Daily Anarchist Forum
October 06, 2022, 09:25:33 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
  Home Help Search Members Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
16  General Category / General Discussion / Re: DRO's ≠ to OCP on: October 14, 2014, 07:42:47 PM
This is all wrong. You absolutely have the right to go after someone after the fact. Someone barges into your house, ties you up, rapes your wife, and then leaves. He isn't immune from justice simply because you didn't get him in the act.

Hi Seth,

I tend to agree with Agrarian here.  After the fact, I would think that the victim of rape or some other aggression would have to seek arbitration or some other "legal" means of dispensing justice in his community before he attempted to take justice into his own hands. If the victim seeks for arbitration against the rapist but the rapist refuses to stand trial, I think the rapist will be declared an outlaw by that community.  Once this occurs, the victim or anyone else may take vengeance upon the rapist. The rapist chose state of affairs.  By refusing to stand trial for is crime, he forsakes the protection of the court.

If the victim does not attempt arbitration but first takes justice and kills or assaults the rapist, then he may be liable to some damages.  I say "may" because I think a situation such as this would have to be examined on a case by case basis.  Lets say that victim severely hurts the rapist, and the rapist takes the victim to court.  If the victim has sufficient evidence that the rapists truly is a rapist and proves that he did not punish the rapist beyond just bounds (to be determined by the judge) then the victim may win the case against the rapist and may even be entitled to more damages to be paid by the rapist.  However, if the victim of a rape takes justice upon the supposed rapist without evidence or punishes the rapist beyond what he deserves, then the victim may have to pay damages to the "rapist" or his family.

These are some of my thoughts on these things. What do you guys think?
17  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Stuff Anarcho-Capitalists do that I hate on: October 02, 2014, 12:53:38 AM
(what I view capatalism as, the deliberate widening of the rich/poor division).

Hello Youngrad,

You certainly have the strangest definition of "Capitalism" that I've ever seen. I tend to avoid using that word since it has such a negative connotation to some people.  You seem to be one of those people so I have some questions for you if I may. Lets pretend that you and I are the only ones living on an island in the middle of the ocean.  Everyday I catch 2 fish and you catch 2 fish.  This is enough to keep us alive.  However, one day I build a net and start catching 4 fish a day.  You still catch only 2 a day. I deliberately built the net to get more fish.  This net made me 2 times as rich as you.  Did we suddenly become a Capitalist society when I built my net and widened the rich/poor division between us?

Again, lets pretend that everyday I catch 2 fish and you catch 2 fish.  Then one day I break my leg and become crippled. Now I'm only able to catch 1 fish a day, but you continue to catch 2 fish a day. Though its not deliberate, you are now 2 times as rich as me.  Did we not become a Capitalist society in this case because the cause was not deliberate?

I'm trying to understand how your definition could possible apply to the real world.

So, if I have eg a reloading set (for bullets), and I've put time + effort into the collection of equipment and resources, why should I not be allowed to keep it? I haven't disadvantaged you by gaining it

Actually you did disadvantage me by gaining the reloading set.  Before you had it we both had to buy ammunition from the store.  After you got the reloading set you can reload your ammo and save money because you don't have to buy it from the store anymore.  However, I still have to buy ammo from the store.  So by getting the reloading set you have widened the rich/poor gap between us.  Does this mean you are a Capitalist?

I'd call myself a libertarian socialist but really, if I put effort and time into something it should be mine.

Lets say I work for 20 years building houses and save 20,000.  With the 20,000 dollars as a down payment I'm able to get a loan to buy a factory to build TVs.  I then hire 20 workers to help build the TV's in order to make a profit.  Does the factory belong to me because I put time and effort into it?  Or should the factory be communally owned because it is a means of production?
18  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Seasteading Ancap Potential? on: October 02, 2014, 12:02:30 AM
Hi Mister,

I totally agree with you.  I think seasteading is a great idea.  If such a project could ever get off the ground (literally and figuratively) and get started, it would be very successful and could change everything. Seasteading is to the gov territorial monopoly what Bitcoin is to gov fiat currency.

Of course if the project ever got started, we would see a quick response from the media establishment and state-loving leftists about all the dangers of such an unregulated place. Assuming no attacks or sabotage from a state, I think a seastead could overcome all of this negative attention.  If the seastead could find a profitable niche in the market (algae bio-fuels, fish farming, medical tourism, etc...) it would do very well.  I think fish farming is a great idea.  We constantly hear that the oceans are over-fished.  Seasteading could solve this problem through the domestication of fish, so to speak. 

Getting started is the most-difficult part. It is a very capital-intensive venture. Early investors would have to risk a lot of money to pull something like this off. I just hope that the first seasteading operations are managed by honest and business savvy people.  We don't need another Galt's Gulch Chile.  I don't think I could live there though.  I don't enjoy being in boats or being out on the water.  But who knows, seasteads could grow to the size of cities.  At that point, It might not even seem like we would be on the water.  We may just feel that we are in a building surrounded by other buildings. What do you guys think about seasteading?  Would you like to live there?
19  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Stuff Anarcho-Capitalists do that I hate on: October 01, 2014, 12:08:33 AM
1. Personal Property (house, toothbrush) v.s. Private Property (Means of production, factory)

Why is a house considered personal property and not private property? what if I live in my house but rent out the basement to someone else?  Is it personal property or a "means of production"?  I'm gaining income from the house (i.e. its a means of production) but I'm still using it as my personal living space (i.e. its a personal possession).  What if I have a bike work shop in the basement?  I can then use the house as my personal living quarters or to build and repair bikes.  What if I normally live in my house but one weekend I use the kitchen to bake some cookies to sell for some extra cash?  Does my house magically become the common property of everyone the moment I bake the cookies or the moment I sell the cookies?  Is a hammer a personal possession or a means of production?  How about a computer?

One of the problems I have with socialism is the false dichotomy between personal possessions and means of production.  There is no clear distinction between them and the concept of "means of production" inevitably involves a central government body to arbitrarily define "means of production" and enforce the collective ownership of it.
20  General Category / General Discussion / Re: ferguson on: August 30, 2014, 04:04:28 AM
If you lived in Ferguson you'd be to poor to move or a state functionary.

Nobody is "too poor to move."  The people who attempt to leave Haiti towards Florida on rubber tubes are poorer than the people in Ferguson, but they still manage to move.  Many of the ancestors of the people who live in Ferguson were poorer than the people who live there now, yet they still managed to move.

I personally use my financial situation as an excuse why I won't move to NH for example.  However, I could literally just start walking toward NH tomorrow with nothing and chances are good that I will arrive there. Nobody is "too poor to move."
21  General Category / General Discussion / Re: California on: August 15, 2014, 09:25:35 PM
I believe it is only the unpasteurized milk that is in question.  It is legal in some states. 

You are right, I meant to say "unpasteurized."  I went back and corrected my original post.
22  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Libertarian responses to the apprentices sorcerer (aka assasin7 is silly) on: August 14, 2014, 08:56:57 PM
It has almost happened many times, and can happen again. Previous times the old order has been able to retake power or destroy the liberatory possibilities of the revolution. In Spain it was crushed because the anarchists refused to take power.

If the anarchists in Spain "took power" they would cease to be anarchists and they would have betrayed the revolution and their ultimate goals.  I think the ultimate problem in Spain was that the anarchists there just had too many enemies.  The civil war is Spain was between the Fascists under Franco and the Democrat/Socialist/Boshevik/Republican Gov.  However, both sides agreed that the anarchists would not be permitted to keep their freedom.  The anarchists had too many enemies.  They put their trust in and sided with the socialists/bolshiviks too, but were betrayed. They would have been better off completely forcing all socialists and Bolsheviks out of their areas instead of allowing them to undermine their freedom from within.   

In Russia the invasion of five armies and civil war caused a slow slide into dictatorship.

A similar thing happened in the Russian Revolution.  The Ukrainian Anarchist Makhnovists had alot of success early on but were ultimately betrayed by the Bolsheviks after agreeing to join up with them to fight the whites.  The Makhnovists would have been better off if the followed Keith Preston's strategy of "Pan-secessionism" and joined forces with the Ukrainian nationalists under Petliura.  Petliura's supporters were in western Ukraine and Makhno's supporters were in the east.  If they had combined to repel the whites and the bolsheviks, Ukraine might have been became free from Russian control and anarchism might have thrived in eastern Ukraine under Nestor Makhno.  However, Makhno thought the Bolsheviks were  for the workers and the peasants, and Petliura was for the land owners and capitalists.  Because of this he missed the fact that the Bolsheviks sought to establish a greater political centralization and therefore were a greater threat to anarchism than the Petliura movement.
23  General Category / General Discussion / Re: California on: August 13, 2014, 10:08:25 PM
Norfolk is basically just a county filled with farmland, and nothing ever happens here.

Hi Cookie,

I'm curious because I live in an area of the US with lots of farms too, what kind of farms do you have in Norfolk?  Dairy? Pig? Beef? Apple?  I've worked on a dairy farm and I've picked apples, I don't mind that kind of work.  Actually I continue to buy un-pasteurized milk from the farm I used to work at, so much fresher and creamier than store-bought milk. (BTW, I just admitted to a crime... so much for land of the free)  Have you ever worked on a farm before?  If yes, can you tell me your opinion of that type of job?  Where are most of the farm workers in Norfolk from? Are they locals or immigrants?  In my area of the US, most dairy farm workers are Mexicans and apple workers are Jamaicans.  There are some local lower income white Americans that continue to do farm work in my area but most of them are immigrants.  Thanks.
24  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: Responses to this anti ancap video? on: August 12, 2014, 03:50:07 AM
Hi guys,
I was scanning youtube and came over this video by an anarcho-communist claiming that ancaps aren't anarchists, I have heard this argument before but this is the first time I've seen the details and I was wondering how you guys would respond to this.

Hi Cookie,

1) This guy is not an anarchist, nor is he an anarcho-communist. He is a communist, maoist, marxist or whatever.

2) He is only quoting the writings of other anarchists, he puts forward no arguments that prove that anarchism is not compatible with private property. Just because some anarchists in the past rejected the concept of private property, doesn't mean that private property contradicts the concept of anarchism.  I respect many of the early anarchists, but they did not have a good understanding of capital or of economics in general. The field of economics has advanced since their day.  Anarchists don't blindly follow the traditions of earlier anarchists. Perhaps this is a good argument from this guy's point of view.  Perhaps a quote from Marx or Mao or some other authority is all one needs to prove a point to him. True anarchists, however, don't blindly follow the teachings of earlier anarchists.

3) I find it interesting that he claims that Ancaps have stolen the word anarchy.  This is coming from a guy who rejects private property.  How can you steal if everyone owns everything? How can you steal a word?  

I think this guy is just getting desperate.  He hates ancaps so much, that he just calls them a bunch of names (thieves) and resorts to quoting Anarchist "authorities" that he doesn't even agree with. Perhaps he hates ancaps so much because ancaps show him to be what he really is:  An authoritarian statist who believes in a 19th century contradictory and utopian fantasy.  He likes to put on the front of a "Rebel," but he is nothing of the sort.  He is a follower.  He wants men like Mao and Stalin to rule over him, or even worse, he wants to rule as they did.  I think this video is a good sign.  Guys like this are getting frustrated because they are seeing more and more ancaps online.  If this is the best argument they can come up with, we don't have much to worry about.
25  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Libertarian responses to the apprentices sorcerer (aka assasin7 is silly) on: August 11, 2014, 10:30:27 PM
We produce enough food to feed ten billion people, the earth has 7 billion people. Yet there is still starvation, I demand that we use the food we produce to feed those who starve. If capitalism feeds them without violence than let capitalism continue I'd rather not have a bloody revolution. If it continues to deny them food, then the only moral thing to do is bring about a society that feeds them, and feeds them well. Not just enough to live but good food, healthy food.

Capitalism doesn't deny anyone food.  Most of the starvation in this world is caused by governments and natural disasters.

America has six empty houses for every one homeless person, I'm involved in Take Back the Land a group that moves homeless people into bank owned homes. My area has cold ass winters, every winter homeless people freeze to death. By moving them into bank owned homes we save lives. We also prevent evictions, forming physical blockades to prevent the cops from kicking people into the streets. This is how the revolution will happen.

Regarding "bank owned homes" in the USSA, this has nothing to do with Capitalism or the Free Market, unless you mean State Capitalism.  The banks have received special privileges from the gov and the Fed Reserve.  Many of the these banks would have gone out of business long ago without gov bailout money. These houses would have been sold at lower prices or abandoned by the banks.  This would have distributed many of these houses to new owners, many of them lower income people. This is how the free market works, however there is not a free market, especially in the mortgage and financial sectors of the economy.
26  General Category / General Discussion / Re: A Free Trade Worker's Union on: August 11, 2014, 01:51:40 AM
Who said they all did?  They didn't all have to.  The threat is always there anyway. 

Of course an employer would want to deal with a non-violent union.  They could replace them all and nothing would happen except the employer would make more money paying lower wages to those that are willing to work. 

Yes of course he could replace them. (he could burn his own factory down too)  Unless of course the loss of profits and the time it would take to retrain replacement workers is more than the union's demands.  But I already made that point and you obviously understand it and agree with it since you understand basic economics. So your point is quite pointless, but I guess my response is too lol.

This is probably the most pointless argument I have had on this board, because in theory, I like the idea of an ancap union.  All the useless BS between us doesn't help anything though.  I'm going to remove them from my posts and apologize.  I have had a short temper lately due to personal issues.   

I appreciate that.  I'm sorry for my argumentative attitude as well and I hope your personal issues are not of a very serious nature and are resolved soon. If you like the idea of an ancap union, that really surprises me at this point.  It just seemed like you were very negative and just dismissed the idea from the beginning without any real reason. But that set me into argument mode, and I apologize for that as well.

I think this ancap union idea could fulfill many different functions, similar to the "friendly societies" that Lew Rockwell has talked about.  Membership dues could pay for pensions, healthcare, disability and other charitable actions.  If the union had economic cooperation as its goal, rather than the "overthrow of the capitalist class" or whatever, then this union could even serve the function of a employment agency.  Companies may actually seek employees from this union if they knew the union could provided reliable, hard-working employees.  I imagine that the such a union would have something like the following in its charter:

The Free Trade Union Charter:

1) This union will bargain for fair wages and safe working conditions for its employees.  Bargaining may include strikes, slowdowns or boycotting in extreme cases.  Since we accept the free-market, we reject all coercion, violence and destruction of property as a means of obtaining this.  We do not however reject defensive violence against those who attempt to coerce others.

2) We recognize that our wages can be paid and our employment made secure only if a company is profitable. Therefore all our employees will work towards that goal and fulfill his/her duties while on the job.  Any employee not fulfilling his/her duties will be disciplined by the union and dismissed from the union if they continue with such behavior.  We seek cooperation between employees and employers. We hope to establish such a good reputation that employers will seek to contract with us knowing that they will be contracting with good employees, worth the high wages the union will bargain for them.

3) Union dues will be used to fund our pension, disability and healthcare plans.

4) If a member become unemployed, the union will take care of his needs until he can find new employment or the union can find him employment.

5) The union will provide education, training and apprenticeship programs so that all of its members can achieve their full economic and academic potential.


I think we can see that this type of organization could provide many important societal functions for its members besides just collective bargaining.  Are there any other roles that this organization could take on that would be a benefit for its members?
27  Questions And Challenges / Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Intellectual Property Rights on: August 10, 2014, 08:03:57 PM
Then don't quote me while ignoring the distinction of my posts and your reply.  It was obviously aimed at me.

My comment wasn't aimed at you.  I was just adding to what you were saying.  You find something disheartening, I find the IP Libertarians like those involved in the FB argument with Stephan Kinsella disheartening.
28  General Category / General Discussion / Re: A Free Trade Worker's Union on: August 10, 2014, 07:59:50 PM
Do you think that is where things stop historically?  Yeah, if they ask for a small pay increase, no big deal.


If they ask for one that would make their replacement viable, it would and has happened, and violence begins.

Violence may begin, however every single union in history hasn't resorted to violence. My original point still holds as you admitted.  A union may be able to bargain for higher wages without resorting to violence.  A union built upon free market principles could definitely do that.  In fact, an employer would prefer to deal with such a union if there was such a thing.

GM didn't pay the state minimum wage.  Maybe you don't know what GM is.

Actually I didn't say anything about minimum wage.  Maybe you didn't read what I said. Maybe you should read about what the current labor laws are like before starting an argument about a subject you clearly have no idea about.
29  Questions And Challenges / Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Intellectual Property Rights on: August 09, 2014, 08:51:18 PM
You failed to read the other thread or this one before responding.  I never claimed to uphold the idea of IP protections of the state.  Try again when you have had a chance to read threads.

If you don't uphold the idea of IP protection of the state that's great.  I still find all of things disheartening that I mentioned in my post.  I wasn't necessarily arguing against you.  If you don't believe in IP that's awesome, we are on the same side on this issue.  Maybe you should try to read my post again before assuming that I was criticizing you.
30  General Category / General Discussion / Re: A Free Trade Worker's Union on: August 09, 2014, 08:45:51 PM
I didn't say unions can't raise wages.  I said without the violence they are known for, they might not.

You think that collective bargaining in the past occurs without the threat of stopping replacement workers and blocking the road etc?

You simply failed to read.

"They might not,"  you say.  Well on the other hand they might. It is of course possible for collective bargain and threat of strike to raise wages without violence.  It all depends on the particular economic situation, the demands of the union and the willingness of management to negotiate. If the demanded raise in wages is below the marginal productivity and lower than the loss of profits accompanying a strike, then it is in the economic interest for the managers to negotiate with the union.
By the way, GM proves that they can indeed raise the wages beyond marginal productivity. 

Woah, you really got me there.  Actually no, GM proves that the state can raise the wages beyond marginal productivity. Maybe you failed to read or something.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!