Daily Anarchist Forum
October 06, 2022, 09:34:05 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 5 6
31  Questions And Challenges / Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Intellectual Property Rights on: August 09, 2014, 11:39:31 AM
Will the record labels hire a defense company to track down people who share unauthorized music?
There's no way, in an anarchist society, that anyone would use their own money to hire a defence company to try to track people down and seek restitution. The cost of enforcement is just to high. They'd never come close to recovering the costs.

Not only would they not recover their costs, they would end up harassing the people that are actually their fans.  If they harassed too many of the people who downloaded their music, who would go to their concerts or buy albums?
32  General Category / General Discussion / Re: A Free Trade Worker's Union on: August 09, 2014, 11:35:03 AM
The goal of a union is the same, regardless of economic literacy. 

I suspect without the violent action, both direct and indirect, they bring to the table, they lack any real bargaining power. 

Yea the goal of the union is higher wages and better conditions. Collective bargaining has raised wages of workers in the past.  So if you suspect it won't then just look at the historical examples where it happened.  The only thing is that unions can't raise the wages of workers beyond the marginal productivity of the average worker.  But they can, and have, raised the wages of workers closer to that point.
33  General Category / General Discussion / A Free Trade Worker's Union on: August 09, 2014, 01:20:02 AM
Hello Everyone,

Recently I've been studying the history of labor movements in the US.  Though they were mostly led by leftists, socialist and Marxists, I have a lot of sympathy for many of their struggles against big business. The IWW especially interests me because they generally had an anarcho-syndicalist view and tended to reject state authority, whereas many other unions just sought to influence the state and pass legislation to their benefit. I also despise many of the big businesses of the time who often used the violence of the state and/or hired thugs to break strikes and crush these movements. That being said, the unions were very flawed themselves because they held incorrect views about economics and were always pushing for Marxian class war.  Not to mention the many instances of union violence against scabs and other company agents.

 Today the labor movement is almost non-existent in the private sector and is merely a voting block for the democrat party.  I think the gov is the reason why unions are in decline today.  With labor laws and gov welfare that grant so many privileges to employees, there is no longer any reason to join a union.  However, if the state were to crumble, I wonder if unions would make a comeback.  In a free society, people might depend on unions again for their healthcare or unemployment benefits etc..., all paid for voluntarily by members of the union themselves.

Now my question is this: would it be possible to have a "Free Trade Worker's Union" or something like that?  I'm referring to a union that rejects statism and violence, and also has a proper understanding of Economics, not 19th century Marxist garbage.  Such a union would understand the cooperation of the market system and that the owners and the workers aren't necessarily "class enemies." If the union actually owned stock in the company, they themselves would be part owners of the company and share in the profits.  If the union owned %100 of the stock, then that company would simply be a worker-run cooperative. Syndicalist-type associations are of course possible in free society.  Anyways, what do you guys think?
34  Questions And Challenges / Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Intellectual Property Rights on: August 09, 2014, 12:36:56 AM

What I mean is that the ability for people to create unique things is what makes us who we are.  The ability to find solutions to problems others haven't found.  That information and/or creativity has as much value to humanity as any physical good, if not far more. 

I find it disheartening that many do not see the value of their own minds. 

I find it disheartening that people would seek to limit the use of ideas that are in my mind. I value my own mind and thoughts so much that I recognize it as an assault on my liberty for someone else to seek to limit how I choose to use the knowledge contained in my mind or prevent me from sharing it with others.

It is disheartening that some who call themselves libertarians are still trying to hold on to the purely statist concept of Intellectual Property and are seeking to limit how others may use their minds and the ideas and knowledge contained in their minds.  Fortunately, more and more libertarians are rejecting the ownership of ideas.
35  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Will It Happen on: August 01, 2014, 01:39:30 AM
If you figure out a 1-2 sentence phrase that shocks people into seeing reality, let me know please.

Hello everyone,

This discussion just got me thinking that Libertarians really need some short easy slogans for the masses.  Every revolution had such slogans. During the Russian Revolution the slogans were "Land, Peace and Bread," and "All Power to the Soviets." In 1984 the party slogan was "War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength." Would it be possible for Libertarians to come up with a slogan that would get our message across and delegitimize the current system? I came up with:
 
TAXATION IS THEFT, PRISON IS SLAVERY, WAR IS MURDER.
or
WAR IS MURDER, TAXATION IS THEFT, TO ARREST IS TO KIDNAP.
NO MORE STATE=NO MORE SLAVERY.

Perhaps instead of "prison is slavery" or "to arrest is to kidnap" we could say "the police are kidnappers" or something else?  Any Ideas?
36  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Resource Base Economics on: May 31, 2014, 09:48:41 PM

From what I have seen on this forum, the concept is that money is bad for people.  They get around it through barter.

According to my understanding, those who believe in a RBE don't just reject money, they reject the market as well, meaning that they reject barter.  In fact they reject private ownership.  They want all the resources in the world to be put together and distributed through a central computer which will decide what is the most efficient use of those resources. They never define how efficiency will be determined.  In a market system prices allocate resources to the most efficient uses automatically.  In the RBE, the arbitrary decision of a computer programmer or central agency decides what is efficient.

RBE people and Peter Joseph also say ridiculous things like "the market system creates scarcity."  What a bunch of nonsense.  Scarcity is the natural state of man in nature.  Scarcity is the lack of goods.  The market produces goods and reduces scarcity.  If the RBE people succeed in abolishing the market, we will really see what scarcity looks like.  They don't or can't even understand a basic concept like scarcity, their economics are hopelessly utopian and childish.

Peter Joseph makes money through day trading on the market as he has admitted in interviews.  Instead of showing his followers how to make a decent living through the market as he does, he teaches them this utopian filth that will cause the death of millions if it were ever implemented on a large scale.  Most followers of the RBE oppose setting up an RBE community somewhere.  They do this because they think it would only work on a global scale, not for an individual community.  The truth is that it would work for neither.  This is why you never will see a RBE community somewhere.  It will be a dismal failure just like all of the communist nonsense throughout history.  They don't want to try it unless they can force it on everyone.
37  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Stephan Kinsella DEBATES Chris LeRoux over Intellectual Property on: May 25, 2014, 05:48:43 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgJOeWU1Bek

I had to post this video just so I could comment on it.  Who is this Chris LeRoux guy?  The guy can't even make a coherent argument, it was very frustrating to listen to him talk.  I wonder how he got the opportunity to debate Kinsella.  They made a few references to Robert Wenzel in this video, Kinsella said to LeRoux "at least your not Wenzel," or something like that.  I'm not sure who was worst though.  Wenzel came off looking like a complete moron during his debate, but this LeRoux guy seems to deny basic definitions of words like "scarcity" and "rivalrous." Anyways I would be interested to hear what you guys think about this "debate" or the IP issue in general.
38  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Anarcho-Capitalism debunked on: April 18, 2014, 11:18:12 PM
This proves it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ9gBRZeZ1c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OtSVPo9f6Y

Never before have I come across such sound arguments.

The Maoist-Rebel accuses Anarcho-capitalists of "stealing" the term "Anarcho" from true anarchists, who are against capital.  So I guess someone can own a word like "Anarcho", but owning capital is wrong.  It is not ok to steal a word like "anarcho" yet "private property should be challenged" as this guy claims elsewhere.  This guy is a religious zealot, he holds irrational and contradictory views.  No reason or argument can convince him that his views are wrong.  He is a true follower of the religion of Marxism/communism.
39  General Category / Lounge / Re: Launched a media resource site on: January 15, 2014, 01:24:51 AM
Great Site!  You managed to list all of my favorite podcasts except "The Tom Woods Show."  I hope you can get that one up soon.  I think its as good as the Lew Rockwell Show. 

I also think you are wise to stay away from the term "Anarcho-Capitalist" and stick with "Libertarian."  Most people are still afraid of the word Anarchy (Molotov cocktails anyone?) which is easy to associate with Anarcho-Communism (though in most cases, the followers of that philosophy are not anarchic at all).  Also the term "Capitalist" is a negative word to many people, even to some Libertarians like Kevin Carson who equate Capitalism with State Capitalism, Corporate Welfare, Special Privileges for big businesses etc... Again good luck with the site.
40  General Category / General Discussion / Re: You guys are gonna hate me for saying this... on: January 15, 2014, 12:30:00 AM
Good luck in your campaign.  I don't hate you for doing this.  I'm not against running for political office or voting.  I just think that the chances of changing things through that method are really low.  I don't agree with Stefan Molyneux that anarchists should never participate in electoral politics and that they are supporting the system by participating.  I agree with Walter Block's analogy. Lets say that a slave master gives the slaves the option to choose who their foreman will be.  I don't think the slaves are supporting the institution of slavery if they elect a foreman who is the least evil and sadistic out of the possible foremen.  Nor do I think that a person is supporting or assenting to government roads just because they drive on them or register a car.
41  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: The Austrian School of Ignorance on: January 03, 2014, 08:18:40 PM
I do know that economics is the science created to explain to the people that money is necessary, when clearly it is not, only labor is required.

Helllo Freeborn,

Economics is not about "explaining to the people that money is necessary."  Necessary for what?  For life?  No economist would say that life depends upon the existence of money.  Economics is the science created to explain how people produce and exchange goods.  Part of that is explaining the origin and function of money in human society since money itself is an economic "good."
42  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: arguments from a statist on: December 19, 2013, 10:41:19 PM
A general rant against anarchism and free markets, any refutes?

Hello Tony, welcome to the forum.  I'll try my best to refute (or at least respond to) each of the points you raised.

Quote
1. In reference to theft, there is a train of thought that feels the exact opposite of how you do. Marx believed that it was immoral to engage in the "reduction of man to an appurtenance of the machine, a specialized tool of production." I'm inclined to agree with him.

The reduction of man to an appurtenance of the machine has nothing to do with markets or anarchism.  You could just as easily have individuals reduced to an appurtenance of the machine, or an appurtenance of the state in a socialist society. 

Quote
Paradoxically anarchosyndicalists believe that private ownership of the means of production is a form of theft, exploitation of the weak by the strong. Alexis Dr Toqueville agrees, he describes the right of private property as "the last undestroyed remnant of the aristocratic world, when it alone is left standing, the sole privilege in an equalized society."

How can it be "theft" to own the means of production?  Who am I stealing from when I build or purchase a factory?  Who is the rightful owner?

What constitutes the "means of production?"  Things like factories and big machines right?  What about tools like hammers and saws?  I can produce goods with those tools so they must be means of production too.  Is it theft for a person to own a hand saw or a hammer?

Quote
I don't think that free markets have any moral high ground, least of all a self evident moral superiority, as you described it. In fact, Abraham Lincoln's republican party ran platform against wage labor, which they called "wage slavery". Their reasoning was that renting yourself wasn't much different from selling yourself.

I donít think an ancap would claim some sort of moral superiority when discussing wage labor.  In fact an ancap may be personally opposed to it, in a similar way that an ancap could be personally opposed to recreational drug use.  However, the ancap takes the higher moral ground when he refuses to use violence to interfere with someone elseís right to use drugs or sell their labor on the market.  A socialist on the other hand does not want to allow a person the right to do what he wishes with his own body.

Quote
I think your assessment of morality is based largely on a skewed sense of history which disregards years of labor struggles and amnesiac sense of what capitalism was like before heavy regulation.

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

I suppose you've never read the violent labor history of the United states. Above is an example of the brutality of an unregulated market, private power in collusion with government forces. 

So what is it, an unregulated market or private power in collusion with government forces?  There is a contradiction between them.  There isnít an unregulated market if an employer can call on the national guard to enforce a certain labor policy.  That is a type of labor regulation.  I would think that in a free market the employer would have had more of an incentive to come to peaceful terms with the strikers if he didnít have a tax-payer funded army ready to do his will.  Without that tax-payer funded army he would have had to raise his own army out of pocket and might have found that it was cheaper to negotiate with the strikers.  We donít know what would have happened, but we do know that the Ludlow Massacre did not occur in the free market.

I plan to address part 2 at another time.  Thanks and I look forward to your response.
43  General Category / Bitcoin / Eric Voorhees vs Peter Schiff on: December 11, 2013, 11:47:47 AM
Eric Voorhees was on the Peter Schiff show last week which can be heard here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mUn-d8R98k

Eric has written an open letter to Peter after his appearance on the show:
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/12/bitcoin-advocacy-erik-voorhees-open-letter-to-peter-schiff-2838390.html

I felt very frustrated listening to Peter and Eric discuss Bitcoins.  It seemed Eric was holding back, similar to the way Stefan Molyneux did during his discussion with Peter regarding Bitcoin.  Eric made a point about bitcoin being able to transfer money to Argentina very cheaply and efficiently.  Peter responded and said that it could be more efficient with some sort of digital gold-backed currency (i.e. something like E-gold).  Why did Eric let Peter get away with ridiculous statements like that?  There is no E-gold in existence today!  Peter is talking pure fantasy here, and someone should point it out directly to his face.  Then he has the nerve to talk about "free market money."  Bitcoin is 100% free market money.  Instead of engaging in speculation about some fantasy E-gold, Peter should just open his eyes and see what the free market has developed and is currently using. 
44  General Category / Lounge / Re: Stratedgy, tactics, and Long Term Goals on: December 08, 2013, 05:57:00 AM
Anyone here interested in reading an article talking about the differences between strategy and tactics?

Where is the article?  

Regarding strategy, I think that Keith Preston has the best strategy for winning against the state.  He calls it "Pan-secessionism."  He thinks that libertarians, anarchists, or anyone opposed to the current regime should build a coalition that supports any and all secession movements against any central gov.  With the breakup of the current massive nation states there is more opportunity for liberty to take hold in some areas as central governments' control breaks down.  Also smaller political units means that gov will be more local which means that individuals may have more say in how they are governed.  (I've heard Hans Hoppe express similar ideas, ex. libertarians should always support decentralization of power and oppose centralization)  You can read more about Keith Preston and his ideas at attackthesystem.com
45  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Peter Schiff is a gigantic disappointment on: December 08, 2013, 05:36:01 AM
Your responses seem to suggest that fraud and contract default are mutually exclusive.  They are not.  

Last time I checked, insurance never created money out of thin air, or even said the money you give them is your money anymore. 

And....  Your comment is irrelevant to my last point.  Reread my last response and Agrarian's comment, then try to address the point I'm making between his comment and its application to insurance companies.  Because as it stands your comment here is pointless.  I could just as easily say in response to you "Last time I checked oil companies never created money out of thin air."  That would have about as much relevance to the discussion as your comment here about insurance companies.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 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!