eMansipater and anarchism

[左]

Edit.

[1713253577]

1713253577

[1713253577]

1713253577

[­­­Atlas_]

Perhaps because you're too narrow minded to realize that they are approaching things differently from you?

Capitalism permits, and encourages resource (including land) accumulation beyond what can be personally used. Capitalism permits and encourages land that isn't being personally used by the owner (the capitalist) to be rented out to others. It says that the owner has absolute control over that land. What's a monarch but a person who owns lots of land and gets to tell others what they can and can't do on that land? What's a capitalist who owns lots of land but the same?

Heh. So, your solution is man should be reduced to nothing but only live to serve the whims and desires of his fellow man and somehow have faith that others will do the same?

In summary, it's voluntary communism that no self-respecting man will submit to. I certainly won't.

[sortedmush]

Perhaps because you're too narrow minded to realize that they are approaching things differently from you?

Capitalism permits, and encourages resource (including land) accumulation beyond what can be personally used. Capitalism permits and encourages land that isn't being personally used by the owner (the capitalist) to be rented out to others. It says that the owner has absolute control over that land. What's a monarch but a person who owns lots of land and gets to tell others what they can and can't do on that land? What's a capitalist who owns lots of land but the same?

It encourages nothing. The key difference is the initiation of violence.

[FatherMcGruder]

What if initiating violence is profitable?

[­­­Atlas_]

What if initiating violence is profitable?

All it means is that it is profitable for the initiator.

[sortedmush]

What if initiating violence is profitable?

If you aquire your resources through violence, peaceful people will not want to trade with you. You would effectively be lowering the value of your ill gotten wares by limiting the amount of people who'll deal with you. You would have to invest in a considerable amount more for protection of your wares than the average peaceful individual. You will be forced to deal on a black market with other violent people and will incur the cost of all the added risk that entails (not to mention the emotional cost of ostracism).

I could go on on and on. Basically there'll be short sighted individuals who think that it's worth it. However I think it will be more profitable to deal with people on a mutually beneficial and voluntary basis.

[MoonShadow]

What if initiating violence is profitable?

If you aquire your resources through violence, peaceful people will not want to trade with you.

Just the history of the Roman Empire alone refutes this claim.

[sortedmush]

What if initiating violence is profitable?

If you aquire your resources through violence, peaceful people will not want to trade with you.

Just the history of the Roman Empire alone refutes this claim.

Ok .. So lets say that you personally are shopping for a thing. You find two people selling the thing you're looking for. One of them has aquired the thing through violence, the other through voluntary exchange. Which would you personally rather deal with?

[­­­Atlas_]

What if initiating violence is profitable?

If you aquire your resources through violence, peaceful people will not want to trade with you.

Just the history of the Roman Empire alone refutes this claim.

Ok .. So lets say that you personally are shopping for a thing. You find two people selling the thing you're looking for. One of them has aquired the thing through violence, the other through voluntary exchange. Which would you personally rather deal with?

Whatever is cheaper.

[sortedmush]

What if initiating violence is profitable?

If you aquire your resources through violence, peaceful people will not want to trade with you.

Just the history of the Roman Empire alone refutes this claim.

Ok .. So lets say that you personally are shopping for a thing. You find two people selling the thing you're looking for. One of them has aquired the thing through violence, the other through voluntary exchange. Which would you personally rather deal with?

Whatever is cheaper.

Cheaper in the short term or long term?

[­­­Atlas_]

What if initiating violence is profitable?

If you aquire your resources through violence, peaceful people will not want to trade with you.

Just the history of the Roman Empire alone refutes this claim.

Ok .. So lets say that you personally are shopping for a thing. You find two people selling the thing you're looking for. One of them has aquired the thing through violence, the other through voluntary exchange. Which would you personally rather deal with?

Whatever is cheaper.

Cheaper in the short term or long term?

It all gets acquired by violence eventually. As for the long-term, I can't even be certain of the results of my actions.

[sortedmush]

It all gets acquired by violence eventually. As for the long-term, I can't even be certain of the results of my actions.

Would you agree that if you endorsed violent behaviour, you would likely be increasing the probability that you would become a victim of violence?

[­­­Atlas_]

It all gets acquired by violence eventually. As for the long-term, I can't even be certain of the results of my actions.

Would you agree that if you endorsed violent behaviour, you would likely be increasing the probability that you would become a victim of violence?

Not necessarily. There's a lot of people out there.

[sortedmush]

It all gets acquired by violence eventually. As for the long-term, I can't even be certain of the results of my actions.

Would you agree that if you endorsed violent behaviour, you would likely be increasing the probability that you would become a victim of violence?

Not necessarily. There's a lot of people out there.

  .. Last try

Ok, if everyone endorsed violent behaviour, would you be more likely to become a victim of violence?

[­­­Atlas_]

It all gets acquired by violence eventually. As for the long-term, I can't even be certain of the results of my actions.

Would you agree that if you endorsed violent behaviour, you would likely be increasing the probability that you would become a victim of violence?

Not necessarily. There's a lot of people out there.

  .. Last try

Ok, if everyone endorsed violent behaviour, would you be more likely to become a victim of violence?

Sure. However, that's a big if.

Anyways, I'll make sure I am armed.

[FatherMcGruder]

If you aquire your resources through violence, peaceful people will not want to trade with you.

So the idea of volunteerism is to boycott the products of those who make their gains by violence.

A landlord must use violence, or the threat of violence, to make a living. If you do not pay his tithe, the rent, or follow his rules, he will violently remove you from or keep you out of the territory he controls for which he has no actual use himself.

An employer must use violence, or the threat of violence, to make a living. If you do not pay his tithe, the difference in value between your wage and that which you produce with your labor, or follow his rules, he will violently remove you from or keep you out of the workplace he controls, for which he has no actual use himself.

A usurer does the same thing, except with any capital in addition to territory and the means of production.

For the most part, landlords, employers, and usurers depend on the state to provide the violence. In the absence of a conventional government though, they'll have to procure it some other way. Keep in mind that violence isn't necessarily bloody and gory.

So, if one opposes government for gaining by violence, or threat of violence, he should also oppose landlords, employers, and usurers.

[­­­Atlas_]

I depend on violence to defend the right to my life.

[FatherMcGruder]

I depend on violence to defend the right to my life.

And so you should. If someone gets in between you and the means of production, or you and your home, he is infringing on your life.

[sortedmush]

So the idea of volunteerism is to boycott the products of those who make their gains by violence.

That's a big part of it yes.

A landlord must use violence, or the threat of violence, to make a living. If you do not pay his tithe, the rent, or follow his rules, he will violently remove you from or keep you out of the territory he controls for which he has no actual use himself.

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.

An employer must use violence, or the threat of violence, to make a living. If you do not pay his tithe, the difference in value between your wage and that which you produce with your labor, or follow his rules, he will violently remove you from or keep you out of the workplace he controls, for which he has no actual use himself.

I think the above response fits this situation too.

A usurer does the same thing, except with any capital in addition to territory and the means of production.

For the most part, landlords, employers, and usurers depend on the state to provide the violence. In the absence of a conventional government though, they'll have to procure it some other way. Keep in mind that violence isn't necessarily bloody and gory.

So, if one opposes government for gaining by violence, or threat of violence, he should also oppose landlords, employers, and usurers.

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.

[error]

I think I've finally figured out what's wrong here. It doesn't seem that FatherMcGruder respects property rights. That's quite unfortunate.