How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?

[abandonconflict]

I do not feel that theft is ever morally justified by anyone especialy by a 'group' who labels themselves as 'society' . This idea of collectivism is theft that is violently forced on certain people. If I grow a crop of marijuana nobody should be allowed to do what they want with it, If I build a house someone shouldn't be able to demolish it and build a highway over it. Its simple ethics, the idea that there is this 'society' that 'collectively agrees what is right and what is wrong and therefore they are allowed to make certain exceptions is a wolf in sheeps clothing, its a government, which creates victims and thrives on violence, an entity with magical properties to violate the same moral rules they punish us for.

Did the jews do the right thing by giving up their property to the nazis because 'society' deemed it in their interest? Tell me then, just when is stealing okay?

Bullshit.

Nobody is forcing collectivism on anyone else, that is a strawman. However, you clearly wish to enforce private ownership of the product of the labor of others. That is theft. Serfdom is theft.

 

[Rob Roy]

Bullshit.

Nobody is forcing collectivism on anyone else, that is a strawman. However, you clearly wish to enforce private ownership of the product of the labor of others. That is theft. Serfdom is theft.

Of course collectivism is enforced, it is the business model of government. Private ownership of the product of your labor should be yours....ahem...taxes?

 

[abandonconflict]

You can't legislate morality or fix inequality. We can honor another peaceful person's right to self determination and justly acquired property. Helping others is good, redistributing others property, not so good.

Inherited land worked by people who didn't inherit land is not justly acquired. It is redistribution.

 

[deprave]

Bullshit.

Nobody is forcing collectivism on anyone else, that is a strawman. However, you clearly wish to enforce private ownership of the product of the labor of others. That is theft. Serfdom is theft.

LOL....I clearly said that the product of your labor is your property. You Not-So-Clearly said that this property should be shared. THAT is theft. Serfdom is a violation of the non-aggression principle, maybe you need to go back and read what I wrote?

 

[abandonconflict]

Of course collectivism is enforced, it is the business model of government. Private ownership of the product of your labor should be yours....ahem...taxes?

I'm not pushing statism broski. A consistent anarchist opposes not only the state, but also the inherent hierarchy of capitalism.

 

[abandonconflict]

LOL....I clearly said that the product of your labor is your property. You Not-So-Clearly said that this property should be shared. That is left. Serfdom is a violation of the non-agression principle, maybe you need to go back and read what I wrote?

Inherited land worked by people who didn't inherit land is not justly acquired. It is redistribution.

 

[deprave]

Inherited land worked by people who didn't inherit land is not justly acquired. It is redistribution.

As long as its not harming others one can give his property away. If someone steps in and says otherwise they are being the aggressor and thus violating moral principles such as theft.

If people are 'working' the land then yes it would be the fruits of their labor and thus their property if they created it, as if it wasn't for them it wouldn't exist of course I agree depending upon the circumstances as in there wasn't some type of contractual agreement, Your failing to see that this doesn't invalidate property rights.

 

[abandonconflict]

As long as its not harming others one can give his property away. If someone steps in and says otherwise they are being the aggressor and thus violating moral principles such as theft.

Oh right, as long as the landlord is kind, there is nothing wrong with feudalism...

 

[deprave]

Oh right, as long as the landlord is kind, there is nothing wrong with feudalism...

If you don't agree with a contract or business model assuming its morally justified in a free society without a government then you are free to move on to a more successful business model or contract and most people would. Perhaps you would prefer one which is based more on collective agreements and people have more say, that's generally how IT and other businesses work.

If people are 'working' the land then yes it would be the fruits of their labor and thus their property if they created it, as if it wasn't for them it wouldn't exist of course I agree depending upon the circumstances as in there wasn't some type of contractual agreement, Your failing to see that this doesn't invalidate property rights.

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm not pushing statism broski. A consistent anarchist opposes not only the state, but also the inherent hierarchy of capitalism.

I'm glad you're not pushing statism. A consistently moral person honors the freedom of another person to own themselves, their justly acquired property and engage in free trade with others absent any coercion or unwanted intervention of third parties. I guess the term "justly acquired property" is the sticking point.

 

[Rob Roy]

Inherited land worked by people who didn't inherit land is not justly acquired. It is redistribution.

Shouldn't people be "allowed" to inherit the possessions of another?

 

[deprave]

Oh right, as long as the landlord is kind, there is nothing wrong with feudalism...

If you don't agree with a contract or business model assuming its morally justified in a free society without a government then you are free to move on to a more successful business model or contract and most people would. Perhaps you would prefer one which is based more on collective agreements and people have more say, that's generally how IT and other businesses work. Infact this is how many succusfull businesses operate. This is why Anarcho-Capitalist/ Voluntarism view social anarchy as a business model, it is a great business model as I wrote but the problem is it doesn't apply to the whole of society, it doesn't give universal liberty, often times its theft and has victims for without property rights there is no freedom.

 

[abandonconflict]

I'm glad you're not pushing statism. A consistently moral person honors the freedom of another person to own themselves, their justly acquired property and engage in free trade with others absent any coercion or unwanted intervention of third parties. I guess the term "justly acquired property" is the sticking point.

I agree. I wouldn't call it a sticking point, I would call it a point that needs to be focused upon in order to progress. Differentiate private property from personal property. Land is not personal property.

Take note of the fact that one must despise the people around themselves in order to wish to own personal land and deprive others of the right to it. He then says, "you can't force me to join some commune". This language is extremely hateful, it is saying that you just want to be alone, separate from the human race, that this is the only way to be happy. The real theft, is when one guy says, "fuck the tribe, I'm going to go over here, and take this land, and nobody may trespass on it."

If someone is truly trying to steal the sustenance that you and your ilk labor and toil the land in order to provide, or burn your crops, it is a community that will protect you. At the very heart of capitalism is greed, for greed is rewarded by it. The individual is all that is important, other people are then seen as somehow representative of theft. Join the human race.

 

[SnakeByte]

One of the biggest monopolies? Hmmm, let's see U-N-I-T-E-D S-T-A-T-E-S they're a big monopoly aren't they?

By what definition, and in what market? cn

Nuclear market

 

[abandonconflict]

Anarcho-Capitalist/ Voluntarism...without property rights there is no freedom.

 

[deprave]

I agree. I wouldn't call it a sticking point, I would call it a point that needs to be focused upon in order to progress. Differentiate private property from personal property. Land is not personal property.

Take note of the fact that one must despise the people around themselves in order to wish to own personal land and deprive others of the right to it. He then says, "you can't force me to join some commune". This language is extremely hateful, it is saying that you just want to be alone, separate from the human race, that this is the only way to be happy. The real theft, is when one guy says, "fuck the tribe, I'm going to go over here, and take this land, and nobody may trespass on it."

If someone is truly trying to steal the sustenance that you and your ilk labor and toil the land in order to provide, or burn your crops, it is a community that will protect you. At the very heart of capitalism is greed, for greed is rewarded by it. The individual is all that is important, other people are then seen as somehow representative of theft. Join the human race.

Differentiate private property from personal property.
Exactly, something your not doing, something social anarchy cleverly avoids. We can make the clear distinction right here and now which voluntarism does, If something exists because of you then its yours, if people take from you what is yours, its theft. If land has your stuff on it, I.E you built a homestead on it then it would be your property.

Land is not personal property.
If you have your stuff on it which you made, then yes it would be your personal property. Your space for your stuff. Of course not the land itself , that is an absolutely ridiculous argument to try and make, that is kind of a red hearing and a circular argument, to prove its not explain to me exactly what your proposing?

 

[abandonconflict]

Differentiate private property from personal property.
Exactly, something your not doing, something social anarchy cleverly avoids. We can make the clear distinction right here and now which voluntarism does, If something exists because of you then its yours, if people take from you what is yours, its theft. If land has your stuff on it, I.E you built a homestead on it then it would be your property.

Land is not personal property.
If you have your stuff on it which you made, then yes it would be your personal property. Your space for your stuff. Of course not the land itself , that is an absolutely ridiculous argument to try and make, do you not see the flawed logic in that?

Voluntaryism enshrines the right to not only own private property, but to consolidate ever growing properties into private hands to be past in heredity and defended by private armies. The 'hereditary nobility' that arises from this then also employs the occupants of the land (yes, they are free to leave, and be employed by another voluntary serfdom, unless said serfdom allows them to enter, instead of treating them as trespassers). The landlord pays a wage to these serfs and keeps not only the land, but a portion of the product of the labor of the serfs. They are serfs, not chattel, it is a serfdom. Enjoy serfhood.

 

[abandonconflict]

Inheriting power is worse than inheriting PhDs.

 

[Rob Roy]

Voluntaryism enshrines the right to not only own private property, but to consolidate ever growing properties into private hands to be past in heredity and defended by private armies. The 'hereditary nobility' that arises from this then also employs the occupants of the land (yes, they are free to leave, and be employed by another voluntary serfdom, unless said serfdom allows them to enter, instead of treating them as trespassers). The landlord pays a wage to these serfs and keeps not only the land, but a portion of the product of the labor of the serfs. They are serfs, not chattel, it is a serfdom. Enjoy serfhood.

So how would you unravel the present system?

 

[abandonconflict]

So how would you unravel the present system?

Stop worshiping it, that's a good start.