American Dream!?

[ginwilly]

another self-congratulatory non-response.

if "The State" is to be dismantled, who will protect "The Commons"?

if "the State" is simply incapable of protecting "The Commons", WHO CAN?

at what point does "personal Property" become "The Means Of Production"?

how will your utopian anarcho-utopian society ensure that sufficient goods are produced, and how will they be distributed?

how will you ensure that the RIGHT stuff is produced in the first place?

what will happen to those who do not participate in your utopian vision?

how will you defend your utopia from outside aggressors who will naturally want to take over your "Worker's Paradise" by force?

and thats just the start of the conceptual game you must play if you wish to explain why "anarcho-_________ism" is the way to go.

You and I and others have been asking these questions for what seems like years here and have yet to receive any answers so we can expect none here also.

I think it would be cool if AC was a giant level account that says the most ridiculous things to see if it gets likes by some idiots. That would make much more sense too than this account actually being real.

 

[abandonconflict]

It's like you read something that sounds good to you and you keep repeating it until you actually believe what you write.

Can you think of state powers that our private property needs protection from? Everyone else can. Castro can, Lenin can, the Kims can.

Do you think "my kill" was ever protected before government by a stick or club? Most people understand this.

So we have examples of "the state" taking private property against the citizens will and we have private property examples before the existence of government. Your scripture doesn't seem very accurate if you take 5 seconds to think about it but I doubt it stops you from repeating it over and over.

When private individuals and groups set up boundaries and walls and fences around land, they are doing what states do. When they do so on a large scale with private police and private armies it is called Voluntaryism. This is hardly distinguishable from feudalism.

 

[ginwilly]

When private individuals and groups set up boundaries and walls and fences around land, they are doing what states do. When they do so on a large scale with private police and private armies it is called Voluntaryism. This is hardly distinguishable from feudalism.

Yes, people put up fences or use safes to protect private property. Now that you are able to admit this would you like to change your stance that private property or capitalism can not exist without the state? I can even have a yard sale and sell my private property to my neighbors in a mutual exchange without the state being involved (for now).

My guess is you'll stand by your slogan anyway and will repeat it by the end of the week.

 

[abandonconflict]

Yes, people put up fences or use safes to protect private property. Now that you are able to admit this would you like to change your stance that private property or capitalism can not exist without the state? I can even have a yard sale and sell my private property to my neighbors in a mutual exchange without the state being involved (for now).

My guess is you'll stand by your slogan anyway and will repeat it by the end of the week.

Do you own a copper mine? A power plant? A farm the size of a county?

You do not have private property, you have personal property.

Yes, I admitted that I don't know exactly where the line is drawn between the two. The nonaggression principal is a good guide. It doesn't reconcile with the hereditary ownership of the means of production and resources. The reasons are two fold. First because the original acquisition of them was achieved through genocide and second because they become a goad by which those who don't own are coerced into toiling for the enrichment of those who own.

 

[NoDrama]

Property that has no means of production is personal property. Farms of any size, homes with a garden, etc could be construed to be private property. I do not believe size has anything to do with it.

Just my opinion.

 

[abandonconflict]

Property that has no means of production is personal property. Farms of any size, homes with a garden, etc could be construed to be private property. I do not believe size has anything to do with it.

Just my opinion.

I don't disagree. I also stated repeatedly that I don't know where to draw the line between personal and private. I'm critical of status quo but it is a discussion that requires many more participants. I am not here to try to dictate.

 

[ginwilly]

I don't disagree. I also stated repeatedly that I don't know where to draw the line between personal and private. I'm critical of status quo but it is a discussion that requires many more participants. I am not here to try to dictate.

I too am critical of status quo and I'm glad to see you developing your theories instead of posting other's thoughts. Progress.

The issue I can't reconcile is you'll let me own my house and yard, but if I can erect a really cool blue energy plant that powers my entire neighborhood, can I keep it? Can I share with the hood or even charge a nominal fee? Will I be forced to build plants like this in every neighborhood? For free? Do I have to disclose how I do it? to who?

I have a pill that cures everything, even cancer. If I can't be compensated then you can't have it. What does your system do to me? take my pill? force me to give up the ingredients?

People have traded capital since the dawn of man. If I value your elk meat more than my harvest of oranges perhaps we trade capital in a fair and equitable manner. Or perhaps there was a kindergarten teacher that made us put our meat and fruit in a pile and share with those who did not kill or harvest.

I think your system of everyone shares according to their abilities with others according to their needs is a noble thought. The problems I foresee is that I really don't feel like going on the hunt today, or tomorrow, or really ever again. I don't have to. Who is going to make me? there is no hierarchy and the system dictates i get what I need anyway.

 

[abandonconflict]

I too am critical of status quo and I'm glad to see you developing your theories instead of posting other's thoughts. Progress.

The issue I can't reconcile is you'll let me own my house and yard, but if I can erect a really cool blue energy plant that powers my entire neighborhood, can I keep it? Can I share with the hood or even charge a nominal fee? Will I be forced to build plants like this in every neighborhood? For free? Do I have to disclose how I do it? to who?

I have a pill that cures everything, even cancer. If I can't be compensated then you can't have it. What does your system do to me? take my pill? force me to give up the ingredients?

People have traded capital since the dawn of man. If I value your elk meat more than my harvest of oranges perhaps we trade capital in a fair and equitable manner. Or perhaps there was a kindergarten teacher that made us put our meat and fruit in a pile and share with those who did not kill or harvest.

I think your system of everyone shares according to their abilities with others according to their needs is a noble thought. The problems I foresee is that I really don't feel like going on the hunt today, or tomorrow, or really ever again. I don't have to. Who is going to make me? there is no hierarchy and the system dictates i get what I need anyway.

You're pretty much talking to yourself. You're making things up, calling them my arguments and responding to them. Like the hypothetical argument and then the from each according to each according with which I firmly disagree. Yes I was vague, no I didn't say most of those things. My arguments may be vague but I'm prepared to back the things I do conclude even if it sounds like slogans.

The thing we agree on however is that status quo isn't working. I tire of this. Please excuse me from theorizing utopia (kkkynes will call me a Marxist either way) so I can get back to doing what I actually enjoy which is criticizing partisans and racism.

 

[burgertime2010]

I too am critical of status quo and I'm glad to see you developing your theories instead of posting other's thoughts. Progress.

The issue I can't reconcile is you'll let me own my house and yard, but if I can erect a really cool blue energy plant that powers my entire neighborhood, can I keep it? Can I share with the hood or even charge a nominal fee? Will I be forced to build plants like this in every neighborhood? For free? Do I have to disclose how I do it? to who?

I have a pill that cures everything, even cancer. If I can't be compensated then you can't have it. What does your system do to me? take my pill? force me to give up the ingredients?

People have traded capital since the dawn of man. If I value your elk meat more than my harvest of oranges perhaps we trade capital in a fair and equitable manner. Or perhaps there was a kindergarten teacher that made us put our meat and fruit in a pile and share with those who did not kill or harvest.

I think your system of everyone shares according to their abilities with others according to their needs is a noble thought. The problems I foresee is that I really don't feel like going on the hunt today, or tomorrow, or really ever again. I don't have to. Who is going to make me? there is no hierarchy and the system dictates i get what I need anyway.

I get it. Here is the problem for me. Say Steven Hawking, a poor hunter, but an invaluable human mind hoarded and kept his work as his own private property. We are obligated by our minds and our human condition to enable him to share. Mankind learns cooperation....mankind evolves.

 

[abandonconflict]

From each according to abilities to each according to needs is one of the major flaws of Marxism. It implies centralization of economy.

Ok, I'll explicate the hypothetical power plant in your yard thing. First off let's say it's a wind turbine. Just for the sake of argument I have to clarify more than just cool blue. Those don't spring into existence magically. You need iron, plastic, copper, maybe some even more rare material. But lets say you build it. Now lets say you did it slowly with your own hands just so that for the sake of argument nobody can say it isn't yours. Lets say you built it on your home and you occupy it.

This is not private property in my opinion. It is personal property.

Again that is my opinion.

Now, I'm flattered that some of you are so intrigued by my views that you feel the need to delve so deeply into them but sometimes it borders on absurdity. this is compounded by the fact that I often have several people commenting criticizing and berating and I can't write fast enough. I know flattery is not intended but I take it as a compliment. The one thing I consistently do in depth and with clarity is to criticize that which I oppose. I must be effective if my detractors feel the need to fully grasp my views.

I will therefore start a thread in the next few weeks when I get to Puerto Vallarta where I will go in depth regarding how an egalitarian economy could work. I fully expect trolls but I'll try to make it detailed. While I dislike anarchy-suffixes I'll say now that the flavor of anarchism (the word I prefer) is anarchosyndicalism. I need time to take care of some affairs and for the next few weeks I'll only have an android tablet. I'll sharpen up and read some books in the meantime as well.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Does any one think money in politics is a good thing? Or that government should bail out banks that knowing write up sub-prime mortgages

the government REQUIRED banks to make sub prime loans. if they failed to write enough shit loans, they were slapped with fines.

the only way to keep money out of politics is to prohibit people with money (and corporations, unions, special interest groups like greenpeace, and the sierra club planned parenthood, right to life groups, handgun control inc, the log cabin republicans, unicef, industry lobbying groups, the Bar Association, the NRA, the NAACPetc etc etc) from contributing, lobbying or advertising for any political issue or candidate.

rich people, and political groups will always push for their issues from BOTH SIDES. only your hipocrisy permits you to assign nefarious intent to those groups who you oppose, while ignorng the EXACT SAME ACTIONS from groups you like.

 

[burgertime2010]

I am not interested with the flaws of Marxism when capitial is pursued as it is. Selfish humans/animals are the enemy......before we divided off into countries and amassed power we had an edge on natural selection. Humans stood upright and began the evolution a mind that is still unable to grasp "greater good."

 

[Dr Kynes]

From each according to abilities to each according to needs is one of the major flaws of Marxism. It implies centralization of economy.

Ok, I'll explicate the hypothetical power plant in your yard thing. First off let's say it's a wind turbine. Just for the sake of argument I have to clarify more than just cool blue. Those don't spring into existence magically. You need iron, plastic, copper, maybe some even more rare material. But lets say you build it. Now lets say you did it slowly with your own hands just so that for the sake of argument nobody can say it isn't yours. Lets say you built it on your home and you occupy it.

This is not private property in my opinion. It is personal property.

Again that is my opinion.

Now, I'm flattered that some of you are so intrigued by my views that you feel the need to delve so deeply into them but sometimes it borders on absurdity. this is compounded by the fact that I often have several people commenting criticizing and berating and I can't write fast enough. I know flattery is not intended but I take it as a compliment. The one thing I consistently do in depth and with clarity is to criticize that which I oppose. I must be effective if my detractors feel the need to fully grasp my views.

I will therefore start a thread in the next few weeks when I get to Puerto Vallarta where I will go in depth regarding how an egalitarian economy could work. I fully expect trolls but I'll try to make it detailed. While I dislike anarchy-suffixes I'll say now that the flavor of anarchism (the word I prefer) is anarchosyndicalism. I need time to take care of some affairs and for the next few weeks I'll only have an android tablet. I'll sharpen up and read some books in the meantime as well.

so, if i were to construct a waterwheel, and that waterwheel is used to power a wood lathe, with which i make furniture for sale to others would that not be a Factory? and are Factories not the very essence of "The Means Of Production"?

what if i hire the local kids to sweep up sawdust and stack finished chairs and tables for me? am i exploiting them?

if i hire the guy down the street to sand the wood while i turn out more table legs and chair spindles, am i exploiting him too?

at what point will you decide to "collectivize" my little furniture factory for the "syndicate" (which is an ORGANIZATION, making "anarcho-syndicalism" another oxymoron), or will you simply "collectivize" the product of my labours, by asserting that "you got a really nice setup here... be a shame if something were to happen to it..." while letting me continue to operate my factory, as long as your syndicate gets most of the benefits of my work?

cuz thats called The Mafia, who are in fact not very "anarcho" at all.

 

[Rob Roy]

I get it. Here is the problem for me. Say Steven Hawking, a poor hunter, but an invaluable human mind hoarded and kept his work as his own private property. We are obligated by our minds and our human condition to enable him to share. Mankind learns cooperation....mankind evolves.

I think you don't really mean "enable" him to share his work, I think in the context you stated, you really mean to use force against him if he doesn't comply.

Cooperation isn't making others do the things WE want them to do, that is dictation. In the proper use of the term cooperation, it would mean if we can't consensually reach an agreement, we agree to disassociate and leave each other alone.

Cooperation can only exist when individuals respect that every individual has the right to be left alone and nobody has the right to use force to "enable" others to do the things they would have them do. Defensive force is a natural right, offensive force is offensive and not very "cooperative". Besides "owning" an idea is impossible, owning yourself or other tangible things is not impossible, instead it is desirable.

 

[abandonconflict]

syndicate" (which is an ORGANIZATION, making "anarcho-syndicalism" another oxymoron)

Oh look.

KKKeynes has no fucking clue what he's blathering about.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Oh look.

KKKeynes has no fucking clue what he's blathering about.

so syndicates are now "non-hierarchical" non-organizational, and totally free from all structure?

syndicates are unions, and unions are extremely hierarchical, highly organized, and often laden with layer upon layer of bureaucratic horseshit.

they are also usually devoid of anything a reasonable person might call "democracy".

few organizational systems can concentrate and distill pure selfish corruption as efficiently as a union, thats why the mafia loves unions so much. they are easy to control, and through the union you can dominate the workers while talking about "serving their needs" while your pockets are stuffed with cash.

 

[burgertime2010]

I think you don't really mean "enable" him to share his work, I think in the context you stated, you really mean to use force against him if he doesn't comply.

Cooperation isn't making others do the things WE want them to do, that is dictation. In the proper use of the term cooperation, it would mean if we can't consensually reach an agreement, we agree to disassociate and leave each other alone.

Cooperation can only exist when individuals respect that every individual has the right to be left alone and nobody has the right to use force to "enable" others to do the things they would have them do. Defensive force is a natural right, offensive force is offensive and not very "cooperative". Besides "owning" an idea is impossible, owning yourself or other tangible things is not impossible, instead it is desirable.

I do mean enable,,,as a disabled person it takes enablers(people who help). I don't talk about using forced compliance....it is an analogy. Cooperation and solitude are not mutually exclusive or beneficial. Your choices affect the sphere in which u exist. WE are all here too, but who has the freedom? Your participation in society or not a choice....you exist within it. Primitive life forms left each other alone, didn't mother their young, and had predators to enforce the laws of nature. Intellectual property refers to ideas.

 

[Rob Roy]

I do mean enable,,,as a disabled person it takes enablers(people who help). I don't talk about using forced compliance....it is an analogy. Cooperation and solitude are not mutually exclusive or beneficial. Your choices affect the sphere in which u exist. WE are all here too, but who has the freedom? Your participation in society or not a choice....you exist within it. Primitive life forms left each other alone, didn't mother their young, and had predators to enforce the laws of nature. Intellectual property refers to ideas.

The idea that an idea can be patented is a bad idea. Hey, maybe I'll patent that idea...no probably not.

 

[burgertime2010]

The idea that an idea can be patented is a bad idea. Hey, maybe I'll patent that idea...no probably not.

When it has become potential for private profits and the inventor has sunk a lot of cognitive currency into developing it only to have it bastardized.....it makes sense.