You would have entered into a contract voluntarily with the land lord to live on his property. I would expect that such a contract would require that you move out if you did not pay. If you refuse to leave when you are in breach of contract the land lord is within his rights to remove you. A point not to be glossed over is the fact that you would have been made aware of, and explicitly agreed to the rules in advance. The landlord does have a use for the land/house/room, and that is the renting of it to another person who's willing and able to pay the fee.
Contract or not, landlords cannot exist without the violence to remove people from their homes.
I think the above response fits this situation too.
Ditto.
What I oppose is the providing of goods and services at the barrel of a gun. I oppose governments because they will use violence to stop you from competing with the services they provide. Many businesses also presently rely on the violence a state can provide to limit competition. What I'm for, is an environment in which no entity can rely on the cost of hampering competition being outsourced to society as a whole.
What's to stop business owners from violently eliminating competition to increase their profits themselves? Criminal enterprises, who do not enjoy protection from the traditional state, do so all the time.
I think I've finally figured out what's wrong here. It doesn't seem that FatherMcGruder respects property rights. That's quite unfortunate.
I just don't think anyone has the right to use, or not use, their property to exploit or otherwise harm others.
Yeah, I don't see how you can respect one kind of property rights ("personal" property), but not another ("capital" property). How do you draw that line? It's almost certain that more people could live in your home than currently does. Can you (McGruder) give an argument against this individual using your home that doesn't also fit for a landlord and his property?
My home? I can have guests, but the decision of allowing additional people to live her belongs to my landlord. If I did own my home though, and if I thought a portion of it would be most useful housing someone, I would sell that portion as a share.
It's kind of funny with you think about it, that people regularly do not own their own homes.
I would say socialists or communists moreso than anarchists
The problem there is that the socialists and communists CALL themselves anarchists, and the press quotes it as if it were true. Remember, the people who subscribe to this philosophy have no qualms about throwing a bomb at you if you are making a "profit" at someone else's "expense" -- in their eyes.
I think it makes more sense for the anarcho-socialists and communists to call themselves An
hierarchists.
As long as a socialist or a communist hates and wishes to get rid of authority, he is an anarchist. If he tolerates authority, even in the form of a state that he expects to wither away, he is not an anarchist.
Do you feel that it's possible to reject rulers but accept hierarchies?
No, but it's what anti-government capitalists try to do, not seeing, or perhaps ignoring, the contradiction.
I've been in a meeting with anarcho-socialists and communists and what happened blew me away, it was fantastic. Nobody interupts, everyone listens and the whole thing goes swimmingly. However, there was a hierarchical structure that spontaneously emerged, served it's purpose and disappeared.
That's not hierarchy, because the apparent leaders don't have any rank over anyone else. They are partners.
It happens when we communicate, I talk, you listen and vice versa. There is lasting power to be had in maintaining a hierarchy for longer than it's natural life. This is achieved with violence and I am opposed to this. Governments talk, people listen, it's unilateral and perpetual.
Employers talk, employees listen, landlords talk, tenants listen, all unilaterally. These are authoritarian relationships.
