Bitcoin Forum

Not sure if this is being discussed yet, but just posting my thoughts on the 'anarchist' label and how I think most people would associate it with the chaotic bullshit they see happening in London today.

If I really had to choose an exact label for myself, and I could only choose one, I might call myself a 'market anarchist', however I absolutely don't want to be associated with people spray-painting buildings with the 'A' symbol or smashing out the windows of successful and 'posh' businesses.

It's funny, I grew up actually thinking the word 'anarchy' meant 'chaos' and it was only just recently I realised how wrong that definition is, and that the mistake probably came from mainstream TV media, where those kind of rioters are just labelled 'anarchists' in general.

Chaos is part of anarchy as it is difficult to avoid a temporary chaotic period during the decline of an centralised regime.

But honnestly I still struggle to understand what anarchy is exactly.

If I try to define myself as a market anarchist, or an anarcho-capitalist, I'm afraid I have to admit I'm in favor of emperialism or fascism.

Truth is that in an anarcho-capitalist society, the power is free to be taken, by anyone who can manage to take it and keep it.  Such a person is different from a king, since he got his power only from his own merit, and anybody can take his power from him, if he's able to do so.

Still, I prefer this to a fake empire based on democracy, mass brain washing and social engineering.

anarchy =/= anomie, but fuck the government! C:

What power are you talking about exactly.
coercion couldn't work on a large scale in a voluntarist anarcho-capitalist society

economic coercion by those who have the wealth, there is nothing voluntarist about not having enough money to pay for your health.

As I understand it, in an anarcho-capitalist society, coercion does exist.  It's just that it is NOT legitimised.

But I confess my view on these topics are not clear.

thats true and thats why it couldn't work on a large scale

It could, but with a few wars from times to times.   Not unlike how the current world works, though.

The European 'anarchists' are not in favor of a stateless society.  They are, largely, socialists.  Intentional chaos is an intermediate stage outlined by Karl Marx, and in detail in Rules for Radicals.  Karl Marx noted that the majority of any nation has a vested interest in the status quo, even if that same majority can recognize it's flaws.  Thus, the status quo must be disrupted before any substantial change, in this case a socialist revolution, may be successful.  Certainly they don't all believe that they are socialists, but all of those who are rioting are contributing to that end, whether they know it or not.

Wars are expensive. I doubt anyone would pay for them, either directly or through increased prices.

"Say Bob why did the price of your milk go up all of a sudden and what are all those guns for? I think I'll get my milk somewhere else"
moral of the story Bob goes out of buisiness before he can invade poland, true story bro  8)

I think this statement is generally correct. Not Anarchist, but Socialists that are loosing some of their "perceived rights."  But this is like an Alice Cooper song lyric, "When you Win, you Loose"

Wars have little to do with money and more to do with power and resources. Remember Non-intrinsic valued money is just a construct of thought, like Math, Theology, Infinity.  Almost any theory or system can fit into a construct of abstract thought. Hence, Economic theories.

In reality, it is not the cost of Milk but the availability of milk.  There are two types of Wars, Wars of Availability and Wars of Theology. Wars of Theology are a Loose/Loose war. No one can gain anything, so they quickly change into Wars of Availability( Power, resources, etc..)

In the past you could conquer a country and take its money, today if you conquer a country its money becomes worthless. So it is over resources.

[removed offensive picture]

OK, that is a first that I have seen on this forum.

Now, lets see how "anarchist" handle it.  Shall they become Censors, Pragmatic, Conservative, or be for a totally open system.  Something tells me it might go like this, "While we appreciate your right for freedom of speech, such speech must be grouped into Threads in order to maintain some semblance of proper communications on subjects."

Your Post does not fall into this threads subject even remotely and must be moved into the Other Subject, under some other thread.

rothschild, can we please keep this board SFW? You are damaging Bitcoin’s reputation with stuff like this …

This has very little to do with anarchy.  If this guy wants to post this kind of picture, he can.  But somewhere else.

Just as nobody would blame you if you kick out of your house someone who craped on your sofa, nobody would blame the moderators of this forum to evict someone who post these kinds of pictures.

PS.  as soon as I saw this picture, I immediately personnaly reported it with this comment:  "useless offensive picture"

This thread:
[removed offensive picture]

Please behave or go away.

You are correct, my house is private. But what if it was a public space. Someone "owns" this forum, I am curious as to what the "Owner" will do.

Curious though, what if this guy was holding up this picture in a public place. How does one handle it?  I think we will group together into a system of morals and decide. I have a feeling, the decision has been made, just not enforced yet.

Point Being, Not all censorship from public places is bad. Certain things should remain in private places.

To be honest, I am current at home, sitting in my chair working with my kids running around, my younger son saw this. I am pissed, because I did not expect this. Now, I must explain to him why there are Idiots in the world.

I must leave for awhile, until this is corrected. He succeeded in censoring my speech.

images.encyclopediadramatica.com. Ad-blocked that one a long time ago

Do I even want to know?

You might consider using text-mode browser.

Problem is that you see pictures only if you click on them, and then you see them fullscreen, which is worse, in a sense :(

No, you don't.  Unless you are a gay gerontophile.

by moderating your own forum, you just fracture statism into mini states.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201103/r741054_6062536.jpg

I'm totally ok with mini states.  The more, the better.

Moreover, on internet when you're not happy with the rules on some website, it is easy and painless to leave and to go somewhere else.  Things are different IRL.

This is a private forum and we are only guests.

Could someone describe said picture in a non-offensive way (for those of us like me that missed it)?

This is a private internet and we are only guests.

Anyways, back on topic. Most of the Anarchists you see breaking stuff and the like are probably police provocateurs. Police officers were caught red handed dressed in 'anarchist' attire and doing destructive things like setting things on fire at the Toronto G20 protest. They were outted when protesters started noticing they were wearing the same police issued combat boots as the riot police. When protesters surrounded them they jumped behind police lines. It was later admitted in a press conference they were indeed undercover cops. This is a VERY common tactic used to make a protests seem illegitimate. Same thing happened in London with the Muslim protests, the ones where 'muslims' were holding up signs saying things like 'kill people who say islam is evil'. But if you look closely, you'll notice every violent and offensive sign was written in the exact same hand writing(meaning ONE PERSON made them all), and everyone holding one has their face covered. You can google image search 'london muslim protests' and see for yourself. Governor Walker also floated the idea during the Wisconsin Union protests to use provocateurs to make the protests seem illegitimate, he was caught saying this on a recorded phone call. 

In conclusion: Don't believe everything you see on the Corporate Mainstream News.

I have a better advice:  just don't watch corporate mainstream news.  Especially TV.

Pictures are most often selected, edited, sometimes scenarized.  They are misleading.

Also: now when something happens at 10,000 miles away, you know it immediately, as if such an event had direct implication in your life.  Usually it doesn't.  The result is that you get anxious for no reason.  Just turn your TV of, dump it or sell it, whatever.  Just take care of your own life first.

Nevermind...

Which is a problem, because I'm reluctant to tell a member of the general population that I'm an 'anarchist' for fear of what they think anarchy means (like I did), because they watch mainstream news.

Agreed. Turning off the idiot box is really the best solution.

edit.

Certainly some of them, probably even the majority.  But they are the pawns in the game.  The useful idiots.  Those who have an ideological goal are predominately some variation of marxist/socialist/collectivist. 

So tell them you are a voluntarist.
Them - "I've never heard that word before, what does it mean"
You - /Explain Anarchy  8)
Them - "Sounds reasonable"

+10^∞

+1.  Yes, I've found "Voluntaryist" to be a much more palatable for introducing our ideas to most people.  At least you can have a reasonable discussion.  Just be sure to avoid mentioning the "A" word, and if it does come about, you can distance yourself from it.

Can you come and volunteer to cut my grass?  ;D

If you volunteer to pay for it  ;D

We'd all enjoy less confusion if anti-government capitalist didn't try to misappropriate anti-capitalist labels.

Seems like a little Double Speak here.

In a way, I am an anti-government capitalist, but I want capitalism to be enforced fairly to prevent collusion, illegalities, and corruption of government.

A small strong government that prevents corruption. If it was up to me, if a Public Official commits a crime, throw the book at him. If you want to be a Judge, you must be willing for your life to be publicly transparent (People should see every dime earned and spent). If you drink coffee, the type and amount should be publicly available. I don't want "perfect" judges, I just want to eliminate corrupt and bias. If you sleep with prostitutes(in Nevada), fine, just don't rule on prostitution cases. The Public Official should give up privacy, in order to gain trust, and with time respect.

What if the 'goal' is to keep strangers from entering your house?

If I supported initiating violence to achieve my goals, I'd be pro-government. ::)

So if the stranger peacefully walks into your house with no weapons and turns on the TV, sits in the chair, and eats your food, it will be OK because the stranger didn't use any violence.

Or is it your opinion that someone imposing on your space a violent act?  If so, don't ever go to a city.

A person entering your home without your permission is trespass, whether violence is used or not, intent of force is implied.  You don't own a city, but the same thing would be implied if an army marched in uninvited.

Once force is initiated, a force response in kind is justifiable.  If your trespasser has no weapons for which to threaten your family, your justifiable response is to 1) demand that he leave, and 2) if he does not (or cannot, drunk perhaps?) you can throw him out or hire someone to throw him out for you.  (such as a cop or hired security)

You cannot, however, justify shooting him while siting in your chair.  Like all things, the justifiable response is relative.  Only children and madmen deal in absolutes.

I don't believe in absolutes. However, if I believe this peaceful guy "implies" a threat to me (armed or not), and I am afraid for my life by his unwarranted actions, he is going to be shot.

When being imposed upon, it is my belief, not his, that matters.

There are no absolutes, not for me, and especially not for him.

Curiously the threat of violence, works.

I used to have some kid problems around the house with them coming onto the property at night and stealing stuff from the shed and car.

For about a month, twice a week, I set up a table on the driveway and cleaned my guns. Surprisingly, I have nothing has been stolen since. But my neighbors have complained of things getting stolen. I didn't cure the problem, I just moved it. But hey, better them than me.

Yes, entering my house without my permission is an act of violence.


Why not? I usually confine myself to places where I'm welcome, shopping centers, restaurants, bars, movie theaters, etc. When I visit someplace, I'm not in the habit of climbing through open windows or kicking down doors.

I see this as the only problem with Voluntarism. The non-aggression principle assumes that violation of a persons property is an aggression. However, property rights are not objective, as they are determined by the interactions and agreements between the parties involved.

By the way, I believe it was Rothbard who coined the term 'anarcho-capitalism', but also later regretted it and acknowledged that it is misleading. The meaning of words are essentially defined by how most people understand them, and most people don't associate anything compatible with capitalism with anarchy.

Why do people get so hung up on words?  Fine, don't call it "capitalism".  Call it "voluntaryism" or "free markets" or "laissez faire society" or "market anarchism".  If it's well-defined, argue the points and not the semantics.


This is a good point, and one that needs to be clarified.  If someone doesn't respect your property claims and "violates" them, what is the correct course of action?  Perhaps this is where the community comes in.  If you live in a community where you know your neighbors and respect each other's property claims then outsiders who attempt to infringe on your claims will be ostracized by the community and will not have any of their rights respected.  Or if you were to take action, your neighbors would support you, resulting in the Outsider not having the ability to enforce his counter claim.

FTFY. Market anarchists, like mutualist and individualist anarchists, oppose capitalism. Anarchism is already fraught with misconceptions. As such, semantics matter. So called anarcho-capitalists would do well to avoid the term anarchy and use words like volunteerism and laissez-faire instead.

I don't have a personal preference for semantics, I just think that it can be problematic to use a term that is usually associated with something vastly different from what you are trying to describe. Technically you could use the word 'paedophile' to describe someone who likes children. However I don't think someone who likes children would be likely to describe themselves as such.

You're right though that it isn't that important.


Well I understand the way that property rights could be enforced within a stateless society. I just disagree that the NAP and natural rights are complete justifications because they're both meant to be objective concepts but depend on arbitrary property agreements. It can be good, though, to appeal to the fact that most people don't like being aggressed against and show them how the state does this. Other than that I prefer to focus on practical issues which nobody on this forum seems to have talked about (I may at some point).

Other than Princeton English Professors, most do not have the vernacular to choose the exact words for the occasion in general conversations and spur of the moment speech and writing.  Throw in cultural slang, and it becomes next to impossible.

Semantics do matter though, when trying to convey an idea. It is the personal pro-noun, phenomena. You easily understand what idea you are conveying, but others may not because they are not thinking in your terms. You have to be specific in order to convey the idea. However, that takes time especially in the written mode of communication.

Much of our communication is left up to assumption based on time, place, and perspective. That is why it wasn't until 1997 that Scientists realized that they needed a "definition for the term: Planet".  Everyone assumed what it meant, but then when analyzed they found that not everyone agreed on what it was.

French was considered the language of Treaties, not because is was specific but because it was left open to interpretation. Basically, it depended on how you read the document. "Lots of Grey".

___________________________________________________



Enforcing property rights in a stateless society, is/and will be natural.  By Force.  You bring a stick, I bring a Gun; I have the property rights.


Ask the Indians !!!

Ask me what, exactly?  Do you think that all the native american tribes got rolled?

And you make this conclusion, how?

Someone explain to me how kids rioting for cheaper education constitute "anarchists".  Does the state regulate and limit the availability of education or something?

No, the state subsidies the costs of higher education in Britain, and they were protesting austerity plans that would have reduced the state's percentage of support.  Thereby increasing the cost borne by the students. 

And without a state (an-archy), there would be more state support of higher education?

Certainly not, but the ararchists in Europe are not true anarchists.  They are not opposed to idea of a state, just the one that exists.  Most of those that are rioting over education costs are actually socialists, because that is the kind of state that most of them think that they would want to form after the current one fails.

Honestly, the individual who advocates for anarchy as an end is a very rare creature, even in the US. 

  Why I think other governments might fall for this stuff. America is not really one government, it is 50 governments agreeing. In good times this is easy, wealth for all. In bad times, the Central Government has to cave to the States. You have 10 states that are passing a gold and silver standard, one that threatens succession from future governor potential candidates. We will be able to see the correct methods when the system contracts, those to liberal will collapse, those to conservative will be protectionists, and those who got it just right will prosper.  There are few states that are completely self sufficient. Alaska, North Dakota, Texas (if you eliminate mandatory spending from the FED).

 e pluribus unum works in reverse too.

Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian philosophy, and capitalism consists of authoritarian relationships: employer over employee, landlord over tenant, usurer over borrower. These roles may occasionally reverse, but the authoritarian relationships still persist. Furthermore, employers, landlords, and usurers (they're pretty much all usurers, but whatever) cannot do what they do without a state of some kind and states are authoritarian entities. Therefore, anarchy opposes capitalism.

If anarchists cannot get rid of the state very easily, it makes sense to try to decrease the power of the other capitalist rulers. It also makes sense for anarchists to get angry when education becomes more of a for-profit, vocational venture. To anarchists, such policy changes mean an exacerbation of the capitalist status quo. And can we honestly expect a mass of indignant, radical youth, anarchist or not, not to do something rash?

We should also not disregard the likely possibility of agents provocateur.

Not strictly correct.  Anarchism is an anti-state philosophy, not necessarily anti authoritarian.  After all, Father, what is the ultimate authority, if not God?

"You keep using that word, but I don't think in means what you think it means..."


In practice, perhaps.  Not in ideology.  The problem that persists with your conversations is that the word "capitalism" is different for different people.  What you rail against is actually corporatism.  Capitalism is not an ideology, but a definable set of natural economic laws.  Capitalism exists in every human society, whether the people involved wish to acknowledge it or not.  In places where capitalism is respected, societies prosper in general.  There are some downsides to capitalism, but overall it is always best to go along with nature rather than fight it.  Really Father, you should actually read some of the recommended reading on the subject that has been presented already.  I particularly recommend Economics in One Lesson.


Case in point, political structures are, by definition, not capitalist structures.  The political rulers in the UK are not capitalists.  The same is true for every other nation on Earth.  There is no such thing as a capitalist nation, and there cannot be.
Why would it make sense?  Education has always been a for-profit, vocational venture. 
If they were raised to understand the natural laws of God, then yes, we can. 
Probably we should not.

Father McGruder, if you could take a minute out from kicking ass for the Lord, please tell us why owning things is inherently authoritarian.

In your question, you assume that God exists, that he is an authority, that that means that we must embrace authoritarianism. I cannot validate these assumptions. Can you? Furthermore, it simply doesn't make sense that anarchists would only oppose the state. That would mean contentedness with switching from one master to another and we already do that. No, anarchists know that anarchy is a struggle against all authority that may never end.

I oppose the individual capitalist as much as the biggest group of them. If corporatism is inherently authoritarian, I will oppose it too. You assume that capitalism is something of nature. Can you prove that? Can you prove that humans must behave naturally?

I suppose it's not safe to assume that all people in government are capitalists, but I wasn't doing so. The capitalists living off of the cumulative interest they collect from borrowers are also rulers. If a society's government can fund the education of its members in a non-profit manner, it will weaken the capitalist usurer kings. Hopefully doing so will also redirect funds from its more oppressive activities. Of course, that probably won't ever happen and any rioting will make its alleged participants look bad. I never said it was the smart thing to do, but it is justifiable.

Has it? If so, why does it have to be?

See my earlier response in this post.

Glad we can agree on that.

Christ, I've been waiting for someone to make that reference. Have you actually seen Dead Alive or did you watch me make that reference in IRC?

Ownership is authoritarian when you come to own or maintain ownership of something through authoritarian means. Simply owning the product of your labor, and not using it to extort from others the product of their labor is not authoritarian. Capitalist profit is extortion though and therefore authoritarian. Some anarchists might argue that private ownership is always authoritarian, but I disagree.

Then you oppose yourself.  Do you own any tools, or any property whatever?  If you are really a priest, do you own a bible?  Any property that is required to earn a living is, by it's very definition, capital.  Ownership is defined by primary possession, not some government edict on a piece of paper that says someone (or some corporation) owns something.
I could, yes.  However, if you are not willing to have an open mind and, at a minimum, read a book; then I'm not willing to waste my time repeating the work of others.

Must?  Of course not.  Why would that be a requirement?  Opposing natural laws (of economics or anything else) are achievable so long as those who wish to do so are willing to dedicate resources to that end.  It's comparable to sailing up river.  Sure, it can be done; but it's naturally easier to sail down river.
I wasn't claiming that either.  I said that the political structures are not capitalist.  Those who participate in the political structures are capitalists in the same manner that you are, but exist within a system that is most demostratablely anti-capitalist.

You really don't know of what you speak.

That's called "rent seeking", and is not capitalism. 

But it can't.  The educators must make a living.  Said another way, they must make a profit, otherwise they will have to find some other way to eat.  It's unavoidable.
There is no such thing, and there never has been.
See above.

There, I fixed that for you.

Well, capitalism is not necessarily rent seeking.  But rent seeking requires capital.


Not true.  Parents can home school their kids.

Um, no.  Rent Seeking does not require capital.  Taxation is rent seeking.  Corporations lobbying for subsidies is rent seeking.  Enimnet Domain is rent seeking.

Rent seeking is not when a landlord charges rent, that's a contract.

Yes, but if parents wish to have their kids educated by others, then those others still need to get paid.  Even homeschooling parents need to earn a living, so if homeschooling interferes with that ability, the kids' education will suffer or their quality of life will suffer, and probably both.

I was under the impression that 'rent-seeking' in the pejorative essentially meant businesses using various means (usually the state) to try to subvert the market's tendency to drive profits to 0, essentially allowing them to use their market position to receive a continuous stream of profit rather than receiving profit based on innovation.

Okay well if you want to use "rent seeking" to mean something besides seeking rent then rent requires capital and interest is not "rent seeking".

That's one way to look at it.  Rent seeking is the pursuit of any market advantage via government influences.

I'm using the term in the economic context, not the common usage.

I've seen the clip on YouTube a few times, but not the whole movie.


So, is locking the door on my house "maintaining ownership through authoritarian means"?  If I were to rent out something I own, like tools for instance, to others, would that be "extorting the product of their labor"?


How is it extortion?  You have to pay the capitalists?

In the same way the meaning of the word `Hacker` has changed meaning, so the word `Anarchy` means something completely different.

Why not coin a new phrase for goodness sake!

Im an alpacifist.

I'm an non-aggressionist adherent of non-aggressionism.

I'm a nonarchist. 

I'm an anarchist. But for people too stupid to listen to my explanation of what I mean by the term, I also use the term libertarian socialist.

Which is a contradiction in terms.

Depends.

Not really; unless you are saying that you are a libertarian except within your own family, and then you are socialist, which pretty much means that you are a libertarian.  You cannot be for liberty and socialism at the same time, they are opposing ideologies.  Heads would explode.

Wanker. And that includes your second post.

Anarchism is socialist. Has that blown your mind?

As far as I can tell, an anarchist libertarian socialist is someone who believes there should not be a state, that people should do whatever they want, and that the resulting overpopulation will force social interaction.

It's sort of a "here and now" type of philosophy, future social welfare be damned.

In fact it's not really all that different from anarcho-capitalism except that instead of just poors starving, everyone starves together and benefits from the sense of community.

Not at all.  The European version of anarchism is indeed socialist, but they are not libertarians.  European anarchists are statists who oppose the factions in control of the state and the ideologies that they represent, but not statism itself.  Which has much to do with why American anarchists tend to use other terms, such as 'volunteerist', so as not to be associated with the European understanding of the term.  Certainly there are those in Europe who believe themselves to be actual anarchists, but those are those whom Stalin called "useful idiots".  Violent or chaotic anarchy is always a transitional political state, and one the Marx himself advocated as a stepping stone to socialism.  And although some/most libertarians are truly anti-state, most are not under any illusion about the fragility of the rule of law under a stateless political society, and any solution is basicly a mini-state.  Notice, if you will, that American anarchists, no matter what they call themselves or how badly they might want to, never riot.  They have not since the Weather Underground of the 1970's, who were quite openly anarchists of the European sort.  They don't riot because the destruction of private property (any property owned by anyone not their target, whether they like them or not) would violate their principles concerning non-aggression and the rule of natural/common law.

That's funny!

Weather Underground were not anarchists (they were a hodgepodge of Leninistisic types). Then there we all those people who actually called themselves anarchists who "rioted" in Seattle in 1999 (and at many other events, including political conventions, since). 

Classifying anarchists as "European" or "American" is idiotic, as is the claim that the European ones are actually statists. It is one of the stupider things I've ever seen on this board.

One of the easiest ways to point out that the distinction is bullshit is by pointing out that Pierre Joseph Proudhon, that French person who is credited with first openly calling himself an anarchist, was a European.

And if the point is that European type anarchists are all socialists. And that all socialists are statists, then I'll point to Josiah Warren. Basically, profit is wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_the_limit_of_price). Oh, and let's not forget Ben Tucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker). He was a self professed socialist, yet somehow still called himself an anarchist.

Blown your puny minds yet?

I could go on to explain why property isn't necessary for anarchism to exist, or why (as I think I've said before in this very thread), that some anarchists feel that attacking the state or symbols of capitalism is self-defense, but I've wasted too much time on your people as it is. You make ignorant statements and then pat each other on the back and crow about how clever you are. Well done, but it doesn't mean you you aren't wrong.

Yes, exactly.  Many of whom thought they were anarchists.

I used those descriptors because I don't have better ones.  Of course there are "European" anarchists in the US, and "American" anarchists is Europe.  Nothing is absolute.

See above.
By name dropping?  Not really.

I can accept the possibility that I'm wrong, but I've read all that you have presented on this theme in the past, and probably much more than you can produce, and IMHO the most likely possibility is that you are confused about your own role.

Dense.

Ben Tucker was an individualist anarchist. Classic American Anarchist. Look him up. Yet, he called himself a socialist.

Keep in mind that when Proudhon wrote those famous words, "Property is Theft", he was actually using it for rhetorical purposes as he explains in Confessions d'un revolutionnaire:


Ok...I think I blew your mind there.


"Anarchism," writes Benjamin Tucker, "is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market — that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist.”

Did I blow your mind yet?  :D

Well you blew mine.  :)  This post was awesome. 

why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

Did I blow your mind?  :P

You haven't blown my mind, 'cause like, I had actually read those authors. I've done a lot of reading of anarchist literature of the years.

On property is theft. I repeat my self from another thread:
Proudhon who wrote that phrase was, I believe, talking about excess property. Possession (use and occupation) is the only valid form of "property", and obviously you can't posses 1000 houses in the sense that I am talking about.

As to what defines use and occupation, that is, I believe, something more generally for the community to decide.


As for Tucker, I was pointing out that anarchists are socialists. Many (most?) socialists (such as Tucker) were and are also believers in the possession sense of the word property. Normally reserving "property" for "the means of production" more specifically.

That doesn't mean that you have to have property (in either sense of the word used above) to have anarchism. Though, I think that most anarchist communists today do not have a problem with possession of things (such as toothbrushes), and the smart ones don't have a problem with workers owning the specific means of production specifically used by those workers. (Some do object to anything full community ownership of all the means of production, but I reject that as a bit silly.)

@deadlizard why not? I'd guess because it's wet and the inside of the bottle is treated specially so that the glue doesn't stick to it. Plus stuff about air and curing. I'm not a physicist, chemist or similar, but I'm sure a simple explanation could be found. Indeed, a quick search later and I've got a stack of websites that want to tell me the answer in exchange for me looking at ads. And indeed, my first thought (wetness) was correct according to these two websites: http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4922935_doesnt-glue-stick-inside-bottle.html and http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question57800.html wow isn't science fun!

And I will repeat my self [sic] from another thread:


I am an anarchist, but I neither call myself a socialist or a capitalist.  I reject the socialist "anarchists" who would steal my legitimately-acquired property and break into my home the minute I stop using and occupying them, but I also reject the extreme anarcho-capitalists that says property rights, upon homesteading, are perpetual.


I'm reminded of a great Tucker quote arguing that "the community" is absurd concept:


But as I have stated before, I'm an anarchist, but not a socialist.  And Tucker surely wouldn't call himself a socialist according to what it means nowadays (back then socialist meant something slightly different...even I might have called myself a socialist back then).


Yeah, they're silly.  "No! That's my bed that you're pissing on!"

As for "stealing" your house the moment you stop using it, I think that most socialists I know would say that there is a big difference between going to work for the day, or going on holiday for a while, and going away for a few years. As for pissing on beds, there is a difference between a possession (such as a bed) and the "means of production" (such as a factory). I doubt any sensible person would approve of pissing on beds, no matter who owns it. (Unless, of course, you are into such things, and you are willing to clean up after yourself. But don't go pissing on beds other people sleep in without their permission.)

I call myself a socialist (well, libertarian socialist). When I'm not calling myself an anarchist. See, I use the word socialist in the sense of wanting workers to get the full value of their labor. As in, against capitalism.

I'm an anarchist because I want freedom. And I think that capitalism (whether it is state based, or "stateless") is not compatible with a free society. I believe that the most freedom will come, not from allowing a lucky few to accumulate infinite wealth, but from allowing all to have an equal opportunity to build their own lives.

That said, I'm not against a free communist society, if those living in it choose to do so. But, if it was a free society, there would be nothing to stop people from exchanging items, or labor if they choose.

(As with the word "socialist" I'm not using the word "communist" as it is invariably misused by the media. But rather, a stateless, classless society where property is shared in common. All those "communist states" are a contradiction in terms, and have been at most "working towards" a communist society.)

You, Sir, are a walking self-contradiction.

Not using the definitions of the terms that I use. Note, that I'm not an individualist anarchist (though you might get that impression from the quotes below). I'm instead an anarchist without adjectives, I want freedom.

I suggest for further insight into some of the ideas I've explored above, that you consult An Anarchist FAQ, specifically "Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secGcon.html)".

Here's a quote from the introduction of that section (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secGint.html) (my bold):

You'll note that the term "socialist" is used, not of state based socialism with which you might imagine, but of workers getting the full value of their labor.

Another quote from the same introduction to section G (bold in original):

From "G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secG1.html)" (bold and emphasis stripped off 'cause I copied and pasted and can't be bothered fixing it):
From the same section, and again with original formatting lost:

I could go on, but I think that is sufficient to clarify the points that I've attempted to make about my ideas being hardly contradictory. (I could go on, with many more quotes, to demonstrate why I don't think that "anarcho" capitalism isn't anarchistic, but the FAQ exists...)

What do most socialists (as well as yourself) deem to be the period of time in which a home needs to be unoccupied before it can be legitimately occupied by new people?


So I must get the permission of the person who sleeps on the bed first in order to piss on it?  Sounds like that person who sleeps on that bed is the owner.  Or are these community owned beds?

Is the issue with the pissing part?  What if instead I sleep on your bed after you leave it unoccupied?  And then you come and want to sleep on the bed?  Are you permitted to kick me out of the bed that you slept on and then left unoccupied?


So property is shared in common.  But I can't break into your home or sleep on your bed because that is not approved by society?  Sounds like society is recognizing private property rights over your home and bed...

Yeah, I don't care any more. But just to make it clear, most anarchists (and "anarcho" capitalists aren't anarchists) make a distinction between possessions and property.

Anyway, it's not for me to blueprint the future, and you're just going into tiny details that are basically irrelevant.

(Irrelevant, for the time being at least, and likely to remain irrelevant. But it'll really be up to the people living in that future free society what they do.)

Regarding the difference between "possessions" and "property", as long as I've been aware that anarchists draw a distinction it has made no sense to me. Is a hammer a "possession" or "property". How about a CNC machine, drill press, 3d printer, etc?

Regarding laborers receiving the "full value" of their labor, two questions.

1) Why must this be the case, morally?
2) How can you determine the "full value" of labor when that labor does not directly contribute to some end product. For instance, I am a computer programmer for a company that sells appliance parts. Other than the wage I agreed to receive (admittedly in a labor environment that strongly favors employers), how can one compute the full value of my labor?


I saw that you posted in another thread that you consider yourself an anarchist without adjectives. This is one of the labels I favor for myself, which are in rank of descending preference... voluntaryist, anarchist without adjectives, anarcho-capitalist. Am I correct in assuming this means that you and I can be allies against statism, regardless of our views on the correct way to assign ownership of property?

No :) .  左's version of anarchism is simply opposition to private property.  I've met these types of people all over the internet.  It has little to do with opposition to the state and institutionalized monopolies on coercion.

On a side note, using the term "free-market anti-capitalist" is a fun way to confuse people like 左.

@em3rgentOrdr, I think you don't know what I'm for, or against, by that post. Actually, I've nothing against markets, so long as they aren't capitalist. What I'm for is freedom, which I don't think is possible in a capitalist system.

Saying I oppose private property, and therefore oppose markets, is wrong.

I do oppose states, and government. I encourage people to resist state intrusions into their lives. I oppose laws (well, all laws, but specifically) that restrict freedom.

@BitterTea I don't know all the answers. I also can't be bothered finding out in this case. I'm not an economic theorist, I'm a political philosopher. I would guess that we could work together against statism, but I must make it clear that I have no objection to taxing corporations out of existence. Mainly 'cause I oppose corporations as well.

Can you name a law that doesn't restrict freedom?

I will permit you to form you non-private property markets.  Will you permit me to form private-property markets with my friends?

I don't care what you do, so long as you don't try and restrict everyone else's freedom.

I think conflict will come though when you try and claim that you and your friends own a factory, but are never seen anywhere near it. Instead, you "hire" people to work the factory for you, giving you a percentage of their labor for the privilege. What will you and your friends do when the workers decide that they'd rather not giving you anything 'cause, well, you aren't actually doing anything?

It is the height of foolishness to claim that business owners "don't do anything" just because they are not assemblng widgets with their own hands. They provided the capital, they take the brunt of the risk. If the workers want their own factory, why do you advocate they take it (by force) from those they voluntarily agreed to work for?

Look, I understand that the labor market today is grossly in favor of employers, but I see this as the function of government regulation and privelege granting. In the absense of a state, assuming a sufficiently large portion of the population accepts the premises of anti-statism, I don't see such a distorted labor market forming. However, I feel that there will still be entreprenurial individuals and there wwill be risk averse individuals. I see nothing wrong with the latter voluntarily accepting a wage from the former in return for their work. I do consider it wrong for the latter to suddenly decide he is being exploited, breaking his agreement, and using force against his employer.


How do you feel about this article? http://c4ss.org/content/4043

Same here. Other terms such as "voluntaryist" or "autonomist" have less baggage, but I find it is much easier to describe what I believe then to try to self-apply a label. It's also a good way to seize the moral high ground with a statement like:

"Violence and coercion against the non-violent are impermissable."

At the very least, one must abandon the argument from morality entirely to argue against the ethics of non-aggression. But people want to think their position is moral, so they will just keep bouncing arguments helplessly against it. At least, that's been my experience. In fact, it's what eventually led me to become a voluntaryst.

Voluntaryism FTW.

When did they use force?

Read the whole thread.

Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws.

Of course it's aimless violence which only drives the people further into the loving arms of the government he 'allegedly' wanted to get rid of. That in itself makes the claims of his goals completely suspect. Hence my username.

I have a hairs breadth of patience for paid provocateurs and their idiot entourage.

consensus facit legem

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

Its decisions restrict what laws can be made, and while not technically "laws" (as the term is applied to mandates passed by Congress).  By narrowly restricting how laws can be made, it effectively creates laws.

The Constitution says the Supreme Court is the "supreme law of the land".  But yes, technically I did not answer his question.

Article III, sections one and two, which define the Supreme Court, do not give its justices Judge Dredd powers.

You can probably call youself anarcho-capitalist or private propetry anarchist instead of market anarchist. But it's all about terms, meanwhile the ideas you support are much more important. As I uderstant it's something from  Austrian School of economics,  Murray Rothbard or  Robert Nozick with his "Anarchy, State, Utopia".

Um, no it doesn't.  The constitutions says that IT is the supreme law of the land.  The constitution doesn't even grant the Supreme Court the power to judge the constitutionality of laws, that's just something that they assumed they could do, and there isn't really any court capable of overridding that assumption.  Technically, the House of Representives has the power to sensor/override a Supreme court ruling; but this has actually never occured.