82f755 No.6450[Last 50 Posts]
what if i told you…. Anarcho Capitalism
WIN!
This is now the official Capitalist thread, all discussion about capitalism will be limited to this thread.
Post last edited at
ee40ad No.6497
before we can argue about which is the best, we must first create an environment in which we can create anarchism.
Stop arguing about which is the best and start tearing down the system.
9252d6 No.6509
>>6497This so god damn much
5a88fa No.6535
>>6497>>6509"In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model.
You create a new model and make the old one obsolete.
That, in essence, is the higher service to which we are all being called."
-Buckminster Fuller
603a92 No.6539
File: 1421717791389.jpg (44.99 KB, 640x634, 320:317, tumblr_m17wsgRYgw1qbox0zo1….jpg)
>>6497There's a lot of irony there. Act, don't think. Do, don't be. It is hardest to act and easy to think, those who act are struck down swiftly, but those who think can just be misinformed (by SJWs, ancaps, vanguardists, etc.) about the proper way of going about things. We shouldn't support any 'no platform' censorship bullshit that the SRS anarcho-liberal ANTIFA feminazis advocate. (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU#t=17)
Solution? Black blocs everywhere. What else? Establishment of parochial direct democracies (anarcho-communes,) gift economies that don't even use money, and we shouldn't shy away from all technology because of it's actual and potential harm. Let's fucking be the ones to colonize space and turn a revolution into a renaissance.
753a5f No.6579
>>6497How can you not tell this is just some anarcho-collectivist using epic memes like "what if I told you" and "WIN!" to make fun of ancaps/make them look bad. Not that that's hard to do.
018ca1 No.6671
How could someone be an anarchist and NOT be a capitalist? Capitalism in its purest form means free, voluntary exchange of property, energy and time.
Capitalism
>hey you want to work for me?
<ok!
>hey you want some x? just y dollars/sacks of potatoes/hours of work/blowjobs
>yeah sure
OR
>mmnn no thanks
'Anarchism'
>hey you want to work for me?
>YOU CAN'T DO THAT
>hey you want some x?
>YOU CAN'T DO THAT
753a5f No.6679
>>6450Fuck you for locking my thread at >5297
This is censorship. Creating a hugbox will not solve your problem.
Unintended. Consequences. You have been warned.
>>6671As an "anarcho"-capitalist, I will answer this for you.
"Anarchism" and "Anarchy" are two separate things.
"Anarchism" is a collectivist philosophy which is (generally) based on the Labor theory of value. It is categorized as anti-state and anti-private property(so by proxy, anti-capitalism). What constitutes when something is "private property" and it's "personal property" is left up to interpretation even on a collective scale as when asked, no two answers will be the same.
"Anarchy" = without(an) rulers(archy)
Therefore, "anarcho"-capitalists such as my self aren't actually Anarchists.
14c026 No.6681
>>6497no ones saying ancap is a bad form of anarchy, it literally isn't anarchy.
018ca1 No.6691
>>6679So you're just arguing semantics, not refusing my point.
e432d9 No.6696
>>6679
>Fuck you for locking my thread at >>5297
I'm not going to apologize, this is an Anarchist board and having loads of threads for any non-Anarchist political thought and derailing other threads won't be tolerated. "Anti-Capitalist & Anti-State"
>This is censorship
No it's not, you can continue the discussion from the other threads in this one and I do not plan to delete >>5297. If I had planned to censor ayncaps I would have deleted all ayncap posts and threads.
Any disagreements about moderation are to be raised in the council thread.
753a5f No.6697
>>6696>this is an Anarchist board and having loads of threads for any non-Anarchist political thought and derailing other threads won't be tolerated.I agree with you in a way but whast you are doing is making an eccho chamber. If I were to own the /ancap/ board for instance, I would want a ton of statist coming in to debate us.
I mean, if you really want a hugbox, go for it. I'm just saying this isn't the way to do it. It's more than likely going to make the situation worse if anything.
e432d9 No.6699
>>6697>making an echo chamberYou can still post your opinion, it's just that I want the debate to take place in here to avoid derailing, this thread is for specifically ayncap arguments. So if you think something is going to turn into ayncap vs everybody else or a post is explicitly ayncap to instead post it here and provide a link in the relevant thread or something like that.
ac7793 No.6700
>>6679>Therefore, "anarcho"-capitalists such as my self aren't actually Anarchists.They're becoming self aware.
4e205b No.6711
4e205b No.6714
>>6681Neither is anarcho-communism you double nigger, and for the same damn reason.
Capitalism requires a commune to recognize private property, and communism requires a commune to equally share means of production.
Both of these situations are antithetical to pure anarchism.
The only difference is that anarcho-capitalism has more chance of succeeding with normal human beings who have emotions like greed, whereas anarcho-communism can only do so with lobotomized humans without emotions of greed or cyborgs with no concept of self.
753a5f No.6717
File: 1422089358466.png (105.36 KB, 500x216, 125:54, tumblr_lwmradlRhM1qzzsolo1….png)
>>6714>Capitalism requires a commune to recognize private propertyI… what?
ac7793 No.6718
>>6711No one has been banned for being an anclap.
4e205b No.6723
>>6717A single person recognizing his private property doesn't mean anything, other people have to recognize his right to it.
6ea4dd No.6745
>>6671anarchism:
>hey you want to work for me?>sure>sorry I'm busy
>hey you want some x that I'm not using?>no I don't need it>sureyou don't need to trade your extra goods because they're common property anyway.
Why is capitalism somehow necessitated by a lack of government?
14c026 No.6754
>>6714communism is about common ownership, i.e. everything belongs to everyone. Anarchy is inherently communist.
5cfd50 No.6757
>>6754As a anarcho-syndicalist, I would tell your right to fuck off. What I hunt is mine, you can starve to death you little piece of shit.
I'm tired of communists being so dumb, self centric fucks.
TO MAKE IT SIMPLER FOR YOUR RETARDED ONLY CLAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM EXISTS MENTALITY -
1. Anarchism is the mere absence of hierarchy, nothing more. I don't have to share my food with you, nor do I have to share my labors efforts.
2. Capitalism is wrong becuase capitalists take away other peoples labors and claims it as their own.
3. If you take my labor, you are nothing more than a filthy capitalist.
Anarchi is not inherently communist..though is compatible with it.
8d15dd No.6760
>>6757Wow, you are really fucking annoying.
Anarchism is about ending hierarchies and exploitation too. In order for a worker to be unexploited, he must have free access to the means of production that conduct his labor.
As for communism, it is true that there are valid forms of anarchy that aren't communist, but your posts continually demonstrate that you don't even know shit about communism.
"From each according to their capacity, to each according to their needs".
Drop this paranoia of every single person in society freeloading in an anarcho-communist society, you sound like a fucking capitalist.
14c026 No.6768
>>6757Then you use what you hunt to get the hungry people to build you a throne and a crown.
4055ef No.6790
>>6760>>6768>there's only capitalism and communismDrop your false dichotomy please. Your narrow minded ignorance is what's pissing off.
>>6768>man hunts his own food>keeps it for himself so that he can eat it whenver he want and has surplus for emergencies etc.>ancom calls him capitalistk
4055ef No.6791
>>6760And to clarify, I am against labor slavery.
>work in capitalism>someone else gets all my profits
>work in communism>someone else gets all my profitsHow is that not slavery?
Remember, that every human is a slave to nature. I have to work, but so do you, I get to keep what I work for.
4055ef No.6795
>>6760"From each according to their capacity, to each according to their needs".
Sounds like something a capitalist would say.
Anyway, I want explanations, not just blatant statements. Please explain. Instead of arguments like "go debate yourself" "Communism is scientific"
"anarchism IS COMMUNISM".
It's not hard to see why your ignorance would turn into fascism.
b4e0f9 No.6799
>>6790No one is saying there is only capitalism and communism, stop saying they are. And individual surplus is the foundation of capitalism.
>>6791There are no profits in communism you simpleton, why are you trying to debate this when you clearly know nothing?
a466b9 No.6800
>>6754Communism is about abolishing private property, that is, they want common ownership of
the means of production. It does not say that everything has to be shared.
Anarchists, communists and other socialists has nothing against personal property, only private property:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property 4055ef No.6801
>>6800>. It does not say that everything has to be sharedTell that to the ancoms on this board.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_propertyMutualists, individualists etc would define your own home as personal property(at least the ones on this board seem to have done so). But ancoms do not.
4055ef No.6802
>>6799>simpletontypical.
If you know so much superior master, then why do you not explain through reason, instead of giving away blanket statements.
Here's how ancom argument goes
>communism is wrong becuase x and y"You know nothing"
"You don't get it"
"Go debate yourself"
"*strawman about how communism is z*"
a466b9 No.6803
>>6801Anarcho-communists see your home as personal property too and I haven't seen a single one of them arguing that we need to share absolutely everything.
I think you are just making things up.
4055ef No.6806
>>6803They did earlier, check the older threads. Otherwise I wouldn't be so butthurt.
788801 No.6810
>>6806I think I know what you're referring to and that you don't understand what they were implying. You don't have to share your house and possessions, the only time exceptions are made is when it comes to justifying authority. If somebody is freezing to death they can justify breaking into your home while you can't justify preventing them from doing so, these are exceptions not the rule.
b4e0f9 No.6811
>>6802are you disabled in the mind? theres plenty of arguments here, read them you mong
4055ef No.6820
>>6811Literally none. Please point them to me if there are any. I've been here since the inception of this board. Also good job being a racist and calling me "mong".
>>6810All contributing members of society are welcome in my home. Others are not, freezing or otherwise. This is a question of morality and not a question of anarchism i.e the abolition of hierarchy.
b4e0f9 No.6860
>>6820Go to the top of the thread and read every post. If you think there aren't any arguments I don't even know what you think an argument is. I'd assume it just means agreeing with you.
nigger.
4055ef No.6863
>>6860I'm talking about the arguments and answers to my questions. Stop ignoring it, you know you are wrong, which is why you are desperately grasping at straws. I already addressed this point earlier by the way.
"x is wrong with communism"
Someone will respond
"communism is great because of z"
>niggerGo back to leftypol you filthy Stalinist pig.
b4e0f9 No.6872
>>6863are you the same guy that talked about profit under communism?
if you are how can you expect people to answer your question when you questions are based on such a pathetic understanding of what is being discussed.
4055ef No.6897
>>6872No, I am not the guy who asked about profit under communism. I am this guy
>>6791Anyway, I'll ask some of those questions again, in clarity. I hope people won't ignore or bypass them.
1. Do anarcho-communists consider people's homes(which you modify with your family photos and your clothes etc) as personal property?
2. There is a product x. It is needed by 100 people. However, only 40 of product x is produced so far and it would take another 5-10 years before another 60 would be produced. So who out of the 100 get the product? since they all have a need for it. (this isn't an issue in mutualism - inb4 how)
I'll go slow. Let's start with these first. I just want answers to the questions I have asked.
788801 No.6902
>>68971. Yes
2. What is the product, what is the context, the situation of the people who need it, why do they need it, can they share, what will happen if they don't get it? The scenario is too vague.
While I can give you hypothetical answers I can neither predict the future nor speak on behalf of the people who would be involved in a similar scenario if it came to be, that would be the choice of the people who need the product and any disputes produced by the scarcity would be critiqued based on authority and need. My replies are my opinion from an Anarcho-Communist perspective.
b4e0f9 No.6906
>>6897>I'm not the guy who asked about profit under communism I'm the guy who asked about profit under communism 4055ef No.6909
>>6902My region has fewer computers than people, but everyone wants one. Who would get it then? let's just assume, it's just for personal computing.
>>6906damn, my bad. What I mean is, produce. What I produce….not profit..
788801 No.6915
>>6909Make loads of them available to everybody like some libraries do and then get them to discuss it, the people who use them more would be likely to screw up the system by hogging them so I think that they would get the computers. Priority would be on people who can't access the computers.
4055ef No.6941
>>6915>>6915hmm, okay thanks.
b4e0f9 No.6944
>>6909a lot of commies stand behind the From each according to his ability, to each according to his need quote but I really don't. Your produce wouldn't be taken by anyone. Where necessary you would work for what you need a leave the rest so others could fulfil theirs and where possible the link between work and produce (via technology) would be broken
788801 No.6977
">>6886
>>6887
Anarcho-monarchism is anarchism, but it's not monarchism in the normal sense of the word. And "anarcho"-capitalists are basically individualist anarchists with a preference for voluntary top-down organization. Anarcho-capitalism and market socialism is not incompatible."
"
>>6972
Didn't mean to write "anarcho" in quotes around anarcho-capitalism. I was meant to do it around "capitalism" because "anarcho"-capitalists really aren't supporters of the capitalist system but a hypothetical system that they claim is capitalist but it's not. Capitalism is a state-guaranteed system of privilege, not the freed market ayncraps are for."
Moved from >>6882
ffc370 No.7019
>>6977>Anarcho-monarchism is anarchismhttp://anarcho-monarchism.com/>Unreservedly part of the reactionary Right, it is a reconciliation of the libertarianism of Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the liberal aristocratism of Edmund Burke, John Randolph, Benjamin Constant, Alexis de Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, the conservatism of Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and Robert Nisbet, and the radicalism of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander Spooner.
Owner, what the fuck.
a466b9 No.7045
>>7019He reposted a post from the thread he linked to.
b4e0f9 No.7047
>>6977>top-down>anarchyI weep for you
ac7793 No.7053
>>7047>Implying the board owner is an ancrap and didn't just move those posts from another thread. 0dbcd3 No.7074
How is anarchism possible without self-contradicting itself, by forcing others to smash the state?
9021cd No.7075
>>7074You don't need to force other to smash the state.
753a5f No.7076
>>6882
>>6977
>"anarcho"-capitalists are basically individualist anarchists with a preference for voluntary top-down organization.
The reason I'm an voluntaryist-capitalist is because I am against centralized power. A true free market is decentralized and bosses /landlords can't do shit when there is an unlimited supply of competition and they have no power over others since all their options are open.
Capitalism isn't what you think it is. I honestly think we should just come up with a new word for "decentralized free market" because both "Capitalism" and "Anarchy" both set off so many red flags.
>Anarcho-capitalism and market socialism is not incompatible.
Actually, voluntaryism is compatible with all other forms of anarchism. Which is why you see Voluntaryist-Communism or Voluntaryist-Socialism mentioned on this board. The only difference is that you are unable to force someone into or prevent them from leaving the society if they choose.
I'm a Voluntaryist-Capitalist(Commonly(and I would argue mistakenly) referred to as "Anarcho"-Capitalism) and I have no problem with anarcho-collectivists. Even if I did, under voluntaryism there is nothing I can do to stop you from forming an anarcho-communist/socialist/syndicalist/ketchuponsteakist society.
Also, a recommendation for the board owner, could you possibly add voluntaryist flags? Like voluntarist-capitalist and voluntaryist-syndicalist?
9021cd No.7077
>>7076"Voluntaryism" as a concept is pretty void.
I do very much like things that you would instinctively consider to be "voluntary". However, the real formulation of voluntaryism as expressed by voluntaryists is that of zero negative liberty.
Needless to say, the sole approach of negative liberty while discarding positive liberty as a concept is a pretty liberal thing to do and which shapes many of the ideas of the liberal ideologies.
Hence I agree with your assertions that voluntaryism isn't anarchism, which leads me to wonder why on earth would you request voluntaryist flags on an anarchism board.
For that matter, why even bother posting on an anarchism board at all.
>>>/ayncrap/ is that way.On a marginal note I find the idea of "unlimited supply of competition" to be laughable, and the idea of economic non-coercion to be naive.
753a5f No.7080
>>7077>Hence I agree with your assertions that voluntaryism isn't anarchism, which leads me to wonder why on earth would you request voluntaryist flags on an anarchism board.Because there are non-capitalist voluntaryists. I wasn't saying Voluntaryism wasn't anarchism, I was saying anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism like I said here
>>6679
>"Voluntaryism" as a concept is pretty void.Okay, but why?
>On a marginal note I find the idea of "unlimited supply of competition" to be laughable, and the idea of economic non-coercion to be naive.Okay… but again, why?
d4af05 No.7087
>>7080
>Because there are non-capitalist voluntaryists. I wasn't saying Voluntaryism wasn't anarchism, I was saying anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism like I said here >>6679There are non-capitalist anarchists (in fact everything about anarchism indicates they are in fact anti-capitalist). There are anarcho-socialists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-mutualists, etc. You will notice they are not voluntary-socialists, voluntary-communists or voluntary-mutualists. Voluntaryism is different from anarchism, the fact that there are un-capitalist factions within it doesn't make it anarchist. Marxists are anti-capitalist too, should they get their own flags too?
>Okay, but why?Because the concept of voluntary is entirely arbitrary. The general idea of voluntaryism presupposes the existence of private property as a metaphysical fact (this very oxymoron should give it away). Unless you can have infinite resources and capital, voluntaryism is effectively void. Which brings me to my next point:
>Okay… but again, why?Infinite supply of competition is an abstract idea that can never (NEVER) be concrete, because you would need infinite people and infinite resources and capital. It is a metaphysical abstraction/simplification rested on some axioms that the Austrian school saw fit to propose. It is empirically not real and I find the idea of people actually suggesting it is to be laughable.
As for economic non-coercion, the concept should be so self-evident I don't know how to explain it. Do you imply that people with more economic power don't have net power over the rest of the population? How can a society truly be voluntary with such concentration of power?
96b927 No.7476
>>6757>Capitalism is wrong becuase capitalists take away other peoples labors and claims it as their own.Capitalism is voluntary, if you don't want your labor taken away then don't work for somebody who will take it away you dumb fag
81c630 No.7478
>>5358>capitalists would only accept capitalismFree market capitalism is more of a lack of an economic system than anything else, but you dumb anarcho-fags wouldn't understand that
Moved from
>>4872Posted by this person
>>7476 b4e0f9 No.7483
>>7476You clearly don't understand what the following words means: capitalism, voluntary, labour or taken. It would appear that you are in fact the dumb fag.
e928c5 No.7631
Moved from other thread
Doesn't it seem weird that the two ends of spectrum find unity in anarchism? How do ayncraps and Anarcho-Communists/Lefty-Anarchists see eye-to-eye?
e928c5 No.7632
Also moved
>>7631Its simple, if the society chooses one of the two revolution paths, they will end up with two anarchy's, but the main point is… Both are the goal, both are anarchy and both are (obviously) stateless, but I honestly lean with the ansoc/ ancommunist movement
e928c5 No.7633
>>7631I fucked up the pic, sorry
e928c5 No.7637
>>7631We don't, not only is that spectrum absolute bullshit (since you either have a state or you don't and capitalism/communism aren't opposites, just different) and we don't find unity in anything other than both claiming to be against the state.
>>7632>both are anarchyNo they're not, anarchy is not just the lack of a state, it's a state of questioning any and all authority and when significant justification is not provided the belief that it should be dismantled to provide as much freedom for the individual as possible, that is not what ayncaps do.
>both are (obviously) statelessboth
claim to be stateless, if you have a group of people successfully claiming the only legitimate use of force over territory then you have a state, private property requires force to be upheld and does not take justification into account ("it's mine because I say so").
>I honestly lean with the ansoc/ancommunist movementYou're either a shill or need to educate yourself.
a17021 No.7638
>>7637Honestly I didn't note when this thread was moved but let me say something:
I am mostly uneducated of this topic and maybe a shill, but I see something as ayncrap strange now, I see it as an oxymoron… Educate me more please anon
>inb4 lurk moar a17021 No.7639
>>7637>>7638Or maybe, how can I educate myself?
e928c5 No.7640
a17021 No.7642
>>7640>>7640Thanks for the FAQ, and yes… Its huge, and actually very educating, thanks
521eb1 No.7764
>>7637>private property requires force to be upheldnot necessarily. common recognition of ownership (everyone knows I own these skills, this shirt i'm wearing, etc.) does not require force
d0ce99 No.7766
>>7764I hope you realize the practicality of such an arrangement where there are starving people together with fat pigs is not realistic.
521eb1 No.7767
>>7766>>starving people together with fat pigssupposition? how are wealthy individuals prevented from donating food to those whom are starving?
d0ce99 No.7768
>>7767>muh charityWhere's all the charity now?
Besides, even if they are not starving, inequality of any sort can lead to class tension too.
"Respect for property" is essentially a relationship possible only among members of the same class.
521eb1 No.7769
>>7768>Where's all the charity now?Everywhere. do you want specific examples?
>inequality of any sort can lead to class tensioninequality exists in all aspects of society, so whats your point?
>"Respect for property" is essentially a relationship possible only among members of the same class.source?
d0ce99 No.7770
>>7769
>Everywhere. do you want specific examples?Yet people are still starving to death.
>inequality exists in all aspects [this] society, so whats your point?The inequal societies have classes that are antagonistic to each other.
>source?Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, Kropotkin, Makhno, Durruti, etc.
If you want a concrete example, ask your local burglar.
521eb1 No.7771
>>7770>Yet people are still starving to death.More so in coutnries with low EFI
>The inequal societies have classes that are antagonistic to each other.all societies have inequalities, so what's your point?
>Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, Kropotkin, Makhno, Durruti, etc.could you cite their peer-reviewed scientific studies? Sorry I do not have a burglar (burglary occurs more often in areas with the same social class)
d0ce99 No.7772
>>7771
>More so in coutnries with low EFIEFI?
>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-governmenDas 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?
521eb1 No.7773
>>77721. 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
e928c5 No.7780
>>7764Private 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>donatingYou'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.
>>7769The inequality is caused by capitalism among other things, the capitalists claim to ownership over the food only exists in their mind.
>>7771>countriesCountries don't exist, they're abstract concepts.
>>7771>all societies have inequalitiesAll 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.
521eb1 No.7784
>>7780>What you described is personal propertywhich 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 placeif they own the equipment and means of production of the food, then yes
>The inequality is caused by capitalismno, 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?
e928c5 No.7787
>>7784>personal property is private property and syndicalists support private propertyPersonal 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 yesI'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 doesAny 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.
521eb1 No.7817
>>7787>Personal property and private property are completely differentPrivate 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 propertySo 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 legitimateBut 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 personanother 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.
e928c5 No.7824
>>7817>Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of propertyProperty 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 privateTry 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.
>incentiveWhat 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 productionYou've got me in stitches, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week. "Muh crony Capitalism".
521eb1 No.7887
>>7824>Property doesn't existthis 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=labor2. 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 helpFred 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 violencePlease 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 productionI 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 0b40fa No.8067
>>7887I 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 propertyThe 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?
521eb1 No.8098
>>8067>>8067I 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)
cd6943 No.8135
>>7633>Anarchic Commune-ism >Commune>Collectivism>Anarchism cd6943 No.8136
Based Hoppe on the subject.
cd6943 No.8137
Dumping more dumplings
cd6943 No.8138
>'an'coms need to learn this.
d609a0 No.8170
>>8136If you swapped each instance of "socialism" in this quote with "capitalism" then it would be true
65784c No.8302
>>8098>dictionarieshttps://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 consequencesThat 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 commonsUnrealistic 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.
5f2c79 No.8305
>>8290no capitalism without private property, no private property without states, its really rather very simple my friend
521eb1 No.8350
>>8305>no private property without statesthat's not proof. black markets operate outside of government oversight and control.
521eb1 No.8351
>>8302>>8302>youtube linkignoring 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 productionIt 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 itno 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 FAQWhere does it address your usage of "you"?
65784c No.8352
>>8351>ignoring the video>justification is then subjectiveSo?
>I require to survive on that tooThen 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).
>governanceThey 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=Yg3YDN5gTX0http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britain
>no authority is necessary when there is common recognition of ownershipNo 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.
5f2c79 No.8361
>>8350they still require using force to control property, if the government started calling themselves the mafia would you consider that anarchy?
521eb1 No.8367
>>8361>they still require using force to control propertyI don't need force to control my bit coin wallet, nor force to ensure I do not get cheated on my transactions.
521eb1 No.8369
>>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 todayThe 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.
cbbc87 No.8373
>>8369
>a self-managed community is a governing body so not anarchy>the only anarchy is when I'm allowed to rule over everyoneWhy are people this retarded?
521eb1 No.8374
>>8373A self-managed community that dictates the resources of the individual is a government.
>the only anarchy is when I'm allowed to rule over everyoneYou lack reading comprehension. Where have I stated that?
135ad9 No.8375
>>8374Here 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.
5f2c79 No.8376
>>8367well if your black market is just trading bitcoins for other bitcoins and making sure you get a good deal then go ahead mate
5f2c79 No.8377
>>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?
521eb1 No.8379
>>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 elseAnarchy 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).
521eb1 No.8381
>>8379>* In no way that this violates the expense of everyone else's means of production>*voluntary collective and individualist transactions.fixed
135ad9 No.8382
>>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.
521eb1 No.8384
>>8382> there are no voluntary agreementsMost 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.
135ad9 No.8385
>>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.
521eb1 No.8387
>>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 productionSkills 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 voluntaryBut it is. I provided you examples.
135ad9 No.8388
>>8387
>1. Most transactions are not slavery, so that does not violate the existence of voluntary tranasactionsMost 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 definitionshttps://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.
521eb1 No.8390
>>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=SIeDjjwOFxAI 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 computerI 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.
54fcc1 No.8508
How is this not the police in an "anarcho"-capitalist society?
Moved from >>8506
351049 No.8514
521eb1 No.8517
>>8508Bretty effective police force :DDDD
would purchase a subscription and rate them on angie's list 5/5
6ead29 No.8519
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……
d93c7d No.8551
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.
9db724 No.8576
>>6450
anarcho-capitalism isn't real anarchism
c9781f No.8608
Who becomes the capitalist in anarcho-capitalism and who is the one who has to build houses ?
b65bce No.8619
8ca364 No.8634
>>6450
Anarcho-capitalism isn't real anarchism though
OP, you silly goose.
8ca364 No.8635
>>8136
This quote is absolutely disgusting.
8ca364 No.8636
>>6679
Wouldn't a pseudo-state form in an 'Anarcho'-Capitalist society though?
3395b5 No.9253
>>7077
>On a marginal note I find the idea of "unlimited supply of competition" to be laughable, and the idea of economic non-coercion to be naive.
While I don't think a lack of government prevents collusion, I believe the coercive force of the government is more likely to enable collusion, rather than fight it.
87a2eb No.9317
>>6679
If we're going to argue over the meaning of "Anarchism" in context to Anarchist movements rather than the actual definition, then it may as well be pointed out that both individualist and collectivist anarchists have existed for a long while. It's rather silly to immediately say that it's only a collectivist ideology, even if the collectivist versions of it are more common than the individualist ones.
>>8636
Why would that be the case? I'm unsure as to why a pseudo-state would be a necessity within anarcho-capitalism.