|
|
#211
03-04-2007, 11:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Violence and History
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You can't imagine a society where the an important social norm is no initiation of force against another person? [/ QUOTE ]Show and tell, please. [/ QUOTE ] Sure [/ QUOTE ] I asked for a precedent in anarcho-capitalist societies; not just anarchic societies. I know about those! What your AC link claims is that anarcho-capitalist societies existed before capitalism !... [/ QUOTE ] Just because no one put a name to it until relatively recently doesn't mean it didn't exist. This is kind of like saying that nothing evolved before Darwin. 
|
|
#212
03-04-2007, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Better than turnaround
[ QUOTE ]
As for your gloating, I'm trying to think of the word, you know, a guy who takes pleasure in others' suffering, a guy who gloats over his dying victim; imagine OJ standing over nicole as she bleeds out, laughing, "what are you going to do about it?" Maybe you can help me out here. [/ QUOTE ] If this was non rhetorical the word is schadenfreude. Well it's the word whether the question was rhetorical or not. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#213
03-04-2007, 06:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Violence and History
[ QUOTE ]
What is this, a call for encores? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] We've been through all that stuff already. [ QUOTE ] You already agreed that [pvn] DOES have a monopoly on his labor. [/ QUOTE ]The use of the term "monopoly" to describe a person's by-nature exclusive use of his brain, fists or bladder is unfortunate, to say the least. I did not dispute that pvn has sole use of his fists; I disputed that we can describe that situation, in the context of economcs, as a monopoly. [/ QUOTE ] Yes we heard you say this numerous times now, but you haven't explained why. Why? [ QUOTE ] It was not an insult. It was a clear allusion to the poetic licence with which the term "monopoly" was used by pvn in this thread. [/ QUOTE ] Well, i took it a different way, my apoligizes. [ QUOTE ] On the other hand, you insulted me by alleging that I engage in "assertions" and "irrelevant statements". Thank you. [/ QUOTE ] Umm, by definition they were assertions and irrelevent statements. [ QUOTE ] I asked for a precedent in anarcho-capitalist societies; not just anarchic societies. I know about those! What your AC link claims is that anarcho-capitalist societies existed before capitalism !... [/ QUOTE ] As AlexM pointed out, evolution existed before Darwin. [ QUOTE ] Though a consensus that is binding for all -- which is where me and your lot part ways, obviously. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think we part ways there. I'm all for consensus that is binding for all, just make sure all those parties are consenting to the binding of it.
|
|
#216
03-05-2007, 03:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Violence and History
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The use of the term "monopoly" to describe a person's by-nature exclusive use of his brain, fists or bladder is unfortunate, to say the least. I did not dispute that pvn has sole use of his fists; I disputed that we can describe that situation, in the context of economcs, as a monopoly. [/ QUOTE ] Yes we heard you say this numerous times now, but you haven't explained why. Why? [/ QUOTE ] Again?? Alright. Because we use the term to describe something entirely different in Economics. I have not seen the term used in such a manner, i.e. to describe the exclusive use of physical attributes of one's own body, except inside brackets. (Or in a allegorical terms.) When we talk about the threat of corporations monopolizing markets, and people try to insert in the dialogue the aspect of the "monopoly" an individual has over the use of his bladder (and what threat can that be?) or the fact that, theoretically, a person and not a corporation can have a monopoly over a resource -- well, this is disingenuous, I'm sorry. It took us a dozen posts to get around this total irrelevancy. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I asked for a precedent in anarcho-capitalist societies; not just anarchic societies. I know about those! What your AC link claims is that anarcho-capitalist societies existed before capitalism !... [/ QUOTE ] As AlexM pointed out, evolution existed before Darwin. [/ QUOTE ] But, as AlexM and everybody else should know, evolution did not exist before evolution -- and capitalism did not exist before capitalism. Capitalism is a phenomenon that we have defined, after the fact, and we have determined approximately when it began chronologically, to show its shape and form in human affairs. When Marx talked about Capitalism, he did not mean to claim, of course, that Capitalism began with him! But he did place Capitalism's beginnings to a certain period in the past -- the same period that capitalist economists also did. Same goes for Evolution. Darwin posited the concept of Evolution (not the first scientist to do so, BTW) but he did not claim that Evolution began with him! Therefore, I'm sorry but when we agree (with the exception of some Austrians, perhaps) that Capitalism was not extant around the time of Celts fighting the Saxons, we cannot seriously claim that there existed at that time anarcho-capitalist societies. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Though a consensus that is binding for all -- which is where me and your lot part ways, obviously. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think we part ways there. I'm all for consensus that is binding for all, just make sure all those parties are consenting to the binding of it. [/ QUOTE ]Then the parties which do not agree to the "binding of it" would have two options : Abide by the rules or get out. There is no other practical way about it. A society of citizens who decide on a course of democracy engage at certain binding resolutions, by definition. Man's primal, total sovereignty over himself and his individual affairs gets compromised when he lives amongst others in a society, again by definition. This is where, customarily, further study is recommended of the prototype societies of American settlers, along, of course, with Athenian democracy's (circa Pericles' time). Mickey Brausch
|
|
#217
03-05-2007, 03:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Violence and History
[ QUOTE ]
Because we use the term to describe something entirely different in Economics. I have not seen the term used in such a manner, i.e. to describe the exclusive use of physical attributes of one's own body, except inside brackets. (Or in a allegorical terms.) When we talk about the threat of corporations monopolizing markets, and people try to insert in the dialogue the aspect of the "monopoly" an individual has over the use of his bladder (and what threat can that be?) or the fact that, theoretically, a person and not a corporation can have a monopoly over a resource -- well, this is disingenuous, I'm sorry. It took us a dozen posts to get around this total irrelevancy. [/ QUOTE ] So, a monopoly is only a monopoly when a corporation has exclusive control? Or perhaps when the user uses exclusive control perhaps negatively? When it affects others? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm genuinely confused. [ QUOTE ] Capitalism is a phenomenon that we have defined, after the fact, and we have determined approximately when it began chronologically, to show its shape and form in human affairs. When Marx talked about Capitalism, he did not mean to claim, of course, that Capitalism began with him! But he did place Capitalism's beginnings to a certain period in the past -- the same period that capitalist economists also did. [/ QUOTE ] The societies I linked were all without a state, and respected private property rights. No group or man made any claim to rule another. You could describe all of these societies as ones that had concept of property rights (although there may have been more unowned property that anyone may use then we would expect today), and ones that had free markets. In what ways would you say these societies are not capitalistic? [ QUOTE ] Then the parties which do not agree to the "binding of it" would have two options : Abide by the rules or get out. [/ QUOTE ] Of course, love it or leave it. Listen, I'm all for contracts, andd for enforcing them. But forcing another to agree to a contract or else is simple might makes right. No man should be able to force another man to do something. If you want to make some pseudo-government, go ahead, but make for damn sure no man is forced to participate in your scheme or get out. [ QUOTE ] There is no other practical way about it. [/ QUOTE ] Sure there is. Especially in modern society. The idea that you can't find any type of voluntary solutions "practical" to you is nonsensical. [ QUOTE ] Man's primal, total sovereignty over himself and his individual affairs gets compromised when he lives amongst others in a society, again by definition. [/ QUOTE ] In government, sure. In most societies today, maybe. Why in society by defintion? [ QUOTE ] This is where, customarily, further study is recommended of the prototype societies of American settlers, along, of course, with Athenian democracy's (circa Pericles' time). [/ QUOTE ] Funny you should bring up American settlers, of which two of societies I linked to earlier.
|
|
#218
03-05-2007, 03:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Violence and History
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I asked for a precedent in anarcho-capitalist societies; not just anarchic societies. I know about those! What your AC link claims is that anarcho-capitalist societies existed before capitalism !... [/ QUOTE ] The *term* had not existed as such. But people have understood the virtues of voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange since the dawn of man. [/ QUOTE ]Of course, they have. This is why we've had near-anarchic or close-to-plain-anarchic societies and attempts at such societies, throughout History. (Usually violently subdued by representatives of Order.) But I submit that anarcho-capitalist societies never really existed, and also that they could not have existed, even theoretically; not in any understandable manner and form. Capitalism is practically at the opposite of anarchism, since the latter places Man above everything else, and has a serious contempt for the material wealth of individuals. Evolution did not begin with Darwin (or the first scientist who presented the concept to the world) and Capitalism did not begin with Smith or Marx. Both "began" at their respective periods, according to those --and subsequent-- studies. Arguing that a society was a capitalist one just because small merchants and laborers and farmers were active in it, and engaging in free trade, etc, is silly. Which is why it's silly to argue that those were anarcho-capitalist societies. But never mind. I'm not too keen on "proof" that such a society can exist on the basis of precedent. Let's focus on merits, handicaps, causes and prospects. Let's try to show that utopia is not really utopia. I think out time is up, though. Mickey Brausch
|
|
#219
03-05-2007, 04:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Violence and History
[ QUOTE ]
Let's try to show that utopia is not really utopia. [/ QUOTE ] overused strawman alert!
|
|
#220
03-05-2007, 06:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Violence and History
[ QUOTE ]
Man's primal, total sovereignty over himself and his individual affairs gets compromised when he lives amongst others in a society, again by definition. [/ QUOTE ] By definition and by needs... a child needs a lot of support in his early years!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
