Bitcoin Forum

Other => Politics & Society => Topic started by: smellyBobby on June 27, 2011, 03:41:42 AM



Title: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 27, 2011, 03:41:42 AM
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

This is despite on all scales and across all times of the universe there is hierarchy. From the structure of the atom, to the evolution of life, the way networks process traffic, the existence of solar systems, the fractal structure of weather systems and galaxy super-clusters there is a hierarchy where something is apart of the whole. Your telling me that somehow we humans, us mere little people are so special that we are above this rule.

That there is something so magnificent, so amazing about us that the system you propose will somehow just completely disregard this fundamental law of the universe. Your telling me that despite the recent human hierarchies, the hierarchies of our primate cousins and all other lifeforms that we are so so so special, that we are god-like and do not belong in this category.

We are gods and that we are above the rest of the universe and we are capable of creating a system that does not obey the universe. So when you say that this new Society is great, because we will be all “fundamentally equal, there will not be a hierarchy”, remember to wipe your mouth with toilet paper once you’ve finished speaking. Because what you just said is the abstract logical equivalent of what I hear at church. That your system is above the mechanics of the universe and that's why it will work. 

This why I don't bother reading about such fantasies.

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to it and learn how to ride them.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: dutt on June 27, 2011, 03:43:45 AM
Good one.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 27, 2011, 04:57:56 AM
Good one.

Now I don't feel so lonely anymore.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 27, 2011, 05:08:29 AM
We're bound to evolve as a species. There are no set laws.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: billyjoeallen on June 27, 2011, 05:22:22 AM
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

by definition, anarchy is not based on hierarchy, existent or otherwise. It literally means "no hierarchy". Fail.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 27, 2011, 05:32:39 AM
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

by definition, anarchy is not based on hierarchy, existent or otherwise. It literally means "no hierarchy". Fail.



.........EXACTLY........ did you read the actual post?

Because there is no acknowledgment of human hierarchy is the reason why it is fantasy.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: hugolp on June 27, 2011, 05:46:58 AM
Quote
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism

Then your mind is wrong.

Btw, communism is a very hierarchical system, is political darwinism.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 27, 2011, 05:50:34 AM
Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

Go back to school and learn to read.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: hugolp on June 27, 2011, 05:57:20 AM
Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

Go back to school and learn to read.

Its very simple to understand the difference between what someone claims and what they really offer. I know you need to act all cocky and aggressive because of your insecurity, but if you drop the attitude you will understand it.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: billyjoeallen on June 27, 2011, 05:59:24 AM
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

by definition, anarchy is not based on hierarchy, existent or otherwise. It literally means "no hierarchy". Fail.



.........EXACTLY........ did you read the actual post?

Because there is no acknowledgment of human hierarchy is the reason why it is fantasy.

Then you need to learn how to write. What you apparently meant and what you wrote are not the same thing. "anarchy [is] based on...hierarchy." doesn't mean the same thing at all as "anarchy is based on the belief that hierarchy doesn't exist, shouldn't exist, can't exist or doesn't necessarily have to exist."


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 27, 2011, 06:10:38 AM
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

by definition, anarchy is not based on hierarchy, existent or otherwise. It literally means "no hierarchy". Fail.



.........EXACTLY........ did you read the actual post?

Because there is no acknowledgment of human hierarchy is the reason why it is fantasy.

Then you need to learn how to write. What you apparently meant and what you wrote are not the same thing. "anarchy [is] based on...hierarchy." doesn't mean the same thing at all as
"anarchy is based on the belief that hierarchy doesn't exist, shouldn't exist, can't exist or doesn't necessarily have to exist."

Can you please clarify? I'm genuinely interested your point about how I wrote it.

I wrote  "anarchy [is] based on... [non-existent] hierarchy." ? That is incorrect?
And you acknowledge that what I'm trying to say is: "anarchy is based on the belief that hierarchy doesn't exist, shouldn't exist, can't exist or doesn't necessarily have to exist." ?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 27, 2011, 06:12:30 AM
Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

Go back to school and learn to read.

Its very simple to understand the difference between what someone claims and what they really offer. I know you need to act all cocky and aggressive because of your insecurity, but if you drop the attitude you will understand it.

Go take it up with Wikipedia.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 27, 2011, 06:14:56 AM
You know what, you're right. I'll give up all my ways that don't conform to the rest of the universe.

I'll stop talking, nothing else talks.
I'll stop wearing clothes, nothing else wears clothes.
I'll stop living in a house. Nothing else does that either.
I'll stop thinking, we're the only species on the planet that does that.
I'm going to turn off my computer now and throw it away, since none of the rest of the universe uses tools.



Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: hugolp on June 27, 2011, 06:17:59 AM
Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

Go back to school and learn to read.

Its very simple to understand the difference between what someone claims and what they really offer. I know you need to act all cocky and aggressive because of your insecurity, but if you drop the attitude you will understand it.

Go take it up with Wikipedia.

I think this answer says everything people need to know about you.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 27, 2011, 06:22:22 AM
Not worth the key-strokes.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: billyjoeallen on June 27, 2011, 06:36:29 AM
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

by definition, anarchy is not based on hierarchy, existent or otherwise. It literally means "no hierarchy". Fail.



.........EXACTLY........ did you read the actual post?

Because there is no acknowledgment of human hierarchy is the reason why it is fantasy.

Then you need to learn how to write. What you apparently meant and what you wrote are not the same thing. "anarchy [is] based on...hierarchy." doesn't mean the same thing at all as
"anarchy is based on the belief that hierarchy doesn't exist, shouldn't exist, can't exist or doesn't necessarily have to exist."

Can you please clarify? I'm genuinely interested your point about how I wrote it.

I wrote  "anarchy [is] based on... [non-existent] hierarchy." ? That is incorrect?
And you acknowledge that what I'm trying to say is: "anarchy is based on the belief that hierarchy doesn't exist, shouldn't exist, can't exist or doesn't necessarily have to exist." ?

Anarchy isn't based on hierarchy, extant or otherwise. Anarchy is based on certain BELIEFS concerning hierarchy.

As an anarchist, I acknowledge that hierarchy exists and can't be eliminated entirely. I seek to minimize it, particularly the hierarchy that allows force to prevail over reason, as I believe it to be generally harmful.  While I am opposed to monopoly governance, I acknowledge that rules are necessary and even desirable, provided they are good rules.  There are always trade-offs between freedom and security, but I default towards liberty.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 27, 2011, 06:43:42 AM
Not worth the key-strokes.

Heh. Your troll-fu is weak, son.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 27, 2011, 06:51:30 AM
You know what, you're right.

I'm grateful that I could help another understand the less obvious workings of the universe. I'm truly humbled.


Title: Economic Capacity, Coercive Capacity; The connection.
Post by: smellyBobby on June 27, 2011, 07:06:32 AM
Has anyone bothered to discuss this? IMO this is an essential topic.

What distinguishes one from the other?


[EDIT]

Why was this moved? This had its own thread.




Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: JA37 on June 27, 2011, 07:12:40 AM
I've noticed something similar.

AnCapist: The free market will solve everything.
Other: Well, we've had a very free market and it hasn't solved [issue].
AnCapist: That's because the market wasn't free enough. We've never had a free market.

Communist: Communism will solve everything.
Other: Well, it's been tried and it didn't solve [issue].
Communist: That's because we didn't go far enough. We never had real communism.



Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: hugolp on June 27, 2011, 07:15:25 AM
I've noticed something similar.

AnCapist: The free market will solve everything.
Other: Well, we've had a very free market and it hasn't solved [issue].
AnCapist: That's because the market wasn't free enough. We've never had a free market.

Communist: Communism will solve everything.
Other: Well, it's been tried and it didn't solve [issue].
Communist: That's because we didn't go far enough. We never had real communism.



Social-democrat: Social-democracy will help everybody.
Other: Then why does it always concentrate the wealth in a few hands and hurts the poor?
Social-democrat: Because this is not a real democracy. We need a real democracy.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: btcLeger on June 27, 2011, 08:15:27 AM
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.
Your view seems typical of an ignorant middle-class square. Of course there are rules in anarchy according to many classical and modern theories of anarchism. Also of course there can be hierarchies in anarchism. Anarchy means rather freedom from command, sovereignty, state and order than lawlessness. Despite the common definition of anarchy may come close to the last named term, politcal theories of anarchism focus on absence of repressive dominance. Hierarchy and authority exist in anarchism as a voluntary choice (instead of being enforced (e.g. by government)).

Although its hard to imagine anarchism to organize our complex modern society, our life is full of anarchistic relations. Partnership, friendship, self organized leisure with your clique, many small cooperatives usually are of anarchistic character. Furthermore some indigenous cultures organize their society anarchistically.

Dont blame anarchism for your failed knowledge about it.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: J180 on June 27, 2011, 09:35:27 AM
Could someone link to a source which explains the difference between communism and anarcho-communism?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: LokeRundt on June 27, 2011, 11:47:00 AM
http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=difference+between+communism+and+anarcho-communism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: royalecraig on June 27, 2011, 11:57:17 AM
Communism isn't about fairness, Communism has always been funded by the Banks, what they mean by redistribution is redistribution upwards into their vaults.
The Bankers funded the Communsuist in China and ther Soviet Union.



Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: J180 on June 27, 2011, 12:05:50 PM
http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=difference+between+communism+and+anarcho-communism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


I already have google, I was hoping for something more specifically recommended.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: em3rgentOrdr on June 27, 2011, 02:57:50 PM
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

Anarcho-Capitalism/Voluntaryism isn't necessarily opposed to hierarchy.  We are just opposed to coercive hierarchies.  Read any Rothbard?

Quote
Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to It and learn how to ride them.

In a sense, I am simply promoting an alternative method to control Justice Dragons.  Build up alternative non-taxable and non-regulatable markets, using tools such as bitcoins.  Learn to control Justice Dragons by forcing them to be subservient to the butte force of the unregulated free market. 


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: JA37 on June 27, 2011, 03:18:01 PM
Social-democrat: Social-democracy will help everybody.
Other: Then why does it always concentrate the wealth in a few hands and hurts the poor?
Social-democrat: Because this is not a real democracy. We need a real democracy.

Oddly enough I've never heard any social democrat say something like that. "Most fair distribution" or "Least unfair distribution" perhaps.

Several posters on this forum have repeatedly said that whenever a flaw in a free market was presented it was because the market wasn't free enough because of government interaction.
And I've spent lots of time with left wing youth to know every angle of "Communism will help everyone when we get REAL communism", which is an equal amount of BS as "the market will fix everything" imho.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: billyjoeallen on June 27, 2011, 04:08:09 PM
Social-democrat: Social-democracy will help everybody.
Other: Then why does it always concentrate the wealth in a few hands and hurts the poor?
Social-democrat: Because this is not a real democracy. We need a real democracy.

Oddly enough I've never heard any social democrat say something like that. "Most fair distribution" or "Least unfair distribution" perhaps.

They say things like that all the time; when they complain about the influence of money in politics, when they complain about representative vs. direct democracy, when they complain about judicial activism. This is of course unless the money, the activism or the representatives benefit them.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 05:25:27 AM
Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 28, 2011, 05:40:20 AM
Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

Anarchy (capitalist, anyway): Raise the price until someone sells;
Communism: bash people on the head until someone gives.

Yeah... all figured out.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 05:43:20 AM
Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.
Communism: bash people on the head until someone gives.

Psh, you are so idiotic. You make things seem worse than they actually are.  It isn't violence or force, it's just reminders that we are here for the common good.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 05:58:26 AM
Just another random thought.

A good teacher is one that can train a pupil to defeat the teacher in any particular discipline. Since the market is full of competitive selfish agents, then what incentive is there to create another agent that can defeat you? That seems like a contradiction to me.

Maybe the market can not solve all of societies needs.

The ideal teacher is someone seeking defeat. Seeking to make someone stronger than themselves. Such an agent can not survive in a free market.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 06:00:38 AM
Just another random thought.

A good teacher is one that can train a pupil to defeat the teacher in any particular discipline. Since the market is full of competitive selfish agents, then what incentive is there to create another agent that can defeat you? That seems like a contradiction to me.

Maybe the market can not solve all of societies needs.

The ideal teacher is someone seeking defeat. Seeking to make someone stronger than themselves. Such an agent can not survive in a free market.

You neglect the fact that not all market entities derive value from just the collection of the most monetary profit.

In addition, to say the market cannot solve all of societies needs is to say man is incapable of fulfilling all of his own desires.

Also, such agents exist in the free market. They easily do. They are called charities and people who just like to build.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 28, 2011, 06:06:18 AM

In addition, to say the market cannot solve all of societies needs is to say man is incapable of fulfilling all of his own desires.


+1


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 06:06:58 AM

You neglect the fact that not all market entities derive value from just the collection of the most monetary profit.

In addition, to say the market cannot solve all of societies needs is to say man is incapable of fulfilling all of his own desires.


Survival within the ideal free market is based upon the ability to create monetary profit. If an agent does not function this way then it will not survive.

And yes I do believe that there are instances that an individual can not solve their own desires. A baby can not. Someone less educated in a particular topic cannot. It is false to assume everyone is an oracle of knowledge, which is what you imply. You imply that the baby has all of the knowledge of the mother. Or the economist has all of the knowledge of the scientist. Therefore there is no need to force anyone else to correct their decision making.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 06:10:56 AM

You neglect the fact that not all market entities derive value from just the collection of the most monetary profit.

In addition, to say the market cannot solve all of societies needs is to say man is incapable of fulfilling all of his own desires.


Survival within the ideal free market is based upon the ability to create monetary profit. If an agent does not function this way then it will not survive.

And yes I do believe that there are instances that an individual can not solve their own desires. A baby can not. Someone less educated in a particular topic cannot. It is false to assume everyone is an oracle of knowledge, which is what you imply. You imply that the baby has all of the knowledge of the mother. Or the economist has all of the knowledge of the scientist. Therefore there is no need to force anyone else to correct their decision making.

I don't know what reality you live in. Profit is not defined by money alone. It is defined by value and it can be expressed and possessed in various ways.

A baby, an animal or any other organism that cannot sustain itself entirely is not truly an individual. It's a very dependent symbiote and in a lot of cases, a parasite.  


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 06:21:56 AM

Profit is not defined by money alone. It is defined by value and it can be expressed and possessed in various ways.


If you generalize the meaning of "value" beyond monetary then your no longer talking about the free-market.

By allowing other types of value, then the meaning of "free market" is meaningless. We may as-well talk about the normal coercive world. If your going to generalize the meaning then I could incorporate things like "coercive force" value, etc.

The notion of "free market" is a human construct with value strictly defined as "monetary". As monetary value is a relative value between all goods and services within an economy, it is meant to symbolize the relative importance. If you start to incorporate other values, like say love, coercive, etc. then the "free market" construct starts to loss meaning.

Therefore unless I have been wrongly educated my assertion still holds.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 06:24:05 AM

Profit is not defined by money alone. It is defined by value and it can be expressed and possessed in various ways.

The notion of "free market" is a human construct with value strictly defined as "monetary".
You have been terribly wronged --  by whomever taught you this.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 06:26:41 AM
In a free market, people should be able to produce in exchange for whatever form of value they may derive. Whether it be from the pleasure of helping another, building something grand or discovering our world.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: em3rgentOrdr on June 28, 2011, 06:37:27 AM

Profit is not defined by money alone. It is defined by value and it can be expressed and possessed in various ways.

The notion of "free market" is a human construct with value strictly defined as "monetary".
You have been terribly wrong -- whomever taught you this.

Haha!!!  While I personally consider the set of all voluntary human interactions to be the market, I am aware of the smellyBobby type who has a kneejerk reaction to the term because they word associatte with nasty things like exploitation, theft, coercion, hierarchy, bossism, Republicans, etc.  Which is why I just call myself a Voluntaryist instead.  :)


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 06:38:31 AM
So there is something other than the pricing mechanism?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 06:42:08 AM
So there is something other than the pricing mechanism?
Yes, unless you're a shallow bean counter with no human empathy.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: em3rgentOrdr on June 28, 2011, 06:42:39 AM
So there is something other than the pricing mechanism?

Trade or any other exchange between humans doesn't necessarily have to be denominated in some numerical amount of currency, don’t cha know?...


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 06:46:41 AM
Empathy -> Charity.

How many charities do you think would survive in the "free market" ?  We are going to live in a donation economy?

Charity != Business.

Two different constructs to serve two different purposes.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 06:51:44 AM
Empathy -> Charity.

How many charities do you think would survive in the "free market" ?  We are going to live in a donation economy?
They would thrive. People derive a lot of value from helping their fellow man. Free markets are about serving desires and they do not exclude charitable ones.

Also, BitTalk.TV is becoming pretty viable from donations alone.

Charities are businesses by the way. A business is all about giving value (not just monetary) to its supporters.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 07:05:27 AM

They would thrive. People derive a lot of value from helping their fellow man. Free markets are about serving desires and they do not exclude charitable ones.


I guess that is where we fundamentally disagree.  I also think that people derive value from helping there fellow man. They won't care enough for charities to make a meaningful impact. They won't care enough for teachers to educate others to the same extent I outlined prior. (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=23047.msg295535#msg295535) How many people would teach someone else to replace them at their current job?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 07:13:16 AM

They would thrive. People derive a lot of value from helping their fellow man. Free markets are about serving desires and they do not exclude charitable ones.


I guess that is where we fundamentally disagree.  I also think that people derive value from helping there fellow man. They won't care enough for charities to make a meaningful impact. They won't care enough for teachers to educate others to the same extent I outlined prior. (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=23047.msg295535#msg295535) How many people would teach someone else to replace them at their current job?

Charity hospitals thrived prior to the 1920s in the United States. There's plenty of historical evidence that charities do in fact work and work better in voluntary societies. To address your teaching argument, look at wikipedia and all of this free information.

Plenty of people now and in the past have taken on apprentices. There's always a constant need for workers as our population expands. There's also an increasing need for innovation. In addition, jobs aren't scarce, when the economy isn't artificially limited. It's not a zero-sum game. Wealth can be created. It isn't limited by matter nor our current paradigm.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 07:35:38 AM
Also, there is something called marketing. Any charity worth its salt is going to make sure its cause is known.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 07:42:11 AM

Charity hospitals thrived prior to the 1920s in the United States. There's plenty of historical evidence that charities do in fact work and work better in voluntary societies. To address your teaching argument, look at wikipedia and all of this free information.

Plenty of people now and in the past have taken on apprentices. There's always a constant need for workers as our population expands. There's also an increasing need for innovation. In addition, jobs aren't scarce, when the economy isn't artificially limited. It's not a zero-sum game. Wealth can be created. It isn't limited by matter nor our current paradigm.

Never heard of these voluntary societies, sounds like communism.

Ya ok, I'll concede half a point on the wikipedia and other internet sources of info. But there is a difference between quality and quantity.  I mean all this free information has done is raised the baseline level of education, assuming you have access to the net and can read. But there is still a gap created by the mode of delivery. I.e Private schools are more likely to be able to better deliver the content than say a struggling public school.

But I disagree with your second statement( of course !). Once all entitlements to essential resources within an economy are delegated, then there is no mechanism to force sharing with new inhabitants. So employment is dictated by those who hold entitlements to essential resources. And sure people had apprentices, but their intention wasn't to have them become better than themselves. The apprentice usually had to perform menial tasks before being taught, therefore providing an economic incentive to teach an apprentice. Nonetheless there would have been instances when an apprentice was taught out of good heart, but I do not believe this would have been common.

Also technology, generally removes employment. Sure there is some forms of technology that increase employment, like say a water-slide with lifeguards, but that is a form of individual consumerism. There is no mandatory mechanism forcing anyone to use the pool. If you have a collapse in consumer confidence then they are out of the job. Only those working to distribute essential resources will retain their job.

Charity and Business a two different things.

Charity is an entity that exists to make a loss. If it is not making a loss then it is not a charity. A charity's goals and a business's goals are completely opposite. When given cash a charity has to weigh-up weather to "waste" the cash, or re-invest in the hope of increasing "market-share". A business on the other hand can invest the cash to create future profit, and use the cash to further increase market-share. A business can grow at an exponential rate, a charity can not due to it's mandate.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 07:56:40 AM

Ya ok, I'll concede half a point on the wikipedia and other internet sources of info. But there is a difference between quality and quantity.  I mean all this free information has done is raised the baseline level of education, assuming you have access to the net and can read. But there is still a gap created by the mode of delivery. I.e Private schools are more likely to be able to better deliver the content than say a struggling public school.
Well, yeah, because public schools have no incentive to provide excellent education. They can't fail since they have a huge leap over voluntary services in being funded by slavery (taxes). The slaves are going to want some return in their investment and will obviously prefer something they already paid for as opposed to paying for another service that might be superior.

But I disagree with your second statement( of course !). Once all entitlements to essential resources within an economy are delegated, then there is no mechanism to force sharing with new inhabitants. So employment is dictated by those who hold entitlements to essential resources. And sure people had apprentices, but their intention wasn't to have them become better than themselves. The apprentice usually had to perform menial tasks before being taught, therefore providing an economic incentive to teach an apprentice. Nonetheless there would have been instances when an apprentice was taught out of good heart, but I do not believe this would have been common.
Resources with an economy are never delegated permanently. Entities will fail. Inhabitants will want better services. Employment is dictated by the services that offer the most value for their employees. Apprentices surely can stumble upon knowledge and become just as great as their teachers. How do you think man has advanced over the centuries?

Also technology, generally removes employment. Sure there is some forms of technology that increase employment, like say a water-slide with lifeguards, but that is a form of individual consumerism. There is no mandatory mechanism forcing anyone to use the pool. If you have a collapse in consumer confidence then they are out of the job. Only those working to distribute essential resources will retain their job.
Uh, no it doesn't. It actually opens up for more skilled labor and increases the demand for higher education. It benefits everybody. If there is collapse in consumer confidence, there's an opportunity open in the industry for more exciting and safer products in said industry.

Those who provide value to people will always have a job.

Charity and Business a two different things.

Charity is an entity that exists to make a loss. If it is not making a loss then it is not a charity. A charity's goals and a business's goals are completely opposite. When given cash a charity has to weigh-up weather to "waste" the cash, or re-invest in the hope of increasing "market-share". A business on the other hand can invest the cash to create future profit, and use the cash to further increase market-share. A business can grow at an exponential rate, a charity can not due to it's mandate.

No, no charity operates at a loss. It derives value from accomplishing its cause. Profit for a charity is helping people. It's a very selfish business just like monetary ones.

A charity can grow as long as it meets the needs of it supporters by accomplishing its objectives. It's not all about money.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on June 28, 2011, 08:11:10 AM
I was going to post in this topic, then I read what Atlas posted and I didn't need to post anymore.  +1



Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 08:17:42 AM
What about Nordic public schools? They have no incentive, except from the electorate. They seem to be doing alright.

When an entity fails the entitlements will go to someone else who already has entitlements to essential resources, they will trade essential resource for non/essential or essential resources. Therefore the subset of the population that was initially allocated the essential resources will retain the essential resources.

[Edit]
Of course I have simplified, the scenario. And there is obvious cases where there are gifted individuals who do not hold rights to essential resources, yet sell something in exchange for essential resources. The subset who hold the rights to essential resources are not forced to give up their rights. So if someone is not imaginitive enough, to produce something that the "essential right holders" want, then how do they get essential resources?

Your assuming that the new technology actually needs people. Look at the outcomes from the industrial revolution. The technology your talking about is based on the demand from individual consumerism. Any technology that makes it easier to acquire new resources, reduces the need for people.

If there is a collapse in consumer confidence, that means people will be out of work and less likely to spend.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 08:28:24 AM
What about Nordic public schools? They have no incentive, except from the electorate. They seem to be doing alright.
They would do much better if they had to be in line with what its customers wanted, which is only possible in a free environment with actual choice.

When an entity fails the entitlements will go to someone else who already has entitlements to essential resources, they will trade essential resource for non/essential or essential resources. Therefore the subset of the population that was initially allocated the essential resources will retain the essential resources.
I really don't understand the word "entitlement". Nobody is entitled anything except the owners of said property. The property will go back to the supporters of said business that are owed. The original supporters will try to make back their loss in either restarting the failed venture or investing in one that is succeeding.

Your assuming that the new technology actually needs people. Look at the outcomes from the industrial revolution. The technology your talking about is based on the demand from individual consumerism. Any technology that makes it easier to acquire new resources, reduces the need for people.
Technology isn't self-sustaining. Somebody has to maintain it. Any technology that makes it easier to acquire new resources is the wealth creation I am talking about. It makes everyone more happy and goods cheaper. It opens up more innovation and more opportunity for those people in the end.

Regardless, if technology was self-sustaining,  we would be living in LightRider world with no scarcity. We wouldn't be arguing because we would all have our needs met by machine slaves. ; )

If there is a collapse in consumer confidence, that means people will be out of work and less likely to spend.
Wide scale insecurity only happens when jobs and innovation are limited. If viable investments are abundant, with no limits, there are no issues.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 08:37:24 AM

I really don't understand the word "entitlement". Nobody is entitled anything except the owners of said property. The property will go back to the supporters of said business that are owed. The original supporters will try to make back their loss in either restarting the failed venture or investing in one that is succeeding.


I'm asking the same question I asked here:

Quote from: smellyBobby
Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 08:40:10 AM

I really don't understand the word "entitlement". Nobody is entitled anything except the owners of said property. The property will go back to the supporters of said business that are owed. The original supporters will try to make back their loss in either restarting the failed venture or investing in one that is succeeding.


I'm asking the same question I asked here:

Quote from: smellyBobby
Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

It's a non-question. People naturally trade and are always willing. Everyone perishes without trade.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 09:00:22 AM

I really don't understand the word "entitlement". Nobody is entitled anything except the owners of said property. The property will go back to the supporters of said business that are owed. The original supporters will try to make back their loss in either restarting the failed venture or investing in one that is succeeding.


I'm asking the same question I asked here:

Quote from: smellyBobby
Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

It's a non-question. People naturally trade and are always willing. Everyone perishes without trade.


I hope you realize what you imply. People have not always traded essential resources for non-essential. The Great-Depression and Industrial Revolution shows this. Big Business today understands what will happen if they don't trade essential resources for non-essential. That is what they use individual-consumerism for, it has allowed them to retain entitlements over essential resources. While the masses run around the consumerism merry-go round.

And anarchism doesn't even acknowledge this. I have never heard the clause stating: Under circumstances, where the 5 people will not share with the 6th, the 6th can use his gun to get what he needs. Therefore violating the property rights of the other 5. Unless I'm wrong your expecting that people under anarchy will not commit the same mistakes back in the Great-Depression and Industrial Revolution.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: billyjoeallen on June 28, 2011, 09:02:05 AM

I really don't understand the word "entitlement". Nobody is entitled anything except the owners of said property. The property will go back to the supporters of said business that are owed. The original supporters will try to make back their loss in either restarting the failed venture or investing in one that is succeeding.


I'm asking the same question I asked here:

Quote from: smellyBobby
Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

On such an island, there would always be a high demand for labor. 5 people would be competing for that labor and willing to trade resources for it. This is so difficult for you to figure out? Did you go to public school?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 09:03:39 AM
billyjoeallen, thank you for raising my IQ by a point or so.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 09:05:01 AM
On such an island, there would always be a high demand for labor.

Include a point to support your own perspective, therefore missing the whole point of the hypothetical. Did you go to school at all?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: billyjoeallen on June 28, 2011, 09:18:28 AM
On such an island, there would always be a high demand for labor.

Include a point to support your own perspective, therefore missing the whole point of the hypothetical. Did you go to school at all?

Are you disputing the point? Is it an unreasonable assumption? The whole point of the hypothetical was apparently to argue that huts, fishing equipment, firewood and clothing just magically appear, that coconuts gather themselves, fish jump into frying pans, and Unicorns poop skittles, thereby obviating the need to work. Such a hypothetical is useful for rationalizing a flawed ideology, but not for much else. It is entertaining, though.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: billyjoeallen on June 28, 2011, 09:21:30 AM
billyjoeallen, thank you for raising my IQ by a point or so.

Bitcoins accepted at the address in my sig.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: btcLeger on June 28, 2011, 09:28:16 AM
Never heard of these voluntary societies, sounds like communism.
App. half of the work that needs to be done for a society to 'survive' is voluntary in the modern western world.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 09:45:33 AM
On such an island, there would always be a high demand for labor.

Include a point to support your own perspective, therefore missing the whole point of the hypothetical. Did you go to school at all?

Are you disputing the point? Is it an unreasonable assumption? The whole point of the hypothetical was apparently to argue that huts, fishing equipment, firewood and clothing just magically appear, that coconuts gather themselves, fish jump into frying pans, and Unicorns poop skittles, thereby obviating the need to work. Such a hypothetical is useful for rationalizing a flawed ideology, but not for much else. It is entertaining, though.

Okay I could have made it clearer. All essential resources have been split-up. The 5 people harvest the produce and trade between themselves. They are all shrewd dealers and will not give something for nothing. How is the 6th person has nothing to offer, how are they suppose to get non-essential resources?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: billyjoeallen on June 28, 2011, 10:03:05 AM
On such an island, there would always be a high demand for labor.

Include a point to support your own perspective, therefore missing the whole point of the hypothetical. Did you go to school at all?

Are you disputing the point? Is it an unreasonable assumption? The whole point of the hypothetical was apparently to argue that huts, fishing equipment, firewood and clothing just magically appear, that coconuts gather themselves, fish jump into frying pans, and Unicorns poop skittles, thereby obviating the need to work. Such a hypothetical is useful for rationalizing a flawed ideology, but not for much else. It is entertaining, though.

Okay I could have made it clearer. All essential resources have been split-up. The 5 people harvest the produce and trade between themselves. They are all shrewd dealers and will not give something for nothing. How is the 6th person has nothing to offer, how are they suppose to get non-essential resources?

If the person truly has nothing to offer, then he will need charity. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he has nothing to offer, but what the hell-it's your hypothetical scenario.
So let's assume nothing to offer.  You apparently want the charity to be provided by those who want to give it and those who don't rather than just those who are willing.  For this to work, you would have to also assume that the energy required to force wealth redistribution from the uncharitable is less than the energy extracted.   


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 28, 2011, 10:08:44 AM

If the person truly has nothing to offer, then he will need charity. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he has nothing to offer, but what the hell-it's your hypothetical scenario.
So let's assume nothing to offer.  You apparently want the charity to be provided by those who want to give it and those who don't rather than just those who are willing.  For this to work, you would have to also assume that the energy required to force wealth redistribution from the uncharitable is less than the energy extracted.   


Yea exactly, my question is to anarchists, is this possible?

I can take it further, will it be a fair trade? Those 5 are the ones with power. They dictate the terms of the contract.

Communism can deal with this situation, but to my understanding anarchy can't.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: btcLeger on June 28, 2011, 10:35:18 AM
Communism can deal with this situation, but to my understanding anarchy can't.
How can communism deal with this situation?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: billyjoeallen on June 28, 2011, 12:34:02 PM

If the person truly has nothing to offer, then he will need charity. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he has nothing to offer, but what the hell-it's your hypothetical scenario.
So let's assume nothing to offer.  You apparently want the charity to be provided by those who want to give it and those who don't rather than just those who are willing.  For this to work, you would have to also assume that the energy required to force wealth redistribution from the uncharitable is less than the energy extracted.   


Yea exactly, my question is to anarchists, is this possible?

I can take it further, will it be a fair trade? Those 5 are the ones with power. They dictate the terms of the contract.

Communism can deal with this situation, but to my understanding anarchy can't.

There's nothing in anarchy that prevents voluntary charity.

Is not the issue the welfare of the newcomer? If there exists enough good will from tha majority to force the stingy to share resources, then there should also be enough good will to provide for the newcomer without using force. The issue isn't the newcomer at all, is it? You don't think you should have to share unless everybody else does also. The problem with that is that we all have different ideas of what is "fair".  The richest person claims we should all donate 10 clams each, the guy in the middle thinks we should each give the same percentage of clams and the poor guy thinks it should be on a graduated scale. 


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: NghtRppr on June 28, 2011, 01:34:24 PM
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

This is despite on all scales and across all times of the universe there is hierarchy. From the structure of the atom, to the evolution of life, the way networks process traffic, the existence of solar systems, the fractal structure of weather systems and galaxy super-clusters there is a hierarchy where something is apart of the whole. Your telling me that somehow we humans, us mere little people are so special that we are above this rule.

That there is something so magnificent, so amazing about us that the system you propose will somehow just completely disregard this fundamental law of the universe. Your telling me that despite the recent human hierarchies, the hierarchies of our primate cousins and all other lifeforms that we are so so so special, that we are god-like and do not belong in this category.

We are gods and that we are above the rest of the universe and we are capable of creating a system that does not obey the universe. So when you say that this new Society is great, because we will be all “fundamentally equal, there will not be a hierarchy”, remember to wipe your mouth with toilet paper once you’ve finished speaking. Because what you just said is the abstract logical equivalent of what I hear at church. That your system is above the mechanics of the universe and that's why it will work. 

This why I don't bother reading about such fantasies.

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to it and learn how to ride them.

You've confused anarchism with egalitarianism.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2011, 03:13:04 PM
Hippy Anarchy tends to be very egalitarian.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 28, 2011, 04:20:56 PM

If the person truly has nothing to offer, then he will need charity. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he has nothing to offer, but what the hell-it's your hypothetical scenario.
So let's assume nothing to offer.  You apparently want the charity to be provided by those who want to give it and those who don't rather than just those who are willing.  For this to work, you would have to also assume that the energy required to force wealth redistribution from the uncharitable is less than the energy extracted.   


Yea exactly, my question is to anarchists, is this possible?

Flatly, No. It is not possible that someone has nothing to offer, unless that person is a quadriplegic simpleton. Labor is always in demand, and one can always trade a little sweat of the brow for a chunk of the pie.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: LokeRundt on June 28, 2011, 09:43:47 PM
whoops, my bad


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 29, 2011, 12:42:39 AM

If the person truly has nothing to offer, then he will need charity. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he has nothing to offer, but what the hell-it's your hypothetical scenario.
So let's assume nothing to offer.  You apparently want the charity to be provided by those who want to give it and those who don't rather than just those who are willing.  For this to work, you would have to also assume that the energy required to force wealth redistribution from the uncharitable is less than the energy extracted.   


Yea exactly, my question is to anarchists, is this possible?

Flatly, No. It is not possible that someone has nothing to offer, unless that person is a quadriplegic simpleton. Labor is always in demand, and one can always trade a little sweat of the brow for a chunk of the pie.

So what is stopping the five in control of essential resources from dictating the terms of employment? It seems little different from America's current situation.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 01:10:13 AM
Pure and simple greed. each one wants his labor, and the desire for it will drive the price down until it's accepted.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 29, 2011, 01:21:02 AM
What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 01:24:53 AM
What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?

Ever read lord of the flies?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 29, 2011, 01:30:14 AM
Nope, but please show how it is relevant.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 01:31:55 AM
Read it, and you'll know why it's relevant.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: qbg on June 29, 2011, 01:47:59 AM
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

This is despite on all scales and across all times of the universe there is hierarchy. From the structure of the atom, to the evolution of life, the way networks process traffic, the existence of solar systems, the fractal structure of weather systems and galaxy super-clusters there is a hierarchy where something is apart of the whole. Your telling me that somehow we humans, us mere little people are so special that we are above this rule.

That there is something so magnificent, so amazing about us that the system you propose will somehow just completely disregard this fundamental law of the universe. Your telling me that despite the recent human hierarchies, the hierarchies of our primate cousins and all other lifeforms that we are so so so special, that we are god-like and do not belong in this category.

We are gods and that we are above the rest of the universe and we are capable of creating a system that does not obey the universe. So when you say that this new Society is great, because we will be all “fundamentally equal, there will not be a hierarchy”, remember to wipe your mouth with toilet paper once you’ve finished speaking. Because what you just said is the abstract logical equivalent of what I hear at church. That your system is above the mechanics of the universe and that's why it will work. 

This why I don't bother reading about such fantasies.

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to it and learn how to ride them.
(Socialist) anarchists do not oppose hierarchical structure, but rather coercive power relationships.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 29, 2011, 01:52:43 AM
Quote from: myrkul


Ever read lord of the flies?


I respectfully decline.

Maybe there is someone else who can articulate why this fiction novel will solve this scenario?



Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 29, 2011, 01:54:41 AM
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

This is despite on all scales and across all times of the universe there is hierarchy. From the structure of the atom, to the evolution of life, the way networks process traffic, the existence of solar systems, the fractal structure of weather systems and galaxy super-clusters there is a hierarchy where something is apart of the whole. Your telling me that somehow we humans, us mere little people are so special that we are above this rule.

That there is something so magnificent, so amazing about us that the system you propose will somehow just completely disregard this fundamental law of the universe. Your telling me that despite the recent human hierarchies, the hierarchies of our primate cousins and all other lifeforms that we are so so so special, that we are god-like and do not belong in this category.

We are gods and that we are above the rest of the universe and we are capable of creating a system that does not obey the universe. So when you say that this new Society is great, because we will be all “fundamentally equal, there will not be a hierarchy”, remember to wipe your mouth with toilet paper once you’ve finished speaking. Because what you just said is the abstract logical equivalent of what I hear at church. That your system is above the mechanics of the universe and that's why it will work. 

This why I don't bother reading about such fantasies.

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to it and learn how to ride them.
(Socialist) anarchists do not oppose hierarchical structure, but rather coercive power relationships.


This sounds interesting, this flavor in my mind may actually work! So who decides what is a coercive power relationship? My initial impression is that this is something like decentralized socialism.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: qbg on June 29, 2011, 02:54:06 AM
In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

This is despite on all scales and across all times of the universe there is hierarchy. From the structure of the atom, to the evolution of life, the way networks process traffic, the existence of solar systems, the fractal structure of weather systems and galaxy super-clusters there is a hierarchy where something is apart of the whole. Your telling me that somehow we humans, us mere little people are so special that we are above this rule.

That there is something so magnificent, so amazing about us that the system you propose will somehow just completely disregard this fundamental law of the universe. Your telling me that despite the recent human hierarchies, the hierarchies of our primate cousins and all other lifeforms that we are so so so special, that we are god-like and do not belong in this category.

We are gods and that we are above the rest of the universe and we are capable of creating a system that does not obey the universe. So when you say that this new Society is great, because we will be all “fundamentally equal, there will not be a hierarchy”, remember to wipe your mouth with toilet paper once you’ve finished speaking. Because what you just said is the abstract logical equivalent of what I hear at church. That your system is above the mechanics of the universe and that's why it will work. 

This why I don't bother reading about such fantasies.

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to it and learn how to ride them.
(Socialist) anarchists do not oppose hierarchical structure, but rather coercive power relationships.
This sounds interesting, this flavor in my mind may actually work! So who decides what is a coercive power relationship? My initial impression is that this is something like decentralized socialism.
To get a flavor of a body of thinking in this area, you can check out An Anarchist FAQ (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html). Sections B, C, and F may be useful for understanding the nature of the coercive power relationships they focus on.

One piece of advice regarding the above: Take the use of "capitalism" in the above with a grain of salt (in particular, section F). Self-described anacaps can/usually do mean something different by "capitalism" than most socialist-anarchists do. Mutualism (free-market anti-capitalism) is a form of socialist-anarchism, and describes an economic system that is largely compatible with what anacaps usually envision.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 02:59:23 AM
Quote from: myrkul
Ever read lord of the flies?
I respectfully decline.

No, seriously. Not only will that help you see how your island scenario is flawed, when you get assigned the book in 8th grade, you'll have already read it!


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 29, 2011, 03:16:47 AM
Quote from: myrkul
Ever read lord of the flies?
I respectfully decline.

No, seriously. Not only will that help you see how your island scenario is flawed, when you get assigned the book in 8th grade, you'll have already read it!


Oh but I am steadfast in my disapproval at such a request.

I find that it would be an unfair waste of my time to read a fiction book to understand the cornerstone of the society you advocate for. Especially given that I have presented a very simple island scenario with only 5 people and a stranger, yet somehow you are unable to communicate the essence of this fiction book to highlight the flaws in my scenario.

I must reiterate my request; is there anyone who can convey the essence of this fiction book and help express myrkul's point?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 03:33:04 AM
Quote from: myrkul
Ever read lord of the flies?
I respectfully decline.

No, seriously. Not only will that help you see how your island scenario is flawed, when you get assigned the book in 8th grade, you'll have already read it!
Oh but I am steadfast in my disapproval at such a request.

Since you seem unable to even google the book, It illustrates what happens on an island when society breaks down. Which it would rapidly do as soon as one group of people attacked another.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 29, 2011, 03:47:03 AM

I fail to understand how this is relevant. As you say Lord of the Flies is about how a group of school boys on an island. Everything falls apart, right? How does that support your perspective? If anything it shows that these "children" needed a state to govern them.

Are you assuming everyone knows this in the island scenario therefore they will not take the path of the school boys?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 03:54:03 AM

I fail to understand how this is relevant. As you say Lord of the Flies is about how a group of school boys on an island. Everything falls apart, right? How does that support your perspective? If anything it shows that these "children" needed a state to govern them.

Are you assuming everyone knows this in the island scenario therefore they will not take the path of the school boys?

No, Oppenheimer, You asked 'then what?'. That was my answer.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 29, 2011, 04:08:01 AM

The 5 collude according to the rules below:

Quote from: smellyBobby
What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?

Okay, so your saying that if the 5 people were anarchists(not the socialist flavor), and they collude according to above then there is nothing stopping the 5 from exploiting the stranger ?



Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 04:13:19 AM
Okay, so your saying that if the 5 people were anarchists(not the socialist flavor), and they collude according to above then there is nothing stopping the 5 from exploiting the stranger ?



No, You're saying they're colluding. I'm saying they won't.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 29, 2011, 04:19:11 AM
This scenario will never occur? The people with essential resources would never use their power to create a new age of slavery in non-socialist anarchy? And this presumption is a cornerstone of non-socialist anarchy?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 04:29:30 AM
This scenario will never occur? The people with essential resources would never use their power to create a new age of slavery in non-socialist anarchy? And this is a cornerstone of non-socialist anarchy?

We rely on basic human greed to ensure that at least one will always undercut the others, and the NAP to ensure that the others don't beat him up for it. That's a distinct oversimplification, but, there it is.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 29, 2011, 04:48:39 AM

May I confirm how you negate my scenerio.

In the island scenario there are 5 people who hold the entitlements to all essential resources. They harvest the resources themselves, they are shrewd traders therefore they give nothing for free. They trade in between themselves for essential resources each needs.

A stranger comes to the island. He has nothing to offer, in the form of labor and essential resources. Now five collude as I have previously said, agreeing not to bid below the reserve for the strangers labor. However driven by greed one does and secures the employment of the stranger, because they all obey the non-aggression principle therefore the 5th does not have to fear retribution from the other 4. Due to increased capacity the 5th and the stranger are able to collect their essential resources at a higher rate, therefore they can drop the price of their essential resource and trade with the other 4 for the essential resources they have, helping to break the trading ban outlined earlier.

So what exactly obligates the four to obey the non-aggression principle? Or do we just assume that all citizens are perfect non-socialist anarchists ?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 05:06:30 AM
So what exactly obligates the four to obey the non-aggression principle? Or do we just assume that all citizens are perfect non-socialist anarchists ?

It's your island. But, Since we're all playing on it, there's nothing 'obligating' them to follow the NAP, but they all know that if they don't, somebody's going to get hurt, and it might be them. If they're intelligent, they might reason out that less competition is going to mean either more work for them, or higher prices.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: btcLeger on June 29, 2011, 07:26:07 AM
What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?
This wouldnt be an anarchistic society. Sounds more like despotism. So your scenario is irrelevant.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 07:28:48 AM
So your scenario is irrelevant.

You know that. I know that. It's very likely he knows that. That doesn't mean he cares.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 29, 2011, 07:47:14 AM
What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?
This wouldnt be an anarchistic society. Sounds more like despotism. So your scenario is irrelevant.

So what exactly is stopping the non-socialist anarchy from becoming despotism?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on June 29, 2011, 08:13:59 AM
What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?
This wouldnt be an anarchistic society. Sounds more like despotism. So your scenario is irrelevant.

So what exactly is stopping the non-socialist anarchy from becoming despotism?

One of the most common responses I get when I talk to people about anarchy is: "In an anarchy what would stop me from punching you in the face/hitting you on the head with a shovel?"

I usually look them in the eyes and say "try it", because that question pisses me off. The better answer though, is "what is stopping you now?".  Most people assume it's the statues and "laws" passed by the government, but I believe that to be far undervaluing the affect of social mores, norms and pressures which I think have a bigger effect on people's behaviors. 


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: btcLeger on June 29, 2011, 08:26:39 AM
So what exactly is stopping the non-socialist anarchy from becoming despotism?
If a majority of 80% want to switch over to another form of society (like in your example), it makes no difference if they were anarchistic, communist, democratic or whatever. I doubt anything could stop that.

Anyway, why should 20% of people force the other 80% to follow their will? What does this have to do with anarchism?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 08:31:18 AM
I never fail to find something relevant by hitting up XKCD.

http://xkcd.com/706/


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on June 29, 2011, 08:35:00 AM
I never fail to find something relevant by hitting up XKCD.

http://xkcd.com/706/

Ha ha, nice. Perhaps that's what I should do next time?

"But in an anarchy what--"

WHAM

"Well, what stopped me in the current society?"

Lol


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 08:41:35 AM
I never fail to find something relevant by hitting up XKCD.

http://xkcd.com/706/

Ha ha, nice. Perhaps that's what I should do next time?

"But in an anarchy what--"

WHAM

"Well, what stopped me in the current society?"

Lol

Exactly. I've been making that point pretty much every time I turn around.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: JA37 on June 29, 2011, 08:57:37 AM
We rely on basic human greed to ensure that at least one will always undercut the others, and the NAP to ensure that the others don't beat him up for it. That's a distinct oversimplification, but, there it is.

But if that doesn't happen today, why would it happen in an AnCap society? Oligopolys are broken up regularly.
It seems that basic human greed is what creates an oligopoly, not breaks up one.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 09:01:36 AM
We rely on basic human greed to ensure that at least one will always undercut the others, and the NAP to ensure that the others don't beat him up for it. That's a distinct oversimplification, but, there it is.

But if that doesn't happen today, why would it happen in an AnCap society? Oligopolys are broken up regularly.
It seems that basic human greed is what creates an oligopoly, not breaks up one.

Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: JA37 on June 29, 2011, 09:20:05 AM
Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on June 29, 2011, 09:27:14 AM
Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.


I don't understand. Are you saying something exists....outside of the Internet?! Lies.

P.S. What is this..."window"?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 09:35:08 AM
Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.


I have occasionally visited this "outside" you speak of. And I found that most oligarchies that got broke up were replaced by monopolies. It's funny, really. If they'd just left it alone, when the profit margin got high enough, someone would have stepped in and made a good profit breaking up that cartel. Instead, they made a monopoly, and regulated the heck out of it, to keep any competition from coming in.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: JA37 on June 29, 2011, 06:29:56 PM
I have occasionally visited this "outside" you speak of. And I found that most oligarchies that got broke up were replaced by monopolies. It's funny, really. If they'd just left it alone, when the profit margin got high enough, someone would have stepped in and made a good profit breaking up that cartel. Instead, they made a monopoly, and regulated the heck out of it, to keep any competition from coming in.

THEY made a monopoly? How do you make a monopoly by fining the companies who broke the law, put those responsible behind bars and tell everyone to follow the rules? That's how we handle oligopolies where I come from. How do you do it? Companies can still continue to operate, just within the rules.
Perhaps you just have a crappy government that needs to be replaced? Start campaigning.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: AyeYo on June 29, 2011, 06:52:44 PM
Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.


I have occasionally visited this "outside" you speak of. And I found that most oligarchies that got broke up were replaced by monopolies.


Citation needed.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: J180 on June 29, 2011, 06:55:05 PM

THEY made a monopoly? How do you make a monopoly by fining the companies who broke the law, put those responsible behind bars and tell everyone to follow the rules? That's how we handle oligopolies where I come from. How do you do it? Companies can still continue to operate, just within the rules.
Perhaps you just have a crappy government that needs to be replaced? Start campaigning.

Because once you set those laws up, businesses often lobby to change them to their favor. Here's a chunk of text from Machinery of Freedom (http://"http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf"):

Quote

   The difficulties facing private cartels are nicely stated in Rockefeller's description, cited by McGee, of an unsuccessful
   attempt (in 1872) to control the production of crude oil and to drive up its price:

                     . . . the high price for the crude oil resulted, as it had always done before and will always do so long as oil
                     comes out of the ground, in increasing the production, and they got too much oil. We could not find a market
                     for it.

                     ... of course, any who were not in this association were undertaking to produce all they possibly could; and as to
                     those who were in the association, many of them men of honor and high standing, the temptation was very great
                     to get a little more oil than they had promised their associates or us would come. It seemed very difficult to
                     prevent the oil coming at that price ....

   Rockefeller's prediction was overly pessimistic. Today, although oil still comes out of the ground, federal and state
   governments have succeeded where the oil producers of 1872 failed. Through federal oil import quotas and state
   restrictions on production, they keep the price of oil high and the production low. Progress.

   It is widely believed that railroads in the late nineteenth century wielded almost unlimited monopoly power. Actually,
   as Kolko shows, long distance transportation was highly competitive, freight rates were declining, and the number of
   railroads was increasing until after the turn of the century. One line might have a monopoly for short distances along
   its route, but a shipper operating between two major cities had a choice of many alternative routes—twenty existed
   between St. Louis and Atlanta, for instance. Railroad rebates, frequently cited as evidence of monopoly, were actually
   the opposite; they were discounts that major shippers were able to get from one railroad by threatening to ship via a
   competitor.

   Rail executives often got together to try to fix rates, but most of these conspiracies broke down, often in a few months,
   for the reasons Rockefeller cites in his analysis of the attempt to control crude oil production. Either the parties to the
   agreement surreptitiously cut rates (often by misclassifying freight or by offering secret rebates) in order to steal
   customers from each other, or some outside railroad took advantage of the high rates and moved in. J. P. Morgan
   committed his enormous resources of money and reputation to cartelizing the industry, but he met with almost
   unmitigated failure. In the beginning of 1889, for example, he formed the Interstate Commerce Railway Association to
   control rates among the western railroads. By March a rate war was going, and by June the situation was back to where
   it had been before he intervened.

   By this time a new factor was entering the situation. In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Commission was created by the
   federal government with (contrary to most history books) the support of much of the railroad industry. The ICC's
   original powers were limited; Morgan attempted to use it to help enforce the 1889 agreement, but without success.

   During the next 31 years its powers were steadily increased, first in the direction of allowing it to prohibit rebates
   (which, Kolko estimates, were costing the railroads 10 percent of their gross income) and finally by giving it the power
   to set rates.

   The people with the greatest interest in what the ICC did were the people in the rail industry. The result was that they
   dominated it, and it rapidly became an instrument for achieving the monopoly prices that they had been unable to get
   on the free market. The pattern was clear as early as 1889, when Aldace Walker, one of the original appointees to the
   ICC, resigned to become head of Morgan's Interstate Commerce Railway Association. He ended up as chairman of the
   board of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe. The ICC has served the railroads as a cartelizing agent up to the present
   day; in addition, it has expanded its authority to cover other forms of transportation and to prevent them, where
   possible, from undercutting the railroads.

He then goes on to describe the process even more effectively done with the Civil Aeronautics Administration.

It's from reading the occasion news article like this RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases (http://"http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-federal-judge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases.ars") which makes me believe the process is still common today.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 07:05:04 PM
Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.


I have occasionally visited this "outside" you speak of. And I found that most oligarchies that got broke up were replaced by monopolies.


Citation needed.
[1] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company)


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: AyeYo on June 29, 2011, 07:48:23 PM
Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.


I have occasionally visited this "outside" you speak of. And I found that most oligarchies that got broke up were replaced by monopolies.


Citation needed.
[1] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company)


So AT&T was broken up into a bunch of small companies.  Cool story, I just have a couple questions.


1. How does that prove your point?

2. You said "most" broken up are replaced by monopolies... yet you only give one example.  Where are all the others to prove this "most" statement?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 07:59:00 PM
So AT&T was broken up into a bunch of small companies.  Cool story, I just have a couple questions.


1. How does that prove your point?

2. You said "most" broken up are replaced by monopolies... yet you only give one example.  Where are all the others to prove this "most" statement?

1. A regional monopoly is still a monopoly.

2. Here. [2] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#History_of_anti-trust) It's full of "break up the big monopolies into little, regional monopolies"


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: AyeYo on June 29, 2011, 08:25:09 PM
So AT&T was broken up into a bunch of small companies.  Cool story, I just have a couple questions.


1. How does that prove your point?

2. You said "most" broken up are replaced by monopolies... yet you only give one example.  Where are all the others to prove this "most" statement?


1. A regional monopoly is still a monopoly.

Ah, back to the semantics game.  I guess the McDonald's down the street from me is a monopoly because it is the only dining establishment located on that 100'x100' piece of ground. ::)



2. Here. [2] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#History_of_anti-trust) It's full of "break up the big monopolies into little, regional monopolies"


LOL at little monopoly.  There's no such thing.  They're little because they're not monopolies.


You said MOST oligopolies (not monopolies) are broken up and become a monopoly instead.  You still have not proved this. Show me an OLIGOPOLY (that's a GROUP of companies) that got broken up and turned into ONE BIG monopoly company.



Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 08:36:36 PM
In order for me to prove anything to you, We'll need to share a language. And while all the words you use are English, I don't think we define most of them the same way.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: AyeYo on June 29, 2011, 08:47:06 PM
In order for me to prove anything to you, We'll need to share a language. And while all the words you use are English, I don't think we define most of them the same way.

Well of course, because you make them mean whatever you want them to mean to suit your current argument.

I use only the commonly accepted defintions which can easily be found in any English dictionary.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 08:59:17 PM
Quote
re·gion/ˈrējən/Noun
1. An area or division, esp. part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.
2. An administrative district of a city or country.

"100'x100'", huh?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: JA37 on June 29, 2011, 09:58:56 PM


Because once you set those laws up, businesses often lobby to change them to their favor. Here's a chunk of text from Machinery of Freedom (http://"http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf"):

'Wall-o-text'-deleted.

It's from reading the occasion news article like this RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases (http://"http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-federal-judge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases.ars") which makes me believe the process is still common today.

If it's that easy to change the rules you need a stronger government, not a weaker one. I don't understand your way of thinking. "The companies have a hard time following the rules, so let's just remove the rules". How does that help?

The second sentence is a good example of a bad practice, and something that shouldn't be allowed. I've expressed that view before, although perhaps not in this thread.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: AyeYo on June 29, 2011, 10:21:55 PM
Quote
re·gion/ˈrējən/Noun
1. An area or division, esp. part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.
2. An administrative district of a city or country.

"100'x100'", huh?

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for your statement that oligopolies are turned into a monopoly through government break up.

I'm not going to let you skip out on this one.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 29, 2011, 11:16:22 PM
I'm not going to let you skip out on this one.

'let me' ... you're funny.

As it happens, I couldn't find any oligopolies that were broken up at all. The closest I could come is Standard Oil (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Standard_oil), which wasn't even a monopoly, really. So, I retract my previous statement, and replace it with this one: The government is completely inept at breaking up oligopolies.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on June 30, 2011, 12:20:22 AM
I think the Federal Reserve may be an example of the government "breaking up" an oligopoly and replacing it with a monopoly.  The Federal Reserve Act was written by a bunch of bankers to give themselves a monopoly on the banking system and passed by the government.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 30, 2011, 12:32:46 AM
I think the Federal Reserve may be an example of the government "breaking up" an oligopoly and replacing it with a monopoly.  The Federal Reserve Act was written by a bunch of bankers to give themselves a monopoly on the banking system and passed by the government.

Of course! I neglected government and pseudo-government agencies!

The FED replaced the system of independent banks.
The US Military replaced the individual (and occasionally private) militias.
I'm sure there are more, I just can't think of any off the top of my head.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 30, 2011, 01:43:00 AM
We rely on basic human greed to ensure that at least one will always undercut the others, and the NAP to ensure that the others don't beat him up for it. That's a distinct oversimplification, but, there it is.

But if that doesn't happen today, why would it happen in an AnCap society? Oligopolys are broken up regularly.
It seems that basic human greed is what creates an oligopoly, not breaks up one.

Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.


Sure, I did make the example restrictive.

Take 5 islands for example, all with the 5 people. I would say that it would be reasonable to think that the scenario I outlined would occur on one of the islands. However over an extended period of time, humans driven by their greed would result in at-least 4 of the 5 islands enslaving any new-comer.

But this example only needs to occur once, then we are back where we are today. Some people at the top who have control of essential resources enslaving everyone else. Colluding between themselves for the slaves.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 30, 2011, 02:01:58 AM
But this example only needs to occur once, then we are back where we are today.

No, then we have an empty island, ripe for re-colonization from the other islands. Survival of the fittest.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 30, 2011, 02:22:23 AM
Assuming that they do not engage in an age of colonization ;) . Like the British, French, Spanish, etc.

Driven by greed and the need to increase profits, the 5 in-control train their slaves for war. They go on expeditions to conquer the other islands so they can have more slaves and get more coconuts.

Back where we are today, descendants of exploitation and slavery.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on June 30, 2011, 04:45:15 AM
Assuming that they do not engage in an age of colonization ;) . Like the British, French, Spanish, etc.

Driven by greed and the need to increase profits, the 5 in-control train their slaves for war. They go on expeditions to conquer the other islands so they can have more slaves and get more coconuts.

Back where we are today, descendants of exploitation and slavery.

But suppose that one of the five people on the free island is a former  special forces Marine (http://www.withurwe.com/) who believes in anarchy.  He offers his protection and arbitration services to anyone who will pay for it.  The Others are afraid of him because he has a tatoo proving he's completed the 9th order of the Proving so they leave his clients alone. 


Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose.  :)


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 30, 2011, 05:07:33 AM
Assuming that they do not engage in an age of colonization ;) . Like the British, French, Spanish, etc.

Driven by greed and the need to increase profits, the 5 in-control train their slaves for war. They go on expeditions to conquer the other islands so they can have more slaves and get more coconuts.

Back where we are today, descendants of exploitation and slavery.

But suppose that one of the five people on the free island is a former  special forces Marine (http://www.withurwe.com/) who believes in anarchy.  He offers his protection and arbitration services to anyone who will pay for it.  The Others are afraid of him because he has a tatoo proving he's completed the 9th order of the Proving so they leave his clients alone. 


Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose.  :)

Oooo... That book looks nice.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on June 30, 2011, 05:16:49 AM
Assuming that they do not engage in an age of colonization ;) . Like the British, French, Spanish, etc.

Driven by greed and the need to increase profits, the 5 in-control train their slaves for war. They go on expeditions to conquer the other islands so they can have more slaves and get more coconuts.

Back where we are today, descendants of exploitation and slavery.

But suppose that one of the five people on the free island is a former  special forces Marine (http://www.withurwe.com/) who believes in anarchy.  He offers his protection and arbitration services to anyone who will pay for it.  The Others are afraid of him because he has a tatoo proving he's completed the 9th order of the Proving so they leave his clients alone. 


Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose.  :)

Oooo... That book looks nice.

I think you'll enjoy it.  It's the authors first professional publication so the writing is a little stiff at the beginning, but I thought it developed nicely.  Well worth the read, IMO.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 30, 2011, 05:32:23 AM
Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose.  :)

Also: Yes, Arbitrary model is arbitrary.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on June 30, 2011, 06:37:14 AM

Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose.  :)


I agree with the arbitrary part.

However misusing words is common in this forum. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. And we can not have fruitful discussions without an adherence to the definition of words.

The island model is a simple conceptualization of possible human interactions. Use the island model to reach a point of understanding over words and ideas. We can use the island model to clearly distinguish our differences over certain types of human behavior.

The island model can then be used to justify why one outcome is favorable over another in terms of human behavior.

Of course the island model will never be able to capture every aspect of human behavior, but what model can? At the moment half the content on this forum is disputes over what words mean. If we can't come to an agreement over words then what is the point in using words?

A few things on the island.

An island obviously represents an isolated community. It shows how one outcome in one community can dramatically effect the welfare of others.

The island model should be used to separate ideas into two different levels. The micro level of the individual and the surrounding the community and the small community interacting on the macro-level. By distinguishing between the levels it is simpler to build a statement and show the reasoning behind the statement. Disagreement can be shown in terms of levels. By distinguishing the two levels it can be shown the outcome of one level upon the other.

If statements are going to be expressed in an imperative mood then the island model should easily show correctness. Otherwise it is likely the statement is false.

The island removes the idea of government and reduces coercive force to minimums. I have shown how authority arises from an innocent situation. We disagree on is the likely-hood of such a situation and its relevance. What we are really disagreeing on is a fundamental aspect of human nature, how a small component of the individual shapes the entire community. And this is good IMO. This shows where we disagree, and can walk away. Also historical literature can be used to justify one outcome over another.

The island is an important abstraction until there is better agreement over word definitions. Consequently I think it should be refined and used more.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 30, 2011, 08:38:37 AM
I think you are two different people.

There's no way you can be this rational one moment and as irrational and troll-like the next.

Edit: Or maybe.... You're actually Satoshi, testing us? ;)


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: em3rgentOrdr on June 30, 2011, 08:44:50 AM
I think you are two different people.

There's no way you can be this rational one moment and as irrational and troll-like the next.

Edit: Or maybe.... You're actually Satoshi, testing us? ;)
;)

Or maybe both you, myrkul, and smellyBobby are satoshi...


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on June 30, 2011, 08:50:36 AM
I think you are two different people.

There's no way you can be this rational one moment and as irrational and troll-like the next.

Edit: Or maybe.... You're actually Satoshi, testing us? ;)
;)

Or maybe both you, myrkul, and smellyBobby are satoshi...

To Paraphrase Valentine M. Smith, Thou art Satoshi. ;)


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on July 04, 2011, 02:17:27 AM
Quote from: Atlas link=topic=23047.msg290330#msg290330

We're bound to evolve as a species. There are no set laws.


Wrong. Evolution is bound by the inherent organizing nature of the universe.

Quote
Quote from: hugolp link=topic=23047.msg290473#msg290473

     Btw, communism is a very hierarchical system, is political darwinism.


Quote from: smellyBobby

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)


Quote from: hugolp

   Its very simple to understand the difference between what someone claims and what they really offer.



Correct! It is simple to see the difference. For example when you want a lawless society, you really want no mechanisms of accountability. When you say that your society will be fair, it in fact will be unfair and power is held by the capitalists. When you say that your "new" Society will work, it actually won't.

It's simple to see the difference between what is meant, and what will happen.

Canarchy(Anarcho-Capitalist) just like Communism will deviate from the ideal definition. Communism presents an utopian state, just like Canarchy does. So if the utopian state presented by Communism is impossible, then so is the utopian state presented by Canarchy. Don't dismiss the ideal definitions of other ideologies and expect that your definitions are flawless. That the utopian rules that your present are somehow above the utopian rules presented by another ideology.

Sanarchy(Anarcho-Socialist) has presented a mechanism with explicitly dealing with human hierarchy. Canarchy still has no explicit method of dealing with human hierarchy.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 04, 2011, 02:38:09 AM
Canarchy(Anarcho-Capitalist) just like Communism will deviate from the ideal definition. Communism presents an utopian state, just like Canarchy does. So if the utopian state presented by Communism is impossible, then so is the utopian state presented by Canarchy. Don't dismiss the ideal definitions of other ideologies and expect that your definitions are flawless. That the utopian rules that your present are somehow above the utopian rules presented by another ideology.

Sanarchy(Anarcho-Socialist) has presented a mechanism with explicitly dealing with human hierarchy. Canarchy still has no explicit method of dealing with human hierarchy.
1. The accepted abbreviation is AnCap.
2. Nobody said that AnCap will produce a Utopia. I know I didn't. We're simply saying that a Monopoly is not the best way to produce goods or services, and that includes the goods and services Government currently provides.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on July 04, 2011, 02:57:03 AM
So it will not produce utopia? Okay, so what will be the non-utopian elements of Canarchy?

And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human-hierarchy?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 04, 2011, 03:25:53 AM
So it will not produce utopia? Okay, so what will be the non-utopian elements of Canarchy?

And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human-hierarchy?
AnCap.

AnCap.

AN...CAP. Thank you.

The non-utopian elements will obviously be the human ones. ie: people will still be people, and some will try to hurt others.

Any voluntary hierarchy is A-OK, but let me stress that: Voluntary.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on July 04, 2011, 04:04:37 AM
Wait a sec your imposing your definition upon me? That is not very canarchist.

Is not the "Standard of Subject Values" a pillar of Canarchy? (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24594.msg309819#msg309819)

THANKYOU in advance for respecting my liberties.


And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human hierarchy?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 04, 2011, 04:17:45 AM
Wait a sec your imposing your definition upon me? That is not very canarchist.

Is not the "Standard of Subject Values" a pillar of Canarchy? (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24594.msg309819#msg309819)

THANKYOU in advance for respecting my liberties.


And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human hierarchy?

What's this Canarchy? I already told you how anarcho-capitalism will deal with hierarchy.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on July 06, 2011, 10:44:16 AM
Wait a sec your imposing your definition upon me? That is not very canarchist.

Is not the "Standard of Subject Values" a pillar of Canarchy? (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24594.msg309819#msg309819)

THANKYOU in advance for respecting my liberties.


And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human hierarchy?

No one is forcing anything on you.  The moderators aren't going to kick you off the forum for not using "an-cap", but neither do we have to dialogue with you.  If we so choose we can ignore your posts where you use "canarchy" and socially ostracize you by refusing to dialogue.  That is not coercion.  That is voluntary disassociation.

Also, there is nothing wrong with trying to persuade you to use the commonly accepted abbreviations for words in order to maintain semantic consistency and clarity.  Aren't you the one who was claiming libertarians always distort commonly accepted definitions?  :)


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: joepie91 on July 06, 2011, 11:15:53 AM
I didn't read the entire thread, but I disagree with the OP.

Anonymous for example can be considered an anarchist organization in the sense that there is no central leadership or hierarchy. However, this does not prevent the forming of cells and networks that have their own internal hierarchy. I see anarchy as the freedom to join a system that you feel works best, without being forced into a system - rather than being forced to have no system at all.

While this may be stretching the definition of anarchism a bit, I feel that a society that works with 'cells', where every cell has its own structure (be it communist, socialist, or anything else), and the only rule was to not actively interfere with other cells and their structures... would still fit the definition of anarchism, and would definitely have a chance of working.

It would be considerable different from communism, where everyone is forced to adhere to a centralized communist system.

And before people ask - yes, 'humanity/mankind' as a whole could probably be considered anarchist.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 06, 2011, 11:22:25 AM
I see anarchy as the freedom to join a system that you feel works best, without being forced into a system - rather than being forced to have no system at all.

You've got it.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: CNMOH on July 07, 2011, 07:54:22 PM
It's hard to say whether anarchism and communism are alike, because there are different flavors of both ideologies. For example, there is anarcho-capitalism, which doesn't really work too well with communist ideals.

However, excluding sub-ideologies like anarcho-capitalism, anarchism and communism are very much alike. I feel followers of both ideologies usually want to achieve the same goal, but for different reasons.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: em3rgentOrdr on July 08, 2011, 03:12:35 AM
It's hard to say whether anarchism and communism are alike, because there are different flavors of both ideologies. For example, there is anarcho-capitalism, which doesn't really work too well with communist ideals.

Incorrect.  Voluntary communism is perfectly permissible inside of an anarcho-capitalist society.  Just not the other way around ;)


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: CNMOH on July 08, 2011, 04:08:32 AM
It's hard to say whether anarchism and communism are alike, because there are different flavors of both ideologies. For example, there is anarcho-capitalism, which doesn't really work too well with communist ideals.

Incorrect.  Voluntary communism is perfectly permissible inside of an anarcho-capitalist society.  Just not the other way around ;)
Well, I agree. I'm just saying they're too different from each other to be considered basically the same thing.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on July 12, 2011, 07:13:47 AM
I didn't read the entire thread, but I disagree with the OP.

Anonymous for example can be considered an anarchist organization in the sense that there is no central leadership or hierarchy. However, this does not prevent the forming of cells and networks that have their own internal hierarchy. I see anarchy as the freedom to join a system that you feel works best, without being forced into a system - rather than being forced to have no system at all.

While this may be stretching the definition of anarchism a bit, I feel that a society that works with 'cells', where every cell has its own structure (be it communist, socialist, or anything else), and the only rule was to not actively interfere with other cells and their structures... would still fit the definition of anarchism, and would definitely have a chance of working.

It would be considerable different from communism, where everyone is forced to adhere to a centralized communist system.

And before people ask - yes, 'humanity/mankind' as a whole could probably be considered anarchist.

The problem with Canarchy is that it does not have any explicit mechanism to deal with coercive hierarchies. Sanarchy on the other hand does, which I learnt after starting the thread.

Sanarchy is sustainable. Canarchy is a fantasy idea because like communism it does not explicitly deal with coercive human hierarchies.

Sure the processes and firms that each ideology proposes is different. However they both 'hope' that there will not be a subset of the population that uses its force to enslave the rest.



Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 12, 2011, 07:15:44 AM
The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it does not have any explicit mechanism to deal with coercive hierarchies.

Um... Wrong.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: LokeRundt on July 12, 2011, 07:28:44 AM
mutually consenting self-organization (even if it has a hierarchy). . .what's the issue?  I have a company, so I hire you.  I am the owner, and you are the employee.  You are free to leave and I am free to fire you (unless we've entered into contractual agreement otherwise).  *fails to see the problem*


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on July 12, 2011, 08:12:00 AM
mutually consenting self-organization (even if it has a hierarchy). . .what's the issue?  I have a company, so I hire you.  I am the owner, and you are the employee.  You are free to leave and I am free to fire you (unless we've entered into contractual agreement otherwise).  *fails to see the problem*

Canarchy like communism 'hopes' that no subset of the population forms an organization, and becomes powerful enough to enslave the rest.

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?



Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on July 12, 2011, 08:16:56 AM
mutually consenting self-organization (even if it has a hierarchy). . .what's the issue?  I have a company, so I hire you.  I am the owner, and you are the employee.  You are free to leave and I am free to fire you (unless we've entered into contractual agreement otherwise).  *fails to see the problem*

Canarchy like communism 'hopes' that no subset of the population forms an organization, and becomes powerful enough to enslave the rest.

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?



Please specify your terms, what is "canarchy" and what is "sanarchy"?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on July 12, 2011, 08:21:14 AM
 

Canarchy -> AnCap

Sanarchy -> Socialist Anarchy


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 12, 2011, 08:22:29 AM


Canarchy -> AnCap

Sanarchy -> Socialist Anarchy

And had you used those terms in the first place, you would have completely avoided the confusion.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on July 12, 2011, 08:45:52 AM


Canarchy -> AnCap

Sanarchy -> Socialist Anarchy

Ah, thank you.  So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over.  This is a valid concern.  Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond:  What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: steelhouse on July 12, 2011, 09:18:19 AM
Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.


anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on July 12, 2011, 09:23:34 AM
Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.


anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism

Could you not have voluntary communism without a State?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: yk on July 12, 2011, 10:11:32 AM
Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.


anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism

Could you not have voluntary communism without a State?

This depends on your definition of state ;)

In Communism you do not have the distinction between private companies and communities (aka state). So your workplace will also have to organize public services (like road building and security). In an anarchy this needs to be organized by a voluntary group of interested people (in practice likely aligned with companies). So if you think that the private sector should also provide essential public services, then you would call yourself a capitalist anarchist. If you think that the state should take over production of goods, then you are a communist. But one entity would in the end produce both.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: CNMOH on July 12, 2011, 02:35:49 PM
Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.


anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism
No, they are not complete opposites. A communist society is stateless.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: qbg on July 13, 2011, 12:05:40 AM
mutually consenting self-organization (even if it has a hierarchy). . .what's the issue?  I have a company, so I hire you.  I am the owner, and you are the employee.  You are free to leave and I am free to fire you (unless we've entered into contractual agreement otherwise).  *fails to see the problem*
As long as the proletariat has dissolved it is okay as workplaces built on coercive power relationships will have to face competition with workplaces that aren't. Until then, wage slavery remains a risk.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 12:14:59 AM
As long as the proletariat has dissolved it is okay as workplaces built on coercive power relationships will have to face competition with workplaces that aren't. Until then, wage slavery remains a risk.

I'm curious. I always see these Commies and AnCommies spouting about 'coercive power relationships' and 'coercive hierarchies'.

Could you outline one for me, specifically one that could arise in and from a voluntary society?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: lemonginger on July 13, 2011, 12:42:41 AM
Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.

Funny since the vast majority of the original anarchist theorists identified as either explicitly anarcho-communist or strongly collectivist in other ways.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 12:44:57 AM
Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.

Funny since the vast majority of the original anarchist theorists identified as either explicitly anarcho-communist or strongly collectivist in other ways.

Yeah. Proudhoun, among others.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: qbg on July 13, 2011, 12:52:45 AM
As long as the proletariat has dissolved it is okay as workplaces built on coercive power relationships will have to face competition with workplaces that aren't. Until then, wage slavery remains a risk.

I'm curious. I always see these Commies and AnCommies spouting about 'coercive power relationships' and 'coercive hierarchies'.

Could you outline one for me, specifically one that could arise in and from a voluntary society?
The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: lemonginger on July 13, 2011, 12:56:34 AM
I'm curious. I always see these Commies and AnCommies spouting about 'coercive power relationships' and 'coercive hierarchies'.

Could you outline one for me, specifically one that could arise in and from a voluntary society?

But you have a Lockean view of property and I don't, so my examples of a coercive hierarchy will often seem perfectly acceptable to you, but not to someone with a different understanding of property (Proudhon of course, and quite a few others as well)



Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 01:02:09 AM
The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.

So your argument is that a boss/employee relationship is less efficient than a worker's collective?

I would argue that you'll never steer a ship with a dozen rudders.



Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 01:03:45 AM
But you have a Lockean view of property and I don't, so my examples of a coercive hierarchy will often seem perfectly acceptable to you, but not to someone with a different understanding of property (Proudhon of course, and quite a few others as well)

Stipulated.

Try and find one that would strike even me as coercive.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: lemonginger on July 13, 2011, 01:06:53 AM
The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.

So your argument is that a boss/employee relationship is less efficient than a worker's collective?

I would argue that you'll never steer a ship with a dozen rudders.
No, it could just be that less efficient-or-no, workers with a free and easy choice to work somewhere that they have a say in the governance and the decisions that affect their lives will find that option so much more desirable that you will not be able to convince any to work for a boss. It likely wouldn't be a binary, rather you could say the equilibrium point would make small scale co-ops and other arrangements much more likely than it is today.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 01:21:40 AM
No, it could just be that less efficient-or-no, workers with a free and easy choice to work somewhere that they have a say in the governance and the decisions that affect their lives will find that option so much more desirable that you will not be able to convince any to work for a boss. It likely wouldn't be a binary, rather you could say the equilibrium point would make small scale co-ops and other arrangements much more likely than it is today.

Without a doubt, especially with the advent of 3d printing.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: josell on July 13, 2011, 01:33:31 AM
I want to, but can't believe in communism or anarchism, because there is no ONE practical evidence they can work, at least in the actual humanity (for tranhumans, maybe).

Even the "primitive" comunities have a basic form government... Even in classrooms students creates their own social structure and "game rules", accepted or not by the most of them.

Sorry. Anarchism and socialism (i mean REAL socialism, not the shit "socialist" governments of China, Korea and Russia) are just illusions that can inspire us, but are not real or sustentable. They are asintotes.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 01:44:00 AM
Sorry. Anarchism and socialism (i mean REAL socialism, not the shit "socialist" governments of China, Korea and Russia) are just illusions that can inspire us, but are not real or sustentable. They are asintotes.

Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: qbg on July 13, 2011, 01:49:42 AM
The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.

So your argument is that a boss/employee relationship is less efficient than a worker's collective?

I would argue that you'll never steer a ship with a dozen rudders.
No, it could just be that less efficient-or-no, workers with a free and easy choice to work somewhere that they have a say in the governance and the decisions that affect their lives will find that option so much more desirable that you will not be able to convince any to work for a boss. It likely wouldn't be a binary, rather you could say the equilibrium point would make small scale co-ops and other arrangements much more likely than it is today.
This. The boss/employee model will have to face competition with other models in the labor market.

As for collectives, there is nothing stopping from collectives from having leadership; its just that the nature of the leadership would be different.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: josell on July 13, 2011, 01:53:05 AM
Sorry. Anarchism and socialism (i mean REAL socialism, not the shit "socialist" governments of China, Korea and Russia) are just illusions that can inspire us, but are not real or sustentable. They are asintotes.

Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.
Of course, but no one can play a game is each of them have their own rules ;-) if every of them deal with each other, then there is no individual thinking anymore.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 01:57:51 AM
Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.
Of course, but no one can play a game is each of them have their own rules ;-) if every of them deal with each other, then there is no individual thinking anymore.

I don't follow. Could you explain the logic of that one?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: josell on July 13, 2011, 02:16:41 AM
Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.
Of course, but no one can play a game is each of them have their own rules ;-) if every of them deal with each other, then there is no individual thinking anymore.

I don't follow. Could you explain the logic of that one?
I mean that, from my perspective, we need basic rules or laws to make possible a society, which would not be possible if based only on individual rules. I may be wrong, but I think a balance is the best. Moral values to individual being, and social laws for society.

Of course, thats my perspective, but I have hope in "soft" anarchysm.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 02:22:35 AM
I mean that, from my perspective, we need basic rules or laws to make possible a society, which would not be possible if based only on individual rules. I may be wrong, but I think a balance is the best. Moral values to individual being, and social laws for society.

Of course, thats my perspective, but I have hope in "soft" anarchysm.

There is a basic rule (Again, I'll let Rothbard say it): "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

Beyond that, everyone can play their own game.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on July 13, 2011, 04:05:04 AM

There is a basic rule (Again, I'll let Rothbard say it): "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

Beyond that, everyone can play their own game.


Canarchy like communism ‘hopes’ that no aggressor becomes so powerful that they have unchallenged domination over the rest of Society. Therefore acts of self-defense are futile.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 04:12:29 AM
Anarcho-capitalism like communism ‘hopes’ that no aggressor becomes so powerful that they have unchallenged domination over the rest of Society. Therefore acts of self-defense are futile.

You mean, like the status quo?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on July 13, 2011, 07:08:26 AM

There is a basic rule (Again, I'll let Rothbard say it): "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

Beyond that, everyone can play their own game.


Canarchy like communism ‘hopes’ that no aggressor becomes so powerful that they have unchallenged domination over the rest of Society. Therefore acts of self-defense are futile.

How come you won't answer my question?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on July 13, 2011, 09:23:20 AM


To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?



Canarchy -> AnCap

Sanarchy -> Socialist Anarchy

Ah, thank you.  So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over.  This is a valid concern.  Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond:  What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?

Why don't you just answer my question? As usual it is difficult to get a straight answer.

The only thing that stops a subset of the population from enslaving the rest is luck. Luck has allowed the  variance of the population's coercive distribution to become large. Therefore some individuals within the population have significantly more coercive power than the rest. Luck has allowed the set of individuals who have significantly more coercive power to form a distinct social group. Now this distinct social group has coercive power that is unrivaled by any other group. Again luck determines that the agenda of this social group involves enslaving the rest unopposed.

Short answer: The variance of the population's coercive distribution became to large. The laws of the universe will do the rest.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: smellyBobby on July 20, 2011, 06:30:11 AM


Ah, thank you.  So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over.  This is a valid concern.  Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond:  What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?


To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?


So ??


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: myrkul on July 20, 2011, 06:37:10 AM
To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?


So ??

Simple answer: All the other ones.



Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: The Script on July 26, 2011, 02:34:52 AM


Ah, thank you.  So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over.  This is a valid concern.  Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond:  What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?


To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?


So ??

Yes, as Myrkul says, the other ones.  Governments can afford to have large armies because they can forcibly take money from their citizens and amass large amounts of wealth with which to muster and pay armies.  Private companies will have a harder time doing this, and will be subject to the laws of the market.  Namely, those that do not best serve the consumers will suffer losses, those that best serve the consumers will get profits.  Private companies who start building armies and become aggressive will lose customer support and will not be able to afford to keep their armies.


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: joepie91 on July 26, 2011, 04:56:42 PM
I want to, but can't believe in communism or anarchism, because there is no ONE practical evidence they can work, at least in the actual humanity (for tranhumans, maybe).

Even the "primitive" comunities have a basic form government... Even in classrooms students creates their own social structure and "game rules", accepted or not by the most of them.

Sorry. Anarchism and socialism (i mean REAL socialism, not the shit "socialist" governments of China, Korea and Russia) are just illusions that can inspire us, but are not real or sustentable. They are asintotes.
So wait, you are basically saying that because noone has tried to get it to work and/or proven that it works, it's not going to work and thus pointless to try?

Why would you discount an idea based on that?


Title: Re: Anarchy =~ Communism
Post by: lemonginger on July 27, 2011, 01:52:27 AM
that's not really true and greatly depends on how you define government.

Try reading David Graeber's Fragments of An Anarchist Anthropology if you are interested.