Daily Anarchist Forum
November 27, 2021, 12:59:35 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 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 14
  Print  
Author Topic: Converting an anarcho-communist  (Read 71698 times)
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #150 on: October 10, 2012, 06:24:12 PM »

^Not only are you not answering my original question, you're also bringing up something that's completely false. Number one, private property IS universal. All manners of self-ownership begin with the acknowledgement of "I", or the idea that you, as a free individual, own yourself. Not only are you your own property, you're private property because you get to do what you want to yourself, so long as you don't violate the rights of another individual.
 
Also, by saying "I" don't believe in private property rights, you're unconsciously creating a paradox. By saying, "I don't believe in private property", you're acknowledging that you, with your own mind as your property, don't believe in something. Owned.

 Secondly, as I said earlier, you're not answering my original question. I never asked whether someone believes in property rights or not. What I am asking is that if someone who DOES believe in property rights does not want to live in an anarcho-communist society, does that person have a RIGHT to voluntarily leave that society and interact with individuals who do, thus establishing an an-cap society that has a right to itself and the virtue of not forcing other people to join their establishment? If you believe that people should be forced to come under your wing, you're proving yourself tyrannical by forcing individuals to accept your terms.

 Also, property rights are not violent, derp. Rothbard concluded in For a New Liberty that property rights create social order. He gives the example of the ocean and allowing individuals and businesses to buy up pieces of their own ocean use them for market purposes. He cites that because true property rights do not exist under the terms of oceanography, people are forced to share the ocean, thus running the risk of having their labor conflict with the labor of other individuals who are trying to use the ocean for their own purposes. He even cites experts who believe that the private property philosophy should be applied to waters in order to generate more organization.

 Do you really wanna continue spewing your falsehoods? It seems like everyone else here is being objective with their consensus.

 
Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 590


View Profile
« Reply #151 on: October 10, 2012, 10:24:24 PM »

The problem is by claiming private property your threatening violence

How so? And that aside if you live in a community that has no private property, and there is a neighboring community that wants to have a system of private property how is it any of your business? Also just for clarification how would you define private property?
Logged

BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #152 on: October 11, 2012, 08:44:49 AM »

The problem is by claiming private property your threatening violence

Only against people who would take it by violence.

Exactly the way I defend my life. Or is claiming independence now considered an act of violence, since by making that claim I am also asserting that I will defend myself?
Logged
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #153 on: October 11, 2012, 08:47:11 AM »

Thats a trick question, capitalism can't work if areas don't live under capitalism, private property has to be universal.

Not at all. If you want to live without it, such as an ascetic monk, no one else's claim of private property can stop you. If you wish to join in a community with people who share all in common, you are more than welcome to do so.
Logged
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #154 on: October 11, 2012, 08:56:34 AM »

Also just for clarification how would you define private property?

Teen, usually the argument is that by taking land and "resources" into private ownership, it is possible to then exclude others who wish to use that land. This creates "artificial scarcity", which is the basis for the claim you might see elsewhere that, if only money and private property could be eliminated, there would therefore be no "scarcity".

The dedicated Socialist, exactly like the Keynesian, has no concept of "production". All they see is consumption, and assume something like "production simply is".

The idea that if you take away someone's property they cease to produce, is outside of their worldview and therefore does not exist.
Logged
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: October 11, 2012, 02:32:28 PM »

^Not only are you not answering my original question, you're also bringing up something that's completely false. Number one, private property IS universal. All manners of self-ownership begin with the acknowledgement of "I", or the idea that you, as a free individual, own yourself. Not only are you your own property, you're private property because you get to do what you want to yourself, so long as you don't violate the rights of another individual.
 
Also, by saying "I" don't believe in private property rights, you're unconsciously creating a paradox. By saying, "I don't believe in private property", you're acknowledging that you, with your own mind as your property, don't believe in something. Owned.

 Secondly, as I said earlier, you're not answering my original question. I never asked whether someone believes in property rights or not. What I am asking is that if someone who DOES believe in property rights does not want to live in an anarcho-communist society, does that person have a RIGHT to voluntarily leave that society and interact with individuals who do, thus establishing an an-cap society that has a right to itself and the virtue of not forcing other people to join their establishment? If you believe that people should be forced to come under your wing, you're proving yourself tyrannical by forcing individuals to accept your terms.

 Also, property rights are not violent, derp. Rothbard concluded in For a New Liberty that property rights create social order. He gives the example of the ocean and allowing individuals and businesses to buy up pieces of their own ocean use them for market purposes. He cites that because true property rights do not exist under the terms of oceanography, people are forced to share the ocean, thus running the risk of having their labor conflict with the labor of other individuals who are trying to use the ocean for their own purposes. He even cites experts who believe that the private property philosophy should be applied to waters in order to generate more organization.

 Do you really wanna continue spewing your falsehoods? It seems like everyone else here is being objective with their consensus.

 
Rothbard explains here how private property was created:
Let us illustrate with a hypothetical example. Suppose that libertarian agitation and pressure has escalated to such a point that the government and its various branches are ready to abdicate. But they engineer a cunning ruse. Just before the government of New York state abdicates it passes a law turning over the entire territorial area of New York to become the private property of the Rockefeller family. The Massachusetts legislature does the same for the Kennedy family. And so on for each state. The government could then abdicate and decree the abolition of taxes and coercive legislation, but the victorious libertarians would now be confronted with a dilemma. Do they recognize the new property titles as legitimately private property? The utilitarians, who have no theory of justice in property rights, would, if they were consistent with their acceptance of given property titles as decreed by government, have to accept a new social order in which fifty new satraps would be collecting taxes in the form of unilaterally imposed "rent." The point is that only natural-rights libertarians, only those libertarians who have a theory [p. 31] of justice in property titles that does not depend on government decree, could be in a position to scoff at the new rulers' claims to have private property in the territory of the country, and to rebuff these claims as invalid. As the great nineteenth-century liberal Lord Acton saw clearly, the natural law provides the only sure ground for a continuing critique of governmental laws and decrees.1 What, specifically, the natural-rights position on property titles may be is the question to which we now turn.


Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: October 11, 2012, 02:34:00 PM »

The problem is by claiming private property your threatening violence

How so? And that aside if you live in a community that has no private property, and there is a neighboring community that wants to have a system of private property how is it any of your business? Also just for clarification how would you define private property?

2 things, your saying, if you come here I'll shoot you, since we don't have PRIVATE property you have a right to steal our stuff
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: October 11, 2012, 02:37:53 PM »

Also just for clarification how would you define private property?

Teen, usually the argument is that by taking land and "resources" into private ownership, it is possible to then exclude others who wish to use that land. This creates "artificial scarcity", which is the basis for the claim you might see elsewhere that, if only money and private property could be eliminated, there would therefore be no "scarcity".

The dedicated Socialist, exactly like the Keynesian, has no concept of "production". All they see is consumption, and assume something like "production simply is".

The idea that if you take away someone's property they cease to produce, is outside of their worldview and therefore does not exist.

Property was created by the state:

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

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh8ThKmME40" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh8ThKmME40</a>
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #158 on: October 11, 2012, 03:11:42 PM »

Also just for clarification how would you define private property?

Teen, usually the argument is that by taking land and "resources" into private ownership, it is possible to then exclude others who wish to use that land. This creates "artificial scarcity", which is the basis for the claim you might see elsewhere that, if only money and private property could be eliminated, there would therefore be no "scarcity".

The dedicated Socialist, exactly like the Keynesian, has no concept of "production". All they see is consumption, and assume something like "production simply is".

The idea that if you take away someone's property they cease to produce, is outside of their worldview and therefore does not exist.

Property was created by the state:

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

No, property was confiscated by the state, and then doled out under government rules, not through natural rights or common or customary laws.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #159 on: October 11, 2012, 03:44:37 PM »

^What? That statement makes no sense. Number one, if government created property, then by that definition, individuals are creations of the government. Property begins with the notion of self-ownership. If you don't own yourself, then you're nothing more than a slave to the whims of those around you.  

 Government doesn't create who you are.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 03:46:30 PM by SinCityVoluntaryist » Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #160 on: October 11, 2012, 04:03:03 PM »

Property was created by the state:

Clearly you didn't understand what I said. I will repeat using different words:

The dedicated Socialist sees property only in terms of land and physical resources. They cannot conceive of "property" as being a concept which includes the possession of one's thoughts, one's labor, one's initiative and actions.

Because of this fallacy, "property" becomes a matter purely of excluding others from physical access to an area or region. This is their definition of "scarcity" because they see only "property" not being used this instant, it must therefore not be being utilized and is therefore "abundant", not "scarce".

The Socialist sees only consumption. If something isn't being consumed, they believe it to be "idle", thus the Keynesian theory of "idle resources", which fits nicely with Keynes hatred of savings.

The Socialist cannot grasp that production is done for the purpose of future return. Without that principle of future return, of investment and gain, there will be no production and therefore nothing to consume.

All this adds up to the condemnation of "private property" because, simply put, the Socialist cannot stand anyone else making choices different than they.
Logged
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #161 on: October 11, 2012, 05:41:20 PM »

Property was created by the state:

Clearly you didn't understand what I said. I will repeat using different words:

The dedicated Socialist sees property only in terms of land and physical resources. They cannot conceive of "property" as being a concept which includes the possession of one's thoughts, one's labor, one's initiative and actions.

Because of this fallacy, "property" becomes a matter purely of excluding others from physical access to an area or region. This is their definition of "scarcity" because they see only "property" not being used this instant, it must therefore not be being utilized and is therefore "abundant", not "scarce".

The Socialist sees only consumption. If something isn't being consumed, they believe it to be "idle", thus the Keynesian theory of "idle resources", which fits nicely with Keynes hatred of savings.

The Socialist cannot grasp that production is done for the purpose of future return. Without that principle of future return, of investment and gain, there will be no production and therefore nothing to consume.

All this adds up to the condemnation of "private property" because, simply put, the Socialist cannot stand anyone else making choices different than they.

Socialists and Keynesians BOTH seem to have trouble recognizing the importance of the supply or production side of the equation, and often end up leaving it out completely, as if it were a constant unaffected by anything else that occurs in the economy.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #162 on: October 11, 2012, 09:08:14 PM »

The problem is by claiming private property your threatening violence

How so? And that aside if you live in a community that has no private property, and there is a neighboring community that wants to have a system of private property how is it any of your business? Also just for clarification how would you define private property?
He shouldn't really care if a neighboring community wants to establish property rules and take his stuff. He doesn't own it anyways.
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
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #163 on: October 12, 2012, 08:09:55 AM »

Socialists and Keynesians BOTH seem to have trouble recognizing the importance of the supply or production side of the equation, and often end up leaving it out completely, as if it were a constant unaffected by anything else that occurs in the economy.

This is also the source of "if the workers take over the factory and throw out wasteful management, they'll be more productive because there won't be all that overhead".

As if, magically, the higher order capital goods that flow into the factory will always flow, and the output of the factory will always be in demand, and nothing wears out (no capital depreciation), etc.

Just as you say, they simply ignore production.

I remember in 1993 or 4 when I worked at NASA, there were some Russian rocket scientists who visited. These were the cream of the crop of what the Soviet Union represented (before it collapsed), and these otherwise intelligent people REALLY DID THINK that we were somehow FAKING having grocery stores that were full of stuff.

Their entire lives were lived with scarcity on such a scale that the productivity of capitalism, even as restricted as it is in the US, was simply unbelievable to them. One went so far as to collapse in on herself, emotionally speaking, and would not go out any more.
Logged
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: October 12, 2012, 08:58:00 AM »

^What? That statement makes no sense. Number one, if government created property, then by that definition, individuals are creations of the government. Property begins with the notion of self-ownership. If you don't own yourself, then you're nothing more than a slave to the whims of those around you.  

 Government doesn't create who you are.

Ownership requires 2 things 1 the owner and 2 the owned they can't be the same thing. You don't own your self you are yourself.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 09:00:17 AM by assasin7 » Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 14
  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!