Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 10:06:24 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Libertarian Anticapitalism  (Read 4345 times)
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 05:01:18 PM
 #21

In the real world, that means you are happy to see people die of food poisoning. 

Can't see the benefit myself.  Even with lower taxes, being poisoned is never fun.

Are you trying to keep the debate honest?  Roll Eyes

I guess that what happened last month here in the EU with the people poisoned by food did not happened since we have the government taking care of safety. Or should I say that since you support those agencies you are guilty of what happened?

You can try to play all the rethoric tricks you want. You have said nothing.


Just point out where anyone claimed that the current system is flawless and I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that your post isn't a raging strawman.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
1481191584
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191584

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191584
Reply with quote  #2

1481191584
Report to moderator
1481191584
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191584

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191584
Reply with quote  #2

1481191584
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481191584
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191584

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191584
Reply with quote  #2

1481191584
Report to moderator
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 20, 2011, 05:20:48 PM
 #22

In the real world, that means you are happy to see people die of food poisoning. 

Can't see the benefit myself.  Even with lower taxes, being poisoned is never fun.

Are you trying to keep the debate honest?  Roll Eyes

I guess that what happened last month here in the EU with the people poisoned by food did not happened since we have the government taking care of safety. Or should I say that since you support those agencies you are guilty of what happened?

You can try to play all the rethoric tricks you want. You have said nothing.


Just point out where anyone claimed that the current system is flawless and I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that your post isn't a raging strawman.

As he said.

Even with the power to close down contaminated food facilities, its almost impossible to eliminate food poisoning.   hugolp; your concept is some kind of voluntary food safety club.  Surely you can think of some better way to prevent people being killed by e.coli?

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 05:29:09 PM
 #23

Well, in my view its not enough that someone comes after 15 years and says: "hey! Im still interested" and then goes away again.

If I own a house, it's my house. If I want it to sit there unused then that's my choice. Maybe I just like the idea of having a house that I could always live in, in an emergency. The point is, I might want to use it someday and that's all that matters. Let's say that I already own a house that I live in and I buy another house for $50,000. I have it there for 15 years doing nothing with it. Then, you come along and move in to it claiming it's unowned. The next day, the house I was living in burns to the ground and I'm homeless. Do you think that's fair?
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 05:32:02 PM
 #24

Well, in my view its not enough that someone comes after 15 years and says: "hey! Im still interested" and then goes away again.

If I own a house, it's my house. If I want it to sit there unused then that's my choice. Maybe I just like the idea of having a house that I could always live in, in an emergency. The point is, I might want to use it someday and that's all that matters. Let's say that I already own a house that I live in and I buy another house for $50,000. I have it there for 15 years doing nothing with it. Then, you come along and move in to it claiming it's unowned. The next day, the house I was living in burns to the ground and I'm homeless. Do you think that's fair?
/trolling
absolutly fair!

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 05:32:25 PM
 #25

Wait, now the justification for the State is e.coli? Not warlords or marauding bandits but food posioning? Sheesh, debate sure has gone downhill since I last checked the politics forums.

Also, as I have mentioned before I am personally a libertarian socialist and I do agree that anarcho-capitalists <-> free market anti capitalists // mutualists <-> libertarian socialists all come down on a spectrum based primarily on how "sticky" they think property rights are (and whether they believe in the alienability of labor, but that is a different issue). Unfortunately, many AnCaps not only go to an extreme with very sticky property rights, but believe that those property rights are somehow natural, rather than simply a social arrangement, which makes it very difficult to argue about things.
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 06:12:08 PM
 #26

Well, in my view its not enough that someone comes after 15 years and says: "hey! Im still interested" and then goes away again.

If I own a house, it's my house. If I want it to sit there unused then that's my choice. Maybe I just like the idea of having a house that I could always live in, in an emergency. The point is, I might want to use it someday and that's all that matters. Let's say that I already own a house that I live in and I buy another house for $50,000. I have it there for 15 years doing nothing with it. Then, you come along and move in to it claiming it's unowned. The next day, the house I was living in burns to the ground and I'm homeless. Do you think that's fair?

So why would anyone ever declare that they abandon a house? It's not like they're paying taxes on it. I worry that bandits would rob this house, but honest men would leave it untouched indefinitely. Or worse yet, a prankster bandit posts an "abandoned" sign!
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
August 20, 2011, 06:50:09 PM
 #27

If I own a house, it's my house.

We are discussing the validity and reach of property rights. You can not justify owning something by saying that you own it. We are discussing exactly that concept, what it means to own something.

Quote
If I want it to sit there unused then that's my choice.

Again, it all boils down to your idea of property rights.

Quote
Maybe I just like the idea of having a house that I could always live in, in an emergency. The point is, I might want to use it someday and that's all that matters. Let's say that I already own a house that I live in and I buy another house for $50,000. I have it there for 15 years doing nothing with it. Then, you come along and move in to it claiming it's unowned. The next day, the house I was living in burns to the ground and I'm homeless. Do you think that's fair?

If you are able to have a house of $50.000 there unused I am sure you are capable of storing some wealth in other ways that allow you to recover from your loss. Also, Im not being very strick. If you visit your house from time to time, it can still be considered yours. I dont think its fair or socially stable in a voluntary society to have a bunch of capital unused for years and years. People will not accept that arrangement and will lead to violantions of property rights. Only under a represive society those type of situations are accepted.

Quote from: lemonginger
Wait, now the justification for the State is e.coli? Not warlords or marauding bandits but food posioning? Sheesh, debate sure has gone downhill since I last checked the politics forums.

Yes, its like that with those people. I think that when they see a thread with adult conversations they come to distract.

EDIT: Btw, lemonginger last time I check mutualist were socialists. I dont consider myself a mutualist or a socialist, although I have taken or share a lot of ideas with them, because I dont feel that strongly about wage labour as they do. I guess Im near them, but somewhere in between.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 20, 2011, 06:54:45 PM
 #28

You were the one came here saying you believe in a free market but not capitalism.  e.coli is a useful illustration of why food regulation is needed. 

I'm still not sure what you mean by anti-capitalist which still allows for free market trading. 

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 07:08:17 PM
 #29

e.coli is a useful illustration of why food regulation is needed

Passing a law requiring food to be safe is like passing a law requiring people to wear parachutes when skydiving. Most people are going to do that anyways. The ones that don't, they have the right not to.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 20, 2011, 07:18:34 PM
 #30

e.coli is a useful illustration of why food regulation is needed

Passing a law requiring food to be safe is like passing a law requiring people to wear parachutes when skydiving. Most people are going to do that anyways. The ones that don't, they have the right not to.

No.  Its like the law requiring that every parachute be traceable and that all its part be traceable.  That way, when a parachute fails, the is a very short time before the manufacturer is able to recall all other parachutes with the same faulty component.


NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 08:02:07 PM
 #31

Way to completely miss the point. The point is, few people are going to jump out of a plane without a parachute. Few people are going to eat food that hasn't been inspected. The ones that do, have that right. End of story.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 20, 2011, 08:45:19 PM
 #32

Way to completely miss the point. The point is, few people are going to jump out of a plane without a parachute. Few people are going to eat food that hasn't been inspected. The ones that do, have that right. End of story.

To say someone has the right to be poisoned is a bit strange.  In the real world, people have no way of knowing what food is safe and what is not.  That's why food regulation is needed. 

AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 09:02:05 PM
 #33

Way to completely miss the point. The point is, few people are going to jump out of a plane without a parachute. Few people are going to eat food that hasn't been inspected. The ones that do, have that right. End of story.

To say someone has the right to be poisoned is a bit strange.  In the real world, people have no way of knowing what food is safe and what is not.  That's why food regulation is needed.  


Bro, you clearly are too dumb to understand our superior mindset.  People should know before hand what food is spoiled and what food isn't.  If they aren't capable of predicting the future, then obviously they should reconsider whether they're able to handle the risks of eating food in an unregulated environment.  They have the option to hire a food tester who will eat their food for them to make sure it's safe.  1-2 weeks later, if he isn't dead, they'll know the food was good 1-2 weeks ago.  If that time frame isn't sufficient and they're rolling in money (as everyone will be in libertopia), they can hire a private firm to culture test each one of their meals before they eat it.  This will only have a 2-3 day turn around time and will let them know the food was good 2-3 days ago.  If that still doesn't suit them, maybe they'd be better off just not eating or drinking.  Freedom isn't risk free.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 11:18:03 PM
 #34

*yawn*

really, of all the things to get up in arms about, food safety is a really boring one everyone. It is easily accomplished without state action and one could argue that Big Ag (which has always been a good example of state/corporate incest) and costly regulations have made food MORE unsafe because big ass factory farms and giant slaughterhouses are much much more likely to result in unsafe food than smaller operations.

--

hugo: most mutualists do not identify as socialists but as "free market anti-capitalists" and individualist anarchists. Kevin Carson, for example, does not identify as a socialist.

to quote mutualist.org

Quote
Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives.  To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.

But yes, it's a spectrum of course with an-cap on one side and libertarian communism on the other and various degrees of markets and property rights, mutualism, syndalicalism, egoism etc etc in between
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 21, 2011, 03:23:54 AM
 #35

*yawn*

really, of all the things to get up in arms about, food safety is a really boring one everyone. It is easily accomplished without state action and one could argue that Big Ag (which has always been a good example of state/corporate incest) and costly regulations have made food MORE unsafe because big ass factory farms and giant slaughterhouses are much much more likely to result in unsafe food than smaller operations.

The illogic, it burns!  Let's try to break down this non-sensical post.



Food safety is easily accomplished without state action - how? explanation needed

Big Ag and factory farms make food more unsafe - I agree, but how is this at all relevant to a discussion on regulation?  Raising, processing, and cooking all your own food would be the safest of all, but that's hardly relevant either.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
August 21, 2011, 07:32:16 AM
 #36

hugo: most mutualists do not identify as socialists but as "free market anti-capitalists" and individualist anarchists. Kevin Carson, for example, does not identify as a socialist.

to quote mutualist.org

Quote
Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives.  To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.

But yes, it's a spectrum of course with an-cap on one side and libertarian communism on the other and various degrees of markets and property rights, mutualism, syndalicalism, egoism etc etc in between

I am too lazy to look it up now but I have seen Kevin Carson refering to himself as a socialist and a the rest of the mutualist that I know do also. Benjamin Tucker was a socialist, as was Lysander Spooner, and they are his ideological precedents. At the end that branch comes from Proudhom that is a socialist. They are not marxists, but they are socialists.

I personally dont care much if someone calls him/herself socialist. I think the word socialism is a bit useless. I dont see how a stalinists, a progressive, an anarcho-syndicalist and a mutualist can all call themselves socialists and assume they are in some kind of common tent, when they are opposites. What does a stalinists have in common with an anarcho-syndicalist? Yes, they might use similar vocabulary and rethoric, but thats all.

Btw, I dont see how anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-communism makes any sense. When I discovered mutualism (which is what lead me to become an anarchist) I also investigated anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-communism. What I read is that they oppose the market and money itself, but they want to substitute it with something that looks very similar to a market and money. So basically they want to form local communes that would exchange (not trade!! that would be a market, they exchange, but I see no difference) their products in some exchangers (not a market!!, again I dont see the difference) based in the time it has taken to produce the goods. So basically imposing a "time to produce" monetary standard, but again, its not money according to them. I dont see how a market based in some "time" monetary standard is not a market and is not money, but also there are several problems with this situation, basically that producers would be compelled to lie about the time it took to produce the products to adquire certain goods. According to my very superficial readings anarcho-syndicalists argue it wont happen because, since "capitalism" is gone, people will act very different. To me this is wishfull thinking. While it is true that the dynamics of capitalism creates certain harmful ractions, believing that without capitalism humans will react according to how each anarcho-syndicalists thinks society has to be is 100% wishfull thinking. When you question this, they reffer to Marx writtings as scientific proof (!!!!!). It seems to me like a religion, where once something has happened (you die and got to heaven, capitalism ends) everybody will start acting by your personal and subjective moral standards. Honestly, I dont see how it makes any sense.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 21, 2011, 09:37:45 AM
 #37

*yawn*

really, of all the things to get up in arms about, food safety is a really boring one everyone. It is easily accomplished without state action ...snip...

Actually it can't be accomplished without state action.  Food safety requires the ability to force firms to close down and only a state can legally force you to do stuff.


kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 21, 2011, 04:59:32 PM
 #38


Food safety is easily accomplished without state action - how? explanation needed


20 people eat poisened food from company A(by mistake).
20 people gets sick
30000 people are seeing this 20 getting sick, from food poisened.
30000 people decides(indevidualy) not to buy from company A.
company A is screwed.
other companies B-Z are realizing, its stupid to poisen their food.

no need for governement action. no need to force any one to anything.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
qbg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75


View Profile
August 21, 2011, 05:02:57 PM
 #39

*yawn*

really, of all the things to get up in arms about, food safety is a really boring one everyone. It is easily accomplished without state action ...snip...

Actually it can't be accomplished without state action.  Food safety requires the ability to force firms to close down and only a state can legally force you to do stuff.
Not necessarily. The industry could produce an organization similar to the USDA which performs random inspections and ensures a rigorous set of standards are being followed in exchanged for permission to use the group's trademark on their product. Consumers can then just look for the trademark.

This assumes that the use of the trademark is enforceable, naturally.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 21, 2011, 05:17:37 PM
 #40


Food safety is easily accomplished without state action - how? explanation needed


20 people eat poisened food from company A(by mistake).
20 people gets sick
30000 people are seeing this 20 getting sick, from food poisened.
30000 people decides(indevidualy) not to buy from company A.
company A is screwed.
other companies B-Z are realizing, its stupid to poisen their food.

no need for governement action. no need to force any one to anything.

lol

Have you even thought about this for a second?  

20 people get food poisoning.  They have no idea what food poisoned them and if there is no food regulation, there will be no inspectors to try and find a common link.  So yes you are correct they made a mistake but they have no way of telling what mistake.  And if its e.coli or salmonella, a lot of people will die directly as a result of the lack of food regulation.

Its really worth thinking of how things work in real life before coming up with nonsense posts like that.  In your best case scenario, 20 people get very sick and a lot of them die. In the worst case, we return to the 19th century where people were being killed off by bad food and drink all the time but no-one knew.


Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!