Daily Anarchist Forum
December 09, 2019, 08:27:18 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  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"  (Read 27870 times)
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: July 09, 2012, 08:02:31 AM »

This thread has so much wrong with it.  I can't figure out where to even begin to respond.  Not that it would really matter.  The good info is just ignored anyway. 
Logged

Gozutennou
Newbie
*
Posts: 20

Hey, i am an statist asshole


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: July 09, 2012, 09:37:35 AM »

Hmmm.... The AnCaps have no reason to attack, though they would I'm sure want to trade with them. Are you telling me that ancoms want to collectivize property but if I choose to opt out I'm not going to be forced to hand over my property?

Well, both ancap and ancom are voluntary, they cannot force things on each other, there cannot use propogande of the deed (terrorism) because we are  bothanarchists and not statists ( rival's, not enemies), ancoms may not force to collectivize the means of productions*, because that is against what anarchism is.

*there is a diffrence between personal property ( a house, a dog, a car, a gun, a ham-sandwich, a t-shirt, a dildo (lol) ) and private property (a factory for example)

the main misconseption of ancaps is that they think that they are the only anarchists that are voluntary, that's not true, because ALL anarchists are  voluntarist....

there always seems a bit (understatement) of misconseption between anarchists.

also, it's not true that all ancoms use propoganda of the deed or are violent (terrorism)..

Errico Malatesta was an anarcho-communist who was against propoganda of the deed
Renzo Novatore was a badshit crazy (lol) individualist anarchist and illegalist who said that if an ancom revolution would ocure then he will work with them, when the revolution was over, he would start another one and destroy the an-coms  Tongue

« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 09:44:05 AM by Gozutennou » Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: July 09, 2012, 09:44:54 AM »


Hmmm.... The AnCaps have no reason to attack, though they would I'm sure want to trade with them. Are you telling me that ancoms want to collectivize property but if I choose to opt out I'm not going to be forced to hand over my property?

Well, both ancap and ancom are voluntary, they cannot force things on each other, there cannot use propogande of the deed because we are anarchists and not statists ( rival's, not enemies), ancoms may not force to collectivize the means of productions*, because that is against what anarchism is.

*there is a diffrence between personal property ( a house, a dog, a car, a gun, a ham-sandwich, a t-shirt, a dildo (lol) ) and private property ( a factory for example)

the main misconseption of ancaps is that they think that they are the only anarchists that are voluntary, that's not true, because ALL anarchists are for voluntarism....


Also, it's not true that all ancoms use propoganda of the deed (terrorism)..

Errico Malatesta was an anarcho-communist who was against propoganda of the deed
Renzo Novatore was a badshit crazy (lol) individualist anarchist and illegalist who said that if an ancom revolution would ocure then he will work with them, when the revolution was over, he would start another one and destroy the an-coms  Tongue

It isn't worth arguing with this.  You don't see the hypocrisy in your own sentences. 
Logged

MAM
Guest
« Reply #48 on: July 09, 2012, 10:21:46 AM »

Hmmm.... The AnCaps have no reason to attack, though they would I'm sure want to trade with them. Are you telling me that ancoms want to collectivize property but if I choose to opt out I'm not going to be forced to hand over my property?

Well, both ancap and ancom are voluntary, they cannot force things on each other, there cannot use propogande of the deed (terrorism) because we are  bothanarchists and not statists ( rival's, not enemies), ancoms may not force to collectivize the means of productions*, because that is against what anarchism is.

*there is a diffrence between personal property ( a house, a dog, a car, a gun, a ham-sandwich, a t-shirt, a dildo (lol) ) and private property (a factory for example)

the main misconseption of ancaps is that they think that they are the only anarchists that are voluntary, that's not true, because ALL anarchists are  voluntarist....

there always seems a bit (understatement) of misconseption between anarchists.

also, it's not true that all ancoms use propoganda of the deed or are violent (terrorism)..

Errico Malatesta was an anarcho-communist who was against propoganda of the deed
Renzo Novatore was a badshit crazy (lol) individualist anarchist and illegalist who said that if an ancom revolution would ocure then he will work with them, when the revolution was over, he would start another one and destroy the an-coms  Tongue



If there is a difference between personal and private property, what exactly is the difference? What are the implications of this difference?
Logged
Gozutennou
Newbie
*
Posts: 20

Hey, i am an statist asshole


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: July 10, 2012, 06:29:29 AM »


Hmmm.... The AnCaps have no reason to attack, though they would I'm sure want to trade with them. Are you telling me that ancoms want to collectivize property but if I choose to opt out I'm not going to be forced to hand over my property?

Well, both ancap and ancom are voluntary, they cannot force things on each other, there cannot use propogande of the deed because we are anarchists and not statists ( rival's, not enemies), ancoms may not force to collectivize the means of productions*, because that is against what anarchism is.

*there is a diffrence between personal property ( a house, a dog, a car, a gun, a ham-sandwich, a t-shirt, a dildo (lol) ) and private property ( a factory for example)

the main misconseption of ancaps is that they think that they are the only anarchists that are voluntary, that's not true, because ALL anarchists are for voluntarism....


Also, it's not true that all ancoms use propoganda of the deed (terrorism)..

Errico Malatesta was an anarcho-communist who was against propoganda of the deed
Renzo Novatore was a badshit crazy (lol) individualist anarchist and illegalist who said that if an ancom revolution would ocure then he will work with them, when the revolution was over, he would start another one and destroy the an-coms  Tongue

It isn't worth arguing with this.  You don't see the hypocrisy in your own sentences. 

What is my hypocrisy ?
Logged
Gozutennou
Newbie
*
Posts: 20

Hey, i am an statist asshole


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: July 10, 2012, 06:35:14 AM »

Hmmm.... The AnCaps have no reason to attack, though they would I'm sure want to trade with them. Are you telling me that ancoms want to collectivize property but if I choose to opt out I'm not going to be forced to hand over my property?

Well, both ancap and ancom are voluntary, they cannot force things on each other, there cannot use propogande of the deed (terrorism) because we are  bothanarchists and not statists ( rival's, not enemies), ancoms may not force to collectivize the means of productions*, because that is against what anarchism is.

*there is a diffrence between personal property ( a house, a dog, a car, a gun, a ham-sandwich, a t-shirt, a dildo (lol) ) and private property (a factory for example)

the main misconseption of ancaps is that they think that they are the only anarchists that are voluntary, that's not true, because ALL anarchists are  voluntarist....

there always seems a bit (understatement) of misconseption between anarchists.

also, it's not true that all ancoms use propoganda of the deed or are violent (terrorism)..

Errico Malatesta was an anarcho-communist who was against propoganda of the deed
Renzo Novatore was a badshit crazy (lol) individualist anarchist and illegalist who said that if an ancom revolution would ocure then he will work with them, when the revolution was over, he would start another one and destroy the an-coms  Tongue



If there is a difference between personal and private property, what exactly is the difference? What are the implications of this difference?

Basically, personal property is stuff that you buy that you, personally, use.

Private property is resources that are accumulated for business purposes/for other people to use. It is capital/part of the means of production.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: July 10, 2012, 06:44:56 AM »

What is my hypocrisy ?

That is my point.  You don't see it.   
Logged

MAM
Guest
« Reply #52 on: July 10, 2012, 07:31:41 AM »

So I decide to buy a factory. Better yet I produce out of my house my good, yes this is it. I bought a house, and because I don't like the idea of paying a mortgage on two properties I decide to work my business out of my home.

So I make widgets and I have employees that come to my home to make my widgits and then an employee stocks a store that sells my widgets.

Now my widget is special and takes special equipment to make and I have that equipment installed at my home.

Is my house mine, or the collectives? Is it "personal" or "private" property?
Logged
Coltan L.
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: July 10, 2012, 08:30:36 PM »

Yeah. I have yet to meet a solid ancom in person, which will hopefully change once I move to Seattle.

I'm not really sold on anything ancom.  It still seems paradoxical to me. It comes down to original appropriation I suppose. But I think at the base level Ancoms feel fundamentally entitled to certain things that I as an ancap would consider positive rights. And since I don't even believe in negative rights. I would call horse shit.

I guess an easy way to draw the line is if the "Labor Theory of Value" is fundamentally tied to Ancom as perhaps the "Nonagression Principal" is to Ancap, then the two are fundamentally irreconcilable.

Who knows?  In the island example with 50/50 ancap/ancom on their own sides. I expect no problems. I mean, if an ancom wanted to make money or eat food and he decided to leave Ancom side would he have to do so naked? What if he said he was going to take his rags and his one bowl with him when he left? Would someone stop him? Would they be a violent thug/thief? Or a glorious representative of the people's collective repossessing collective goods from a vagrant.

I just don't get it. I get that perhaps Ancoms make a bigger deal out of community than Ancaps. But if ownership is collective, and part of the collective splinters what happens? I mean its not just his material goods, he was trained raised "invested in" by the collective. He is property of the group.  Can he get all that premo training and just leave?
Logged
MAM
Guest
« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2012, 09:46:36 PM »

Yeah. I have yet to meet a solid ancom in person, which will hopefully change once I move to Seattle.

I'm not really sold on anything ancom.  It still seems paradoxical to me. It comes down to original appropriation I suppose. But I think at the base level Ancoms feel fundamentally entitled to certain things that I as an ancap would consider positive rights. And since I don't even believe in negative rights. I would call horse shit.

I guess an easy way to draw the line is if the "Labor Theory of Value" is fundamentally tied to Ancom as perhaps the "Nonagression Principal" is to Ancap, then the two are fundamentally irreconcilable.



And here we have it is the Labor Theory of Value legitimate? Obviously the answer is no, and here is an example that I was given of why not just the other day. Person X is in school, he is forced to an elective class and chooses to take wood shop. The instructor wants the students to use their creativity. Well student X doesn't like the class and is taking it because he is forced to, so person X decides that his project will be sanding a piece of wood. For the 180 day school 1 hour a day he sands the piece of wood. According to the Labor Theory of value this piece of wood would be worth quite a bit (conservative calculation puts it at 1000$ or so of time invested) obviously the piece of wood (about the size of a bar of soap) is not worth 1000$...
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: July 10, 2012, 10:19:43 PM »

It's not just the labor theory of value.

It can be argued that ancom obeys the nonaggression principle and not ancap. It all comes down to whether property rights are legitimate or not. It can't be "proven" one way or another, despite Rothbard's valiant attempt.

Case 1) Assume property rights are legitimate: Then ancoms violate the NAP by stealing.
Case 2) Assume property rights are illegitimate: Then ancaps violate the NAP by holding property that belongs to everyone.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
MAM
Guest
« Reply #56 on: July 10, 2012, 11:30:15 PM »

It's not just the labor theory of value.

It can be argued that ancom obeys the nonaggression principle and not ancap. It all comes down to whether property rights are legitimate or not. It can't be "proven" one way or another, despite Rothbard's valiant attempt.

Case 1) Assume property rights are legitimate: Then ancoms violate the NAP by stealing.
Case 2) Assume property rights are illegitimate: Then ancaps violate the NAP by holding property that belongs to everyone.

I've always found Ethical arguments to be more compelling than Utilitarian ones. The unperceptive mind could call the Utilitarian arguments an accident when it seems to me that it isn't. Of course we are faced with a metaphysical chicken or the egg here. Do sound ethics come from good economics? Or do good ethics beget sound economics? I think it is best to combine the two. I want to that it works and why and how it works. In fact I am working on a book right now that starts at metaphysics and extends all the way down through to the Utilitarian arguments.
Logged
Coltan L.
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: July 11, 2012, 02:45:49 PM »

It's not just the labor theory of value.

It can be argued that ancom obeys the nonaggression principle and not ancap. It all comes down to whether property rights are legitimate or not. It can't be "proven" one way or another, despite Rothbard's valiant attempt.

Case 1) Assume property rights are legitimate: Then ancoms violate the NAP by stealing.
Case 2) Assume property rights are illegitimate: Then ancaps violate the NAP by holding property that belongs to everyone.

Well said, this is the interesting paradox I mentioned earlier that I failed to put into words. I mean I know 100% where my assumption is, but this is why we so savagely butt heads with Ancoms as often as we do.

I think its especially vicious when you talk about the human person and property rights. I was in the Air Force and got really hurt in a rockslide while hiking.  Being a total moron 18 year old I did not go to the hospital to avoid the pretty severe punishment I would get from damaging "government property". I shit you not. But this type of thinking is inevitable in a dispersed ownership economy.  I mean what are service sector jobs selling? And how would you "pay" for training. I can't believe it all could just be written off. I don't know. This may be a failure of my imagination.
Logged
Josh D
Full Member
***
Posts: 153



View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: July 20, 2012, 12:57:18 PM »

There were a group of ancoms pretty convincingly described in Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars series.  (Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars)  They make the same distinction between private and personal property.  The dynamics of property and ownership change over the course of the series as Mars goes from a place that will kill you without your suit to a place where you can swim in the oceans and sleep outside in the nude. 

It seems like the ancom groups work much better in a pristine, hostile Mars rather than a homesteadable one.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #59 on: July 30, 2012, 06:27:31 PM »

The dynamics of property and ownership change over the course of the series as Mars goes from a place that will kill you without your suit to a place where you can swim in the oceans and sleep outside in the nude. 

Is it just me, or do many ancoms seem to like this concept of sleeping outside in the nude? 
Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!