abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
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.
How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
Inherited land worked by people who didn't inherit land is not justly acquired. It is redistribution.
deprave
New Member
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
Well-Known Member
I'm not pushing statism broski. A consistent anarchist opposes not only the state, but also the inherent hierarchy of capitalism.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Inherited land worked by people who didn't inherit land is not justly acquired. It is redistribution.
deprave
New Member
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
Well-Known Member
deprave
New Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
Shouldn't people be "allowed" to inherit the possessions of another?
deprave
New Member
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.Oh right, as long as the landlord is kind, there is nothing wrong with feudalism...
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
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
Active Member
Nuclear market
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
deprave
New Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
Inheriting power is worse than inheriting PhDs.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So how would you unravel the present system?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Stop worshiping it, that's a good start.