracts, all stakeholders (workers, recepiants of the goods it makes) in the factory would have a direct say in how it was run. Management tries to maximize profits, and control the work force.

6. why not? the state was the only capitalist.

7. I've met and worked with Trots, they aren't so bad. Its Trotskytes that are bad, I don't know the difference but its huge

8. Can you give me evidence besides libertarian articles.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 17, 2012, 02:55:44 PM
1. thats a semantics game, you know what I meant

No, actually I don't know. That's the problem, the definitions are different. Without those specific semantics, we cannot know what it is either of us is saying.

Quote
2. theirs a difference between seniority and hierarchy, a boss worker relationship is hierarchy, a mentor student relationship is seniority

No. This is where the left-anarchist makes the error. A employer-employee relationship is just as much a seniority relationship as anything else. It's a voluntary agreement by the employee to perform the work as directed by the employer, or to use their judgement to do the work better and correct the employer. If EITHER PARTY is dissatisfied, they dissolve the contract.

Quote
3. Yes, but only one person in the contract is homeless if they don't agree, and the bank has the ability to go to another person and get a worse contract, the person can't do that.

You forget again that the bank has to find willing borrowers exactly the same way the borrower must find a willing bank. It is a reciprocal relationship, both can say "no" at any time.

Quote
4. Private property is something you own but don't use (rented land, capitalist business)

This is just the semantics game again. Private property is everything. The mind, the body, the labor, the money. Are you going to say that money I put in the bank, since I'm not actively using it, is no longer my property? Money in the bank is exactly the same as a rental property. Someone else, using my property under contract, for a fee.

Quote
5. Their wouldn't be supply contracts, all stakeholders (workers, recepiants of the goods it makes) in the factory would have a direct say in how it was run. Management tries to maximize profits, and control the work force.

So your factory would have no raw materials, no replacement parts, and no markets. Your factory would fail.

This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union when Lenin tried to abolish private property and money entirely: The people starved.

Quote
6. why not? the state was the only capitalist.

This is too short for me to understand to what you are referring.

Quote
8. Can you give me evidence besides libertarian articles.

Again, I cannot be sure to what you are replying. What evidence do you need of the benefits to the poor of a society that recognizes and defends private property, than the differences in wealth everywhere in the world between the "poor"?

The "poor" in the US have color TVs and $100 shoes. The "poor" in places like Zimbabwe, India, or China before they abandoned the very policies you advocate, the "poor" starved.

This is not a "libertarian article", this is simple fact. If you can show me anywhere, at any time, that abandoned private property and became wealthy, then do so.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 17, 2012, 06:27:44 PM
1. a contract involves signing a paper and long term agreement

2. Yes but if the employee quits he has to listen to his starving kids while he job hunts. Your idea only works if as soon as you quit a magical genii shows up and gives you another job.

3. the Bank has all the time in the world, the borrowers don't have any.

4. A bank doesn't have the same rights as a person, also if you gave it to another person hes not in the position of paying you for his home.

5. The factory would be supplied the raw materials by other collectives or communes that make those things, they would have a say in how the factory was run and vise versa, the factory would give away goods to all people in the area it lived in. their might be free trade of goods and services but no market.

6. In the Soviet Union the State invested money in projects that the working class had to make without owning the tools they were using.

7. The internet was made by the military, these operate without the profit motive, private sector tech is shifting one molecule on a drug so you can sell it as a generic pill.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: macsnafu on October 17, 2012, 06:37:11 PM
1. a contract involves signing a paper and long term agreement
A contract is any agreement between two parties, regardless of its term or if they signed a paper.
Quote

3. the Bank has all the time in the world, the borrowers don't have any.
Not really--the bank has competition, too, and contractual obligations, and other problems.  And not all borrowers are as desperate as you make them out to be.  Donald Trump, for example, has engaged in some hefty, large-scale borrowing of money, and I don't think he's too worried about waiting out the banks and not paying them back.
Quote
5. The factory would be supplied the raw materials by other collectives or communes that make those things, they would have a say in how the factory was run and vise versa, the factory would give away goods to all people in the area it lived in. their might be free trade of goods and services but no market.
And you have no idea how terrible this would work.
Quote
7. The internet was made by the military, these operate without the profit motive, private sector tech is shifting one molecule on a drug so you can sell it as a generic pill.
First of all, yes, the structure of the internet was developed by the military, but much of what we enjoy on the internet, graphics, sound, video, and numerous commercial and non-commercial websites like Google, Wikipedia, Amazon, E-Bay, Pay-Pal, and others (like this forum) were clearly not developed by the military. 

Furthermore, given the establishment of the internet, the private sector has not stopped developing and improving on it, and government or military support is no longer necessary to maintain the internet.

Second, as I mentioned in another thread, big corps and other large business sectors surely take advantage of the power of government to enrich themselves, including through the government protection of copyrights and patents.  Without government, corps and big businesses would once again be entirely at the mercy of consumers, and thus could only make profits by satisfying the needs and desires of the consumers.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 18, 2012, 09:11:22 AM
1. a contract involves signing a paper and long term agreement

False. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. That's all.

Quote
2. Yes but if the employee quits he has to listen to his starving kids while he job hunts. Your idea only works if as soon as you quit a magical genii shows up and gives you another job.

The employer cannot fulfill his contracts if workers don't show up. They call in sick, they leave early because their child has an ear-ache, they quit without warning. That's why more productive workers get paid more, to keep them from being hired away by the competition.

Without labor, nothing gets done. Without management, there is nothing to do. Both roles MUST be filled. To denigrate either role is to demonstrate massive ignorance.

Quote
3. the Bank has all the time in the world, the borrowers don't have any.

Wrong again. How is the bank going to pay its own mortgage unless it is making loans? How is the bank to pay interest on savings deposited unless it has income from making loans?

The bank is a business just like any other. It must serve its customers or it will fail.

Quote
4. A bank doesn't have the same rights as a person, also if you gave it to another person hes not in the position of paying you for his home.

This makes no sense. A bank is a firm. When you enter into a contract with the firm, you're still bound to that contract.

Quote
5. The factory would be supplied the raw materials by other collectives or communes that make those things, they would have a say in how the factory was run and vise versa, the factory would give away goods to all people in the area it lived in. their might be free trade of goods and services but no market.

Why?

Why would I give my raw materials to anyone?

Quote
6. In the Soviet Union the State invested money in projects that the working class had to make without owning the tools they were using.

Yep. That's exactly what a command economy has to do in order to get anything done. That's because the answer to my question in response to your #5 is, "Because someone will shoot me if I don't."

In a market, the answer to #5 is, "because that's how I make a living."

Maybe you've never heard about the "disutility of labor". This is something Marx never could grasp either.

People do not WANT to work. There must be an incentive to get any work done at all. That's why productive people are paid more, to give them an incentive to do the work.

Quote
7. The internet was made by the military, these operate without the profit motive, private sector tech is shifting one molecule on a drug so you can sell it as a generic pill.

That's exactly opposite of reality.

The "Internet" existed as a research project between universities and institutions for 20 years, a playground of DOE contractors, yes, but nothing more.

Then in 1993 the government GOT OUT of the "Internet". The restrictions against private and commercial use were abolished, regulation was dropped, and it was thrown open to private operators to sink or swim.

Within 2 years, one tenth the time it had already existed, the people who cooperate together to create the "Internet" had built it to something you would recognize today.

You weren't there. I was.

http://anarchic-order.blogspot.com/2011/02/when-net-was-young.html

And pharmaceuticals? With the exception maybe of banking, there is no industry more in bed with their regulators, dependent upon the government monopoly grants of patent and copyright, than the drug companies. To equate what is today the drug industry with "private sector tech" is to grossly misunderstand the word "private".

Remember those "semantic games"? When you cannot use the same words the same way, communication becomes impossible.


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: macsnafu on October 18, 2012, 11:14:44 AM

7. The internet was made by the military, these operate without the profit motive, private sector tech is shifting one molecule on a drug so you can sell it as a generic pill.

That's exactly opposite of reality.

The "Internet" existed as a research project between universities and institutions for 20 years, a playground of DOE contractors, yes, but nothing more.

Then in 1993 the government GOT OUT of the "Internet". The restrictions against private and commercial use were abolished, regulation was dropped, and it was thrown open to private operators to sink or swim.

Within 2 years, one tenth the time it had already existed, the people who cooperate together to create the "Internet" had built it to something you would recognize today.

You weren't there. I was.

http://anarchic-order.blogspot.com/2011/02/when-net-was-young.html
Nice post you linked to.  As I said, the government/military didn't create the Internet that we know and use every day--the private sector did, and how!


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 18, 2012, 12:03:04 PM
Quote
http://anarchic-order.blogspot.com/2011/02/when-net-was-young.html

Nice post you linked to.  As I said, the government/military didn't create the Internet that we know and use every day--the private sector did, and how!

Thank you. It was a lot of fun to write, too.  ;D


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on October 18, 2012, 12:24:59 PM
^Thank you, _______. I read that last statement and thought, "Wait a minute. Does he realize that he's advocating a branch of neocon philosophy?"

You are very welcome SinCityVoluntaryist....though I would prefer you don't refer to me by my name here (Just AgoristTeen or some variation of that) since while I'm probably already on several .gov goon lists, I don't want to end up on any more


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: assasin7 on October 19, 2012, 04:29:10 PM
1. a contract involves signing a paper and long term agreement

False. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. That's all.


Quote
OK a long term contract, such as a mortgage or employment plan
Quote
2. Yes but if the employee quits he has to listen to his starving kids while he job hunts. Your idea only works if as soon as you quit a magical genii shows up and gives you another job.

Quote
The employer cannot fulfill his contracts if workers don't show up. They call in sick, they leave early because their child has an ear-ache, they quit without warning. That's why more productive workers get paid more, to keep them from being hired away by the competition.
Quote
Your ignoring the reserve army of labor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour: the Welfare State exists to keep them alive.
Quote
Without labor, nothing gets done. Without management, there is nothing to do. Both roles MUST be filled. To denigrate either role is to demonstrate massive ignorance.
Quote
I'm not disputing this, I'm saying that labor makes the best management for several reasons:

1. people work best when they have a feeling of loyalty/community to the work they are doing

2. people work best with higher job security

3. people work best when they have a say in what they do

4. people work best when they are receiving lots of what they produce

5. people work best when they understand what they are doing and why

6. workers interests conflict with management's interests, say when a new innovation replaces a worker, under capitalism that means losing your job, under communism that means an easier work load and more wealth for the worker.

7. Managment might what to spend lots of money impressing the boss, workers self management would mean that the boss wants to impress the workers, as he was elected by them and can be fired at any time by them
Quote
3. the Bank has all the time in the world, the borrowers don't have any.
Wrong again. How is the bank going to pay its own mortgage unless it is making loans? How is the bank to pay interest on savings deposited unless it has income from making loans?

The bank is a business just like any other. It must serve its customers or it will fail.

Quote
4. A bank doesn't have the same rights as a person, also if you gave it to another person hes not in the position of paying you for his home.

This makes no sense. A bank is a firm. When you enter into a contract with the firm, you're still bound to that contract.
Yes but when you put money in the bank your giving a non entity with greater power than you your money, if I give my friend Eliza 20 dollars to hold for me that's a completely different deal
Quote
5. The factory would be supplied the raw materials by other collectives or communes that make those things, they would have a say in how the factory was run and vise versa, the factory would give away goods to all people in the area it lived in. their might be free trade of goods and services but no market.

Why?

Why would I give my raw materials to anyone?
I'm fine with people living out side of communism, I'm not sure if I'm still a communist myself, I have a problem when they try to force their system of property on the planet which will result in violence (see Europe at the birth of capitalism, when the military was sent onto common land to massacre peasants who had no title to the land but had used it for centuries)
Quote
6. In the Soviet Union the State invested money in projects that the working class had to make without owning the tools they were using.

Yep. That's exactly what a command economy has to do in order to get anything done. That's because the answer to my question in response to your #5 is, "Because someone will shoot me if I don't."

In a market, the answer to #5 is, "because that's how I make a living."

Maybe you've never heard about the "disutility of labor". This is something Marx never could grasp either.

People do not WANT to work. There must be an incentive to get any work done at all. That's why productive people are paid more, to give them an incentive to do the work.
Quote

The working class was created by the destruction of the peasants communal land, which forced them to the cities to sell their labor to the new industrial capitalists, while agro capitalists used new technology to farm huge swaths of land, or had tenants make themselves debt slaves to them.

Quote
7. The internet was made by the military, these operate without the profit motive, private sector tech is shifting one molecule on a drug so you can sell it as a generic pill.

That's exactly opposite of reality.

The "Internet" existed as a research project between universities and institutions for 20 years, a playground of DOE contractors, yes, but nothing more.

Then in 1993 the government GOT OUT of the "Internet". The restrictions against private and commercial use were abolished, regulation was dropped, and it was thrown open to private operators to sink or swim.

Within 2 years, one tenth the time it had already existed, the people who cooperate together to create the "Internet" had built it to something you would recognize today.

You weren't there. I was.

http://anarchic-order.blogspot.com/2011/02/when-net-was-young.html

And pharmaceuticals? With the exception maybe of banking, there is no industry more in bed with their regulators, dependent upon the government monopoly grants of patent and copyright, than the drug companies. To equate what is today the drug industry with "private sector tech" is to grossly misunderstand the word "private".

Remember those "semantic games"? When you cannot use the same words the same way, communication becomes impossible.

I concede this point


Title: Re: Converting an anarcho-communist
Post by: BobRobertson on October 22, 2012, 08:33:31 AM
2. Yes but if the employee quits he has to listen to his starving kids while he job hunts. Your idea only works if as soon as you quit a magical genii shows up and gives you another job.

My idea works every day, all the time. Management and labor are NOT IN CONFLICT.

So long as you continue to act as if they are, you and I cannot make progress.

Quote
Your ignoring the reserve army of labor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour: the Welfare State exists to keep them alive.

Irrelevant. Since welfare is a creation of the state, abolish it.

Quote
I'm not disputing this, I'm saying that labor makes the best management for several reasons:

False again. Labor and Management are roles, not individuals. If someone is better at labor than management, then they will labor. If someone is better at management than labor, then they will manage.

Quote
6. workers interests conflict with management's interests, say when a new innovation replaces a worker, under capitalism that means losing your job, under communism that means an easier work load and more wealth for the worker.

False again. If the company does not make money, everyone is out of work. The false conflict, created and fostered by labor unions to justify their existence, must be recognized for what it is.

Quote
Yes but when you put money in the bank your giving a non entity with greater power than you your money, if I give my friend Eliza 20 dollars to hold for me that's a completely different deal

Why are you complaining to me about this? If you don't want to use a bank, then don't.