Daily Anarchist Forum
May 28, 2020, 07:36:59 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  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 on: January 11, 2016, 10:37:26 PM 
Started by Syock - Last post by Syock

The example is for macs, but can probably be easily adapted for other systems.

 on: January 07, 2016, 12:20:39 PM 
Started by MAM - Last post by macsnafu
Implementation: There has to be some sort of organization(regulation?) in society inorder for things to be accomplished.

Such a claim of an organization or regulation over society requires proof.  Mere existence of government is not proof.  Such proof would also invalidate this entire movement. 

No culture can serve to regulate interactions, custom, consider standing in line. There is no law to stand in line but people do it anyway, why? It is the accepted social norm, and it serves a regulatory function.

You describe spontaneous order, not an organization nor regulation.

Exactly.  People tend to want order.  Freedom is all about letting people decide for themselves what kind of order and organization.  While we can certainly speculate about what kind of order people might prefer, it's unbearably arrogant and tyrannical to think that some privileged person or group needs to decide for other people what that order should be.  To merely claim that it ought to be of a certain sort is just an argument that would need defending and people would have to be persuaded to conform to it.  If any particular order is inevitable, that would seem to indicate something about human nature, not politics, and obviously, in that case, nothing would need to be done for such an order to emerge, except to not forcibly prevent it from occurring.

 on: January 06, 2016, 02:18:57 PM 
Started by MAM - Last post by Syock
Implementation: There has to be some sort of organization(regulation?) in society inorder for things to be accomplished.

Such a claim of an organization or regulation over society requires proof.  Mere existence of government is not proof.  Such proof would also invalidate this entire movement. 

No culture can serve to regulate interactions, custom, consider standing in line. There is no law to stand in line but people do it anyway, why? It is the accepted social norm, and it serves a regulatory function.

You describe spontaneous order, not an organization nor regulation.

 on: January 04, 2016, 02:46:10 AM 
Started by FreeBornAngel - Last post by MAM
World peace is NEVER going to happen, period.

 on: January 01, 2016, 05:56:03 PM 
Started by FreeBornAngel - Last post by macsnafu
My apologies for taking so long to respond.   And who knows when or if you'll read it?
Oh my gosh, he *really* believes in the Labor Theory of Value,
Well, actually I don't.
I don't believe in value at all, it is crapitalist smoke and mirrors.
It is nomenclature that doesn't exist in a world free of exploitation by the haves.

This is a real problem for me, because value is a very real and unavoidable concept, regardless of the disagreements on what value is.  I cannot imagine a world where people place no value on anything, unless it's a dead or dying world. Why would a person eat if they didn't value food to sustain their life?  Why would anyone bother to produce anything unless they placed value on what they produced?

Without the "capitalists", where would laborers get the tools and materials they need to actually make goods?
Where did the bosses get them?
The workers made them.
The world does not end in the absence of crapitalism and banksters, contrary to the programming you have received.
As long as the people hold the most dangerous superstition we will never see anarchy.
You should consider this a little more.  If workers truly made their own tools, then they're their own capitalists, and they would already be running their own business instead of working for someone else.   Workers generally work for someone else because they don't have access to the tools and materials needed to produce the good or service.

At one time, there was no wealth - everyone was poor and had little or nothing.  Wealth was accumulated by saving, that is, by deferring present consumption for later consumption.  This allowed some of the accumulated wealth, otherwise known as capital, to be utilized for increasing productivity.  In a very general sense, anybody who has some savings or deferred consumption is a capitalist, not just people who own or run businesses.

  If someone manages to make a better tool and then makes money by allowing other workers to use this tool for percentage of their productivity, is he guilty of some evil act in your eyes?  He's made it possible for the workers to produce more than they could without that tool.  And if he sells that tool to someone else so that they can let their workers be more productive, isn't that a good thing?  The workers are better off, the capitalist is better off, the consumers are better off.  There are no losers.

True, after some wealth has been accumulated, it becomes possible for some people to steal it from others, but a thief is not a true capitalist. A thief isn't interested in using capital to increase the productivity of the workers, and he isn't interested in making anyone better off other than himself. And a 'capitalist' who pockets the capital is essentially a thief, because capital that is not reinvested in the business is not capital at all, but an expense to the business. 

Why do prices for identical goods vary from store to store, and sometimes even within the same store?
Greed of the price setter?
Belief in the matrix?
Better crapital situation?  Lower borrowing costs?
Because the workers that keep the shelves filled are too mindwarped to seek freedom from the monkey master?
I could go on,...
But then as long as you refuse to see that we have to workers but we don't have to have dollars then I would just be spitting into the wind.

Money will always exist in some form or another.  Mankind learned long ago that using a medium of indirect exchange is better and more useful than barter or mutual aid. What I and other ancaps object to in modern society is the idea that government should monopolize the production of money.  Multiple private currencies would make money even more useful and beneficial than it is with governments and central banks monkeying about with it. 

Who's getting shafted if the retail store cannot sell a good at an offered price and has to lower their price, say in a sale?  The laborer who already got paid for his labor a long time ago, or the distributor and/or retail store, who may not be recovering their full costs on the good?
How about all of them.
The price you pay for that cup of coffee in the morning pays the taxes for the corporation, the ceo, and all workers down to the guy that swept the parking lot, how much of the price of your cup of coffee goes to pay the taxes of the ceo?
When we toss off the monkey masters what do you figure will happen to prices?
How much less work could be done if we didn't work from Jan to May to pay the tax man?
Lord knows how long we work to satisfy profits, I'm sure profits are a bigger chunk than taxes.
All because you accept the smoke and mirrors put up by the ruling class.
You're confused.  As an ancap I want to get rid of government and involuntary taxes, and things would certainly be cheaper without taxes.  But even without governments, there are various and unavoidable expenses involved in producing a cup of coffee, from growing and harvesting coffee beans, to grinding them into coffee, to distributing the coffee to users, to the coffee machines used to turn the ground coffee into cups of coffee. 

A person opening a coffee shop has to pay his employees from the day he hires them, but nobody pays him unless and until the customers pay for and drink his coffee.  And that's only if enough customers pay enough to cover the business' expenses.  The coffee shop owner has to either save up money to start the shop, or borrow money from other people who have saved their money, paying them a fair interest for using their money.

Even more fundamental: how is the value of a good or service determined, in your view, and how is it related to the price?
My paradigm comes without the concept of value,.....
If you can't give your product away you may want to find another endeavor to pursue, but if your product flies off the shelf faster than  you can produce it then we should find you some help.
Price is subsequent to demand, demand is all the 'market signal' needed to manage production, again, if you can't give it away stop making it.
Again, I cannot imagine a world without a concept of value.  If nobody values your product, nobody will want it, even if you give it away.  If you think there is no value in your product, why would you even bother to produce it?  As I said, there may be disagreements about what value is, but it is impossible to function without some concept of value.

 on: January 01, 2016, 04:49:07 PM 
Started by Alricaus - Last post by macsnafu
I would like to know what the position of Anacap is about clothing Ö More precisely, I was wondering if one as the right to decide how we have to be dressed when in a private place. For example, is it right for a school to say Ďif you donít wear the uniform, you canít come to this school?
Presuming a private school, absolutely.  This is a clear cut case of property rights, their property you have to accept any conditions on your use that they see fit.  If they decide everyone must wear a clown nose and scuba flipper.... so be it.

This answer is right as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough.  How many people would put their kids in a school that called for a clown nose and scuba flippers, unless perhaps it was a clown school? Private businesses want to satisfy their customers, and for private schools, the customer is the parents or guardian of the child.  Military schools obviously require students to wear a uniform, it's part of the discipline they offer.  But then again not all parents want their kids in a military school, and may well prefer a school that encourages individuality more than discipline. 

School uniforms are really only an issue in public schools, given the schizoid nature of government schooling.  Nobody has a problem with a private school requiring uniforms (except maybe the kids themselves) because putting their kids in a private school is a voluntary choice, voluntarily paid for, whereas public schools are paid for by tax dollars instead of by direct fees.

Of course, the clothing issue is not just about schools, but about any private place that requires a dress code.  Most retail places or restaurants require shoes and shirts, for example, and businesses usually have a dress code.  But again, it's a matter of private property rights *and* freedom of association.  If an expensive, snobbish restaurant requires wearing a suit and tie, they have that right, and you have to decide how important it is to you to be seen at such a restaurant.  Whereas fast food places don't really care what you wear as long as you're not indecent, and sometimes they'll even slide on that!

 on: January 01, 2016, 04:31:35 PM 
Started by Abdabs - Last post by macsnafu
If an individual is disabled-from birth- to the extent that he/she is unable to work, nor does he/she have familial support, how is he/she supposed to live in an AnCap system?

There are different ways to answer this.  The short answer is charity, as has already been mentioned, but this fails to take into account the ways that an ancap society would differ from the current status quo. 

For example, taken altogether, taxes take about half of people's incomes away from them.  So without taxes, every worker would practically double their income, meaning they would have more to give to friends, family, and charities. 

Of course, some of that extra money would go towards paying for private alternatives to the current government 'services'.  But not all the extra money would.  For one thing, some government services and expenses are truly unnecessary and unwanted, and only forced upon us by the legal authority of government.  For another, government and government bureaucracy is well-known to be less efficient at providing services, as they have little incentive for doing so, or for lowering costs and increasing productivity.  So private alternatives to government services would tend to be cheaper and more cost effective.

And then there's the consideration that many government laws and regulations impede progress, inhibit productivity, and generally make it harder to get jobs and provide various goods and services.  Minimum wage laws, licensing, zoning regulations, government-granted monopolies, the FDA, government copyright, central banking, and many more things governments do make it harder for people to get jobs, start new businesses (thus providing competition and more jobs), and generally make goods and services provided by private businesses more expensive than they need to be. 

Thus, without government impediments, goods and services would be generally cheaper and easier to obtain, productivity would increase so that people could make even more money or work less to take care of their needs and desires, and monopolies and cartels would be nearly non-existent or ineffective.

All of which would mean that in an ancap society, it would be cheaper and easier to help those who are truly unable to support or take care of themselves, while those who are able will find it easier to take care of themselves and in less need of charity and assistance, freeing up charity and assistance for the more needy.  Even partially-disabled people would be able to at least partially support themselves, even if they need some assistance to make ends meet.

If life is truly sacred, then doesn't it make sense to stop impeding the ability of people to improve, to progress, and to provide for themselves and for others, including the disabled you're concerned about?  Governments are the biggest man-made obstacles to progressive and productive society.

 on: January 01, 2016, 03:57:29 PM 
Started by MAM - Last post by macsnafu
My devolution into hermitage proceeds apace.  I've been working at home for a few years now, my girlfriend and I broke up over a year ago, and I'm torrenting most of my entertainment, exploring various histories of ebooks, comics, and old TV shows/movies.  DC Comic produced some really good comics back in the 1950s, and many EC comics are really good (not just the better-known ones like Weird Science and Tales From The Crypt, but also the New Direction comics like Impact or Extra!). 

I probably ought to be more physically and socially active, but right now, I can't seem to muster the effort.

 on: January 01, 2016, 03:34:24 PM 
Started by bitcambodia - Last post by macsnafu
This is old.  But so am I.  So why not???

I do highly recommend that you abstain from beans, however.

Just sayin'.  Sam


If you prepare and cook the beans right, you will have little or no gas.  Or is there another reaon for abstaining from beans.

 on: January 01, 2016, 03:30:46 PM 
Started by Jordan Kinder - Last post by macsnafu
Spontaneous order is all about people trying out different things and finding out what works best.  More people trying more things sounds like a good idea to me, even if specific ideas, like running for office, don't sound like a very effective strategy to me.  But maybe I'm wrong.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
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!