Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

It isn't a hijack, don't be a nit. The OP asked about Chomsky and reconciling how you get LS when he thinks AC is a more logical conclusion to a state overthrow. That shows you, as I pointed out, that if enough people have the "rhetorical" mindsight of Chomsky, property ceases to be "meaningful" as you even stated. You don't need coercion if no one recognizes your right. Thanks for jumping down my throat though.

That was your angry quote of the day, brought to you by hmkpoker.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What paradigm shift is necessary for AC? (Honest question)

[/ QUOTE ]

The willingness to punish aggressors proportionately to their aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something along the lines of: If someone steals a french fry from your plate you don't just shoot them in the face?

I could see how that could be a problem. (No sarcasm)

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a hijack, don't be a nit. The OP asked about Chomsky and reconciling how you get LS when he thinks AC is a more logical conclusion to a state overthrow. That shows you, as I pointed out, that if enough people have the "rhetorical" mindsight of Chomsky, property ceases to be "meaningful" as you even stated. You don't need coercion if no one recognizes your right. Thanks for jumping down my throat though.

That was your angry quote of the day, brought to you by hmkpoker.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue that I have with LS is that it seems like an unstable situation. Imagine a village where a whole group of people have eschewed the concept of private property. They produce, they put it in a big pot and they take what they need. It seems likely that at some point one guy would think: "Aha, I don't need to really work, I'll just fool around, look like I'm working and take from the pot". The other villagers upon realizing this decide they don't like whats happening (ie, they're producing and not getting much in return) and decide they're just going to keep what they produce.

LS just seems super unstable and I think it would fall into an AC system.

Edit: I guess Chomsky feels that AC would have to be "implemented" - I think it would occur naturally. In fact, the very concept of "implementing" AC doesn't really make any sense.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a hijack, don't be a nit. The OP asked about Chomsky and reconciling how you get LS when he thinks AC is a more logical conclusion to a state overthrow. That shows you, as I pointed out, that if enough people have the "rhetorical" mindsight of Chomsky, property ceases to be "meaningful" as you even stated. You don't need coercion if no one recognizes your right. Thanks for jumping down my throat though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an argument. That's my point. Chomsky doesn't address any issues relating to Austrian theory, game theory or human incentives when he attempts to debunk it, he simple lambasts it for being morally bankrupt. He says that there will be horrible consequences, but does not explain why.

However, you're right, the OP did ask about ACism so I shouldn't yell at you for a hijack; sorry about that [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is his big objection to AC. But what alternative does he want to propose that doesn't involve force? (and I think he would agree that the use of coercive force is a bad thing)

[/ QUOTE ]

He would agree, but isn't the point that if the masses don't want private ownership and the "exploitation" it brings, it won't be recognized? If it's not legitimate, then I don't see how coercion is bad.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with hmk, i just don't think people would ever produce the equivalent of what they would consume in anarcho-syndicalism. I know, why not have people trade amongst themselves in order to make sure that everyone produces an equal amount to their consumption?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree based on human nature. All these scanrios require a mental shift, but I think LS has much much further to go.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems likely that at some point one guy would think: "Aha, I don't need to really work, I'll just fool around, look like I'm working and take from the pot". The other villagers upon realizing this decide they don't like whats happening (ie, they're producing and not getting much in return) and decide they're just going to keep the freeloader from taking from the communal goods

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple result that doesn't require privitization.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems likely that at some point one guy would think: "Aha, I don't need to really work, I'll just fool around, look like I'm working and take from the pot". The other villagers upon realizing this decide they don't like whats happening (ie, they're producing and not getting much in return) and decide they're just going to keep the freeloader from taking from the communal goods

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple result that doesn't require privitization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is true, they could do that. But then what happens if one decides to not really work very hard, but still take the equivalent of what is taken by a really hard worker? Do they shut him out too?

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Well, that is true, they could do that. But then what happens if one decides to not really work very hard, but still take the equivalent of what is taken by a really hard worker? Do they shut him out too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would someone not work hard? They're only cheating themselves. I don't work hard, but I take the same. Now other people slow down work, but take the same they used to. Now there are hardly any goods for anyone because no ones working. It's in everyone's interest that I work hard and encourage others to do the same.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, that is true, they could do that. But then what happens if one decides to not really work very hard, but still take the equivalent of what is taken by a really hard worker? Do they shut him out too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would someone not work hard? They're only cheating themselves. I don't work hard, but I take the same. Now other people slow down work, but take the same they used to. Now there are hardly any goods for anyone because no ones working. It's in everyone's interest that I work hard and encourage others to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's my whole point. This is a game theory situation, it's in each individuals interest to cheat the system, but if they all do it then they're screwed. That's why I think it's unstable and you would wind up in the situation where everyone does the minimum possible to ensure their bare survival and no more.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a hijack, don't be a nit. The OP asked about Chomsky and reconciling how you get LS when he thinks AC is a more logical conclusion to a state overthrow. That shows you, as I pointed out, that if enough people have the "rhetorical" mindsight of Chomsky, property ceases to be "meaningful" as you even stated. You don't need coercion if no one recognizes your right. Thanks for jumping down my throat though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an argument. That's my point. Chomsky doesn't address any issues relating to Austrian theory, game theory or human incentives when he attempts to debunk it, he simple lambasts it for being morally bankrupt. He says that there will be horrible consequences, but does not explain why.

However, you're right, the OP did ask about ACism so I shouldn't yell at you for a hijack; sorry about that [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right that he generally attacks the outcome without argument. I can't recall reading a refutation. You are probably more familiar with his writings, but would he just defer to the general private means of production -> exploitation of the working class?