anarchocapitalism is a mythical interim transition state.
You're making it very difficult for me to treat you as a sentient creature. |
|
|
|
Your sensationalist title skews the issue.
"Homeland Security does wellness check for corporate trademarks, naughty people found"Is this better? Much.  Or maybe: "Homeland security now enforcing trademark law." |
|
|
|
They don't do that in free countries
Please tell me, which countries are the free ones?  I hear tell Mexico is pretty good about leaving you the hell alone. |
|
|
|
Nah, rights as recognized by the rightgivering state as opposed to natural rights ( fo'lackovabttrterm ) are no more than targets for the state to attack. Name a right the state doesnt casually violate daily. You'll get no argument there. Which is why I am an anarcho-capitalist. You can't have an organization defending your rights if it violates them on the regular. Lets say...
Some sketchy bastard steals my backpack or jacket, the state gawks uselessly, helplessly while "recognition" -ing my "rights." That's a cute little story there, but I don't see where you're trying to go with it. As for Akido,
One's landing will be a sudden, eyeopening jolt of one rethinking a mugging. Ideally, of course. Precisely. Aikido perfectly encapsulates the non-aggression principle. It does not attack, only responds. It uses proportional force to the attacker's own. It is a very peaceful art. |
|
|
|
I don't think either of us is gonna convince the other we should probably just leave it at that.
You're probably right, there. I'd just tell you that land is simply a type of fixed capital, you would say that's just the buildings and other improvements on the land, I'd say those improvements wouldn't be very much without the land they're on, you'd say that the land is still separate from the actual fixed capital, I would point to all the other types of capital that include land in their definition, such as " natural capital," and eventually we would just throw up our hands and call the other one an idiot. So let's skip all of that. If you define capital as "the material property needed to produce something," then land is included. If you define capital as "the already-produced durable goods that are used in production of goods or services." then yes, land is excluded. Obviously I prefer the broader first definition, you the more narrow second one. But even using your definition, the three factors of trade, "land, labor and capital" must all be privately owned for free trade to occur. |
|
|
|
Hypotheticals are cool unless you forget theyr'e hypotheticals.
Capitalism exists anywhere free trade is permitted. It existed before the State, it will exist after. HA HA HA HA HA OH WOW. Ill let someone else cover this slip up. OH.. my sides. oh.. So, you dont wanna just call that trade? Youre THAT married to the word capitalism? Unholy mother of Satan, son, get your shit together! Cognitive dissonance much? Free trade requires recognition of private property rights. That's capitalism, Kitten. Martial arts are essentialy able to be deeply understood to be nonviolent.
Aikido is non-aggressive. But as you're flying through the air after attacking an Aikido practitioner, consider whether or not your landing will be "violent." |
|
|
|
Hypotheticals are cool unless you forget theyr'e hypotheticals.
Capitalism exists anywhere free trade is permitted. It existed before the State, it will exist after. |
|
|
|
When an owner doesnt use a thing, the thing is defacto abandoned.
I see. So, if I'm not in my car, it's abandoned? If I've gone off to work for the day, my house is abandoned? If I let you borrow my car for the week, it's abandoned? If you house-sit for me for the weekend, it's abandoned? If you oppose the NON AGGRESSION principle, that makes you aggressive pretty much by definition, doesn't it?
lol According to yer zany capitalist revisionist rhetoric nonsense grasping fer straws reasoning, whatever. Try nonviolence. Works just fine if everyone is nonviolent. But if you refuse to defend yourself, you're just handing your life over to the aggressor. |
|
|
|
|
You know, you two, (wdmw, FenixRD) I'm still waiting on your round 4 responses.
|
|
|
|
So if government is like a business, I can boycott it and find something else that works for me?
Thanks for letting me know!
Yes, but you must also stop purchasing the government's products, which tax evaders always fail to do. Many people "boycott" EA by pirating their games. That isn't boycotting, its stealing. Too many people want to have it both ways, because they're brainless thugs. The government doesn't produce anything- they contract with funds that they've extorted. Saying that people who refuse to pay taxes are morally wrong to use roads is a childish argument. The money to build those roads was stolen. If I put you in a cage, and then steal your money to feed you, are you morally wrong to eat it to survive? Does that imply consent to you? I think you know the right answer, but are just being an asshole. Well, if you think being stuffed in a cage and being fed with food bought with your stolen money is wrong, you should starve yourself. |
|
|
|
*yawn* So it's usually appropriation from the previous owner. You mean, theft? Or did they pay that previous owner for the property? *double yawn* Some exchange is made and the new person somehow gets the materials from the previous person. Yes, that's the way capitalism works. A voluntary exchange of value for value is made, and the new owner gets the materials from the old owner. Nothing is voluntary with a gun to your head. There are factors at play, the omnipresent state, that youre ignoring. Capitalism in a stateless world is like Serfdom in a landless world. By the way, Im pro monarchy. *sigh* Yes, everyone is insane today. You're an idiot. |
|
|
|
Wherever useful work is done to build/design/organise/etc., that's the "original appropriation".
If I come into your workshop (the workshop where you work, not necessarily the one you own) and steal the piece of marble you were going to make into a pillar, or a bunch of countertops, and take it back to my workshop, and make a statue instead, Does that make the finished piece of marble mine? Yes. My god, is everybody insane, today? |
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong with seizing counterfeit products. Your sensationalist title skews the issue.
This just in: The truth is now sensationalist. |
|
|
|
*Deep breath*
A factory takeover is always a peaceful, organized process if the profiteer being deposed has the good sense to gtfo, and doesn't call in the riot cops, instead opting to let the rightful owners, the workers, take over.
All right, we'll start with the easy one. What makes them the "rightful" owners? There are only two ways to legitimately acquire property: Original appropriation (homesteading), or voluntary purchase. Secondary appropriation, or "squatting" is only valid on abandoned property. Certainly you're not claiming that the factory owner (or shareholders) abandoned the factory? Use determines utility. Who uses the factory? Workers? They own it. utility
The state of being useful, profit-able, or beneficial. ownership
the relation of an owner to the thing possessed; possession with the right to transfer possession to others. Those definitions don't match. |
|
|
|
Disgruntled sovereign individuals getting together and forming things called 'communities' and organisational bodies called 'governments', which sometimes collectively decide to do things for the "greater good" (never thought I'd have to use that horrible term, but there you have it) even though some individuals may suffer a personal loss.... Oh, such a shame... You had me right up until "greater good." People can group. People can collectively decide things. But if they force their decision on even one dissenter, that's tyranny. You and your "objective morality" again... When the majority wants something but Myrkul opposes and wants something different, that's tyranny... Sure, why not. But who's the tyrant? They're welcome to do whatever they want. Among themselves. Remind me to quote that when you go on another rant accusing others of being aggressive if they oppose your N.A.P.. Hypocrite... is what you are. If you oppose the NON AGGRESSION principle, that makes you aggressive pretty much by definition, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
...snip...
Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds. Any chance of moving on?
I have never threatened myrkul in any way. Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief. The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me. And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. To say nothing of your comment that without a State, you consider murder to be A-OK. |
|
|
|
...snip...
Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds. Any chance of moving on?
I have never threatened myrkul in any way. Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief. |
|
|
|
Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds. Any chance of moving on?
Probably not, I tried to some time ago. He's gone from advocating state violence against me to outright saying that state violence is the only thing protecting me from him. |
|
|
|
I've not avoided anything. I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence. In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder. So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree? Stop editing my posts to change the subject. Stop avoiding my questions in an attempt to change the subject. You said that in the absence of a monopoly on law enforcement, there is no concept of murder. Implying that without the state protecting me from you (by writing words on a paper that make killing someone illegal), you would kill me. That's a fairly frightening proposition. This is the danger of defining your morality by what politicians write on paper and call laws. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
