/anarcho/ - Anarchism Board

>>7771

>More so in coutnries with low EFI
EFI?

>all societies have inequalities, so what's your point?

>could you cite their peer-reviewed scientific studies?
What is Property?: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen
Das Kapital: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/
The Conquest of Bread: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread

>Sorry I do not have a burglar (burglary occurs more often in areas with the same social class)
Patently false. Source?

>>7772
1. Economic Freedom Index
2. my point on inequalities is what is the best mehtod that we have tried for resolving them (i.e. conflict resolution)
3. these materials are quirte extensive. could you narrow down to specific charts and data please.
4. http://maps.nyc.gov/crime/
Slelect burglary and get many of the poor precincts such as Brownsville, South Bronx, and Washington Heights

>>7764
Private property is a relationship between somebody who claims to own something and somebody who is deprived of it and can't get access because they're being prevented from doing so by the person who claims to own it. What you described is personal property, you possess, use and need your shirt. It doesn't require force because somebody else doesn't need the shirt so much that they're willing to use violence to procure it, your possession of the shirt is legitimate.

>>7767
>donating
You're going by the assumption that they own the food in the first place, they have no "right" to donate it because it isn't theirs to donate. You can't legitimately donate your friends shirt because it's not yours.

>>7769
The inequality is caused by capitalism among other things, the capitalists claim to ownership over the food only exists in their mind.

>>7771
>countries
Countries don't exist, they're abstract concepts.

>>7771
>all societies have inequalities
All current societies have inequalities. The definition of equality that I'm going by doesn't include people who're better at certain things, I'm talking about positions imposed on people by others.

>"Respect for property" is essentially a relationship possible only among members of the same class.
>source?
You can't respect somebodies claim to ownership if it's preventing you from accessing the tools necessary for survival without exploitation.

>>7780
>What you described is personal property
which is private property. even syndicalists own their portion of the business.

>they have no "right" to donate it because it isn't theirs to donate.
I have no right to donate my time and labor to help someone?

>You're going by the assumption that they own the food in the first place
if they own the equipment and means of production of the food, then yes

>The inequality is caused by capitalism
no, it is caused by inherent differences in people (skills, personally, goals, etc.) - these exist in all societies including theoretical ones.

>Countries don't exist, they're abstract concepts.
how are they abstract if there is general consensus on borders and governmental institutions? how do abstractions prove something doesn't exist?

>You can't respect somebodies claim to ownership if it's preventing you from accessing the tools necessary for survival without exploitation.
True, you cannot respect it, but how does that prove that "Respect for property" is possible only among members of the same class?

>>7784
>personal property is private property and syndicalists support private property
Personal property and private property are completely different, if the explanation I gave wasn't enough then look it up. Syndicalists are against private property, they don't own any. If you think that syndicalists support private property you should go read about them because you clearly don't understand.

>I have no right to donate my time and labor to help someone?
Read what I wrote again, I was referring to your claim over the products, not the labour itself. I was pointing out that your claim that you owned the food isn't legitimate because you can't reasonably expect someone who needs food to survive to just agree that it's yours and then walk off and starve and you can't justify using force to prevent them from accessing what they need to survive.

>if they own the equipment and means of production of the food, then yes
I'm not sure whether you are trying to say that they created it therefore their claim is legitimate or some tangent coming from them having a monopoly on the means of production. Either way merely producing or having other people produce something for you doesn't mean that your claim to ownership is legitimate, they need the food and you will have to use violence to prevent them from taking it, they won't stop because they need it. I can't believe I actually have to say this but you can't justify beating the starving person trying to survive solely because they were taking something you have a claim over, I'm sure most people would agree that a persons life is more important than your belief of ownership.

>no, it is caused by inherent differences in people (skills, personally, goals, etc.) - these exist in all societies including theoretical ones.
I don't mean any disrespect by this but I seriously have good reason to believe you're delusional, a malnourished African child starving to death isn't suffering because they're less able, willing or unmotivated, material conditions are what shape people's position in society, it has little to nothing to do with their personality or choices and even if it did making bad choices doesn't legitimize upholding their suffering. Everybody has bias originating from their perception of what is but you're seriously in deep if you think you can just work the poor away.

>lots of people agree it exists so that means it does
Any argument against this is self-evident, if you seriously don't understand why you're wrong here then don't waste my time arguing with me, it would take me a very long time and I don't have the patience.

>True, you cannot respect it, but how does that prove that "Respect for property" is possible only among members of the same class?
You've just agreed with me and then asked why you agree. Class is defined by relations to the means of production, in a capitalist society the working class cannot access the means of production (which they need to survive) without being exploited by the capitalists. The working class cannot respect the capitalists claim to ownership over the means of production for the same reason you can't respect someones claim to ownership over their house when they've got a gun pointed to your head. You're either a worker or a leech.

>>7787
>Personal property and private property are completely different
Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property. I own my skills and labor so it is private, thus it is personal and private property. Land property provides me substinence, thus it is personal and private property

>Syndicalists are against private property
So their labor, skills, and means of substinence (land included) is owned by the public?

>I was pointing out that your claim that you owned the food isn't legitimate
But it is if my labor contributed to it. If I do not own it or determine where to donate the excess, then there is not incentive to create the excess.
>you can't justify using force to prevent them from accessing what they need to survive.
how am i forcing that person not to have food? Stawman.
>you can't justify beating the starving person
another strawman. where have i said that?

>a malnourished African child starving to death isn't suffering because they're less able, willing or unmotivated, material conditions are what shape people's position in society
>it has little to nothing to do with their personality or choices
if they are resourceful, they can produce substinence from the land. however they do not own the land, but it falls under tribal ownership. this is not capuitalism becuase they do not own their labor.

>You've just agreed with me and then asked why you agree.
I agreed that one cannot respect someone's claim of ownership if it's preventing you from accessing the tool necessary for survival. This has nothing to do with respect for property among members of a different class.
>a capitalist society the working class cannot access the means of production (which they need to survive) without being exploited by the capitalists.
in capitalism, the woking class owns the means of their production, what you descrived is more akin to corporatism or despotism.

>>7817
>Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
Property doesn't exist and the enforcement of the belief in private property can exist without "law".

>I own my skills and labor so it is private
Try separating your body from your labour and see how well that goes, labour is an idea just like skills and people aren't things you can sell.

>So their labor, skills, and means of substinence (land included) is owned by the public?
>if it's not private it must be public.
Holy fuck dude, what is ownership, what is property, what is right? Nobody owns anything, it's a claim. If aliens came down to earth they wouldn't say "hey look, that's Jeff's bike".

>But it is if my labor contributed to it.
That's your opinion.

>incentive
What is it with capitalists and incentive, you don't even need incentive. Bob needs rubber for a wheel, Bob asks Fred who is making rubber if he can have some, Fred replies "Yes, I would be glad to help because I'm not a selfish little brat who was never taught to share without punishment or reward". I bet you're the type of person who refuses to help an old lady across the street or give people directions without getting payed. Gift economies.

>how am i forcing that person not to have food?
Because when he tries to access the means of production you prevent him from doing so with violence, he can't access what he needs to produce the goods for survival.

>another strawman. where have i said that?
Then how do you propose preventing the poor person from accessing the means of production that you're claiming ownership over. You do not own the means of production and if they need to use it to survive you can't justify preventing them from accessing it. You are taking the position of authority and need to justify doing so because you are accountable for your actions, you can't just say "it's OK, he was trying to take what he needed, how dare that bugger try to take what I claim to own". Your belief in ownership doesn't mean shit when somebody is deprived of whatever you're lording over.

>if they are resourceful, they can produce substinence from the land. however they do not own the land, but it falls under tribal ownership. this is not capuitalism becuase they do not own their labor.
This is how you justify it, by using misconceptions, blaming them for being useless and saying "that's not true Capitalism". Pathetic.

>I agreed that one cannot respect someone's claim of ownership if it's preventing you from accessing the tool necessary for survival. This has nothing to do with respect for property among members of a different class.
The means of production are the tool that's necessary for survival, class is defined by their relation to the means of production. Figure it out.

>in capitalism, the woking class owns the means of their production
You've got me in stitches, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week. "Muh crony Capitalism".

>>7824
>Property doesn't exist
this contradicts your earlier statements on personal property

>Try separating your body from your labour and see how well that goes, labour is an idea just like skills and people aren't things you can sell.
1. labor is not an idea but a physical manifestation :http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/labour?q=labor
2. labor and skills are exchanged for resources everyday (people physically possess it), which satisfies the definition of ownership: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ownership

>Holy fuck dude, what is ownership, what is property, what is right? Nobody owns anything, it's a claim.
please review the definition of ownership that I posted earlier, specifically the part of "possession"

>That's your opinion.
It is not an opinion; it is a fact. Without my input, the product/service does not exist.

>What is it with capitalists and incentive, you don't even need incentive. Bob needs rubber for a wheel, Bob asks Fred who is making rubber if he can have some, Fred replies "Yes, I would be glad to help
Fred has an incentive to provide to Bob. Thank you for demonstrating this.

>I bet you're the type of person who refuses to help an old lady across the street or give people directions without getting payed.
Please provide proof that I am doing so.

>Because when he tries to access the means of production you prevent him from doing so with violence
Please provide proof that I am doing so.

>Then how do you propose preventing the poor person from accessing the means of production that you're claiming ownership over.
Where have I stated that I am claiming ownership over the poor person's means of production?

>You do not own the means of production
I possess the skills and the effort of producing a good or service. Once again review the definition of ownership.

>If they need to use it to survive you can't justify preventing them from accessing it. You are taking the position of authority and need to justify doing so because you are accountable for your actions, you can't just say "it's OK, he was trying to take what he needed, how dare that bugger try to take what I claim to own". Your belief in ownership doesn't mean shit when somebody is deprived of whatever you're lording over.
How am I denying them access to their own skills and labor?

>if they are resourceful, they can produce subsistence from the land. however they do not own the land, but it falls under tribal ownership. this is not capuitalism becuase they do not own their labor.
>This is how you justify it, by using misconceptions, blaming them for being useless and saying "that's not true Capitalism". Pathetic.
Where in the above statement did I mention that Africans are useless? Can you provide proof that impoverished Africans are under a state of capitalism?

>The means of production are the tool that's necessary for survival, class is defined by their relation to the means of production. Figure it out.
Figure this out. Why do I (who am part of a lower middle class) am able to respect the claim of ownership of a member of the wealthy class? See how this has absolutely nothing to do with "one cannot respect someone's claim of ownership if it's preventing you from accessing the tool necessary for survival". The statements are mutually exclusive.

>You've got me in stitches, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week. "Muh crony Capitalism".
Cronyism is not capitalism. I suggest reviewing the definition of caiptalism, specifically the part about "rather than by the state": http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/capitalism

>>7887
I wrote a long response but this is pointless, we're not getting anywhere. I think that this will be a lot easier if we find exactly where we are disagreeing. Also stop with the dictionary and use actual arguments please.

>this contradicts your earlier statements on personal property
The issue I see here is what we mean by property, I never said that personal property has an objective basis, it is a claim that the person needs something and that they would be able to justify using force to keep possession of the item. The focus is on the relationship between the person who possesses something and somebody that wants it, it's a question of authority. Producing something doesn't necessarily mean that it's yours. Private property is unquestionable dominion over something.

Sorry, I'm a little busy right now so I'll have to make this quick. The main disagreements are private property, wage labour, the authority that you ignore etc. and the reason why dictionaries are useless is because it's the common use of terms, nothing else. If we were to go by the common use of the word Anarchism it would mean chaos. People need access to the means of production to survive, by preventing that access you're taking a form of authority over them, ownership is a claim so it requires justification or you're limiting peoples freedom, gift economy for incentive (which I think is mute anyway), when I'm talking about class it's in relation to the means of production i.e. working class and bourgeoisie. Where do you think we're disagreeing?

>>8067
>>8067
I use a dictionary source because it supports my arguments and provides the actual definition of property.
>and the reason why dictionaries are useless is because it's the common use of terms, nothing else.
If we don't have a common definition of anything, then how do you communicate? The reason why you can understand what I am writing is becuase of a common starndard not your subjective interpretation.
>If we were to go by the common use of the word Anarchism it would mean chaos.
That is not the common defintion of anarchism. I am not even sure how chaos can exist when there exists some degree of order in reality.

>person needs something and that they would be able to justify using force to keep possession of the item.
And what is the basis for that justification? What if that force has unintended consequences (the former possesser now becomes the one in need, death is the result of the force, tragedy of the commons, etc.)?

>The main disagreements are private property, wage labour, the authority that you ignore etc.
This we can discuss, but you must support your statements with sources. Where have I ignored authority? Where have I denied someone in need of what I consider "property"? Why would I deny them if it benefits all society including myself? Why do you use Africa as example of capitalism when the means of production are:
1. controlled by states (which fails oxford's definition)
2. not privately owned (e.g. tribal ownerships, nationalized industries, forced labor)

>>8136
If you swapped each instance of "socialism" in this quote with "capitalism" then it would be true

>>8098
>dictionaries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIeDjjwOFxA

>And what is the basis for that justification?
It depends on the context, if they need it to survive they can probably justify it.

>What if that force has unintended consequences
That would suck, if they had no way of knowing then what are they supposed to do? It's only a problem if they did it on purpose.

>tragedy of the commons
Unrealistic and nothing do with collective ownership of the means of production, you can't do whatever you want, it isn't a free for all. This is in the FAQ: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/seci6.html

>Where have I ignored authority?
Capitalism requires it.

>Where have I denied someone in need of what I consider "property"?
I'm not talking about you personally.

Please read the FAQ.

>>8290
no capitalism without private property, no private property without states, its really rather very simple my friend

>>8305
>no private property without states
that's not proof. black markets operate outside of government oversight and control.

>>8302
>>8302
>youtube link
ignoring the no true scotman' fallacy in this video, the argument does not apply becuase the defintion I am using is the actual and commonly used definition and not one or the other.

>if they need it to survive they can probably justify it.
justification is then subjective, because I require to survive on that too.

>Unrealistic and nothing do with collective ownership of the means of production
It is a realsitic situation with historic examples such as the Plymouth Colony (your link says there are no examples lol). If the collective determines the actions and use of resources for the individual, then the collective governs the individual and a state of of anarchy is not in effect.

>Capitalism requires it
no authority is necessary when there is common recognition of ownership. see this: >>8305

>I'm not talking about you personally.
Then you should specifically address to whom. Capitalists in general?

>Read the FAQ
Where does it address your usage of "you"?

>>8351
>ignoring the video
>justification is then subjective
So?
>I require to survive on that too
Then they can't justify taking it from you can they? If you need it then you can defend it (this is assuming that you are in possession).

>governance
They don't determine the actions and use of resources for the individual, they only prevent people from making them inaccessible to others. Anarchism is questioning authority and if the burden of proof is not met dismantling that authority, making the means of production inoperable is a form of authority so stopping that from happening is compatible with Anarchism. Anarchism doesn't means anything goes. The tragedy of the commons is ahistorical, the peasants in medieval England had no problem, there's even people that still manage it the same way today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg3YDN5gTX0
http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britain

>no authority is necessary when there is common recognition of ownership
No authority is necessary between the individuals who agree, that's not private property. The problem arises when somebody who has not agreed appears.
>Then you should specifically address to whom. Capitalists in general?
The bourgeoisie.

>>8350
they still require using force to control property, if the government started calling themselves the mafia would you consider that anarchy?

>>8361
>they still require using force to control property
I don't need force to control my bit coin wallet, nor force to ensure I do not get cheated on my transactions.

>>8352
>So?
If justification is subjective, then I am justified in claiming ownership of my produce. Also, my argument for using the dictionary still remains valid.

>They don't determine the actions and use of resources for the individual.
But they do in the link your provided: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/seci6.html
"Users would be [u]subject to recall[/u] by local communities if they are abusing their position. Thus [u]use rights[/u] (or usufruct) replace property rights in a free society" What you have is a governing body (e.g. the community) dictating resource usage, which is not anarchy.

>The tragedy of the commons is ahistorical, the peasants in medieval England had no problem, there's even people that still manage it the same way today
The Plymouth colony is an example of common use management where the produce was owned by the collective and distributed equally, so how can it be ahistorical? Medieval English peasants had allotments of furlongs that they managed and owned their produce, (except the portion owed to the manorial lord) and was not collectively owned. There were pastures and forests that were held in common use, but were owned and regulated by the manorial lord and not the collective.

>No authority is necessary between the individuals who agree, that's not private property. The problem arises when somebody who has not agreed appears.
If those individuals recognize the ownership claim, it is private property. For anyone who contests ownership, that is where arbitration comes into effect.

>>8369

>a self-managed community is a governing body so not anarchy
>the only anarchy is when I'm allowed to rule over everyone

Why are people this retarded?

>>8373
A self-managed community that dictates the resources of the individual is a government.
>the only anarchy is when I'm allowed to rule over everyone
You lack reading comprehension. Where have I stated that?

>>8374

Here is your problem: you lack the means to be absolutely self-sufficient. You have to cooperate with other people to survive.
But to you it is only anarchy if you are the owner of the means of production at the expense of everyone else, i.e., if you have the capacity to rule over everyone.

I'm also willing to bet you have deficient knowledge of the productive character of society, with its contradictions and collective character.

>>8367
well if your black market is just trading bitcoins for other bitcoins and making sure you get a good deal then go ahead mate

>>8369
>For anyone who contests ownership, that is where arbitration comes into effect.
and if someone just ignores you and continues to make use of 'your' property then what?

>>8375
>you lack the means to be absolutely self-sufficient. You have to cooperate with other people to survive.
And this can be done through voluntary transactions and agreements of the individuals and not the community dictating usage.

>But to you it is only anarchy if you are the owner of the means of production at the expense of everyone else
Anarchy is the absence of a ruler or governing body. In anarchy an individual's means of production is controlled by themselves or a voluntary pact with others. In no way that this violates the expense of everyone else without suffering

>I'm also willing to bet you have deficient knowledge of the productive character of society, with its contradictions and collective character.
Strawman. Society is productive because of voluntary collective individualist transactions.

>and if someone just ignores you and continues to make use of 'your' property then what?
If he/she uses my labour without my consent (i.e. slavery) or has seized my produce or means of production then he/she initiating force and I have right to defend myself. There are other incentives that prevent that individual from infringing on my means of production (bad public relations that impact future transactions among myself and others).

>>8379
>* In no way that this violates the expense of everyone else's means of production
>*voluntary collective and individualist transactions.

fixed

>>8379

>And this can be done through voluntary transactions and agreements of the individuals and not the community dictating usage.
No, because there are no voluntary agreements. All agreements are set within a social framework. In your case, because you are a bourgeois faggot, that framework is private property.
Class interests are fundamentally opposed.

>Anarchy is the absence of a ruler or governing body.
Yes, but the people who own the means of production rule over the people who don't and are forced to sell their labor power.

>In anarchy an individual's means of production is controlled by themselves or a voluntary pact with others. In no way that this violates the expense of everyone else without suffering
Except if you don't own means of production.

>Strawman. Society is productive because of voluntary collective individualist transactions.
Oh god you are delusional.
Society is productive because the vast majority of people (proletariat) are driven to produce for society so they can earn a wage to survive. In the process, surplus value is extracted from them, which creates the basis for social wealth.

>>8382
> there are no voluntary agreements
Most transactions are voluntary. Some are even outside state control or influence (e.g. dickering, second-hand markets, black markets).
>All agreements are set within a social framework.
If this is true, how does that make the agreements involuntary? If I offer you my labour or other possession in exchange for something you possess and you accept, how is this involuntary if we both agreee on the transaction.

>people who own the means of production rule over the people who don't and are forced to sell their labor power.
>Except if you don't own means of production.
Their labour is their means of production. If someone else owns that, then it is slavery.

>Society is productive because the vast majority of people (proletariat) are driven to produce for society so they can earn a wage to survive.
1. The proletariat is not driven to produce simpy for survival. Otherwise, why would they possess luxury goods?
2. They utilize voluntary collective and individualist transactions to provide for their means of survival and those luxury goods. How is this delusional? I provided you examples in my earlier posts.

>>8384

>Most transactions are voluntary. Some are even outside state control or influence (e.g. dickering, second-hand markets, black markets).
Slave trade is voluntary. People voluntarily sell slaves.

>If this is true, how does that make the agreements involuntary? If I offer you my labour or other possession in exchange for something you possess and you accept, how is this involuntary if we both agreee on the transaction.
Because the choice of rejection implies death. If you were drowning in the sea and I offered to save your life in exchange for lifelong slavery, would that be a voluntary transaction?

>Their labour is their means of production. If someone else owns that, then it is slavery.
Labor isn't the means of production. Body isn't capital. Products require means of production and labor. The thing is that all people have labor power. Few people have means of production.

>1. The proletariat is not driven to produce simpy for survival. Otherwise, why would they possess luxury goods?
Most don't, actually.

>2. They utilize voluntary collective and individualist transactions to provide for their means of survival and those luxury goods. How is this delusional? I provided you examples in my earlier posts.
It isn't voluntary. See my previous comment about drowning.

>>8385
>Slave trade is voluntary. People voluntarily sell slaves.
1. Most transactions are not slavery, so that does not violate the existence of voluntary tranasactions
2. Slavery is not voluntary to the slave, so it is an involuntary transaction. Slavery has shown to be viable when supported by the state, otherwise it would not be economically viable in an anarchial society.

>If you were drowning in the sea and I offered to save your life in exchange for lifelong slavery, would that be a voluntary transaction?
1. That transaction is not voluntary (see above) if it is under duress, and duress nullifies a contract.
2. I can also renege on the agreement becuase it violates NAP.
3. You are at an economnic disavantage in any society that opposes slavery by using slave labour, so such a transaction is implausable.

>Labor isn't the means of production
Skills and physical/intellectual input fall under the criteria of the means of production: "(in Marxist theory) the raw materials and means of labour employed in the production process"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/means+of+production
>The thing is that all people have labor power. Few people have means of production.
Yet they use that labor power in exhange of goods/services or a method of acquiring them throug hthe market (i.e. wages)

>Most don't, actually.
They do. You are using one right now.

>It isn't voluntary
But it is. I provided you examples.

>>8387

>1. Most transactions are not slavery, so that does not violate the existence of voluntary tranasactions
Most transactions were slavery under the slavist system. Now with a capital system, most transactions are commodity transactions. Difference being that in slavery you sold concrete labor capacity, while in capitalism you only sell abstract labor capacity.

>2. Slavery is not voluntary to the slave, so it is an involuntary transaction. Slavery has shown to be viable when supported by the state, otherwise it would not be economically viable in an anarchial society.
Why isn't it voluntary to the slave? Or what is the same, why is it voluntary to the worker?
Also, kek re:state supported slavery. You do know, that capitalism and markets only emerged by force of state, right?
See David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years.

>1. That transaction is not voluntary (see above) if it is under duress, and duress nullifies a contract.
A labor contract is under duress too. If you don't work for a capitalist boss, you starve to death.

>2. I can also renege on the agreement becuase it violates NAP.
>Muh NAP!!!1!
There is literally nothing that makes the NAP valid.

>3. You are at an economnic disavantage in any society that opposes slavery by using slave labour, so such a transaction is implausable.
Implausible != impossible.
Either way, since you admit that economic agreements are determined by the economic system, how come you insist that capitalist trade is voluntary? It isn't if you are in place of offering labor, like slaves were.

>dictionary definitions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIeDjjwOFxA

>Yet they use that labor power in exhange of goods/services or a method of acquiring them throug hthe market (i.e. wages)
That is roughly wage slavery, yes. Slaves acquired goods too through their labor, although not from the market which is characteristically capitalistic.

>They do. You are using one right now.
1) You assume I in fact own this computer
2) You assume I in fact bought this computer
3) You assume my computer is, in fact, a luxury item (ignoring both price range and its capacity as a work tool)

>But it is. I provided you examples.
It isn't. You just adjust duress as "only when I am fucked over". Your ideology is purely a product of bourgeois society.

>>8388
>Most transactions were slavery under the slavist system. Now with a capital system, most transactions are commodity transactions. Difference being that in slavery you sold concrete labor capacity, while in capitalism you only sell abstract labor capacity.
Except a system of slavery is not voluntary.

>Why isn't it voluntary to the slave? Or what is the same, why is it voluntary to the worker?
>Also, kek re:state supported slavery. You do know, that capitalism and markets only emerged by force of state, right?
>See David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years.
1. The slave did not choose voluntarily to be one (except for voluntary gladiators, but then again they amassed fortunes).
2. The worker volunteers one's labour for a wage. This wage is agreed upon by the worker and employer.
3. Capitalism arose from the decentralization and/or removal of such force (e,.g. removal of price restraints, trade barriers).
4. Could you provide the specific text in Graeber's book that supports your statement?

>A labor contract is under duress too. If you don't work for a capitalist boss, you starve to death.
How? The self-employed do not work for a boss, yet do not starve. If I work for a boss, I can cancel the contract and apply my labour elsewhere.

>There is literally nothing that makes the NAP valid.
We validate it all the time. Most of society's transactions are non-aggressive and are mutually cooperative.

>Implausible != impossible.
A moot point. Why choose a situation where you benefit the least from?
>Either way, since you admit that economic agreements are determined by the economic system, how come you insist that capitalist trade is voluntary? It isn't if you are in place of offering labor, like slaves were.
I offer my labour for a wage voluntary - how do you explain that? I won't starve to death if I do not work for a wage. I can be an artisan and trade my produce directly to a customer. OR I can form/join a cooperative, or be self-sufficient.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIeDjjwOFxA
I debunked that scotsman fallacy already. Sorry, but I plan on using an actual definition instead of one that you made up.

>That is roughly wage slavery.
Nope, labourers are not dependent on a wage for survival. I mentioned cooperatives and luxury goods, didn't I?
>Slaves acquired goods too through their labor, although not from the market which is characteristically capitalistic.

>1) You assume I in fact own this computer
I assume you possess luxury products such as clothing or other products that have extraneous or unnecessary-for-survival qualities. The time you are spending on here debating me is a luxury.
>3) You assume my computer is, in fact, a luxury item (ignoring both price range and its capacity as a work tool)
They are a luxury because there are other (albeit more inefficient ) alternatives to produce a livelihood.

>It isn't. Your ideology is purely a product of bourgeois society.
You failed to observe the examples I clearly pointed out in the previous posts. My ideology is on voluntary cooperative and individualistic ventures that predate bourgeois society.

>>8508
>>8508
LMAO
M
A
O

>>8508
Bretty effective police force :DDDD
would purchase a subscription and rate them on angie's list 5/5

why is this retarded fucking shit the only living thread in this dead fucking platformist shithole?

…..oh…..wait…..i guess it would be wouldn't it……

Assume whatever economic starting point you prefer. From there, all it takes for inequality to arise is different desires for goods by people who are different, and the ability to exchange goods and services freely. Come on, guys, Rawls went over this in the 70s. You cannot have anarchism without capitalism.