Daily Anarchist Forum
May 25, 2019, 08:33:58 AM *
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 ... 4 5 [6]
76  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Why New Hampshire? on: May 07, 2011, 01:19:53 PM
nh has a port for international trade without have to travel through other states. that to me seems to be the final attribute weighed in the decision
77  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Why New Hampshire? on: May 07, 2011, 01:14:53 PM
 jobs in nh are a bit tougher to find now than they used to be, however they are there. i do know a few small buisness owners and have worked for more in the past. while internet searches can provide a few leads, most small buisness, in my experiance rely more on word of mouth and known, competent employees refering others. while i cannot vouch for experiance or skill, i can provide contacts to temp to perm agencies. if you can tell me your desired occupation, i can possibly provide direct hr contact to buisness looking to hire.
78  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: Undercover Cop Gets Exposed By Activists on: May 05, 2011, 10:49:04 PM
if you need any help, ride from an airport or truck to move new stuff, i can make myself available. all here in the granite state is pretty much local. i would love to welcome you to your new home.
79  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Walter Block Comments On Bitcoin on: March 28, 2011, 11:50:01 PM
In 1900 $1 would equal $25 in 2007. At that rate  the tire chains I found for 25 bitcoin (and I did not find much else definitive) valued at $98-$125 dollars shows that bitcoin is worth (where it is accepted) $4 in 1900 gold backed currency or $100 fiat debt backed currency. (Rounded to even 100's for ease) With no backing of a true commodity the bitcoin is nothing more than a faith based electro-dollar. Basing a means of trade off processor time rather than a universal commodity is folly. Bitcoin states that 21,000,000 coin will be distributed. I say distributed rather that produced for a reason. At 21,000,000 bitcoin worth $4 in backed currency in 1900 that makes bitcoin worth $84,000,000 in total value, assuming you accept its worth. This is not going to sustain a population of 310,000,000, regardless of of how many are producers. It is worse when the majority are consumers. At even distribution that leaves 310,000,000 divided by 84,000,000= .3690476 bitcoin per person (in 1900 gold backed dollars) Go ahead, buy bread for a family with that. In 1900 bread was $.25. Does that leave just over 1 loaf of bread per person with bitcoin? check my math, its always suspect.
80  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Walter Block Comments On Bitcoin on: March 25, 2011, 08:14:21 PM
I dont like the the Bitcoin as its not backed by anything. Bitcoin is not to different from our current fiat currency. It is generated not by acomplishment and innovation in the market, but by turning on a computer. What if one does not own a computer? Would wealth be limited to those that bought a 3rd party product rather than work and inteligence? I see no value in Bitcoin beyond the attempt itself as an exersise.
81  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Ramblings on: March 02, 2011, 09:48:41 PM
contact you works. register does not
82  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Ramblings on: March 01, 2011, 10:13:50 PM
I have attempted to register to publish, and to contact. Both captcha error repeatedly. Should I wait for a fix or send you writing another way?
83  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Is the State inevitable? on: February 27, 2011, 11:31:35 PM
 Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Ben Franklin
 And yes, the state is inevitable so long as people find it possible to trade ones own freedom for anothers wealth. Eliminate this possibility and the state fails, liberty reigns.
84  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Market-Anarchist Gadsden Flag on: February 27, 2011, 11:23:19 PM
I smell hemp? put me down for one. Would the stiching hold up to a truck mount? IE. driving at 50 mph? I dont drive highways if I can avoid it.
85  General Category / General Discussion / Re: From my blog: Why not just become an anarchist? on: February 27, 2011, 11:17:50 PM
 New Hampshire is the free-est  in the union. This is the same as being the valedictorian of summer school. We have a chance. More like minded free individuals will help. Come her and let me know. I can help here and there. Mostly with labor.
86  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Ramblings on: February 27, 2011, 11:10:37 PM
   Thank you, thank very much. No, i have not spent time on the FSP forum, or any other for that matter. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to write for Lewrockwell.com. This is the web site in which I found yours. That is the extent of my writing at present. How do I feel about being outnumbered 10 to 1? The answer to that is found in the history of man. It is found in physics. It is found in all you see around you. All organisms must succeed in continuing their DNA. To be successful in that endeavor one must appear to be the strongest, smartest, most able to care for offspring available. This goes for men as well as women. Those less able to provide on their own merits must utilize other methods. Subsidies, welfare, tax write-offs, all ways of being a better provider for the less intelligent, less productive, less industrious, by choice or ability. I do not claim these are lesser men by nature but in all contests there are winners and losers. Water will seek its own level. It will do so with the least amount of resistance. The same goes for men. This is why we find in a democracy men will vote themselves a portion of the wealth of others that they themselves did not earn. This is the reason, in short, that our founders set up a republic. One, by the way, Ben Franklin predicted we would not not keep. I have, for the moment, until further evidence, seen that Anarchocapitalism is a better system, in that it would prevent any government from picking and choosing winners by fiat. That is by subsidy and welfare. I haven't a problem with welfare as charity so long as it is voluntary. When men are left to their own devices they tend to be charitable to those they see as worth charity. When charity is by choice it becomes not a sacrifice but an investment. A sacrifice is the giving up the greater for the lesser. An investment is the giving up the lesser for the greater. This distinction is made by the giver, not  the receiver. When inverted by mandate it becomes a form of slavery. In a way our Agorist society exists. It is underground. It currently goes by the name of the black market.  However one may feel about those who operate in this market, the principle is the same. Keep the system out and leave mutual consent as the primary rule. This rule I hope one day will be followed by the executive as well as the janitor. I run a still for myself and a few friends. The label reads, Whiskey Rebellion. Content by consent. This is how I live as much as possible. This is what I teach my child.
87  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Ramblings on: February 26, 2011, 12:02:08 AM
  Refuting Anarcho-syndicalism

 Until I read your "ramblings" I had not heard of Anarcho-syndicalism. I found "Anarcho-syndicalism" by Rudolph Rocker, (originaly published in 1938 by Martin Seckler). "Anarchism: Its Aims and Purposes; The Proletariat and the Beginning of the Modern Labour Movement; The Forerunners of Syndicalism; The Objectives of Anarcho-Syndicalism; The Methods of Anarcho-Syndicalism; The Evolution of Anarcho-Syndicalism."  I did not make it through even chapter 1 before being introduced to Proudhon.  Below is a short exerpt with my comments in parenthsis.

   "But a far greater influence on the development of Anarchist theory was that of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, one of the most intellectually gifted and certainly the most many-sided writer of whom modern socialism can boast. Proudhon was completely rooted in the intellectual and social life of his period, and these inspired his attitude upon every question he dealt with. Therefore, he is not to be judged, as he has been by even by many of his later followers, by his special practical proposals, which were born of the needs of the hour.      ( Not to be judged because of the needs of the hour? This is to say that all action, in any moment in time are not to be judged as the actor deems them as nessesary or correct for that time. The end result of this is that no man or action is to be judged and therefore no value to be found. No good, no evil, no right, no wrong, just the hour. This makes all men equal in thier worthlessness.)      Amongst the numerous socialist thinkers of his time he was the one who understood most profoundly the cause of social maladjustment, and possessed, besides, the greatest breadth of vision. He was the outspoken opponent of all systems, and saw in social evolution the eternal urge to new and higher forms of intellectual and social life, and it was his conviction that this evolution could not be bound by any abstract general formulas.       (...any abstract general formula, otherwise known as an idea. Any man not bound by an abstract general formula, or idea is not bound by a moral code, personal constitution or rational thought. Any man conducting himself in such a way is merely acting on whim.)

Proudhon opposed the influence of the Jacobin tradition, which dominated the thinking of the French democrats and of most of the Socialists of that period with the same determination as the interference of the central state and economic policy in the natural processes of social advance. To rid society of these two cancerous growths was for him the great task of the nineteenth-century revolution. Proudhon was no communist. He condemned property as merely the privilege of exploitation,      (What one earns is the privilege of exploitation? Does this mean that all one works for or towards is only the act of theft from those that have not worked for it?)      but he recognised the ownership of the instruments of production by all,     (How were these instruments made? To what end? By what incentive? Does man work for his own survival and that of his increase, or for the survival of his nieghbor first, with the expectation of his neighbor to provide for his family)        made effective by industrial groups bound to one another by free contract, so long as this right was not made to serve the exploitation of others and as long as the full product of his individual labour was assured to every human being. This organisation based on reciprocity {mutualité} guarantees the enjoyment of equal rights by each in exchange for equal services. The average working time required for the completion of any product becomes the measure of its value and is the basis of mutual exchange. In this way capital is deprived of its usurial power and is completely bound up with the performance of work. By being made available to all it ceases to be an instrument for exploitation.      (When a thing is availible to all equally it soon rendered valueless as a trading commodity. With no reward for talent, experiance or intelligence and only time on a project to determine value, would any job ever reach completion? Whatch for todays stereotype of the union to blossom at record speed).

Such a form of economy makes an political coercive apparatus superfluous. Society becomes a league of free communities which arrange their affairs according to need, by themselves or in association with others, and in which man's freedom finds in the freedom of others not its limitation, but its security and confirmation. "The freer, the more independent and enterprising the individual is in a society, the better for the society."     (The preceding statment sounds good on its own but cannot be reconciled in the contextof Proudhon beliefs about private property. The context suggests that there is freedom in servitude to the community, not the state.)    This organisation of Federalism in which Proudhon saw the immediate future sets no definite limitations on further possibilities of development, and offers the widest scope to every individual and social activity. Starting out from this point of view of the federation, Proudhon combated likewise the aspirations for political activity of the awakening nationalism of the time, and in particular that nationalism which found in Mazzini, Garibaldi, Lelewel, and others, such strong advocates. In this respect also he saw more clearly than most of his contemporaries. Proudhon exerted a strong influence on the development of socialism, which made itself felt especially in the Latin countries. But the so-called individual Anarchism, which found able exponents in America in such men as Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, William B. Greene, Lysander Spooner, Francis D. Tandy, and most notably in Benjamin R. Tucker ran in similar lines, though none of its representatives could approach Proudhon's breadth of view."

 My conclusion is Anarch-syndicalism is merely Community Communism instead of State Communism.
This piece alone leads me to reject Anarcho-syndicalism. I briefly read on but decided that this line of research had come to an end until my time had nothing of greater value to pursue.
Pages: 1 ... 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!