Daily Anarchist Forum
November 27, 2021, 12:40:49 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14
  Print  
Author Topic: Converting an anarcho-communist  (Read 71677 times)
Script
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: June 21, 2012, 04:19:05 PM »

property rights: same as smoking, fine be an idiot, just don't blow shit in my face, use the power addiction to tobacco gives you over people to dominate them. If you use them in a coercive manner, rent domination, wage slavery, I'll help the people resist.
I honestly don't understand half of what you wrote. Can you use standard English conventions?

How are property rights the "same as smoking."

I second this; it's a confusing paragraph.  Assasin7, can you start from the beginning and clearly articulate your beliefs on property rights?  If you have trouble with that I can pose a series of questions regarding property which you can then answer.
Logged
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: June 21, 2012, 05:35:52 PM »

If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  

You should only do it as a last resort, and only if your in a domination type situation, and the first time you have a chance at peace you must take the peaceful option.

We're not dealing in the absolutes of the NAP, we're in the real world where you have to look at a situation and judge on a case by case basis, with moral rules as absolutes.

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: June 21, 2012, 05:56:17 PM »

theirs a line from a song that articulates my point well:


And the sign said anybody caught trespassin' would be shot on sight
So I jumped on the fence and-a yelled at the house, "Hey! What gives you
the
right?"
"To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in"
"If God was here he'd tell you to your face, Man, you're some kinda sinner"

and this:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhY9uLuQe9E" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhY9uLuQe9E</a>
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 05:58:52 PM by assasin7 » Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: June 21, 2012, 06:02:26 PM »

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
There may be a difference, but neither one is okay. If the grain isn't fetching the price the farmer needs (unlikely, we have futures contracts to keep the grain moving), then why can you take what he raised?

There are some major problems here...
1) You refuse to discuss economics, because you don't know it. So we effectively rule out the consequentialist sphere of discussion.

2) You refuse to lay out any consistent principles for making your moral claims. You want everything done on a case by case basis, so you rule out the idea of having moral or ethical principles. So the moral/ethical sphere can be thrown out the window.

Basically, your posts are just a collection of preferences with no justification. Your arbitrary notion of what's fair and right. I can't argue against that. I can point out inconsistencies in what you consider "just" and I can point out why your ideas will lead to disastrous results, but you care about none of these things. What then, is the point of our discussion?
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
Aegidius
Abuser of italics and semicolons
Full Member
***
Posts: 131



View Profile
« Reply #64 on: June 21, 2012, 06:18:25 PM »

If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  

You should only do it as a last resort, and only if your in a domination type situation, and the first time you have a chance at peace you must take the peaceful option.

We're not dealing in the absolutes of the NAP, we're in the real world where you have to look at a situation and judge on a case by case basis, with moral rules as absolutes.

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.

You've established that previously.  I'm really interested in finding out what, if any, form of human cooperation doesn't constitute a "domination type situation".
Logged

"I need not say how eager we are to trade with you and your kind!  Now, how can I be of service to you?"
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: June 21, 2012, 06:55:45 PM »

If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  

You should only do it as a last resort, and only if your in a domination type situation, and the first time you have a chance at peace you must take the peaceful option.

We're not dealing in the absolutes of the NAP, we're in the real world where you have to look at a situation and judge on a case by case basis, with moral rules as absolutes.

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.

You've established that previously.  I'm really interested in finding out what, if any, form of human cooperation doesn't constitute a "domination type situation".

Where one is equal and free to leave, say employment when their are multiple options to be considered.
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: June 21, 2012, 06:56:47 PM »

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
2) You refuse to lay out any consistent principles for making your moral claims. You want everything done on a case by case basis, so you rule out the idea of having moral or ethical principles. So the moral/ethical sphere can be thrown out the window.

OK, human interactions should be free of domination and coercion.
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Aegidius
Abuser of italics and semicolons
Full Member
***
Posts: 131



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: June 21, 2012, 07:41:20 PM »

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
2) You refuse to lay out any consistent principles for making your moral claims. You want everything done on a case by case basis, so you rule out the idea of having moral or ethical principles. So the moral/ethical sphere can be thrown out the window.

OK, human interactions should be free of domination and coercion.

I couldn't agree more!  How is taking another human being's livelihood by force not domination or coercion?

Let's not confuse *understandable* actions with *morally correct* ones.  Would I steal food if I were starving?  You can bet your ass I would!  That doesn't mean it's okay, though.  My need doesn't make it any less a theft.

If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  

You should only do it as a last resort, and only if your in a domination type situation, and the first time you have a chance at peace you must take the peaceful option.

We're not dealing in the absolutes of the NAP, we're in the real world where you have to look at a situation and judge on a case by case basis, with moral rules as absolutes.

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.

You've established that previously.  I'm really interested in finding out what, if any, form of human cooperation doesn't constitute a "domination type situation".

Where one is equal and free to leave, say employment when their are multiple options to be considered.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you define a lack of other available employers as a lack of "multiple options".  I'd argue that you always have the option of finding a new profession, wandering off to live in the wilderness (an unattractive option is still an option), moving to a new town, or any number of other things, but let's give you that for the sake of argument.  

If I employ people and have a nearby competitor that offers a similar job, that's fine.  What happens when that nearby competitor, unrelated to anything I have done, goes out of business?  We'll say he got hit by a train.  All of the sudden, there are no "multiple options" for my employees.  Without changing the way I treat them or my contract with them in any way, am I now unjustly dominating them?

I think the heart of our disagreement is what constitutes "freedom to leave".  I consider someone to be free to leave when no one is stopping them.  If I understand you correctly, you believe one is only free to leave when leaving is easy or a good idea.  You're conflating freedom with ability, or perhaps even convenience.

I am free to climb mount Everest, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can.  

(Actually, I may not be.  I wouldn't be surprised if you need some kind of approval from the local government to climb the damn thing.  A bad example, maybe.)

One final permutation to my little scenario: I now go out of business as well.  A comet hits my place of business while only I am there.  My former employees still have no options for finding work in their accustomed field.  They are still just as lacking in your kind of "freedom".  Who now is their oppressor?
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 08:07:11 PM by Aegidius » Logged

"I need not say how eager we are to trade with you and your kind!  Now, how can I be of service to you?"
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: June 21, 2012, 08:03:57 PM »

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
2) You refuse to lay out any consistent principles for making your moral claims. You want everything done on a case by case basis, so you rule out the idea of having moral or ethical principles. So the moral/ethical sphere can be thrown out the window.

OK, human interactions should be free of domination and coercion.

I couldn't agree more!  How is taking another human being's livelihood by force not domination or coercion?

Let's not confuse *understandable* actions with *morally correct* ones.  Would I steal food if I were starving?  You bet your ass I would!  That doesn't mean it's okay, though.  My need doesn't make it any less a theft.

If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  

You should only do it as a last resort, and only if your in a domination type situation, and the first time you have a chance at peace you must take the peaceful option.

We're not dealing in the absolutes of the NAP, we're in the real world where you have to look at a situation and judge on a case by case basis, with moral rules as absolutes.

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.

You've established that previously.  I'm really interested in finding out what, if any, form of human cooperation doesn't constitute a "domination type situation".

Where one is equal and free to leave, say employment when their are multiple options to be considered.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you define a lack of other available employers as a lack of "multiple options".  I'd argue that you always have the option of finding a new profession, wandering off to live in the wilderness (an unattractive option is still an option), moving to a new town, or any number of other things, but let's give you that for the sake of argument.  

If I employ people and have a nearby competitor that offers a similar job, that's fine.  What happens when that nearby competitor, unrelated to anything I have done, goes out of business?  We'll say he got hit by a train.  All of the sudden, there are no "multiple options" for my employees.  Without changing the way I treat them or my contract with them in any way, am I now unjustly dominating them?

I think the heart of our disagreement is what constitutes "freedom to leave".  I consider someone to be free to leave when no one is stopping them.  If I understand you correctly, you believe one is only free to leave when leaving is easy or a good idea.  You're conflating freedom with ability, or perhaps even convenience.

I am free to climb mount Everest, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can.  

(Actually, I may not be.  I wouldn't be surprised if you need some kind of approval from the local government to climb the damn thing.  A bad example, maybe.)

If you don't change the way you treat them its fine, if you abuse them then your bad.

How is the free to leave argument different from "if you don't like the state your can leave argument."
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Aegidius
Abuser of italics and semicolons
Full Member
***
Posts: 131



View Profile
« Reply #69 on: June 21, 2012, 08:12:23 PM »

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
2) You refuse to lay out any consistent principles for making your moral claims. You want everything done on a case by case basis, so you rule out the idea of having moral or ethical principles. So the moral/ethical sphere can be thrown out the window.

OK, human interactions should be free of domination and coercion.

I couldn't agree more!  How is taking another human being's livelihood by force not domination or coercion?

Let's not confuse *understandable* actions with *morally correct* ones.  Would I steal food if I were starving?  You bet your ass I would!  That doesn't mean it's okay, though.  My need doesn't make it any less a theft.

If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  

You should only do it as a last resort, and only if your in a domination type situation, and the first time you have a chance at peace you must take the peaceful option.

We're not dealing in the absolutes of the NAP, we're in the real world where you have to look at a situation and judge on a case by case basis, with moral rules as absolutes.

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.

You've established that previously.  I'm really interested in finding out what, if any, form of human cooperation doesn't constitute a "domination type situation".

Where one is equal and free to leave, say employment when their are multiple options to be considered.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you define a lack of other available employers as a lack of "multiple options".  I'd argue that you always have the option of finding a new profession, wandering off to live in the wilderness (an unattractive option is still an option), moving to a new town, or any number of other things, but let's give you that for the sake of argument.  

If I employ people and have a nearby competitor that offers a similar job, that's fine.  What happens when that nearby competitor, unrelated to anything I have done, goes out of business?  We'll say he got hit by a train.  All of the sudden, there are no "multiple options" for my employees.  Without changing the way I treat them or my contract with them in any way, am I now unjustly dominating them?

I think the heart of our disagreement is what constitutes "freedom to leave".  I consider someone to be free to leave when no one is stopping them.  If I understand you correctly, you believe one is only free to leave when leaving is easy or a good idea.  You're conflating freedom with ability, or perhaps even convenience.

I am free to climb mount Everest, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can.  

(Actually, I may not be.  I wouldn't be surprised if you need some kind of approval from the local government to climb the damn thing.  A bad example, maybe.)

If you don't change the way you treat them its fine, if you abuse them then your bad.

How is the free to leave argument different from "if you don't like the state your can leave argument."

Because only one of them is true.  I can terminate my contract with my employer at any time, and it was made voluntarily in the first place.  The state assumes my consent because I had the temerity to be born within its borders, and agresses against me on my or anyone else's property within its "territory".  Try telling the IRS that you quit; they'll have a good laugh.

You really don't see a difference between terminating a peaceful, voluntary agreement and fleeing the territory of a criminal gang?  Between *ceasing to trade with someone* and *having to flee a geographic area because thugs won't leave you be*?  Seriously?

The two are only comparable if the employer threatens to kill or imprison you if you quit without also leaving town.  Note that 'kill' is not the same as 'not help to live'.

Also, what constitutes abuse?

Also also, is there more than one person posting with this account?

Where one is equal and free to leave, say employment when their are multiple options to be considered.
How is the free to leave argument different from "if you don't like the state your can leave argument."
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 09:13:48 PM by Aegidius » Logged

"I need not say how eager we are to trade with you and your kind!  Now, how can I be of service to you?"
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: June 21, 2012, 11:08:17 PM »

for example, theirs a difference from stealing grain when its being held off the market to drive up prices and stealing grain when you just want grain and don't want to pay for it.
2) You refuse to lay out any consistent principles for making your moral claims. You want everything done on a case by case basis, so you rule out the idea of having moral or ethical principles. So the moral/ethical sphere can be thrown out the window.

OK, human interactions should be free of domination and coercion.
No. You rejected this too. You said that in the real world, we have to judge each thing case by case. Theft is domination and coercion, and you're okay with it.

You don't want to argue on economics, and you don't want to do so on principles. There are no criteria to use for judging your ideas. You're just stating your opinions on what is good or bad, and there's nothing left for us to judge them against.
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
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: June 22, 2012, 03:10:09 AM »

Also also, is there more than one person posting with this account?

Where one is equal and free to leave, say employment when their are multiple options to be considered.
How is the free to leave argument different from "if you don't like the state your can leave argument."
No I just have 2 personalities
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: June 24, 2012, 09:03:23 PM »

definition of property: An area in which the property owner has the right to initiate force.
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: June 24, 2012, 11:57:31 PM »

definition of property: An area in which the property owner has the right to initiate force.
Few propertarian anarchists would be okay with that definition. AFAIK, trespassing, in the common law sense, was not the crime it's thought of today. If you walk through a giant field, doing no harm, the owner can't shoot you. Passing through was treated differently than other types of land use. But it isn't allowed if breaking and entering is required. I'm pulling this stuff out of memory from discussions I've had with people better read than myself. Admittedly, it's all somewhat fuzzy and vague. But I'm the one who doesn't care about absolute morality 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
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: June 25, 2012, 12:17:40 PM »

definition of property: An area in which the property owner has the right to initiate force.
Few propertarian anarchists would be okay with that definition. AFAIK, trespassing, in the common law sense, was not the crime it's thought of today. If you walk through a giant field, doing no harm, the owner can't shoot you. Passing through was treated differently than other types of land use. But it isn't allowed if breaking and entering is required. I'm pulling this stuff out of memory from discussions I've had with people better read than myself. Admittedly, it's all somewhat fuzzy and vague. But I'm the one who doesn't care about absolute morality anyways.

Why? I seems accurate
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 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!